DUST Search - Thread under Construction (Second attempt)

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Thread under Construction (Second attempt)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.

Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1158	Posted - 2015.01.10 08:41:00 - [31] - Quote This is fantastic work. SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 776	Posted - 2015.01.10 09:55:00 - [32] - Quote on the subject of corporate loyalty... Shouldnt Corps be able to make bulk item purchases? say corps can buy items in bulk at a discount and then sell them to corp members. if the bulk discount was great enough, then corps could generate ISK by modifying their prices to their members. Corps now make isk and players would choose to stay in the corp because theyre getting better prices. this is something that i wish was available across both dust and eve online. there arent enough tangible benefits to being in a corp. IRL, people work for companies to make money, but they choose to stay with a particular company often because of the benefits they receive.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4151	Posted - 2015.01.10 10:34:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. If it's not a fight for the district I could see it happening in a shorter time frame as well potentially. I think the MCC idea that has been kickina around has merit. Maybe one of these small attacks uses up fuel or resources but doesn't reduce the MCC count of the barge which would happen with an attack for the district. Could make these smaller attacks be sourced from a specific barge module even. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1455	Posted - 2015.01.10 11:14:00 - [34] - 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. I think the lesser attacks would have to really be incentivized...direct reasource disruption to the defender, loss of ISK, and the rewards to the attacker well weighted. This ties back to the concept of different attack types / purposes, i.e. the raid (an attack with a planned withdrawal) vs seizing and securing a district. I like the thought of having the dual path and opening the raiding path to more corps. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero Skype: jaysyn.larrisen Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6258	Posted - 2015.01.10 11:26:00 - [35] - Quote Neat. 8v8 and 12v12 clonepacks should be raider and looter packs. Raiders are in and out, grab anythi ng not nailed down. Looters are there to strip resources dry. Allows you to set rewards higher for bigger pack use. 16v16 is invaders. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2973	Posted - 2015.01.10 12:25:00 - [36] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Neat. 8v8 and 12v12 clonepacks should be raider and looter packs. Raiders are in and out, grab anythi ng not nailed down. Looters are there to strip resources dry. Allows you to set rewards higher for bigger pack use. 16v16 is invaders. I like the idea of small raiding parties, limited or little timer restrictions however are not really intended to take districts, merely raid and gather resources on a whim. "Can the big corp that holds X districts defend RIGHT NOW my little 6 man squad of raiders?" No idea how it might work but the concept is novel and really appeals to me personally. Vitantur Nothus wrote: Why hide a solution under frothy pile of derpa? MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6259	Posted - 2015.01.10 13:02:00 - [37] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Neat. 8v8 and 12v12 clonepacks should be raider and looter packs. Raiders are in and out, grab anythi ng not nailed down. Looters are there to strip resources dry. Allows you to set rewards higher for bigger pack use. 16v16 is invaders. I like the idea of small raiding parties, limited or little timer restrictions however are not really intended to take districts, merely raid and gather resources on a whim. "Can the big corp that holds X districts defend RIGHT NOW my little 6 man squad of raiders?" No idea how it might work but the concept is novel and really appeals to me personally. It takes away from the all or nothing mindset and methodology in PC. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Kaze Eyrou Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1688	Posted - 2015.01.10 13:12:00 - [38] - 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 - [39] - 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
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven 153	Posted - 2015.01.10 13:36:00 - [40] - Quote If you plan on making research labs relevant then you should consider changing the map. That gallente facility is damn near unplayable. The only strategy you can play on that map is to flood scouts in the city as fast as possible before the frame rate drops and then gg. Plz CCP change that map. I know you worked hard and stuff to implement variety, but not at the cost of performance. The whole MCC / warbarges ideas are neat. I also support the idea of getting to salvage what you kill. Discussion of timers and economic incentives for holding districts would need to take place in individual threads. There are so many ideas and opinions regarding those 2 topics. But on a side note, I am very glad we are talking about PC again :) The best leaders inspire greatness in others

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5754	Posted - 2015.01.10 14:56:00 - [41] - 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. No big surprise that our proposals are similar, as we are both basing them on years of community feedback and suggestions. I too like the MCC idea, and will edit my multi stage approach to taking a District proposal to give the MCC a more prominent and central role. (Soon.) I would be satisfied with a hard limit to the range of attacks, but I would like to point out that the problems with Clone Mortality stemmed from clones being the primary wining condition in the old system. The more jumps you took the greater the advantage to the defender. In my proposed system clones donGÇÖt really become an issue unless the attackers lose a match or two, or overextended themselves with a 4 jump attack. You can boil it down to: GÇ£Attacks out to 3 jumps are safe, 4 jumps and you are over extended, and at 5 jumps you can only take undefended Districts.GÇ¥ I wand to eliminate Clone Packs entirely! You grow clones over time in Clone Vats on a Warbarge. If you donGÇÖt have a District to support your Warbarge, then you rent space and buy Biomass. Attacks are launched by moving your Warbarge from the location where you grew the clones, to the District you wish to attack. Restricting the locations you can launch attacks from is easy. Instead of having Genolution deliver Biomass to any High Sec Station as I originally proposed, only have Biomass purchasable from Genolation Biomass facilities. Then the DUST Dev team can decide which stations should have Biomass facilities and which should not. I like the idea of MCC manufacture. Since an MCC blows up at the end of every Skirmish or Domination match, there should be plenty of raw materials and even some salvageable components or modules available in end of match salvage. I have listed some of the proposed Timer mechanisms in post #8, but I have not settled on the best solution yet. I am leaning toward the 6 hour range, and having the same or similar range for all districts on a single planet. So different planets will be of interest to Corps operating in different time zones. I also propose that both District Raids and the first phase of a District Attack should be live (defenders have the 15 minute Warbarge time to get their act together), but then have a timer for subsequent phases of a District Attack, giving the defenders a chance to rally a proper defense. I like the idea of the Corporate Rank, and would make Corp Rank effect how many Warbarge Docking facilities your Corp is able to Rent, but I have not had a chance to think through in detail how the Corporate ranking should be setup. I have only vaguely reference District Infrastructure so far, but it is something I intend to add in. I totally agree that there should be a separate incentive to owning districts, besides providing biomass to the clone vats. Clones should be a means to an end, not the end goal themselves. I have not yet come up with a proposal for what this other incentive should be, but I am watching the forums for inspiration. I am happy to talk about all aspect of the new Planetary Conquest system, from start to finish, in this thread. That is why I reserved so many posts. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4151	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:10:00 - [42] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Timers ? - Current system? - Hard coded timer for each district? - Hard coded timer for each district, with ability to move timber up to 3 hours in either direction? - Vulnerability window in which the attackers can initiate the battle? If District timers are hard coded, even with the 6 hour flexibility bracket, then Districts on the same planet should have timers in the same time zone range. Hard coded timers seems like a bad idea. Even with a bracket the game and whatever calculation used to set the timers is determining X planet is an EU planet, Y is an Asian planet, Z is an American planet rather than that being organically developed by the players that decide to be involved in PC. I do think it would make sense to limit how far a timer can be shifted in one go. Several folks have been kicking around the window idea where the defender sets a 2 to 4 hour window and then the attacker decides the hour the attack will take place after the usual 24 hour wait. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5754	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:26:00 - [43] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Alternatively we could get rid of Clone packs, Let Corps buy a Warbarge, and then grow their clones on their war barge. Then have Raids and the first phase of attacks on a district be 8v8 rather than 16 v 16. (No timer of Raids and the first phase of attacks.) If the Attackers in a Raid win, then they get some of the Defenders clones, as well as other stuff to make the Raid profitable. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4151	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:32:00 - [44] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Alternatively we could get rid of Clone packs, Let Corps buy a Warbarge, and then grow their clones on their war barge. Then have Raids and the first phase of attacks on a district be 8v8 rather than 16 v 16. (No timer of Raids and the first phase of attacks.) If the Attackers in a Raid win, then they get some of the Defenders clones, as well as other stuff to make the Raid profitable. The issue I see with a raid being the first stage of a district takeover is that it means the stakes for the smaller, quicker fights are still high and will lead to the same pressures we have now in PC fights to always field your best. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5754	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:36:00 - [45] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Alternatively we could get rid of Clone packs, Let Corps buy a Warbarge, and then grow their clones on their war barge. Then have Raids and the first phase of attacks on a district be 8v8 rather than 16 v 16. (No timer of Raids and the first phase of attacks.) If the Attackers in a Raid win, then they get some of the Defenders clones, as well as other stuff to make the Raid profitable. The issue I see with a raid being the first stage of a district takeover is that it means the stakes for the smaller, quicker fights are still high and will lead to the same pressures we have now in PC fights to always field your best. I am not apposed to making Raiding a seperat mechanic from actual attacks. What I am against is the entire Clone Pack mechanic. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4151	Posted - 2015.01.10 15:42:00 - [46] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Alternatively we could get rid of Clone packs, Let Corps buy a Warbarge, and then grow their clones on their war barge. Then have Raids and the first phase of attacks on a district be 8v8 rather than 16 v 16. (No timer of Raids and the first phase of attacks.) If the Attackers in a Raid win, then they get some of the Defenders clones, as well as other stuff to make the Raid profitable. The issue I see with a raid being the first stage of a district takeover is that it means the stakes for the smaller, quicker fights are still high and will lead to the same pressures we have now in PC fights to always field your best. I am not apposed to making Raiding a seperat mechanic from actual attacks. What I am against is the entire Clone Pack mechanic. Don't get me wrong. I like the staged fight idea. I just think it would be good to have fights in PC that are lower stakes. I agree that clone packs need to burn in a fire. I like the idea of the barge moving to districts to make attacks. Instead of clone mortality though what if there was some other resource that determined range? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 246	Posted - 2015.01.10 17:28:00 - [47] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: District Proximity Bonuses DUST: Owning multiple Districts in close proximity should provide a bonus or benifit, to encourage Corporations to concur areas, rather than spreading out randomly all over the region. Adjacent District Same Planet Same System Adjacent System Holding entire Planet EVE: ? I would like to propose a first EVE side bonus. >> Increased output or speed of manufacturing for that district depending on membership or standings to the owning DUST corp. The bonuses may also serve as a conflict driver if you get reset by the owning corp or kicked you would loose your bonus... might be worth fighting for. Also If EVE's PI system ever changes so that it utilized the infrastructure on the district/world instead of letting those capsuleers planet there own, it would increase the realism in the theoretical link between the 2 games. Also possible structure bonuses (however these maybe changing in the future so don't know what functions they will have, maybe. Sovereighty bonuses but again this is changing in the future. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5754	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:13:00 - [48] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: 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? Or, get rid of Clone Packs. If clones are grown on Warbarges, then Clone Packs are not needed. Let Corp Rank control how many Warbarges a Corp can operate, or at least how many docking facilities they can rent. Keeps Alt Corps from easily getting Warbarges. Let a Corp with no district pay a monthly fee for docking facilities and a monthly fee for Biomass, only accessible at certain stations with the correct facilities. Make the cost fairly reasonable, as the time it takes to grow clones is what limits spamming of attacks. So once they pay the monthly fees the Corp will be able so launch an attack or two per week, per Warbarge. If a Corp owns a District they can park their Warbarge in orbit and supply it with Biomass from the district, so they would not have to pay docking fees or pay for Biomass. Further have a bonus to clone production of 5% for every District you own on the planet; 10% for Districts with Production Facilities. This would be over and above the primary benefit of owning a district, which would be a benefit we have not yet defined here. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5754	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:28:00 - [49] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 think this is a good point. In my proposal I suggested that Phase 1 of an attack (the Beachhead) should only have 15 minutes warning, but I also suggested that Phase 1 should only be 8 v 8, and the defense in Phase 1 is somewhat optional, and the defending Corp can just rely on mounting their defense in Phase 2, after a timer. For the defending Corp, fighting Phase 1 has the benefit of being able to end the attack on the spot if they manage to win, without any significant drawbacks to losing, so it is safe to have anyone who happens to be on take part. No Warbarges are used in Phase 1, so you donGÇÖt have to worry about losing anything expensive. The serious defense starts at Phase 2. That is the first 16 v 16 fight with Warbarges. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5754	Posted - 2015.01.10 18:30:00 - [50] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Raider MCC (8v8) and Invader MCC (12v12)? The idea of different size MCC's is interesting. It would effect the max clone count you bring to the individual match as well. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5755	Posted - 2015.01.10 21:17:00 - [51] - Quote Edited the District Bonuses in post #6. Still room for other Facility options. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6288	Posted - 2015.01.10 21:22:00 - [52] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Edited the District Bonuses in post #6. Still room for other Facility options. market district: bonus to corp member purchase prices on market Military-industrial complex: Increase to arms and equipment manufacture Financial district: Better EoM payouts. Salvage and recycling center: EoM salvage multiplier. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3348	Posted - 2015.01.10 21:58:00 - [53] - Quote Growing clones could be tied to non-PC activity (Pubs and FW) as a way to scale clone packs with corp size, giving non-PC players a place in a PC active corporation, and remove the clone pack mechanic in general. You could have biomass units rewarded at end of match for example, which a warbarge and consume to grow clones before an attack. I am also 100% behind attack windows if the UI can be written to handle it. It gives both the defender and the attack some agency in when the attack goes down. Defender specifies a 4 hour window in which an attack can take place and attacker specifies in 5, 15, 30, or 60 minute increments (the higher resolution the better imo) when the attack starts. Hard coded district timers give neither the attackers nor the defenders any agency in selecting a match time. Its the inferior design choice by a large margin.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4152	Posted - 2015.01.10 22:21:00 - [54] - Quote For Other Stuff how about a way to transfer a district as an additional diplomatic option? I would say to limit transfers to corps with a certain Corp Rank to help prevent some alt corp shenanigans. Also an idea for a district facility: Arena. The Arena would allow you to rent out the district so others could play on it for the purpose of custom matches and corp battles. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10703	Posted - 2015.01.10 23:18:00 - [55] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. I prefer rarity items as rewards especially if they're obtainable only from a district. And the item has to be of sufficient significance to be worth owning a district for. One idea involves direct production of Special Hacked Encryption Keys. The should be manufactured from scratch by the player via a production district only. These keys are special in that they are guaranteed to open only the strong box which contains the most rare items. If not the most rare, then the most ISK-valuable items. These keys would not be obtainable in any other way other than to be produced by a district and possibly sold off by the player in the secondary market. Not available from the primary NPC market. Another idea is to introduce components used in manufacturing high-meta items such as specialist weapons, modules and dropsuits. Officer gear would still be salvage-based only. Again, only be obtainable from a district and nowhere else. Not even the primary NPC market. Another idea is to introduce components used in upgrading the corp or personal warbarges. These can range from special orbital bombardment ammo to better installations being deployed by the attacker/raiders. These special upgrades would only be obtainable from a district and nowhere else. Another idea is to introduce bonuses that can affect Eve Online better than what they were a long time ago. The more districts a corp holds in a single system, especially if it's in a FW system, the more LPs can be made available for Eve pilots running Complexes in a FW system or participating in a District bombardment. Match spawns for that particular FW system would also be boosted. Just some ideas I'm spitballing around here. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10703	Posted - 2015.01.10 23:20:00 - [56] - Quote Overall, I support Fox Gaden's proposal. It's very sound and the fact that CCP Rattati likes this and see this as almost a carbon copy of his own work makes it all the more appealing to me. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10705	Posted - 2015.01.11 00:11:00 - [57] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Edited the District Bonuses in post #6. Still room for other Facility options. market district: bonus to corp member purchase prices on market Military-industrial complex: Increase to arms and equipment manufacture Financial district: Better EoM payouts. Salvage and recycling center: EoM salvage multiplier. As I come from Eve Online, I don't like the Market District idea. Prices of any item should be dictated only by the greed of the seller and the willingness of the buyer. It shouldn't be primarily influenced by owning a certain district. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7755	Posted - 2015.01.11 01:19:00 - [58] - Quote Some spit-balled idea I had hidden away in my Imgur account that I thought of. Really high-level idea that probably isn't feasible at current but, yanno. http://i.imgur.com/h3bWsy7.png Aeon's Links I don't run MinAssault, I run MAXASSAULT
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5771	Posted - 2015.01.11 01:30:00 - [59] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Some spit-balled idea I had hidden away in my Imgur account that I thought of. Really high-level idea that probably isn't feasible at current but, yanno. http://i.imgur.com/h3bWsy7.png I like the idea, but I think it is out of scope of what is possible to implement at this time. In a perfect world I would like to have it implemented the way you suggest, but there are limits to what we can expect right now. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4154	Posted - 2015.01.11 11:50:00 - [60] - Quote This has been touched on a bit in this thread, but I really would consider moving away from specific clone counts on districts entirely. Leither posted some thoughts about that here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2549352#post2549352 The basic idea is go to MCC count with set clone values per MCC. Run out of MCC in your barge and you can no longer attack while if you run out of MCC defending a district you lose that district. No more 20 clone fights etc. The sticking point for this kind of change though would be the need for another way to determine attack range and attrition like fuel. In regard to raiding and district resources I had some ideas on how that could work along the lines of your more instantaneous 15 min attacks: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2542172#post2542172 Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 542	Posted - 2015.01.11 14:35:00 - [61] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Some spit-balled idea I had hidden away in my Imgur account that I thought of. Really high-level idea that probably isn't feasible at current but, yanno. http://i.imgur.com/h3bWsy7.png I like the idea, but I think it is out of scope of what is possible to implement at this time. In a perfect world I would like to have it implemented the way you suggest, but there are limits to what we can expect right now. I like this idea too and it perfectly describes a part of what selecting a district for an attack should be. Corp CEOs and directors would arrange an attack through the starmap like usual. The only difference is that instead of selecting icons representing districts, an actual district on the planet itself would be highlighted. But you may be right though. It would be a while before this is possible.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4154	Posted - 2015.01.11 15:14:00 - [62] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Some spit-balled idea I had hidden away in my Imgur account that I thought of. Really high-level idea that probably isn't feasible at current but, yanno. http://i.imgur.com/h3bWsy7.png I like the idea, but I think it is out of scope of what is possible to implement at this time. In a perfect world I would like to have it implemented the way you suggest, but there are limits to what we can expect right now. I like this idea too and it perfectly describes a part of what selecting a district for an attack should be. Corp CEOs and directors would arrange an attack through the starmap like usual. The only difference is that instead of selecting icons representing districts, an actual district on the planet itself would be highlighted. But you may be right though. It would be a while before this is possible. I'd love to see a hex map for districts and a way for districts linked together to provide bonuses. You really don't get any sense of these being places on a planet with the way districts are now. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 543	Posted - 2015.01.11 16:54:00 - [63] - Quote That's exactly what I'm trying to go for, Kain.
