Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
Incoming massive Fox post. Working on reserving posts for it.
For the love of God, donGÇÖt post until I have reserved the posts I need!
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Just 10 or so more posts to reserve before I start copying and pasting content.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
Reserved.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Patience people. In typical Fox fashion, my proposal will be long but well formatted for easy reading.
If I can get enough consecutive posts...
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
This post timer is great for preventing spam, but is a real pain for someone trying to provide detailed and extensive content.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Making progress. Will cut and paste when I have enough.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
I don't have a Twitter account because I do not believe that anything of substance can be written in 140 characters...
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
I almost have enough reserved for what I have already written. Then I will have to reserve some space for adding stuff to it as it is a bit of a work in progress.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Feeling optimistic now. I might actually get enough posts without someone interrupting .
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
I am thinking that 14 posts should be enough. My long posts usually expand by at least 30% as I edit to incorporate community feedback. Since I know this one is not done I want to add a little extra.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Reserved
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides Learning Alliance
5689
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Last one. You are free to respond now.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Alex-ZX
Valor Coalition Red Whines.
139
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lol Again
*Alex's modified ZX-030 HMG
Luis' modified VC-107 CR
Alex's modified VC-107 SMG* Owner of this beasts
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention
4336
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 20:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
I always enjoy your work Fox. Looking forward to reading/discussion all of this.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Nocturnal Soul
Primordial Threat
4997
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bolded words plus they're underlined.... seems legit.
(Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
LASERS BTCH!!!!!!
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P C C P Alliance
14356
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 01:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
This is fantastic, made better by the fact that it is almost a carbon copy of what I have done myself.
Now, someone mentioned changing clonepacks into MCC which is kind of cool when you think about it. A warbarge flying around dropping MCC's the have clones in them to establlish a beachhead.
I also want to have a strict range limit on cp attacks from the Warbarge, and not clone mortality, just to make the initial attack simpler /you know I prefer the initial attack to be launched from a list of districts in the client.
If I get really edgy, what if you have a capacity of X MCC's. The MCC's could be manufactured in some way, such as reprocessingsalvaged gear into Nanites and Materials, and Clone packs from Biomass. I agree with the system being self sustaining but augmentable if you have districts, but the capacity of the warbarge inhibits established corps from using only CP's.
What about District Timers, or do you prefer a whole different section for that?
How do we define corporate Rank such as that they help keep players together, not corp jump to exploit a system, can not be exploited via new alts, yet require corporations to build their ranks by recruiting and training new players.
What about Surface Infrastructure, do we go back to properly punish far attacks, and make the SIs neceessary, not the way we have it now where cargo hubs rule.
Rewards, the CPM and I agree that the main motivator of fighting cannot be clones for the sake of clones, nor ISK. There needs to be rarity that is only collected on districts. However, we have discussed going to a "you get what you kill" in PC. That would allow lower level and new corporations to use their free clonepack, use adv gear and try to "do their best", possibly eeking out a profit and valuable experience.
Just some stuff written from bed. Again, really like what I am seeing. Maybe I will break out special sections for subcomponents of PC; but I feel they need to be all a part of the bigger context.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
687
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 01:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Good work Fox.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7746
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 01:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
IMO, corporation rank shouldn't be so artificial as to have some sort of numerical value based gimmick in-game. A player's loyalty to a corporation and the corporation's loyalty to that player are largely human factors that shouldn't be affected by in-game mechanics. You can limit corp hopping by adding restrictions (24 hour hard-set timers to removing roles, leaving corp, etc). Players staying together is not a gameplay mechanic, it's a human bond that is established based on trust and largely subject to a right and proper backstabbing in the right conditions (something we need more of in this game).
I feel that there should be less focus on how to keep players together and more on what separates them. Everyone rings for everyone in PC, it's a fact. Giant conglomerates of freelancers who are "available at the time and ready for a good stomp" isn't something we're lacking right now. What we are lacking are incentives for players to legitimately learn to hate one another, to lose things they've attained, and to be so utterly defeated as to have to start over.
PC as a whole needs to be more tactical and less "good fight". The good fights will come on their own. Just spit-balling ideas here but, something like newer corps only being able to launch attacks on districts bordering hi-sec systems would give plenty of tactical value in having territory deeper into low-sec. Having rewards that benefit having that deep low-sec territory (better salvage/biomass) gives further tactical advantage. You create a reason for players to -WANT- that territory, to covet it and genuinely desire to take it by any means necessary, including carving a bloody path through one's allies.
