Balistyc Farshot
The Exemplars
RISE of LEGION
36
   |
Posted - 2015.01.20 18:09:00 -
[1] - 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).
|
Balistyc Farshot
The Exemplars
RISE of LEGION
43
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 21:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vrain Matari wrote:We are mercenaries. When we look at the list of proposed fixes for district-locking they all seem very artificial and forced. Why would any of those factors affect the decision of a group of mercs in regards to attacking a district?
We need something that makes sense, drives lots of entertaining battles, and allows players to generate meaningful content.
Step 1: Drive PC district attack and defense through a contract system where attackers/defenders can set a robust set of filters for choosing mercs(alliance, corp, stats, etc.). Allow auto-defense contracts.
Step 2: Get rid of timers.
Ok, Forum trolls back - I have fire!
Guys, he had an idea here, build on it. What he is talking about I also proposed but this could be for Raids. His system works very well for raids.
Just to round this off, you could make it so that each district requires a set number of isk, clones, fuel, ... to run. As that is depleted by raids, the corp gets closer to having their district up for the next corp to attack and take it in X attacks.
This adds the element of raids which whittle down your enemy thus removing timers except for capture, pub involvement (you set your defense parameters too high and you have 6 guys defending against 16). This would allow for more mercenary work and also encourage newer people to try a PC as a defense or raid with some other randoms. If they lose the district, they lose some income, but then they can group up and take it back.
Please don't fear taking things back, in the new PC I see this being crucial.
If you are in PCs today, you should know most of it is about pride with the current meta and going in for a good fight. Lots of times it isn't even a full team on both sides.
Heavy with a massive bullet hose called Lola (Burst HMG).
|