DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest - Timers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 36	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:24:00 - [61] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: Any form of timer can be gamed. Just remove the dam things and introduce hourly rewards. Or simple have timezone areas so certain areas are always open to attack in EU time and then locked off etc. Or put in a shield system where barrage a bases shields and the defenders get a warning to rally troops or somthing. TIMERS DO NOT WORK. Or hell use the Eve system you attack a base knock into a vaun state then 24 hours later it's open to attack or somthing. Timers just ruin the spontaneous nature of what PC could be and will always be gamed no matter what you do. I think the timers should be that your planet it open to attack during a window you set X to X. Then to not give the holding corp too much power, we throw in the pub or FW matches! FW version - Each corp aligns to a faction and gains bonuses accordingly. Then if that faction loses X battles the system security changes and now the timers are removed and the attackers determine the attack time. Another way to run this with pub matches is that the corp chooses, a district on a planet and a block of pub matches (say 3). If those are lost then the timer is nullified until the next up time and the district is unsecured and open to attacks set at any time by the attackers. If a corp tries to attack another corp while the timer is in place, the defending corp gets notified and the attacking corp has to say (attack one more time to capture the district). This will make corps pull for pub matches to be won. Or if you go FW matches. Finally the Caldari will have corps fighting for them (They better get a good bonus). Let me know what you think. I like the idea of incorporating the other matches. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 407	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:26:00 - [62] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we want to talk about District Timers, in particular, the not-so-much-intended practice of safeguarding Districts into difficult timezones. There are a few ideas already on the table, not a complete list and I expect Kain Spero to show up pretty much instantly. Methods to reset, if we go that way A) Randomize - all Timers will be reset to a random TZ within the allowed Begin and End settings B) Redistribute - all Timers will be reset and fixed in a ratio that aligns with average PCU C) Reset and allow +-X timers around the default District Timer D) Reset and reduce the available option for Timers E) Reset and allow incremental jumps from the default Timer, rising exponentially in ISK cost per 30 minutes. I will add more. Please discuss. It's a real shame we don't have PvE. Abandoned districts (no activity over a set period of time) become invested with Proto-Drones. Needing a 16 man team to clear them or the district is lost to the corp for 7 days. This allows other corps to attack and claim the territory via the same PvE mechanic... rather than just dropping a clone pack on an abandoned district. In this way, corporations are limited by the number of matches they can field per hour. Ultimately a corporation cannot own too many districts on one timer due to the mechanic of Swarm Infestation. This is lore friendly due to our being in Molden Heath's Low-Sec Space is to help the Minmatar Thukker Tribe police the habital worlds, keeping the Pirates at bay. Inactivity equates into an opportunity to the Pirate Factions whom send in reprogrammed Rogue Drones to take possession of the planets. Original post from March 2014 What's that mercs? You have never seen the drones? Dust 514: Gathering Forces Trailer I think it is time to Beta Test that Drone AI bro... Want to get Warbarge Clone Packs dropped by small upcoming corps? Give non-land owners a clone boost if they beat the drones. Create WP events that grants players access to a Drone Infestation. Hell make that a mechanic, so that PvE does not put a strain on the normal PvP servers. Faction Drones opens up Fac Warfare to many more guys that often wait 2-3 hours for the queues to start running. Snowball effect begins as Critical Mass in the queues occurs due to players not logging off, more players with something to do rather than fight the same people over and over. Player retention is a Primary Goal, keeping them logged in and playing is key. This may be a path to that end. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4436	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:41:00 - [63] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1a. At 2100 its one hour past the 2000 so why bother? 2. Why shouldn't corps be allowed to whack timers into no play zones? you get no passive isk anyways since that is gone and either way if they play pubs all day then the no go timers still get shield or just get a token aussie in to play at odd times for the rest of the corp 3. I really cannot see how this solves anything, just makes it more complicated for the same problems to pop up 1a. This is primarily to give people some wiggle room in when their activity takes place, but isn't required. 2. Um because players should have their districts at times people actually play at? Otherwise you get the same crap we've had before? You state that under the assumption that the profit and benefit of owning a district won't be changed. They will.. Also "A Token Aussie" would be incapable of maintaining an entire district by himself, and even if you had a handful of "token aussies" would have limitations on how many districts they can maintain, especially if you stack them on the same time slot. 3. Problems this proposal addresses a. Heavily discourages players from stacking districts on the same time slot b. Heavily discourages players from placing timers in time zones they are not active in c. Prevents very small groups from holding large chunks of land, but allows them to hold a reasonable amount relative to their size d. Avoids the rigid mess that is Static Timers e. Requires people to actually play the game in order to gain benefit from it "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 563	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:53:00 - [64] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1a. At 2100 its one hour past the 2000 so why bother? 