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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4366	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:23:00 - [121] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: John ShepardIII wrote: I just deleted dust. Time to redownload it Well, it has become pretty common knowledge that doing that regularly does, at least slightly, improve client performance ;) I just choked on my drink a bit. WHY YOU try to kill me? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 904	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:25:00 - [122] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. This concerns me, as it came out of the left field completely. Please tell me, PLEASE tell me, that when you say you plan to randomly generate district maps, you mean THE SOCKETS, not the actual maps? And you mean randomly generate the sockets ONCE, not between each battle? The district map (not the sockets) being the actual physical layout, the geography, the placement of the different sockets. There are 3 in PC, currently. And I believe the reason those 3 were probably the only ones put in PC to start with still stands. They are quite possibly the only maps in the pub rotation that are actually any good for this sort of competitive play with such small teams, they have enough variation combined with balance to be viable. Also, the main issue. The reason why so many districts are set to Cargo Hubs, is because you didn't make the other types desirable enough in comparison. So, maybe instead of doing away with the relevance of the SI to the actual district, you actually rebalance the different district types and make is not desirable to only hold cargo hubs? There, problem solved, no more having to mostly fight on that one large socket. Though, replacing the gallente research facility in the rotation would probably do almost as much to add variety. Another thing... you make mention of SIs, as in changing them costs points, but you are also saying you plan to make them meaningless by removing their bonuses and even removing the relationship between the SI and the large outpost on the district. Then, what is the point of the different SIs? Just do away with them entirely, if they are no different from each other? CCP. This proposal looks much better to swallow then the original. Thank you for taking the time to listen and make the change. The only issue I see is what Zaria mentioned. We need to know what the battle field is that we are going to be fighting on. If it generates randomly and we do not know till we deploy..This will be disastrous to the Field Commanders. We pick our players based on map lay out. We do reconnaissance missions sometimes just to find out what the lay out will be. I understand you want us fighting on more then Cargo hubs. My Kdr and pride has been left in the floor many of times in what we call meat grinder fights. my solution to this woukd be simple and meet both our needs. Don't tell us what the map is....until we attack it. Then...In contract details... Tell us what map it is! In detail. Is it 3 in 2 out cargo hub. Is it a bridge map production facility. That way we know and have 24 hours to plan. It can be totally random before attacking...and once you attack you now know what you will be fighting on. win win Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Hawkin P Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 583	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:35:00 - [123] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after a lot of feedback... ...I will try to explain as simply as I can, without going too much into details. While this explanation is far from Simple, and parts I don't understand at all (stratagems really?). The parts I do understand sound like good ideas, but only if they are all implemented at once. Not some slow piece by piece roll out. I do have some questions, 1. These corporate missions, will they be the same sort of (boring) challenges that the daily missions are? 2. Will corp leadership be able to see who is contributing the most to the corp points? (hopefully unlike the broken corp. wallet, where you can't see donations with corporate tax active, after 30 total games are played by members.) Leadership will need a way to know who is doing the most for the corp. Molon Labe CEO
Ghostt Shadoww Carne Con Papas 164	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:36:00 - [124] - Quote True ^^^^^^ROMAN Something Awful is going on around here. Hehe
John ShepardIII Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1151	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:38:00 - [125] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: John ShepardIII wrote: I just deleted dust. Time to redownload it Well, it has become pretty common knowledge that doing that regularly does, at least slightly, improve client performance ;) I just choked on my drink a bit. WHY YOU try to kill me? I didn't get it till you pointed it out lololololololol The True Shepard Old GAM was OP Hakyou Brutor supreme Overlord of Dust