Duke Noobiam The Dukes of Death 333	Posted - 2015.01.11 17:47:00 - [64] - Quote Great stuff fox, I particularly like the three stage fight for districts. Only problem I see in the whole proposal is the no timer for raids. This could leave small corps at a disadvantage if another corp simply raided their district repeatedly while no one was on and claimed all their clones. Simple fixes for this would be to exclude the option for a simple raid. In other words when you win a raid it would force a timer for the second phase as opposed to letting the squad leader simply claim the remaining clones from the defender or having raid timers which would enable battles for 3 hours a day.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5806	Posted - 2015.01.11 19:58:00 - [65] - Quote Duke Noobiam wrote: Great stuff fox, I particularly like the three stage fight for districts. Only problem I see in the whole proposal is the no timer for raids. This could leave small corps at a disadvantage if another corp simply raided their district repeatedly while no one was on and claimed all their clones. Simple fixes for this would be to exclude the option for a simple raid. In other words when you win a raid it would force a timer for the second phase as opposed to letting the squad leader simply claim the remaining clones from the defender or having raid timers which would enable battles for 3 hours a day. You make a very good point. If there are no restrictions put on it a large Corp could raid the same district 5 times on the same day when the District owners are asleep, and then attack the District when it has no clones to mount a defense. I am thinking of only allowing a district to be attacked within 3 hours of the district timer to increase the chance of the defending Corp to have people on to mount a defence. A successful Raid on a District should lock the districts to Raids until the timer roles around again. Raid lockouts should not effect Attacks. The negative impact on a district of failing to repel a Raid should be severe enough to prevent Raid locking from being beneficial. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
LAVALLOIS Nash 407	Posted - 2015.01.11 20:36:00 - [66] - Quote I really like the idea of raiding as you lay it out. It would give rise to two alternate kinds of corps that could have an impact in PC: Pirates and privateers. While larger land owning corps would use the raid strategically, pirate corps would rob districts for resources/loot. If the simple trading feature happens, they could even make a bigger impact by selling off the resources to rivals or, lol, back to the district owner it was taken from. Privateers would be the same idea, only they are pirate corps that are so good at what they do that land holding corps pay them to raid and disrupt their rivals districts at random. It would make for some interesting meta. Plus it would give a place for the more casual players like me who might not have the time to manage a huge corp with districts, timers and resources. But I think I have enough time to assemble or prepare in raid attacks.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10721	Posted - 2015.01.11 20:43:00 - [67] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Terry Webber wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Some spit-balled idea I had hidden away in my Imgur account that I thought of. Really high-level idea that probably isn't feasible at current but, yanno. http://i.imgur.com/h3bWsy7.png I like the idea, but I think it is out of scope of what is possible to implement at this time. In a perfect world I would like to have it implemented the way you suggest, but there are limits to what we can expect right now. I like this idea too and it perfectly describes a part of what selecting a district for an attack should be. Corp CEOs and directors would arrange an attack through the starmap like usual. The only difference is that instead of selecting icons representing districts, an actual district on the planet itself would be highlighted. But you may be right though. It would be a while before this is possible. I'd love to see a hex map for districts and a way for districts linked together to provide bonuses. You really don't get any sense of these being places on a planet with the way districts are now. I agree. The Hexagonal maps provides a more immersive feel of where districts are located on a planet. Also, Eve Online players now have the benefit of having a compass on their capacitor indicator so they know which way is the Cosmic North in relation to where their cameras are facing. For example: the Caroline Star, which seems to have exploded in Eve Online leaving behind a visible plume of star dust, can be see in the Cosmic Northeast. The compass can also tell you which way is the next stargate to jump through, which way the anomolies that have been detected, which way your bookmarks are at, etc. If we can have that compass be applied to the District Maps, that would be great so that multiple players viewing the same planet at the same time can get an idea of where the District is located in relation to Cosmic North. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5727	Posted - 2015.01.12 03:09:00 - [68] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 think it can be unlike PS2 without there being 24 hour notice. I think that's the worst part. That lead time is a big reason that the big dogs have stayed on top. When the stakes are high again (possible riches) it just gives all the reason to hire the best 16. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5727	Posted - 2015.01.12 03:11:00 - [69] - Quote Duke Noobiam wrote: Great stuff fox, I particularly like the three stage fight for districts. Only problem I see in the whole proposal is the no timer for raids. This could leave small corps at a disadvantage if another corp simply raided their district repeatedly while no one was on and claimed all their clones. Simple fixes for this would be to exclude the option for a simple raid. In other words when you win a raid it would force a timer for the second phase as opposed to letting the squad leader simply claim the remaining clones from the defender or having raid timers which would enable battles for 3 hours a day. Then recruit. The raids should be persistent. I think it would provide big corps that used numbers and smaller more elite corps that rely on near perfection. Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5810	Posted - 2015.01.12 13:44:00 - [70] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Duke Noobiam wrote: Great stuff fox, I particularly like the three stage fight for districts. Only problem I see in the whole proposal is the no timer for raids. This could leave small corps at a disadvantage if another corp simply raided their district repeatedly while no one was on and claimed all their clones. Simple fixes for this would be to exclude the option for a simple raid. In other words when you win a raid it would force a timer for the second phase as opposed to letting the squad leader simply claim the remaining clones from the defender or having raid timers which would enable battles for 3 hours a day. Then recruit. The raids should be persistent. I think it would provide big corps that used numbers and smaller more elite corps that rely on near perfection. I have addressed his issue by including a Raid lockout, so a district can only be successfully raided once per day. The Defenders lose 70, plus some of whatever other asset the District has. Since clones are produced on Warbarges, rather than in districts, getting raided creates a logistical problem for the District owner, which if not handled properly could leave the District vulnerable after successive raids. The Raid lockout is separate from the Attack lockout, so a District can be Raided, and then Attacked on the same day. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5810	Posted - 2015.01.12 13:58:00 - [71] - Quote I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8 I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4 The 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 27	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:16:00 - [72] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8 I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4 The 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. I liked everything here! This is the one thing that will keep Dust fresh without tons of dev work, fixing the ability for the players to change the landscape through group participation. Something to consider - I also think that CCP (CPMs or Devs) need to give themselves a little bit of the hand of god approach from time to time. If things are not balanced then maybe they need to give themselves some beastly suits and go raid a few districts quick from the biggest corps. Pull some balancing acts in that way. Call themselves like outring raiders or something which shows up when you offend them too much. Don't be immortal, just tough to kill and become the intergalactic big bad. A similar though is to pay some mercs in gear to do your bidding this way but make it so they can only use the gear in theaters you have pre-ordained. The system will get gamed by some corps and alts, so be prepared to have the all mighty gods of war offended and shake things up. Maybe reward someone for being the betrayer in a high corp and reward strictly them. This is why the game masters of D&D used to exist. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 27	Posted - 2015.01.12 16:31:00 - [73] - Quote Something I would like to add in as a possibility is to maybe use the daily missions to keep the big alliances/corps from holding everything. Provide value if an alliance bands together a set of districts. Then let them set public contracts on those districts. They would get a portion of the isk/sp (Other points) but they could lose the district if their mercs lose too much. This could become a big isk sink hole or free for all. Also allow the district owners to set specifications for the defending mercs (KDR, average WP, part of " " alliance). If no one matches those specs, they have fewer defenders. The attackers are randoms\blue berries who are getting in their daily missions. This would add a huge tactical and logistical application for alliances. Who do we share the spoils from our district with and how do we make sure to maintain it. Make a king of the hill approach. Only one district set can be like this at a time, until it is concurred. This would encourage the number 2 alliance to make an effort to fight the number 1. With all the randoms jumping on as well to take down the biggest alliance. If you are the best, expect to fight everyone else to stay on top. Let me know what you guys think of these ideas to enhance the districts/pcs. Plus I would hope this would benefit the lone merc who doesn't have a corp and want to just peak into a PC. He will get proto stomped, but he got to see behind the velvet rope. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10727	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:21:00 - [74] - Quote Balistyc Farshot wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8 I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4 The 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. I liked everything here! This is the one thing that will keep Dust fresh without tons of dev work, fixing the ability for the players to change the landscape through group participation. Something to consider - I also think that CCP (CPMs or Devs) need to give themselves a little bit of the hand of god approach from time to time. If things are not balanced then maybe they need to give themselves some beastly suits and go raid a few districts quick from the biggest corps. Pull some balancing acts in that way. Call themselves like outring raiders or something which shows up when you offend them too much. Don't be immortal, just tough to kill and become the intergalactic big bad. A similar though is to pay some mercs in gear to do your bidding this way but make it so they can only use the gear in theaters you have pre-ordained. The system will get gamed by some corps and alts, so be prepared to have the all mighty gods of war offended and shake things up. Maybe reward someone for being the betrayer in a high corp and reward strictly them. This is why the game masters of D&D used to exist. Not sure about the "hand of god" approach. CCP has participated in major fleet fights in Eve Online and still do to this day with their mighty Polaris fleets, but they only do this to give Eve players something to do. The real fun comes when you see players wreck an entire economy for 3 days like how Goonswarm did to Jita back in April of 2012. Infamously known as Burn Jita. CCP never intervened nor fixed the mess left behind. They just sat back and ate popcorn. They didn't need to get involved. The economy recovered and everyone was back to their usual shenanigans within the week. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10727	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:22:00 - [75] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8 I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4 The 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. I strongly agree with this. The idea of clones being the reward was a bad idea from the start. We need something better than that. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 1713	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:33:00 - [76] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8 I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4 The 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
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5816	Posted - 2015.01.12 17:39:00 - [77] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8 I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4 The 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". Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 1713	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:25:00 - [78] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Kaze Eyrou wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: I finally settled on how to deal with District Timers. #8 I rewrote the Multi Stage Approach to taking Districts to cover Player Owned MCCGÇÖs. #4 The 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
Edgar Reinhart Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:29:00 - [79] - Quote Not really been involved in PC but enjoyed the read. With the Raids is there a possibility that they could be tied into the mercenary aspect of the game? i.e the attackers initiate the raid and the defenders are unprepared for it without enough members online to mount a defence. If a high enough ranking member of the defenders corporation is online they can put out a general call for mercenaries currently online whom they have to pay x amount, either negotiated on a per individual basis or based on stats etc to join the defence team for that raid only. It means that they'd be able to field a full team, at an additional cost, BUT also adds in the risk of either a) getting a bullet sponge such as myself or maybe even a ringer that will sabotage the defences from within....... maybe because the attackers offered them more or maybe striking lucky and temporarily recruiting the clone that turns the tide. Would be a way to get other people involved and introduced to PC matches, possibly help with recruitment if you find a good un. Again though not sure if this is workable, viable or what is and isn't possible.
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 428	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:50:00 - [80] - Quote As to the raiding, I had some ideas on how they would unfold myself. Main Points: -Corps can set a district to be vulnerable to raiding for a 1 hour period on the fly (aka, they can set it to be the next hour, so long as it doesn't overlap their normal vulnerability period) They may do this multiple times, potentially chaining them together for long periods of being "raid-able" -Districts that are open to raiding receive some sort of bonus. Fluff-wise it's the district diverting power from the normal defenses that make it invulnerable to super-charge production. During this 1 hour period, the district produces something useful. -Raiders can attack (as you proposed, Fox) to attempt to steal Biomass / Other Productions from the District. To counterbalance things they can only steal production up to 110% of what the district would normally produce during this 1-hr "supercharged" period. -After the first successful raid on a district, it "locks" for the rest of that 1-hr vulnerable period. If the District Owners enter another vulnerable period (of their choosing) then this unlocks the district for further raiding. -The outcome of a raid isn't a binary "all or nothing" outcome, with the potential for the attacker to gain some to all of the potential pool of supply / biomass that is at stake. (50 - 110% of the boosted output) Note all of these outcomes count as a "successful" raid. -Since the District Owners -CHOSE- to unlock the district during this time, battles start 10-15 min after the Attackers declare their attack. The overall idea with this raiding structure is to provide a method for both defenders and attackers to gain something by allowing a district to be raid-able, such that both sides have incentive to do so. The 1-hr period is small enough that the Defenders should be expected to be able to field a full raid-sized team on short notice. (The choice of a defender to chain together multiple of these sessions is their own, each 1-hr session is treated as separate from the others) Raiding should cost some funds on the Raiders part (in costs of clones, and the equipment that needs to be deployed) It is very important that this cost be less than ~50% of an "average" win's earnings. (Clones not included) In this way a raider can be profitable with only a 50% win rate, and more than that allows additional earnings. On the Defenders side, the production boost should be such that it is worthwhile to hold at least one battle with reasonable clone losses and still turn a profit. If the average successful defense costs MORE than what would be earned by the production boost, then nobody will do it.