2. Why shouldn't corps be allowed to whack timers into no play zones? you get no passive isk anyways since that is gone and either way if they play pubs all day then the no go timers still get shield or just get a token aussie in to play at odd times for the rest of the corp 3. I really cannot see how this solves anything, just makes it more complicated for the same problems to pop up 1a. This is primarily to give people some wiggle room in when their activity takes place, but isn't required. 2. Um because players should have their districts at times people actually play at? Otherwise you get the same crap we've had before? You state that under the assumption that the profit and benefit of owning a district won't be changed. They will.. Also "A Token Aussie" would be incapable of maintaining an entire district by himself, and even if you had a handful of "token aussies" would have limitations on how many districts they can maintain, especially if you stack them on the same time slot. 3. Problems this proposal addresses a. Heavily discourages players from stacking districts on the same time slot b. Heavily discourages players from placing timers in time zones they are not active in c. Prevents very small groups from holding large chunks of land, but allows them to hold a reasonable amount relative to their size d. Avoids the rigid mess that is Static Timers e. Requires people to actually play the game in order to gain benefit from it 1. If the timer is at 8 and you can fuel at 9 which is past 8 how does that work? does it work for the next 8 timer? 2. Why should they? It is there district to do as they please 2a. You stated that its only going to be a few pub games at best - Is that requiring 1 person or 16? 3a. You can stack timers now but cant play them all anyways so it doesnt solve it and if anything they would stack timers when they are on so how do you attack another corp in china tz? you dont so the same problems we have now are in this 3b. Not really you can still do it and get token aussies for example, it doesnt stop it 3c. If the small group is good enough to hold lots of land then they should be able to and not be punished because they are smaller 3d. I like static, it means i can pick and choose which districts to attack 3e. Its requiring ppl to play the game just so they can PC
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4436	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:07:00 - [65] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. If the timer is at 8 and you can fuel at 9 which is past 8 how does that work? does it work for the next 8 timer? 2. Why should they? It is there district to do as they please 2a. You stated that its only going to be a few pub games at best - Is that requiring 1 person or 16? 3a. You can stack timers now but cant play them all anyways so it doesnt solve it and if anything they would stack timers when they are on so how do you attack another corp in china tz? you dont so the same problems we have now are in this 3b. Not really you can still do it and get token aussies for example, it doesnt stop it 3c. If the small group is good enough to hold lots of land then they should be able to and not be punished because they are smaller 3d. I like static, it means i can pick and choose which districts to attack 3e. Its requiring ppl to play the game just so they can PC 1. Again just wiggle room to account for games that start within the window but end after it. Not a required feature, just a thought. 2. And they can move it out if they want, but its going to be a hell of a lot harder to defend if they do so because it doesn't have proper maintenance (thus a larger attack window). So sure, do as you want, but its going to be a lot harder to properly defend. 2a. It would be closer to 8-16 people playing a normal amount within the time frame. 3a. Fuel generated is distributed evenly between all districts within that time. Meaning that if you have 2 districts in the same time slot, you need double the activity in that time slot to maintain it. Additionally because profitability is also tied to maintenance, it would become increasingly less profitable the more you stacked timers. So if a corp wants to make money, it's going to avoid stacking timers and then just hiring ringers to defend it. 3b. It doesn't stop it but it heavily decreases the effect. 3c. We've been over this, small groups will not have an issue maintaining multiple districts if they're placed in their normal play time. This doesn't punish small groups unless they pull shenanigans like stacking timers or sticking them in odd places. 3d. We disagree on something. I'm shocked. 3e. Oh god requiring people to play the game so they can play the game? What was I thinking?! falls over Sorry but you shouldn't just be able to sit back and relax while the profit rolls in and then only show up when someone attacks your **. One should have to actually do something if they want to make money. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 565	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:19:00 - [66] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. If the timer is at 8 and you can fuel at 9 which is past 8 how does that work? does it work for the next 8 timer? 2. Why should they? It is there district to do as they please 2a. You stated that its only going to be a few pub games at best - Is that requiring 1 person or 16? 