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)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15519	Posted - 2015.01.23 06:59:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, after a lot of feedback, and a combination of ideas from veterans, plus all the known issues we wanted to fix, we have a proposal. I will try to explain as simply as I can, without going too much into details. I will followup and update the OP with Q&A collected from the thread. I am not going to explain the back story or why we are doing things, that has been covered already in multiple threads. Here goes: 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. New Concept: Corporate Missions Players will gain access to Corporate Missions by unlocking the Stratagem: Mission Network in their Corporate Command structure 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. 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. 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. New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 think that is all, remember, read, digest and reply, thoughtfully. This thread will be rigorously and mercilessly kept "tidy". All non-constructive comments will be deleted, without hesitation. And here is a diagram for you chart lovers. All numbers, subject to thorough feedback and scenarios from current top District holders on what are feasible and non-burdensome Command Point earnings and costs. Look forward to seeing your feedback! "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

137H4RGIC Bloodline Rebellion Capital Punishment. 417	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:09:00 - [2] - Quote Reserved and first! I want to help DUST become a better experience for everyone. Let's work together! 137H4RGIC - Running for CPM2 (SOONGäó)
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 567	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:16:00 - [3] - Quote I am interested in a lot of this, especially with the thought given to updated rewards. I have a question about stratagems and a suggestion or two based upon response: 1. Will corps Be forced to pick and choose between stratagems? As in, your warbarge can set a limited number so you can't have everything at once. In the case of 'yes, you will have a limit on the number you can have' I would like to suggest a stratagem to allow less clone loss for jumping further. I would like to suggest two potential stratagems that affect mission timer (if technically feasible) either lowering it a small percentage or raising it a small percentage to allow for more or less bleeding depending on who you are attacking/defending against. In the case of 'no, you can have them all simultaneously eventually.' I would like to suggest a stratagem that would allow 1 random opposing stratagem to not function. (itself being exempt) For a bit of variety in the battle conditions. As far as Raids are concerned: Will other game modes besides Skirmish be potentially available?
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5581	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:16:00 - [4] - Quote Hi everyone! :) New threadnaught starts now. I am fairly satisfied with the timer proposal here. It's got some of the merits of my "remove timer changes" concept, but still allows corps flexibility as well. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 5164	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:16:00 - [5] - Quote All I can say right now is wow! Neckbeard for Good charity shave
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 745	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:21:00 - [6] - Quote Question, how will the sell clones via command points work? Is it i have selling X amount of clones for N anount of isk iwill cost Y amount of command points? A sort of Command Points for isk as with clones being the "currency" generated by the district? Raids: will there be an open attack window for raiding? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 5582	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:38:00 - [7] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: It still seems like a necessary change. However, would timers shift if more players in those regions began to outnumber the ones in the western hemisphere? It would probably be reasonable to change the default timers on districts if a rebalance was needed. So that the current district holder would not be affected, but on next flip it would move. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 5164	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:44:00 - [8] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: It still seems like a necessary change. However, would timers shift if more players in those regions began to outnumber the ones in the western hemisphere? It would probably be reasonable to change the default timers on districts if a rebalance was needed. So that the current district holder would not be affected, but on next flip it would move. Good. I'm sure CCP wouldn't automate the default timer process. People might try to spoof player counts in regions to throw default timers possibly if that was the case. Neckbeard for Good charity shave
137H4RGIC Bloodline Rebellion Capital Punishment. 417	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:44:00 - [9] - Quote Also, are you looking at stratagem which might alter the terms of the battlefield. Electronic warfare at the command level if you will, or command bonuses such as: Guerilla warfare stratagem: 5% mobility of all units per level. Sabotage stratagem: -2% hostile clone deployment count per level. How many stratagem can a flotilla employ? I want to help DUST become a better experience for everyone. Let's work together! 137H4RGIC - Running for CPM2 (SOONGäó)
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 410	Posted - 2015.01.23 07:50:00 - [10] - Quote what about doing away with symmetrical warfare and adding more guesswork to PC by not revealing the sizeof the enemy force attacking or defending the planet until the game starts?

Brush Master Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1401	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:13:00 - [11] - Quote Definitely like short term raids for new or smaller corps to have something to do. How many times a day can someone be raided and what notice do they get. Obviously if you raid a district and no one is there, you have no one to kill, pros/cons? Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? True Logi. Flying DS from the start. @dustreports
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4352	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:14:00 - [12] - Quote The timer proposal seems fairly reasonable and tying these systems to Command Points which must be actively generated feels like a win. I'll update when I've re-read this a few times. x) Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 5027	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:25:00 - [13] - Quote I'll be around more or less the next 2 weeks so if anyone needs anything you know where to contact me. :) Founder & CEO of Fatal Absolution Skype: Zatara.Rought Email: Zatara.Forever@gmail official pawn of ArkenaKirkMerc
JIMvc2 The Wanga Empire Strikes Back 527	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:32:00 - [14] - Quote PC 2.0 being implemented = @_@ omg good job CCP and I enjoy reading all these posts = I love to read. :) MAG Raven vet 7 times. Favorite weapon F90 and Highest Kills 78 and 23 deaths.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3498	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:35:00 - [15] - Quote The option to raid with cost to moving timers looks like a nice middle ground. However I'm worried about creeping the timer instead. Does is the cost worked out from timezone or downtime. I'm hoping down time so creeping is not an option and would in fact cost more... Again love the raiding idea i might come back to dust for this =ƒÿè You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4355	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:41:00 - [16] - Quote Will clones autosell for Command Points or will a player with the proper roles have to sell off clones themselves using Command Points? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15528	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:43:00 - [17] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Will clones autosell for Command Points or will a player with the proper roles have to sell off clones themselves using Command Points? not autosell, they will be need to be managed manually, and districts cleared out so as to not lose due to over capacity production "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6662	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:54:00 - [18] - Quote You are in danger of giving me a warm fuzzy feeling. Has a source for the lag in PC been pinned down? VHCL
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2272	Posted - 2015.01.23 08:54:00 - [19] - Quote Pleased this is out now. I think we're on the cusp of sorting out PC with this proposal and dare I say it, making it interesting again. As Rattati has said, this thread is going to be watched and 'cared' for very closely, so please keep the ego out of it. One thing I'd ask for all you devious types out there. The CPM have spent the last few days trying to figure out any potential exploits that might exist in this proposal and we haven't yet. We thought we'd got close but then Rattati pointed out the checks and balance within the proposal to counter it. So if you think you've spotted a crack please explain it here in this thread so it can be tracked and looked at. We all want this working correctly from day one and not having to be fixed later. There is also iteration planned for to expand further on the concepts shown here. I'm particularly pleased about the raids notion and the chance of smaller squads to take part in such an activity. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21045	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:00:00 - [20] - Quote Regarding timer changes - do those require CP to maintain, or is it a one-time move cost? Will large landholders be able to move all their districts to the dreaded 12:00 timer for a one time cost and hold them there without expenditure, or will require a CP cost to maintain land off the default timers? What kind of warning will raided corps get before the attack? *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6662	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:01:00 - [21] - Quote 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. VHCL
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21045	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:07:00 - [22] - Quote Am I correct in thinking that corporate missions are much like daily missions but across the corp? So for example, a corporate 'Berserkers' mission would require 400 kills across the corp or something similar. *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2272	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:08:00 - [23] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Regarding timer changes - do those require CP to maintain, or is it a one-time move cost? Will large landholders be able to move all their districts to the dreaded 12:00 timer for a one time cost and hold them there without expenditure, or will require a CP cost to maintain land off the default timers? What kind of warning will raided corps get before the attack? No cost to maintaining them as I understand it but if they lose the district it gets reset to its default timer. They then have win it back and then grind the CP to change it to their preferred timer. This stops corps using alt corps to 'fight' and keep a district locked. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21045	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:11:00 - [24] - Quote Kevall, I am more concerned that the practice of putting a load of districts on a painful timer will continue. While I appreciate that Nyain San have an Asian TZ, it has consistently been demonstrated that it is excessively difficult to run a campaign against those timers to the point where US and EU corps are putting their districts on those timers because nobody will attack them. On that timer it requires alarm-clocking in the US (which makes this a chore) and is in the middle of the working day in the EU during the week. Is it possible to have a 'wide' timer so you set a 3 hour window where the attack can come and attackers can choose the point in that window? *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15531	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:11:00 - [25] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Am I correct in thinking that corporate missions are much like daily missions but across the corp? So for example, a corporate 'Berserkers' mission would require 400 kills across the corp or something similar. no, still individual missions "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15531	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:12:00 - [26] - Quote 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21045	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:13:00 - [27] - Quote Will corp missions provide rewards other than CP? EDIT: Also, breakin's suggestion is excellent. It would be a great help to new players to have a corp armoury if that's doable. *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15531	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:14:00 - [28] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Will corp missions provide rewards other than CP? They are shown in the overview to have "++" ISK and SP rewards, so providing tax income to the corp as well as being useful for the player. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2272	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:19:00 - [29] - Quote Placing timers on a difficult timer is still possible but there is now a direct cost to moving those timers using CP. The amount of CP that a corp can earn is also capped to a level that prevents the hoarding of CP to allow for multiple timer changes en mass. The cap level is reasonable but still low. It means effectively that either only one districts timer can be moved several hours or multiple timers changed an hour at a time. The more disricts you own, the greater the strain on your CP pool. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7957	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:21:00 - [30] - Quote A // Can raids affect an enemy corp's Command Points? This would give further incentive to defend against them and would encourage entities to launch raids on their enemies for more than just ISK (which we have plenty of). B // POTENTIAL EXPLOIT: If BPO's create BPC's in the salvage, this seems like a way for particularly patient players to generate ISK using throw-away alts for the cost of a single BPO through farming. C // <3 times infinite for chart. D // I think that there should be an included corp-only leaderboard that shows which of your corp members are participating the most in activities that net you CP and what not. CCP Rattati wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Am I correct in thinking that corporate missions are much like daily missions but across the corp? So for example, a corporate 'Berserkers' mission would require 400 kills across the corp or something similar. no, still individual missions Would much prefer corporate mission that everyone can deal their fair share into, honestly. This puts a lot of stress on having members who are constantly doing missions, whether or not they want to, whether or not they're there. We got lives, too, yo! See above proposal (D) Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

Pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1372	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:21:00 - [31] - Quote Larger corps will still have enough CP (do we really have to use this two letters???) to change their timers, lock districts and sell clones to farm passively. If you make it so it is very hard to earn CPs then smaller Corps wouldnt be able to do almost anything. May I suggest a limit to the number of CPs a corp can earn in a day? One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7957	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:23:00 - [32] - Quote Pagl1u M wrote: Larger corps will still have enough CP (do we really have to use this two letters???) to change their timers, lock districts and sell clones to farm passively. If you make it so it is very hard to earn CPs then smaller Corps wouldnt be able to do almost anything. May I suggest a limit to the number of CPs a corp can earn in a day? Lawl. We're probably all on a watch list now. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21045	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:23:00 - [33] - Quote Answers appreciated, I am liking this proposal a lot. One final set of questions from me (for now) before I go look at districts and things. Will any district effects be changed? Is clone movement attrition going to be a thing? Do you have an idea of CP earn rates and clone pack costs? Finally, any ideas for what the districts will be generating? IIRC there were some suggestions thrown around a while back that it'd generate officer gear or something useful rather than raw ISK. Will this be feeding into the components system? Will experimental gear production from warbarge facilities be useful enough to drive a gamemode on it? *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21045	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:26:00 - [34] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Placing timers on a difficult timer is still possible but there is now a direct cost to moving those timers using CP. The amount of CP that a corp can earn is also capped to a level that prevents the hoarding of CP to allow for multiple timer changes en mass. The cap level is reasonable but still low. It means effectively that either only one districts timer can be moved several hours or multiple timers changed an hour at a time. The more disricts you own, the greater the strain on your CP pool. Wait, CP is capped on the same level regardless of the size of corp? So large corps are encouraged to split into smaller corps that form an alliance...? *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2272	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:26:00 - [35] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: A // Can raids affect an enemy corp's Command Points? This would give further incentive to defend against them and would encourage entities to launch raids on their enemies for more than just ISK (which we have plenty of). B // POTENTIAL EXPLOIT: If BPO's create BPC's in the salvage, this seems like a way for particularly patient players to generate ISK using throw-away alts for the cost of a single BPO through farming. C // <3 times infinite for chart. D // I think that there should be an included corp-only leaderboard that shows which of your corp members are participating the most in activities that net you CP and what not. CCP Rattati wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Am I correct in thinking that corporate missions are much like daily missions but across the corp? So for example, a corporate 'Berserkers' mission would require 400 kills across the corp or something similar. no, still individual missions Would much prefer corporate mission that everyone can deal their fair share into, honestly. This puts a lot of stress on having members who are constantly doing missions, whether or not they want to, whether or not they're there. We got lives, too, yo! See above proposal (D) As to point D, if you look at the diagram in the lower left, there is now a trackable metric for a CEO to measure a players value to the corp (finally) CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7957	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:27:00 - [36] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: A // Can raids affect an enemy corp's Command Points? This would give further incentive to defend against them and would encourage entities to launch raids on their enemies for more than just ISK (which we have plenty of). B // POTENTIAL EXPLOIT: If BPO's create BPC's in the salvage, this seems like a way for particularly patient players to generate ISK using throw-away alts for the cost of a single BPO through farming. C // <3 times infinite for chart. D // I think that there should be an included corp-only leaderboard that shows which of your corp members are participating the most in activities that net you CP and what not. CCP Rattati wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Am I correct in thinking that corporate missions are much like daily missions but across the corp? So for example, a corporate 'Berserkers' mission would require 400 kills across the corp or something similar. no, still individual missions Would much prefer corporate mission that everyone can deal their fair share into, honestly. This puts a lot of stress on having members who are constantly doing missions, whether or not they want to, whether or not they're there. We got lives, too, yo! See above proposal (D) As to point D, if you look at the diagram in the lower left, there is now a trackable metric for a CEO to measure a players value to the corp (finally) Oh, snap, didn't see that. M'bad! Thanks for pointing that out, that's awesome =3 Soooooo excited. Need to find a PC corp again Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