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4500	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:40:00 - [126] - Quote New Concept: Command Points Command Points will be earned by players in Corporations doing Corporate Missions. This is akin to "fuel" proposed by the community. Ah yes. Activity generated 'fuel'. For some reason I really love that idea New Concept: Corporate Missions Players will gain access to Corporate Missions by unlocking the Stratagem: Mission Network in their Corporate Command structure Curious to see more specifics on this, but if anything if the missions prove to me more universal between all game modes this will work wonderfully. New Concept: Corporate Command Corporate Command is the metaphysical superstructure of Corporations, AKA Corporate Warbarge AKA Warbarge Fleet/Flotilla. This is the "Pentagon", and it issues Stratagems. The Corporate Command will auto upgrade if it has available components, and does not require the CEO or Directors to do so. This will probably be for the best. If its an obvious upgrade that you would do no matter what, there's no reason to require manual input and add another point of complexity. New Concept: Stratagem Stratagems are to Corporate Command as Modules are to Dropsuits, and Subsystems are to Warbarges. They can be levelled/improved using Warbarge Components donated or earned by Members. This seems like an obvious design, good stuff. New Concept: Earning and Donating Components and Command Points. Each successful Corporate Mission will earn Warbarge Componants, that are auto-donated to the Corporate Command. Every such auto-donation will be mirrored (duplicated) as Command Points into the Command Point pool of the Corporation. So completing Corp Missions automatically supports your corp, both by upgrading Corporate Command and providing fuel to drive war efforts. New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. So players can generate Components doing other activities, but if they donate those Components to the corp, the corp also gets Command points? Seems reasonable. New Concept: Corporate Actions All PC Actions will cost Command Points, that includes Attacking, Defending and changing Timers. Also, claiming Clones, Rarity, changing SI's This will do wonders in breaking the Clone Pack ISK Spamming as well as lower the barrier of entry into PC by basing it off of the players, not just their wallets. This concept is solid, but carefully regulating the generation of CP and the cost of actions is paramount. This will likely prove the most difficult, as large corporations should be able to make use of their size, but not completely trump small corporations by numbers alone. Proposed Stratagems: Mission Network - grants Corporate Missions, upgrading adds more missions Planet Trading - Claim Resources (TBD) from Districts Clone Directive(clone pack)/Orbital Construction(mcc) - generates clonepacks/mcc, upgrading creates and holds more War Council - Reduces CP cost of Actions These are good. Everything should be tied to player activity so players have to...you know, actually play the game in order to profit. Updated Concept: District Income As Command Points need to be earned, Clones will be allowed to be sold once more to generate income and provide a reason. Clones will however need to be sold using Command Points, so it is not "passive" in nature anymore. Rarity will be generated on Districts, but has no further design at this moment. Again this is nice. Players have to play the game to make money. New Concept: Default Timers All districts will be given Default Timers, based on PCU coverage and distance from TQ DT. If Timers have been changed and the District is lost, the Timer will reset to Default. This works as a stop gap but I maintain that I prefer the variable window that requires upkeep to maintain by generating fuel during the time of the window. I do understand however that that system is fairly complicated and may have to be implemented at a later date, so this system with some tweaks will suffice in the meantime. Updated Concept: Changing Timers All timers can be changed as is possibly currently, in the 1st hour of being conquered. District Timer changes will cost Command Points, few for short changes, massive for massive changes. This should make rapid, huge leaps in timers very difficult to maintain and make it more desirable to hold land in your "own" timezone. I understand where you're going with this but I think it still needs to be an upkeep cost. The price to move may be massive, but if a corp can defend a district for long enough and get it to an undesirable time, then we run into the same issue as before. I suggest you allow people to move the timer but there is a daily cost to keeping it there, and the further you move it, the more to cost. One time fees just mean you discourage moving it too quickly, but once it's 'locked away' at some stupid hour, there's really little difference to what we have now. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4500	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:40:00 - [127] - Quote New Concept: Raids We want to make it possible to add District Raiding, in the form of short warning challenges. Raids will not cause Districts to be lost, but the margin of win will dictate how much ISK the Raiders get away with. You should put up a fight to defend your district against Raids, but it will not buckle you to let one Raid slide. Perfect to train New Players, both on Attacking and Defending. These might be in 8v8, 12v12 or 16v16 varieties. Yep yep. Allow raids to be quick spinup training grounds for new players. I also enjoy the idea that the size of the battle can vary, as I think corporations that may not have 16 people on reliable should probably not be holding land, but should be able to participate in