3a. You can stack timers now but cant play them all anyways so it doesnt solve it and if anything they would stack timers when they are on so how do you attack another corp in china tz? you dont so the same problems we have now are in this 3b. Not really you can still do it and get token aussies for example, it doesnt stop it 3c. If the small group is good enough to hold lots of land then they should be able to and not be punished because they are smaller 3d. I like static, it means i can pick and choose which districts to attack 3e. Its requiring ppl to play the game just so they can PC 1. Again just wiggle room to account for games that start within the window but end after it. Not a required feature, just a thought. 2. And they can move it out if they want, but its going to be a hell of a lot harder to defend if they do so because it doesn't have proper maintenance (thus a larger attack window). So sure, do as you want, but its going to be a lot harder to properly defend. 2a. It would be closer to 8-16 people playing a normal amount within the time frame. 3a. Fuel generated is distributed evenly between all districts within that time. Meaning that if you have 2 districts in the same time slot, you need double the activity in that time slot to maintain it. Additionally because profitability is also tied to maintenance, it would become increasingly less profitable the more you stacked timers. So if a corp wants to make money, it's going to avoid stacking timers and then just hiring ringers to defend it. 3b. It doesn't stop it but it heavily decreases the effect. 3c. We've been over this, small groups will not have an issue maintaining multiple districts if they're placed in their normal play time. This doesn't punish small groups unless they pull shenanigans like stacking timers or sticking them in odd places. 3d. We disagree on something. I'm shocked. 3e. Oh god requiring people to play the game so they can play the game? What was I thinking?! falls over Sorry but you shouldn't just be able to sit back and relax while the profit rolls in and then only show up when someone attacks your **. One should have to actually do something if they want to make money. 2. 8-16 so if you have 5 districts you need 40ppl on playing for fuel? people have lives and ** to do 3a. So 8ppl on but 5 districts stacked so you would have to 5times the fuel so instead of 40ppl you need 200ppl, i better get the chinese im sure they could spare a few 3b. Not if you have enough aussies 3c. They will now needing 200ppl because they want timers close to each other 3d. Current system aint that bad 3e. I can AFK in EVE and make money or press a button and make billions - If i want to get on and play 1 PC like i can do now i should be able to do it - What happens in EVE with towers, you group up hit it and 24hrs later do it again why cant i do that with a district like i do now?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4442	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:30:00 - [67] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2. 8-16 so if you have 5 districts you need 40ppl on playing for fuel? people have lives and **** to do 3a. So 8ppl on but 5 districts stacked so you would have to 5times the fuel so instead of 40ppl you need 200ppl, i better get the chinese im sure they could spare a few 3b. Not if you have enough aussies 3c. They will now needing 200ppl because they want timers close to each other 3d. Current system aint that bad 3e. I can AFK in EVE and make money or press a button and make billions - If i want to get on and play 1 PC like i can do now i should be able to do it - What happens in EVE with towers, you group up hit it and 24hrs later do it again why cant i do that with a district like i do now? 2. Only if all of the districts are stacked at the same time. If you have 4 districts, timers set back to back, 8-16 people could play a reasonable amount of time over the course of 4 hours, and meet the quota. If you put all 4 timers on the same time slot, then it would take 4 * (8-16) so 32-64 people. The point is....don't stack timers on the same time slot unless you have a ton of people to maintain it. Spread them out...and it's perfectly reasonable. 3a. Sure, feel free to bring large amounts of people into your corporation to help you defend your PC. Is this a bad thing? 3b. Sure, then you'll be a mostly Australian corp ;) 3c. Only if they stack their timers. If they can commit to 4 districts in PC spread out over 4 hours, surely they can play the game over those 4 hours. 3d. lol let it go on record that Sparky thinks the system that ultimately came out of the cheesiness of the Blue Waffle's collective rectum "Aint that bad". I think my work here is done. 3e. Further evidence that you don't really care about what works best overall, rather what works best for your personal preference of play. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 565	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:51:00 - [68] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 2. 8-16 so if you have 5 districts you need 40ppl on playing for fuel? people have lives and **** to do 3a. So 8ppl on but 5 districts stacked so you would have to 5times the fuel so instead of 40ppl you need 200ppl, i better get the chinese im sure they could spare a few 3b. Not if you have enough aussies 3c. They will now needing 200ppl because they want timers close to each other 3d. Current system aint that bad 3e. I can AFK in EVE and make money or press a button and make billions - If i want to get on and play 1 PC like i can do now i should be able to do it - What happens in EVE with towers, you group up hit it and 24hrs later do it again why cant i do that with a district like i do now? 2. Only if all of the districts are stacked at the same time. If you have 4 districts, timers set back to back, 8-16 people could play a reasonable amount of time over the course of 4 hours, and meet the quota. If you put all 4 timers on the same time slot, then it would take 4 * (8-16) so 32-64 people. The point is....don't stack timers on the same time slot unless you have a ton of people to maintain it. Spread them out...and it's perfectly reasonable. 3a. Sure, feel free to bring large amounts of people into your corporation to help you defend your PC. Is this a bad thing? 3b. Sure, then you'll be a mostly Australian corp ;) 3c. Only if they stack their timers. If they can commit to 4 districts in PC spread out over 4 hours, surely they can play the game over those 4 hours. 3d. lol let it go on record that Sparky thinks the system that ultimately came out of the cheesiness of the Blue Waffle's collective rectum "Aint that bad". I think my work here is done. 3e. Further evidence that you don't really care about what works best overall, rather what works best for your personal preference of play. 2/3abc - Going round in circles currently 3d. You mean fighting anfd holding land is a bad thing? EON ruled because they were the best and no one would take the war to them and they won 3 wars back to back champions and the only reason they dropped is because of GTA5 - Are you really saying that you want no skilled corps to be on top but those with most members who have a large corp and can play pubs lots of times? 3e. I prefer the best corp/alliance to rule MH with skill/teamwork and tactics not some BS shield and playing pubs all day to reduce the timer 4. PC should be this - 2 teams fight, 1 wins and 1 loses and that is it
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4442	Posted - 2015.01.20 19:57:00 - [69] - Quote Oh Sparky, at least you're consistent in your irrationality and inability to actually read and fully comprehend what people say before vomiting out your opinion. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
ZymposieR Rusty Dead Man's Game RUST415 15	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:07:00 - [70] - Quote Timers should be spread out acording to number of active players across the galaxy. This way we get eu, us, and Asia planets and districts close to eachoter. Timers should be fixed and open for something like 2 - 6 hours, depending on how many districts an Corp holdes. Maby also numbers og active players and warbarge can affect this. .. Raiding should be open for anew even longer time but max player count should be like 4-8... Maby the defender should be allowed more players than the attacking raider...

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 750	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:08:00 - [71] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: PC is a sandbox - stop trying to violate it. You've done enough damage with the removal of passive ISK without a decent replacement. The notion "it's a sandbox" is irrelevant if it doesn't also offer compelling gameplay. This is not a valuable argument. "Compelling Gameplay" in the context of PC might be better defined as " a gamemode that isn't identical to a pub mode". FACT: If a corp can't field a team that can compete at the level successful PC corps do then what time the battle happens is irrelevant, except in cases of unworthy combatants looking for targets they don't have to actually fight. Resetting timers, redistributing availability windows or other fradulent "fixes" won't matter when the actual PC combat is still 16v16 and one side isn't up to par with their competition. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 567	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:12:00 - [72] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Oh Sparky, at least you're consistent in your irrationality and inability to actually read and fully comprehend what people say before vomiting out your opinion. 1. So you have stopped debating and trying to convince me that we should all have 500ppl playing at all times just to get a magic shield to refuel - dont you believe in your idea?
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4442	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:19:00 - [73] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Oh Sparky, at least you're consistent in your irrationality and inability to actually read and fully comprehend what people say before vomiting out your opinion. 1. So you have stopped debating and trying to convince me that we should all have 500ppl playing at all times just to get a magic shield to refuel - dont you believe in your idea? No I'm saying that I've explained it to you multiple times and you clearly don't understand it. If you really think I think 500 people should be playing at all times, then you've missed the point completely. And to be honest I have better things to do with my time than try to explain this to you. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 750	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:22:00 - [74] - Quote And, as anyone who is actually active in PC currently knows, RAIDS do very much exist and have ever since PC isk payouts were changed a couple months back. Put simply, RAIDING is committed by attacking corps fielding a team, winning the initial attacks (it takes 3 successful, successive attacks to "flip" district ownership) and then NOT showing for the third, final flip attack. 2 battles with individual payouts of 3-7 Million isk each = 6-14Million isk earned, per player, per full matchset district attack. Easily 90% of the initiative inspiring this proposal is less a case of conditions being "unfair" or "inaccessible " and more just players are unwilling to rise to the challenge, and demanding it be lowered down to them. Don't like Nyan, think they hold too much or can't protect what they have? Gather a team and attack them. Have doubts as to whether or not a corp that has a bunch of districts at, say, 0600 is actually active at that time (since you know they all log off at 0559)? Field a team and attack them. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Hawkin P Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 573	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:35:00 - [75] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, we want to talk about District Timers, in particular, the not-so-much-intended practice of safeguarding Districts into difficult timezones. There are a few ideas already on the table, not a complete list and I expect Kain Spero to show up pretty much instantly. Methods to reset, if we go that way A) Randomize - all Timers will be reset to a random TZ within the allowed Begin and End settings B) Redistribute - all Timers will be reset and fixed in a ratio that aligns with average PCU C) Reset and allow +-X timers around the default District Timer D) Reset and reduce the available option for Timers E) Reset and allow incremental jumps from the default Timer, rising exponentially in ISK cost per 30 minutes. I will add more. Please discuss. I vote no to a-d. E is the best idea of the lot but it seems like you didn't put much thought into it. Molon Labe CEO