137H4RGIC Bloodline Rebellion Capital Punishment. 418	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:28:00 - [37] - Quote Pagl1u M wrote: Larger corps will still have enough CP (do we really have to use this two letters???) to change their timers, lock districts and sell clones to farm passively. If you make it so it is very hard to earn CPs then smaller Corps wouldnt be able to do almost anything. May I suggest a limit to the number of CPs a corp can earn in a day? Good eye on that one. Very good eye. I do see non participants stocking up cp to wait until a big slugger had gone through war and is low on cp to unleash hell on them. I want to help DUST become a better experience for everyone. Let's work together! 137H4RGIC - Running for CPM2 (SOONGäó)
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3498	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:30:00 - [38] - 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 Corp fitting screen that drew from a corp hanger. Would make life so massively easer for pretty much everyone that this needs to happen. also someone who is rubish at making good fits....would be nice to steal someone else's idea You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2272	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:31:00 - [39] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Placing timers on a difficult timer is still possible but there is now a direct cost to moving those timers using CP. The amount of CP that a corp can earn is also capped to a level that prevents the hoarding of CP to allow for multiple timer changes en mass. The cap level is reasonable but still low. It means effectively that either only one districts timer can be moved several hours or multiple timers changed an hour at a time. The more disricts you own, the greater the strain on your CP pool. Wait, CP is capped on the same level regardless of the size of corp? So large corps are encouraged to split into smaller corps that form an alliance...? There's a War Council Stratagem that will reduce CP cost. There is a cap but it's not set in stone yet and could be altered by other factors. Remember of course that the more members you have, the faster your CP pool is filled. This is to encourage corps to recruit and train new members using the new advertisement feature in the road map. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3498	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:33:00 - [40] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Placing timers on a difficult timer is still possible but there is now a direct cost to moving those timers using CP. The amount of CP that a corp can earn is also capped to a level that prevents the hoarding of CP to allow for multiple timer changes en mass. The cap level is reasonable but still low. It means effectively that either only one districts timer can be moved several hours or multiple timers changed an hour at a time. The more disricts you own, the greater the strain on your CP pool. to be fair im just going to raid all those D's and farm my passive isk You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21046	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:34:00 - [41] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: There's a War Council Stratagem that will reduce CP cost. There is a cap but it's not set in stone yet and could be altered by other factors. Remember of course that the more members you have, the faster your CP pool is filled. This is to encourage corps to recruit and train new members using the new advertisement feature in the road map. The thing is, if we end up with large corps and small corps having the same CP pool, what ends up happening is one of three things: 1. The large corp fills their pool up ridiculously rapidly to the point that they're almost incentivised to split into smaller allied corps to preserve CP. 2. The small corp can never get enough CP to do much. 3. The CP cap is so high that nobody cares. I suggest that the CP cap either scales with corp size milestones, or there is a CP upkeep on certain actions so that corps hold land proportional to their size. *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7957	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:35:00 - [42] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Placing timers on a difficult timer is still possible but there is now a direct cost to moving those timers using CP. The amount of CP that a corp can earn is also capped to a level that prevents the hoarding of CP to allow for multiple timer changes en mass. The cap level is reasonable but still low. It means effectively that either only one districts timer can be moved several hours or multiple timers changed an hour at a time. The more disricts you own, the greater the strain on your CP pool. Wait, CP is capped on the same level regardless of the size of corp? So large corps are encouraged to split into smaller corps that form an alliance...? There's a War Council Stratagem that will reduce CP cost. There is a cap but it's not set in stone yet and could be altered by other factors. Remember of course that the more members you have, the faster your CP pool is filled. This is to encourage corps to recruit and train new members using the new advertisement feature in the road map. What is the likeliness of getting more Strats (Stratagems) in the future in the form of new content? New stuff for us to use? This handful of stuff is a good starting point but I surely hope it isn't all we're getting! Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2272	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:40:00 - [43] - Quote 137H4RGIC wrote: Pagl1u M wrote: Larger corps will still have enough CP (do we really have to use this two letters???) to change their timers, lock districts and sell clones to farm passively. If you make it so it is very hard to earn CPs then smaller Corps wouldnt be able to do almost anything. May I suggest a limit to the number of CPs a corp can earn in a day? Good eye on that one. Very good eye. I do see non participants stocking up cp to wait until a big slugger had gone through war and is low on cp to unleash hell on them. There is a CP cost to everything that PC corp may want to do, buying/selling clones, timer changes etc. We haven't told you the costs of such activities yet, just the concept of how it will work. This figures are still being worked on but I'd hope you get the general idea. For instance, when the advertisement/recruitment feature on the road map arrives, there might be a higher CP cost to keep that advert at the top of the recruitment page. (speculation on my part there) The point being that CP is going to be the commodity (fuel) for corps to do corp activities. There's too muck ISK flowing around at the moment due to mistakes of PC1.0. Using CP means that a corp is going to have to earn a position of power and influence, not just buy it. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2272	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:42:00 - [44] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Placing timers on a difficult timer is still possible but there is now a direct cost to moving those timers using CP. The amount of CP that a corp can earn is also capped to a level that prevents the hoarding of CP to allow for multiple timer changes en mass. The cap level is reasonable but still low. It means effectively that either only one districts timer can be moved several hours or multiple timers changed an hour at a time. The more disricts you own, the greater the strain on your CP pool. Wait, CP is capped on the same level regardless of the size of corp? So large corps are encouraged to split into smaller corps that form an alliance...? There's a War Council Stratagem that will reduce CP cost. There is a cap but it's not set in stone yet and could be altered by other factors. Remember of course that the more members you have, the faster your CP pool is filled. This is to encourage corps to recruit and train new members using the new advertisement feature in the road map. What is the likeliness of getting more Strats (Stratagems) in the future in the form of new content? New stuff for us to use? This handful of stuff is a good starting point but I surely hope it isn't all we're getting! I'd say that more stratagems to come is a reasonable request and one likely to happen at some point. Remember, the Warbarge concept and the PC one is modular, allowing for easier iteration. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7957	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:50:00 - [45] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: Placing timers on a difficult timer is still possible but there is now a direct cost to moving those timers using CP. The amount of CP that a corp can earn is also capped to a level that prevents the hoarding of CP to allow for multiple timer changes en mass. The cap level is reasonable but still low. It means effectively that either only one districts timer can be moved several hours or multiple timers changed an hour at a time. The more disricts you own, the greater the strain on your CP pool. Wait, CP is capped on the same level regardless of the size of corp? So large corps are encouraged to split into smaller corps that form an alliance...? There's a War Council Stratagem that will reduce CP cost. There is a cap but it's not set in stone yet and could be altered by other factors. Remember of course that the more members you have, the faster your CP pool is filled. This is to encourage corps to recruit and train new members using the new advertisement feature in the road map. What is the likeliness of getting more Strats (Stratagems) in the future in the form of new content? New stuff for us to use? This handful of stuff is a good starting point but I surely hope it isn't all we're getting! I'd say that more stratagems to come is a reasonable request and one likely to happen at some point. Remember, the Warbarge concept and the PC one is modular, allowing for easier iteration. What's the UI going to be like? Are we talking programmer/engineering style UI with lists or something more akin to dis: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/deadspace/images/e/e8/HydDeck.png/revision/latest?cb=20100927022225 Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4356	Posted - 2015.01.23 09:51:00 - [46] - Quote New Concept: Command Points Command points seem like a pretty dang brilliant way to keep track of activity and cap how much any one character can generate. New Concept: Corporate Missions Corporate Missions feel like another win and a way to get people interest in building up their corporation. Will these take the place of Daily Missions or be in addition to the current Dailies? New Concept: Corporate Command Will a Corporation have to declare a location like a Corp HQ for this? And if So, will it be able to be changed by spending command points potentially with an increasing cost based on how far you move it? The Corporate Command will auto upgrade if it has available components, and does not require the CEO or Directors to do so. Sometimes CEOs and Directors take a vacation so this is good to have automated and the more automated the less of a burden it is logistically. Good stuff. New Concept: Stratagem Makes sense and seems fairly straight forward. New Concept: Earning and Donating Components and Command Points. Automation is a wonderful thing. Less logistics for those few players that take up the task which means less burnout and the machine keeps trucking. New Concept: Member Donations Love it. BUY WAR BONDS TODAY! Donate to the War effort! New Concept: Corporate Actions Super awesome. Inactive corps run out of Command Points over time and become easy pickens. If you over expand your districts or war activities your whole system could end up collapsing. Think smart and spend your command points wisely! 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 Looks like some really good stuff. I really hope you go for MCCs to degranulate loss and win conditions! War Council- ha! Makes me think back to the days when the CPM was actually called the War Council. x) Updated Concept: District Income I think I would need to get more details about this system. If you end up moving to MCCs being what you use to fight and these clones being what you use for income then an easy winner! Death to biomass and a new dawn of active wealth generation from districts! Rarity will be generated on Districts, but has no further design at this moment. This I think needs to be carefully implemented. District rarity shouldnGÇÖt be so specific that you only end up with X districts having a specific kind of resource. New Concept: Default Timers IGÇÖm a little wary of basing anything off PCU even though the statistical trends have been pretty stable over the lifetime of Dust. Could distance from TQ DT be elaborated a bit more? If Timers have been changed and the District is lost, the Timer will reset to Default. Can you define lost a bit more specifically? Does this mean if a district is abandoned or do you mean when a district is taken over by another owner? Both? Updated Concept: Changing Timers This seems to be an effective middle ground that will address some of the least desirable timer gameplay that is currently present in Dust. New Concept: Raids Lower the Jolly Roger and man the MCCs. Arrrrrrrrr!!!!!!! PC has desperately needed a lower stakes way of coming at the game mode and this will be a real winner. Updated Concept: Rewards Death to biomass!!! This will eliminate a lot of the ways the system is currently gamed . Updated Concept: Maps What map is it tonight, Brain?... The same map we fight on every night PinkyGÇª Rings . This is a very positive change. would consider randomly generating maps one time around and then fixing them so battle intel on how previous fights have gone down on a district would hold value. It would even be nice to see maps that you normally only see in FW and Public play in Planetary Conquest as well. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2274	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:05:00 - [47] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: What's the UI going to be like? Are we talking programmer/engineering style UI with lists or something more akin to dis: http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/deadspace/images/e/e8/HydDeck.png/revision/latest?cb=20100927022225 Not seen UI yet. Don't get me wrong as self proclaimed UI cheerleader on the CPM I'm all for better UI but right now I want you guys help Rattati nail this at its most fundamental level. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2275	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:10:00 - [48] - Quote As I understand it Kane, a district is reset to its default timer on loss and abandonment. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2280	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:29:00 - [49] - Quote One thing I wanted to bring up is the default district timers being based on PCU. It's not just the total PCU but also based on regional PCU. The upshot of this will be, to use the EU as an example, that there are always going to be a number of districts with favourable default timer for each region. These are going to be the most hotly contested in that region as the timer is more suited to that regions peak playing times, saving them the CP cost to change it. That's not to say a US corp can't make a move on it but they'd better be be prepared to defend while they change the timer to a US TZ. And hope they don't lose it while doing so. The practical upshot of this is that there is now more value in actually fighting for districts. The days of a 32 man corp owning 75% of Molden Heath using locking exploits and alt corps is over. You want to own that much of MH in the future? Get recruiting, grow the active PC player base and actually fight for it. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4359	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:32:00 - [50] - Quote Is there a chance that these default timers will be localized to planets, systems, etc? Or will they just be scattered about randomly? TQ DT is mentioned. Does this mean timers can't be set within a certain time of DT or what? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1372	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:40:00 - [51] - Quote My suggestions: Add a cap to the number of CPs a Corp can earn in a single day, this cap should be based on the number of districts a Corp holds, not on the number of members. If you have a lot of districts you have to do a lot of things so you need more CPs. We can call it, "Cap to Daily Command Points". Add a Cap to the number of CPs a corp can hold, based on the number of districts We dont want Corps to stand out of PC to farm CPs and then just jump in PC and spam the thousands of CPs they earned "passively". This is the Cap to Command Points, CCP. Make the first the second and third districts more valuable for the CAPs. This should make newer Corps wish to join the PC and take 2 or 3 districts. Not just one because we want them to try and fight again after they conquered one. That's also because Corps tend to avoid wiping other Corps out of PC so if you only have 1 district it is usually quite safe. Add an Activity Rating. That keep track of the PCs played by a Corp during a week. So if your Corp have played a lot of PCs during a week in the following week the Corp will have an high Activity Rating. If your Corp has been inactive the Activity Rating is low or negative. The actions of your Corp will cost less if you have an high Activity Rating, they will cost more if you have a low or negative Activity Rating. This will push to use the districts they have and will make it harder to just Sit on your district and passively sell clones. Sorry for my english. One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 495	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:41:00 - [52] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Good news blueberries, looks like something may be seriously cutting into my usual pubstomping. Sounds like old-school CBs, only better (Yarrr) Also, I'm still a bit confused about the form the Corporate Missions are going to take. Can only one person complete each mission? Any chance we could get an example of something that could be a corporate mission?
