| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Alaika Arbosa
Minmatar Republic
2404
   |
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:58:00 -
[181] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:
raids should have minimal notice but still it should be whole alliance of the attacked that gets the message 10 to 30 minutes before raid
you should be able to flip districts always also although it should require more costs, as to set up you infrastructure, with a longer notice about 1 hour to 3 or even set up your attack for 24 h prior still with the alliance noticed when getting ready to do so.
raid would be 1 to 2 matches while flip should require 3 to 4 matches still debatable, still available all the time, we could later add still skirmish 1.0 for flipping districts for first and second match
while raids are a two stage pub matches with PC reality something for proto stompers their mode of choice w/o obligations to defend because no district will flip thus constant PC game mode will be open for vets and the income will be high like after PC match now, just w/o district
My view on raids differs from yours, here's how
Raids are a "Zero Warning" activity. What this means is that there is absolutely no warning that the raid is about to happen or is progress unless you have someone actively monitoring your District(s) on the Star Map (or some other new UI related to revamped PC).
Raiders can bring a single squad, if other Raiders are encountered on the same District they are treated as though they are red. Defenders can bring up to 16 mercs to defend their District. Defenders are obviously red to all Raiders.
Raids would be a simple single Skirmish match, Raiders controlling Letters generates Asset Wealth for the Raiders that they receive in the EoM screen. Defenders need to hold onto the Letters to prevent themselves from hemorrhaging said Asset. If the Defenders don't defend then it will be a quick match ripe with easy loot.
Perhaps eventually, there could be other benefits to Raiding that would be directly related to the SI that the Defenders had on the District.
Ad Space Available Here
1m Isk/day
Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:59:00 -
[182] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Ok so lets say players are on in 6 hour shifts, 16 players each, 4 shifts a day... are you saying that an alliance needs to have 64 players for every district the alliance owns to properly defend it?
pokey i think you are exaggerating a bit, this is still a game
when you're writing shifts etc. i am starting to think you're more hardcore gamer then you think you're saying ;)
basically if you want to defend it above all cost yes but that is the wrong mind set that i think was hindering our PC community from the beginning
we will manage this by in game community deals within the game after initial chaos of district flips and it will not be that hard to manage alliance security, it will IMO spice the end game play for vets make politics more relevant and beside that as you said in earlier post either EU or asia/oceania will not have enough fire power or will to flip constantly or try to
after the "dust" sets down we will have open PC game mode w/o restrictions of play time which every player wanted from the beginning
we will have tiers of modes set up w/o any more messing within code to change things, there is still going to be an option for a vet to slay newbs but what for if they compete with vets constantly.
about the district holds i think the PC game mode should be unforgivable seriously yes 64 to properly defend, if PC will be set up with timer/lock rules the game play will always be stale and stale end game is bad for every end game
so yes i think dedication and proper constructed alliance force should be a must to hold ground in PC district owning part
easy end game > boring end game (locking)
boring end game > stale status (current PC)
stale status = not enough of fresh blood (pub stomping out of boredom and locked game play of choice)
not enough fresh blood = boring game play (vets leaving the game)
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4455
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:59:00 -
[183] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:
And by far Pokey's is the best one.
@Pokey, With the "fuel" needed to keep the shield up and reduce the attack window, how about having it a sort of resource per day that a daily surplus can be traded out to other districts held by the same corp to keep the other districts shields up?
Defend district A, Consecutive wins/ lack of attacks keep the window 1 hr and shield fully charged. Take district B, add surplus to reduce window quicker. Consecutive wins on districts A and B, and if the corp manages to take district C then the surplus from the A & B shorten C's attack window.
Hmmmmmmmmm I dunno. I mean the idea is to force players to be on during their timers and I have concerns that corps could stack districts at an odd time and then just zerg a single districts open at a normal time, allowing them to fuel many districts but only really be active for one of them.