PC should be a rabbit hole that allows players to go as deep as they genuinely want to go, and fight as hard as they want to fight, with rewards plentiful (not ISK or clones) to allow for continued expansion of one's empire, should they choose it, with risks involved that allow for diminishing returns. A good example: Goonswarm once lost all of their sovereignty in a single day because someone didn't foot the Sov Bill (which increases based on how much sovereignty you have). It's just an idea.
Aeon's Links
I don't run MinAssault, I run MAXASSAULT
|
Mobius Wyvern
Sky-FIRE
5659
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 02:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:IMO, corporation rank shouldn't be so artificial as to have some sort of numerical value based gimmick in-game. A player's loyalty to a corporation and the corporation's loyalty to that player are largely human factors that shouldn't be affected by in-game mechanics. You can limit corp hopping by adding restrictions (24 hour hard-set timers to removing roles, leaving corp, etc). Players staying together is not a gameplay mechanic, it's a human bond that is established based on trust and largely subject to a right and proper backstabbing in the right conditions (something we need more of in this game).
I feel that there should be less focus on how to keep players together and more on what separates them. Everyone rings for everyone in PC, it's a fact. Giant conglomerates of freelancers who are "available at the time and ready for a good stomp" isn't something we're lacking right now. What we are lacking are incentives for players to legitimately learn to hate one another, to lose things they've attained, and to be so utterly defeated as to have to start over.
PC as a whole needs to be more tactical and less "good fight". The good fights will come on their own. Just spit-balling ideas here but, something like newer corps only being able to launch attacks on districts bordering hi-sec systems would give plenty of tactical value in having territory deeper into low-sec. Having rewards that benefit having that deep low-sec territory (better salvage/biomass) gives further tactical advantage. You create a reason for players to -WANT- that territory, to covet it and genuinely desire to take it by any means necessary, including carving a bloody path through one's allies.
PC should be a rabbit hole that allows players to go as deep as they genuinely want to go, and fight as hard as they want to fight, with rewards plentiful (not ISK or clones) to allow for continued expansion of one's empire, should they choose it, with risks involved that allow for diminishing returns. A good example: Goonswarm once lost all of their sovereignty in a single day because someone didn't foot the Sov Bill (which increases based on how much sovereignty you have). It's just an idea. +1
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
|
|
CCP Rattati
C C P C C P Alliance
14375
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 03:42:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:IMO, corporation rank shouldn't be so artificial as to have some sort of numerical value based gimmick in-game. A player's loyalty to a corporation and the corporation's loyalty to that player are largely human factors that shouldn't be affected by in-game mechanics. You can limit corp hopping by adding restrictions (24 hour hard-set timers to removing roles, leaving corp, etc). Players staying together is not a gameplay mechanic, it's a human bond that is established based on trust and largely subject to a right and proper backstabbing in the right conditions (something we need more of in this game).
I feel that there should be less focus on how to keep players together and more on what separates them. Everyone rings for everyone in PC, it's a fact. Giant conglomerates of freelancers who are "available at the time and ready for a good stomp" isn't something we're lacking right now. What we are lacking are incentives for players to legitimately learn to hate one another, to lose things they've attained, and to be so utterly defeated as to have to start over.
PC as a whole needs to be more tactical and less "good fight". The good fights will come on their own. Just spit-balling ideas here but, something like newer corps only being able to launch attacks on districts bordering hi-sec systems would give plenty of tactical value in having territory deeper into low-sec. Having rewards that benefit having that deep low-sec territory (better salvage/biomass) gives further tactical advantage. You create a reason for players to -WANT- that territory, to covet it and genuinely desire to take it by any means necessary, including carving a bloody path through one's allies.
PC should be a rabbit hole that allows players to go as deep as they genuinely want to go, and fight as hard as they want to fight, with rewards plentiful (not ISK or clones) to allow for continued expansion of one's empire, should they choose it, with risks involved that allow for diminishing returns. A good example: Goonswarm once lost all of their sovereignty in a single day because someone didn't foot the Sov Bill (which increases based on how much sovereignty you have). It's just an idea. +1
I thought of something, what if we have 2 types of clonepacks, one that can not be used to win a district, and is more manageable to new corps, and initiates only 8v8 or 12v12 attacks? And the other one is the 16v16 and is needed to claim a district. just a thought.