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4299	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:36:00 - [76] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: A) Randomize - all Timers will be reset to a random TZ within the allowed Begin and End settings Would this mean changing up the timers but not allowing any within X hours of downtime or something similar? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 778	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:39:00 - [77] - Quote End of discussion is this. Allow people to put timers where never they want to. But give the attackers an option to attack 2 or 3 hours left or right of the defenders chosen timer. Done. Districts don't necessarily need to produce isk. But make them stock pile clones to a corporation storage. Make that hold up to 1000 So when my districts are full my corp then can stock pile an additional 1000. So we can either attack with or use to reinforce without taking clones from our districts. This would help teams that get removed to get back in. Done and done. Your welcome CCP. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16709	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:41:00 - [78] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: And, as anyone who is actually active in PC currently knows, RAIDS do very much exist and have ever since PC isk payouts were changed a couple months back. Put simply, RAIDING is committed by attacking corps fielding a team, winning the initial attacks (it takes 3 successful, successive attacks to "flip" district ownership) and then NOT showing for the third, final flip attack. 2 battles with individual payouts of 3-7 Million isk each = 6-14Million isk earned, per player, per full matchset district attack. Easily 90% of the initiative inspiring this proposal is less a case of conditions being "unfair" or "inaccessible " and more just players are unwilling to rise to the challenge, and demanding it be lowered down to them. Don't like Nyan, think they hold too much or can't protect what they have? Gather a team and attack them. Have doubts as to whether or not a corp that has a bunch of districts at, say, 0600 is actually active at that time (since you know they all log off at 0559)? Field a team and attack them. Sounds ******* boring. Fought a generic battle. Called it raiding. Achieved nothing that any other attack at any other time would have achieved. Called it raiding. A raid is a rapid "SUPRISE" attack. In Dust you politely register your name on a form in triplicate, ensure the other corporations Public Relations, Financial Officers, and CEO are all aware of your efforts, and invite them to tea afterwards. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Shiyou Hidiyoshi Ancient Exiles. 1224	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:14:00 - [79] - Quote Ratati if you are on, there is a chatroom with maaaany pc leaders in it. Are you willing to join? "I don't always lock threads but when I do, I vigorously masturbat afterwards." - CCP LockingBro
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens Capital Punishment. 389	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:28:00 - [80] - Quote My suggestion: a CORP should be limited in the amount of districts they can hold to their name or garrison so to speak. TIMERS and DISTRICTS How? by [ ACTIVE PLAYER ] count in a time period, say your corp averages 16 active players in a 3 hour period say 6:00 - 9:00 EVE time, then you can have ONE district in any of those timers, say you have 32 active players in that same time frame, then you can have TWO. Say your corp being quite large averages 16 active players in another time period, then you can have another district timed on that period. Number of active players and time period wedges mentioned is arbitrary, CCP could gauge the numbers more carefully, 4 hour periods or 6 active players, etc. In this way a CORP or ALLIANCE can't farm all the land in space and we could start proposing some good incentives for holding land ( PC rewards ) This proposal not only limits the district count a corp can hold, it also limits its battle timers, while some might see 'convenient' to set a timer to unpopular hours, it hurts the game as a whole. This way a Corp is forced to set a timer in a period it is by nature active in (as determined by their active players) RAIDS If a corp has sensible timers by nature, you can open interaction for 'Raid' attacks initiated on the same day, say a 30 minutes notice that doesn't conquer the district, but instead just plunders resources (maybe stealing part of the cool reward the holder would've gotten) or weaken defenses. By this method if you have a timer open on your prime time, you should have players to back up your defense. A move to conquer could still need a 24h notice though. I picture a way of setting to Raid or Conquer when setting up an attack. ACTIVE PLAYERS Now, I mention the word ACTIVE player around fairly often, this is highly important for this particular proposal to work, this term ties into the PC - Minimum Attack Threshold thread as well. Taking from that, I would suggest that an ACTIVE PLAYER be one that as x daily missions in the corp's name or alternatively it could be a fixed number of WPs accrued in a time period, a director should be able to see a corp's activity graph in a management screen and be able to set district timers or initiate conquer attacks only in time frames where there's activity. SELF LOCKING DISTRICTS By this method to initiate an attack a corp needs an ACTIVE PLAYERS count on the timer, while possible to do this with alts, I'm hoping that the grind