PC through raids to gain experience. Scale number of objectives based off of player count as well (1, 3, 5 respectfully) Updated Concept: Rewards Team A earns what Team B lost, Team B earns what Team A lost, is the fundamental principle. BPO's are calculated as BPC's into the formula so there is no particular gain in using them except limiting own losses. This will be balanced so that PC fighting remains lucrative. I have some concerns about this, particularly in Raids. If the only gains attackers earn is what defenders lose, what incentive do the defenders have to even show up? In that kind of war, the best way to win is to not play at all. Failure to defend against a raid should have some loss aside from what you lose in terms of equipment, so Defenders are encouraged to show up, but also not so high that the corp wont suffer massive losses if they fail to defend. Updated Concept: Maps We want to move from always fighting on Cargo Hubs, so while PC2.0 is being implemented, maps should be more randomly generated and possibly all SI' bonuses set to zero. I like the idea of SI bonuses but you have to avoid those which give a direct military advantage like the Cargo Hub did, otherwise you'll have the same situation all over again. Overall very solid proposal. I see almost all of the ideas I liked in the previous discussions in here so I'm very pleased. Also, Corporate Command Points = CCP The conspiracy is real. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Ghostt Shadoww Carne Con Papas 164	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:48:00 - [128] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Also, Corporate Command Points = CCP The conspiracy is real. WoW , you so right.... Something Awful is going on around here. Hehe
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1409	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:24:00 - [129] - Quote I like it, seems as if you guys (CCP) left the bar and did some work, congrats. But I will say this; you just created the biggest and most stubborn blue donut this game has ever seen. The PC vets will merge together for spite to prove a point. Just watch and see. Again, nice job. I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 910	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:32:00 - [130] - Quote bigolenuts wrote: I like it, seems as if you guys (CCP) left the bar and did some work, congrats. But I will say this; you just created the biggest and most stubborn blue donut this game has ever seen. The PC vets will merge together for spite to prove a point. Just watch and see. Again, nice job. And then when the DUST settles. ..and we have beaten them all up...we will turn on each other and have some fun haha Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law

bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1410	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:36:00 - [131] - Quote Roman837 wrote: bigolenuts wrote: I like it, seems as if you guys (CCP) left the bar and did some work, congrats. But I will say this; you just created the biggest and most stubborn blue donut this game has ever seen. The PC vets will merge together for spite to prove a point. Just watch and see. Again, nice job. And then when the DUST settles. ..and we have beaten them all up...we will turn on each other and have some fun haha EGGZACTLY! LOL I can't wait to see what changes Sorya will want to dream up next. Sorry, not derailing this thread. Good info here. Roman, hit me up on skype; [email protected] I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1082	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:47:00 - [132] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. This concerns me, as it came out of the left field completely. Please tell me, PLEASE tell me, that when you say you plan to randomly generate district maps, you mean THE SOCKETS, not the actual maps? And you mean randomly generate the sockets ONCE, not between each battle? The district map (not the sockets) being the actual physical layout, the geography, the placement of the different sockets. There are 3 in PC, currently. And I believe the reason those 3 were probably the only ones put in PC to start with still stands. They are quite possibly the only maps in the pub rotation that are actually any good for this sort of competitive play with such small teams, they have enough variation combined with balance to be viable. Also, the main issue. The reason why so many districts are set to Cargo Hubs, is because you didn't make the other types desirable enough in comparison. So, maybe instead of doing away with the relevance of the SI to the actual district, you actually rebalance the different district types and make is not desirable to only hold cargo hubs? There, problem solved, no more having to mostly fight on that one large socket. Though, replacing the gallente research facility in the rotation would probably do almost as much to add variety. Another thing... you make mention of SIs, as in changing them costs points, but you are also saying you plan to make them meaningless by removing their bonuses and even removing the relationship between the SI and the large outpost on the district. Then, what is the point of the different SIs? Just do away with them entirely, if they are no different from each other? CCP. This proposal looks much better to swallow then the original. Thank you for taking the time to listen and make the change. The only issue I see is what Zaria mentioned. We need to know what the battle field is that we are going to be fighting on. If it generates randomly and we do not know till we deploy..This will be disastrous to the Field Commanders. We pick our players based on map lay out. We do reconnaissance missions sometimes just to find out what the lay out will be. I understand you want us fighting on more then Cargo hubs. My Kdr and pride has been left in the floor many of times in what we call meat grinder fights. my solution to this woukd be simple and meet both our needs. Don't tell us what the map is....until we attack it. Then...In contract details... Tell us what map it is! In detail. Is it 3 in 2 out cargo hub. Is it a bridge map production facility. That way we know and have 24 hours to plan. It can be totally random before attacking...and once you attack you now know what you will be fighting on. win win Not win-win, but slightly less lose-lose. There will be no value to gathering intel, there will be no way to plan ahead, there will be no way to choose to play to your team's strengths. Also, it eliminates the potential of the defender having the advantage of knowing their land, if the attacker is going in blind attacking for the first time. No, I don't think just the act of attacking should give you the map intel automatically, but there needs to be a way to know the map (if you put in the effort) before loading in to the battle. Otherwise, we are in yet another way making PC fights not very different from pubs. If someone wants to fight on a random, unknown map, they can go deploy into a pub or fw anytime they please. Some of us appreciate and enjoy the planning and tactics involved in thinking ahead, and would appreciate the continued ability to do so. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4370	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:49:00 - [133] - Quote I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1083	Posted - 2015.01.23 17:53:00 - [134] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. And, once again, I would like a response from Rattati about what he means by randomisation. Are we talking the current maps in PC, with maybe some sockets added? Are we talking all the maps in pub rotation? Something in between? Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4503	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:02:00 - [135] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. And, once again, I would like a response from Rattati about what he means by randomisation. Are we talking the current maps in PC, with maybe some sockets added? Are we talking all the maps in pub rotation? Something in between? How I'm reading it is that all existing SI will be randomized and bonuses removed. Chances are players will be able to change it to what they want but it will offer no benefit other than selecting what socket you want to fight on. However SI will persist between battles and only change if the owner changes it. Further down the line we may see the reintroduction of SI bonuses but for right now they'll likely be removed. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Freccia di Lybra Maphia Clan Corporation 386	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:04:00 - [136] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Interesting OP thread Blablablablablablablabla debate Still broken core FPS Future ? Caz is fundamentally always right. Hope this helps for those who don't know him. Ei fu, xxwhitedevilxx former Co-CEO Maphia Clan Corporation / Unit Unicorn
Ghostt Shadoww Carne Con Papas 164	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:05:00 - [137] - Quote bigolenuts wrote: I like it, seems as if you guys (CCP) left the bar and did some work, congrats. But I will say this; you just created the biggest and most stubborn blue donut this game has ever seen. The PC vets will merge together for spite to prove a point. Just watch and see. Again, nice job. Lmao.... My thoughts exactly. We can have rotations and raid party's etc etc. I would go into detail more. But yeah, possibilities are endless with a veteran corp full of Dust Vets. To much discipline we would own. Don't need to go drastic with a donut. Just have fun the first month see what we can do. But I'm so down in seeing what we all in that channel can do. That channel is just way to awesome. It has literally everything you need on the battlefield and a back up. Just sayin wink wink Something Awful is going on around here. Hehe
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 600	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:16:00 - [138] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. 1. Yea because what happens in war is that you bomb the structure which is already there and then demolish it after you have it captured and then build a completely different compound to do something completely different because you like wasting time/money and resources
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 912	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:22:00 - [139] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Roman837 wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. This concerns me, as it came out of the left field completely. Please tell me, PLEASE tell me, that when you say you plan to randomly generate district maps, you mean THE SOCKETS, not the actual maps? And you mean randomly generate the sockets ONCE, not between each battle? The district map (not the sockets) being the actual physical layout, the geography, the placement of the different sockets. There are 3 in PC, currently. And I believe the reason those 3 were probably the only ones put in PC to start with still stands. They are quite possibly the only maps in the pub rotation that are actually any good for this sort of competitive play with such small teams, they have enough variation combined with balance to be viable. Also, the main issue. The reason why so many districts are set to Cargo Hubs, is because you didn't make the other types desirable enough in comparison. So, maybe instead of doing away with the relevance of the SI to the actual district, you actually rebalance the different district types and make is not desirable to only hold cargo hubs? There, problem solved, no more having to mostly fight on that one large socket. Though, replacing the gallente research facility in the rotation would probably do almost as much to add variety. Another thing... you make mention of SIs, as in changing them costs points, but you are also saying you plan to make them meaningless by removing their bonuses and even removing the relationship between the SI and the large outpost on the district. Then, what is the point of the different SIs? Just do away with them entirely, if they are no different from each other? CCP. This proposal looks much better to swallow then the original. Thank you for taking the time to listen and make the change. The only issue I see is what Zaria mentioned. We need to know what the battle field is that we are going to be fighting on. If it generates randomly and we do not know till we deploy..This will be disastrous to the Field Commanders. We pick our players based on map lay out. We do reconnaissance missions sometimes just to find out what the lay out will be. I understand you want us fighting on more then Cargo hubs. My Kdr and pride has been left in the floor many of times in what we call meat grinder fights. my solution to this woukd be simple and meet both our needs. Don't tell us what the map is....until we attack it. Then...In contract details... Tell us what map it is! In detail. Is it 3 in 2 out cargo hub. Is it a bridge map production facility. That way we know and have 24 hours to plan. It can be totally random before attacking...and once you attack you now know what you will be fighting on. win win Not win-win, but slightly less lose-lose. There will be no value to gathering intel, there will be no way to plan ahead, there will be no way to choose to play to your team's strengths. Also, it eliminates the potential of the defender having the advantage of knowing their land, if the attacker is going in blind attacking for the first time. No, I don't think just the act of attacking should give you the map intel automatically, but there needs to be a way to know the map (if you put in the effort) before loading in to the battle. Otherwise, we are in yet another way making PC fights not very different from pubs. If someone wants to fight on a random, unknown map, they can go deploy into a pub or fw anytime they please. Some of us appreciate and enjoy the planning and tactics involved in thinking ahead, and would appreciate the continued ability to do so. As we discussed on skype. What I mean is if they do ignore the Intel gathering fact. And do decide to randomize it. Please at least give us a heads up of what map were going into. Currently. When I have a pc. I have my players get on comms and leave their matches 30 minutes before the battle. If I have stacked timers. ..that time goes up. First thing I do when everyone is on comms....is discuss what map were going into. And talk about who we are up against and what on this map works best against them. We use strategy. We plan. And we pick our players based on that. Inside city map...less vehicles and less av. More scouts and more heavies. It makes a huge difference in how we play. so yes. BEST case scenario is please don't randomized them so we don't know what we're going into. Worst case scenario If you ignore that...Please let us know in detail what map we are going into once we click attack. I am not saying I can't handle the change up. I have fcd hundreds of pcs. Deployment is the most critical. What this will do is just make me improvise faster. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1084	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:23:00 - [140] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. And, once again, I would like a response from Rattati about what he means by randomisation. Are we talking the current maps in PC, with maybe some sockets added? Are we talking all the maps in pub rotation? Something in between? How I'm reading it is that all existing SI will be randomized and bonuses removed. Chances are players will be able to change it to what they want but it will offer no benefit other than selecting what socket you want to fight on. However SI will persist between battles and only change if the owner changes it. Further down the line we may see the reintroduction of SI bonuses but for right now they'll likely be removed. If that is how I was reading it too, I'd basically go "huh, seems meaningless, but little harm done"... Random just doesn't, to me, mean tied to the SI. As in, if the large socket is determined by the SI, as it is now, how is that random? If what he means is "we will scramble up the current district SIs" without actually touching the maps... he chose a really weird way of saying it. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4503	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:37:00 - [141] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Kain Spero wrote: I think something that would work as a compromise for the randomization of the map is that the map stays the same until a flip happens then the map gets randomized again. And, once again, I would like a response from Rattati about what he means by randomisation. Are we talking the current maps in PC, with maybe some sockets added? Are we talking all the maps in pub rotation? Something in between? How I'm reading it is that all existing SI will be randomized and bonuses removed. Chances are players will be able to change it to what they want but it will offer no benefit other than selecting what socket you want to fight on. However SI will persist between battles and only change if the owner changes it. Further down the line we may see the reintroduction of SI bonuses but for right now they'll likely be removed. If that is how I was reading it too, I'd basically go "huh, seems meaningless, but little harm done"... Random just doesn't, to me, mean tied to the SI. As in, if the large socket is determined by the SI, as it is now, how is that random? If what he means is "we will scramble up the current district SIs" without actually touching the maps... he chose a really weird way of saying it. Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1085	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:47:00 - [142] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine. Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every on the same district? Many issues. And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem". Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4370	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:56:00 - [143] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine. Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every on the same district? Many issues. And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem". Or don't have the SI actually determine what the large socket ends up at after randomized or changed. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4503	Posted - 2015.01.23 18:59:00 - [144] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every on the same district? Many issues. And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem". Well...there might be some merit to initially randomizing the terrain to incorporate some of the new maps we do have that came out post 1.0. But terrain should most definitely persist between battles. Honestly I would just axe all of the old SI bonuses and start over with an entirely new mindset. Avoid bonuses that have a direct military benefit. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1087	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:11:00 - [145] - Quote Hawkin P wrote: EDIT: I still don't like the payout structure! This gives no bonus to winning! THERE NEEDS TO BE A REWARD FOR WINNING. Basically I can just no show a battle and the other team gets nothing, and has to sit their for 3 battles (over and hour) to take the district which now maybe holds some value possibly because your explanation of it is so complex, it is not clear. The value of holding a district is based on the corp point cost and how easy it is to earn corp points. Corp Points will be a new currency in the game and if you make them as rare as your pointless box keys and then start to sell them. It will ruin the game Also, this. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1041	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:19:00 - [146] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Is there a way to add a corp armory to the flotilla? Would be nice to be able to make doctrinal fits that corpmates can tap for training or during a PC. That way individuals don't get stuck with the bill at the end of a district fight and cheapfits can be provided for newbies to grind ISK and SP. Especially if resource collection is intended to be a corp level asset gathering thing. I would love to have aR1/R2 option in the deploy screen, one coming from your hangar, and the other from corporate saved fittings and inventory That is a GREAT idea. However, please add a role that you can set to allow your members access to the corp hanger. So only trusted individuals can use these assets, otherwise you'll have issues with allowing new members into the corp. Overlord of Broman
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1540	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:35:00 - [147] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine. Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every fight on the same district? Many issues. And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem". Everything Zaria said. If you're going to add more Research Labs back into MH they need to have the socket changed form the lag infested mess it is now. Also, the reason everything has been changed to hubs is they're the easiest to defend. Winning 3 battles in a row instead of only 2, sometimes on consecutive days, is a hard task against any team. Hopefully this can be addressed as well. I've always wanted to see districts easier to flip then defend. I think a constant turnover of districts would be a good thing in keeping PC from going stale.