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5818	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:04:00 - [81] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: Stuff I changed Production Facility to Biomass Facility as you suggested. That is a no-brainier. I will have to think a little more on the other stuff. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5820	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:15:00 - [82] - Quote Edgar Reinhart wrote: Not really been involved in PC but enjoyed the read. With the Raids is there a possibility that they could be tied into the mercenary aspect of the game? i.e the attackers initiate the raid and the defenders are unprepared for it without enough members online to mount a defence. If a high enough ranking member of the defenders corporation is online they can put out a general call for mercenaries currently online whom they have to pay x amount, either negotiated on a per individual basis or based on stats etc to join the defence team for that raid only. It means that they'd be able to field a full team, at an additional cost, BUT also adds in the risk of either a) getting a bullet sponge such as myself or maybe even a ringer that will sabotage the defences from within....... maybe because the attackers offered them more or maybe striking lucky and temporarily recruiting the clone that turns the tide. Would be a way to get other people involved and introduced to PC matches, possibly help with recruitment if you find a good un. Again though not sure if this is workable, viable or what is and isn't possible. I have been giving this some thought. I had a similar mechanic when I wrote my proposal for Planetary Conquest in EVE Legion. I need to figure out what approach is the most reasonable considering the limited Dev resources in DUST right now. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5821	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:23:00 - [83] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: As to the raiding, I had some ideas on how they would unfold myself. Main Points: -Corps can set a district to be vulnerable to raiding for a 1 hour period on the fly (aka, they can set it to be the next hour, so long as it doesn't overlap their normal vulnerability period) They may do this multiple times, potentially chaining them together for long periods of being "raid-able" -Districts that are open to raiding receive some sort of bonus. Fluff-wise it's the district diverting power from the normal defenses that make it invulnerable to super-charge production. During this 1 hour period, the district produces something useful. -Raiders can attack (as you proposed, Fox) to attempt to steal Biomass / Other Productions from the District. To counterbalance things they can only steal production up to 110% of what the district would normally produce during this 1-hr "supercharged" period. -After the first successful raid on a district, it "locks" for the rest of that 1-hr vulnerable period. If the District Owners enter another vulnerable period (of their choosing) then this unlocks the district for further raiding. -The outcome of a raid isn't a binary "all or nothing" outcome, with the potential for the attacker to gain some to all of the potential pool of supply / biomass that is at stake. (50 - 110% of the boosted output) Note all of these outcomes count as a "successful" raid. -Since the District Owners -CHOSE- to unlock the district during this time, battles start 10-15 min after the Attackers declare their attack. The overall idea with this raiding structure is to provide a method for both defenders and attackers to gain something by allowing a district to be raid-able, such that both sides have incentive to do so. The 1-hr period is small enough that the Defenders should be expected to be able to field a full raid-sized team on short notice. (The choice of a defender to chain together multiple of these sessions is their own, each 1-hr session is treated as separate from the others) Raiding should cost some funds on the Raiders part (in costs of clones, and the equipment that needs to be deployed) It is very important that this cost be less than ~50% of an "average" win's earnings. (Clones not included) In this way a raider can be profitable with only a 50% win rate, and more than that allows additional earnings. On the Defenders side, the production boost should be such that it is worthwhile to hold at least one battle with reasonable clone losses and still turn a profit. If the average successful defense costs MORE than what would be earned by the production boost, then nobody will do it. Interesting proposal. For now I simply added a link at the bottom of my Raid page. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6353	Posted - 2015.01.12 21:58:00 - [84] - Quote Spoken from the lips of Paradoxical Nature, the current Goonfeet CEO (In Absentia) in response to permalocking timers ideas: "Yup. I mean PC is sh*t right now because it's too polite. You take a number and come back in 24 hours." "You can't come in like a wrecking ball and start fires." Bluntly the sov timers are far too reminiscent of EVE dominion Sov mechanics, and everyone, including the people who exploit the hell out of those mechanics, agree that they are utter crap. Use-based sov will always be superior to Dominion timer Sov. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 429	Posted - 2015.01.12 22:35:00 - [85] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: [ Warbarges Raiding Warbarge: Clone Capacity: 100 Clone Vat Capacity: 1 MCC Capacity: 1 Clone Mortality: 1 Jump 0%, 2 Jumps 5%, 3 Jumps 10%, 4 Jumps 20%, 5 Jumps 40%, 6 Jumps 80%. Raiding Warbarges use Cryogenic technology to lessen the effects of jump disruption on clone brains, in order to give them more effective range. A Raiding Warbarge can in theory take a district, but you would have to win 3 battles without losing more than 100 clones, and that assumes the District is less than 2 jumps from your starting location. Warbarge: Clone Capacity: 500 Clone Vat Capacity: 4 MCC Capacity: 3 Clone Mortality: 1 Jump 5%, 2 Jumps 10%, 3 Jumps 20%, 4 Jumps 40%, 5 Jumps 80% The base model Warbarge is primarily designed for taking Districts, although it can be used for Raiding as well. Supply Warbarge: Clone Capacity: 500 Clone Vat Capacity: 8 MCC Capacity: 6 Clone Mortality: 1 Jump 10%, 2 Jumps 20%, 3 Jumps 40%, 4 Jumps 80% A Supply Warbarge is setup for producing clones quickly, and makes certain concessions which reduces their ability to maintain clone stability during transport. The Supply Warbarge is designed for carrying supplies, such as replacement MCCGÇÖs, and for growing clones. This ship it meant to replenish the districts you already own, rather then attacking other districts. It can be used in hostel attacks, but since it is setup for clone production, rather than clone transport, so it has a more limited range when used in Attacks and Raids due to higher Clone Mortality. I'd argue that Warbarges should have a EVE / DUST fitting screen with modules to determine what kind of range / capabilities they have. I envision there being a few module types for a Warbarge -Main (The ones that directly affect it's combat / production capabilities) -Offices (Those modules that affect EoM Payouts, Production Rates, and other "non-combat" actions) -Armaments (Means for the Warbarge to have special Warbarge strikes) Before we begin, I am only talking about Corp Warbarges, as I am going to assume there is some difference between corp level and personal level warbarges. Furthermore, I am incorporating Rattai's idea of there being no "clone mortality" rate and just a flat jump distance. The Basic (no mods) Warbarge will have the following capability: Basic Warbarge: Clone Capacity: 100 (enough for raids) Vat: 1 MCC: 1 Jump Range: 4 It would have Module Fitting: 4 Main, 4 Offices, 2 Armaments Main: + 100 Clone Capacity + 1 Vat + 1 MCC Slot + 1 Range + 200 Clone Capacity, -1 Range + 3 Vats, -2 Range + 100 Clone Capacity, + 2 MCCs, -2 Range Restrictions: You cannot have a negative Range. A Range of "0" indicates you cannot jump. Offices: +10% EoM to... - ISK Payout - LP Payout (faction specific) - SP +10% Vat Production Armaments: - Small Warbarge Strike (EMP, Laser, Regular) - Medium Warbarge Strike (EMP, Laser, Regular) - Anti-MCC Strike - "Farm" [No Combat ability, produces X Biomass per day] The Idea with Armaments is that in PC battles that normal Warbarge Strikes are unavailable, only EVE OB support is available. The Armaments would provide a X/Battle Strike to the PC team that functions as it does in regular matches. The X would depend on the type of strike, with Small having more, and the Anti-MCC being a "one / battle", with a further restriction that these cost a similar WP value to normal. In this way, MCCs can be outfitted to fulfill a variety of roles (with refitting possible on some sort of refitting cost / time) Example Fits: Raider: Main: +1 Range (x 4) Armament: -Small EMP Strike -Small Regular Strike Factory: Main: +3 vat - 2 Range (x2) + 100 capacity + 1 vat Armament: -Farm (x2)
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 546	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:46:00 - [86] - Quote Hey, Fox, I'm not sure if you suggested this in your proposal but would do you think of getting vehicles, weapons, etc. in addition to stealing clones while raiding?
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5823	Posted - 2015.01.13 15:03:00 - [87] - Quote Added a proposal for reprocessing items to manufacture new items using a Fabrication Facility (District Infrastructure) in post #7. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
zex ll X Algintal Core Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.01.13 16:48:00 - [88] - Quote How do you think about a matter of using many ringers? I think that at least a corp should have their 12 members .(16 vs 16)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5829	Posted - 2015.01.13 18:41:00 - [89] - Quote zex ll X wrote: How do you think about a matter of using many ringers? I think that at least a corp should have their 12 members .(16 vs 16) Frankly I don't have a problem with Ringers. The diplomatic and logistical effort involved in getting Ringers is substantial, not to mention the cost if you can't get them through diplomacy alone. We are supposed to be mercenaries, so the concept of Ringers plays well with the lore. If you had a Corp of one, running a PC empire, paying mercenaries to fight his/her battles, that would be completely within the concept of what the game is supposed to be. Mister Spero might be able to pull that off, as might a handful of others, but overall it would be a lot easier for a Corp to have its own PC team, Particularly when Corp ranks are needed to expand the Warbarge fleet. If you are concerned about the current PC situation where PC matches are primarily fought by the same people and it is hard for new people to break into PC, I would not worry so much. In the new system, for a relatively low cost per month compared to the cost of Clone Packs in the current system, Corps will be able to grow enough clones to launch a couple of PC attacks per week. These new Corps will likely get their ass kicked at first, but if they can identify their mistakes and what they need to work on, they can train to improve their team and try to do better in their next attack. Being able to attempt PC and fail without going bankrupt will allow new Corps to break into PC and eventually become competitive. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5829	Posted - 2015.01.13 18:51:00 - [90] - Quote Added this Design Principal: - Corporations that want to get involved in PC should be able to attack districts and fail repeatedly without going bankrupt. It is through failure that you identify what you need to work on to succeed. (With Clone Packs you had to be good enough from the start to be able to take a district and hold it, or your Corp would go bankrupt.) This is one of the reasons I want the Clone Pack concept to die in a fire! The unite of delivery for clones to a battle should be the Warbarge. Clones should also be grown on the Warbarge weather you own Districts or not. Then there would be no need to buy clones. Districts should only enhance your ability to produce clones, not be a requirement for their production. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 515	Posted - 2015.01.15 07:39:00 - [91] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: stuff, stuff, and more stuff I like it man. It would do wonders for the longevity of the game, the fun factor at end level, and even includes an option for an average merc to jump in and help in an emergency. Very cool. You outdid yourself this time. Edit: How is this NOT stickied?
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6438	Posted - 2015.01.15 10:44:00 - [92] - Quote Overall Fox well done. I like this better than my old proposal by far. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5846	Posted - 2015.01.15 13:20:00 - [93] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Edit: How is this NOT stickied? Rattati likes to let stuff bob around. If the community likes it, it stays near the top without glue. He did Blue Tag it though. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 517	Posted - 2015.01.16 01:25:00 - [94] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Imp Smash wrote: Edit: How is this NOT stickied? Rattati likes to let stuff bob around. If the community likes it, it stays near the top without glue. He did Blue Tag it though. Evidence suggest otherwise. <.< Regardless, this is really quite excellent. Really though, coding and manpower required, it may not be feasible sadly.
Kain Spero Internal Error. 4230	Posted - 2015.01.16 07:33:00 - [95] - Quote I really think that Phase 2 and Phase 3 should be able to happen on the same day, or there needs to be a mechanic where if X defenders don't show up for a Phase 2 Attack the defenders auto loose and the Warbarge timer starts up again for a Phase 3 match. One complaint about PC has been a lot of setup for just one match. I think letting Phase 2 and Phase 3 play out on the same attack would lessen this feeling. Also, I think doing a tug-of-war style gameplay until one side runs out of MCC could be interesting. If the attacking barge still has MCC and the defender wins a Phase 2 or 3 you could let the Defender counter attack the Warbarge using the district maps which would start Phase 2 in the case of a defender win in Phase 3 or a Phase 3 match in the case of a Phase 2 victory for the defender. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5874	Posted - 2015.01.16 12:00:00 - [96] - Quote Well Kain, it would make sense that if the attackerGÇÖs MCC does not get into Armor before the Attackers take out the District Defense Network, then there would be no need for the Attackers to pull back to switch out or repair their MCC. So, if the District is not defended in Phase 2, it could spawn Phase 3 without the timer. Would that work for you? That would encourage the defenders to mount some sort of defense, even if it is just enough to slow the attackerGÇÖs advance long enough to start the timer. One of the reasons I put another timer before phase 3, is because if the teams are evenly matched and you put both phases together you could end up fighting for a long time. Even with this system the fight on the third day could go a long time if the Defenders win Phase 3 and push the attackers back. Example, Closely matched teams: Day 1: Attackers win Phase 1. (Timer starts) Day 2: Defenders win Phase 2, Attackers win Phase 1, Attackers win Phase 2. (Timer starts) Day 3: Defenders win Phase 3, Defenders win Phase 2, Attackers win Phase 1, Attackers win Phase 2, Defenders win Phase 3GÇª Attacker has run out of Warbarges (Defenders Win) I also wanted to give some wiggle room incase a Corp has several districts being attacked at the same time. They could just have their C or D Team try to delay the Attackers enough in Phase 2 to start the timer, while they drive the attackers out of another district, and then mount the real defense in Phase 3. It adds some tactical depth. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4236	Posted - 2015.01.16 13:22:00 - [97] - Quote I'd say that longer battles aren't outright a bad thing as long as things don't get too crazy. The example you've laid out sounds pretty good. I like the idea that you have somewhat of an escalation in potential match length as you get closer to the district being taken over. I like the armor idea for initiating Phase 3 on the same day, but I think no shows might need to be more harshly punished (if you haven't figured out I hate no shows ). If X% of the team on either side doesn't show up you forfeit the match, loose an MCC, and move onto the next phase in either direction. In your phase plan if the defenders push back the attack do they get a rest period like the current mechanics? Something to consider. Any resource production should be stopped until an attack is resolved so that we don't end up with friendly attacks again that result in economic benefit. This would also be a reason for a defender to want to press a counter attack and eliminate the warbarge's entire stock of MCC. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5874	Posted - 2015.01.16 13:37:00 - [98] - Quote Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6476	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:16:00 - [99] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4239	Posted - 2015.01.16 14:27:00 - [100] - Quote ^^ Seems like we've found someone that hates no shows worse than me. X) Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1468	Posted - 2015.01.16 15:56:00 - [101] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: ^^ Seems like we've found someone that hates no shows worse than me. X) Interesting, I remember a time when you no showed many battles.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5876	Posted - 2015.01.16 16:20:00 - [102] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. I like it, but for that last part we might want to consider what happens if Lizard Squad takes down the PSN again, or Tranquility gets hit with a DDOS attack, or the Battle-servers go down and no one can queue up. In Phase 1 and 2 the Defenders would win if no one showed up on either side. Phase 3 is a standard Skirmish match like current PC, so how does that play out now? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6483	Posted - 2015.01.16 16:23:00 - [103] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I like it, but for that last part we might want to consider what happens if Lizard Squad takes down the PSN again, or Tranquility gets hit with a DDOS attack, or the Battle-servers go down and no one can queue up. I think the GMs are aftually fairly competent and can reset sov manually fairly fast if they have to. It'd be tedious as sh*t but unless Rattati says "No dude, we need to do something else" I think we can trust archduke there. And I have nothing but contempt for people who try to district lock Kain. Buncha sissies using no-shows to exploit the sov system. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 522	Posted - 2015.01.17 00:15:00 - [104] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. That's really good though. It's a double whammy so the cost will exceed the economic gain by the districts being locked when totaled. And I agree with you about GM intervention. If it happens it happens and we all cross that bridge when we come too it.