With some limitations....maybe? I get what you're going for but I'm a little reluctant on being too lenient to be with the fuel distribution.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
el OPERATOR
Capital Acquisitions LLC
Bad Intention
757
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:01:00 -
[184] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:
man seriously hide that ego of yours as i do not mean me in my concept i mean that:
people above some level of SP and ISK and with friends online ATM are simply bored to pub stomp naps in pub contracts and want to have the big boys game approachable at all times because this is the mode they want to play only ATM
with timers or any similar mechanic it is impossible
if noobs want to try ti too why stop then let them try they may have their ass handled to them or they may suprise defenders we do not know but the wheels of PC game mode will be always turning not leaving any interested behind artificial boundaries of timers and locks that are and in any form will be abused by "cool kids"
as in eve politics win, it should be in dust bigger will dictate but the smaller will not be prevented to try to give it a whirl and test the bigger boys it is the sandbox nature, community sets the rules and bounds not a timer or locked stade like in null sec in eve only people with force set the rules
what is wrong with that beside that everyone that think of himself of being able, will have open entry into PC at any given moment?
new eden is harsh place if they hit those "elite skilled" self proclaimed protos it will be a lesson for them but it will be still an open mode if someone wants to play it only
nothing more nothing less
PC IS accessible. Especially to smaller groups. EVERYTHING you've advocated for is currently available, EXCEPT the ability to stage district attacks and have them opened on a whim. Be careful what you ask for though, if the existing PC powerhouses have the ability to stage attacks on-the-fly it will be those same smaller groups that will bear the majority of the burden. Theirs will be the districts most profitable to hit.
Put it this way-
We're all BankRobbers. What banks are most likely to be robbed most often, the occasional large one, with layers of security, located in the center of a metropolitan area OR the tiny podunk countrybanks dotting the countryside? Which banks will more appealing for a robbery by the strongest crews?
You want to "open" PC. And I maintain it already is.
Is it as easy as forming a squad and searching a PC battle in your battlefinder? No. But why should it be?
Craziest thing, this "Raiding " proposal ( which I'm not against) doesn't even scratch the surface of what PC is currently, organized matches between organized combatants. All you're proposing is the ability to have a Skirmish match, but be paid for it by the district holder. You want a departure from pubs but all you've proposed just equals another pub. The gamemode doesn't change. Only the number of people available to fight.
Lame.
Open-Beta Vet.
Drunk Night Tree Burner.
This is my Main and Original.
DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:02:00 -
[185] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:Zene Ren wrote:
raids should have minimal notice but still it should be whole alliance of the attacked that gets the message 10 to 30 minutes before raid
you should be able to flip districts always also although it should require more costs, as to set up you infrastructure, with a longer notice about 1 hour to 3 or even set up your attack for 24 h prior still with the alliance noticed when getting ready to do so.
raid would be 1 to 2 matches while flip should require 3 to 4 matches still debatable, still available all the time, we could later add still skirmish 1.0 for flipping districts for first and second match
while raids are a two stage pub matches with PC reality something for proto stompers their mode of choice w/o obligations to defend because no district will flip thus constant PC game mode will be open for vets and the income will be high like after PC match now, just w/o district
My view on raids differs from yours, here's how Raids are a "Zero Warning" activity. What this means is that there is absolutely no warning that the raid is about to happen or is progress unless you have someone actively monitoring your District(s) on the Star Map (or some other new UI related to revamped PC). Raiders can bring a single squad, if other Raiders are encountered on the same District they are treated as though they are red. Defenders can bring up to 16 mercs to defend their District. Defenders are obviously red to all Raiders. Raids would be a simple single Skirmish match, Raiders controlling Letters generates Asset Wealth for the Raiders that they receive in the EoM screen. Defenders need to hold onto the Letters to prevent themselves from hemorrhaging said Asset. If the Defenders don't defend then it will be a quick match ripe with easy loot. Perhaps eventually, there could be other benefits to Raiding that would be directly related to the SI that the Defenders had on the District.
this is really nice but it will require a ton of coding when my proposal for start will just set up PC open for all at minimal cost and after that we could try some more elaborate techniques ;)
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:07:00 -
[186] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:Zene Ren wrote:
man seriously hide that ego of yours as i do not mean me in my concept i mean that:
people above some level of SP and ISK and with friends online ATM are simply bored to pub stomp naps in pub contracts and want to have the big boys game approachable at all times because this is the mode they want to play only ATM
with timers or any similar mechanic it is impossible
if noobs want to try ti too why stop then let them try they may have their ass handled to them or they may suprise defenders we do not know but the wheels of PC game mode will be always turning not leaving any interested behind artificial boundaries of timers and locks that are and in any form will be abused by "cool kids"
as in eve politics win, it should be in dust bigger will dictate but the smaller will not be prevented to try to give it a whirl and test the bigger boys it is the sandbox nature, community sets the rules and bounds not a timer or locked stade like in null sec in eve only people with force set the rules
what is wrong with that beside that everyone that think of himself of being able, will have open entry into PC at any given moment?
new eden is harsh place if they hit those "elite skilled" self proclaimed protos it will be a lesson for them but it will be still an open mode if someone wants to play it only
nothing more nothing less
PC IS accessible. Especially to smaller groups. EVERYTHING you've advocated for is currently available, EXCEPT the ability to stage district attacks and have them opened on a whim. Be careful what you ask for though, if the existing PC powerhouses have the ability to stage attacks on-the-fly it will be those same smaller groups that will bear the majority of the burden. Theirs will be the districts most profitable to hit. Put it this way- We're all BankRobbers. What banks are most likely to be robbed most often, the occasional large one, with layers of security, located in the center of a metropolitan area OR the tiny podunk countrybanks dotting the countryside? Which banks will more appealing for a robbery by the strongest crews? You want to "open" PC. And I maintain it already is. Is it as easy as forming a squad and searching a PC battle in your battlefinder? No. But why should it be? Craziest thing, this "Raiding " proposal ( which I'm not against) doesn't even scratch the surface of what PC is currently, organized matches between organized combatants. All you're proposing is the ability to have a Skirmish match, but be paid for it by the district holder. You want a departure from pubs but all you've proposed just equals another pub. The gamemode doesn't change. Only the number of people available to fight. Lame.
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
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4455
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:08:00 -
[187] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Ok so lets say players are on in 6 hour shifts, 16 players each, 4 shifts a day... are you saying that an alliance needs to have 64 players for every district the alliance owns to properly defend it? pokey i think you are exaggerating a bit, this is still a game when you're writing shifts etc. i am starting to think you're more hardcore gamer then you think you're saying ;)
I've played EVE, I know what it's like to pay $15 a month for the right to work a second job.
Thing is you really do need to have people on all the time because literally a single person could wake up at an odd time when your alliance has no one on, and sweep all of your districts. Yes it's an extreme case but extreme cases happen in games like this more often than you may expect. I mean if I knew that there was a 6 hour period where and alliance didnt have sufficient people online, I would take a squad and steal everything they have, every single change I got.
Like I don't disagree that people should be able to participate in PC on the fly pretty much any time of day, but the fact of the matter is that if you shift 100% of PC to that model, suddenly it takes very few people to attack but a shitload more to defend. You're basically taking the issue of overly restrictive timers and completely reversing it, but the opposite extreme is just as bad for number of reasons.
Thats why I'm pushing for a more hybrid system, seperating Raids vs Conquest so that the Zergs and the Elites can each have a place in the game without totally dominating the field.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Alaika Arbosa
Minmatar Republic
2404
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:11:00 -
[188] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:
Craziest thing, this "Raiding " proposal ( which I'm not against) doesn't even scratch the surface of what PC is currently, organized matches between organized combatants. All you're proposing is the ability to have a Skirmish match, but be paid for it by the district holder. You want a departure from pubs but all you've proposed just equals another pub. The gamemode doesn't change. Only the number of people available to fight.
Lame.
This is exactly the problem, you don't want PC to change from the status quo. You don't want it to evolve into something more than a glorified, overly complex tournament ladder.
Where is the Open World Sandbox gameplay if everything 100% revolves around sitting in a lobby waiting to fight the same 16 guys that you fight every time you attack a District because everyone just hires them as ringers?
We've seen where the status quo gets us, now is the time for change.
Ad Space Available Here
1m Isk/day
Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
|
Zaria Min Deir
0uter.Heaven
1054
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:12:00 -
[189] - Quote
Do you people really not get what will happen in planetary conquest if a completely timerless system is implemented?
No shows. More and more no shows. Because some people want to play with their friends, make corps with people they actually like playing with, not recruit hundreds and hundreds of players just to make up numbers.
Great, fine, let's go with the argument that no one should be allowed to own a district if they can't be on to defend it 24/7. Great for those of you who just see PC as a way to farm resources to give you an edge in pubs, what better way to do that than go and attack a district while its owners are at work, asleep, whatever. No effort, just need to keep different hours than your target.
Some of us are in PC because we enjoy playing matches that challenge us. We enjoy putting together a team to try and beat another team, not get thrown against randoms by Scotty.
So, fine, let's make PC not about competitive matches, but just about resource farming.
Can we then at least get another game mode? Give us back corp battles? Something, for those of us who actually want to play against people and not trade districts back and forth in a series of no shows?
Have you considered installing the improved keyboard?
"Go Go Power Rangers!"
|
el OPERATOR
Capital Acquisitions LLC
Bad Intention
758
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:13:00 -
[190] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Zene Ren wrote:
raids should have minimal notice but still it should be whole alliance of the attacked that gets the message 10 to 30 minutes before raid
you should be able to flip districts always also although it should require more costs, as to set up you infrastructure, with a longer notice about 1 hour to 3 or even set up your attack for 24 h prior still with the alliance noticed when getting ready to do so.
raid would be 1 to 2 matches while flip should require 3 to 4 matches still debatable, still available all the time, we could later add still skirmish 1.0 for flipping districts for first and second match
while raids are a two stage pub matches with PC reality something for proto stompers their mode of choice w/o obligations to defend because no district will flip thus constant PC game mode will be open for vets and the income will be high like after PC match now, just w/o district
My view on raids differs from yours, here's how Raids are a "Zero Warning" activity. What this means is that there is absolutely no warning that the raid is about to happen or is progress unless you have someone actively monitoring your District(s) on the Star Map (or some other new UI related to revamped PC). Raiders can bring a single squad, if other Raiders are encountered on the same District they are treated as though they are red. Defenders can bring up to 16 mercs to defend their District. Defenders are obviously red to all Raiders. Raids would be a simple single Skirmish match, Raiders controlling Letters generates Asset Wealth for the Raiders that they receive in the EoM screen. Defenders need to hold onto the Letters to prevent themselves from hemorrhaging said Asset. If the Defenders don't defend then it will be a quick match ripe with easy loot. Perhaps eventually, there could be other benefits to Raiding that would be directly related to the SI that the Defenders had on the District. this is really nice but it will require a ton of coding when my proposal for start will just set up PC open for all at minimal cost and after that we could try some more elaborate techniques ;)
No, your proposal stages a pubmatch on a PC district. It minimizes your risk potential while maximizing your reward potential. I, for one, look forward to this type of system being integrated so I and my mangy vampire dog horde friends can utilize it for our own profitability AND read through the tearthreads after about a week.
Open-Beta Vet.
Drunk Night Tree Burner.
This is my Main and Original.
DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
|
|
|
Alaika Arbosa
Minmatar Republic
2404
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:17:00 -
[191] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:Zene Ren wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Zene Ren wrote:
raids should have minimal notice but still it should be whole alliance of the attacked that gets the message 10 to 30 minutes before raid
you should be able to flip districts always also although it should require more costs, as to set up you infrastructure, with a longer notice about 1 hour to 3 or even set up your attack for 24 h prior still with the alliance noticed when getting ready to do so.
raid would be 1 to 2 matches while flip should require 3 to 4 matches still debatable, still available all the time, we could later add still skirmish 1.0 for flipping districts for first and second match
while raids are a two stage pub matches with PC reality something for proto stompers their mode of choice w/o obligations to defend because no district will flip thus constant PC game mode will be open for vets and the income will be high like after PC match now, just w/o district
My view on raids differs from yours, here's how Raids are a "Zero Warning" activity. What this means is that there is absolutely no warning that the raid is about to happen or is progress unless you have someone actively monitoring your District(s) on the Star Map (or some other new UI related to revamped PC). Raiders can bring a single squad, if other Raiders are encountered on the same District they are treated as though they are red. Defenders can bring up to 16 mercs to defend their District. Defenders are obviously red to all Raiders. Raids would be a simple single Skirmish match, Raiders controlling Letters generates Asset Wealth for the Raiders that they receive in the EoM screen. Defenders need to hold onto the Letters to prevent themselves from hemorrhaging said Asset. If the Defenders don't defend then it will be a quick match ripe with easy loot. Perhaps eventually, there could be other benefits to Raiding that would be directly related to the SI that the Defenders had on the District. this is really nice but it will require a ton of coding when my proposal for start will just set up PC open for all at minimal cost and after that we could try some more elaborate techniques ;) No, your proposal stages a pubmatch on a PC district. It minimizes your risk potential while maximizing your reward potential. I, for one, look forward to this type of system being integrated so I and my mangy vampire dog horde friends can utilize it for our own profitability AND read through the tearthreads after about a week.
Funny thing is, the tears will be coming from those who choose to hold Districts, not those raiding them.
Ad Space Available Here
1m Isk/day
Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:20:00 -
[192] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: pokey
extreme cases are spicing things up so that boredom is not coming in
but pokey you do not need to own a district as you can play a pirate with raids till you build a proper security for owned land
but do not prohibit it for others that have time and will to do it freedom of choice because there are some that have this time now and are discouraged by the timers limitation thus limiting our player numbers also
it should be opened as possible
"suddenly it takes very few people to attack but a shitload more to defend" only when you want to bite more then you can chew
solutions in between are always bad "Thats why I'm pushing for a more hybrid system, seperating Raids vs Conquest so that the Zergs and the Elites can each have a place in the game without totally dominating the field." no one will be happy with this
we can make flipping a district to require more wins and matches but the timer system is a really bad thing
i have nothing against bigger gets more but not when even when he is bigger he is still secured by locks and abusing them thus any hybrid system within this game will also fail
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5780
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:20:00 -
[193] - Quote
el OPERATOR wrote:Zene Ren wrote:
man seriously hide that ego of yours as i do not mean me in my concept i mean that:
people above some level of SP and ISK and with friends online ATM are simply bored to pub stomp naps in pub contracts and want to have the big boys game approachable at all times because this is the mode they want to play only ATM
with timers or any similar mechanic it is impossible
if noobs want to try ti too why stop then let them try they may have their ass handled to them or they may suprise defenders we do not know but the wheels of PC game mode will be always turning not leaving any interested behind artificial boundaries of timers and locks that are and in any form will be abused by "cool kids"
as in eve politics win, it should be in dust bigger will dictate but the smaller will not be prevented to try to give it a whirl and test the bigger boys it is the sandbox nature, community sets the rules and bounds not a timer or locked stade like in null sec in eve only people with force set the rules
what is wrong with that beside that everyone that think of himself of being able, will have open entry into PC at any given moment?
new eden is harsh place if they hit those "elite skilled" self proclaimed protos it will be a lesson for them but it will be still an open mode if someone wants to play it only
nothing more nothing less
PC IS accessible. Especially to smaller groups. EVERYTHING you've advocated for is currently available, EXCEPT the ability to stage district attacks and have them opened on a whim. Be careful what you ask for though, if the existing PC powerhouses have the ability to stage attacks on-the-fly it will be those same smaller groups that will bear the majority of the burden. Theirs will be the districts most profitable to hit. Put it this way- We're all BankRobbers. What banks are most likely to be robbed most often, the occasional large one, with layers of security, located in the center of a metropolitan area OR the tiny podunk countrybanks dotting the countryside? Which banks will more appealing for a robbery by the strongest crews? You want to "open" PC. And I maintain it already is. Is it as easy as forming a squad and searching a PC battle in your battlefinder? No. But why should it be? Craziest thing, this "Raiding " proposal ( which I'm not against) doesn't even scratch the surface of what PC is currently, organized matches between organized combatants. All you're proposing is the ability to have a Skirmish match, but be paid for it by the district holder. You want a departure from pubs but all you've proposed just equals another pub. The gamemode doesn't change. Only the number of people available to fight. Lame.