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3499	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:48:00 - [53] - Quote Would I be correct in thinking that raiding will cost CP. So a raiding corp would still need missions runners to help fill the CP pool. Secondly could theory lanch a raiding campaign on a corp to bleed them of isk while building up your own war chest? You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 804	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:50:00 - [54] - Quote I really like this. Are you guys looking for number speculations and more Corporation Modules or just our feedback on this atm? If just feedback, then my only concern is as previously stated- Large Corporations will fill up uber-quickly, however I can also see Corps just grabbing new players to get those milestones, and then just using these same 16 players instead of the new bro straight out of the academy, who will need months or a year to become very competitive. -The raids could become a way of farming and padding if both sides use BPOs. May Raids PLEASE take down a Corporations Command Points?? After all, Raiding usually is a prerequisite to a big attack. If Command Points are needed to Defend Districts and such, bleeding a Corporation to a certain thresh hold (Dependent on how many Command Points they originally had. Bleed to 1/6 of the original total so a Larger Corp can't just subjugate tinier ones who have no chance of defending against raids. -Make the different number of people in Raids cost more Command Points exponentially. Scenario- Blitz takes in only a squad of 0H for 500 CP, however we plan on launching from a Raid, which if successful leads to taking down the Defense Network (Dom). He wants to take more, but it'll cost too much CP, and we need it to launch the true Skirmish PC we all know and love afterwards. This way, PE can only say muster 6 or 8 people going into a raid, whereas the defending corp always get the Advantage in CP, being able to field more members. Making this 8v8 is the wrong way to go about it. When a threat hits a village, all the villagers rise. Of course defending costs a certain amount of CP as well (Make it exponential), but it would make the mode uber challenging if it's 1 squad vs 10 or 12 players. More tactics, hell it could even be used for training as an uber tough Ambush and for building squad Cohesion. Modules: Resource Hub- Allows for increased Storage CP, however requires X CP to maintain (Perhaps also allow Cargo Hub Districts to do this? Or are we staying away from Districts doing that?) Spy Network- Allows for raiding a Corporation with no districts. Used for corporations to still get some competitive flavor, however it requires high CP from the attacking corporation. All corps are based somewhere, this would essentially be attacking the main base, which requires absolutely no CP to defend. The perks are for attacking corporations that you despise. Say a guy in FWA jihads your Proto Tank. You want this guy to pay, his whole corp to pay. You convince your leadership to raid them, hell even grind the CP to initiate the attack. That is the type of thing I'd surely do. This is New Eden. No one is safe. 07. Love this thread. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6666	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:53:00 - [55] - Quote Rattati if you can implement all of this I'll be impressed. I also look forward to playing Reaver in other people's backyards. I know a few people who are remarkably efficient with STD and ADV gear. Now with the "you keep what you kill" system: If I destroy a gunnlogi and madrugar in the course of a battle and murder a host of miscellaneous red dots and LAVs, does this destroyed ISK value enter MY pocket directly or is it added to a pool and divided at the EoM screen? You want a motivator to excel, giving me the value of what I wreck directly will guarantee my full focus and attention. If it goes into a pool this means slayers who usually come up lower WP than logi will lose out. AV players will get squat unless there's a vehicle destruction party. May I suggest losses to Friendly fire are accounted to concord so an AWOXer cannot bleed his victim corp to fill the enemy wallet? I think the presence of such a troublemaker is benefit/punishment enough by itself. VHCL
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2283	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:53:00 - [56] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Is there a chance that these default timers will be localized to planets, systems, etc? Or will they just be scattered about randomly? TQ DT is mentioned. Does this mean timers can't be set within a certain time of DT or what? As it is right now (and subject to change of course) there are timezones without districts. These are +/- 2 hrs to DT. It would be fair to assume that timers can't be changed to within that time frame but Rattati is going to have to be the one to give a difinite answer on that. As to the spread, if I'm reading the chart I have correctly, a planets default district timers are spread over a certain TZ allowing a corp to reasonably hold a planet. As to systems I'm not sure but I'd expect planets in the same system to be in adjacent TZ's to allow for overlap. Once again, I'll say that this all subject to change. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
SirManBoy Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 815	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:55:00 - [57] - Quote A lot of cool stuff here. I"ll be monitoring this thread throughtout the day.
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2283	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:55:00 - [58] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: Would I be correct in thinking that raiding will cost CP. So a raiding corp would still need missions runners to help fill the CP pool. Secondly could theory lanch a raiding campaign on a corp to bleed them of isk while building up your own war chest? Yes to first point, don't see why not on the second. Depends on the mechanics of raiding which is still under discussion. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4360	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:57:00 - [59] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: Would I be correct in thinking that raiding will cost CP. So a raiding corp would still need missions runners to help fill the CP pool. Secondly could theory lanch a raiding campaign on a corp to bleed them of isk while building up your own war chest? Yes to first point, don't see why not on the second. Depends on the mechanics of raiding which is still under discussion. I might have a suggestion for that: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=186091 Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2286	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:00:00 - [60] - Quote We want PC corps to recruit more players and grow the PC playerbase, which as a percentage of the total player base is stupidly low. This is why CP is based on player numbersin corp and not districts owned. There are a finite number of districts and we don't want them to limit player expansion. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com

Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2286	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:03:00 - [61] - Quote Shutter Fly wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Good news blueberries, looks like something may be seriously cutting into my usual pubstomping. Sounds like old-school CBs, only better (Yarrr) Also, I'm still a bit confused about the form the Corporate Missions are going to take. Can only one person complete each mission? Any chance we could get an example of something that could be a corporate mission? Another reason the CPM liked this proposal. We want to give the vets something to do that's meaningful and keep them from stomping. PC 1.0 isn't achieving that goal because it's worth more to not fight. PC 2.0 give those vets something to do now. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 805	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:04:00 - [62] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: We want PC corps to recruit more players and grow the PC playerbase, which as a percentage of the total player base is stupidly low. This is why CP is based on player numbersin corp and not districts owned. There are a finite number of districts and we don't want them to limit player expansion. Can a corp with more members have more total CP? It absolutely sucks when more than 16 X up for PC and we're full, some of these guys up till 1 in the morning. Allowing multiple raids a night mixed with high-quality PC battles and managing districts would be the bustle and hustle a corp needs. Squad 1 is full for the Raid vs PE 50, please make sure that our Cargo Hub sells its clones. Yes, I know it'll cost 10 CP. Shooter join the battle vs KOTR pls, the battle went into Defense Network from the Raid Unique, set up a raid vs MULA. We need to keep them distracted so they can't ring for PE This...OMG this... "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6666	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:05:00 - [63] - Quote Raiding: 20 minute raid delay. Attacking force drops to map regardless of whether or not the defenders (who get an immediate muster email) are on-site. If all hack points are taken and held for three minutes the raiders escape with a moderate haul of whatever. Nothing to sing about. The instant even one red dot spawns in the defense is on as the defenders trickle in to protect their assets and the battle progresses per usual mechanics. The defended districts should provide a much higher yield than undefended because the raiders have to beat the defenders for the loot and to get more time before an insurmountable defense. Attackers can only attack a given district once per day. Once the battle ends the district locks out further raids for an hour to give the defenders a breather. Raid defense costs zero CP. As mentioned earlier: Payouts should be increased and worth the raider force's time. Uncontested wins should feel like yeah you got loot, but you should have gotten more... VHCL
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2286	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:08:00 - [64] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: I really like this. Are you guys looking for number speculations and more Corporation Modules or just our feedback on this atm? If just feedback, then my only concern is as previously stated- Large Corporations will fill up uber-quickly, however I can also see Corps just grabbing new players to get those milestones, and then just using these same 16 players instead of the new bro straight out of the academy, who will need months or a year to become very competitive. -The raids could become a way of farming and padding if both sides use BPOs. May Raids PLEASE take down a Corporations Command Points?? After all, Raiding usually is a prerequisite to a big attack. If Command Points are needed to Defend Districts and such, bleeding a Corporation to a certain thresh hold (Dependent on how many Command Points they originally had. Bleed to 1/6 of the original total so a Larger Corp can't just subjugate tinier ones who have no chance of defending against raids. -Make the different number of people in Raids cost more Command Points exponentially. Scenario- Blitz takes in only a squad of 0H for 500 CP, however we plan on launching from a Raid, which if successful leads to taking down the Defense Network (Dom). He wants to take more, but it'll cost too much CP, and we need it to launch the true Skirmish PC we all know and love afterwards. This way, PE can only say muster 6 or 8 people going into a raid, whereas the defending corp always get the Advantage in CP, being able to field more members. Making this 8v8 is the wrong way to go about it. When a threat hits a village, all the villagers rise. Of course defending costs a certain amount of CP as well (Make it exponential), but it would make the mode uber challenging if it's 1 squad vs 10 or 12 players. More tactics, hell it could even be used for training as an uber tough Ambush and for building squad Cohesion. Modules: Resource Hub- Allows for increased Storage CP, however requires X CP to maintain (Perhaps also allow Cargo Hub Districts to do this? Or are we staying away from Districts doing that?) Spy Network- Allows for raiding a Corporation with no districts. Used for corporations to still get some competitive flavor, however it requires high CP from the attacking corporation. All corps are based somewhere, this would essentially be attacking the main base, which requires absolutely no CP to defend. The perks are for attacking corporations that you despise. Say a guy in FWA jihads your Proto Tank. You want this guy to pay, his whole corp to pay. You convince your leadership to raid them, hell even grind the CP to initiate the attack. That is the type of thing I'd surely do. This is New Eden. No one is safe. 07. Love this thread. We want feedback mainly. Anymore numbers flung around and I'm concerned Rattati's head may burst. As to concerns to corps padding out member numbers to earn more CP with alts. Only active players will earn the CP for a corp, dormant players will not. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1372	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:12:00 - [65] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: We want PC corps to recruit more players and grow the PC playerbase, which as a percentage of the total player base is stupidly low. This is why CP is based on player numbersin corp and not districts owned. There are a finite number of districts and we don't want them to limit player expansion. This will change nothing, I explain to you what is going to happen. I will spam invites in every corp I join, I will go to the academy to say everyone to join my corp, I will accept every newb to my corp. Then I will still only play with my friends, I will let the same 20-25 players play PC. I will have a hundred newb in the corp just to be able to obtain more CPs, to be able to passively farm districts, changing Timers and stuff. You will have more players in PC corps but you wont have more players involved in PC One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6667	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:13:00 - [66] - Quote Have a looknat my proposed raid mechanics. Can your 20-25 be on call 23/7? I'm willing to bet the answer is "no." Swarms of newbies can provide raider home defense for training if nothing else. VHCL
