DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest

CCP Rattati wrote:

Dear players,

another topic on PC, but now on self attacking to lock Districts.

There are multiple ways to use alts and clone packs to self lock. One way is to create a corp, fill it with alts, send them ISK from your overflowing wallets, and have them attack districts, and then do the minimum fighting to secure the desired lock. This was of course way worse with passive ISK. There are more ways to skin this cat and I want to discuss "exploit free" PC mechanics.

Because, holding land should be worthwhile, in some way. Some are not in favor of passive ISK, but you should be rewarded for holding land, that's the purpose of owning land, to become rich and powerful.

One simple way is to require some minimum corporation threshold to actually initiate an attack. The minimum is basically "these players should be true player characters, who want to raid (gain more than they lost) or win the district. There should be no other motivation, and no other behavior should be possible.

Let's discuss a few options:

A) The attacking Corp has a minimum of X players (players)
B) The attacking Corp has a minimum total/average SP per player (veterans)
C) The attacking Corp has completed X Daily Missions in the last 7 days (engagement)
D) The attacking Corp has at least 16 players that have not joined this corporation in the last 7 days. (corp hopping)
E) The attacking Corp has at least x average Loyalty Rank (LR measures investment, both lifetime engagement and AUR, a really hard metric to exploit)
F) A mix of a few of the above

I will add more, but now it's your turn. Cool

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15218	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:12:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, another topic on PC, but now on self attacking to lock Districts. There are multiple ways to use alts and clone packs to self lock. One way is to create a corp, fill it with alts, send them ISK from your overflowing wallets, and have them attack districts, and then do the minimum fighting to secure the desired lock. This was of course way worse with passive ISK. There are more ways to skin this cat and I want to discuss "exploit free" PC mechanics. Because, holding land should be worthwhile, in some way. Some are not in favor of passive ISK, but you should be rewarded for holding land, that's the purpose of owning land, to become rich and powerful. One simple way is to require some minimum corporation threshold to actually initiate an attack. The minimum is basically "these players should be true player characters, who want to raid (gain more than they lost) or win the district. There should be no other motivation, and no other behavior should be possible. Let's discuss a few options: A) The attacking Corp has a minimum of X players (players) B) The attacking Corp has a minimum total/average SP per player (veterans) C) The attacking Corp has completed X Daily Missions in the last 7 days (engagement) D) The attacking Corp has at least 16 players that have not joined this corporation in the last 7 days. (corp hopping) E) The attacking Corp has at least x average Loyalty Rank (LR measures investment, both lifetime engagement and AUR, a really hard metric to exploit) F) A mix of a few of the above I will add more, but now it's your turn. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 720	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:25:00 - [2] - Quote The hard thing about tracking alts is that a lot of players have alts with a high amount of SP. Option D is my favorite, missions though random have a few that are generally easy to complete. no reaons why you cant log in to play at least a few times a week if your hardcore enough to play PC. Passive isk, or rewarding players for not playing has had terrible effects on Dust. This is why locking districts with alt corps or alliance corps is widespread, because its profitable. We could havee penalties for a ttacking a district within the same alliance, attacking corp is kicked from the alliance as they have become traitors, as well as a massive penalty for no showing a match. Loyalty ranks is not so good, stops new players from getting involved and is more tied to AUR than paytime. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
John Psi Vacuum Cleaner. LLC Steel Balls Alliance 1166	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:26:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: A) The attacking Corp has a minimum of X players (players) B) The attacking Corp has a minimum total/average SP per player (veterans) C) The attacking Corp has completed X Daily Missions in the last 7 days (engagement) D) The attacking Corp has at least 16 players that have not joined this corporation in the last 7 days. (corp hopping) E) The attacking Corp has at least x average Loyalty Rank (LR measures investment, both lifetime engagement and AUR, a really hard metric to exploit) F) A mix of a few of the above a) - not work b) - not work c) - very bad idea d) - good idea e) - bad idea f) - maybe mix a+d Please support fair play!

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15218	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:30:00 - [4] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Loyalty ranks is not so good, stops new players from getting involved and is more tied to AUR than paytime. Well, new players shouldn't "really" be jumping into PC. This guarantees that you are using your proper character, that in most cases has spent a few AUR on SP boosters. Very few players would bother creating alts, dumping aur into them to self attack districts, just to get ISK. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4273	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:45:00 - [5] - Quote I think that option C) is probably the best one to ensure activity equals the ability to engage in the Planetary Conquest system. I would transition this system over to Corporate missions once implemented and not have AUR based missions in the Corporate Daily mission system so that it can be as equitable as possible. A), B) can be easily manipulated. Heck I have many 20+ million SP Alts just from passive SP gain. D) I don't like because players should be able to freely associate as distasteful as corp hopping may be to people. E) I can understand but I think it relies too much on how much you've paid into the system. Also, all of my characters including my alts share my Loyalty rank so I would be able to have characters easily available for alt corps if my Loyalty Rank is high. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 720	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:49:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Loyalty ranks is not so good, stops new players from getting involved and is more tied to AUR than paytime. Well, new players shouldn't "really" be jumping into PC. This guarantees that you are using your proper character, that in most cases has spent a few AUR on SP boosters. Very few players would bother creating alts, dumping aur into them to self attack districts, just to get ISK. ^^^true, yet on LR is it on AUr spent or AUR boought? Say i , as a regular Aur purchaser buy 5 boosters for my main character, AUr is spread between all three, so i could just in theory drop two on my alt and there ya go, Alt character with relevant Loyalty rank set for life. Also, if its Corp average, nothing to stop very high LR ranking corp members tasked with locking distreicts from leading avereage or low LR players into battle. Wthether people would spend Aur for Isk , cant say for sure, but PC corps have earned billions. Concerning the paperclip for isk scandal, i wouldn't put it past overly motivated players to do so. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1932	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:56:00 - [7] - Quote I'd really like to see some way to avoid talent pooling (aka, you thought you were fighting herpaderpinflerps, but instead you're fighting muahahahamurderfiends), while also dodging the issues of 'well why not form super-corps!'. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6621	Posted - 2015.01.20 10:57:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Loyalty ranks is not so good, stops new players from getting involved and is more tied to AUR than paytime. Well, new players shouldn't "really" be jumping into PC. This guarantees that you are using your proper character, that in most cases has spent a few AUR on SP boosters. Very few players would bother creating alts, dumping aur into them to self attack districts, just to get ISK. Corporation loyalty ranks earned via engaging in squad combat with corpmates. Make them independent of aurum. Make this a requirement for the Defenders as well. If a player ceases playing with their corp the ranks fall off. If they corp hop they start from zero again and have to get their corp status back up. Also, found the logi tourist! Please cry directly into the bucket. -Ripley Riley
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 720	Posted - 2015.01.20 11:24:00 - [9] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Loyalty ranks is not so good, stops new players from getting involved and is more tied to AUR than paytime. Well, new players shouldn't "really" be jumping into PC. This guarantees that you are using your proper character, that in most cases has spent a few AUR on SP boosters. Very few players would bother creating alts, dumping aur into them to self attack districts, just to get ISK. Corporation loyalty ranks earned via engaging in squad combat with corpmates. Make them independent of aurum. Make this a requirement for the Defenders as well. If a player ceases playing with their corp the ranks fall off. If they corp hop they start from zero again and have to get their corp status back up. Ringers should be hirable from people proven reliable to their own corp so you can invite friends and make alliance useful. ^^ this, you can manipulate player alts pretty easily, but a corp that has to built up over time, not so much. Instead of tying it to squad corpmates, because not everybody squads with their corp all the time, i would tie it to player activity and daily missions. This way, we can tie in the requirements for keeping a individuals Warbarge maintained with the ideas Rattati sugested to avoid farming Warbarge bonuses, and have that tie into how much it can help or hinder your corp. I imagine a Corp getting having to gather warbarges for an attack, and if the indivudal merc warbarges are not being kept up to scratch they wont be able to form up with the Corp. Players wont be able to launch an attaack with a corp full of alts if their alt warbarges are in neglect. Two birds, one stone. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4276	Posted - 2015.01.20 12:07:00 - [10] - Quote I like the idea of the minimum threshold being applied to defenders as well. If a corp drops off the face of the earth then their districts go up for grabs. If this threshold could be scaled with the number districts you have even better. I think using daily missions makes the most sense because you have a maximum that each player could do in a week. This would make it where a small group of extremely active players couldn't short circuit the system to get around a design goal of X active players needed per district held. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Francois Sanchez Prima Gallicus 214	Posted - 2015.01.20 12:30:00 - [11] - Quote I like all these ideas except the loyalty rank one. It depends too much on the Aurum spent. I have nearly 40M SPs, but as I spent nearly no Aurum in the game (2 omega boosters) I'm only level 4. However I'm still a vet and a true character. I'm pretty sure you can find easily vets and true characters that are only level 3, maybe even 2
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 3567	Posted - 2015.01.20 12:45:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Loyalty ranks is not so good, stops new players from getting involved and is more tied to AUR than paytime. Well, new players shouldn't "really" be jumping into PC. This guarantees that you are using your proper character, that in most cases has spent a few AUR on SP boosters. Very few players would bother creating alts, dumping aur into them to self attack districts, just to get ISK. Im loyalty rank 3, and I have done 60+ PC's in my Dust career. Loyalty rank shouldn't matter for anything, other than the title and bonuses. I like the Corp Hopping idea, as well as the minimum players idea. "Minja" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ I piss Remote Explosives and shit Shotgun shells.
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2397	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:10:00 - [13] - Quote IMHO, District "Locking" in any form is a terrible idea. If the mechanic is allowed, there will be people who exploit it. There should be no way to prevent someone from attacking a District. Now, I understand some will come along and say "well, what will prevent new PC players from getting roflstomped by existing PC entities?". Nothing. Boo Hoo. If they want to participate in PC they should either form an Alliance that can muster the strength to grab a District, or join an existing Alliance that already has Districts and help them to expand their holdings. Locking is a terrible idea that will just perpetuate blue donut asskissing. It is something that will be hid behind rather than something that encourages conflict (which is what I am assuming CCP wants out of PC, conflict). Locking will be exploited by a small segment of the playerbase to the detriment of the larger majority of the playerbase if it is included. Ad Space Available Here 1m Isk/day Mail me message after transferring Isk (sig updated upon transfer completion)
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1837	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:16:00 - [14] - Quote Workaround: * Corp A attacks Corp B's District * Corp A and Corp B "no show" for the battle * Rinse / Repeat Both A and B are legitimate, non-alt Corps.
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 167	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:17:00 - [15] - Quote B) Bad C) Bad E) Bad I have quite old character with low loyality rank and log in occasionally. Loyality rank is not equal to player skill! While we have many talented new players who can participate into PC. Why my corp and I should suffer from this restrictions? D) Will not help at all. <[^_^]>
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 549	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:25:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, another topic on PC, but now on self attacking to lock Districts. There are multiple ways to use alts and clone packs to self lock. One way is to create a corp, fill it with alts, send them ISK from your overflowing wallets, and have them attack districts, and then do the minimum fighting to secure the desired lock. This was of course way worse with passive ISK. There are more ways to skin this cat and I want to discuss "exploit free" PC mechanics. Because, holding land should be worthwhile, in some way. Some are not in favor of passive ISK, but you should be rewarded for holding land, that's the purpose of owning land, to become rich and powerful. One simple way is to require some minimum corporation threshold to actually initiate an attack. The minimum is basically "these players should be true player characters, who want to raid (gain more than they lost) or win the district. There should be no other motivation, and no other behavior should be possible. Let's discuss a few options: A) The attacking Corp has a minimum of X players (players) B) The attacking Corp has a minimum total/average SP per player (veterans) C) The attacking Corp has completed X Daily Missions in the last 7 days (engagement) D) The attacking Corp has at least 16 players that have not joined this corporation in the last 7 days. (corp hopping) E) The attacking Corp has at least x average Loyalty Rank (LR measures investment, both lifetime engagement and AUR, a really hard metric to exploit) F) A mix of a few of the above I will add more, but now it's your turn. A) Has to be over 16 at least but just say its 32 then it punishes smaller corps B) Again punishes small corps who can be new so would have to be low but by now many alts will be well over if they were started last year C) Rewards active corps but sometimes players only want to get on for PC and dont bother with missions and pubs so why should they be punished? D) What about ringers? ringers are exempt because they do not join the corp just jump in a squad and are taken into battle E) LR is easily abused by spending RL money on the game which many do not want to do and also LR is terrible, its punishing those who dont think the game is worth enough to spend money on F) I cant see how to solve it, i have alts which are older than some corps today but either way it cannot punish new corps/players and cannot punish those who only play now and again and seperate those who choose to spend money or not
zex ll X Algintal Core Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.01.20 13:48:00 - [17] - Quote I suggest limiting using ringers.This will make alt corps hard to defend and attack districts.Corps that have many districts will recruit new players and train them.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15245	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:45:00 - [18] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Workaround: * Corp A attacks Corp B's District * Corp A and Corp B "no show" for the battle * Rinse / Repeat Both A and B are legitimate, non-alt Corps. No show doesn't lock district. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4282	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:49:00 - [19] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: Workaround: * Corp A attacks Corp B's District * Corp A and Corp B "no show" for the battle * Rinse / Repeat Both A and B are legitimate, non-alt Corps. No show doesn't lock district. I think Vitantur means having a district in the "Under Attack" state and thus unattackable by everyone else when he says "locked". I really see (C) as being the best option, but would it be possible to introduce something like 1 free reroll for Daily Missions? I think several folks are stuck on the fact that some dailies require you to spend AUR. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Kuruld Sengar Y.A.M.A.H 162	Posted - 2015.01.20 14:50:00 - [20] - Quote zex ll X wrote: I suggest limiting using ringers.This will make alt corps hard to defend and attack districts.Corps that have many districts will recruit new players and train them. Do you mean limiting pc to only the members of the corporation/alliance? That would make sense.

Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1839	Posted - 2015.01.20 15:03:00 - [21] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I think Vitantur means having a district in the "Under Attack" state and thus unattackable by everyone else when he says "locked". Thank you, Kain; that is precisely what I meant. The district is immune to hostile attack so long as it remains under attack by friendlies.
Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 1768	Posted - 2015.01.20 15:42:00 - [22] - Quote What about using Corporation Activity points as a "Fuel" of sorts that would prevent alt corps from farming? This fuel would need to be used not just for attacking, but defending as well. Corporation Activity points could be earned for a mercenary by participating in Public and Factional Contracts. Corporation Activity points could rise after completing Daily Missions, either personal or Corporation Dailies. The Corporation Activity points have a 7 day lifespan. For example: Day 1: I earn 10 points from public matches and 10 more for completing some daily missions. The Corp Fuel is now at 20. Day 2: A corpmate earns 20 points from factional warfare matches and 5 more from completing his dailies. The Corp Fuel is now at 45. Day 8: Corp fuel tank drops to 25 since that 20 is more than 7 days old and went unused. What about something like that? CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou Kaze's Helpful Links
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 569	Posted - 2015.01.20 16:34:00 - [23] - Quote I am not very knowledgable about the current PC mechanics, so please excuse (and correct) me if I just blurb garbage. But from what I understand from CCP Rattati's original Roadmap thread, clone packs (bought with ISK) will be removed and replaced with Warbarge Clone Vats production. If that is the case, why can't you balance the production rate so that it's impossible to maintain constant attacks? This would leave "gaps" in the locking, leaving the district open for other corps to attack, regardless of "true" or Alt Corp. Combine this with option C, and the "default" (I.e no corp activity) clone generation can be reduced even further (Corporation Missions as Kain suggested, could be used to bump the clone production for active corps to reasonable levels).
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 36	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:09:00 - [24] - Quote I think the consensus is that we need to tie the attacks to daily missions to capture active players. I would say, add warbarge fuel as something gained for each daily mission. Also add a multiplier to the number of days part of a corp to the fuel gained in daily missions (This will slow corp hopping). To stop from having the same 16 guys participating in 3-4 attacks or defenses even if they aren't the ones accomplishing daily missions, we were going to force corps to use their C and D teams. Why not have something along the lines of each player can only be part of X PCs in a day. If the locking is removed we could make it so that land acquisition requires 2 days worth of wins from the same corp, corps start to play a balancing game. Corp A has 16 GradeA Players They want to take district X from Corp B They initiate attack, on district X Corp B to spread out Corp A attacks district Y held by Corp A Corp A decides to stay offensive and puts its GradeA players into the attack and wins Corp A loses the defense to Corp B who also kept their GradeA players in the attack Now that both corps have a loss to the other Corp they both initiate attacks again because they need to keep fighting or risk becoming the other corps punching bag Raises new logistics concerns and a drive to involve other players in PCs through the questions: Where do they put their GradeA Players for this next attack? Who do they have in the corp that can fill in for the GradeA players in attack or defense? Can they hire GradeA ringers (Who would also be spending their ability to participate in PCs.)? (New Mercenary Market, no corp, has advantages) If they stay on the offensive can they continue to acquire districts while losing them? Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4436	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:28:00 - [25] - Quote Attack and Defense capabilities should be heavily based around player activity within the corp. Missions are an easy metric but unfortunately since some of the literally require AUR to do, this is problematic. Find a metric that tracks player activity that's accurate and has nothing to do with AUR whatsoever, and you'll have a winner. And honestly it's ridiculous for people to complain that they actually have to...you know, play the game in order to do PC. Regardless you could even so far as to generate these Activity Points and base it off of where the activity is taking place, with Pubs offering the least benefit, up through FacWar, Raiding, and then PC battles with the biggest benefit. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