"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"
|
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7750
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:IMO, corporation rank shouldn't be so artificial as to have some sort of numerical value based gimmick in-game. A player's loyalty to a corporation and the corporation's loyalty to that player are largely human factors that shouldn't be affected by in-game mechanics. You can limit corp hopping by adding restrictions (24 hour hard-set timers to removing roles, leaving corp, etc). Players staying together is not a gameplay mechanic, it's a human bond that is established based on trust and largely subject to a right and proper backstabbing in the right conditions (something we need more of in this game).
I feel that there should be less focus on how to keep players together and more on what separates them. Everyone rings for everyone in PC, it's a fact. Giant conglomerates of freelancers who are "available at the time and ready for a good stomp" isn't something we're lacking right now. What we are lacking are incentives for players to legitimately learn to hate one another, to lose things they've attained, and to be so utterly defeated as to have to start over.
PC as a whole needs to be more tactical and less "good fight". The good fights will come on their own. Just spit-balling ideas here but, something like newer corps only being able to launch attacks on districts bordering hi-sec systems would give plenty of tactical value in having territory deeper into low-sec. Having rewards that benefit having that deep low-sec territory (better salvage/biomass) gives further tactical advantage. You create a reason for players to -WANT- that territory, to covet it and genuinely desire to take it by any means necessary, including carving a bloody path through one's allies.
PC should be a rabbit hole that allows players to go as deep as they genuinely want to go, and fight as hard as they want to fight, with rewards plentiful (not ISK or clones) to allow for continued expansion of one's empire, should they choose it, with risks involved that allow for diminishing returns. A good example: Goonswarm once lost all of their sovereignty in a single day because someone didn't foot the Sov Bill (which increases based on how much sovereignty you have). It's just an idea. +1 I thought of something, what if we have 2 types of clonepacks, one that can not be used to win a district, and is more manageable to new corps, and initiates only 8v8 or 12v12 attacks? And the other one is the 16v16 and is needed to claim a district. just a thought.
What would the purpose of the 8v8/12v12 clone pack be? Soften clone reserves for a larger attack? Restricted to corp battle good fights?
Aeon's Links
I don't run MinAssault, I run MAXASSAULT
|
Kaze Eyrou
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
1684
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:26:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:IMO, corporation rank shouldn't be so artificial as to have some sort of numerical value based gimmick in-game. A player's loyalty to a corporation and the corporation's loyalty to that player are largely human factors that shouldn't be affected by in-game mechanics. You can limit corp hopping by adding restrictions (24 hour hard-set timers to removing roles, leaving corp, etc). Players staying together is not a gameplay mechanic, it's a human bond that is established based on trust and largely subject to a right and proper backstabbing in the right conditions (something we need more of in this game).
I feel that there should be less focus on how to keep players together and more on what separates them. Everyone rings for everyone in PC, it's a fact. Giant conglomerates of freelancers who are "available at the time and ready for a good stomp" isn't something we're lacking right now. What we are lacking are incentives for players to legitimately learn to hate one another, to lose things they've attained, and to be so utterly defeated as to have to start over.
PC as a whole needs to be more tactical and less "good fight". The good fights will come on their own. Just spit-balling ideas here but, something like newer corps only being able to launch attacks on districts bordering hi-sec systems would give plenty of tactical value in having territory deeper into low-sec. Having rewards that benefit having that deep low-sec territory (better salvage/biomass) gives further tactical advantage. You create a reason for players to -WANT- that territory, to covet it and genuinely desire to take it by any means necessary, including carving a bloody path through one's allies.
PC should be a rabbit hole that allows players to go as deep as they genuinely want to go, and fight as hard as they want to fight, with rewards plentiful (not ISK or clones) to allow for continued expansion of one's empire, should they choose it, with risks involved that allow for diminishing returns. A good example: Goonswarm once lost all of their sovereignty in a single day because someone didn't foot the Sov Bill (which increases based on how much sovereignty you have). It's just an idea. +1 I thought of something, what if we have 2 types of clonepacks, one that can not be used to win a district, and is more manageable to new corps, and initiates only 8v8 or 12v12 attacks? And the other one is the 16v16 and is needed to claim a district. just a thought. Actually, would it be possible to do something similar to clone packs to what sovereignty bills do in EVE?
For example:
A new corporation with no districts: 1 million ISK Clone Packs A more established corporation with 1 district: 5 million ISK Clone Packs An even more established corporation with 10 districts: 50 million ISK Clone Packs
The numbers are randomly thought up but the idea is to allow corporations who want to enter PC the ability to do so. Meanwhile more established corporations still have the option to, but are guided to using already available resources, instead of what used to be easy-to-buy Clone Packs.