PC isn't accessible.
The mechanics are on the extreme spectrum as they stand currently. Not only are the mechanics such that only the best of the best can succeed, but there is currently no way to prepare for it other than by participating in PC itself. PC is the most accessible it's ever been currently because there are no rewards for ownership. If the stakes were what they were before passive ISK was removed most of the people holding districts currently would not be on the map.
Most of the corps currently in PC are nowhere near ready for battles against veteran PC corps. I think the pendulum has to swing in the favor of quantity over quality for some time while more people are introduced and versed in team play. The only thing that I see that allows for this is the ability for lesser corps to surprise and zerg more powerful corps. If that's through raids or a more favorable timer mechanic then great.
If new to PC corps are not allowed some level of success then it's going to fall on it's face. We can either have hardcore mode with dozens of players or we can swing it back to intermediate mode and capture a large portion of our community. As players adapt to a more serious style of gameplay the pendulum could be swung more in the other direction.
I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7934
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:23:00 -
[194] - 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
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:23:00 -
[195] - Quote
pub match with PC rule set and penalty for defenders if they lose
nothing wrong with that
competition will be hard, reward will be big enough to run proto in it and it will be always open game mode for vets what do you want more?
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5780
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:24:00 -
[196] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:el OPERATOR wrote:
Craziest thing, this "Raiding " proposal ( which I'm not against) doesn't even scratch the surface of what PC is currently, organized matches between organized combatants. All you're proposing is the ability to have a Skirmish match, but be paid for it by the district holder. You want a departure from pubs but all you've proposed just equals another pub. The gamemode doesn't change. Only the number of people available to fight.
Lame.
This is exactly the problem, you don't want PC to change from the status quo. You don't want it to evolve into something more than a glorified, overly complex tournament ladder. Where is the Open World Sandbox gameplay if everything 100% revolves around sitting in a lobby waiting to fight the same 16 guys that you fight every time you attack a District because everyone just hires them as ringers? We've seen where the status quo gets us, now is the time for change.
I don't think you are seeing where he is coming from. PC currently takes a lot of organization and planning. This is no different in huge nullsec groups. The problem we have here is that we are limited to 16 v 16. You can't have an open sandbox with 16 v 16.
Why does it have to be hardmode or easy mode? Why can't it be somewhere in the middle?
I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7934
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:25:00 -
[197] - 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
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
729
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:26:00 -
[198] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:
And by far Pokey's is the best one.
@Pokey, With the "fuel" needed to keep the shield up and reduce the attack window, how about having it a sort of resource per day that a daily surplus can be traded out to other districts held by the same corp to keep the other districts shields up?
Defend district A, Consecutive wins/ lack of attacks keep the window 1 hr and shield fully charged. Take district B, add surplus to reduce window quicker. Consecutive wins on districts A and B, and if the corp manages to take district C then the surplus from the A & B shorten C's attack window.
Hmmmmmmmmm I dunno. I mean the idea is to force players to be on during their timers and I have concerns that corps could stack districts at an odd time and then just zerg a single districts open at a normal time, allowing them to fuel many districts but only really be active for one of them. With some limitations....maybe? I get what you're going for but I'm a little reluctant on being too lenient to be with the fuel distribution.
Give the fuel consumption diminshed returns. Cap on surplus. 1 trade per 24 hrs. Any extra trading of fuel will be removed from home district timer. Fuel will be expended during transport, -25% per transport.
e.g 100 units needed for restocking shield window. 100 unit surplus.
75 units from A to B. 50 units from A to C. 25 units from A to D. 0 from A to E.
This way you can shore up defenses in times of war. Fuel can be 'raided'. Loss of units means expansion of timer. Districs close by however can benefit and be supported. Districts farther out, not at all and will therefore be more susceptible to raids, just like outer worlds seperated from a home planet.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:27:00 -
[199] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote: 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.
