DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest

Thor Odinson42 wrote:

Ares 514 wrote:

Aeon Amadi wrote:

Ares 514 wrote:

Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle.

IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say).

Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed.

24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough.

So an hour is my personal preference and that could be tweaked, or maybe a district could be upgraded to slightly increase the amount of time you have. However, the current 24/48 hour system is way to big a notice.

You should be able to look at your corp, get 16 guys together and say lets to a PC battle tonight. Not wait till the next day and find out that your missing some roles.

Or to find out that the corp you were fighting has hired the #1 merc corp.

People dismiss this, but when the ISK was flowing this is the way it happened. You've got a couple corps out there that started from the bottom and earned their way into relevance, but most of those have made enough connections to ensure they have access to top tier ringers as well. Ringers are a great part of Dust, but 24 notice allows for their wallets to swell and usually nobody else.

It'll take a window timer with immediate attacks or a complex raiding system that discourages small groups from holding too much land.

To me I think they should start with a window timer that is affected by activity, size, or whatever and have the battles start soon after an attack is initiated. As they develop a raiding system they can tweak the timers.

Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7918	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:47:00 - [1] - Quote Is there anything wrong with allowing enemy entities to initiate an attack when they choose and adding 12 - 36 hours at random to when the attack actually takes place? This is similar to how it's done with reinforcement timers in Eve Online but the defender usually has a bit more control. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7921	Posted - 2015.01.21 09:05:00 - [2] - Quote How's about amount of districts owned affects the deviation in timer..? If you own 'x' districts your timer deviation (+/- whatever you want it set at) increases..? This way corporations/alliances are free to own as many districts as they can feasibly control but in the same sense they have less control on when those districts can be attacked? EXAMPLES: Corp A owns five (5) districts and sets their timer for 12:00 Eve Time. Because of the small amount of districts owned, their timers are deviated by +/- one (1) hour, able to be attacked between 11:00 - 13:00. Corp B owns fifteen (15) districts and sets their timer for 12:00 Eve Time. Because of the larger amount of districts - and arguably more people to cover them - their timers are deviated by +/- three (3) hours, able to be attacked between 09:00 - 15:00. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7934	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:23:00 - [3] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: You have a ready gang of players who know the old model intimately and are occasionally unnecessarily attached to it. FTFY. :) Is there ever a time you -don't- call bias whenever someone disagrees with you..? Just curious... Zene Ren wrote: there are no rules in null sec man... that is why it is called null sec no timers and locks only community owning particular system amt with man power and time availability so why should we have rules in our null sec our timers and locks?!?! it should be community power struggle not artificial boundaries... Null-sec is nothing but timers and I'm actually really offended by your assertion that it has none. Initiative lost the Second Catch War because we got burnt out from shooting stations and POSes every damn day while AAA came in with Triage Carriers and undid the damage... every day. That's all it was for months until we finally just gave up and went back to high sec because of the gimmicky timer system. We had plenty of momentum, were winning the war by a land-slide using good tactics and strategy, but we eventually lost because no-one likes station bashing and waking up on Thanksgiving morning to go shoot a station that will just get repped as soon as we leave. I know, because I was there. Pokey Dravon wrote: Raiding? Absolutely. Flipping a district? God no. Theres too much riding on the line for Suprise Buttsex PC attacks if they can take your district in the process. Battles that happen on the fly that give a PC similar experience with less riding on the line? Totally cool with that. Agree'd. Kinda dumb to potentially lose everything with no opportunity to bring it back. While I give Eve Online's sov system flak because of the gimmicky mechanics mentioned above, I certainly wouldn't want it to be "Hey we caught you with your pants down, give us everything you own for #reasons". Zene Ren wrote: yes yes and yes to play PC at whim when we got players with vet status online is the most valued thing in that all and a crucial one it will give vets their home mode to play w/o terrorizing newbies as it is now new eden is and should be a harsh place w/o artificial rules only with in game community set up rules that are still not preventing anyone from trying on the whim because they are online ATM that is the dust i always wanted free from artificial rules like eve is, where only the players communicate and make those rules by power struggle of corps and alliances and pirates, that is what i always thought it would be in dust Bearing in mind, of course, that Eve Online is -nothing- but artificial rules. When a certain entity (can't remember which) no-one ever heard of amassed 47+ allied corporations to fight against Goon Swarm and started winning, the CSM and CCP imposed a cost to add allies to a declared war that got exponentially higher (billions of ISK per month at times) depending on how many allies you had. This rule was set because "no-one wanted to be locked into a war" but it had much less to do with it than the fact that they were actually winning against an entity hundreds of times larger than them because they openly invited anyone to participate in their war without making an alliance themselves. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7934	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:25:00 - [4] - Quote Linking this proposal that I made a few pages back because there was no feedback given on it and I feel it might have been over-looked over the "Thor, Pokey, and Zene discuss whether or not timers should be a thing". Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7935	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:45:00 - [5] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: that is why i dont want any timers in the game we had corp battles we were assured PC will be corp battles 2.0 but with timers of any kind it is impossible... Thor Odinson42 wrote: Pokey has proposed something similar. I don't like the 24 hour notice. I guess I don't see much of a difference if an active PC corp is on during their prime time handling battles that happen that instant or if they are fighting battles initiated the day before. I think the biggest difference is that you'd have to have more people in your PC chat ready to go that instant vs making arrangements with people to be there the next day. My scenario seems to be the one more likely to cause current PC corps to recruit and train more players. Doesn't even have to be a 24 hour notice. If memory serves, Eve Online does it based on the amount of Stront in the POS at the time. Could be anywhere from 12 - 36 hours. It wouldn't make too much of a difference either way, honestly. When you have a six (6) hour window to attack a larger corporation, they're expected to have the player-base associated to defend that six (6) hour window, regardless of the notice. The system proposed is more along the lines of a timer with less strict controls as to when you decide the fight takes place and there's a lot of ways that can be tweaked. I think it'd go a long way to being a happy medium between having timers and not having timers, especially if the notice given was variable depending on the size of the corporation as well. Essentially stating that: More players in corp = Larger attack window /// Less notice. Because, as stated, if you have a large territory you should be expected to have the people to defend it. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7936	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:57:00 - [6] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed. 24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7936	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:13:00 - [7] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed. 24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough. So an hour is my personal preference and that could be tweaked, or maybe a district could be upgraded to slightly increase the amount of time you have. However, the current 24/48 hour system is way to big a notice. You should be able to look at your corp, get 16 guys together and say lets to a PC battle tonight. Not wait till the next day and find out that your missing some roles. Or to find out that the corp you were fighting has hired the #1 merc corp. People dismiss this, but when the ISK was flowing this is the way it happened. You've got a couple corps out there that started from the bottom and earned their way into relevance, but most of those have made enough connections to ensure they have access to top tier ringers as well. Ringers are a great part of Dust, but 24 notice allows for their wallets to swell and usually nobody else. It'll take a window timer with immediate attacks or a complex raiding system that discourages small groups from holding too much land. To me I think they should start with a window timer that is affected by activity, size, or whatever and have the battles start soon after an attack is initiated. As they develop a raiding system they can tweak the timers. Right right. I think this is a step in the right direction honestly. Another factor I'd like to see is: Larger the Stakes = Larger the Notice. If you're sending six (6) guys to just cause a ruckus but not actually take anything, I'm totally cool with a one (1) hour timer. Ten (10) guys to cause even more of a ruckus but nothing permanent? Eh, four (4) or six (6) hours couldn't hurt. But if you're sending a full team to try and secure a district take over - full on invasion sort of stuff - the enemy team needs more time to prepare. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7936	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:16:00 - [8] - Quote This isn't to say that size of the corporation couldn't impact it as well. Consider, if you will: Sixteen (16) man team attacks a large corporation that has fifteen (15) districts. They can attack within a six (6) hour window and when they do, the defending corporation gets four (-4) less hours of notice from the twelve (12) they would originally have due to their large territory size. So, at this point, they're sitting at eight (8) hours of notice. Due to the fact that they are trying to take it over, however, the defending team gets two (+2) additional hours of notice because the stakes are extremely high and they could potentially lose the district if the attackers fight hard enough. Making their notice ten (10) hours, total. Just as an example, but there are a lot of factors that can be put in to make the game fair for both teams. A raiding party of six (6) people could even -REDUCE- the notice because the stakes aren't very high, they're just trying to get ISK and Salvage afterall. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7940	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:47:00 - [9] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: A lot (not all, by any means, but the majority I have heard from) of the people who do actually do play PC don't think region locking districts is a good solution. Zaria, here's my problem with this: Nobody can tell me why it's not a good solution, other than it's different from what we have now, and people are resistant to change. Arguments like "taking away choice" or "violating the sandbox" are generally invalid, because games are built on limits, and if a function is not assisting gameplay, it needs to die. I've heard ONE good argument against locking down timer changes, and that's the potential for it to interfere with the "location matters" goal, but that's likely not to be an immediate issue anyways. And if we turn changing timers off, we can still turn it back on later, when the mode is developed further. So even if this did become a problem, I'd be inclined to lock it down for now, and iterate on it, and reopen the capability later. Loss aversion is a huge psychological thing. People are very resistant to losing things or options, even if the alternative is actually better. It's a human nature thing. Assuming I'm understanding what is being referred to as 'region locking' correctly, It's not a good solution because people sleep, and work, totaling upwards of 75-96 hours a week. Players would like the opportunity to be able to take districts but if the enemy's primary defense is to schedule their timer(s) at times which they know most of the people in that region work/sleep. It pretty much forces you to get foreign entities on the job or lose sleep/miss work to be able to engage them. Lot of Americans will be quick to tell you that they don't particularly enjoy having to be up at 03:00 AM to try and fight another corporation for a variety of reasons. A few American corps would even schedule their timers in off-the-wall times just because they knew no-one would attack them. What we need is a way to create leniency on the timers to be a bit more forgiving for both parties instead of the defenders always being able to schedule around their potential attackers. Does it "violate the sandbox"? Sure it does. It's a very gimmicky game mechanic that is ripe for abuse. Does it "take away choice"? Yes, it does, because if your corporation is primarily from one region of the world it genuinely does limit who you can and cannot engage. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7942	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:48:00 - [10] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Holy ***. What part of "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PLAYERS IN ALL THE TIME ZONES TO MAKE TRUE MULTI-TIME ZONE ALLIANCES" are you not getting? If we had 50,000 players logging in and playing daily I would actually probably agree with you but we dont. Yeah there will be total and utter chaos, and then 90% of the people will say "*** this, it's cheaper to just play pubs!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.c Not good enough to take a district in PC? Just do it at a weird time when they're not online! But that's ok because the group that's better than you that you ganked the district from will come right back and kick you in the teeth anyways and take it back. What you want is a place for a group to deploy as a 16 man team to learn teamwork and practice for PC. What you're asking for is to turn PC into a training ground rather than a competative enviroment. What I'm offering is allowing part of PC to be used for training without completely undermining the competative nature of PC. Want to give your new guys a chance to train? Put them in charge of defending against Raids. Want to give your vets a change to fight against the best of the best? Put them in charge of defending against Conquest. If your corporation is not good enough to forcefully take a district without making use of ambush attacks, then they are not good enough to defend that district. Alright, Pokey, calm down. Take a smoke break, get your head back in the game, I'm the only one allowed to make a fool of themselves on the forums because it makes guys like you look a lot more level-headed. Really hard for me to do that when you're doing what I'm doing and getting frustrated. Take a breather broseph, lemme be the one that nerd rages so you look a lot more reasonable. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7942	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:59:00 - [11] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Holy ***. What part of "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PLAYERS IN ALL THE TIME ZONES TO MAKE TRUE MULTI-TIME ZONE ALLIANCES" are you not getting? If we had 50,000 players logging in and playing daily I would actually probably agree with you but we dont. Yeah there will be total and utter chaos, and then 90% of the people will say "*** this, it's cheaper to just play pubs!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.c Not good enough to take a district in PC? Just do it at a weird time when they're not online! But that's ok because the group that's better than you that you ganked the district from will come right back and kick you in the teeth anyways and take it back. What you want is a place for a group to deploy as a 16 man team to learn teamwork and practice for PC. What you're asking for is to turn PC into a training ground rather than a competative enviroment. What I'm offering is allowing part of PC to be used for training without completely undermining the competative nature of PC. Want to give your new guys a chance to train? Put them in charge of defending against Raids. Want to give your vets a change to fight against the best of the best? Put them in charge of defending against Conquest. If your corporation is not good enough to forcefully take a district without making use of ambush attacks, then they are not good enough to defend that district. don't worry that much about player base when we will have good rule set and proto bears and q sync will stop terrorizing pubs community will grow not instantly but trust me it will, dust is unique people when not stomped will come towards it and will want to learn more about it we just need some brave moves from devs ;) i see though you will not leave the timer idea that is your right but i will not let timers to stay either in our debate ps. thanks for the time and replies though Consider this for a moment: If we removed timers all together and allowed for districts to be attacked, whenever, however. How many people would have to be online to attack and defend at any given time? 245 districts * 16 players = 3,920 245 districts * 32 players = 7,840 Let's assume that only half of that is being attacked at any given time, throughout the day. That's still 1,920 players. Even in the best case scenario, we don't have enough people to field to be able to engage in battles constantly, non-stop. There has to be some sort of filter, barrier, or limitation in order for players to have down-time between matches and be able to coordinate. We haven't had more than 3,500 players online at any given time since August. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7944	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:53:00 - [12] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Soraya, that depends on what you think is the core problem. Is it that CCP hasn't engaged the Asian and even the EU community to participate in PC? Is it that clones at 1200 can be used to attack a 2300 timer so that North American players meta the control of the 1200 districts rather than taking them for themselves? Is it that timers can be drastically changed right after capture to prevent counter Attack? Is it that districts don't have enough intrinsic value to make it worthwhile for many corps? Is it that the barrier of entry is too high currently paired with winner-takes-all mechanics? Region locking addresses a symptom without addressing the core problems while at the same time creating new ones. The core problems, I am to understand, are that: - Strictly set timers suck - Nothing that makes districts worthwhile or valuable over any of the others - High barrier of entry The first can easily be addressed by a change of game-play mechanics that include more leniency toward attackers through the creation of uncertainty. Defenders setting a time roughly around when they want their battles to take place instead of the exact hour of the day. EDIT: Or perhaps giving the attackers a means at which to manipulate those times and timers. The second comes through the creation and implementation of valuable commodities beyond just ISK and Clones as a standard currency, but instead something else (warbarge components, more than likely). EDIT: I'd suspect that some districts are more valuable than others, providing 'moar stuff' to encourage entities to compete over those districts. Another option would be to limit the tactical availability of those districts through other means (for instance: deep low-sec districts can't be attacked by clone packs or something, just spit-balling). The third, on the other hand, is largely a psychological and metaphysical aspect of the game that cannot be directly changed. It can be encouraged, absolutely, but if we are to... for example... impose a ruleset such as: "Six (6) man raids can only be fielded by players in Standard gear" it limits the propensity for use of high-end gear but veterans are still going to have the upper hand. However, I think it'd be a good opportunity to implement more controlled game-modes that better benefit a more competitive environment without strictly needing to have high-end gear and a lot of accumulated SP. After all, Raids are all about the taking of valued commodities or ISK, so I think a gear restriction would do well to encourage corporations to recruit outside of the veterancy pool. Just a thought. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback