DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 775	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:35:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I- 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. II- 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. III- 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. IV- 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. Look forward to seeing your feedback! So, I've been following this thread and now that patch notes for the addition of MercWarBarges have been published I'd like to add to the discourse here. First, most of the concept as presented seems good. There's definitely a sense of SP sink, with the CommandPoint element, but there needs to be some sort of aquired/exhausted "currency" so, so be it. I look forward to the idea progressing and some solid numbers with progression paths being outlined so that tye full enormity of the idea can be examined. As of immediately right now my input for the above sections is: I- I think it would be beneficial for CP generation to be based on individual corp member activity, but rewarded at both the individual level AND the corp level. So, when a merc finishes a "Corp Mission", the individual is rewarded a CP total AND the corp itself receives a CP total. This will allow for CP portability and donatability (as proposed) but also allow for corp stability as members join and leave. CorpMember attrition is a constant as various individual goal changes, desires or other outside factors prompt mercs to join different corps. Loosely put, we call it " corp hopping" and whatever the circumstances the corp the merc is in when they build their CP up shouldn't be punished (by the sudden loss of CP) when said merc arbitrarily decides to jump ship. Time limits on new mercs' CP being applied to their new corp is an excellent buttress for one side of this issue, a seperate, simultaneous CP accrual for the corp itself buttresses the other side. It also would help to avoid active membership corps becoming "CP farm" corps for mercs, who would join to use the active memberbase to complete missions with, build their personal CP, then take that CP to a different corp to have it be used. While the original corp wonders why they suddenly don't have enough CP to do what they had planned. II- This seems alright but we really need to see the full number set insofar as CP accrual goes to determine how balanced this idea really is. It could be an easy thing but has a lot of potential to really screw some folks over, with the smallest groups being the ones screwed hardest. III- Raids, IMO, conceptually and practically, need work. Theres some obvious difference of ideas (from the other commenters) as to what a raid should be, its effect etc. so I'll just add the aspects I think Raids should have and leave it at that. Raids should be immediate, but I don't think they should run 24 hours. If anything they should run concurrently during the available attack window. If the PC Timer window is opened to a 3 hour period, then any time during that window a Raid should be available and it should initiate immediately . Raiding parties should be limited in group size. 6, 8, 12 MAX. These are RAIDS not spur of the moment Corp Battles and if the idea is a small group of merc can slip their warbarges into atmosphere and make the surface but a PC team needs a full flotilla then it makes sense the raiding party is a small number of mercs. Defending groups should be up to 16. As in, whoever is online in the corp, up to 16 players can join the raid defense. YES this means a raiding party of 8 may find themselves outnumbered 2-1. Welcome to a life of crime. The Raid mode should be a Domination match since the Raid is looking to siphon what they can and wreck stuff. 1 terminal is all they need. My best idea for this mode is actually that there be a piece of equipment added, either carried merc equipment or a WarBarge Strategem that has a physical component to it which must be attached to the Null Console to initiate a hacking of the defending corps' ISK. Think of it like the "Bomb" missions many other games have: All the Raiding mercs get paid directly for clones and assets destroyed BUT IF they can hack the console AND attach a transponder to it then they can ALSO directly siphon ISK from the defending corps' wallet up to some preset amount. I also think a very important part of any "Raid"-type of gamemode is the idea of physical extraction from the field. They come, they rob, and then they have to make it out and get away. A dedicated extraction area should be created on the map that at any time can be used by the Raiders to escape. There is only one, maybe graphic it with a parked RDV, and at any point during a raid a raider can use it to exit. Defenders can also use it to isolate raiders and render their getaway....unavailable. cont... Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 775	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:56:00 - [2] - Quote III cont. Raiding should either be available to Corps who hold districts (so there can be some retaliatory mechanism) OR defeated Raiders should have their WarBarges destroyed/disabled so they cannot raid again for some period of time. Maybe, if the "bomb" thing is added, that same device that hacks the NullConsole is the device that allows the Raiders atmosphere entry so if the raid fails, the device is destroyed and the Raiders need to get a new one. These sorts of additions are neccessary, IMO, to make Raids less than just an "instant pub" and more of an activity of discretion where choosing the right target at the right time is critical to the raid being successful. Just like any other robbery. If I truly thought you guys (CCP and the playerbase) were open to it, I'd go so far as to suggest that Raids not actually be conducted on individual districts at all but rather on Corporate HQ's. But, ppl seem so focused on Raids being "PC-lite" they don't realize there are 0 real similarities between Raids as proposed and PC, besides fights on "districts". " Districts" bringing me to IV- Maps being randomized as proposed for PC is a ludicrous idea. Random Map generation for the terrain, infrastructures etc of a determined place in space is about the furthest from "persistent universe" idea I think I've ever heard. You want random maps, go to pubs. You can't handle an enemy who knows the terrain and has a plan before their boots even touch the ground, go to pubs. You don't want to prepare yourself or your team for what you may encounter when trying to invade someone elses space, GO TO PUBS. That being said, advance info as to what the terrain (hey look, a volcano!) and infrastructure are (goddamnit, it's a research lab) should be critical for an invader and should be determined by the current district holder. It's the holders' district, they do what they want with it. HELL, make an option for SI that is actually no SI so if a corp wants to just leave a district bare (and invite other corps over for a breakfast of vehicle battles/sniper challenges) they can. I cannot emphasize enough that if PC maps become random, the only teams that will be fielded will be FULL VET teams, since, at 60Million SP, a vet is waaay more likely to be able to be flexible in fits as needed on-the-fly than a 20Million SP Vet. And priority #1 for FCs will be stocking their PC teams with not guys great at one job but guys really good at multiple jobs since the conditions are unknown and the circumstances broad. The real-deal-Holyfield with districts really are those SI bonuses, what they do and how they interwork with each other. Nickmunson ^ makes a really good point about those bonuses (its in that wall o'text somewhere) and how they should be more beneficial both DUST side as well as EVEside. I said before, in the old Timers sticky, SI bonuses need some work so that their bonuses revolve around the other SI also so the current 10 cargohubs and 1 production facility just isn't as worthwhile as a better spread of SI variety. Either way, SI should be determined by the district holder and the PC maps NOT be random, to do so otherwise is ridiculous to borderline outright stupid. All in all, Good Job Rattati and crew in trying to further the game we all know and love. o7 Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:00:00 - [3] - Quote Appy-Polly-Loggy on the time delay between the two posts above, I was called away and had to handle some RL. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:35:00 - [4] - Quote Lavallois Nash wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Yep, but I have gotten a vibe that a lot of PC players want this to be a landholder exclusive toy, a stance I am viciously against on all levels. In all honesty, I understand some of their concerns, like not wanting to defend against 100 half assed raids from random corps all day long. But I think alot of their want for the land requirement is so that they can use it as leverage to make arbitrary rules as to who is allowed to raid who where when and why. If someone wants in on raiding, and they have to own land, they can be threatened with the loss of their land and ability to raid by larger crops/alliances who want to enforce their rules. (example: Dont raid our districts while were out pub stomping...or else!). That would ruin the entire dynamic of raiding. Its supposed to be ragtag pirate corps trying to loot a seemingly badly defended area, or privateers making ISK by being paid to be a thorn in someone elses side. You remove that dynamic, and you end up with "diplomats" and handshakes, and ect. Thats great and all if you have time to build an empire. But not all corps have 7 days a week reliable players for that. Alot of corps can only operate at peak on the weekends. Non landholding raids is the only way alot of people would be able to participate in entry level PC. Raiding, like just about any other activity in PC, FW or Pubs, WILL be a negotiable service commodity regardless of it's structure. This is DUST after all, derivative of EVE, where Player Created Content is overwhelmingly Player Created Politics-based. To think otherwise is self-delusion. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:50:00 - [5] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: SirManBoy wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Interesting posts operator. I agree with you on some points, disagree on a couple. But mostly nicely thought out. As far as raiding: I think it should be kept to 8v8 or 12v12. This is an entry level opening to PC and a means for PC corps to make use of their members who can't do PC because a lot of PC corps have set in stone fight teams. Raids should be open to more than the conquest window. Upon a raid that is repelled tge defenders should gain an IMMEDIATEA OPPORTUNITY TO DESTROY ATTACKER ASSETS in the form of a retaliatory attack initiated immediately after a successful defense. Warbarges should not be destroyed unless yours are destroyed when you lose a district. However wrecking clone assets and causing CP loss is an option to represent infrastructure damage. However if raiders go unopposed there should be no opportunity to retaliate. I am fine with adding variety to the game by adding 8v8 and 12v12 battles to the proposed raiding system, but raids should also increase Dust's overall capacity for full 16v16 matches. Raids aren't just an opportunity for non-PC qualified people to be involved in team matches, they also present the opportunity for A-teams to get more reps in between their standard PC battles. Yep, but I have gotten a vibe that a lot of PC players want this to be a landholder exclusive toy, a stance I am viciously against on all levels. From my perspective, which by no means is neccessarily the all-encompassing perspective of all PC players, it isn't about wanting Raids to be an "exclusive toy" but rather that there be, exactly as you yourself suggest, some, "retaliatory attack" aspect that is at least roughly the same loss potential as what district holders have. I personally suggested WarBarge or WarBarge Strategem destruction/incapacitation so that Raiders wouldn't have to be landholders, they lose WarBarge assets instead inhibiting further raids for a time. If WarBarge incapacitation isn't on the table then Raiders basically would have to hold land so that a "retaliatory attack" can occur. That, OR raids don't go down on districts but on Corp HQs instead since every corp has one of those. What won't be appropriate or in the long-term a balanced, positive expansion of PC is the idea that raiding has high yields (isk, district clones, district infrastructure removal, CP) with little to no risk of loss (just the bpo's used to attack with). That sort of thing totally and absolutely violates the risk/reward paradigm and "decisions have consequences" fundamentals the game is entirely built on. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:59:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 6 v 16 isn't interesting gameplay unless the six have a wildcard that matters. There's no value in a game mode where one side risks everything and the other comparatively nothing. Correct, and that same equation works in the inverse as well, 16v 6 isn't interesting gameplay either, nor does it have any value since it very much is one side risking comparatively nothing relative to the incredible potential of the other. Truth is, all raiders will be looking for the most poorly defended districts first, because if that many people were actually looking for actually challenging PC matches there'd be a hell of a lot more active PC players . Which is, IMO, fine. I just consider, as a fair "risk" the raiders take, the idea of a raiding party to possibly enter a district where they are not just matched but outnumbered to be a worthwhile possible balancing element. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:17:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: 6 v 16 isn't interesting gameplay unless the six have a wildcard that matters. There's no value in a game mode where one side risks everything and the other comparatively nothing. Correct, and that same equation works in the inverse as well, 16v 6 isn't interesting gameplay either, nor does it have any value since it very much is one side risking comparatively nothing relative to the incredible potential of the other. Truth is, all raiders will be looking for the most poorly defended districts first, because if that many people were actually looking for actually challenging PC matches there'd be a hell of a lot more active PC players . Which is, IMO, fine. I just consider, as a fair "risk" the raiders take, the idea of a raiding party to possibly enter a district where they are not just matched but outnumbered to be a worthwhile possible balancing element. In my opinion attacking the hard ones would be more entertaining. I like dying in a fire. I learn more about how to rip people by losing to them a few times than I ever did stomping them. Me too, which is why I have no qualms with proposing that when I go raiding with 7 of my friends/corpmates we might possibly misjudge the attack timing or our targets assets and pay for it by having the battle-odds immediately stacked against us. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:28:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Operator, until DUST is open world creating a lopsided engagement is of no value. 8v8, 12v12 or 16v16. Raiders should not have to face more stiff losses than someone who invades to conquer land. Good raiders will utilize their best to smash in for profit. Wasting effort is wasting CP and ISK. 8v16 is not in any way balanced in a lobby shooter and served as a deterrent for people to even try. Penalizing people for not already having land is idiotic. all your assertion does is guarantee a PC corp is never at risk of significant loss. If DUST was open world in PC you could have these lopsided engagements. But then if PC was open world I'd have dropped 50-100 body attack newbswarms onto districts with intent to make people scream And get buttmad. If I am not allowed to do that to you, you are not allowed to do it to me. Ok, but again this same logic then justifies that if there aren't enough defenders the raid can not be initiated, since 6v2 or 8v0 is "lopsided". I realize, based off my tags, what I suggest is easily construed as being intended to protect district owners however what I'm trying to protect is the game's overall balance. Essentially low to risk-free attack modes being made available at whim that glean potentially huge rewards isn't balanced. Every suggestion I've made, also, is a suggestion I realize I will have to live with too since I am also looking forward to raiding on some mtherf+ùckers* . Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:36:00 - [9] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: Maybe a week was harsh. My point was it can't be risk free. Then again getting spanked and losing gear is still a loss. And if the big boys are worried about raids it means it's working as intented. Fair points tbh That raiding can't be risk-free is really the point, and as proposed it largely is. Losing your gear and w/e noteriety there may be for getting "spanked" really isn't any risk at all. Why would I say that, you ask? Because losing gear and getting spanked is the penalty for losing in PUBS which are the lowest entry, lowest risk/reward mode we have. If Raiding is to be any sort of step up away from pubs then it can NOT have the identical risk/reward scheme to it. If it does it'll be cool for about 15 minutes and then everybody involved will sit back and go, "wtf? This is just an auto-pub. " Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:43:00 - [10] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Operator, until DUST is open world creating a lopsided engagement is of no value. 8v8, 12v12 or 16v16. Raiders should not have to face more stiff losses than someone who invades to conquer land. Good raiders will utilize their best to smash in for profit. Wasting effort is wasting CP and ISK. 8v16 is not in any way balanced in a lobby shooter and served as a deterrent for people to even try. Penalizing people for not already having land is idiotic. all your assertion does is guarantee a PC corp is never at risk of significant loss. If DUST was open world in PC you could have these lopsided engagements. But then if PC was open world I'd have dropped 50-100 body attack newbswarms onto districts with intent to make people scream And get buttmad. If I am not allowed to do that to you, you are not allowed to do it to me. Ok, but again this same logic then justifies that if there aren't enough defenders the raid can not be initiated, since 6v2 or 8v0 is "lopsided". I realize, based off my tags, what I suggest is easily construed as being intended to protect district owners however what I'm trying to protect is the game's overall balance. Essentially low to risk-free attack modes being made available at whim that glean potentially huge rewards isn't balanced. Every suggestion I've made, also, is a suggestion I realize I will have to live with too since I am also looking forward to raiding on some mtherf+ùckers* . Your suggestions have to be tempered with the understanding that raids can only do temporary damage to an enemy corp. You can't take their land away from them with a raid. While an individual raid's effect may be temporary the cumulative effect will be effectively permanent. Constant raiding will mean the districts never replenish, which will lead to no one holding districts and everyone just raiding, which will lead to no districts being worth raiding, which will lead to everyone coming back in here to QQ moar about PC sucking. I haven't suggested anything that would permanently stop a raider, just common-sense types of penalties for failed raids. Accurate target acquisition failures included. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:01:00 - [11] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: Maybe a week was harsh. My point was it can't be risk free. Then again getting spanked and losing gear is still a loss. And if the big boys are worried about raids it means it's working as intented. Fair points tbh That raiding can't be risk-free is really the point, and as proposed it largely is. Losing your gear and w/e noteriety there may be for getting "spanked" really isn't any risk at all. Why would I say that, you ask? Because losing gear and getting spanked is the penalty for losing in PUBS which are the lowest entry, lowest risk/reward mode we have. If Raiding is to be any sort of step up away from pubs then it can NOT have the identical risk/reward scheme to it. If it does it'll be cool for about 15 minutes and then everybody involved will sit back and go, "wtf? This is just an auto-pub. " Losing a planetary conquest match and getting spanked only costs you the ISK suits and equipment you lost too, and no payout at the end of the match. That's hardly worse than pubs, especially when you have to pregenerate your own clones to make the attacks. That right there is a limiter. No clones? tough sht, no raids for you. No ISK payouts on full-proto losses can be staggering and is exactly the sort of thing that distinguishes PC from a pub. Clone losses in PC also cannot be ignored since they need to be replaced, either through waiting the regeneration period OR importing them from another locale and then ensuring that locale has enough. Again, this is part of that pub vs pc distinction. If theres a clone-generation element to raiding that equates to clone self-supply which if depleted inhibits an individual from raiding for a period I'd be (depending on the numbers) ok with that. That, like that, is exactly what I was proposing with the whole WarBarge Incapacitation/Strategem destruction idea. idc how it materializes, just that there some sort* of mechanism to whoop a raiders' ass enough that they can't raid for a while. Just like a fat hole in the side of a classical pirate's ship OR lengthy prison time for a contemporary Somali Pirate who's been caught. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:11:00 - [12] - Quote Lavallois Nash wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Raiding, like just about any other activity in PC, FW or Pubs, WILL be a negotiable service commodity regardless of it's structure. This is DUST after all, derivative of EVE, where Player Created Content is overwhelmingly Player Created Politics-based. To think otherwise is self-delusion. I explicitly stated its commodity potential in my privateers line. I have no problem with raids being used in many different ways. What I have a problem with, is giving the monopoly over a game feature to a bunch of corps who, in the past, have shown a willingness to collude and sideline gameplay in the name of the bottom line. I fear that with such a system in place, the idea of raiding is lost. Instead of raider corps, there will just be the exact same corps as today, but with "raiding" and "conquering" teams. And again, "politics" has its place in empire building and commerce. It has limited place in raiding. By its very nature, a raid is a undeclared act of aggression motivated almost entirely by opportunity. If you guys want to have politics for land holders, and for commerce folks once trading hits, I think that great community building. However, its too ridiculous to imagine the idea of a pirate corp leader going "Ok lets see, im going to join Example Corps chat, request a meeting...ok, got a meeting with their assigned representative...hello! Us pirates respectfully request permission to raid your installation and take your **.......whats that? come back Thursday at 7:45pm eastern? Ok! Will comply!". in my view, raiding diplomacy is more along the lines of "ok, good raid, you got alot of our stuff. Some of it is critical to our corp, can we buy it back at a premium?".....or....."you guys got lucky and raided us while our A team was busy. You can pay us back for the damages or face our wraith". el OPERATOR wrote:** From my perspective, which by no means is neccessarily the all-encompassing perspective of all PC players, it isn't about wanting Raids to be an "exclusive toy" but rather that there be, exactly as you yourself suggest, some, "retaliatory attack" aspect that is at least roughly the same loss potential as what district holders have. I personally suggested WarBarge or WarBarge Strategem destruction/incapacitation so that Raiders wouldn't have to be landholders, they lose WarBarge assets instead inhibiting further raids for a time. If WarBarge incapacitation isn't on the table then Raiders basically would have to hold land so that a "retaliatory attack" can occur. That, OR raids don't go down on districts but on Corp HQs instead since every corp has one of those. Im completely fine with their being retaliatory strikes. it makes sense for their to be a risk/consequence for everybody involved. Me i suggested that any corp that wants to participate in raiding should have to rent office space for a few mil ISK a month, and then it would give a time window when they can raid/be raided. That way the only corps that can raid/be raided would be ones that are leasing space or the ones with districts. That way they could still be accountable in some sense. (ex: bad diplomacy = alot of daily raids on your leased space). Its just, districts have to be earned and maintained. Not everyone has the resources and manpower to do that. Alot of weekend intensive corps could afford to do big raids on the weekend and skeleton crew defends of their HQs on weekdays, but would go broke/ get conquered trying to own and keep a district. Having your HQ hit and some of your stuff stolen a few times, or even losing your lease for a bit, is not as bad as what it costs to take/lose a district in a finite amount of districts. I...don't see the monopoly element potential here, outside of typical "blueing up" agreements. Which, btw, is what most any alliance is. Sounds like we're on the same page with Raider HQ's/WarBarges/CorpHQs etc. Just some reasonable element which allows for an opportunity for raid retribution. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:57:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: While an individual raid's effect may be temporary the cumulative effect will be effectively permanent. Constant raiding will mean the districts never replenish, which will lead to no one holding districts and everyone just raiding, which will lead to no districts being worth raiding, which will lead to everyone coming back in here to QQ moar about PC sucking. I haven't suggested anything that would permanently stop a raider, just common-sense types of penalties for failed raids. Accurate target acquisition failures included. Since the raid has less potential for profit on a win, it is entirely unreasonable to inflict stiffer penalties for a loss on raiders than you would on a PC corp who failed to assault and invade a district. So unless the same harsh penalties are levied against PC hopefuls who fail, your assertions serve only to insure that raids are always a losing prospect rather than a real potential for gain. Making less reward cost more in risk is bass-ackward. Actually, the same penalty is. If you post an attack against a district and fail you are done. No ISK and no more attacking that district, that day. The window has to open back up, another attack be sent and when that attack window rolls around to battletime (usually the following day, sometimes two) then new attack begins. Winning an attack allows you to continue attacking and possibility taking the district upon successful completion of the third battle in the series. Granted, individual raids will not flip districts. But if they are going to be "PC-esque" in design and sap district strength thereby sapping corp strength the PC-esque design should include a similiar failure penalty. If it doesn't then raiding parties will just wantonly form squads, queue raids and then float through MH careless really of either winning or losing and instead focusing solely on what gets them paid: kills. Just like the majority of pubs. And I feel I need to emphasize, again, the easier and low-risk you make raiding for these ethereal "training-corps" the easier and low risk you make it for "PC pro-corps". Are you guys really ready to finally get your new small corps' first districts and then have constant pro raids being conducted on yourselves and your assets? You realize limitless raiding capability is chum in the shark-filled waters of PC, right? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.01.31 20:01:00 - [14] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: I don't know if what I'm going to ask about was already covered but have you ever considered adding a new feature for selling districts, Rattati? It would add another alternative to fighting for the district and allow more corporations to get into PC a little easier. You want to buy a district? Message me in-game and I'll get you to people who've been trying to GIVE districts away for months . Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.01.31 21:04:00 - [15] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: Lavallois Nash wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: some sort of mechanism to whoop a raiders' ass enough that they can't raid for a while. Just like a fat hole in the side of a classical pirate's ship OR lengthy prison time for a contemporary Somali Pirate who's been caught. Im ok with that. Some corps might risk the chance that there will be a retaliation ,and they might not have enough people online to defend, but thats part of the dynamic. if you initiate a raid on just a "space leasing" raider corp, and they dont show, you get a bunch of their stuff and any corp that suffers a string of losses like that is either going to have to back out or declare bankruptcy. el OPERATOR wrote: I...don't see the monopoly element potential here, outside of typical "blueing up" agreements. Which, btw, is what most any alliance is. Sounds like we're on the same page with Raider HQ's/WarBarges/CorpHQs etc. Just some reasonable element which allows for an opportunity for raid retribution. The monopoly potential is if the most powerful corps decide that, hey, lets just sit on districts and collect their benefits, and just do raids as PC fights. And use our combined might to confiscate land from anyone who doesn't comply with the arbitrary raiding system. Its very possible. they might even get a system where they grab a bunch of districts, and then rent them out to small corps interested in raid fights, but then cancel the agreement if they raid at an inopportune time or raid a corp, like a "billboard" corp, that the regulars don't want to see raided. The big corps in Molden Heath...will...put their own interests and bottom lines over those of the game. Thats fine, they are trying to build empires, but that doesn't mean that they should be given leverage over everything. The only leverage these powerful corps should hold is the promise of daily, repeated revenge raids. You know what im saying? Id rather see raiders controlled through use of force, rather than see them controlled though just politics. I fear Molden Heath coming together to exile and ban a very successful raiding corp from raiding by barring their access to land. Thats what I want to prevent. I want raider corps access to be determined by their war effort. If they are always putting up a good fight, they will carve a spot people will have to respect, if they lose their fights, they will lose their ability to continue their war effort and will have to withdraw. But yes, overall, we are in complete agreement that raiders should be vulnerable to being raided themselves, otherwise we have a unbalanced system. You should not go out raiding unless you are aware of the potential backlash from the people you just raided. Our difference of opinion mainly centers on the how this should be done. So your saying you want to see the same 100 or so players control raiding and control PC at the same time. For me personally it wouldn't bother me at all. However your proposal in my honest opinion is completely wrong to the purpose of the inplatation of this system. If CCP wanted the same 100 players to control raiding as we already control PC they would have updated PC only. I'm not sure if this meant for me, Nash or both of us since we both see the merit of raiding have more relation to PC than just being pubs on districts. Raiding is entry level PC. It is low stakes without reprecution for the new corps trying to see if they have what it takes to play with the big boys. It also allows a semi training ground for these corps. So why would you guys want to put a fear barrier in front of these corps to discourage them from doing any end game at all. No person should be condemned from playing the competitive scene of this game. Nothing I've proposed stops anyone from trying and keeps it (raiding) more of a "high crime" (like a bank robbery) than a "low crime" (like petty vandalism) as PC in any regard deserves. A little planning to be ensure being successful is not out of line. The risk of raiders losing is already very high against corps that own a stake in PC why would they want to take that risk of failure on top of, after losing, getting there faces stomped again in some way by the corporation thy already failed to do anything against. Wipe this thought that land owning corps should be able to retaliate against raiders. Not only does it make no sense tactically and militarily speaking but it completely destroys all chances that this new system will be used by many. The risk isn't that high for raiders tho if they can queue those raids up at-will and raid undefended districts. 