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)
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5497	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:02:00 - [241] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. I think it was Kane who invented this term "region locking". I am not suggesting any sort of "region lock". I am suggesting the timers do not change from where they're originally seeded at, which should be scattered around the map to create a fairly varied play map. If you have 16 players who can fight on the Asian prime time you should be able to keep whatever you take, assuming you can also defend it in the Asian prime time. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Zene Ren Hired Ghost 106	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:11:00 - [242] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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? pc rule set also means team deploy does it not? only in PC you can deploy full 16 man squad above that friendly fire and a few million isk rewards with some nice salvage raid attacker winner takes tons of isk while being able to deploy full team for the match w/o any hassle q syncs and nice salvage (we clear FW from q sync stompers as they will have their end game mode with better/bigger rewards) raid attacker defeated lose suits and does not get money or salvage when they lose plus loses the initiation cost required for raid attack big ISK risk/big ISK reward raid defender winner gets tons of ISK is able to deploy whole team again no q sync hassle and praying for success while doing so and salvage raid defender loser does not get ISK or salvage and loses some % of district production for instance and cost of suits here you go Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4463	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:13:00 - [243] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: You don't seem to understand. We don't have the playerbase in the entire game to support what you're asking for. Fixing PC is not going to make people magically flock to play Dust, and certainly not in the required numbers to support your idea. Additionally you still have not told me how your idea gets past the imbalance in regional playerbase as well as excessive talent pooling we see in other areas such as Japan. Because why bother even trying to get a district if you know some guy in a different time zone will steal it out from under you? You're basically going balls deep with "Oh just send the entire system into total chaos and hopefully the playerbase will magically triple to make it all work!" Here's the deal. PC is unique because people always bring the best of the best to the fight. You want EVERYONE to be involved, everyone in the game. All the time. Which means what you get is a mix of everyone, newbies, vets, and everyone in between. You know what other game mode is like that? Public Contracts. If you make PC so chaotic, so manpower intensive that alliances are scraping together anyone they can get just to fill the damn time slots....what do you end up with? A public match. And since ownership wont matter because it'll just get flipped the second your patrols have an opening, how is that any different from a pub match? "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 23:14:00 - [244] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: 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. I think it was Kane who invented this term "region locking". I am not suggesting any sort of "region lock". I am suggesting the timers do not change from where they're originally seeded at, which should be scattered around the map to create a fairly varied play map. If you have 16 players who can fight on the Asian prime time you should be able to keep whatever you take, assuming you can also defend it in the Asian prime time. So, timers. Just not adjustable. Whose times are spread out to certain times for certain regions. Thats region locking, regardless of who coined the phrase. Taking it in Asian prime to then leave it in Asian prime isn't taking it. Its borrowing it. 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 23:19:00 - [245] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: You don't seem to understand. We don't have the playerbase in the entire game to support what you're asking for. Fixing PC is not going to make people magically flock to play Dust, and certainly not in the required numbers to support your idea. Additionally you still have not told me how your idea gets past the imbalance in regional playerbase as well as excessive talent pooling we see in other areas such as Japan. Because why bother even trying to get a district if you know some guy in a different time zone will steal it out from under you? You're basically going balls deep with "Oh just send the entire system into total chaos and hopefully the playerbase will magically triple to make it all work!" Here's the deal. PC is unique because people always bring the best of the best to the fight. You want EVERYONE to be involved, everyone in the game. All the time. Which means what you get is a mix of everyone, newbies, vets, and everyone in between. You know what other game mode is like that? Public Contracts. If you make PC so chaotic, so manpower intensive that alliances are scraping together anyone they can get just to fill the damn time slots....what do you end up with? A public match. And since ownership wont matter because it'll just get flipped the second your patrols have an opening, how is that any different from a pub match? FKN-A Dude, That!!