required to keep a player marked as 'active' is enough deterrent to lock with an alt corp. Alliance corps should not be able to attack friendly districts without one or the other leaving. Friendly non-allied corps could still lock, but this method is not foolproof, still, better than current. NOTES This method has some caveats, if you don't have the active player count you can't attack on fringe timers (to your corp) unless you're ringing, but say, EURO corps can raid AMERICAN corps all they want if even if they can't keep the district if not enough active players on the timers. Your corp needs to keep the average active player count or risk loosing your district due to inactivity. www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 751	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:05:00 - [81] - Quote True Adamance wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And, as anyone who is actually active in PC currently knows, RAIDS do very much exist and have ever since PC isk payouts were changed a couple months back. Put simply, RAIDING is committed by attacking corps fielding a team, winning the initial attacks (it takes 3 successful, successive attacks to "flip" district ownership) and then NOT showing for the third, final flip attack. 2 battles with individual payouts of 3-7 Million isk each = 6-14Million isk earned, per player, per full matchset district attack. Easily 90% of the initiative inspiring this proposal is less a case of conditions being "unfair" or "inaccessible " and more just players are unwilling to rise to the challenge, and demanding it be lowered down to them. Don't like Nyan, think they hold too much or can't protect what they have? Gather a team and attack them. Have doubts as to whether or not a corp that has a bunch of districts at, say, 0600 is actually active at that time (since you know they all log off at 0559)? Field a team and attack them. Sounds ******* boring. Fought a generic battle. Called it raiding. Achieved nothing that any other attack at any other time would have achieved. Called it raiding. A raid is a rapid "SUPRISE" attack. In Dust you politely register your name on a form in triplicate, ensure the other corporations Public Relations, Financial Officers, and CEO are all aware of your efforts, and invite them to tea afterwards. Sure it sounds boring. Thing is, it exists. You and 5 of your friends want to "raid"? Send those clones. My point in it is that its possible, as proven by all the corps and players currently PC active who are doing exactly as I describe. PC battles are identical to pub skirm in structure. That being the case doesn't warrant a major overhaul of timers to correct, it warrants an overhaul of the PC combat mechanics/mode style itself. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3474	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:21:00 - [82] - Quote True Adamance wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And, as anyone who is actually active in PC currently knows, RAIDS do very much exist and have ever since PC isk payouts were changed a couple months back. Put simply, RAIDING is committed by attacking corps fielding a team, winning the initial attacks (it takes 3 successful, successive attacks to "flip" district ownership) and then NOT showing for the third, final flip attack. 2 battles with individual payouts of 3-7 Million isk each = 6-14Million isk earned, per player, per full matchset district attack. Easily 90% of the initiative inspiring this proposal is less a case of conditions being "unfair" or "inaccessible " and more just players are unwilling to rise to the challenge, and demanding it be lowered down to them. Don't like Nyan, think they hold too much or can't protect what they have? Gather a team and attack them. Have doubts as to whether or not a corp that has a bunch of districts at, say, 0600 is actually active at that time (since you know they all log off at 0559)? Field a team and attack them. Sounds ******* boring. Fought a generic battle. Called it raiding. Achieved nothing that any other attack at any other time would have achieved. Called it raiding. A raid is a rapid "SUPRISE" attack. In Dust you politely register your name on a form in triplicate, ensure the other corporations Public Relations, Financial Officers, and CEO are all aware of your efforts, and invite them to tea afterwards. Its the Amarr way :P. back on topic i agree with True Raids need a surprise element to it, it needs to be a OH GOD FIND ANYONE RIGHT NOW! i think how RnK operate in EvE is a very good example of smaller corps sticking it to the bigger ones, sure the bigger corps have power the manpower for huge ops, but that doesn't stop RnK for wreaking face. A simlier system not matter what form it takes needs to be in place in PC. overall man power is required to hold space and pull in the big bucks, but small man corps that are elite can still do "raids" and stick it to the man and make a good amount of cash in the mean time. from my experience in other PvP games. Raids tend to explode into big events quite often. a big corp expecting a quite night could suddenly find it self having to defend it self from number of small pirate corps raiding leading to a lot of enjoy fights all around that took no "pre arranging". another key thing is, players should be so busy in PC that they dont really need to pub matches anymore, much like how 0.0 peeps dont really fly to empire (unless its an alt) You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2402	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:36:00 - [83] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: True Adamance wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And, as anyone who is actually active in PC currently knows, RAIDS do very much exist and have ever since PC isk payouts were changed a couple months back. Put simply, RAIDING is committed by attacking corps fielding a team, winning the initial attacks (it takes 3 successful, successive attacks to "flip" district ownership) and then NOT showing for the third, final flip attack. 