RkHalo Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 0	Posted - 2015.01.17 05:25:00 - [105] - Quote I really like the layout of the three stage district flip, if I may input some balances on it that differ. For the first stage, the modified bush, the attacker should have a small clone advantage having the fight be 100 clones to the attacker and 80 to the defence. This initial attack can be setup similar to an OMS, simulating a scout party fighting. The timer for setting the FCC might have to be adjusted but I am in favor of this mechanic for winning the fight. Stage two should occur on the same map as the ambush, with the attacker and defender having equal forces (150?), occurring a day later on the same timer to represent the defenders attacking the beachhead and victor here would nullify the ground troops entirely, destroying the MCC (not the warbarge) forcing another stage one from scratch. Stage three is a skirm with similar mechanics using the clones left on district versus the remaining attacking force (depending on performance of previous fights, warbarge, etc.) occuring one day after the stage two fights simulating the time it takes to find the stronghold on the district and mobilize to it. Reups should work in the same way as they currently do in this stage until a flip or repel. To make this fair to both the large corps and small corps, raids would be 50 clone ambushs that have increased payouts and drain resources off the district but not clones (minus the losses during the fight) possibly during that vulnerability period, but it has a limit to the percent it damages, with a 50% success rate profiting both sides (obviously only just so making it competitive). These vulnerability times would give better resources if it is removed away from the timer of the district by X hours possibly in a gradient with increase in raiding success payouts as well so that corps off timers can chance these times and have a harder time without the support on their primetime. Using district attack at stage 1 as 100% of daily resources generated, raids should pay 110-150%, stage 2 should payout at 130% and stage 3 should have a 200% payout. This would encourage district flipping through war, while not discounting small corps from fighting. I like the warbarge idea, being fit to change its functionality, and MCCs fit to either raid or attack directly. I don't know how I feel about timer changes yet, haven't thought about how to change it, so I'll leave that alone.
Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1178	Posted - 2015.01.17 08:44:00 - [106] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: As to the raiding, I had some ideas on how they would unfold myself. -Districts that are open to raiding receive some sort of bonus. Fluff-wise it's the district diverting power from the normal defenses that make it invulnerable to super-charge production. During this 1 hour period, the district produces something useful. -After the first successful raid on a district, it "locks" for the rest of that 1-hr vulnerable period. If the District Owners enter another vulnerable period (of their choosing) then this unlocks the district for further raiding. -The outcome of a raid isn't a binary "all or nothing" outcome, with the potential for the attacker to gain some to all of the potential pool of supply / biomass that is at stake. (50 - 110% of the boosted output) Note all of these outcomes count as a "successful" raid. -Since the District Owners -CHOSE- to unlock the district during this time, battles start 10-15 min after the Attackers declare their attack. This is a very good addition to Foxs' idea. One thing, if I may pick a little. What is to stop a friendly alliance from attacking in this 1 hour window (effectively locking it from hostiles) and not killing any clones? I'd suggest that the very lucrative important resource that districts produce (moon goo) is none tradable and that weather or not the raiders want it, they will plunder it. But thinking about it, this still doesn't stop the problem. Because either way if you're going to lose this resource, it still benefits to have the district locked by friendlies. SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6540	Posted - 2015.01.17 12:48:00 - [107] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Looks like we are on the same page Kain. If the attackers No-Show, the Defenders will blow up their MCC (twice if they no-showed in Phase 3) until they are pushed back to the beachhead. Then the defenders hack the attackerGÇÖs CRU, denying them access to the district, and successfully defend the District. Part of me wonders if there could be a way for the Defenders to actually capture the AttackerGÇÖs MCC if they No-Show, but I have not thought up a mechanic for how that would work. I have also not considered weather it could be exploited somehow. So just an idle thought at this point. From the start I have been operating from the assumption that the District activity would be locked from the moment it was attacked to the moment it is successfully defended. I should probably go back and state that explicitly somewhere in my proposal. It would be that much more incentive to have people try to mount a defense in Phase 1, so they don't lose 24 hours of production. If the battle begins and no enemy shows up one minute after the hack points are controlled the enemy MCC is captured intact and claimed. If neither shows up CONCORD destroys both MCCs and ejects both corps from the district. That's really good though. It's a double whammy so the cost will exceed the economic gain by the districts being locked when totaled. And I agree with you about GM intervention. If it happens it happens and we all cross that bridge when we come too it. Do any of you know about the ability to move a redline in match? It could open up the potential for reverse 'Tug of War' game modes which could be used for MCC assault and whatnot. No redlines in PC. Redlines are there to protect pubscrubs from getting pushed back and farmed Redlines in hardmode game modes like FW and PC should not have redline protection Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 555	Posted - 2015.01.18 06:37:00 - [108] - Quote 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6572	Posted - 2015.01.18 15:14:00 - [109] - Quote 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. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 556	Posted - 2015.01.18 21:30:00 - [110] - Quote 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.

Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 530	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:04:00 - [111] - Quote The reason I ask about redlines is because the whole proposal here creates a 'land acquisition' scenario. But Fox was asking about raiding MCCs. So I was thinking, scrolling maps. Using the redline to indicate movement and territory gained/lost when assaulting a ship. Meh, don't worry about it. Just a passing thought.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 10789	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:13:00 - [112] - Quote 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. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4267	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:30:00 - [113] - Quote 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. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16667	Posted - 2015.01.19 00:37:00 - [114] - 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. Those launchers are back in Final Stand....except they only fire you from one objective to another...... since the the technology is not "fully developed" in that time line. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 1764	Posted - 2015.01.19 02:53:00 - [115] - 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


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!