DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest

Mr.Pepe Le Pew wrote:

Maybe the idea of PC is natively difficult because there is no back story. There's no fighting for something other than finding ways to exploit mechanics. This is the only thing PC is good for at the moment. Dust has such an intriguing story, yet the game itself fails to accentuate those points. Having 4 primary races that war should be the focal point of PC. Defending your story, defending your heritage and even abandoning your roots to fight for whats right, should be reasons players to join Corps that stand for those values. On the flip side, Corps that wish to become pirates or neutral entities should also be part of the story. The question is, How do we make this a practical change?

-Corps have to decide which race they want to fight for.
-districts should have race hot zones where it is a lot more difficult to take over a district. This is the hub of the particular race, and the odds are against the attacker.
-districts change color on the star-map to show which race is advancing in the war.
-Corps decide which role they wish to take, if they want to be race-loyalists/pirates/hired mercs/aggressors.

These all may be impossible ideas or silly. i just hope I get the conversation started. Thoughts?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4436	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:28:00 - [1] - 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4452	Posted - 2015.01.21 15:29:00 - [2] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Imp Smash wrote: I would be heavily opposed to C. Some of us don't do daily missions. Some of us can only play SOME Dust a day and choose to use that time for PC (hello family folks) It would not be "those that fight need to do Daily Missions", it's at least a number of Missions need to be completed for the Corporation to be eligible to launch PC attacks. not the same people. So ringers can obviously fight as they should. This would mean that grooming a group of new players/training corps,in the main corp, just to earn Dailies, trust and training with an elite PC corp. I think this is what the game needs, Vitantur had ideas exactly along these lines, so I am not alone The AUR part of daily missions is what is hanging people up. Requiring a certain amount of Daily Missions per week seems to make perfect sense if you can adjust it by a factor that reflects how much you guys have coded AUR missions to pop up in the queue. Somewhat sidebar, but a function/bonus of a player's Warbarge could produce a handful of Mission Re-Rolls every week to allow players to bypass some of the AUR-required missions if they wanted. However it would be nice if Activity could be measured in a more general sense for all game modes, and not just missions which typically are completed in public match. Unfortunately you also have to protect the system from excessive player abuse, in which case the mission system is nice because you can't really abuse it too easily with traditional methods. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4452	Posted - 2015.01.21 15:44:00 - [3] - Quote Well it is straightforward to accomplish them, my point is that do we want corps that are PC Only and don't play the game otherwise? I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's also harder for them to complete missions if they only play PC. So I can understand backlash there. Now as Rattati said it would be more of a corporate pool of Mission Points, so personal completion of missions doesn't really matter so long as a corporation has people that actually do play pubs/complete missions. I kinda wonder if this would be more of a fringe problem.... I mean how many corps are 100% PC and never play pubs? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4452	Posted - 2015.01.21 16:14:00 - [4] - Quote Mr.Pepe Le Pew wrote: Maybe the idea of PC is natively difficult because there is no back story. There's no fighting for something other than finding ways to exploit mechanics. This is the only thing PC is good for at the moment. Dust has such an intriguing story, yet the game itself fails to accentuate those points. Having 4 primary races that war should be the focal point of PC. Defending your story, defending your heritage and even abandoning your roots to fight for whats right, should be reasons players to join Corps that stand for those values. On the flip side, Corps that wish to become pirates or neutral entities should also be part of the story. The question is, How do we make this a practical change? -Corps have to decide which race they want to fight for. -districts should have race hot zones where it is a lot more difficult to take over a district. This is the hub of the particular race, and the odds are against the attacker. -districts change color on the star-map to show which race is advancing in the war. -Corps decide which role they wish to take, if they want to be race-loyalists/pirates/hired mercs/aggressors. These all may be impossible ideas or silly. i just hope I get the conversation started. Thoughts? Well for one, EVE and Dust have always provided a backstory, but the real story is player driven. Also you basically described Faction Warfare in a nutshell, not Planetary Conquest. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4482	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:18:00 - [5] - Quote Sarus Rambo wrote: Step 2: Make it cost quite a bit of money to attack/lock a district. This keeps people from locking districts continuously as a form of griefing. This should be directly proportional to the amount of money you can make for owning a district. Lets say 5x more then what the corp would make during the time span if the district wasnt locked. This would make the barrier of entry into PC even higher, which is the opposite of what we want. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4483	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:41:00 - [6] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sarus Rambo wrote: Step 2: Make it cost quite a bit of money to attack/lock a district. This keeps people from locking districts continuously as a form of griefing. This should be directly proportional to the amount of money you can make for owning a district. Lets say 5x more then what the corp would make during the time span if the district wasnt locked. This would make the barrier of entry into PC even higher, which is the opposite of what we want. It also leads to bid locking alt corps very easy to game Base attacks off of player activity, not ISK. Simply blocking off the barrier of entry is about as bad as district locking. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4484	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:18:00 - [7] - Quote Sarus Rambo wrote: If you own 20 districts, and then pay an alt corp to lock all of your districts, you will effectively be throwing a ton of money away with the system I suggested. You would gain literally NOTHING from doing this. Also, the barrier of entry should be low, I agree, but you need to scale the reward with that. I'm not sure how much a district will generate in passive income, but it shouldn't be too much. For example: District gives you 5mil a day in income. It costs 25 mil to attack a district which locks a district for 2 days. During that two days, the owner gets 0 isk. How the hell would you game this? If you supply an alt corp to lock your district, you would effectively lose 35mil. The barrier of entry in this example is really damn low as well. (NOTE: THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE. DON'T QUOTE THESE NUMBERS) Scale as necessary in the example, and the district locking problem is solved. Its true that if a district is being attacked and doesn't produce profit, that locking would not be profitable. However that doesn't change the fact that the barrier of entry is still high. Sure you can scale the rewards of owning a district, but that doesn't exactly help a corp that doesn't own a district and is trying to break in, now does it? Solving one problem by making another worse is not a valid solution. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4498	Posted - 2015.01.23 06:21:00 - [8] - Quote Sarus Rambo wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Its true that if a district is being attacked and doesn't produce profit, that locking would not be profitable. However that doesn't change the fact that the barrier of entry is still high. Yeah my example would make the barrier of entry SO high. Do you have an issue with attacks being tied to activity levels? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net