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)
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1027	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:54:00 - [211] - Quote Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Overlord of Broman
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 758	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:56:00 - [212] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: 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. Yeah, you think. Until, of course, noone holds districts since they're susceptible to constant petty crime and then since no one holds them they don't generate anything of value and become subsequently worthless for raiding. #QQAdvocatingAgainstYourOwnInterests Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7936	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:57:00 - [213] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed. 24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4458	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:58:00 - [214] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: 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. Bigger alliances like the ones that dominate Null in EVE? lol. Super Corps and Alliances are something that should always be avoided. Granular groups leads to more combat, large groups lead to stagnation. Heres what I don't get about your argument is that I offer up "Here, Raids will give you exactly what you're asking for, the ability for vets to jump into a PC pretty much whenever they want, the only thing they can't do is capture whenever they want." but you come back with "Nope if they can't capture then they'll just go back to stomping pubs" even though they're getting the PC battles you're asking for, the only difference is the end condition of the district. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1029	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:59:00 - [215] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed. 24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough. So an hour is my personal preference and that could be tweaked, or maybe a district could be upgraded to slightly increase the amount of time you have. However, the current 24/48 hour system is way to big a notice. You should be able to look at your corp, get 16 guys together and say lets to a PC battle tonight. Not wait till the next day and find out that your missing some roles. Overlord of Broman
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5781	Posted - 2015.01.21 20:59:00 - [216] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. Currently PC is able to be participated in by newer corps because veteran PC corps let them. I don't think the mechanics should be kept such a way that we have wars started because one corp got in trouble for taking a corporation's last district. I assume you are saying that you believe the FEC style coalitions where billions of ISK is spent mass attacking resulting in little or no territorial gains is the way for new PC corps to break into PC? 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 21:04:00 - [217] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Heres what I don't get about your argument is that I offer up "Here, Raids will give you exactly what you're asking for, the ability for vets to jump into a PC pretty much whenever they want, the only thing they can't do is capture whenever they want." but you come back with "Nope if they can't capture then they'll just go back to stomping pubs" even though they're getting the PC battles you're asking for, the only difference is the end condition of the district. this will only lead to abusing any form of timers and locks by land owners again as it is now, limiting accessibility and motion in MH, thus i seriously do not want timers. we had this till now big guys will be untouchable as they are now... Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5781	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:06:00 - [218] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed. 24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough. So an hour is my personal preference and that could be tweaked, or maybe a district could be upgraded to slightly increase the amount of time you have. However, the current 24/48 hour system is way to big a notice. You should be able to look at your corp, get 16 guys together and say lets to a PC battle tonight. Not wait till the next day and find out that your missing some roles. Or to find out that the corp you were fighting has hired the #1 merc corp. People dismiss this, but when the ISK was flowing this is the way it happened. You've got a couple corps out there that started from the bottom and earned their way into relevance, but most of those have made enough connections to ensure they have access to top tier ringers as well. Ringers are a great part of Dust, but 24 notice allows for their wallets to swell and usually nobody else. It'll take a window timer with immediate attacks or a complex raiding system that discourages small groups from holding too much land. To me I think they should start with a window timer that is affected by activity, size, or whatever and have the battles start soon after an attack is initiated. As they develop a raiding system they can tweak the timers. I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4458	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:11:00 - [219] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Heres what I don't get about your argument is that I offer up "Here, Raids will give you exactly what you're asking for, the ability for vets to jump into a PC pretty much whenever they want, the only thing they can't do is capture whenever they want." but you come back with "Nope if they can't capture then they'll just go back to stomping pubs" even though they're getting the PC battles you're asking for, the only difference is the end condition of the district. this will only lead to abusing any form of timers and locks by land owners again as it is now, limiting accessibility and motion in MH, thus i seriously do not want timers. we had this till now big guys will be untouchable as they are now... Um zerging their districts and stealing all of their profits is hardly "untouchable". And what exactly are you getting at with "Locking"? Do you mean moving them to an undesirable time slot? Or are you talking about self attacking to lock? I've already proposed a solution to the first and there is a thread discussing how to prevent the latter. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1030	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:12:00 - [220] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed. 24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough. So an hour is my personal preference and that could be tweaked, or maybe a district could be upgraded to slightly increase the amount of time you have. However, the current 24/48 hour system is way to big a notice. You should be able to look at your corp, get 16 guys together and say lets to a PC battle tonight. Not wait till the next day and find out that your missing some roles. Or to find out that the corp you were fighting has hired the #1 merc corp. People dismiss this, but when the ISK was flowing this is the way it happened. You've got a couple corps out there that started from the bottom and earned their way into relevance, but most of those have made enough connections to ensure they have access to top tier ringers as well. Ringers are a great part of Dust, but 24 notice allows for their wallets to swell and usually nobody else. It'll take a window timer with immediate attacks or a complex raiding system that discourages small groups from holding too much land. To me I think they should start with a window timer that is affected by activity, size, or whatever and have the battles start soon after an attack is initiated. As they develop a raiding system they can tweak the timers. Absolutely, i didn't list it, but ringers are a big issue we've all seen if you've been in PC. With a smaller notice it will be more likely you'll face who you attack (to some degree). The changes i support will go a fair way IMO to fixing things while requiring the minimal amount of coding. Overlord of Broman

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7936	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:13:00 - [221] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Personally, I support a timer window of +/- x hours and the removal of the 24/48 hours time till battle. IMO, battles should start 1 hour after the attack is launch if it falls within the timer window, otherwise the battle starts at the start of the next attack window. Battle start time should NOT be random. It should be set to exactly 1 hour after the attack (rounded to 5 mins increments say). Eh, maybe. Usually takes an hour to round everyone up and get everyone oriented to squads and what not. I'm not entirely against it but I think there should be a little more time so the defenders can actually bat-phone some people who aren't online, if necessary, rather than being completely screwed. 24 hours is excessive but 1 hour isn't nearly enough. So an hour is my personal preference and that could be tweaked, or maybe a district could be upgraded to slightly increase the amount of time you have. However, the current 24/48 hour system is way to big a notice. You should be able to look at your corp, get 16 guys together and say lets to a PC battle tonight. Not wait till the next day and find out that your missing some roles. Or to find out that the corp you were fighting has hired the #1 merc corp. People dismiss this, but when the ISK was flowing this is the way it happened. You've got a couple corps out there that started from the bottom and earned their way into relevance, but most of those have made enough connections to ensure they have access to top tier ringers as well. Ringers are a great part of Dust, but 24 notice allows for their wallets to swell and usually nobody else. It'll take a window timer with immediate attacks or a complex raiding system that discourages small groups from holding too much land. To me I think they should start with a window timer that is affected by activity, size, or whatever and have the battles start soon after an attack is initiated. As they develop a raiding system they can tweak the timers. Right right. I think this is a step in the right direction honestly. Another factor I'd like to see is: Larger the Stakes = Larger the Notice. If you're sending six (6) guys to just cause a ruckus but not actually take anything, I'm totally cool with a one (1) hour timer. Ten (10) guys to cause even more of a ruckus but nothing permanent? Eh, four (4) or six (6) hours couldn't hurt. But if you're sending a full team to try and secure a district take over - full on invasion sort of stuff - the enemy team needs more time to prepare. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1030	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:14:00 - [222] - Quote Exact specifics aside of how it is implemented, i think the three key items are: Short time from attack to battles. Knowing the exact battle start time when you launch the attack. Slightly larger attack windows to compensate for timezone differences. Overlord of Broman
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 812	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:15:00 - [223] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Zene Ren wrote: man seriously i've read most of your comments about the matter, you do not need to double post this kind of stuff rather advocate for leaving the timers behind us that is what you can do inventing a more complex "walls" as this this Pokey's forum user will only make things worse with every iteration this needs to be an easy and straight forward mechanic, no timers at all, if you can't be online your alliance needs to have the tools to be aware that a district is in danger of attack and respond to that, nothing more nothing less making more complex solutions will always destroy the dynamic , make this mode stale, leave most SP wise people out of it thus staying in status quo of the elite club Your vision is that all organizations need to be global, have massive numbers, and be available 24/7. How is that balance towards the wide variety of groups that attempt to play this game and want to participate in planetary conquest? How does having land being taken while the owner sleeps give the system a sense of permanence? No, they just shouldn't hold more land than they can defend and/or manage. Reduce your holdings, it is not your god-given right to have what you used to have. Yes! Reverend Rattati tell them! Preach the truth! Everyone lay down your heathen timers! Embrace the sandbox!
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1030	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:15:00 - [224] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Exact specifics aside of how it is implemented, i think the three key items are: Short time from attack to battles. Knowing the exact battle start time when you launch the attack. Slightly larger attack windows to compensate for timezone differences. Dang, make that 4 points. Get rid of EVE OB's. It grants to big of an advantage and their is not enough integrations between the games to allow the majority of corps to get EVE support. Overlord of Broman
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7936	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:16:00 - [225] - Quote This isn't to say that size of the corporation couldn't impact it as well. Consider, if you will: Sixteen (16) man team attacks a large corporation that has fifteen (15) districts. They can attack within a six (6) hour window and when they do, the defending corporation gets four (-4) less hours of notice from the twelve (12) they would originally have due to their large territory size. So, at this point, they're sitting at eight (8) hours of notice. Due to the fact that they are trying to take it over, however, the defending team gets two (+2) additional hours of notice because the stakes are extremely high and they could potentially lose the district if the attackers fight hard enough. Making their notice ten (10) hours, total. Just as an example, but there are a lot of factors that can be put in to make the game fair for both teams. A raiding party of six (6) people could even -REDUCE- the notice because the stakes aren't very high, they're just trying to get ISK and Salvage afterall. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 758	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:26:00 - [226] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: hmmm 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? LOL I'm curious what you're talking about with, "PC rule set"? And a penalty for defenders if they lose? But no penalty for attackers when they lose? Exemplify my statement about what I said about this being all about minimizing risk while maximizing reward more. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Avallo Kantor SHAKING BABIES FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 430	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:29:00 - [227] - Quote If we are just talking about changing how timers work, why don't we set up something that is relatively straight forward to understand: An attacking force may declare an attack at -any- time (short of the period right around downtime). The Battle will become available in the next 24 hours after that initial attack time. The defender may then, up until 2 hours prior to the match, extend the timer (via ISK / Stronium Resource) for a full 3(?) hours past that initial attack (again, accounting for down time) OR may extend the timer by 21 - 23 hours [aka: up to 3 hours before the initial attack time, but with an extra days warning, to give both sides a fair shake] Like Rattati's E proposal, each hour that they delay it by costs increasingly more. (For the purposes of extending it to the next day, they only count in relation to distance from the attack hour) To counterbalance the possibility of attackers trying to hit at "odd times" so that defenders are forced to push it to a reasonable one, the attacking team must show up in a full team or the defender is reimbursed for it's payment to move the timer. Overall the idea is that the attackers have some degree of flexibility in the offense, and it's on the odus of the defense to protect it's districts, perhaps at unfavorable times. This idea also assumes that the defending a district is a more lucrative option than simply attacking, to explain why the attacker is given the advantage in initiating the attack.
Zene Ren Hired Ghost 106	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:33:00 - [228] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Heres what I don't get about your argument is that I offer up "Here, Raids will give you exactly what you're asking for, the ability for vets to jump into a PC pretty much whenever they want, the only thing they can't do is capture whenever they want." but you come back with "Nope if they can't capture then they'll just go back to stomping pubs" even though they're getting the PC battles you're asking for, the only difference is the end condition of the district. this will only lead to abusing any form of timers and locks by land owners again as it is now, limiting accessibility and motion in MH, thus i seriously do not want timers. we had this till now big guys will be untouchable as they are now... Um zerging their districts and stealing all of their profits is hardly "untouchable". And what exactly are you getting at with "Locking"? Do you mean moving them to an undesirable time slot? Or are you talking about self attacking to lock? I've already proposed a solution to the first and there is a thread discussing how to prevent the latter. alt corps, region time zone locking there are and will always be people that abuse timer system in their favor and seriously it will leave us in the place that we are now, all in all timers are bad and the argument about PS2 is not that valid as people claim to be we can now build mulit time zone alliances within the game to keep our land w/o the need to leave it unguarded we have one server and one community and we should have one end game mode for vet players that want to do PC only i seriously need to repeat myself ;( having timers will and are leading to vets playing in pub matches because they can not do PC at any given moment solutions like the fuel and other for the latter thing you mentioned plus a solution for pub proto stompers and q syncs are only a band aid for PC that is available 24/7 seriously so many proplem dealt with one solution, no timers Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Zene Ren Hired Ghost 106	Posted - 2015.01.21 21:36:00 - [229] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Zene Ren wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: hmmm 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? LOL I'm curious what you're talking about with, "PC rule set"? And a penalty for defenders if they lose? But no penalty for attackers when they lose? Exemplify my statement about what I said about this being all about minimizing risk while maximizing reward more. lol man seriously no comment... penalty for attackers that fail: 0 pay, nada, non only costs for lost suits penalty for defenders when they fail smaller dwindled or halted isk or any other district generated resource PC rule set, you do not understand even that? FF on and only vets on the other side what do you want more? Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4462	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:00:00 - [230] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Heres what I don't get about your argument is that I offer up "Here, Raids will give you exactly what you're asking for, the ability for vets to jump into a PC pretty much whenever they want, the only thing they can't do is capture whenever they want." but you come back with "Nope if they can't capture then they'll just go back to stomping pubs" even though they're getting the PC battles you're asking for, the only difference is the end condition of the district. this will only lead to abusing any form of timers and locks by land owners again as it is now, limiting accessibility and motion in MH, thus i seriously do not want timers. we had this till now big guys will be untouchable as they are now... Um zerging their districts and stealing all of their profits is hardly "untouchable". And what exactly are you getting at with "Locking"? Do you mean moving them to an undesirable time slot? Or are you talking about self attacking to lock? I've already proposed a solution to the first and there is a thread discussing how to prevent the latter. alt corps, region time zone locking there are and will always be people that abuse timer system in their favor and seriously it will leave us in the place that we are now, all in all timers are bad and the argument about PS2 is not that valid as people claim to be we can now build mulit time zone alliances within the game to keep our land w/o the need to leave it unguarded we have one server and one community and we should have one end game mode for vet players that want to do PC only i seriously need to repeat myself ;( having timers will and are leading to vets playing in pub matches because they can not do PC at any given moment solutions like the fuel and other for the latter thing you mentioned plus a solution for pub proto stompers and q syncs are only a band aid for PC PC that is available 24/7 will deal seriously with so many problems with one solution, no timers A raid is PC. I can be done at any given moment. The only difference is that they cant steal a district by default at some god awful hour. Raiding encourages alliance to have 24 hour patrol, but doesn't make it a complete necessity. I mean honestly would you be fine If I solo flipped all of your alliance's districts by doing it in a time slot where you don't have people on? Are you REALLY ok with that mechanic? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1055	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:03:00 - [231] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Yes. Because we sure don't want to pay any attention to the people who not only have extensive experience in planetary conquest in the past, but are still actively involved and are actually interested in its future. Because their opinions are obviously worthless. No-one has seen those opinions, why is there not a collective proposal from that distinguished group of major minds? Except for this little gold nugget: "Region locking is stupid" There is a massive conflict of interest, and lots of vested interest as well in that group. I have yet to see an idea from the current PC lobby, other than Pokeys. There was another group of vested interest players that tried something like this, i.e. refuse to admit there is a problem, refuse to be honest and offer ideas that addressed the problem, but much rather criticize all changes/ideas that were proposed. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. This very response proves you have not been paying very much attention. And by your tone, one can only assume you really aren't that interested in rectifying that anyway. There is no "PC lobby" to present a "collective proposal"... There are players who have opinions, based on experiences in game. Different players have different opinions, there is no one agreed upon proposal all current and past PC players can give you wrapped in a neat, easily digestible package. Your attitude seems basically the same as Soraya's in this matter, which saddens me. Please try to understand this: just because someone doesn't think your proposal is good, and points out what they concider its flaws, it doesn't mean they think the current system is awesome, either. It has already been estalished that change is needed, that was established among most PC players ages ago. We are not discussing maintaining the present state as an option, so why pretend that anyone who critises a specific proposal is doing it just to protect the status quo? Many of us have already chimed in to say that Pokey's proposal is pretty much closest to an actually working proposal we have encountered. Others have chimed in to disagree. I personally don't see the point in trying to reinvent the wheel, when someone has already done the work. Though, I do see a critical flaw in Pokey's proposal, which is why it quite likelly never make it very far. It would require some effort from the developers A lot (not all, by any means, but the majority I have heard from) of the people who do actually do play PC don't think region locking districts is a good solution. Many alternative suggestions have been proposed, some of them bad, some of them less bad, almost all of them better than region locking in my opinion. The only thing worse than region locking is removing timers entirely, my reasons for thinking so are explained earlier in this thread. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Zene Ren Hired Ghost 106	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:05:00 - [232] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: A raid is PC. I can be done at any given moment. The only difference is that they cant steal a district by default at some god awful hour. Raiding encourages alliance to have 24 hour patrol, but doesn't make it a complete necessity. I mean honestly would you be fine If I solo flipped all of your alliance's districts by doing it in a time slot where you don't have people on? Are you REALLY ok with that mechanic? i seriously do not understand how can you be so hesitant to try and build after some time of chaos and district flipping a proper security multi time zone alliance this is seriously strange IMO we have one server one universe why lock players behind timers in the game with that core system is really beyond me Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4462	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:09:00 - [233] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Many of us have already chimed in to say that Pokey's proposal is pretty much closest to an actually working proposal we have encountered. Others have chimed in to disagree. I personally don't see the point in trying to reinvent the wheel, when someone has already done the work. Though, I do see a critical flaw in Pokey's proposal, which is why it quite likelly never make it very far. It would require some effort from the developers cries It was a rough cut, don't hate me! In all honesty, I unfortunately do no get paid to do this stuff and I have a lot of projects on my plate on top of my actual job and life. I by no means think my idea is perfect and I think I even said it needs like.....a shitload of polish, but constructive criticism is appreciated If anything I'm just trying to produce very rough ideas for the Developers to run with, you know? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4462	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:13:00 - [234] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: A raid is PC. I can be done at any given moment. The only difference is that they cant steal a district by default at some god awful hour. Raiding encourages alliance to have 24 hour patrol, but doesn't make it a complete necessity. I mean honestly would you be fine If I solo flipped all of your alliance's districts by doing it in a time slot where you don't have people on? Are you REALLY ok with that mechanic? i seriously do not understand how can you be so hesitant to try and build after some time of chaos and district flipping a proper security multi time zone alliance this is seriously strange IMO we have one server one universe why lock players behind timers in the game with that core system is really beyond me just leave it all to the in game community and let PC crown have their PC constantly... And again, to avoid the situation I described, you would need people online, 24/7. We're talking 48-64 players for every single district an alliance owns. There's what....245 districts or so? So in order for all alliances to properly defend 24/7 you would need 11,760-15,680 players playing PC actively every day for 6-8 hours a day. We do not have the player count to support that kind of system no matter how you try to justify its existence. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 758	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:15:00 - [235] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: 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. While I can agree there needs to be conditions to create an uptick of quantity to dilute the quality in exchange is a major error. From my perspective, the only reason people aren't better versed in teamplay isn't anything to do with timers or "elites" and everything to do with an unwillingness to use what we already have readily available to achieve the goals created. Pubs, as they are, are the free-for-all people want PC to be. Instant battle, no thinking, launch and go. Pubs, as they should be, would be the place that an individual goes to train their aim (bush) their area control (Dom) and finally organized map control ( skirm). None of this neccessitates any changes to Pubs whatsoever except for the mentality of the people going in. Instead of, oh yeah I need isk so Ima gonna protostomp me some bush, hurrdurr! it'd be Well, we want to attack a known competitive force in PC so we better train like crazy in skirms and when we're ready to dress rehearse we launch in FW and after we're confident enough in our ability to have a plan and execute it we'll launch in PC. Winner take all. Yes, districts are free. This is NOT synonymous with value-less. Districts still generate clones, which is the "currency" of attacks. A corp can buy a clonepack and send attacks, or have a couple districts generating the clones that they attack with. Does a district generate free isk? Nope, and they haven't for a while. But they save isk when attacking, and as the old adage goes, isk saved is isk earned. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5495	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:17:00 - [236] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: A lot (not all, by any means, but the majority I have heard from) of the people who do actually do play PC don't think region locking districts is a good solution. Zaria, here's my problem with this: Nobody can tell me why it's not a good solution, other than it's different from what we have now, and people are resistant to change. Arguments like "taking away choice" or "violating the sandbox" are generally invalid, because games are built on limits, and if a function is not assisting gameplay, it needs to die. I've heard ONE good argument against locking down timer changes, and that's the potential for it to interfere with the "location matters" goal, but that's likely not to be an immediate issue anyways. And if we turn changing timers off, we can still turn it back on later, when the mode is developed further. So even if this did become a problem, I'd be inclined to lock it down for now, and iterate on it, and reopen the capability later. Loss aversion is a huge psychological thing. People are very resistant to losing things or options, even if the alternative is actually better. It's a human nature thing. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 41	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:35:00 - [237] - Quote Here is my solution to all the complaints about the timers being absent from raiding: A. Stop being scared about fighting for what you want, this is a war game, not Farmville. We interact with other corps through fighting. B. Make it so that materials are fought back and forth over by corps (This happens in PC today) Corp A attacks Corp B Corp B wins and for vengence strikes back against Corp A Corp B takes Corp A's district - Profit? C. Make raiding require in game fighting against randoms hired by the corp (Pub contracts or other alliance members) You hire your protectors for when you are gone from your profits. D. Realize that the biggest problem with holding land is that, YOU ARE HOLD LAND! This is a finite item that will be hard but valuable to hold. Expect everyone and their dog, to try and take it from you. That is a reason to keep fighting, like daily missions, you have to log in and fight to reclaim, almost everyday to hold it. "Wait their are people in our district fighting. Guess I need to go defend myself again." (Solo player goes in and proto stomps raiders because he is that good) "Hey they kicked us out of our district, lets go take it back. Now lets smash up their warbarge so they can't hit us again tomorrow. (Proceed to raid them til they are harmless. Wow, that was a lot of fighting.)" See, lots of options. Just unclench and be constructive. Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 758	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:50:00 - [238] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Zene Ren wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: hmmm 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? LOL I'm curious what you're talking about with, "PC rule set"? And a penalty for defenders if they lose? But no penalty for attackers when they lose? Exemplify my statement about what I said about this being all about minimizing risk while maximizing reward more. lol man seriously no comment... penalty for attackers that fail: 0 pay, nada, non only costs for lost suits penalty for defenders when they fail smaller dwindled or halted isk or any other district generated resource PC rule set, you do not understand even that? FF on and only vets on the other side what do you want more? So attackers get paid for losses when their attacks fail? Is another example of "Failure=IskReward" available somewhere in New Eden? I'm curious and would like to compare the two. No, "PC rule set" without an explanation I do not understand, that's why I asked. Funny thing about what you describe: FF on <- identical to Faction Warfare, so no, not unique as a "PC rule" Only vets <- Not created by your idea. Since attacks will happen at will, defenders will be composed of members available, not all of whom will neccessarily be "vets". " Only Vets" is a condition created by corps having the ability to take the time to ensure they have PC capable teammembers available. You realize you're just asking for PC to be a pub match, but without the competition, yet? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 758	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:00:00 - [239] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: A lot (not all, by any means, but the majority I have heard from) of the people who do actually do play PC don't think region locking districts is a good solution. Zaria, here's my problem with this: Nobody can tell me why it's not a good solution, other than it's different from what we have now, and people are resistant to change. Arguments like "taking away choice" or "violating the sandbox" are generally invalid, because games are built on limits, and if a function is not assisting gameplay, it needs to die. I've heard ONE good argument against locking down timer changes, and that's the potential for it to interfere with the "location matters" goal, but that's likely not to be an immediate issue anyways. And if we turn changing timers off, we can still turn it back on later, when the mode is developed further. So even if this did become a problem, I'd be inclined to lock it down for now, and iterate on it, and reopen the capability later. Loss aversion is a huge psychological thing. People are very resistant to losing things or options, even if the alternative is actually better. It's a human nature thing. Probably because region locking automatically blues up an area based not on in-game affilitations (corps and alliances) but on out-of-game affiliations ( global player region). This, in turn, then could create WORSE bluelocks once a group has enough players spread across global regions, since the total available is restricted by region and easier to control. If I have 16 NA players who can fight on the ASIA primetime we should be able to keep whatever we are able to take, districts included. 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 23:02:00 - [240] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: And again, to avoid the situation I described, you would need people online, 24/7. We're talking 48-64 players for every single district an alliance owns. There's what....245 districts or so? So in order for all alliances to properly defend 24/7 you would need 11,760-15,680 players playing PC actively every day for 6-8 hours a day. We do not have the player count to support that kind of system no matter how you try to justify its existence. player number would increase IMO substantially when we will remove veterans from pub contracts thus removing proto stompers from the newbie game mode as i mentioned before but those new players need time to learn that the era of q syncs and proto stomping in pub matches has ended by opening PC 24/7 why do you intend to defend all districts from the get go and why are you assuming that one alliance should have and defend all districts this mode will thrive on dynamic flipping at start till we adjust it later just w/o timers while i agree that later in development there should be an orbital bombardment required to open the district for flipping as of now we should just lay the foundations for that systems with removing artificial timers that prevent attacking the districts and limiting vets from playing end game mode of choice aka PC w/o 24 hour preparation or timer windows there is a lot of districts plenty of targets not necessary yours will be the target all the time while you assume with your statement that it will be, this is wrong when we will have more systems opened it will be even bigger pool of targets but the game needs to grow and with timers we are running in a magic cycle of band aid for bad end game mechanic that constantly leaves veterans terrorizing pubs newbies IMO we need to open the flood gates first adjust it later with bigger bonuses for successful defense, penalties will be controlled by the community in game. the penalty is losing a district by not being able to defend it 24/7, or temporal losing of bonus from owning a district by being the victim of constant raiding players within the game will create everything they need to succeed newbies , newer and older vets i know the numbers yes they are correct but as i said timers= stale game play for vets when we need ASAP a game mode for vets from the get go when they are online so that they will not stomp new players straight out of academy as i said before at start there will be chaos with district locking but after some time players will organize just stop preventing them from doing what they want only and this is PC combat quick and approachable Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding



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.