^^^^^^^^Right there^^^^^^ Pub PC without the competition that makes PC what it is. Want team deploy for your pubstar buds? Start a thread for it and call it what it is- Team Deployed Pub Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2405	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:24:00 - [246] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: 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? Yeah, I am not seeing where he is coming from because from what I've read el Operator seems to be the Lazer Fo Cused of PC. Ad Space Available Here 1m Isk/day Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1056	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:25:00 - [247] - 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. Location does matter. PC is, in the end, player created contect, and giving value to arbitrary things is what drives that. Location does also matter if there is any eve interaction (as there is now), if there is any effect of distance on attacing (the way there is clone attrition now) etc. Also. You saying that an argument is invalid because you feel like it doesn't actually make it so. Your opinion is also just an opinion, like all of ours. You can keep repeating the phrase "your argument is invalid" at everyone who disagrees with you, but you're not actually convincing anyone of anything by doing so. And, sure. We can go with whatever system now, there is always an option to change it later How long does it usually take CCP to get around to these things, if we look at the history of Dust? Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4463	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:29:00 - [248] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: 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? Well to be fair, isn't that middle ground supposed to be FacWar or PC Raiding? And then Conquest being the most challenging? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Zene Ren Hired Ghost 106	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:29:00 - [249] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: You don't seem to understand. We don't have the playerbase in the entire game to support what you're asking for. Fixing PC is not going to make people magically flock to play Dust, and certainly not in the required numbers to support your idea. Additionally you still have not told me how your idea gets past the imbalance in regional playerbase as well as excessive talent pooling we see in other areas such as Japan. this thing will solve itself out by it self, when we will have alliance tools for response after the initial chaos people will get it that they need to have a multi time zone alliance to have and own a district for longer, do not worry about this as this will be the thing for community to consolidate within the game as they will know for sure that w/o owning a district will be not possible. Pokey Dravon wrote: Because why bother even trying to get a district if you know some guy in a different time zone will steal it out from under you? You're basically going balls deep with "Oh just send the entire system into total chaos and hopefully the player base will magically triple to make it all work!" yeah man i would not worry about that 24/7 veteran mode open means people need to think and get into world wide alliance and yes till they make that happen it will be chaos, after first multi time zone alliances form we will be able to polish this mode more Pokey Dravon wrote: Here's the deal. PC is unique because people always bring the best of the best to the fight. You want EVERYONE to be involved, everyone in the game. All the time. Which means what you get is a mix of everyone, newbies, vets, and everyone in between. You know what other game mode is like that? Public Contracts. players will know that in PC mode only vets are playing trust me when they enter the fray and will get their asses delivered for them on the plate because full 16 man enemy defends it and profits it greatly while attacker when fails loses every invested isk trust me this penalty will teach them and no in public contracts we have a reward either way if you lose or if you win to some extent and we can not deploy full 16 man team for that Pokey Dravon wrote: If you make PC so chaotic, so manpower intensive that alliances are scraping together anyone they can get just to fill the damn time slots....what do you end up with? A public match. And since ownership wont matter because it'll just get flipped the second your patrols have an opening, how is that any different from a pub match? no man a full team deployed match still that teaches team play and coordination and i will doubt that more then 1-3 new players will be invited for PC defense or attack and i am sure that when enabled, the no timer rule, vets who want to own and play will consolidate for sure so do not worry they will have their end game mode while new players will still play public contracts on its rules so 6 man squad deploy tons of random people etc. etc. etc. that was my vision for end game in dust from beta and yet i still wonder why no one wanted to achieve that ;( Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4317	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:34:00 - [250] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: 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. I think it was Kane who invented this term "region locking". I am not suggesting any sort of "region lock". I am suggesting the timers do not change from where they're originally seeded at, which should be scattered around the map to create a fairly varied play map. If you have 16 players who can fight on the Asian prime time you should be able to keep whatever you take, assuming you can also defend it in the Asian prime time. Timezones are based on regions and if timers are locked and unchangeable then yes, you are proposing region locking PC. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1058	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:35:00 - [251] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Well to be fair, isn't that middle ground supposed to be FacWar or PC Raiding? And then Conquest being the most challenging? Yes, it's supposed to be. Which is why it is particularly ridiculous that so many people want to make sure that PC becomes a way to spin up matches at will where you can almost quarantee there will be no opposition present at all, let alone something you'll have to work at to beat. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4464	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:46:00 - [252] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: Holy ***. What part of "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PLAYERS IN ALL THE TIME ZONES TO MAKE TRUE MULTI-TIME ZONE ALLIANCES" are you not getting? If we had 50,000 players logging in and playing daily I would actually probably agree with you but we dont. Yeah there will be total and utter chaos, and then 90% of the people will say "* this, it's cheaper to just play pubs!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.c Not good enough to take a district in PC? Just do it at a weird time when they're not online! But that's ok because the group that's better than you that you ganked the district from will come right back and kick you in the teeth anyways and take it back. What you want is a place for a group to deploy as a 16 man team to learn teamwork and practice for PC. What you're asking for is to turn PC into a training ground rather than a competative enviroment. What I'm offering is allowing part of PC to be used for training without completely undermining the competative nature of PC. Want to give your new guys a chance to train? Put them in charge of defending against Raids. Want to give your vets a change to fight against the best of the best? Put them in charge of defending against Conquest. If your corporation is not good enough to forcefully take a district without making use of ambush attacks, then they are not good enough to defend that district. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7940	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:47:00 - [253] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: A lot (not all, by any means, but the majority I have heard from) of the people who do actually do play PC don't think region locking districts is a good solution. Zaria, here's my problem with this: Nobody can tell me why it's not a good solution, other than it's different from what we have now, and people are resistant to change. Arguments like "taking away choice" or "violating the sandbox" are generally invalid, because games are built on limits, and if a function is not assisting gameplay, it needs to die. I've heard ONE good argument against locking down timer changes, and that's the potential for it to interfere with the "location matters" goal, but that's likely not to be an immediate issue anyways. And if we turn changing timers off, we can still turn it back on later, when the mode is developed further. So even if this did become a problem, I'd be inclined to lock it down for now, and iterate on it, and reopen the capability later. Loss aversion is a huge psychological thing. People are very resistant to losing things or options, even if the alternative is actually better. It's a human nature thing. Assuming I'm understanding what is being referred to as 'region locking' correctly, It's not a good solution because people sleep, and work, totaling upwards of 75-96 hours a week. Players would like the opportunity to be able to take districts but if the enemy's primary defense is to schedule their timer(s) at times which they know most of the people in that region work/sleep. It pretty much forces you to get foreign entities on the job or lose sleep/miss work to be able to engage them. Lot of Americans will be quick to tell you that they don't particularly enjoy having to be up at 03:00 AM to try and fight another corporation for a variety of reasons. A few American corps would even schedule their timers in off-the-wall times just because they knew no-one would attack them. What we need is a way to create leniency on the timers to be a bit more forgiving for both parties instead of the defenders always being able to schedule around their potential attackers. Does it "violate the sandbox"? Sure it does. It's a very gimmicky game mechanic that is ripe for abuse. Does it "take away choice"? Yes, it does, because if your corporation is primarily from one region of the world it genuinely does limit who you can and cannot engage. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4464	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:48:00 - [254] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Well to be fair, isn't that middle ground supposed to be FacWar or PC Raiding? And then Conquest being the most challenging? Yes, it's supposed to be. Which is why it is particularly ridiculous that so many people want to make sure that PC becomes a way to spin up matches at will where you can almost quarantee there will be no opposition present at all, let alone something you'll have to work at to beat. I completely agree. Rework Conquest be what it was always intended to be, the best of the best fighting each other. Rework FacWar and/or Raids to be the opportunity new players need to be involved in PC without putting a corporation's land on the line. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7942	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:48:00 - [255] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Holy ***. What part of "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PLAYERS IN ALL THE TIME ZONES TO MAKE TRUE MULTI-TIME ZONE ALLIANCES" are you not getting? If we had 50,000 players logging in and playing daily I would actually probably agree with you but we dont. Yeah there will be total and utter chaos, and then 90% of the people will say "*** this, it's cheaper to just play pubs!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.c Not good enough to take a district in PC? Just do it at a weird time when they're not online! But that's ok because the group that's better than you that you ganked the district from will come right back and kick you in the teeth anyways and take it back. What you want is a place for a group to deploy as a 16 man team to learn teamwork and practice for PC. What you're asking for is to turn PC into a training ground rather than a competative enviroment. What I'm offering is allowing part of PC to be used for training without completely undermining the competative nature of PC. Want to give your new guys a chance to train? Put them in charge of defending against Raids. Want to give your vets a change to fight against the best of the best? Put them in charge of defending against Conquest. If your corporation is not good enough to forcefully take a district without making use of ambush attacks, then they are not good enough to defend that district. Alright, Pokey, calm down. Take a smoke break, get your head back in the game, I'm the only one allowed to make a fool of themselves on the forums because it makes guys like you look a lot more level-headed. Really hard for me to do that when you're doing what I'm doing and getting frustrated. Take a breather broseph, lemme be the one that nerd rages so you look a lot more reasonable. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1062	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:51:00 - [256] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Holy ***. What part of "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PLAYERS IN ALL THE TIME ZONES TO MAKE TRUE MULTI-TIME ZONE ALLIANCES" are you not getting? If we had 50,000 players logging in and playing daily I would actually probably agree with you but we dont. Yeah there will be total and utter chaos, and then 90% of the people will say "*** this, it's cheaper to just play pubs!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.c Not good enough to take a district in PC? Just do it at a weird time when they're not online! But that's ok because the group that's better than you that you ganked the district from will come right back and kick you in the teeth anyways and take it back. What you want is a place for a group to deploy as a 16 man team to learn teamwork and practice for PC. What you're asking for is to turn PC into a training ground rather than a competative enviroment. What I'm offering is allowing part of PC to be used for training without completely undermining the competative nature of PC. Want to give your new guys a chance to train? Put them in charge of defending against Raids. Want to give your vets a change to fight against the best of the best? Put them in charge of defending against Conquest. If your corporation is not good enough to forcefully take a district without making use of ambush attacks, then they are not good enough to defend that district. This, so much this. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5796	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:51:00 - [257] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: 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. I think it was Kane who invented this term "region locking". I am not suggesting any sort of "region lock". I am suggesting the timers do not change from where they're originally seeded at, which should be scattered around the map to create a fairly varied play map. If you have 16 players who can fight on the Asian prime time you should be able to keep whatever you take, assuming you can also defend it in the Asian prime time. Horrible idea. Again the time zones didn't create the problems. The mechanics that allowed for small groups to dominate everything caused the problems. The only thing this idea would do is cause low participation time zones to farm ISK all day long. 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 23:52:00 - [258] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Holy ***. What part of "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PLAYERS IN ALL THE TIME ZONES TO MAKE TRUE MULTI-TIME ZONE ALLIANCES" are you not getting? If we had 50,000 players logging in and playing daily I would actually probably agree with you but we dont. Yeah there will be total and utter chaos, and then 90% of the people will say "*** this, it's cheaper to just play pubs!