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4362	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:17:00 - [67] - Quote Something to consider in regard to timers and the CP cost of district attacks (would like to see this replaced with Warbarge mechanics in the long run). I would make attacks that vary from your own districts timer have an increasingly higher CP cost. This should allow people to raid into another TZ, but attempting to stockpile districts on say a 1300 timer and then attack districts at 2300, 0300, etc. would be costly and unappealing. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 805	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:21:00 - [68] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Something to consider in regard to timers and the CP cost of district attacks (would like to see this replaced with Warbarge mechanics in the long run). I would make attacks that vary from your own districts timer have an increasingly higher CP cost. This should allow people to raid into another TZ, but attempting to stockpile districts on say a 1300 timer and then attack districts at 2300, 0300, etc. would be costly and unappealing. It goes both ways. Be on a 00:00 timer and it's hard to fight Warravens. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2288	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:22:00 - [69] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: We want PC corps to recruit more players and grow the PC playerbase, which as a percentage of the total player base is stupidly low. This is why CP is based on player numbersin corp and not districts owned. There are a finite number of districts and we don't want them to limit player expansion. Can a corp with more members have more total CP? It absolutely sucks when more than 16 X up for PC and we're full, some of these guys up till 1 in the morning. Allowing multiple raids a night mixed with high-quality PC battles and managing districts would be the bustle and hustle a corp needs. Squad 1 is full for the Raid vs PE 50, please make sure that our Cargo Hub sells its clones. Yes, I know it'll cost 10 CP. Shooter join the battle vs KOTR pls, the battle went into Defense Network from the Raid Unique, set up a raid vs MULA. We need to keep them distracted so they can't ring for PE This...OMG this... CP cost values for corp actions are not finalised and can be tweaked. There are likely ways to increase a corps CP pool based on numbers but I'd want a modifier to slightly increase CP action cost to prevent super large corps having a pool large enough to change timers in massive lumps in one go. Call this modifier 'corruption', the larger the playerbase a corp has, the more chance for CP to be skimmed. We could then have a further stratagem to reduce a corps 'corruption' level, producing another CP cost that has to be managed. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4362	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:25:00 - [70] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Something to consider in regard to timers and the CP cost of district attacks (would like to see this replaced with Warbarge mechanics in the long run). I would make attacks that vary from your own districts timer have an increasingly higher CP cost. This should allow people to raid into another TZ, but attempting to stockpile districts on say a 1300 timer and then attack districts at 2300, 0300, etc. would be costly and unappealing. It goes both ways. Be on a 00:00 timer and it's hard to fight Warravens. It would, but you wouldn't have as many issues where folks defend a large block of districts outside their own time zone in the hopes of using those districts in a war with an enemy around their own reinforcement times. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 849	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:27:00 - [71] - Quote Incoming wall of text but I must get on my laptop. My phone won't cut it
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 805	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:27:00 - [72] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Raiding: 20 minute raid delay. Attacking force drops to map regardless of whether or not the defenders (who get an immediate muster email) are on-site. I love. If all hack points are taken and held for three minutes the raiders escape with a moderate haul of whatever. Nothing to sing about. I feel some raids should be ambush, and others depending( for more CP), could be actual Resource extraction The instant even one red dot spawns in the defense is on as the defenders trickle in to protect their assets and the battle progresses per usual mechanics. Are there unusual mechanics at the beginning? The defended districts should provide a much higher yield than undefended because the raiders have to beat the defenders for the loot and to get more time before an insurmountable defense. Makes a lot of sense. Attackers can only attack a given district once per day. I disagree. You should be allowed to attack more than once (maybe as a future Corp upgrade I digress. Personally, i play PC for the fights, not the Isk. I'd raid to see if a corp can give me a fight, and it'd suck to waste that one chance on no one being home. Allow it to be done every 5 or 6 hours, with additional upgrades allowing for more. I can raid when I get home from school, and before bed after pc Once the battle ends the district locks out further raids for an hour to give the defenders a breather. So...it can be raided by another corp?????? Raid defense costs zero CP. i LIKE As mentioned earlier: Payouts for actual fights should be increased and worth the raider force's time. Uncontested wins should feel like yeah you got loot, but you should have gotten more... "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 805	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:28:00 - [73] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: Incoming wall of text but I must get on my laptop. My phone won't cut it lol I'll read it General "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2291	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:29:00 - [74] - Quote Pagl1u M wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: We want PC corps to recruit more players and grow the PC playerbase, which as a percentage of the total player base is stupidly low. This is why CP is based on player numbersin corp and not districts owned. There are a finite number of districts and we don't want them to limit player expansion. This will change nothing, I explain to you what is going to happen. I will spam invites in every match I play, I will go to the academy to say everyone to join my corp, I will accept every newb to my corp. Then I will still only play with my friends, I will let the same 20-25 players play PC. I will have a hundred newb in the corp just to be able to obtain more CPs, to be able to passively farm districts, changing Timers and stuff. You will have more players in PC corps but you wont have more players involved in PC You could do that but how long do you think these players will hang around if you choose to treat them with such disdain? Corps that actively grow and expand their playerbase, include them in raids and Pc matches and value them are going to become the better corps. How long do you think you and your 20-25 fiends will hold out against a corp of several hundred, well motivated players? This is New Eden, you reap what you sow here. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 806	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:30:00 - [75] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: CP cost values for corp actions are not finalised and can be tweaked. There are likely ways to increase a corps CP pool based on numbers but I'd want a modifier to slightly increase CP action cost to prevent super large corps having a pool large enough to change timers in massive lumps in one go. Call this modifier 'corruption', the larger the playerbase a corp has, the more chance for CP to be skimmed. We could then have a further stratagem to reduce a corps 'corruption' level, producing another CP cost that has to be managed. Make some Corporation Modules need constant CP (CEOS and Directors have to approve of these), which increase the trick game of juggling a war that chugs CP with having to manage other things... I can see where you are coming from however. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 806	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:31:00 - [76] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Pagl1u M wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: We want PC corps to recruit more players and grow the PC playerbase, which as a percentage of the total player base is stupidly low. This is why CP is based on player numbersin corp and not districts owned. There are a finite number of districts and we don't want them to limit player expansion. This will change nothing, I explain to you what is going to happen. I will spam invites in every match I play, I will go to the academy to say everyone to join my corp, I will accept every newb to my corp. Then I will still only play with my friends, I will let the same 20-25 players play PC. I will have a hundred newb in the corp just to be able to obtain more CPs, to be able to passively farm districts, changing Timers and stuff. You will have more players in PC corps but you wont have more players involved in PC You could do that but how long do you think these players will hang around if you choose to treat them with such disdain? Corps that actively grow and expand their playerbase, include them in raids and Pc matches and value them are going to become the better corps. How long do you think you and your 20-25 fiends will hold out against a corp of several hundred, well motivated players? This is New Eden, you reap what you sow here. In my proposal above, can you Raid or attack a corp with no districts?!!! Please? "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4363	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:34:00 - [77] - Quote If CP aren't tied to district ownership then it seems you can raid all you want within your CP wallet without owning land. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 806	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:36:00 - [78] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: If CP aren't tied to district ownership then it seems you can raid all you want within you CP wallet without owning land. Thats the dream though "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 496	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:50:00 - [79] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Raiding: 20 minute raid delay. Attacking force drops to map regardless of whether or not the defenders (who get an immediate muster email) are on-site. I love. If all hack points are taken and held for three minutes the raiders escape with a moderate haul of whatever. Nothing to sing about. I feel some raids should be ambush, and others depending( for more CP), could be actual Resource extraction The instant even one red dot spawns in the defense is on as the defenders trickle in to protect their assets and the battle progresses per usual mechanics. Are there unusual mechanics at the beginning? The defended districts should provide a much higher yield than undefended because the raiders have to beat the defenders for the loot and to get more time before an insurmountable defense. Makes a lot of sense. Attackers can only attack a given district once per day. I disagree. You should be allowed to attack more than once (maybe as a future Corp upgrade I digress. Personally, i play PC for the fights, not the Isk. I'd raid to see if a corp can give me a fight, and it'd suck to waste that one chance on no one being home. Allow it to be done every 5 or 6 hours, with additional upgrades allowing for more. I can raid when I get home from school, and before bed after pc Once the battle ends the district locks out further raids for an hour to give the defenders a breather. So...it can be raided by another corp?????? Raid defense costs zero CP. i LIKE As mentioned earlier: Payouts for actual fights should be increased and worth the raider force's time. Uncontested wins should feel like yeah you got loot, but you should have gotten more... Some extra input on these ideas (I like most of it): Although I like the idea of a 20 minute delay, I think 30-45 minutes would be a bit more reasonable overall. No personal complaints about 20 minutes, though. As for the match type, I can see a few possibilities (the attacker should always choose the size): - Attacking party chooses, with Skirm/Dom having slightly higher CP costs and reward payouts - Defenders choose (only the game type, not the size, which they can see and base their type choice on) - Random, with CP cost to the attacker determining odds (extra CP spent for layout intel, because the attackers can't know the layout of the district without recon) As for limits on attacks on a single district, I would think a flat 3-5hr lockdown after an attack would be sufficient. I don't think any other restrictions would be necessary. That would provide enough daily attacks that raid locking would be very difficult to keep up in terms of CP, leave a small enough window to reasonably have multiple attacks, and have a large enough window to prevent constant raids without major coordination.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21051	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:00:00 - [80] - Quote 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. *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*

501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 807	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:06:00 - [81] - Quote 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 "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Wilhelm Klingspor DUST University Ivy League 578	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:06:00 - [82] - Quote If this all means that everybody in a Corp will be contributing to the succes of that corp by earning CP for upper management to maintain their war efforts than this is a very good thing. Also being in a corp corp participating in PC can be made more tangible by this. Even if you as a merc are not the one fighting the battles you are still contributing to the effort and getting the rewards for it. This and the corp leaderboards could effectively create more of a "weGÇ¥ feel in a corp than for example a corp chat does. Also, i would like to extend my sympathy to whoever is going to have to write the dev blog/manual about this because if one of the goals is to get more people in PC the concept has to be clear as glass. I for one am already a bit lost but already love the whole raid concept. Thanx for the effort, cheers GûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæ DON'T PANIC GûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæ
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4363	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:09:00 - [83] - Quote 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. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1375	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:12:00 - [84] - Quote 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 Say for example that I have 25 great players, that make my A-Team, and 100 newbs or average players that I invited just to be able to earn more CPs. Now with 25 players I cant cover evry tz so I might be attacked when I only have 6 players. Do you really think I d use My newbs? I d call ringers to help me... I hope it is clear that I m not talking about me, or my corp. I m talking about what could be done. Putting a limit based on number of players only push us to recruit everyone we can, not to train them or to get them involved but just to farm. One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!
Pagl1u M Dead Man's Game RUST415 1375	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:18:00 - [85] - Quote I dont know if it is possible, but if it is, PLEASE CCP, PLEASE add something like this In game. One of the few assaults you'll find in a PC match!
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2292	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:18:00 - [86] - Quote 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. 'Elites' are elites because until now they've been able to pick the fights they want, when they want and against who they want. Let's see see how elite they are are two week of continuous fighting over an opponent that can rosta a fresh group of 16 everyday. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 2292	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:26:00 - [87] - Quote Pagl1u M 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 Say for example that I have 25 great players, that make my A-Team, and 100 newbs or average players that I invited just to be able to earn more CPs. Now with 25 players I cant cover evry tz so I might be attacked when I only have 6 players. Do you really think I d use My newbs? I d call ringers to help me... I hope it is clear that I m not talking about me, or my corp. I m talking about what could be done. Putting a limit based on number of players only push us to recruit everyone we can, not to train them or to get them involved but just to farm. Ahhhh yes..... ringers. Who in turn will be contributing CP to their corp which will soon have enough to spend CP on attacking a district , clone packs, and what have you..... How long do you think it'll be before they get bored of fighting your battles now that MH is on the verge of a free for all, no holds barred war? They'll have a whole variety of corps to fight for, hope you'll have enough to pay for them. Oh wait, no passive ISK generation anymore. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6669	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:35:00 - [88] - Quote Successful raids should have two major effects on the defending corp. Undefended raids should have successive and increasingly severe consequences for the defending corp. Example: Raiders steal 50 clones. Raiders destroy clones in the fight (obvious problem for defenders) But the capper: Each time the defenders fail to repel a raid they lose a portion of the bonus CP from the district. If enough raids are lost the districts begin imposing a CP penalty, limiting the ability to harvest resources, generate clones or upgrade districts. Effectively allowing well organized or uncontested raiders to paralyze corps from being able to operate outside their home ground. This should discourage that "only mai elite buddiez get to benefit from PC! The rest of you are harvest slavez!" Bullsh*t that people like to pull. Further in my suggested mechanics one corp can attack a specific district only once per day. If molon labe attacks butte hold district 1. There is nothing preventing them from turning right around and raiding butte hold district 2. After the first district's hour is up, an allied corp can follow and hit district 1 again. Don't acquire more districts than you can successfully defend lest people like me guggle and burn your houses down for fun. And instead of locking the plebes out, you best get them taught how to fight or you will likely get swarmed and ejected. VHCL
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 849	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:45:00 - [89] - Quote Its too bad before the elections for CPM you guys crushed my hopes for my favorite game or else this info already would have been placed into the idea. However here we go. Regarding Districts in General. What you guys have posted about the Cargo Hub abuse gives CCP a very real chance to fix district type simply by changing some numbers around. Consider this Cargo hub spam is used because it not only gives you an additional defence in case of a loss but it gives you a larger force to send out for attacks. the issue with Cargo Hubs is they produce too many clones. A production facility offers only a 20 clones increase against cargo hubs and holds 150 less. Surface research labs got lost in the mess due to clone attrition being a LOL thing. Cargo Hubs In my opinion Cargo Hubs should be at the center of your defensive net. They should offer a security blanket at full clones and be a liability when low. Clone production should be reduced to 20 clones a day to prevent the current abuse of cargo hubs but they should also have a maximum Clone Capacity of 600. This allows an attacker to spam attacks to take a cargo hub just based on the fact that it cant replenish fast enough. Making it again a liability when at low clones.Taking into account CCP original idea of attacker clones that are not killed go to the defender's clone count. So if an attack of 200 clones is unsuccessful and 100 remain the district would absorb 50 clones Making big attacks on Cargo Hubs a possible loss for the attacker if unsuccessful. Selling Clones should have a reduced CP cost on Cargo Hubs. Should a corp have nothing but cargo hubs they would suffer from a lack of clone production and be unable to defend in the long run. . Production Facilities Should do just that produce clones. These facilities are weak but can be used to restore lost clones on your cargo hubs. A production rate of 150 clones and a max Capacity of 200 Clones makes them difficult to preserve but invaluable against players attempting to take your Cargo hubs as well as being self sufficient when properly defended. This will allow nice balance for corps to get out of the current Cargo Hubs or nothing mentality. Moving clones to owned districts should have a reduced CP cost. Selling Clones should have an increased CP cost. Because of CP being needed to make value off clones if a corp has nothing but Production facilities 1000's of clones a day could be wasted with no return. Surface Research Lab For the piece de resistance. Surface Research Labs are the laughing stock or the Eve Universe right now giving no benefits in any way. So how do we fix this? Clone Attrition needs to be a very real threat to corps attempting to attack an enemy district. With the current system i can send an attack (172) from Eoldulf : Mimiror to Almur : Sakulda and arrive with 95 clones. Take into consideration that this is 9 Jumps in the different constellations themselves and 3 warps to other constellations. A movement from say Mimiror to Ennur should be a 20% loss of clones from a non surface research lab (2 jumps) and a similar attack from Mimiror to Meildolf should be a 50% loss of clones 30% from a constellation warp. Those same attacks from a Surface research lab would be cut by 75% and CP cost reduced by 50% so that same attack to Meildolf becomes a loss of 12.5%. This gives massive incentive if you are an aggressive corp that wants to attack your enemy not on your planet or solar system to hold some surface research labs to send attacks off of. If clone attrition actually becomes a thing surface research labs become your attacking hardpoints being the only district you can send a force large enough to truly attack your enemy. Selling clones on surface research labs will have an increased cp cost. With a maximum clone count of 300 and a production value of 60 the district without being reinforced by a production facility can be withered away through even unsuccessful attacks. Holding nothing but SRL will be the least detrimental of the penalties but be penalized by making a lower profit and they are vulnerable to multiple attacks due to clone inefficacy District Balance Through a proper clone attrition rate we can make a balance for corps that hold multiple districts to have desire in holding different types of districts.Cargo Hubs will be valuable for the extra clone capacity and ability to efficiently generate a profit. Production Facilities though weak are self sufficient but cannot be used as a defense against a siege or for a profit and merely are used to support the defense/offense of your other districts. Surface research labs now become what they were made to do and be your offensive districts. A corp would manage these districts using this new form of currency of CP. So corps that want to make a profit that day will use CP to move clones from a production facility to a cargo hub then sell those clones. A corp that wants to take a district will use CP to launch an attack from their SRL and reinforce using production facilities and trying to hold only one type of district will leave your owned districts vulnerable in some way. This may even remove the need for a randomness for districts as all 3 types of main sockets will be used. I would like to see The maps we see in pubs that aren't in pc used in pc by allowing owners to change the maps using CP. So if you make a SRL you can make the main map socket be caldari or gallente. When you make a production facility you can have the main socket be the Twin towers map we all love or the wide open bridge map or the pipeline map. Cargo hubs could be the current map we have or the underground bunker map. As a defender your biggest asset is knowing the map so you can create a team to best fit that map you are about to play on so please do not remove that asset. P.S Since i ran out of characters another wall of text inbound.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6669	Posted - 2015.01.23 12:54:00 - [90] - Quote @R4D-47 Re-read the proposal. Clone generation will no longer be tied to districts. Just your corp flotilla. Your concerns about clone generation will likely be obsolete when the update drops. VHCL

steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3501	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:00:00 - [91] - Quote I think how raids should work needs it's own thread. It's clearly very popular Gÿ¦ (which makes me happy because I have shouted about this since MH was s thing =ƒÿå) Bleeding a corp of CP and isk should be thing to ensure you can't count on a 16 man super team they should only ever be a thing when u really need a win Gÿ¦ You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1895	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:06:00 - [92] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: As to point D, if you look at the diagram in the lower left, there is now a trackable metric for a CEO to measure a players value to the corp (finally) If possible, it might not be a bad idea to make this metric (e.g. components earned/contributed/donated) visible to everyone in the corp. Doing so would (1) promote activity through friendly competition, (2) ensure that a grinding newbro's contributions are noticed by his corpmates and (3) automate the reporting process so CEOs won't have to manually; these are busy guys, and are often out-of-the-office.
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 168	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:34:00 - [93] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, 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. 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. Will this mechanics bring any advantage to small attacking corporations over large defending corporations? Because large corps can shift timers farther (they have plenty of points) to protect their districts. Meanwhile, small corp managed to take a district could not have enough points to shift timer as far as large corp can. Do you plan to have any score/price modifiers to large corps that will allow small corps to actually fight them? Or maybe entire system is already well-balanced around small-to-large corps conflict, I just did not get it? Thanks in advance. <[^_^]>
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1895	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:40:00 - [94] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: Would I be correct in thinking that raiding will cost CP. So a raiding corp would still need missions runners to help fill the CP pool. Yes to first point, don't see why not on the second. Depends on the mechanics of raiding which is still under discussion. That kinda stinks from a pirate's point-of-view. If you have 16 guys from different corps who are all looking for trouble, why not let them make trouble? And preferably, then and there; the urge to pillage may be gone in X hours. Arrrrr. :: excited about raids ::
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4365	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:46:00 - [95] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Kevall Longstride wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: Would I be correct in thinking that raiding will cost CP. So a raiding corp would still need missions runners to help fill the CP pool. Yes to first point, don't see why not on the second. Depends on the mechanics of raiding which is still under discussion. That kinda stinks from a pirate's point-of-view. If you have 16 guys from different corps who are all looking for trouble, why not let them make trouble? And preferably, then and there; the urge to pillage may be gone in X hours. Arrrrr. :: excited about raids :: Eh, I think requiring command points to raid is a fair trade. Without that cost a lot of exploitative mechanics could be introduced using alt corps etc. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Laurent Cazaderon What The French Red Whines. 2368	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:48:00 - [96] - Quote Interesting OP thread Blablablablablablablabla debate Still broken core FPS Future ? Farming your likes since 2012
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 850	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:49:00 - [97] - Quote Regarding CP Am very glad you decided to make a new currency as our current one is the reason why the game is as broken as it is. This currency needs to be proportional to amount of districts owned. Say corp A has 10 districts and corp B has 2 districts corp A will have 5x more CP at max then Corp B. I also believe that as this threshold becomes larger the CP generation slows. So now if Corp A has 20 Districts they have a max CP that is greatly superior to corp B that still has only 2 districts but to achieve that max takes not the same amount of effort as reaching corp B needs to reach their max not because its more but because CP generation is lowered. So not only is the cap higher but its more difficult to achieve the cap. This means small elite corps like 0.H wouldn't be able to take over the entire star map because we cant generate the CP required without growing our in corp population. With your check in place we wouldn't be able to lock districts with alt corps because no CP is being generated to send out an attack. As long as CP is implemented with small corps the ability to launch raids multiple times a day if they want to possible and PC corps needing a player base proportional to their districts held we will will see many positive changes in PC. Regarding Raids We have been screaming for some type of game mode in which you can have a competitive setting without the high stakes of PC and if done right this may be that mode. Raid Mechanics The attacker should not need a district to launch an attack from i suppose this is self explanatory but it needs said. Removing that gap gives everyone the opportunity to perform this action. CP cost should be proportional to actually sending an attack to take a district for corps that own a district and be substantially less for corps that do not. This gives an endgame for corps that do not wish to participate in PC but rather be a pirate type corporation. This makes it more difficult for a corp in PC to try to manage raiding with the other CP actions. As much as i want this to be a big battle a raid as opposed to a battle is a small scale event and should be handled as such. 6v6 or 8v8 in a domination type match would be ideal for a raid. Battles should also have no clone limit and play until the MCC is destroyed to allow sides to use as many resources as possible/wanted to achieve victory. A vehicle cap should also be in place of 1 major vehicle HAV/ADS and 1 minor Vehicle LAV/DS. This makes the match much more tactical and prevents a corporation from deploying 6 tanks to hold the one point. A 1 minute warning should be all a corporation receives and this 1 minutes can be within 1 hour of your timer for example 0.H has a district timer set at 01:00 A raid can happen at 00:01-02:01 if the raid is placed at 00:00 or at 2:00. This is a perfect raid style timer. Making your opposition scramble to find people not currently deployed to defend against the raid. The War Barge should also only be 1 minute long. Many may disagree with this short of a warning but a raid should not give you advance warning because with greater then 2 minutes i can get the 6-8 of the best 0.H players into this battle as if we knew it was going to happen the whole time. Even with 2 minutes it will still be relatively easy to field a team to fight those battles. I also believe multiple raids by different corporations on even the same district should be allowed. Doing so would cause those small elite corps like 0uter.Heaven the inability to field the players necessary to prevent all raids from being successful and keep us out of pubs where we destroy the hopes of many players. Since raids cost CP this makes corps that have districts less able to Send Attacks, Sell Clones, Move Clones, Change Timers and (if anyone read my previous thread) Change Map Layout. Raid Benefits Raids need to have great incentive for the competitive player base not currently in PC to use their CP to do raids. So in light of that statement i believe A successful Raiding Corporation should receive PC style payouts (ISK and Salvage) AND massively increased chance for random officer gear drops. Should the match result in a no show by the defending corporation there needs to be a severe penalty either through isk or CP I currently don't know how to penalize and need help from the CPM's and CCP to make it worthwhile to at least provide a resistance or for the attackers to stay through a noshow. This further takes competitive players from public matches and gives the new players a chance to love the game. A successful Raided Corporation will receive NO isk, Enemy Salvage and a Massively increased chance for random officer gear drops. The no isk part is essential as this makes the defending corporation want to be as efficient as possible. If say 0.H gets raided by P.E we will want to attempt to win the match with minimal casualties due to the isk inefficiency possibility. However if officer gear is more circulated we will finally see them used in PC due to the ability to have a reliable way to earn more. Closing The changes i am seeing are something that should have been done 14 months ago to maintain a large part of the competitive community that has already moved on but nonetheless i am very excited to see CCP implement these changes. Hopefully it can be done very professionaly with minor bugs that can be worked out during maintenance and not requiring massive updates.
Zene Ren Hired Ghost 116	Posted - 2015.01.23 13:50:00 - [98] - Quote Shutter Fly wrote: Some extra input on these ideas (I like most of it): Although I like the idea of a 20 minute delay, I think 30-45 minutes would be a bit more reasonable overall. No personal complaints about 20 minutes, though. As for the match type, I can see a few possibilities (the attacker should always choose the size): - Attacking party chooses, with Skirm/Dom having slightly higher CP costs and reward payouts - Defenders choose (only the game type, not the size, which they can see and base their type choice on) - Random, with CP cost to the attacker determining odds (extra CP spent for layout intel, because the attackers can't know the layout of the district without recon) As for limits on attacks on a single district, I would think a flat 3-5hr lockdown after an attack would be sufficient. I don't think any other restrictions would be necessary. That would provide enough daily attacks that raid locking would be very difficult to keep up in terms of CP, leave a small enough window to reasonably have multiple attacks, and have a large enough window to prevent constant raids without major coordination. about raiding mechanic only: if we increase or will be increasing the time of delays, vets will start to hop into pubs again out of boredom of waiting, the longer the wait timers the more locked the end game mode will be, i suggest we should start small even at 10 minutes and adjust accordingly after with some data to back it up we could increase the delays after we open more systems then MH and when our player base will increase, but i still think it will only lower the accessibility for vets and direct their attention towards pub stomping,q syncs, this will be bad for all the rest beside the defenders and they had their privileges set high till now didn't they? (thus countering its main purpose of widely accessible veteran end game mode content ) over excessive lock downs will be bad in the limited space that is only MH, it will also redirect the focus of vets towards pub stomping and slaying new bros out of boredom again, it needs to be open as much as it can at every hour, do not worry about "big Bhoys" they will handle it one way or the other (we still can do multi time zone alliances etc it will sort itself out IMO) i do not agree that multi raiding above 16 man group at one moment on one district should be possible, IMO district should be with status "currently raided" thus you need to wait in a queue(sort of) for the next opportunity for this particular one, after the raid ends 30 minutes to 1 hour breather time i am able to agree on at start of PC 2.0 it should be as short as possible and adjusted accordingly based on the data after some time constant raid w/o coordination is the risk of raiders and should be possible at any given moment, again if prevented in any way focus of raiders/vets goes toward pubs and we are in today's status quo or slaying "innocent" new bros thus preventing our community to grow and this leading to dwindling player base and so on and so forth do not defend those "big bHoys" too much they can handle them self like they did till now as an idea from me about raiding i would also propose a raid threshold for a district per week, so when the threshold is met it will open a window of 1 to 2 hours dynamically for a battle for district ownership, at the moment when raid threshold is met for instance lets say we need to make 50 raids a week (no matter by who) on a particular district to open a dynamic window for an owner ship attack, raid threshold resets every week, after the threshold is met defenders have a hour (debatable) to put a defense team up, call ringers or rely on alliance on that time, later on create contract for mercenary defenders even fixed number or raids and locks after a match and raid delays makes it pretty predictable, when the defense task force would be needed and still makes a dynamic exception from the time zone locks core mechanic (that i see you stayed with) and it'd give the opportunity for an attack on not favorable timers from other time zones corp alliances thus creating a purpose to still create a mutli time zone alliances and not only relying on you "1337" 16 man squad thus fueling the needs or bigger corps etc. etc. etc. number of raids to open the attack window is and should be debatable, based on data gathered after the system launches, this mechanic will create a dynamic game play in our one server one community game witch is eve and dust thus deepening the meta game community interaction and the need for corporations to grow and not stay stagnant on their "1337" 16 man group cheers sincerely Zene Ren Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4365	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:02:00 - [99] - Quote Tieing CP pool to district amount seems unnecessary and could create some negative results. One of the issues right now is that in many ways whoever has the most districts wins logistically. There is no need to extend that mechanic in CP pools. Attack and Defense power should not be increased with district growth but through player activity to regenerate the pool and by upgrading the Corporate Command. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Beren Hurin Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 2469	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:03:00 - [100] - Quote What if the Corp could get some LP from FW and there were some LP store options for buying clone packs with special bonuses?

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4365	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:13:00 - [101] - Quote Beren Hurin wrote: What if the Corp could get some LP from FW and there were some LP store options for buying clone packs with special bonuses? Since corporate missions are like daily missions is should be plenty easy to get CP and components even if you just played faction warfare so no real need. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 598	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:15:00 - [102] - Quote 1. All i can see happening is that this benefits big corps alot more and to compete you will also need a big corp, smaller corps may not be able to keep up even if they smash you in PC because they do not have the members to upgrade things on the warbarge etc so they have to recruit more but if they are good and have standards there is only so many good availible players to recruit unless they train which takes time and some just dont have the skill to begin with 2. I can see alot more corps just letting in anyone to get the warbarge upto speed and then either culling the useless lot and go back to being smaller once they have everything they need to a decent level
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 852	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:19:00 - [103] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Tieing CP pool to district amount seems unnecessary and could create some negative results. One of the issues right now is that in many ways whoever has the most districts wins logistically. There is no need to extend that mechanic in CP pools. Attack and Defense power should not be increased with district growth but through player activity to regenerate the pool and by upgrading the Corporate Command. Read my CP proposal it takes your fear out of tiered CP.
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1895	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:28:00 - [104] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Eh, I think requiring command points to raid is a fair trade. Without that cost a lot of exploitative mechanics could be introduced using alt corps etc. You're right. I concede.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4365	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:32:00 - [105] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Tieing CP pool to district amount seems unnecessary and could create some negative results. One of the issues right now is that in many ways whoever has the most districts wins logistically. There is no need to extend that mechanic in CP pools. Attack and Defense power should not be increased with district growth but through player activity to regenerate the pool and by upgrading the Corporate Command. Read my CP proposal it takes your fear out of tiered CP. I read through it. The issue is you want the CP pool to be fairly limited so a lot of activity would drain the pool if it's not being actively replenished. Stockpiling CP because you have a lot of districts eliminates the need to be constantly replenishing the pool, which means if a corp has over extended their holdings past their active player base they would still have a large buffer of CP to fall back on which somewhat defeats the purpose of the CP in the first place. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 135	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:37:00 - [106] - Quote I like some of the proposal like the command points. However, I don't like some things and in particular, the timer things. I have been working on my own proposal in the last few days. I hope it will help on the topic (I wasn't really expecting CCP to post something really detailled before a week at least). All was written before CCP proposal on this topic, so it take a very different angle. I'll try to make a new proposal taking in count the new ideas. Quote: Planetary Conquest proposal After reading CCP posts and thoughts on the planetary conquest, IGÇÖve decided to try to sort something out of the current mess. We all want PC to be a matter of fights, to do so, we need to setup different mods with different purposes. I give you some things taken from what I read and think, I hope it will help you to make something good. Game modes Quote: Raid : You get one battle no matter how much clones you send. Your aim is to bleed clones if you want to take the district or to have a nice game if you just want to fight. The attackers can setup the timer he want. However, if the defending corporation is unable to provide defense (attack at 18 on a US district as an exemple). Then the attacker win NOTHING as there is no ISK for biomass, no salvage and no clone losses. For it to be a viable mean for attack, a successful raid would result in the loss of as much of clones as the defender put in the battle, the attacker would be able to launch another fight against the district and no regeneration would be given for one day. ItGÇÖs up to the leader of the defender team to decide if he can kick the attacker here, or if it is better to keep clones for another battle. Salvage : Like for the raid, you get only one battle, the timer is also set by the attacker. However, there is no re-up possible and the defenders still get a regeneration no matter what is the outcome. The objective here is to kill clones to make money, it would provide a bonus to salvage and ISK reward, based on the gear. APEX and BPO donGÇÖt provide any reward though. Both sides can salvage, but only the winner get the ISK. The ISK pool is calculated on the gear lost by BOTH the attacker and defender. Attack : The current mod. You fight to get the district. As much battles as the attacker have clones and victory screens. However, you can fight only on the timer set by the defending corporation (the timer part is bellow) Districts structures Quote: Cargo Hub 450 clones - 80 regen Production Facility 300 clones - 100 regen Lab 300 clones - 80 regen : Command center 600 clones - 80 regen (1 per corporation) Factory 300 clones - 80 regen The 3 first structures are supposed to behave as they currently do. The command center is supposed to be the core of a corporation, there is only 1 per corp. It is supposed to help small corps not to get kicked out of PC too quickly. If you want to change the location of the headquarter, you need to convert the current HQ before. The operation will then cost 200M ISK. The factory is here to boost the corporation warbarge by giving parts, fuel, bonuses (I didnGÇÖt read that much the warbarge posts, soGÇª) Timers Quote: There is a bit polemic on it between CCP that want fixed timers, and the corporations that want to put timers when they want. I donGÇÖt know if you can, but I think the best would be to calculate a set of timer per corporations based on hours of activity. If I take something I know like my own corporation, I know that most of my guys will be more or less available between 18H and 22H Eve time. Except for some people who can play all over the day, it is the average time where IGÇÖm almost sure to get 16 players (provided they arenGÇÖt all eating ). Or at least, add an option in corp managment/corp warbarge that allow directors to set a specific time zone (EU, US, AS). Depending on the timer selected, the corporation get a defined set of timers : EU : 18 - 21 - 00 US : 22 - 01 - 04 AS : 10 - 13 - 16 (I donGÇÖt know the best timers, but I apply the same logic than for the others basing myself on the very popular 13h timer) This would delete the unreachable timers between 05 and 09. A good start. Fixed timers is the worst idea you ever had (and I was a pilot before 1.7). One day or later, youGÇÖll regret it. You are currently justifying this by telling to corps to expend and have players in every time zone while in the meantime you want smaller corps to be introduced to PC. IsnGÇÖt it a lack of logic ? Experienced players donGÇÖt grow on trees, especially on DustGÇª (except if you are building a secret clone army on Kamino of course) Reboot the PC Kick every corporation in PC. But BEFORE doing that, create a forum thread where each corp leader/director can make his corporation subscribe to enter PC. In order to do that, each corp must give itGÇÖs Dustboard link. This would allow you guys in CCP to check quickly the corporations and eliminate fake corps from PC just by eye reading. It would take some time, but not that much. Each corporation would by then start with a single di... Prima Gallicus diplomat Eve 21 day Trial
Maylar Snow Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 4	Posted - 2015.01.23 14:48:00 - [107] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, --snip-- 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. --snip-- Look forward to seeing your feedback! You just gave us a way to troll PC. At a profit. I would not even need a full team. Just take a single squad to maximize profits. Why flip a District when you can milk it for more isk? Sure, the other side will not be happy because you are taking their isk and putting it into your own pocket. After awhile, they will either no show the fights or get pushed out of PC from lack of funds. No show? Well, you just handed over a District to launch more attacks from. If we lose the District? Then we milk it again. Now, this would be a little harder to pull off on the vets. Profits will not be to high, but still fun. New corps to PC? Easy. They have no understanding of how it works. I doubt new corps would want to stay in PC after being trolled. Welcome to PC 2.0: Troll Edition Ghosts of Dawn CEO
ZymposieR Rusty Dead Man's Game RUST415 17	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:14:00 - [108] - Quote Maylar Snow wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, --snip-- 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. --snip-- Look forward to seeing your feedback! You just gave us a way to troll PC. At a profit. I would not even need a full team. Just take a single squad to maximize profits. Why flip a District when you can milk it for more isk? Sure, the other side will not be happy because you are taking their isk and putting it into your own pocket. After awhile, they will either no show the fights or get pushed out of PC from lack of funds. No show? Well, you just handed over a District to launch more attacks from. If we lose the District? Then we milk it again. Now, this would be a little harder to pull off on the vets. Profits will not be to high, but still fun. New corps to PC? Easy. They have no understanding of how it works. I doubt new corps would want to stay in PC after being trolled. Welcome to PC 2.0: Troll Edition Yes, that's why CCP will whipe all isk and assets. Looking forward to that day :)
E-Rock Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 49	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:16:00 - [109] - Quote I like the way this sounds and looks!!! I think that these will give a change to PC that will has been needed. I would like to know a bit more about the corp missions, for example will there be a cap?, if there is, is it a corp cap, personal cap?, will it be posted on the leaderboards? will there be a cap at all?? Also, how random will the maps be? will we know what the map layout is ? Can we still check the stuff on the star map?!?! Sooooo many questions... Keep talking ladies and gents, this is very exciting!!! The Japanese players call "hate mail", "fan mail".pÇÇµùÑµ£¼F¬PsñºS+êsñ½ -Founder of CKC and UCKC -Molon Labe
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 920	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:23:00 - [110] - Quote Very quick feedback: I stopped reading after this CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Command Points New Concept: Corporate Missions New Concept: Corporate Command At that point I realized this was going to be too complex and that will have to stick to pubs. Sorry.

Heimdallr69 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 4419	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:51:00 - [111] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: The timer proposal seems fairly reasonable and tying these systems to Command Points which must be actively generated feels like a win. I'll update when I've re-read this a few times. x) I just have one question.. I like all of this but what about us mercenaries or "ringers" do we get the same stuff as being in the corp or do we just take a loss?? If not then I say "ringers" should earn more isk =ƒÿÇ Removed inappropriate content - CCP Logibro
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1077	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:53:00 - [112] - Quote 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? Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3501	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:55:00 - [113] - Quote Edit...nvm u peeps posting to fast You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21055	Posted - 2015.01.23 15:58:00 - [114] - Quote All these "We'll bleed the landholders dry!" suggestions are concerning me slightly. Here we have mechanics to allow corps to attack districts with no actual cost to themselves other than the investment of CP and manpower. Given that you can just spam BPOs at something, it likely isn't that much. We also have a large number of suggestions to prevent large corps from holding much land. I get that lots of people are concerned we'll have another DNS. But under this current proposal... Why would you hold land in the first place? We have all these details on how everyone can attack a district, but none on why you would want a district. *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!*
John ShepardIII Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1150	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:06:00 - [115] - Quote I just deleted dust. Time to redownload it The True Shepard Old GAM was OP Hakyou Brutor supreme Overlord of Dust
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1078	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:07:00 - [116] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: All these "We'll bleed the landholders dry!" suggestions are concerning me slightly. Here we have mechanics to allow corps to attack districts with no actual cost to themselves other than the investment of CP and manpower. Given that you can just spam BPOs at something, it likely isn't that much. We also have a large number of suggestions to prevent large corps from holding much land. I get that lots of people are concerned we'll have another DNS. But under this current proposal... Why would you hold land in the first place? We have all these details on how everyone can attack a district, but none on why you would want a district. In-******-deed. There is currently no incentive to hold districts, other than either vanity, or wanting to actually fight other teams. That is, being able to launch attacks with the clones you make. But with this proposal, a corp that doesn't need districts to generate those attacks. So if you can attack all you want without owning districts, and there is particular benefit to holding a district, in fact attackers will have all the advantages to "bleed you dry" if you do defend... why would anyone want to hold districts? O.o Well, maybe the option to sell clones again will provide that incentive, if it done right. Maybe. Have you* considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Ghostt Shadoww Carne Con Papas 163	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:08:00 - [117] - Quote YYYYYYYYYEEeEeEeEeAAaAaAaAaaAaAahhHhHHHHHHhHHhH WooooooooooooT Wooooooooooot Woooooooot!!!!! We have a voice. We have a say. We trully fudging MEAN something to CCP. WoW WoW WoW I have read the OP and all the comments. It's 10 am my time and there 6 pages already amazing. Go Dust Community!!! Anyways I'm going to need to read the OP 5 more times. Then, after that I have to read all your comments again. But for the most part...I don't think there is anything for me to add that 501st, Radar, and Kain have not said already. Mr. Ratatti and All Dust Vets.....I have only one concern.... Is it me or do you guys finish your daily mission in One Hour also. Is it cause we are Vets and these missions are just way to easy. Point me saying this is. If I can finish my daily missions in just an hour or two. Then wouldn't My Corp of Badassness have plenty of CP always. Not that CP should be super hard to get. Just keep in mind. The vets finish these missions in just a few hours. Side Note......Who is going to adapt and do the best at understanding the new system. Which great Leader is going to Shine in 2.0 Will it be the long lost Radar. Coming back after his humanitarian missionary trip he took. Helping feed the homeless Minmatar Scouts of the system. Now that he is back. Will he take over and find excitement again in this new found venture. Based on his wall of information and feedback. Looks like The spirit of The Gods are taken over his CRU again. Will Kain Spero with his Big Name and espionage ways. Come and scoop up the sleeping cells he has scattered around Many Systems. Will he whisper to the Old Cub and bring him out of Hybernation? The conspiracys and secrets that surround Kain. One can never know till they are aware. Will Zatara realize that his Destiny is here. That the battles he is seeking has always been right here in MH. Lost, and far far away. Looking, Searching for something different. To just realize that he is going around in Circles. Leaving everything he knows behind. FA Great Leader has deserted his own. In search for a Destiny that just repeats itself. All roads lead back here to MH. Will he wake up. Come back and Lead his Men to Victory once again. The people's corp! Only time will tell. Kujo, Djinn Soul, Quickgloves, Ares 514, Eugene, aaaaahhhhhhhh What the French all these names..... PC 2.0 The Generals Return Something Awful is going on around here. Hehe
John ShepardIII Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1151	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:10:00 - [118] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: All these "We'll bleed the landholders dry!" suggestions are concerning me slightly. Here we have mechanics to allow corps to attack districts with no actual cost to themselves other than the investment of CP and manpower. Given that you can just spam BPOs at something, it likely isn't that much. We also have a large number of suggestions to prevent large corps from holding much land. I get that lots of people are concerned we'll have another DNS. But under this current proposal... Why would you hold land in the first place? We have all these details on how everyone can attack a district, but none on why you would want a district. You can sell clones again which means ima try to be billionaire The True Shepard Old GAM was OP Hakyou Brutor supreme Overlord of Dust
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1081	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:15:00 - [119] - Quote 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 ;) Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
John ShepardIII Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1151	Posted - 2015.01.23 16:20:00 - [120] - 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 ;) Nice I had never deleted dust before though And ZARIA!!!!!!!!!!! The True Shepard Old GAM was OP Hakyou Brutor supreme Overlord of Dust

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

Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 5032	Posted - 2015.01.23 20:45:00 - [151] - Quote I have already brought up to Rattati that randomizing the maps in rotation will be a very tough pill to swallow and not an affable outcome or even short term solution. Unless there's some reason why we can't, I think the majority will support all current SI's being randomized (so that there's a lot less cargo hubs) as opposed to every SI simply being random maps and having no reliability in choosing what map configuration you wish to play on. In the long term I've expressed hope that eventually corps will be able to choose specific map configurations on their owned districts. Founder & CEO of Fatal Absolution Skype: Zatara.Rought Email: Zatara.Forever@gmail official pawn of ArkenaKirkMerc
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven 1089	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:05:00 - [152] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: I have already brought up to Rattati that randomizing the maps in rotation will be a very tough pill to swallow and not an affable outcome or even short term solution. Unless there's some reason why we can't, I think the majority will support all current SI's being randomized (so that there's a lot less cargo hubs) as opposed to every SI simply being random maps and having no reliability in choosing what map configuration you wish to play on. In the long term I've expressed hope that eventually corps will be able to choose specific map configurations on their owned districts. Thank you. 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 1042	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:26:00 - [153] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Ares 514 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: 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 many of them 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. Whatever it is, there needs to be a cost for corps not defending against raids. After i posted this i saw some good ideas by others. Overlord of Broman
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4508	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:36:00 - [154] - Quote Ares 514 wrote: Whatever it is, there needs to be a cost for corps not defending against raids. After i posted this i saw some good ideas by others. Agreed. If there is no penalty for failing to defend against a raid, it would be best to just not show up and throw your ISK away. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1543	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:57:00 - [155] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: I have already brought up to Rattati that randomizing the maps in rotation will be a very tough pill to swallow and not an affable outcome or even short term solution. Unless there's some reason why we can't, I think the majority will support all current SI's being randomized (so that there's a lot less cargo hubs) as opposed to every SI simply being random maps and having no reliability in choosing what map configuration you wish to play on. In the long term I've expressed hope that eventually corps will be able to choose specific map configurations on their owned districts. This just brought my blood pressure down a few points.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 812	Posted - 2015.01.23 21:59:00 - [156] - Quote Ok so I'm just going to try and compile with some ideas and workarounds Command Points: Earnable by every corporation member via near Corporation Missions. Must be used to in corp functions Upgrades to them: Reduces CP usage Generates CP Faster Etc (Check 1st Page) Such as: Attacking a District (Raid/Conquest) Finding out the Map of a district (Costs a lot of CP, but highly beneficial) Changing timers of a District (Increases the more hours you change it from) Harvesting District Resources Buying Bulk Items in case a corp does not want a tax Defending against Raids Corp Advertisement (Future) At the start of PC 2.0, all current sockets will be me randomized so no one knows what district has what Districts might be taken from all corps and each corp given 1 with full clones that they pick (Possible, not confirmed) **Raiding*** Requires X amount of CP to initiate. Should be greater CP with the more mercs you bring. 16 raiders should be quite a lot of CP Winning awards the Attackers what the defenders lost along with a keep what you kill. A total pot of Isk for all the items lost is also generated, along with (As proposed) a higher rate of salvaging Officer Weapons. Showing up for a Defense causes only a loss in items, but it should require little CP to defend. No-showing requires a massive CP loss, and slight loss of clones (The type of Raids should each cost a certain amount of CP, with Bleeding Clones and higher payouts costing more CP.) Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. Similar to going to a Pirate hangout to beat the snot out of them ) Why should Corps Hold Districts if all they will do is get harassed?? Districts all have some bonuses (Other thread and Radar supply this) Cargo Hubs. 600 clones, 50 clone Regen. Great for launching attacks, almost useless without Production Facilities to back them up... PFs- 200 Clone max with 150 clone regen. The Resuppliers. Capable of being Overwhelmed, they should only regen 75 clones however if attacked. Meaning they can be sniped if sending a massive clone shipment SRLs( If keeping, these manufacture Hacked Decryptor Keys in slow quantities I believe it was stated. Or they could manufacture keys that then are doled out to Player Warbarges which make them into Special Hacked Decryptor Keys, which open our damn boxes Caldari PFs (No Clone Attrition. Direct battle bonuses to the defender. Slight however, nothing insane. ) "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Velvet Overkill SI6MA 129	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:05:00 - [157] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. Will players be able to donate their own Components to Corporations they don't belong to or other players?
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 320	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:19:00 - [158] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: **Raiding*** Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. Similar to going to a Pirate hangout to beat the snot out of them ) How would this work? Where would the battle take place?(random skirmish map?) Where to park the Warbarge?(assuming that is their base of operations) No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 812	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:22:00 - [159] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: **Raiding*** Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. Similar to going to a Pirate hangout to beat the snot out of them ) How would this work? Where would the battle take place?(random skirmish map?) Where to park the Warbarge?(assuming that is their base of operations) By LP, I meant CP. Battle takes place at random. However every Corporation has a base. It says so in your Corporate Information. Warbarge would be parked there. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4509	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:37:00 - [160] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: **Raiding* Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. Similar to going to a Pirate hangout to beat the snot out of them ) Why would you punish a corp that chooses not to do PC? "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1545	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:39:00 - [161] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: **Raiding*** Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. Similar to going to a Pirate hangout to beat the snot out of them ) Why would you punish a corp that chooses not to do PC? Because they used to do PC, ran their mouth, got removed for the lols and is now banished to pubs for eternity. Yes, this happens.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4509	Posted - 2015.01.23 22:53:00 - [162] - Quote And what about groups that are in and get pushed out and decide its not for them. You want to give people the ability to harass them anyways? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3503	Posted - 2015.01.23 23:02:00 - [163] - Quote to be clear, owning land should always generate more profit than just a simple raid, raiding should only be the 1st step for smaller corps to start building an ISK and asset bank so they can eventually take on big boys. its simply a method of smaller corps to take part. that said if you cant defend all the land from constant raid attacks you should be pulling back to hold what you can safely defend. a very simple only 1 raid per district every 24/48 hours will stop "raid spaming" but still allow to have a night of raiding...you would just have to spread it out. also Raids should never cripple they should be annoyance that if not delt with leads to been deadly. for example to effectively "bleed" a corp it needs to be near under constant attack from an alliance sized group. and just to be triple clear. OWNING LAND IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN A RAID! Raid is just for people like my 8 to 16 buddies or just want to ** off the bigger corps and make a bit of isk without the headacke that comes with owning a huge corp...just frankly im way to busy for that kind of thing edit: this video is what we should be aiming for i meet friends in pub....we move to FW where we find a few other friends.... then we start doing PC raids...after while we notice we winning a lot we gather more friends...corp is 30-40 big we made a grab for land.... will ally with a few other corps and form an allinace....we *** how some random scrubs we saw in FW are starting to raid our land.... You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 855	Posted - 2015.01.24 00:03:00 - [164] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Radar R4D-47 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Tieing CP pool to district amount seems unnecessary and could create some negative results. One of the issues right now is that in many ways whoever has the most districts wins logistically. There is no need to extend that mechanic in CP pools. Attack and Defense power should not be increased with district growth but through player activity to regenerate the pool and by upgrading the Corporate Command. Read my CP proposal it takes your fear out of tiered CP. I read through it. The issue is you want the CP pool to be fairly limited so a lot of activity would drain the pool if it's not being actively replenished. Stockpiling CP because you have a lot of districts eliminates the need to be constantly replenishing the pool, which means if a corp has over extended their holdings past their active player base they would still have a large buffer of CP to fall back on which somewhat defeats the purpose of the CP in the first place. No its the opposite Kain if a corp has overextended themselves they won't have CP because it can't actively be gained quickly. Thus having too many districts is a burden on a corp instead of a boon. Holding more land in my proposal gives incentive to those that maintain a larger active player base and penalizies small elite forces like 0.H from attempting to take over too much. Example if 0.H is hitting this cap however it is implemented either daily weekly monthly or just filling until full (being able to be met multiple times in even the same day) with 4 districts we would want to expand to a point where our corp meets the cap and have a decent buffer but if we expand to much that becomes inefficient. Over expansion could leave us vulnerable to attack since we wouldn't be able to make enough CP to do any PC required action. Since based on what I have read CP will be more valuable spent then stored I don't believe corps would attempt to stockpile CP unless they are expecting to need it for defenses or if they want to launch a lot of raids all at once. I personally see no true downfall to giving corps incentive to hold land as that is how wars will begin because corps are greedy and want to be famous/rich/powerful. Originally the incentive was isk but it got so broken that we are at our current situation. Since there will be a cap however and the need to actively maintain this currency there cannot be another isk situation. Unfourtantly if there isn't incentive to hold more then 2 districts then PC will not change and continue to be a LOL fest with no wars like early PC had. In closing this means a PRO style force could be just as effective as a TP/0.H style force. This would also encourage teams like 0.H to allow more players in corp wich hopefully would lead to a larger PC player base because as stated previously the percentage of PC to actual players is stupid low. Give corps a reason to want to take multiple districts and hopefully lead to a more fulfilling PC experience.