2 battles with individual payouts of 3-7 Million isk each = 6-14Million isk earned, per player, per full matchset district attack. Easily 90% of the initiative inspiring this proposal is less a case of conditions being "unfair" or "inaccessible " and more just players are unwilling to rise to the challenge, and demanding it be lowered down to them. Don't like Nyan, think they hold too much or can't protect what they have? Gather a team and attack them. Have doubts as to whether or not a corp that has a bunch of districts at, say, 0600 is actually active at that time (since you know they all log off at 0559)? Field a team and attack them. Sounds ***** boring. Fought a generic battle. Called it raiding. Achieved nothing that any other attack at any other time would have achieved. Called it raiding. A raid is a rapid "SUPRISE" attack. In Dust you politely register your name on a form in triplicate, ensure the other corporations Public Relations, Financial Officers, and CEO are all aware of your efforts, and invite them to tea afterwards. Sure it sounds boring. Thing is, it exists. You and 5 of your friends want to "raid"? Send those clones.** My point in it is that its possible, as proven by all the corps and players currently PC active who are doing exactly as I describe. PC battles are identical to pub skirm in structure. That being the case doesn't warrant a major overhaul of timers to correct, it warrants an overhaul of the PC combat mechanics/mode style itself. So raiding exists for people that already play PC or anyone that wants to pay for a clone pack just so they can have a chance at PC payouts? Sounds oh so inviting and appealing, I'ma get right to it! Ad Space Available Here 1m Isk/day Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 751	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:40:00 - [84] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: True Adamance wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And, as anyone who is actually active in PC currently knows, RAIDS do very much exist and have ever since PC isk payouts were changed a couple months back. Put simply, RAIDING is committed by attacking corps fielding a team, winning the initial attacks (it takes 3 successful, successive attacks to "flip" district ownership) and then NOT showing for the third, final flip attack. 2 battles with individual payouts of 3-7 Million isk each = 6-14Million isk earned, per player, per full matchset district attack. Easily 90% of the initiative inspiring this proposal is less a case of conditions being "unfair" or "inaccessible " and more just players are unwilling to rise to the challenge, and demanding it be lowered down to them. Don't like Nyan, think they hold too much or can't protect what they have? Gather a team and attack them. Have doubts as to whether or not a corp that has a bunch of districts at, say, 0600 is actually active at that time (since you know they all log off at 0559)? Field a team and attack them. Sounds ***** boring. Fought a generic battle. Called it raiding. Achieved nothing that any other attack at any other time would have achieved. Called it raiding. A raid is a rapid "SUPRISE" attack. In Dust you politely register your name on a form in triplicate, ensure the other corporations Public Relations, Financial Officers, and CEO are all aware of your efforts, and invite them to tea afterwards. Sure it sounds boring. Thing is, it exists. You and 5 of your friends want to "raid"? Send those clones.** My point in it is that its possible, as proven by all the corps and players currently PC active who are doing exactly as I describe. PC battles are identical to pub skirm in structure. That being the case doesn't warrant a major overhaul of timers to correct, it warrants an overhaul of the PC combat mechanics/mode style itself. So raiding exists for people that already play PC or anyone that wants to pay for a clone pack just so they can have a chance at PC payouts? Sounds oh so inviting and appealing, I'ma get right to it! Awesome! "Come and knock on our door...We'll be waiting for you....." Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7918	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:47:00 - [85] - 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
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5483	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:53:00 - [86] - Quote With regards to raiding: I definitely agree that is the area to work on low-warning more-flexible battles, and something I really want to see. Locking down timers for capture battles is a quick change, and allows us to move on into developing features like that with more flexibility. If we get hung up on a very complicated timer system for capture battles with moving timers and windows and crud, I think it'd delay CCP's ability to fix other issues with PC or get more PC content out. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 132	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:27:00 - [87] - Quote You should create an option in corporation managment or with the corporation warbarge. It would allow a CEO or Director to define a time zone for the districts (euro, US or asia). Depending on your time zone, you get a different set of timers, with some crossing. Like US districts at 22 Eve and EU districts at 00 Eve. Thanks to your datas, you can also give a set of timers based on which server is more often used by the players of a given corp. Or, I don't know if that's possible, but you could use stats about the average time where players are connected in a corporation. There are people playing all over the day of course, but in general, there is a "spike point" where players are more connected. But what I'm truly afraid of is the consequences of any timer changes on summer and winter time. Currently if I put a timer at 22h (Eve), I'll have a fight beetween 23h and midnight (Paris). But if timers are messed up, and once summer timers are applied, my 22h (Eve) would be placed beetween midnight and 01H (Paris). As for the others proposition CCP has made so far. I don't find anything good, not to say irrelevant... Prima Gallicus diplomat Eve 21 day Trial
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 430	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:28:00 - [88] - Quote A relatively low-cost idea to promote District Timers in a corps Prime Time + incentive: During a Districts Vulnerable Period for each district, add a small bonus payout to each corp member in ISK. In addition to this small bonus, the corp gets a "free" tax bonus as well. Example: A player plays during his corp's District Timer Period. (DTP) vs normal hours: Normal Hours: Player Makes 100% ISK, Corp makes 0% 'tax-free' income DTP Hours: Player Makes 105% ISK, Corp makes 10% 'tax-free' income In this way, a corp that can hold Districts will be able to make more money by having their DTP during their corp's prime time hours. Corps that can hold multiple districts (and then stack the DTP) can earn even more money in this fashion from the stacking bonuses. Players are happy to fight and be online during a DTP, especially if it's at a good time for them. Meanwhile, corps that hold crappy DTPs will not be able to reap these bonuses. In this way you motivate players to be active in a District holding corp, when that district is vulnerable. Enhancements to base idea: - Allow Corps to set larger (not smaller) DTP periods, for example, extend a DTP to 2 or 3 hours. (Not too extreme though) -Have the bonus only apply / apply more when a player is fighting along side OTHER CORP MEMBERS. I do not know how complicated this would be, so I added it as an enhancement to the idea instead of being part of the base concept. Basically: -1 player solo: 0 bonus -2 corp member squad: 10% of max bonus -3 corp member squad: 30% of max bonus -4 corp member squad: 50% of max bonus -5 corp member squad: 75% of max bonus -6 corp member squad: 100% of max bonus As I feel the bonus should only apply if the corp is working together, and playing together, otherwise it's just a bonus for having a tag under your name. This idea also works well with your proposed Income changes, as it will provide a "de-facto" bonus to PC battles on the defensive, allowing players to have a slight income edge on the defense, one which can be equally counteracted by more "risky" attackers who chose to attack during their own districts DTP.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4304	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:35:00 - [89] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: With regards to raiding: I definitely agree that is the area to work on low-warning more-flexible battles, and something I really want to see. Locking down timers for capture battles is a quick change, and allows us to move on into developing features like that with more flexibility. If we get hung up on a very complicated timer system for capture battles with moving timers and windows and crud, I think it'd delay CCP's ability to fix other issues with PC or get more PC content out. There was a meeting of minds today of pretty much every major leader in Planetary Conquest happened to be there. They agree that PC needs to be addressed, but the opinion was unanimous that region locking timers is a bad idea. Some of those in attendance: Arirana, Badgerr Ragerr, dy5t0pia, Evan Gotabor, Ghostt Shadoww, Gilgamesh iBUN, Hawkin Pete, Kalante Schiffer, Kane Spero, Kardia Scorpio, Maylar Snow, Mr Machine Guns, Noktix Luxifer, Poncho Polous, Roman837, saxonmish, Shepherd Grey, Shiyou Hidiyoshi, Silver Strike44, SoTa PoP, TheD1CK, Viktor Hadah, xTheSiLLyRaBBiTx, Zaria MinDeir, Ydubbs81 RND, and others. Corps big and small, casual and elite, people that combined have 1,000s of hours of experience having to deal with Planetary Conquest and it's faults and would like nothing more than to see it flourish. These folks currently involved in planetary conquest do want to see new people be brought into the system and many have even been trying to even give districts away but struggle to find interested parties. Some don't have districts right now but would like to have their names on the map. There is excitement about coming changes to planetary conquest but they don't want to see mechanics like fixed timers potentially mess up that recovery. For these folks goals like owning a planet are something to aspire to and for many geography and placement really does matter. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Freccia di Lybra Maphia Clan Corporation 361	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:37:00 - [90] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Kain Spero wrote: As a few people have suggested, windows of attack in the 2-4 hour range seem to make a lot more sense than the specific 1 hour timer set-up that we have now. This is a hugely exclusionary system that would greatly reduce the number of corps that could hold a district in PC. Because it multiplies the amount of time your corp has to be able to field full teams to be able to be viable, and forces PC organizers to block out their entire evening to defend a single district. That's why people would and should form alliances. In a 3-4 hours attack window people don't necessarily have to be online: if you have a medium-size corporation there's always 16 players to field: it will simply stop people from holding too much land when they actually can't defend it. the expanding timer is a good thing, but hell it "force" people to play, again. And when you "force" someone to play..well, we all already know what happened to Cronos, right? We all simply didn't want to play PC anymore, we just had enough of playing at 4 in the morning and then again defending in the same afternoon against someone else. With a larger attack window, instead, you already know you can have 1 or 2 districts at best, you just need an alliance if you actually want more than 1 district, all the others will be free for other corporations/alliances, hence the planetary conquest is revitalized. Ei fu, xxwhitedevilxx former Co-CEO Maphia Clan Corporation / Unit Unicorn



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.