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...
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5780
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:30:00 -
[200] - Quote
Just to clarify things on what I think is going on.
Current PC groups want: the same but with more ISK
Soraya: Doesn't want it to be the same, but wants to keep 24 notice of battles. Adding some bells and whistles, thinks things will change.
Random Dudes with no PC experience want: PS2
Is this about right?
I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
|
|
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5780
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:37:00 -
[201] - Quote
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.
I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:38:00 -
[202] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:Just to clarify things on what I think is going on.
Current PC groups want: the same but with more ISK
Soraya: Doesn't want it to be the same, but wants to keep 24 notice of battles. Adding some bells and whistles, thinks things will change.
Random Dudes with no PC experience want: PS2
Is this about right?
this char is closed beta char, yeah still random for community though been playing in and out through the time the game is on
thus i have ideas coming from participation in few PC matches when i was still in tritan industries back in the day
within new eden it will not be PS2 or something similar when you build right infrastructure for defense you will not lose your land the possibility will be there it wont be instant gratification though just a ton of communication and socializing while building proper security alliance
this will also prevent of over biting more land then you can chew as the ingame community will verify your ability to defend not some timers or locks
and it will be constant open game mode for vets, when they leave newbies terror in pubs or semi vets in FW maybe our community will grow more w/o to much coding
win
win
win
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4457
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:38:00 -
[203] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:
"suddenly it takes very few people to attack but a shitload more to defend" only when you want to bite more then you can chew
No, it will take multiple teams of 16 to defend a district, but only one team to attack it. Owning a single district would mean it takes more defenders than it takes attackers.
Zene Ren wrote:
solutions in between are always bad "Thats why I'm pushing for a more hybrid system, seperating Raids vs Conquest so that the Zergs and the Elites can each have a place in the game without totally dominating the field." no one will be happy with this
In a true compromise, no one is 100% happy. If you're not interested in working towards a compromise, then there is really no reason to continue debating. In the end the only person I need to convince has a blue tag next to his name.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:44:00 -
[204] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: No, it will take multiple teams of 16 to defend a district, but only one team to attack it. Owning a single district would mean it takes more defenders than it takes attackers.
i never said that when a district is attacked ATM some one else can attack it in the same time that is over interpretation from your side attackers should be queued for the fight for the attacked district
Pokey Dravon wrote: In a true compromise, no one is 100% happy. If you're not interested in working towards a compromise, then there is really no reason to continue debating. In the end the only person I need to convince has a blue tag next to his name.
again over interpretation P. never said i am not interested but a compromise with any form of timers will be staying at status quo
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4457
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:45:00 -
[205] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote: No, it will take multiple teams of 16 to defend a district, but only one team to attack it. Owning a single district would mean it takes more defenders than it takes attackers.
i never said that when a district is attacked ATM some one else can attack it in the same time that is over interpretation from your side attackers should be queued for the fight for the attacked district
It will take multiple teams of 16 to cover the defense of the district over a 24 hour period. Thus it will take more than 16 unique players to be available to defend the district.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
7935
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:45:00 -
[206] - 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
|
Flyingconejo
Onikanabo Brigade
Caldari State
1144
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:50:00 -
[207] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:I'd argue that the current timer mechanics are the number one reason why PC is played by so few. There is no element of surprise.
No need to argue, because I agree. I'm not sure it was the main reason, but it surely was important. The current timer mechanic was designed to allow small groups of players to defend a high number of districts. Just to make sure they did not get burn out, CCP graciously extended the grace period before the battle an extra 24 hours, which made it even easier. Of course, that made 90% of the potential pc players completely irrelevant, so they left.
But what I meant saying that timers don't matter is that I don't think it matters what you do with them now. No timers, window timers or current timers, I don't see that affecting PC population in a positive way. The gap is too big.
Quote: In war a lesser enemy can overcome a stronger opponent if they time their attack right in an advantageous location. We can't really set ambushes in advantageous geological locations, but an element of surprise could and should be implemented.