16v8 is this huge and unacceptably lopsided engagement but 8v0 isn't? If you enter PC at any level you should be ready accept the risks of PC at any level. This should include counter-raids and if a raiding group has no raidable assets some sort of raidable asset needs to be created with the creation of raiding in general. To paraphrase a corpmate, [b] If players aren't ready to LOSE in PC they aren't ready to WIN either. La Li Lu Le Lo Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 00:47:00 - [16] - Quote danthrax martin wrote: Do I have this right? Large pc corps are afraid of the larger non-pc player base and want more restrictios than pc has? I see an uprising of stompees given the ability to exact revenge... and I love the idea. LOL Minor caliber spin-doctors might give you that impression but there isn't a single currently active PC player I've spoken to or seen contribute who've said anything even remotely close to that. I stated before that what I post could be construed as being intended to protect existing PC interests but again, I repeat, this is not the case. Existing active PC groups already have existing active PC players and teams . The sorts of ideas I've proposed (like capping raid parties at 6 or 8 but allowing defenders up to 16) are far more valuable for a small, new corp than a larger one. "Retribution Raids" as well. Believe you me, EVERY occupant of Molden Heath is looking forward to staging raids and any other gameplay expansion that comes out for PC. The currently successful either will be again or will work until they are. The currently unsuccessful? That will be up to them, just like it is now. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 00:52:00 - [17] - Quote Hell, I did a 7v12 last night. Got my ass kicked. Didn't quit, didn't redlinecamp, didn't QQ about it. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:01:00 - [18] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: If you enter PC at any level you should be ready accept the risks of PC at any level. Smells like troll. Reward potential of raids will be limited; risk exposure will have to follow suit. I'm having trouble with raid reward potential being limited when most ideas for raid rewards, including the OP, center around sapping district based isk, infrastructure and clones. Its akin to the winner of a Faction Warfare battle receiving rewards generated from enemy EVE ships in orbit. You get that comparison? If rewards are limited for raids then risk should be commiserate. And if rewards for raids are to include elements of a district then the raiders' risks should be somehow commiserate. If that means the game expanding to include some sort of tangibly riskable raider asset what's the problem? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:03:00 - [19] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Terry Webber wrote: I don't know if what I'm going to ask about was already covered but have you ever considered adding a new feature for selling districts, Rattati? It would add another alternative to fighting for the district and allow more corporations to get into PC a little easier. You want to buy a district? Message me in-game and I'll get you to people who've been trying to GIVE districts away for months . Sorry, not interested. Probably won't be able to afford it anyway. And here we see the actually broken part of PC. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:08:00 - [20] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I should also mention, I proposed raid mechanics that would restrict a corp from raiding the same district more than once per day. I already took into account your "unlimited raids" argument. That one is a simple fix. The only way to grind down a corp via raiding the way you are talking about should be through the coordination of multiple corps that systematically tear ass across all of a corp's districts. And in the proposed system by rattati the attackers have to generate a finite number of clones. Destroy the clones, cripple the raiders.w So then, like Nash, you and I agree on the concept if not on whatever the actual solution should encompass. Cool. As I've stated, I'm less concerned with the actualization as I am with the simple realization. You're idea limits hits per district, my idea limits hits based on indvidual daily success. To-mae-to,To-mah-toe Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:14:00 - [21] - Quote The irony in your posting on this topic and at this time cannot be understated however, Terry. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:33:00 - [22] - Quote Well, at least admit you see that it was funny. C'mon, it's funny! Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 785	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:53:00 - [23] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: You're idea limits hits per district, my idea limits hits based on indvidual daily success. To-mae-to,To-mah-toe Why are you trying to limit a gamemode? This reduces activity server wide. Since Warlords Endgame will revolve around CP why would CCP limit the amount of times someone can raid when we have a limited amount of a resource we have to produce? If 0.H has 2000CP and to raid it cost 200 CP we better be able to use all of our CP to raid if that's what we feel like doing that day. You all keep forgetting CP is going to be the driving factor of everything. I posted this back on page 5. No one should be limited by mechanics only by a resource. Currently we can PC as much as we want but it costs time and isk. So why should we limit raiding? As long as raiding has a cost to limit its infinite potential then a corp can only raid till that cost can no longer be met. That being said CCP will make or break the game based off this currency the community knows nothing about. So I hope it is implemented with extreme caution. A "resource limit" is a "mechanical limit", you have to have the resource to engage in the activity. If CP is going to be the be-all and end-all of Raiding I'm A-OK with that provided a successful raid defense saps some of that sweet sweet Raider CP. Or something like that. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 785	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:56:00 - [24] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I think probably the easiest way to address the issue is to ensure that the raiders have to bring something to the table that they can lose. Exactly what I'm saying and proposed various ideas to address. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 785	Posted - 2015.02.04 20:51:00 - [25] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Kain Spero wrote: danthrax martin wrote: Landowners are who you want to initiate raids? BS. All I need is some guys and a clone pack to initiate PC. I'm fine with cp+isk+(clones?)(warbarge?) But the idea to require land makes me very confrontational and want remind people that a majority of the playerbase does not hold land. Kitten off Requiring land to initiate a raid would defeat the whole point of a raiding system. This. times 10. Of course anyone should be able to raid. Did y'all forget? Sandbox! That being said -- not being able to hit non land holding corps back for a raid does seem a bit carebear and allow for some abusive risk free trolling. (I say the above despite having said, earlier in this thread, that smashing non land holding corps and keeping them out of PC preemptively would be crap) So I think I see where the people who think land should be required come from. Risk free attacks is a ludicrous concept. There has to be some middleground where non land holding corps can raid, and can be attacked in return in some way that does not cripple them and remove them from PC. I have ideas on that -- but poorly formed and not well thought out. So I'd leave it to y'all to start that process if y'all agreed with the above statements. We got to "land required" after other ideas were presented. Imp Smash wrote: Risk free attacks is a ludicrous concept. There has to be some middleground where non land holding corps can raid, and can be attacked in return in some way that does not cripple them and remove them from PC. This^ is all I'm getting at. AND that since we're creating a "new" gamemode (Raiding) we could have an opportunity to actually create a new gamemode (like a traditional FPS BOMB or VIP mission) that would do waaaay more to provide new content and gameplay then having yet another way (it'd be the 4th way iirc) to queue up an Ambush match. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 787	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:12:00 - [26] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: "Raid Reprisal" A CP-free counter-strike option offered to Landholder within 15 minutes following a failed Raid defense. Playmode: 50 clone Ambush On landholder victory, reclaim 50% of whatever the raiders stole (clones, components, etc). On landholder defeat, reclaim 0%. Standard Salvage rules apply. ^ A response with boundaries. An opportunity to teach those pirates a lesson. Could even call it "risk free" if you'd like. I'd prefer less of the "risk-free" Ambush aspect (we have those, they're under 'Ambush' in Public Contracts) tho I do like the 15 minute Reprisal Attack idea. A Get 'em Before They Get Away kind of thing. What if it cost CP, say half of what it costs to raid, but it a win returned 80% of assets stolen with the remaining 20% NOT going to the raiders but instead being "lost" (damaged, destroyed, hidden, w/e). Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 790	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:48:00 - [27] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: "Raid Reprisal" A CP-free counter-strike option offered to Landholder within 15 minutes following a failed Raid defense. Playmode: 50 clone Ambush On landholder victory, reclaim 50% of whatever the raiders stole (clones, components, etc). On landholder defeat, reclaim 0%. Standard Salvage rules apply. ^ A response with boundaries. An opportunity to teach those pirates a lesson. Could even call it "risk free" if you'd like. I'd prefer less of the "risk-free" Ambush aspect (we have those, they're under 'Ambush' in Public Contracts) tho I do like the 15 minute Reprisal Attack idea. A Get 'em Before They Get Away kind of thing. What if it cost CP, say half of what it costs to raid, but it a win returned 80% of assets stolen with the remaining 20% NOT going to the raiders but instead being "lost" (damaged, destroyed, hidden, w/e). I really wouldn't like that, because then teams could fight the raid battle, lose, but know they stalled enough to gather the ringers to stop the Raid. Retaliation Raid concept was my idea, but you damage the other corp's CP production Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 790	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:53:00 - [28] - Quote Its a cool idea, 501, the RaidReprisal, I like that it creates an opportunity for there to be an equitable risk to raids considering the rewards. Also it helps to make effective raiding be a product of effective planning and target selection. Just like PC. Since, you know, its supposed to be a PC "variant". XD I'm excited to see how it turns out and go raiding, youguys too? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 791	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:18:00 - [29] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". No. They win the raid match? They keep something. Reprisal raids cannot reduce potential profit to zero. THAT should require winning the raid in the first place. Completely valid point. A 50-50 split doesn't seem right tho, you pickpocket me and run and I chase you, catch you and take my wallet back I don't split half the contents with you. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 795	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:18:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". No. They win the raid match? They keep something. Reprisal raids cannot reduce potential profit to zero. THAT should require winning the raid in the first place. Completely valid point. A 50-50 split doesn't seem right tho, you pickpocket me and run and I chase you, catch you and take my wallet back I don't split half the contents with you. I'm gonna say at most you get back 40%. Enough to be worth reprisal, not enough that you get to feel like you can casually blow off the raid while you muster the ringers. Funny, I was thinking the most raiders who lose a reprisal would be entitled to was along the lines of 30-40%. Again, you rob me and I catch you, you are not keeping 50+% of what you took. If raiders can pick when/where/who to target essentially instant battles there's a huuuge advantage in their risk mitigation, which really would only be balanced by some other equally mitigating " thing". A chance at recovering 40% isn't equally mitigating. It's mitigating, but not equally. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 15:48:00 - [31] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: There is no equal mitigation. You want to mitigate your loss? Win the initial raid battle to begin with. Not after most of the loot is transferred off planet. Risk, not loss. Raiding risk should be equally mitigated somewhere with Defenders' risk somehow. If Raiders want to mitigate their losses, as your logic goes, then they need to not just raid but get away with it too. Win both the Raid and the Reprisal. Which works very well, IMO, very true-to-life. Not only must the "crime" be performed but also the getaway . How many episodes of COPS show a guy successful at robbing the liquor store but failing hard at the getaway? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:43:00 - [32] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: There is no equal mitigation. You want to mitigate your loss? Win the initial raid battle to begin with. Not after most of the loot is transferred off planet. Risk, not loss. Raiding risk should be equally mitigated somewhere with Defenders' risk somehow. If Raiders want to mitigate their losses, as your logic goes, then they need to not just raid but get away with it too. Win both the Raid and the Reprisal. Which works very well, IMO, very true-to-life. Not only must the "crime" be performed but also the getaway . How many episodes of COPS show a guy successful at robbing the liquor store but failing hard at the getaway? they win the raid they get the lion's share of the loot. The reprisal is a halfass recovery effort by someone trying to save face after getting their asses kicked. They should not be able to recover a majority of the loot. Only part of it. They win they raid they get what they earn only so long as they can escape with it. The Reprisal is a asset recovery collection by someone who had a thief break in while they were otherwise occupied. They should be able to recover the vast majority, if not absolutely all, of anything removed from the district. It's balance. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 18:56:00 - [33] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: you seem to confuse petty crime with raiding one is preformed by guys in ski masks the other is by Vikings, Huns, Vandals, and Goths. Edit: Not trying to be a **** but you seem to think this is one or two dudes sneaking into your house at night, I am thinking small army. Don't let my downplaying of what "Raiding" is insofar as its place in the wider spectrum of crime as some misunderstanding on my part on the concept. Every historical raiding group you named and every contemporary raiding group (Somali pirates, for ex.) comes from somewhere, and goes back to somewhere. Thats part of whats missing in this "raiding" equation, as proposed. ALSO, when caught NONE of those groups is just re-released to continue raiding wihout penalty. This is another part of what's missing from this OP. I'm all for suprise raiding. I (and many others) feel that RAIDING is a great idea BUT under no circumstances should it be, by its srructural mechanics, an essentially risk-free auto-queue Ambush match paid out of district assets. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:35:00 - [34] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: you seem to confuse petty crime with raiding one is preformed by guys in ski masks the other is by Vikings, Huns, Vandals, and Goths. Edit: Not trying to be a **** but you seem to think this is one or two dudes sneaking into your house at night, I am thinking small army. Don't let my downplaying of what "Raiding" is insofar as its place in the wider spectrum of crime as some misunderstanding on my part on the concept. Every historical raiding group you named and every contemporary raiding group (Somali pirates, for ex.) comes from somewhere, and goes back to somewhere. Thats part of whats missing in this "raiding" equation, as proposed. ALSO, when caught NONE of those groups is just re-released to continue raiding wihout penalty. This is another part of what's missing from this OP. I'm all for suprise raiding. I (and many others) feel that RAIDING is a great idea BUT under no circumstances should it be, by its srructural mechanics, an essentially risk-free auto-queue Ambush match paid out of district assets. You seem hellbent on making it unprofitable entirely No, I'm focused on it not being a risk-free auto-pub paid from my high-risk efforts. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:52:00 - [35] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: you seem to confuse petty crime with raiding one is preformed by guys in ski masks the other is by Vikings, Huns, Vandals, and Goths. Edit: Not trying to be a ** but you seem to think this is one or two dudes sneaking into your house at night, I am thinking small army. Don't let my downplaying of what "Raiding" is insofar as its place in the wider spectrum of crime as some misunderstanding on my part on the concept. Every historical raiding group you named and every contemporary raiding group (Somali pirates, for ex.) comes from somewhere, and goes back to somewhere. Thats part of whats missing in this "raiding" equation, as proposed. ALSO, when caught NONE of those groups is just re-released to continue raiding wihout penalty. This is another part of what's missing from this OP. I'm all for suprise raiding. I (and many others) feel that RAIDING is a great idea BUT under no circumstances should it be, by its srructural mechanics, an essentially risk-free auto-queue Ambush match paid out of district assets. Its NOT risk free when you actually ass yourself to defend your district is it? That's your "risk- mitigation" right there. Also when these groups didn't just steal from you they killed and burned everything they could find too. So no matter what you did you lost something right? I think its fair for you to have to lose something when you either don't or can't defend your district. If you get everything you lost back then where is your risk? if you really want to push down that road then I have no problem pushing for you to pay isk to repair your burnt ass house. That isn't balanced, that a group can pick who to take and when and then attack and whoever happens to be there (unless its EVERYBODY who happens to be there ) defends. Thats not mitigating anything, thats an autoloaded ezmode. BTW- Every single one of those pillaging groups you describe was killed, dead never to to rob/**/pillage ever again ever, when caught or successfully opposed. Which I also proposed as a possible risk mitigatory element, that losing a raid would disable those raiders' raiding ability for a period. And I'll repeat again, if raiding is a low to risk free activity with almost guaranteed profits for the raiders direct drom the disrricts assets NO ONE will hold districts, they will accumulate no assets and then become useless for raiding. And PC will be what so many lament it is, a playground for super-vet pro-teams to stage epeenstroker contests while "the community" QQs. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 802	Posted - 2015.02.06 20:58:00 - [36] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: That isn't balanced, that a group can pick who to take and when and then attack and whoever happens to be there (unless its EVERYBODY who happens to be there ) defends. Thats not mitigating anything, thats an autoloaded ezmode. You do that now only with a 24hr warning. I personally have suggested that there be a window of opportunity around a districts attack timer. If you cant get enough people online around your primetime then YOU should not own land. True." With a 24 hour warning". As currently proposed, raiding will be near-instant queued. Making it within a window based on the regular attack window? I'd probably be okay with that depending on how wide that window is from the regular BTW- Every single one of those pillaging groups you describe was killed, dead never to to rob/**/pillage ever again ever, when caught or successfully opposed. Which I also proposed as a possible risk mitigatory element, that losing a raid would disable those raiders' raiding ability for a period. Its great being immortal isn't it? I have also suggested that a corp cannot raid a single district more than once per 24hrs does this not sound fair to you? You kill them enough times they will learn that you are not an easy "target" Another proposal I don't disagree with as possibly being a good balance element.** And I'll repeat again, if raiding is a low to risk free activity with almost guaranteed profits for the raiders direct drom the disrricts assets NO ONE will hold districts, they will accumulate no assets and then become useless for raiding. And PC will be what so many lament it is, a playground for super-vet pro-teams to stage epeenstroker contests while "the community" QQs. No kidding right? Conversely raiding has to be viable enough to convince "the community" to participate. Indeed, it does. What the expectation of "viability" is complete player-base community-wise however, I think we can see in just our tiny discussion, has wide variation. Seems to me we're in agreement on the fundamental ideas if not the specifics of the details. Details very few in here outside of the Devs will dictate. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 802	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:05:00 - [37] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: raiders risk a pittance and possibly an MCC build. Landowners realistically risk losing a significantly amount of accumulated assets after cumulative effects of constant raids over time. Suck it up, cupcake. Oh Snap, I'm bad! I didn't read the part of the Raids proposal that included the loss of an MCC build for defeated raiders. Copylink it from the OP for my ignorance please. CAKE! For EVERYONE!!! Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 803	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:44:00 - [38] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: That isn't balanced, that a group can pick who to take and when and then attack and whoever happens to be there (unless its EVERYBODY who happens to be there ) defends. Thats not mitigating anything, thats an autoloaded ezmode. You do that now only with a 24hr warning. I personally have suggested that there be a window of opportunity around a districts attack timer. If you cant get enough people online around your primetime then YOU should not own land. True." With a 24 hour warning". As currently proposed, raiding will be near-instant queued. Making it within a window based on the regular attack window? I'd probably be okay with that depending on how wide that window is from the regular BTW- Every single one of those pillaging groups you describe was killed, dead never to to rob/**/pillage ever again ever, when caught or successfully opposed. Which I also proposed as a possible risk mitigatory element, that losing a raid would disable those raiders' raiding ability for a period. Its great being immortal isn't it? I have also suggested that a corp cannot raid a single district more than once per 24hrs does this not sound fair to you? You kill them enough times they will learn that you are not an easy "target" Another proposal I don't disagree with as possibly being a good balance element.** And I'll repeat again, if raiding is a low to risk free activity with almost guaranteed profits for the raiders direct drom the disrricts assets NO ONE will hold districts, they will accumulate no assets and then become useless for raiding. And PC will be what so many lament it is, a playground for super-vet pro-teams to stage epeenstroker contests while "the community" QQs. No kidding right? Conversely raiding has to be viable enough to convince "the community" to participate. Indeed, it does. What the expectation of "viability" is complete player-base community-wise however, I think we can see in just our tiny discussion, has wide variation. Seems to me we're in agreement on the fundamental ideas if not the specifics of the details. Details very few in here outside of the Devs will dictate. Try this this thread has most of the basic ideas lined out within. I'm going to have to read through that thread in its entirety at another time, I'm at work tbh so theres only so much forum I can do right now. I'd strongly suggest any ideas you have be placed into this thread so that Rattati may see the feedback directly versus having to sift for it. I will be reading through that puppy though... Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 803	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:47:00 - [39] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: BTW- Every single one of those pillaging groups you describe was killed, dead never to to rob/**/pillage ever again ever, when caught or successfully opposed.** Which I also proposed as a possible risk mitigatory element, that losing a raid would disable those raiders' raiding ability for a period. Right there is why there shouldn't be a way to counter raid. You said it perfectly Every single famous raiding group was very successful until they were famously opposed and destroyed. They got away with so much because no one could/would oppose them. Show up and beat your raiders and they don't raid you again simple as that. Well, then Awesome! Show me please where in the OP it states that once a defender has defeated a raiding group they'll no longer be able to raid that corp again. A link is fine, if a direct quote is too much trouble. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 803	Posted - 2015.02.06 23:18:00 - [40] - Quote Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the majority of my time fighting raiders (and raid defenders) who were just spanked off the district but since there's little to no penalty for loss after match end they just re-queued another raid attempt. As I've said a few times, Auto-queued Pub matches paid from districts. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 808	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:58:00 - [41] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the majority of my time fighting raiders (and raid defenders) who were just spanked off the district but since there's little to no penalty for loss after match end they just re-queued another raid attempt. As I've said a few times, Auto-queued Pub matches paid from districts. You are right at first. As you keep defending you district against their raids they will learn that you WILL be there and WILL defeat them and pick someone else to attack. You hope, I'll believe it when I see it. What will also happen and then happen more often if what you describe becomes true is raiders will look to "softer" targets or districts that aren't defended (yes, like we should) and raid those, knowingly unchallenged. Which then affirms even more my assertion of raiding just becoming a 0-risk autopub, unless some other balancing element is put into place to shape it into something more meaningful as a game element. tl;dr : Since raiders will have the enormous advantage of hand-picking the lowest possible risk matches for themselves there should be something to balance that risk/reward-wise for defenders. Whether it's defeated raider cooldowns (destroyed strategms/MCC etc) or retribution attacks or the potential of defended districts being able to field lopsided matches in favor of defenders or any of a bunch of other ideas. Something needs to be instituted as a balancer. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 808	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:26:00 - [42] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the majority of my time fighting raiders (and raid defenders) who were just spanked off the district but since there's little to no penalty for loss after match end they just re-queued another raid attempt. As I've said a few times, Auto-queued Pub matches paid from districts. You are right at first. As you keep defending you district against their raids they will learn that you WILL be there and WILL defeat them and pick someone else to attack. You hope, I'll believe it when I see it. What will also happen and then happen more often if what you describe becomes true is raiders will look to "softer" targets or districts that aren't defended (yes, like we should) and raid those, knowingly unchallenged. Which then affirms even more my assertion of raiding just becoming a 0-risk autopub, unless some other balancing element is put into place to shape it into something more meaningful as a game element. tl;dr : Since raiders will have the enormous advantage of hand-picking the lowest possible risk matches for themselves there should be something to balance that risk/reward-wise for defenders. Whether it's defeated raider cooldowns (destroyed strategms/MCC etc) or retribution attacks or the potential of defended districts being able to field lopsided matches in favor of defenders or any of a bunch of other ideas. Something needs to be instituted as a balancer. Raiding should not be an all or nothing game mode the point is to get new-berry corps feet wet in competitive gaming. We all know that there is a significant paywall when it comes to even playing in PC in the form of battle losses (proto losse / no EOM payout). Allowing corps to pick and choose their targets is hardly any different than what we have now. You can easily choose the weakest looking corp / district from the starmap the only thing preventing this now is player agreements amongst the biggest name corp. If CCP goes with the window approach. It will require large and active corps just to hold land with small corps being the pirate groups.The larger the corp and the more players during the raid window the less likely the attack succeeds. This is the balancing factor. The reign of small elite corps owning land is over with these changes they will have to recruit large pools of players to maintain and "garrison" their interstellar empire and that is not a bad thing. The payouts from raiding will be much less than being a land owning corp anyways, it will not cause any real strategic loss other than the diversion of troops to these areas, and raids will cost CP, isk, and possibly a MCC. This will ensure that there is a large and active PC playerbase which will pull most of the high SP players from pubs. From what i have understood you will lose clones from moving your MCC. This means to me that raiding will be limited to within a certain radius anyways which will limit the impact of a single group of raiders. We both want the same thing and that is a large and active PC community. "If CCP goes with the window approach" everything will be balanced is = to "If CCP goes with the deactivatable raiding strategem from raid loss" everything will be balanced which is = to "If CCP goes with the Raid Reprisal battle-mode" everything will be balanced etc etc etc See where we're at with this? A lot of good ideas but none of them are part of the proposal and all of them seek to address a facet of balancing this idea that also doesn't exist in the OP. On the bright-side I for one am very encouraged to see the community outpouring of intellect in recognizing this issue and proposing ideas to solve it. btw, Theres very little indication that once raiding becomes a "thing" that it will mainly be performed by small pirate corps. As it's proposed raiding will definitely be an ez iskmaker for all the existing large corps. Hell, you needn't look any further recent Molden Heath corporate merger history to find full pro corps consolidating their ranks in anticipation of the prospects of raiding. Large corporate landholder will have the personnel (with the SP base to be effective) to spread around and repel raiders across timezones. Smaller corps? Not so much. Which will most likely lead to fewer small corps actually having districts sinxe after beinf constantly raided they'll be incredibly easy to flip by any interloper group. Not exactly a formula for robust PC growth. I'm still optimistic about raiding though, any addition that can expand the possibilities of Mercenary Employment is worth at least trying to form and balance. Done well I think raiding will be an excellent mode. Deployed imbalanced or otherwise broken somehowcoughjust about every patch/fix/update evercough and I think raiding will do far more harm than good. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 808	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:46:00 - [43] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the majority of my time fighting raiders (and raid defenders) who were just spanked off the district but since there's little to no penalty for loss after match end they just re-queued another raid attempt. As I've said a few times, Auto-queued Pub matches paid from districts. You are right at first. As you keep defending you district against their raids they will learn that you WILL be there and WILL defeat them and pick someone else to attack. You hope, I'll believe it when I see it. What will also happen and then happen more often if what you describe becomes true is raiders will look to "softer" targets or districts that aren't defended (yes, like we should) and raid those, knowingly unchallenged. Which then affirms even more my assertion of raiding just becoming a 0-risk autopub, unless some other balancing element is put into place to shape it into something more meaningful as a game element. tl;dr : Since raiders will have the enormous advantage of hand-picking the lowest possible risk matches for themselves there should be something to balance that risk/reward-wise for defenders. Whether it's defeated raider cooldowns (destroyed strategms/MCC etc) or retribution attacks or the potential of defended districts being able to field lopsided matches in favor of defenders or any of a bunch of other ideas. Something needs to be instituted as a balancer. Raiding should not be an all or nothing game mode the point is to get new-berry corps feet wet in competitive gaming. We all know that there is a significant paywall when it comes to even playing in PC in the form of battle losses (proto losse / no EOM payout). Allowing corps to pick and choose their targets is hardly any different than what we have now. You can easily choose the weakest looking corp / district from the starmap the only thing preventing this now is player agreements amongst the biggest name corp. If CCP goes with the window approach. It will require large and active corps just to hold land with small corps being the pirate groups.The larger the corp and the more players during the raid window the less likely the attack succeeds. This is the balancing factor. The reign of small elite corps owning land is over with these changes they will have to recruit large pools of players to maintain and "garrison" their interstellar empire and that is not a bad thing. The payouts from raiding will be much less than being a land owning corp anyways, it will not cause any real strategic loss other than the diversion of troops to these areas, and raids will cost CP, isk, and possibly a MCC. This will ensure that there is a large and active PC playerbase which will pull most of the high SP players from pubs. From what i have understood you will lose clones from moving your MCC. This means to me that raiding will be limited to within a certain radius anyways which will limit the impact of a single group of raiders. We both want the same thing and that is a large and active PC community. "If CCP goes with the window approach" everything will be balanced is = to "If CCP goes with the deactivatable raiding strategem from raid loss" everything will be balanced which is = to "If CCP goes with the Raid Reprisal battle-mode" everything will be balanced etc etc etc See where we're at with this? A lot of good ideas but none of them are part of the proposal and all of them seek to address a facet of balancing this idea that also doesn't exist in the OP. On the bright-side I for one am very encouraged to see the community outpouring of intellect in recognizing this issue and proposing ideas to solve it. btw, Theres very little indication that once raiding becomes a "thing" that it will mainly be performed by small pirate corps. As it's proposed raiding will definitely be an ez iskmaker for all the existing large corps. Hell, you needn't look any further recent Molden Heath corporate merger history to find full pro corps consolidating their ranks in anticipation of the prospects of raiding. Large corporate landholder will have the personnel (with the SP base to be effective) to spread around and repel raiders across timezones. Smaller corps? Not so much. Which will most likely lead to fewer small corps actually having districts sinxe after beinf constantly raided they'll be incredibly easy to flip by any interloper group. Not exactly a formula for robust PC growth. I'm still optimistic about raiding though, any addition that can expand the possibilities of Mercenary Employment is worth at least trying to form and balance. Done well I think raiding will be an excellent mode. Deployed imbalanced or otherwise broken somehowcoughjust about every patch/fix/update evercough and I think raiding will do far more harm than good. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 812	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:11:00 - [44] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: Nothing was/ is going to stop top tier players from being key to success in MH as long as we are forced to use the 16 v 16 we can only hope that they increase the pool of active players in their corps to give a larger portion of the community a place in PC. I will say this small corps like the one I am currently in have no place in PC and should be highly discouraged for anyone to even attempt to hold land until they can comfortably have 2 16 man teams at a time. Bugs and exploits are part and parcel with the New Eden experience and even if raiding is done poorly it will create interest in PC which we both can agree is sorely needed. The bolded area is primarily why I suggested raiding parties be limited in participant numbers with defenders having a number advantage. Small groups currently rarely stand successfully against the larger corps and while it may seem self-serving to suggest 6v12 matches, the real beneficiaries are those smaller groups. Landholding in MH is more than just "taking" a district, there are constant and continuous changes politically and territorially which can be very difficult to track let alone predict, kind of like the behaviour in PC of random players and the effect their actions have on the final outcome. This is part of our EVE heritage and is evidently working as intended. Bugs and exploits are part and parcel for all gaming, online and otherwise (ever cheat at poker?), however if we can see obvious imbalance or poor game design on the drafting table then we can and are best served by addressing those issues immediately instead of going full production and release with an intent to "fix it" later. If raiding is done poorly it will not inspire any more interest in PC than currently exists but will most definitely inspire more negative criticism of PC, DUST514 and CCP than currently exists. Remember, most consumers will contact a company to complain about a product that functions poorly but will almost never contact a company about a product working well. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 812	Posted - 2015.02.11 23:02:00 - [45] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 6v12 offers no tactical advantage to the raiding party and every advantage to the defenders. Correct. It is weighted towards the defenders, partially to address what Travis accurately descibed as "top-tier players" who are "key to success" and the effect raids from those players on small corps' districts will I have. (I predict large scale small-corp ownership contraction) Breakin Stuff wrote: Unless the raiders get a sht-hot tactical advantage that will allow them to overcome 12 proto stacked crazies then 12 v12 should be the away it goes. Just me, but that raiders will be able to pick exactly when and whom to attack, therefore able to select land whose owners may be away (memberbase not online) or distracted (memberbase occupied in pubs, PC or defending a different raid) I think definitely qualifies as a "sht-hot tactical advantage". Any raiding group that isn't leveraging that ability towards their own success really doesn't have being successful as a priority. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:24:00 - [46] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: No. All your demands will do is deter newer corps from participating entirely. It's not a compromise, you're pushing for raiding to be a zero-impact nonfactor, and bluntly it's not contributing anything useful to the discussion. Now, now Mr. BS. My suggestions will assist any new corp in being able to hold districts longer, which when it comes to PC is the point. I'm absolutley open and looking for compromise, if anything it's your continued insistence that raiding be little to no risk that is uncompromising. I want raids to be impactful, I want cumulative raiding effects and rewards to be significant. I just don't want raiding to be the negligible-risk auto-pub the OP describes. And there's nothing "not contributing anything useful" about saying so, especially since I'm also proposing (and endorsing others') ideas to improve it. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:04:00 - [47] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: No. All your demands will do is deter newer corps from participating entirely. It's not a compromise, you're pushing for raiding to be a zero-impact nonfactor, and bluntly it's not contributing anything useful to the discussion. Now, now Mr. BS. My suggestions will assist any new corp in being able to hold districts longer, which when it comes to PC is the point. I'm absolutley open and looking for compromise, if anything it's your continued insistence that raiding be little to no risk that is uncompromising. I want raids to be impactful, I want cumulative raiding effects and rewards to be significant. I just don't want raiding to be the negligible-risk auto-pub the OP describes. And there's nothing "not contributing anything useful" about saying so, especially since I'm also proposing (and endorsing others') ideas to improve it. then quit suggesting mechanics that automatically stack everything in favor of the defender. You're demanding the raiders take more loss and more risk than players in actual PC matches, which IS unreasonable. Same risk? Fine. More? Hell no. and if the defender can't hold their ground against raiders he's going to lose his land to invaders anyway. Good to see that roll of yours still has a reverse gear. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:08:00 - [48] - Quote "Same risk" between raiders (who can choose the when and where of a conflict) and defenders (who will pay losses from their districts assets that they've worked to develop) implicitly states that raiders must possess some "thing" ( not their MCC clones) that they have to work to aquire and upon losing raids will lose and be encumbered with redeveloping before raiding again. ez Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:59:00 - [49] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: "Same risk" between raiders (who can choose the when and where of a conflict) and defenders (who will pay losses from their districts assets that they've worked to develop) implicitly states that raiders must possess some "thing" ( not their MCC clones) that they have to work to aquire and upon losing raids will lose and be encumbered with redeveloping before raiding again. ez You are literally being the pc raid debate version of spkr4thedead right now, just more polite. Have fun trying to convince the devs that it's unfair that raid teams be able to meet you on even terms. But you've blown off every valid concern brought up. Hope when PC rolls around it's a Ripper. If raiders are enabled to select districts that aren't defended then there is no even terms. Not without adding some other balancing element to raids (lopsided battle potential, raid "windows" concurrent with PC timers, different mode rules etc) or raid initiation (WB/CP component required and destructable etc.) . Obviously obvious conclusion is obvious. I haven't dismissed any input on the topic, if anything I've helped this conversation not be a debate but instead an actual discourse exploring the merits and drawbacks of different ideas, all while being singled out for accusations of being some sort of miscreant intending harm to the gameplay of others. O.o Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:26:00 - [50] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: If your district isn't being defended odds are you should loosen up the recruiting and bring in more people and allow them to participate in PC raid battles to train them for the real deal. Which will be where newer/smaller corps in PC (actually in possession of districts) will get squeezed out. Leaving districts for further assimilation by larger corps and exacerbating the current state of MH ownership, over-consolidation. OR leaving districts totally vacant and unretainable. Unowned districts, btw in this model, not generating anything so useless for raiding. Useless for owning and useless for raiding. Where's the PC "revitalization" again? And out of curiosity, what portion of this mode proposal provides the PC training? The Ambush mode part? The Domination modepart? The Skirmish mode part? The queue battle from the finder? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:33:00 - [51] - Quote And for the billionth time, I'm not against raiding (I'm extremely pro almost any game expansion) but I am against ezmode auto-pub-queues being dressed up as PC training. We have those, they're called Faction WarFare. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:42:00 - [52] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And for the billionth time, I'm not against raiding (I'm extremely pro almost any game expansion) but I am against ezmode auto-pub-queues being dressed up as PC training. We have those, they're called Faction WarFare. all of your suggestions to balance it indicate otherwise by making it easy for the defenders to casually repel the attackers. That sounds a lot like being against raiding for some reason. If those raids are auto-pubs then yeah, I'm against it. And at a loss as to why anyone, except the most self-entitled, would be for it. We have Pubs already. And then we have the exact same modes in Faction WarFare. And the exact same modes again in PC. So, in the interest of expanding content and "revitalizing" we add a fourth redundancy? Case in point: In your MQ you can press start and open the tab section for fitting, launching battles etc. (neocom). OR you can walk around the room and use specific terminal shortcuts laid about. OR you can use one of the quick keys listed at the bottom of the screen. 3 different ways of all doing the exact same thing. That's not content expansion, that's redundancy. The current raiding OP, as proposed, is redundant as well. There's no additional gameplay, just an auto-queue. If we can get some actual depth to it, we might have a different animal. As it is tho it's just another pub match. And for raiders it's actually a high-likelihood of little-to-no-risk pubmatch since they'll be enabled to actively pick underdefended districts. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:08:00 - [53] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: what I'm wondering is how you guess from the dartboard what's undefended. You seem to assume a supernatural level of knowledge of district defense patterns. Nope. I'm assuming basic use of the starmap and reasonable interpretative ability of the data it currently provides, for the noobs. And basic use of the starmap, reasonable interpretive ability of the data it provides and insider knowledge of that data, for the vets. Nothing supernatural about it. This is a good time, imo, to point out that despite the qqing to the contrary there is not and has never been an occupant of MH who got there by magic. Some fought, some bought and some schemed. But noone had it "just happen" by magic. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 851	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:59:00 - [54] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: PC would be awesome if it had a means for people without the resources or whatever in real life to defend a daily timer to have a method of participation. Thus far it is not, and the average PC corp has roughly 20-25 players who get to participate regularly. The means is there. It does take the player to recognize that as an Independent Mercenary they'll need to broker their own work, whats commonly known as "Ringing". They'll have to take their own initiative to " advertise" and "qualify buyers" but it's doable. Hell, there's an entire cottage industry in MH now of PC fighters who ring out. Individual Mercenaries who take their time finding PC matches that need players. It happens everyday. Breakin Stuff wrote: The fact that so few players get a crack is why I think raiding needs to be viable. Should it be as simple as an autoqueue pubmatch? No. I dunno where the hell anyone gets that from. But it should be a valid specialty for smaller berserker teams. It should also be a good test bed for PC readiness. Can't speak for anyone else but I'm getting the autopub notion from the OP. No new mode (like say, "bomb" or "VIP protection" or "Carrier Assault"), No new gameplay (like say a meta-limit or lopsided teams), "short" warning ("Searching for battle/ Waiting to Deploy, anyone?). What part of that is a PC readiness test that doesn't already exist in pubs, FW or PC now? EDIT: Should definitely be "specialty"-able Breakin Stuff wrote: The end result will be more access to the game mode for people who otherwise don't know how it goes. Making the odds deliberately stacked so only the best of the best can win a fraction of the time terminates any incentives to use the game mode. It also keeps the status quo where 20 people can hold upwards of 5-10 districts indefinitely without supporting crews. That in and of itself alone is an argument for total PC overhaul. Point me please to the corp of 20 who has "indefinitely" held 10 districts? NyainSan, iirc, is MH oldest landholder and they've historically been a large group AND have had their territory counts fluctuate relative to the workings of MH. As I said previously Fighting, Buying or Scheming is what fuels the gears of MH. Enough of that applied by anyone towards anyone will generate results. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 851	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:18:00 - [55] - Quote Passing off yet another pubqueue as "raiding" and a PC "overhaul" is a fantastic scheme, btw. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 851	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:09:00 - [56] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Passing off yet another pubqueue as "raiding" and a PC "overhaul" is a fantastic scheme, btw. If the PC overhaul is just raiding I might throw up in my mouth a little. It'd be horridly disappointing. ikr? I'm already there just on the idea of it being basically a Bush, Dom or Skirm. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 851	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:16:00 - [57] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Point me please to the corp of 20 who has "indefinitely" held 10 districts? NyainSan, iirc, is MH oldest landholder and they've historically been a large group AND have had their territory counts fluctuate relative to the workings of MH. As I said previously Fighting, Buying or Scheming is what fuels the gears of MH. Enough of that applied by anyone towards anyone will generate results. I do believe multiple corp PC runners have piped up stating that they only allow a set group to run PC. averaging between 18-25 bodies depending on the day over the last couple months in response to the intent to overhaul PC. Especially among the "Don't listen to anyone but us on how to fix PC idiot crowd" who wish to keep the plebes entirely out of their playpen. Dude, if there's anything the PC crowd wants it's people to fight. The more, the merrier. What I don't see any of them clamoring for is more of the LCD playerbase often seen ragequitting or redline vacationing in pubs/FW. If you aren't fighting, fighting for your victories AND your losses in those you're not going to get very far in PC. Its kind of like homework. If your highschool homework load and the discipline needed to complete it is too much for you to handle then odds are a college workload will bury you. Quickly. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 858	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:50:00 - [58] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm aware. Let me goad the idiots into sperging off please. Keep trying then, I guess. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:56:00 - [59] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm aware. Let me goad the idiots into sperging off please. Keep trying then, I guess. It'll probably have to wait until PC is finalized, sadly. If PC's finalization is like any of the other finalized elements of DUST you have a bright future ahead, imo. XD Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:57:00 - [60] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Actually I do it to reaffirm why I hate humanity in general. Anonymity tends to bring out the worst in people. Hilariously I'm not much more restrained in real life. Blunt as hell. Nothing wrong with blunt, so long as it's honest. Otherwise it's just *******. And Amen to anonymity bringing out the worst in people. Thats a big part of my personal aversion to alts. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:15:00 - [61] - Quote LOL **** yo' couch!! Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:56:00 - [62] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: LOL ** yo' couch!! Exactly. Best part of that whole bit: After Rick James talks all his *, drags his muddy boots all over the furniture and laughs about it, Eddie and Charlie Murphy beat his ass down* . And then when asked about events in an interview later all James can really do affirm, yes it happened like that and that ******* is a crazy drug. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 868	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:54:00 - [63] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: It still makes me sad to look at the road map and realize that raids are at least 4 months away if not more. Nothing wrong with taking the time to do something right provided of course that that is the reason for the timing. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 973	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:08:00 - [64] - Quote I hope they got the memo about it being a new game mode and not just an auto-pub paid from a district. Anybody try Battlefield Hardline? "Heist" is a great example of what a difference different game modes play in adding overall "fun". Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

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.