zex ll X Algintal Core Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:34:00 - [26] - Quote Kuruld Sengar wrote: zex ll X wrote: I suggest limiting using ringers.This will make alt corps hard to defend and attack districts.Corps that have many districts will recruit new players and train them. Do you mean limiting pc to only the members of the corporation/alliance? That would make sense. yes.However,i think using few ringers is ok.
ZymposieR Rusty Dead Man's Game RUST415 15	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:41:00 - [27] - Quote Start by wiping out all isk and gear that's not BPO. To attack you need to get clones trough warbarge, to do this you need active players. One active players can generate more activity by playing more. Maby wp will be a good indicator. A Corp can buy one something that generates one clonepack a week after the corpmembers has earned x wp.
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1026	Posted - 2015.01.20 20:44:00 - [28] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: What about using Corporation Activity points as a "Fuel" of sorts that would prevent alt corps from farming? This fuel would need to be used not just for attacking, but defending as well. Corporation Activity points could be earned for a mercenary by participating in Public and Factional Contracts. Corporation Activity points could rise after completing Daily Missions, either personal or Corporation Dailies. The Corporation Activity points have a 7 day lifespan. For example: Day 1: I earn 10 points from public matches and 10 more for completing some daily missions. The Corp Fuel is now at 20. Day 2: A corpmate earns 20 points from factional warfare matches and 5 more from completing his dailies. The Corp Fuel is now at 45. Day 8: Corp fuel tank drops to 25 since that 20 is more than 7 days old and went unused. What about something like that? Having some sort of 'Fuel' as you mentioned is a good idea. This would mean if two 'friendly' corps want to lock each others districts it has an associated cost to it. If done right, this fuel would also prevent small corps from holding tons of districts by preventing them from defending if they run out of fuel. Overlord of Broman
Syeven Reed T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 1189	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:11:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Loyalty ranks is not so good, stops new players from getting involved and is more tied to AUR than paytime. Well, new players shouldn't "really" be jumping into PC. This guarantees that you are using your proper character, that in most cases has spent a few AUR on SP boosters. Very few players would bother creating alts, dumping aur into them to self attack districts, just to get ISK. I don't know how long it would take to get to a rank needed for PC because when they were introduced I came right in at 8, but this is going along the lines of p2w (or at least 90% of the community will see it that way) I know AUR purchasing is a really good way to tell if a player is a main or alt though. SCAN ATTEMPT PREVENTED EvE - 21 Day Trial
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15149	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:54:00 - [30] - Quote Option A is exploitable by creating a few alts, Option B seems good but making it too high could make the newer players unable to participate in practice PCs. Option C is bad because it forces players to play PUBs and depending on the limit could require the purchase of AUR, since most missions seem to require AUR to complete. I'm indifferent to Option D and Option E is basically "Give us AUR or GTFO of PC". I believe Options A and B would work best, that way you need to have an average amount of SP for the corp but you can't simply have 1 high-SP alt in there to make your average sufficient. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page