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.c Not good enough to take a district in PC? Just do it at a weird time when they're not online! But that's ok because the group that's better than you that you ganked the district from will come right back and kick you in the teeth anyways and take it back. What you want is a place for a group to deploy as a 16 man team to learn teamwork and practice for PC. What you're asking for is to turn PC into a training ground rather than a competative enviroment. What I'm offering is allowing part of PC to be used for training without completely undermining the competative nature of PC. Want to give your new guys a chance to train? Put them in charge of defending against Raids. Want to give your vets a change to fight against the best of the best? Put them in charge of defending against Conquest. If your corporation is not good enough to forcefully take a district without making use of ambush attacks, then they are not good enough to defend that district. don't worry that much about player base when we will have good rule set and proto bears and q sync will stop terrorizing pubs community will grow not instantly but trust me it will, dust is free and unique people when not stomped will come towards it and will want to learn more about it we just need some brave moves from devs ;) i see though you will not leave the timer idea that is your right but i will not let timers to stay either in our debate ps. thanks for the time and replies though Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4467	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:58:00 - [259] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Alright, Pokey, calm down. Take a smoke break, get your head back in the game, I'm the only one allowed to make a fool of themselves on the forums because it makes guys like you look a lot more level-headed. Really hard for me to do that when you're doing what I'm doing and getting frustrated. Take a breather broseph, lemme be the one that nerd rages so you look a lot more reasonable. sigh I know I know, I just get frustrated when I tell people "Here, you can have what you want except for this minor detail because you know...compromise" and the answer is "Nope, I want 100%". I need a beer. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7942	Posted - 2015.01.21 23:59:00 - [260] - Quote Zene Ren wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Zene Ren wrote: Holy ***. What part of "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PLAYERS IN ALL THE TIME ZONES TO MAKE TRUE MULTI-TIME ZONE ALLIANCES" are you not getting? If we had 50,000 players logging in and playing daily I would actually probably agree with you but we dont. Yeah there will be total and utter chaos, and then 90% of the people will say "*** this, it's cheaper to just play pubs!" and we'll be right back to where we are now.c Not good enough to take a district in PC? Just do it at a weird time when they're not online! But that's ok because the group that's better than you that you ganked the district from will come right back and kick you in the teeth anyways and take it back. What you want is a place for a group to deploy as a 16 man team to learn teamwork and practice for PC. What you're asking for is to turn PC into a training ground rather than a competative enviroment. What I'm offering is allowing part of PC to be used for training without completely undermining the competative nature of PC. Want to give your new guys a chance to train? Put them in charge of defending against Raids. Want to give your vets a change to fight against the best of the best? Put them in charge of defending against Conquest. If your corporation is not good enough to forcefully take a district without making use of ambush attacks, then they are not good enough to defend that district. don't worry that much about player base when we will have good rule set and proto bears and q sync will stop terrorizing pubs community will grow not instantly but trust me it will, dust is unique people when not stomped will come towards it and will want to learn more about it we just need some brave moves from devs ;) i see though you will not leave the timer idea that is your right but i will not let timers to stay either in our debate ps. thanks for the time and replies though Consider this for a moment: If we removed timers all together and allowed for districts to be attacked, whenever, however. How many people would have to be online to attack and defend at any given time? 245 districts * 16 players = 3,920 245 districts * 32 players = 7,840 Let's assume that only half of that is being attacked at any given time, throughout the day. That's still 1,920 players. Even in the best case scenario, we don't have enough people to field to be able to engage in battles constantly, non-stop. There has to be some sort of filter, barrier, or limitation in order for players to have down-time between matches and be able to coordinate. We haven't had more than 3,500 players online at any given time since August. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

Zene Ren Hired Ghost 106	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:09:00 - [261] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Consider this for a moment: If we removed timers all together and allowed for districts to be attacked, whenever, however. How many people would have to be online to attack and defend at any given time? 245 districts * 16 players = 3,920 245 districts * 32 players = 7,840 Let's assume that only half of that is being attacked at any given time, throughout the day. That's still 1,920 players. Even in the best case scenario, we don't have enough people to field to be able to engage in battles constantly, non-stop. There has to be some sort of filter, barrier, or limitation in order for players to have down-time between matches and be able to coordinate. We haven't had more than 3,500 players online at any given time since August. that is nice and yeah you have a point but if we do not give our vets a game mode for them dust new players will still be stomped and discouraged to invest more time in this game thus leaving us in a dwindling spiral no longer academy or things like that will prevent them from hitting the reality after, with proto stompers and q syncs from pure boredom in pub matches thus going deeper into tier side and other solutions that will only make the game experience more sterile and not appealing on the opposite side if we enable vets their end game mode 24/7 with lots of targets and an option to start the PC almost instantly vets will be happy and new players also veterans needs to have high risk high reward mode enabled for them 24/7 or we will stay in status quo that is the base for my argumentation Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 758	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:13:00 - [262] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: 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? Yeah, I am not seeing where he is coming from because from what I've read el Operator seems to be the Lazer Fo Cused of PC. Just el OPERATOR, thanks. Like the sig reads, main and original. Someday I'll remember to add "Only". Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2405	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:35:00 - [263] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: 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? Yeah, I am not seeing where he is coming from because from what I've read el Operator seems to be the Lazer Fo Cused of PC. Just el OPERATOR, thanks. Like the sig reads, main and original. Someday I'll remember to add "Only". Again, Reading Comprehension. Another way to say what I did is that you are to PC what Lazer Fo Cused is to Vehicle balance. Never did I say that you had an alt named Lazer Fo Cused (because frankly I already know that is Takahiro Kashuken) Ad Space Available Here 1m Isk/day Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 758	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:48:00 - [264] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Thor Odinson42 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. 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? Yeah, I am not seeing where he is coming from because from what I've read el Operator seems to be the Lazer Fo Cused of PC. Just el OPERATOR, thanks. Like the sig reads, main and original. Someday I'll remember to add "Only". Again, Reading Comprehension. Another way to say what I did is that you are to PC what Lazer Fo Cused is to Vehicle balance. Never did I say that you had an alt named Lazer Fo Cused (because frankly I already know that is Takahiro Kashuken)[/quote] And that is relevant how to the discussion at hand?? Except for the analogy of PC now being like Vehicles then, in which case you may have a winner since while (look it up) the forums were full of trash players QQing about vehicle imbalance I was playing matches and utterly eviscerating ezmode vehicle pilots with my PLC/AV nade combo. While posting that, while imbalanced for sure, vehicles were FAR from invincible OR unkillable. So if I'm LazorFocused, I guess you'd have to beee.... random forum playertrash that doesn't even participate in the gamemode you are trying to dictate settings for. 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. 5509	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:10:00 - [265] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: 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. I think it was Kane who invented this term "region locking". I am not suggesting any sort of "region lock". I am suggesting the timers do not change from where they're originally seeded at, which should be scattered around the map to create a fairly varied play map. If you have 16 players who can fight on the Asian prime time you should be able to keep whatever you take, assuming you can also defend it in the Asian prime time. Timezones are based on regions and if timers are locked and unchangeable then yes, you are proposing region locking PC. Introducing some sensible mechanics associated with timer changes like escalating cost makes way more sense than trying to force timers that are unchangeable for all time. How does that solve the problem though? Aeon Amadi wrote: Assuming I'm understanding what is being referred to as 'region locking' correctly, It's not a good solution because people sleep, and work, totaling upwards of 75-96 hours a week. Players would like the opportunity to be able to take districts but if the enemy's primary defense is to schedule their timer(s) at times which they know most of the people in that region work/sleep. It pretty much forces you to get foreign entities on the job or lose sleep/miss work to be able to engage them. Lot of Americans will be quick to tell you that they don't particularly enjoy having to be up at 03:00 AM to try and fight another corporation for a variety of reasons. It is in fact that solution which fixes that. If people can't change the timers, they no longer have to get up at 3 AM if they want their district back, because it will still be in the timer they left it. They enemy can't "schedule" the timer at a time when you're asleep. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 989	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:35:00 - [266] - Quote Just to be clear: Talented, skilled, and dedicated players that cluster together into cohesive organizations will ALWAYS dominate competitive games. You will not ever formulate a ruleset to make PC "More Inclusive", the best will always rise to the top along whatever rails you provide and will squeeze others out, and you will never stop that. So please do not misplace the desire of having meaningful activities for casual or lesser-skilled players into the PVP end-game of Dust. BAN ADVANCED GEAR FROM PUBS \| Mass Driver Advocate
Grimmiers 767	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:41:00 - [267] - Quote Are we going to expand beyond molden heath? If there's a great distance between what corps you're able to find based on location players should naturally group up based on their timezones. If we had a contract system you could have ringers defend your districts while you're sleeping.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4319	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:44:00 - [268] - Quote Soraya, that depends on what you think is the core problem. Is it that CCP hasn't engaged the Asian and even the EU community to participate in PC? Is it that clones at 1200 can be used to attack a 2300 timer so that North American players meta the control of the 1200 districts rather than taking them for themselves? Is it that timers can be drastically changed right after capture to prevent counter Attack? Is it that districts don't have enough intrinsic value to make it worthwhile for many corps? Is it that the barrier of entry is too high currently paired with winner-takes-all mechanics? Region locking addresses a symptom without addressing the core problems while at the same time creating new ones. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7944	Posted - 2015.01.22 01:53:00 - [269] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Soraya, that depends on what you think is the core problem. Is it that CCP hasn't engaged the Asian and even the EU community to participate in PC? Is it that clones at 1200 can be used to attack a 2300 timer so that North American players meta the control of the 1200 districts rather than taking them for themselves? Is it that timers can be drastically changed right after capture to prevent counter Attack? Is it that districts don't have enough intrinsic value to make it worthwhile for many corps? Is it that the barrier of entry is too high currently paired with winner-takes-all mechanics? Region locking addresses a symptom without addressing the core problems while at the same time creating new ones. The core problems, I am to understand, are that: - Strictly set timers suck - Nothing that makes districts worthwhile or valuable over any of the others - High barrier of entry The first can easily be addressed by a change of game-play mechanics that include more leniency toward attackers through the creation of uncertainty. Defenders setting a time roughly around when they want their battles to take place instead of the exact hour of the day. EDIT: Or perhaps giving the attackers a means at which to manipulate those times and timers. The second comes through the creation and implementation of valuable commodities beyond just ISK and Clones as a standard currency, but instead something else (warbarge components, more than likely). EDIT: I'd suspect that some districts are more valuable than others, providing 'moar stuff' to encourage entities to compete over those districts. Another option would be to limit the tactical availability of those districts through other means (for instance: deep low-sec districts can't be attacked by clone packs or something, just spit-balling). The third, on the other hand, is largely a psychological and metaphysical aspect of the game that cannot be directly changed. It can be encouraged, absolutely, but if we are to... for example... impose a ruleset such as: "Six (6) man raids can only be fielded by players in Standard gear" it limits the propensity for use of high-end gear but veterans are still going to have the upper hand. However, I think it'd be a good opportunity to implement more controlled game-modes that better benefit a more competitive environment without strictly needing to have high-end gear and a lot of accumulated SP. After all, Raids are all about the taking of valued commodities or ISK, so I think a gear restriction would do well to encourage corporations to recruit outside of the veterancy pool. Just a thought. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5809	Posted - 2015.01.22 03:13:00 - [270] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: Just to be clear: Talented, skilled, and dedicated players that cluster together into cohesive organizations will ALWAYS dominate competitive games. You will not ever formulate a ruleset to make PC "More Inclusive", the best will always rise to the top along whatever rails you provide and will squeeze others out, and you will never stop that. So please do not misplace the desire of having meaningful activities for casual or lesser-skilled players into the PVP end-game of Dust. I can buy that, but how do we know where the competive level of Dust is? The way PC was released without any other form of team play. We have players more than a year experience who've never been in a position to team deploy. What if they've never joined a corp? What if they've been in a corp for 6 months that tried PC a couple times, but didn't like the mechanics? We aren't talking about a gamemode that was released with all the proper elements. Forget the SP gap, the players that had corp battle experience in corps that evolved into elite corps with over 2 years of team play experience pretty much won the game before it started with the tools made available since 5/13. I understand where you are coming from, but I think people give themselves too much credit for having a huge head start on the competition. If it doesn't become more inclusive what's the point of developing Dust anymore at all? I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.



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.