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1041	Posted - 2015.01.23 19:50:00 - [148] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: How long do you think you and your 20-25 fiends will hold out against a corp of several hundred, well motivated players? I can see the elites holding out just fine. 'Several hundred players' sounds so grand, but in the end it's 16v16. It doesn't matter how many average players are in the attacking corp, if there's a solid A-team in the defending corp the defending corp will do just fine. This is why some attacks (for more CP)- Bleed Clones instead of just resources. At least, it should be this way. A corp whose teams are always on to fight can last, but 20 to 25 having to fight off raids of districts and actual PCs will become burned out if mass attacked by plenty of smaller corps, or getting all the PC they wish :) Raids should not be able to take a district, but they sure as hell should severely wound a district I think having raids cost CP to initiate and to defend would make this actually more significant. If a small group is trying to hold a lot of land then, win or lose, over time their CP can be bled dry and they will be left defenseless. I agree that raids should cost CP to defend so you can bleed them dry; however, if they don't show then the defender should loose some CP too (less then going to defend but a small amount). Overlord of Broman
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1087	Posted - 2015.01.23 20:06:00 - [149] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: How long do you think you and your 20-25 fiends will hold out against a corp of several hundred, well motivated players? I can see the elites holding out just fine. 'Several hundred players' sounds so grand, but in the end it's 16v16. It doesn't matter how many average players are in the attacking corp, if there's a solid A-team in the defending corp the defending corp will do just fine. This is why some attacks (for more CP)- Bleed Clones instead of just resources. At least, it should be this way. A corp whose teams are always on to fight can last, but 20 to 25 having to fight off raids of districts and actual PCs will become burned out if mass attacked by plenty of smaller corps, or getting all the PC they wish :) Raids should not be able to take a district, but they sure as hell should severely wound a district I think having raids cost CP to initiate and to defend would make this actually more significant. If a small group is trying to hold a lot of land then, win or lose, over time their CP can be bled dry and they will be left defenseless. I agree that raids should cost CP to defend so you can bleed them dry; however, if they don't show then the defender should loose some CP too (less then going to defend but a small amount). I disagree. If raiders can initiate a raid whenever they want, as of then as they want, why should the defender be penalised both for showing up to defend AND not being able to be there 24/7 to defend? That's just ridiculous. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4506	Posted - 2015.01.23 20:17:00 - [150] - Quote Dust User wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Eh wording can be hard sometimes, I know I fail at it frequently. But yeah since basically....all of PC is Cargo Hubs now, I think randomizing them at the start is fine. Randomising the SIs to reset the situation would be fine. No issue with that. Randomising the maps, particularly the way Rattati has even implied randomising them basically between every fight on the same district? Many issues. And like I stated, there are actual reasons why so many districts were changed to cargo hubs. If the only thing we are looking for, is to not have the cargo hub be so prevalent, there is an even better, and more long term, solution. Make the other district types at least as desirable to hold as cargo hubs are. This, I believe, would be necessary even after some sort of initial reset "scramble". If cargo hubs are the best ones to have, people will once again just start changing the majority of their districts into cargo hubs (given that the ability to change the SI is retained, as Rattati said it would). And then we are back at the same "problem". Everything Zaria said. If you're going to add more Research Labs back into MH they need to have the socket changed form the lag infested mess it is now. Also, the reason everything has been changed to hubs is they're the easiest to defend. Winning 3 battles in a row instead of only 2, sometimes on consecutive days, is a hard task against any team. Hopefully this can be addressed as well. I've always wanted to see districts easier to flip then defend. I think a constant turnover of districts would be a good thing in keeping PC from going stale. Well you can actually kind of draw a parallel between SI and actual combat Cargo Hub increased District HP Production Facility increased District HP regeneration Research Lab increased District Stamina/Speed We see even in combat that HP is typically favored over the other options so this behavior in PC SI selection makes sense. What I'm asking is....do we really want bonuses that provide a direct 'combat' benefit? Or focus more on bonuses to resource generation, warbarge support, CP generation, ect? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.