The details are the problem. People have been hung up on far reaching complexities and it appears we will get stuck with timer mechanics that only favor a Zerg.
English is not my main language, so I apologize if I understood the following wrong.
From what I've read of you the last couple of years, you have always been in favour of removing partially or totally the "grace period" a defending corp has between the attack has been launched and the battle actually happens. I think this is what you refer to with the element of surprise part. So basically, you would be in favour of removing the wait between the attack and the battle, but maintaining the timer. From what I've read in this thread, you probably would agree with a "window timer" option or consider it at least the less bad option, right?
But in the second part, you seem to dislike a system that would allow an attacker to attack multiple districts at the same time by zerging them. But window timers would made zerging much easier for an attacking corp. They would stack 3-4 district at the same hour. And as for removing the "grace period", it would have been a great idea a year ago, but with the current populations, I think it also would allow the attacking corp to zerg easily. After all, they know when they are going to attack, but for the defender...How many corps/alliances are left that can form up a full 16 team within 1 hour? And 2 teams?
I'm afraid that the best system against a "zerg" kind of attack, is actually the current timer system that the game has now. It was actually designed as an anti-zerg mechanic. The moment a system allows for a surprise attack, or to choose even slightly the time for the attack, it opens the door for zerging.
On topic:
PC is broken, and can't be mended. The best you can do is:
Step 1: Bring back the old corp battle system. Tweak it for 16vs16, almost no rewards. An intermediate place to prepare for PC.
Step 2: Districts should give something, so owners have a reason to care about them, and give new corps a reason to move from corp battles to PC. |
Zene Ren
Hired Ghost
106
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:50:00 -
[208] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Zene Ren wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote: No, it will take multiple teams of 16 to defend a district, but only one team to attack it. Owning a single district would mean it takes more defenders than it takes attackers.
i never said that when a district is attacked ATM some one else can attack it in the same time that is over interpretation from your side attackers should be queued for the fight for the attacked district It will take multiple teams of 16 to cover the defense of the district over a 24 hour period. Thus it will take more than 16 unique players to be available to defend the district.
this will only encourage to build bigger alliances nothing more IMO
you do not need every defender to be a "pro gamer" also as there will be not only pro gamers attacking ;)
and i've edited my last post also but i will add here that i am not against compromise only that i am against any form of timers for a veteran players game more that will hinder an accessibility to that mode and that will lead again to proto stomping pubs from boredom etc. etc.
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
el OPERATOR
Capital Acquisitions LLC
Bad Intention
758
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:51:00 -
[209] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:
This is exactly the problem, you don't want PC to change from the status quo. You don't want it to evolve into something more than a glorified, overly complex tournament ladder.
Where is the Open World Sandbox gameplay if everything 100% revolves around sitting in a lobby waiting to fight the same 16 guys that you fight every time you attack a District because everyone just hires them as ringers?
We've seen where the status quo gets us, now is the time for change.
Any "Ownership" system will be paintable as a "Tournament Ladder".
Any " Evolution" that could be even remotely considered an "evolution" needs a change NOT in PC timers but in the PC GAMEMODE.
Are you tired of seeing the same 16 ringers? Maybe, just maybe, coordinate an attack (like a raid must have a defense coordinated, just spur of the moment) so that any of those terrible ringers are committed there and not available elsewhere.
"Status Quo" currently has PC fully active for those not so busy crying about how PC sucks they actually play PC.
Open-Beta Vet.
Drunk Night Tree Burner.
This is my Main and Original.
DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
|
Dust User
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
1505
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 20:53:00 -
[210] - Quote
Here's my opinion on the matter. My dust experience (if it matters) includes being in beta since June 2012 and participating in PC extensively since Day 1.
I like the idea of timer windows +- X amount of hours each way. You set the timer yourself but if you have overlapping timer windows your corp gets taxed by CONCORD X amount of ISK. The amount of ISK will multiply as more timer windows overlap.
The attacker can then choose which timer to attack within the window like it is now with the 24 hour notice.
This is for district ownership battles, raids I'm still undecided but like the idea of roaming around with the crew making ISK from instant battles. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |