|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Kaze Eyrou
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
1684
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:26:00 -
[1] - 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
|
Kaze Eyrou
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
1688
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 13:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote: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. That's what I was thinking too when looking at Dust charts. Take my current alliance for instance: General Tso's holds almost a quarter of Molden Health but attempting to use a clone pack as one of the corporations that has only a handful of districts makes it easy to use another corporation to bypass it.
So yes, a more detailed example would be:
My corporation (Molon Labe) attempt to use a Clone Pack. Corporation owns 7 districts, however since it's in an alliance, the system recognizes available power to be 64 districts. Corporation in an Alliance in which the Alliance holds 64 districts: 320 million ISK Clone Packs
EDIT: Snipped some quotes.
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
Kaze Eyrou
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
1688
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 13:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Raider MCC (8v8) and Invader MCC (12v12)? On that note, any word of reducing the squad sizes back down to 4 and introducing Platoons? (I heard it mentioned on the Biomassed podcast.)
That or increasing the match count 18v18? (6 man squads * 3 = 18 player teams)
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
Kaze Eyrou
DUST University Ivy League
1713
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4The economic reason behind owning districts in the first place still needs to be ironed out. My proposal makes clones a means to an end, rather than the end in and of themselves, so we need another component. - I think Factories and Shipyards are a good start though. Just a minor thing: You have Production Facility twice in your Districts post. Was that intended?
EDIT: Also, great work by the way! I'm loving all of this.
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
Kaze Eyrou
DUST University Ivy League
1713
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 18:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Kaze Eyrou wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4The economic reason behind owning districts in the first place still needs to be ironed out. My proposal makes clones a means to an end, rather than the end in and of themselves, so we need another component. - I think Factories and Shipyards are a good start though. Just a minor thing: You have Production Facility twice in your Districts post. Was that intended? EDIT: Also, great work by the way! I'm loving all of this. Good catch. The first time I was thinking of the Production Facilities we have in PC now. On the second one I was thinking of the Caldari Production Facility socket. I changed the second one to "Fabrication Plant". Why not "Biomass Facility"? Reason for that being the "Production Facility" PC map has always been the Biomass socket. Now that we have the actual Production Facility socket, why not put that in place?
Here's what I would propose:
[quote]Biomass Facility (Biomass Socket; old "Production Facility"): Same bonus as the old "Production Facility" bonus. Lore behind it: The salvage on the map is constantly being collected and turned into biomass. Hence, an increased rate at which clones can be made.
Production Facility (using the new Production Facility socket): Bonuses outlined in your post. Ability to manufacture and produce weapons, equipment, dropsuits, modules, etc.
Furthermore, we can use the correct names for the correct sockets into PC.
For instance, the Communications socket could be introduced and incorporate the old "Research Hub" bonus. Lore reasoning: better communication between districts and Warbarge results in less clones being lost in transfer. Then the Research Hub could have a new bonus that relates to researching.
Thoughts?
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
Kaze Eyrou
DUST University Ivy League
1764
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 02:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:Terry Webber wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Terry Webber wrote:But Breaking Stuff, there is still a possibility that one side would lose a battle if they can't leave their spawning area. So instead of having the redline as a barrier, CCP can just make it a boundary colored yellow instead of red for the battle and have the game notify the player that they're leaving the battlefield. It won't kill them if they stay in the redline too long.To protect a side's spawn area under the MCC, the MCC's guns and the turrets on the ground can shoot any enemy that breaches the perimeter. Dynamic. Spawn. Points. having two, and ONLY two that are right under each other was dumb. if you have two or better yet, the whole side of the battlefield where you enter is littered with spawns, you can't get pushed into one area and farmed. That could work but one side can still just block the other if they can predict where their opponents will spawn next and get there fast enough. Having weapons that monitor the redline can help discourage this practice. Dynamic Spawns seem to imply randomness in this case. But we all know that there is no such thing random in the universe. Even if you built the code to try to be random, the code will inadvertently create a pattern over time. Anyone who is smart enough to catch this pattern, will be able to exploit it. If you want truly dynamic spawning make it player controlled. CCP needs to take a page from battlefield 2142's book and make it where if you are all capped the MCC activates launchers that can shoot players out into the map. Or maybe like this?
CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou
Kaze's Helpful Links
|
|
|
|