What do you guys think?
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
Mobius Wyvern
Sky-FIRE
5659
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:IMO, corporation rank shouldn't be so artificial as to have some sort of numerical value based gimmick in-game. A player's loyalty to a corporation and the corporation's loyalty to that player are largely human factors that shouldn't be affected by in-game mechanics. You can limit corp hopping by adding restrictions (24 hour hard-set timers to removing roles, leaving corp, etc). Players staying together is not a gameplay mechanic, it's a human bond that is established based on trust and largely subject to a right and proper backstabbing in the right conditions (something we need more of in this game).
I feel that there should be less focus on how to keep players together and more on what separates them. Everyone rings for everyone in PC, it's a fact. Giant conglomerates of freelancers who are "available at the time and ready for a good stomp" isn't something we're lacking right now. What we are lacking are incentives for players to legitimately learn to hate one another, to lose things they've attained, and to be so utterly defeated as to have to start over.
PC as a whole needs to be more tactical and less "good fight". The good fights will come on their own. Just spit-balling ideas here but, something like newer corps only being able to launch attacks on districts bordering hi-sec systems would give plenty of tactical value in having territory deeper into low-sec. Having rewards that benefit having that deep low-sec territory (better salvage/biomass) gives further tactical advantage. You create a reason for players to -WANT- that territory, to covet it and genuinely desire to take it by any means necessary, including carving a bloody path through one's allies.
PC should be a rabbit hole that allows players to go as deep as they genuinely want to go, and fight as hard as they want to fight, with rewards plentiful (not ISK or clones) to allow for continued expansion of one's empire, should they choose it, with risks involved that allow for diminishing returns. A good example: Goonswarm once lost all of their sovereignty in a single day because someone didn't foot the Sov Bill (which increases based on how much sovereignty you have). It's just an idea. +1 I thought of something, what if we have 2 types of clonepacks, one that can not be used to win a district, and is more manageable to new corps, and initiates only 8v8 or 12v12 attacks? And the other one is the 16v16 and is needed to claim a district. just a thought. What would the purpose of the 8v8/12v12 clone pack be? Soften clone reserves for a larger attack? Restricted to corp battle good fights? Got me confused on this one, too. Is the idea here to bring back the old consensual Corp Battles?
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Al the destroyer
0uter.Heaven
216
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
It would be cool, if you own land, to be able to set up you're own corp battles. Like being able set up battles with player limits, meta limits, isk wagering stuff like that. It would make it worth it to have a district. You could hold grudge matches.
I run around carrying nanohives like I'm delivering pizzas XD
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7750
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kaze Eyrou wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:IMO, corporation rank shouldn't be so artificial as to have some sort of numerical value based gimmick in-game. A player's loyalty to a corporation and the corporation's loyalty to that player are largely human factors that shouldn't be affected by in-game mechanics. You can limit corp hopping by adding restrictions (24 hour hard-set timers to removing roles, leaving corp, etc). Players staying together is not a gameplay mechanic, it's a human bond that is established based on trust and largely subject to a right and proper backstabbing in the right conditions (something we need more of in this game).
I feel that there should be less focus on how to keep players together and more on what separates them. Everyone rings for everyone in PC, it's a fact. Giant conglomerates of freelancers who are "available at the time and ready for a good stomp" isn't something we're lacking right now. What we are lacking are incentives for players to legitimately learn to hate one another, to lose things they've attained, and to be so utterly defeated as to have to start over.
PC as a whole needs to be more tactical and less "good fight". The good fights will come on their own. Just spit-balling ideas here but, something like newer corps only being able to launch attacks on districts bordering hi-sec systems would give plenty of tactical value in having territory deeper into low-sec. Having rewards that benefit having that deep low-sec territory (better salvage/biomass) gives further tactical advantage. You create a reason for players to -WANT- that territory, to covet it and genuinely desire to take it by any means necessary, including carving a bloody path through one's allies.
PC should be a rabbit hole that allows players to go as deep as they genuinely want to go, and fight as hard as they want to fight, with rewards plentiful (not ISK or clones) to allow for continued expansion of one's empire, should they choose it, with risks involved that allow for diminishing returns. A good example: Goonswarm once lost all of their sovereignty in a single day because someone didn't foot the Sov Bill (which increases based on how much sovereignty you have). It's just an idea. +1 I thought of something, what if we have 2 types of clonepacks, one that can not be used to win a district, and is more manageable to new corps, and initiates only 8v8 or 12v12 attacks? And the other one is the 16v16 and is needed to claim a district. just a thought. Actually, would it be possible to do something similar to clone packs to what sovereignty bills do in EVE? For example: A new corporation with no districts: 1 million ISK Clone Packs A more established corporation with 1 district: 5 million ISK Clone Packs An even more established corporation with 10 districts: 50 million ISK Clone Packs The numbers are randomly thought up but the idea is to allow corporations who want to enter PC the ability to do so. Meanwhile more established corporations still have the option to, but are guided to using already available resources, instead of what used to be easy-to-buy Clone Packs. What do you guys think?
It's actually not a bad idea. Would encourage more proactive use of a corporation's own clone usage while at the same time imposing a hard ISK sink to larger entities with more power/ISK. Problem that arises, however, is meta-gaming the system by having more than one corporation with alts and what not. Would have to be on an alliance level or something of the sort.
Aeon's Links
I don't run MinAssault, I run MAXASSAULT
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2703
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 05:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:This is fantastic, made better by the fact that it is almost a carbon copy of what I have done myself. Now, someone mentioned changing clonepacks into MCC which is kind of cool when you think about it. A warbarge flying around dropping MCC's the have clones in them to establlish a beachhead. I also want to have a strict range limit on cp attacks from the Warbarge, and not clone mortality, just to make the initial attack simpler /you know I prefer the initial attack to be launched from a list of districts in the client. If I get really edgy, what if you have a capacity of X MCC's. The MCC's could be manufactured in some way, such as reprocessingsalvaged gear into Nanites and Materials, and Clone packs from Biomass. I agree with the system being self sustaining but augmentable if you have districts, but the capacity of the warbarge inhibits established corps from using only CP's. What about District Timers, or do you prefer a whole different section for that? How do we define corporate Rank such as that they help keep players together, not corp jump to exploit a system, can not be exploited via new alts, yet require corporations to build their ranks by recruiting and training new players. What about Surface Infrastructure, do we go back to properly punish far attacks, and make the SIs neceessary, not the way we have it now where cargo hubs rule. Rewards, the CPM and I agree that the main motivator of fighting cannot be clones for the sake of clones, nor ISK. There needs to be rarity that is only collected on districts. However, we have discussed going to a "you get what you kill" in PC. That would allow lower level and new corporations to use their free clonepack, use adv gear and try to "do their best", possibly eeking out a profit and valuable experience. Just some stuff written from bed. Again, really like what I am seeing. Maybe I will break out special sections for subcomponents of PC; but I feel they need to be all a part of the bigger context. There needs to be at least a 24 hour heads-up before a PC. I know it's sandbox, and as far as EVE goes, almost anything is allowed, but what would completely kill PC for a lot of corps would be the ability to launch a battle that starts in 5 min. If a corp has 5 people and maybe 4 more in a chat, and the attacking corp already has 16 ready to go, then it'll get really bad for those 9 people if they try to defend, and Dust will leave them feeling really sour that they're not in their corp's prime time.
If the game was as big as Planetside 2, then that would work because there would always be a ton of people on. But with 16 v 16 and timed battles, a 5 minute launcher just isn't right. We need at least the 24 hour heads-up.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
18245
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 05:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
Raider MCC (8v8) and Invader MCC (12v12)?
CPM 1
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior
\\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
|
Terry Webber
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
541
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 07:30:00 -
[29] - Quote
Reserved |
Regis Blackbird
DUST University Ivy League
515
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 08:36:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lots of +1 all around! Great work Fox!
- I really like the multi stage match proposal, and to move clone depletion to a secondary objective. I would prefer if the defenders own all installations in the last Skirmish match, and have different objectives for the opposing teams (as the previous Domination match). We need to distinguish all PC matches to the Normal Pubs.
- Regarding biomass production, what about a small amount can be generated from each corp member's day-to-day non-PC activity (Pubs, FW), like a small corp tax which only benefits the corp? This would give an incentive to have corps with active members, and allow each corp member to contribute to their empire building even if not participating in the taking of Districts.
- Regarding the initial (non-timer) battle, I think there is a large risk of the Defenders not showing up resulting in a pointless and boring (necessary) step to launch an attack on a district.
What if the Defender corp can issue (an optional) special contract which would automatically activate let say 10 minutes after an attack declaration (assuming a 15m until match start), and be open for the public in the "special contracts" window? This gives active corp members preference to the match if they are online, but can automatically fill the match with if they are not.
The contract rewards are selected by the corp, and will only be payed (in full?) with the successful defence of the district.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |