DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest - Minimum Attack Threshold

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

ZymposieR Rusty Dead Man's Game RUST415 15	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:57:00 - [31] - 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 and b and d: no because of alts C YES, but make wp affect warbarge and warbarge affect clones.
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 5160	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:14:00 - [32] - 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? Damn fine idea Kaze. This would certainly help bring activity and corp numbers into the power projection game. I would also like to be able to track how much 'fuel' I produce for the corp war machine and allow corp leaders to track all of this data. Try the new Planetary Conquest Mode!
iKILLu osborne Dead Man's Game RUST415 603	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:32:00 - [33] - Quote all of them are achievable by someone's toon who plays regularly, so why not use all of them. i find district locking pathetic and it destroys the pc gamemode so i say put an end to the scrub'ery if you shoot me from the redline i will ensure your death will be a swift one
Oceltot Mortalis 51	Posted - 2015.01.20 22:50:00 - [34] - Quote Here's my two cents on the whole matter. If a corporation cannot field a minimum number of players for an attack (i.e. trying to lock a district) said corporation should have to pay a heavy fine before able to attack another district. This number should not be a 16 man minimum, more like 8-10. This fine would not be a revolutionary idea as EVE already has fines/bills to pay for war declaration. And this would further encourage communication and working together as active players. The people who can join this attack should only be allowed to come from the corporation or alliance (minimizing the alt work around.) And compounding this, there should be a minimum time in corp/alliance to further reduce work-arounds. Sure you can create a new corp every time, but maybe we should increase the cost of corp creation as a fix as well. In life, I have this to regret. That too often, when I acquired ISK, I did not have enough of it. -everyone in EVE, ever
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 751	Posted - 2015.01.20 23:49:00 - [35] - 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, so long as we ignore the "Mercenary" part of "Immortal Clone Mercenary" and what the word "Mercenary" means. FTFY Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 802	Posted - 2015.01.21 01:57:00 - [36] - Quote Reserved "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 547	Posted - 2015.01.21 08:02:00 - [37] - Quote 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)
xAckie Ghost. Mob 477	Posted - 2015.01.21 08:11:00 - [38] - 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. You have just closed the sandbox. It a player can or wants to and the corps says sure why not allow them to play Overall I think your pc suggestions over complicate the situation. What is needed is an increase in timers. Personally I would like to see 24/7 attacks on a district. I realise this is not feasible due to low play count and realistic time zones etc. what you could do is make the attack window for a district 8 /10/ 12 hours. Take your pick. That way a corp couldn't stack timers as they are open to attack in a broad time window. So staggering timers won't help. If a corp at the moment has timers at 17/18/19 gmt etc they can go into battle back to back. And this allows a corp that can only field 16 or 10 players or less defeat stickers without any real attrition. With a broad attack window.: coalitions can attack these 3 districts at say 1700 or even 2200 when the broad 8 hour timer for the corp is open. And they corp can then decide which district the corp wants to defend/ keep. If districts allow different team sizes such as 8 or 12 you can alter the broad attack window to a smaller band of hours. This would match with rewards for owning the district being less. Pc is such a chore due to the launch/ 24 hour wait/ wait, organise, fight / lock nature. It needs to become more fluid. I think his would help it.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15305	Posted - 2015.01.21 08:13:00 - [39] - Quote 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 3621	Posted - 2015.01.21 12:29:00 - [40] - Quote For "D" does that 16 players have to have played in the past X weeks because what good is a metric for #of players when you could have 5-6 active players but are a part of a dead corp so you have the inactive vets to fill all of those except maybe "C" Fatal Absolution Director Shield tanking is hard mode /period. Proud FA.G http://imgur.com/VwYJUI3

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4311	Posted - 2015.01.21 13:25:00 - [41] - Quote 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. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4452	Posted - 2015.01.21 15:29:00 - [42] - 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
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4311	Posted - 2015.01.21 15:36:00 - [43] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. I don't know. I've found that it's pretty straight forward to accomplish missions in Pubs or FW. If we had a way to play PC more instantaneously I could see that expanding to Planetary Conquest as well. I like the idea of re-roll tokens, but I think if we just got 1 free reroll a day it would satisfy most people. I have to agree that daily missions seem like one of the least gameable ways to measure activity. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Duke Noobiam The Dukes of Death 347	Posted - 2015.01.21 15:40:00 - [44] - 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) I think small corps should be able to perform raids. B) Could work, but exploiters either have alts with high SP or will quickly build them. C) This is pretty good, although I don't think it can be used by itself. D) Too easy/little effort to work around. E) I like this one, although not by itself. F) Out of the proposed I would combine C and E. I think another avenue that needs to be explored is a post battle analysis that determines if the attack was legit. From what I've heard, while district locking, corps would not engage in actual combat during the battle so that no one would suffer loses and to maximize the farming of ISK. The post battle analysis could take the following (and other criteria) into account... - Number of deaths. - ISK expended in the battle. - Composition of the teams (was one team all alts, or only a few attackers showed up). - Maybe some fuzzy logic based on Mu could also be used. If the attack is deemed to not be legit, then the district should not be locked and passive ISK should not be gained for the period that the district was and would have been unavailable to be attacked by other corps.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4452	Posted - 2015.01.21 15:44:00 - [45] - 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
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4311	Posted - 2015.01.21 15:58:00 - [46] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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? I would venture to say basically none. I think the idea that you may recruit people for the sake of playing pubs is fine. Having a purpose in the corp for PC players and pubstars isn't the worst thing in the world. The idea of everyone contributing to the corp as a whole is something that I find pretty appealing really. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Mr.Pepe Le Pew Art.of.Death VP Gaming Alliance 25	Posted - 2015.01.21 16:07:00 - [47] - Quote 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? CEO / Art.of.Death We fight together now. We look forward to the future in Legion.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4452	Posted - 2015.01.21 16:14:00 - [48] - 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
Mr.Pepe Le Pew Art.of.Death VP Gaming Alliance 25	Posted - 2015.01.21 16:55:00 - [49] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. We don't disagree that Eve and Dust provide a backstory, hence my fourth sentence in my previous post. The problem is executing on the backstory. FW is not decided by corps, it is decided by individual players that select their faction to earn LP. In my description of PC, the only thing to describe is exploiting mechanics, hence this thread. If we think of PC as being part of the backstory and implement mechanics that will remind us why PC is important then it will all change having that vision first. There's nothing going on in PC that is appealing to the majority of the corps in Dust right now because it has been abused by the mega corps in the past, (granted it's not their fault for being opportunists). The decisions will always be player driven, but it needs to be within confines of the backstory. Otherwise, it will stay as is right now; dull and abused. Those are my two cents. CEO / Art.of.Death We fight together now. We look forward to the future in Legion.
Sarus Rambo Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 177	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:56:00 - [50] - Quote Here is an idea: Step 1: Make districts not make any income when under attack/locked. Keeping a district locked here gives the owner 0 benefit. 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. These two things would stop district locking completely. No one would be able to make any money district locking because they make no money from the district when it is locked. Combined with a larger up front cost to attack an alt corp makes this impossible to do and still be profitable. Your welcome. This sums up 75% of forum posts.

Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1068	Posted - 2015.01.22 05:56:00 - [51] - 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) Would not work at all. Make alts, place in corp, countered. To make this a feasible screening process, as in, make X high enough to be too much effort, would eliminate too many actual corps from PC. B) Maybe a useful metric, but how to determine what this average SP? Many, many players have multiple alts that have had passive SP running for a long time... slightly harder to game this requirement, but not impossible. So, would need to carefully set SP requirement high enough to not be countered by alts, but low enough that the participation threshold isn't too high either... C) This actually measures activity of the corp, so, sure. D) I don't see this being meaningful at all, at least not as is... anyone could just make a corp and park 16 alts in it for a week, and then be good to go. And "corp hopping"? how is that even relevant? People should be allowed to move from corp to corp as they want, I don't see what that has to do with PC? E) >.< Can we just please leave the aurum rank of players out of this? Unless you actually are intending to change the formula of how ranks are calculated to be more about actual activity and less about aur spent, I don't see why this is even on the list. Some mix of B and C woudl probably lead to best results... Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2457	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:09:00 - [52] - Quote 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. PSN: RationalSpark
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4482	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:18:00 - [53] - 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
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3496	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:22:00 - [54] - Quote 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 You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 15189	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:24:00 - [55] - Quote Vrain Matari wrote: Step 2: Get rid of timers. This is a terrible idea, as that means you wouldn't need to fight a corp for their district and instead attack them when most of their members are offline. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4483	Posted - 2015.01.22 15:41:00 - [56] - 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
Sarus Rambo Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 177	Posted - 2015.01.22 16:13:00 - [57] - Quote 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. This sums up 75% of forum posts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4484	Posted - 2015.01.22 17:18:00 - [58] - 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
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 43	Posted - 2015.01.22 21:13:00 - [59] - 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).
Sarus Rambo Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 177	Posted - 2015.01.23 01:35:00 - [60] - Quote 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. This sums up 75% of forum posts.

hfderrtgvcd 1776	Posted - 2015.01.23 01:38:00 - [61] - Quote Sarus Rambo wrote: Here is an idea: Step 1: Make districts not make any income when under attack/locked. Keeping a district locked here gives the owner 0 benefit. 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. These two things would stop district locking completely. No one would be able to make any money district locking because they make no money from the district when it is locked. Combined with a larger up front cost to attack an alt corp makes this impossible to do and still be profitable. Your welcome. You realize districts already produce zero income? You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4498	Posted - 2015.01.23 06:21:00 - [62] - 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
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 567	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:02:00 - [63] - Quote 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 Ah. Sounds cool then. Thanks for clearing that up.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15519	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:05:00 - [64] - Quote We are closing this thread, as we have resolved the feedback into a Proposal, found here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=188510&find=unread "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.

Moody come back