DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

Dust User wrote:

Zaria Min Deir wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine.

Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every fight on the same district? Many issues.

And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem".

Everything Zaria said.

If you're going to add more Research Labs back into MH they need to have the socket changed form the lag infested mess it is now.

Also, the reason everything has been changed to hubs is they're the easiest to defend. Winning 3 battles in a row instead of only 2, sometimes on consecutive days, is a hard task against any team. Hopefully this can be addressed as well. I've always wanted to see districts easier to flip then defend. I think a constant turnover of districts would be a good thing in keeping PC from going stale.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4500	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:40:00 - [1] - Quote New Concept: Command Points Command Points will be earned by players in Corporations doing Corporate Missions. This is akin to "fuel" proposed by the community. Ah yes. Activity generated 'fuel'. For some reason I really love that idea New Concept: Corporate Missions Players will gain access to Corporate Missions by unlocking the Stratagem: Mission Network in their Corporate Command structure Curious to see more specifics on this, but if anything if the missions prove to me more universal between all game modes this will work wonderfully. New Concept: Corporate Command Corporate Command is the metaphysical superstructure of Corporations, AKA Corporate Warbarge AKA Warbarge Fleet/Flotilla. This is the "Pentagon", and it issues Stratagems. The Corporate Command will auto upgrade if it has available components, and does not require the CEO or Directors to do so. This will probably be for the best. If its an obvious upgrade that you would do no matter what, there's no reason to require manual input and add another point of complexity. New Concept: Stratagem Stratagems are to Corporate Command as Modules are to Dropsuits, and Subsystems are to Warbarges. They can be levelled/improved using Warbarge Components donated or earned by Members. This seems like an obvious design, good stuff. New Concept: Earning and Donating Components and Command Points. Each successful Corporate Mission will earn Warbarge Componants, that are auto-donated to the Corporate Command. Every such auto-donation will be mirrored (duplicated) as Command Points into the Command Point pool of the Corporation. So completing Corp Missions automatically supports your corp, both by upgrading Corporate Command and providing fuel to drive war efforts. New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. So players can generate Components doing other activities, but if they donate those Components to the corp, the corp also gets Command points? Seems reasonable. New Concept: Corporate Actions All PC Actions will cost Command Points, that includes Attacking, Defending and changing Timers. Also, claiming Clones, Rarity, changing SI's This will do wonders in breaking the Clone Pack ISK Spamming as well as lower the barrier of entry into PC by basing it off of the players, not just their wallets. This concept is solid, but carefully regulating the generation of CP and the cost of actions is paramount. This will likely prove the most difficult, as large corporations should be able to make use of their size, but not completely trump small corporations by numbers alone. Proposed Stratagems: Mission Network - grants Corporate Missions, upgrading adds more missions Planet Trading - Claim Resources (TBD) from Districts Clone Directive(clone pack)/Orbital Construction(mcc) - generates clonepacks/mcc, upgrading creates and holds more War Council - Reduces CP cost of Actions These are good. Everything should be tied to player activity so players have to...you know, actually play the game in order to profit. Updated Concept: District Income As Command Points need to be earned, Clones will be allowed to be sold once more to generate income and provide a reason. Clones will however need to be sold using Command Points, so it is not "passive" in nature anymore. Rarity will be generated on Districts, but has no further design at this moment. Again this is nice. Players have to play the game to make money. New Concept: Default Timers All districts will be given Default Timers, based on PCU coverage and distance from TQ DT. If Timers have been changed and the District is lost, the Timer will reset to Default. This works as a stop gap but I maintain that I prefer the variable window that requires upkeep to maintain by generating fuel during the time of the window. I do understand however that that system is fairly complicated and may have to be implemented at a later date, so this system with some tweaks will suffice in the meantime. Updated Concept: Changing Timers All timers can be changed as is possibly currently, in the 1st hour of being conquered. District Timer changes will cost Command Points, few for short changes, massive for massive changes. This should make rapid, huge leaps in timers very difficult to maintain and make it more desirable to hold land in your "own" timezone. I understand where you're going with this but I think it still needs to be an upkeep cost. The price to move may be massive, but if a corp can defend a district for long enough and get it to an undesirable time, then we run into the same issue as before. I suggest you allow people to move the timer but there is a daily cost to keeping it there, and the further you move it, the more to cost. One time fees just mean you discourage moving it too quickly, but once it's 'locked away' at some stupid hour, there's really little difference to what we have now. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4500	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:40:00 - [2] - Quote New Concept: Raids We want to make it possible to add District Raiding, in the form of short warning challenges. Raids will not cause Districts to be lost, but the margin of win will dictate how much ISK the Raiders get away with. You should put up a fight to defend your district against Raids, but it will not buckle you to let one Raid slide. Perfect to train New Players, both on Attacking and Defending. These might be in 8v8, 12v12 or 16v16 varieties. Yep yep. Allow raids to be quick spinup training grounds for new players. I also enjoy the idea that the size of the battle can vary, as I think corporations that may not have 16 people on reliable should probably not be holding land, but should be able to participate in PC through raids to gain experience. Scale number of objectives based off of player count as well (1, 3, 5 respectfully) Updated Concept: Rewards Team A earns what Team B lost, Team B earns what Team A lost, is the fundamental principle. BPO's are calculated as BPC's into the formula so there is no particular gain in using them except limiting own losses. This will be balanced so that PC fighting remains lucrative. I have some concerns about this, particularly in Raids. If the only gains attackers earn is what defenders lose, what incentive do the defenders have to even show up? In that kind of war, the best way to win is to not play at all. Failure to defend against a raid should have some loss aside from what you lose in terms of equipment, so Defenders are encouraged to show up, but also not so high that the corp wont suffer massive losses if they fail to defend. Updated Concept: Maps We want to move from always fighting on Cargo Hubs, so while PC2.0 is being implemented, maps should be more randomly generated and possibly all SI' bonuses set to zero. I like the idea of SI bonuses but you have to avoid those which give a direct military advantage like the Cargo Hub did, otherwise you'll have the same situation all over again. Overall very solid proposal. I see almost all of the ideas I liked in the previous discussions in here so I'm very pleased. Also, Corporate Command Points = CCP The conspiracy is real. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4503	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:02:00 - [3] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. And, once again, I would like a response from Rattati about what he means by randomisation. Are we talking the current maps in PC, with maybe some sockets added? Are we talking all the maps in pub rotation? Something in between? How I'm reading it is that all existing SI will be randomized and bonuses removed. Chances are players will be able to change it to what they want but it will offer no benefit other than selecting what socket you want to fight on. However SI will persist between battles and only change if the owner changes it. Further down the line we may see the reintroduction of SI bonuses but for right now they'll likely be removed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4503	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:37:00 - [4] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. And, once again, I would like a response from Rattati about what he means by randomisation. Are we talking the current maps in PC, with maybe some sockets added? Are we talking all the maps in pub rotation? Something in between? How I'm reading it is that all existing SI will be randomized and bonuses removed. Chances are players will be able to change it to what they want but it will offer no benefit other than selecting what socket you want to fight on. However SI will persist between battles and only change if the owner changes it. Further down the line we may see the reintroduction of SI bonuses but for right now they'll likely be removed. If that is how I was reading it too, I'd basically go "huh, seems meaningless, but little harm done"... Random just doesn't, to me, mean tied to the SI. As in, if the large socket is determined by the SI, as it is now, how is that random? If what he means is "we will scramble up the current district SIs" without actually touching the maps... he chose a really weird way of saying it. Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4503	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:59:00 - [5] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every on the same district? Many issues. And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem". Well...there might be some merit to initially randomizing the terrain to incorporate some of the new maps we do have that came out post 1.0. But terrain should most definitely persist between battles. Honestly I would just axe all of the old SI bonuses and start over with an entirely new mindset. Avoid bonuses that have a direct military benefit. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4506	Posted - 2015.01.23 20:17:00 - [6] - Quote Dust User wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine. Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every fight on the same district? Many issues. And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem". Everything Zaria said. If you're going to add more Research Labs back into MH they need to have the socket changed form the lag infested mess it is now. Also, the reason everything has been changed to hubs is they're the easiest to defend. Winning 3 battles in a row instead of only 2, sometimes on consecutive days, is a hard task against any team. Hopefully this can be addressed as well. I've always wanted to see districts easier to flip then defend. I think a constant turnover of districts would be a good thing in keeping PC from going stale. Well you can actually kind of draw a parallel between SI and actual combat Cargo Hub increased District HP Production Facility increased District HP regeneration Research Lab increased District Stamina/Speed We see even in combat that HP is typically favored over the other options so this behavior in PC SI selection makes sense. What I'm asking is....do we really want bonuses that provide a direct 'combat' benefit? Or focus more on bonuses to resource generation, warbarge support, CP generation, ect? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4508	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:36:00 - [7] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Whatever it is, there needs to be a cost for corps not defending against raids. After i posted this i saw some good ideas by others. Agreed. If there is no penalty for failing to defend against a raid, it would be best to just not show up and throw your ISK away. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4509	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:37:00 - [8] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: **Raiding* Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. Similar to going to a Pirate hangout to beat the snot out of them ) Why would you punish a corp that chooses not to do PC? "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4509	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:53:00 - [9] - Quote And what about groups that are in and get pushed out and decide its not for them. You want to give people the ability to harass them anyways? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4515	Posted - 2015.01.24 03:59:00 - [10] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Ljke you said Pokey, you reap what you sow. You should not be able to steal, hide, and then be safe. A corp with relatively little to do after a war should be able to save up CP, get a twam, and show those raiders who's boss. Well i don't really remember saying that exactly, but anyways. I think more so what you're looking for is a Warbarge counter attack, which could perhaps be launched following a raid against your district. I think however that allowing people to bully non-PC corps simply for existing is a nice way to make people quit the game. Even if the CP cost is high, it's basically harassment against a corp that just wants to be left alone. So retaliation triggered by conflict? Sure. But it should be a one time deal for each act of aggression, not something you can do whenever you feel like it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4515	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:03:00 - [11] - Quote No irritation here ^_^ You raise a good point, you just don't want it to turn in a system that allows excessive trolling. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:28:00 - [12] - Quote Haerr wrote: Zatara Rought wrote: I think Radar and Haerr that you're misunderstanding me. I not suggesting that raiding shouldn't be a mechanic. I am stating that empowering corps to raid other corps who own no land and do not with to participate in PC...is a bad idea. For various reasons. Oops my bad, I completely misunderstood you, and you are right of course, being able to attack landless corps would just be plain bad. ... Hey you just gave me an idea! Everyone misses the old corp matches, yeah? There could be a way of allowing landless corps to temporarily expose themselves to attacks... How about making a few districts, not necessarily in MH, that are held by Mordus Legion: * They always have 0 clones on them, making them available for instant claiming. * They generate nothing. * Any attacks launched against one of the districts initiates without delay. (10~15mins warbarge timer.) * After a battle has taken place the district reverts back to being under Mordus Legion control. * If claimed and no battle is initiated within an hour the corp automatically withdraws and the district reverts back to Mordus. In addition to old style corp matches it would also allow for player run tournaments and events... What do you guys think? Is it doable? I think it would be cleaner and work better if the counterattack took place on the War Barge or something of that nature. That would require a new map of course but you could have a placeholder map in the meantime. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net