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 5953	Posted - 2015.01.24 03:00:00 - [165] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: **Raiding*** Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. 1. Where Rewards exist there is also exists Risk. Getting raided is a Risk of land ownership; this Risk is assumed when a corp opts to pursue the Rewards of owning land. Your model demands that a corp which has opted not to pursue Reward still assume the Risks of having done so. That's a wee 'bit silly and a way 'bit out-of-equilibrium. 2. Say all the big PC wheels decide that its more economical to farm than to fight, blue up, and agree to an armistice with whomever else might still be around. While they farm PC 2.0 for risk-free Isk (again), what types of things do you think they might find entertaining? Bullying lesser players, perhaps? Demanding lolTribute? Surely, such reputable corps as yours or Nyain San would never do such a thing. 3. A 'bit personal but pertinent nonetheless. My first corp (Pro Hic Immortalis) was removed from PC by Team Players in the months which following PC 1.0. A few of our guys apparently talked smack, so they straight up whooped us like 50 times in a row. Having had a successful run in PC up to that point, the repeated beatdowns were disheartening, but worse, we'd grown very found of playing together as a team, and the knowledge that we wouldn't be able to do it again -- at least for a very long time -- was a tough pill to swallow. If we had had at that time the ability the run raids together (or anything, for that matter) it would've made all the difference in the world for our morale. We would've come back better, no doubt, and perhaps Dust wouldn't have lost the dozens of beta veterans I once called corpmate. Let's say, on the other hand, TP had had the ability to take from us more than everything we had. I'll bet they would have, and I'll bet it wouldn't have been good for our already bad morale. I fail to see how that in any waywould've possibly been good for the game. TL;DR: I've seen better ideas. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 5039	Posted - 2015.01.24 03:29:00 - [166] - Quote Raiding corps who don't own land is a bad idea. Founder & CEO of Fatal Absolution Skype: Zatara.Rought Email: Zatara.Forever@gmail official pawn of ArkenaKirkMerc
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 813	Posted - 2015.01.24 03:49:00 - [167] - Quote My reasoning for such was it takes such a high amount of CP that it cant be spammed, and it is for those grudge matches. It makesense in that ptiates tore their CP and Loot somewhere. That is it. You do not know where this is however, what map. If you own land and are getting smashed by raiders, why do they get to steal and hide? Why can they not be in the alightest way countered? Are the bonuses for.holding a district so great that corps will deal with endless raida from every corp who you stomped in a pub, and you cannot evwn retaliate? Regardless of blue donuting, that can happen anyway, causing a stale. If Im being pestered by bees, explain why I cant dedicate massive ( And I mean being ablet o do this takes large CP for relatively little reward if the corp you attack has no resources. They do not have to show either.) Resources. I dont know, maybe it's okay for yall, but it just doeant seem roght. This is risk vs reward. If you raid someone, your corp should be able to become a target. It then becomes a game. Can you raid and fight that corp so much that they cant muster the CP to deatroy and cripple your war effort. Ljke you said Pokey, you reap what you sow. You should not be able to steal, hide, and then be safe. A corp with relatively little to do after a war should be able to save up CP, get a twam, and show those raiders who's boss. Sorry for typos, on phone. Please just answer how that makes sense to you "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4515	Posted - 2015.01.24 03:59:00 - [168] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Ljke you said Pokey, you reap what you sow. You should not be able to steal, hide, and then be safe. A corp with relatively little to do after a war should be able to save up CP, get a twam, and show those raiders who's boss. Well i don't really remember saying that exactly, but anyways. I think more so what you're looking for is a Warbarge counter attack, which could perhaps be launched following a raid against your district. I think however that allowing people to bully non-PC corps simply for existing is a nice way to make people quit the game. Even if the CP cost is high, it's basically harassment against a corp that just wants to be left alone. So retaliation triggered by conflict? Sure. But it should be a one time deal for each act of aggression, not something you can do whenever you feel like it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 813	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:02:00 - [169] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: Ljke you said Pokey, you reap what you sow. You should not be able to steal, hide, and then be safe. A corp with relatively little to do after a war should be able to save up CP, get a twam, and show those raiders who's boss. Well i don't really remember saying that exactly, but anyways. I think more so what you're looking for is a Warbarge counter attack, which could perhaps be launched following a raid against your district. I think however that allowing people to bully non-PC corps simply for existing is a nice way to make people quit the game. Even if the CP cost is high, it's basically harassment from a corp that just wants to be left alone. So retaliation triggered by conflict? Sure. But it should be a one time deal for each act of aggression, not something you can do whenever you feel like it. That would be acceptable. Apologies if angeted or anmoyed anyone. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4515	Posted - 2015.01.24 04:03:00 - [170] - Quote No irritation here ^_^ You raise a good point, you just don't want it to turn in a system that allows excessive trolling. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 5959	Posted - 2015.01.24 05:16:00 - [171] - Quote No offense taken whatsoever, 501st. I've nothing but respect for you and Radar. o7 Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 856	Posted - 2015.01.24 06:25:00 - [172] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: Raiding corps who don't own land is a bad idea. How is that a bad idea? Raiding should be accessible by the many and PC by the few or else we are stuck with the current situation of 1% of the playerbase actually performing an endgame mode. Remember that since CP is a factor players will actually have to be apart of a corporation to experience this version of endgame. Raiding will either be the best way to troll or the best way to play dust based on how CCP releases it. As long as CP is something that requires a moderate level of activity to gain any corp should be allowed to launch a raid on district owners. To allow all corps accessibility to endgame content without the fear of and highstakes that comes with being a land owning PC corp. Raiding to me is a casual competitive way to play dust and PC is the hardcore way to play dust. However since raiding is still competitive it allows a corporation to test their mettle against a PC active corp to not only train their troops but to gauge the talent of their corporation and attempt to breakout on the PC scene instead of raiding. CCP just needs to make sure holding land gives a large incentive to players or else we will be as stagnant in PC in the future as we are now.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4379	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:19:00 - [173] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: I disagree. If raiders can initiate a raid whenever they want, as many of them 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. Raids need to be limited in how many can happen per day for sure. Either by a rest timer, meeting certain conditions for a raid like clone overflow X days in a row, or a combination of the two. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 320	Posted - 2015.01.24 07:32:00 - [174] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: I disagree. If raiders can initiate a raid whenever they want, as many of them 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. Raids need to be limited in how many can happen per day for sure. Either by a rest timer, meeting certain conditions for a raid like clone overflow X days in a row, or a combination of the two. I believe a 24 hr rest timer would be sufficient. IMO after a successful raid there really isn't anything worthwhile to steal right? What if you could only raid during a 3 hr window during the day? 1 hr before and after the 1 hr window used to take districts? That way raiding will not be risk free (no shows) because active corps will be able to have people on during that time. Edit: Also maybe add a mechanic that allows a corp that successfully defends it land with the ability to keep it unlocked? maybe justify this by boosting productivity until it so it reaches max after the raid period instead of after the 24 hr period? No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 858	Posted - 2015.01.24 09:15:00 - [175] - Quote Raiding in my opinion should not affect PC except in the case of a no show in which some kind of penalty should be inflicted on the district holder. If you read my post about raiding should those mechanics be used it gives the masses availability to raid a long as they have CP to spend. With attackers having a greater reward then defenders to encourage people to raid and district holders would want to defend to prevent the penalty from affecting them. I would like feedback on what a penalty should be for a no show as that would be the best information Rattati could glean from this thread. Next to a general idea of how the community wants raiding to be.
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1421	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:13:00 - [176] - Quote Skimming through and I'd like to know. Corp A raids Corp B. Corp A is not in PC but is there any way Corp B can raid them back? Will the war barges be accessible? I'm trying to keep up but my Dustanese is not very good. I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 500	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:25:00 - [177] - Quote I'm not particularly sure about the idea of raiding non-PC corps, but it doesn't make sense that they would be able to initiate raids without the possibility of retaliation. Actually, I think the idea behind the reward/loss system of raids is a bit unclear, which is making the problem even harder to pin down. My understanding of how raids could work (in terms of costs, rewards, and losses): Raids have an initial CP cost to the side that initiates, and no CP cost for the defending corp. A no-show results in a significant loss of CP (more than a raid attack, and no clone loss) The clones used in the battle have to come from somewhere, the CP cost to the attacker covers their clones, while the defenders use clones stored on the district (I imagine raids having clone counts of ~50-80). A loss by the defender results in a (smaller than no-show) loss of CP, and the clones used in the defense. A loss would require balancing clone expenditure with CP loss (losses in raids would not hinder generation, thus having a very minor impact on numbers) A win by the defender results in no CP loss, and the acquisition of any of the attacker's leftover clones The winner (attacking or defending) gets a payout based on total losses, including both gear and biomass (this may be in additional forms beyond ISK) Corps without districts can be raided, but the attack will have a significantly higher CP cost, will take clones from the defenders corporate warbarge storage, and cannot be launched on a corp with insufficient clone reserves. Once again, I'm still on the fence about raiding corps that don't own land, but I threw it in to show how I think it could be done.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 619	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:30:00 - [178] - Quote 1. Lets raid a corp which has no land so we fight in space? Really people? they need to have land
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4381	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:39:00 - [179] - Quote bigolenuts wrote: Skimming through and I'd like to know. Corp A raids Corp B. Corp A is not in PC but is there any way Corp B can raid them back? Will the war barges be accessible? I'm trying to keep up but my Dustanese is not very good. Currently a Corporate Command cannot be raided AFAIK, but I think being able to counterattack a raid using a district map would be a good feature to implement. Essentially this would be a revenge attack that a Corporate Command can come under following a raid. Radar, raids affecting district production and causing an expenditure of defender command points seems like a sufficient penalty and effect on Planetary Conquest. Basically if successfully raided your clone production stops the same way as a loss currently does on a district but your core clone/ MCC count is unaffected. Whether no shows are punished or not I think would come down to whether raids happen around the district timer or if a district being open to a raid 24/7 approach is taken. In any case, the CP cost of raiding needs to be balanced against the CP cost of manually selling clones so that raiding is a more CP expensive way of gathering ISK. I imagine raiding would also cost clones/MCC no matter the outcome. In the case of a no show (maybe the shields of the MCC aren't lost on victory) then the raider keeps their MCC/ clones. This would allow you to immediately raid again even if you don't have MCC/ clones in storage. I think a mechanic like that would provide enough of a benefit if there is a no show. In the case of a raider no-showing (MCC shields aren't lost on victory) have the raid not cost the district owner any CP. Being able to raid even if you don't own any land is really the whole point behind a raiding mechanic in the first place, but I do agree that revenge attacks should be possible. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 500	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:55:00 - [180] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: bigolenuts wrote: Skimming through and I'd like to know. Corp A raids Corp B. Corp A is not in PC but is there any way Corp B can raid them back? Will the war barges be accessible? I'm trying to keep up but my Dustanese is not very good. Currently a Corporate Command cannot be raided AFAIK, but I think being able to counterattack a raid using a district map would be a good feature to implement. Essentially this would be a revenge attack that a Corporate Command can come under following a raid. Radar, raids affecting district production and causing an expenditure of defender command points seems like a sufficient penalty and effect on Planetary Conquest. Basically if successfully raided your clone production stops the same way as a loss currently does on a district but your core clone/ MCC count is unaffected. Whether no shows are punished or not I think would come down to whether raids happen around the district timer or if a district being open to a raid 24/7 approach is taken. In any case, the CP cost of raiding needs to be balanced against the CP cost of manually selling clones so that raiding is a more CP expensive way of gathering ISK. I imagine raiding would also cost clones/MCC no matter the outcome. In the case of a no show (maybe the shields of the MCC aren't lost on victory) then the raider keeps their MCC/ clones. This would allow you to immediately raid again even if you don't have MCC/ clones in storage. I think a mechanic like that would provide enough of a benefit if there is a no show. In the case of a raider no-showing (MCC shields aren't lost on victory) have the raid not cost the district owner any CP. Being able to raid even if you don't own any land is really the whole point behind a raiding mechanic in the first place, but I do agree that revenge attacks should be possible. I see show/no-show as a matter of cost management. It shouldn't be a straight matter of: show = good / no-show = bad. Not showing up would be a definite, moderate loss of one resource (CP, for example). Showing up would be betting that you can win for a moderate gain, with the possibility of anywhere from minor to severe (in relation to no-show) losses of other resources (clones, ISK, some CP). Although I mentioned clone loss, but no hit to clone production, in my previous post. I also like the idea of halted production with no loss. My only issue is the "loss" of clones (in the battle) with no actual impact on clone reserves. Also, it could diminish the returns of multiple attacking wins in a single day, depending on how the other penalties are determined.

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4382	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:10:00 - [181] - Quote Shutter Fly wrote: I see show/no-show as a matter of cost management. It shouldn't be a straight matter of: show = good / no-show = bad. Not showing up would be a definite, moderate loss of one resource (CP, for example). Showing up would be betting that you can win for a moderate gain, with the possibility of anywhere from minor to severe (in relation to no-show) losses of other resources (clones, ISK, some CP). Although I mentioned clone loss, but no hit to clone production, in my previous post. I also like the idea of halted production with no loss. My only issue is the "loss" of clones (in the battle) with no actual impact on clone reserves. Also, it could diminish the returns of multiple attacking wins in a single day, depending on how the other penalties are determined. Yeah, essentially you should want to show up to prevent the negative outcomes of a raid. The idea of MCC replacing clones as the mechanics of conquering and determining ownership I think really starts to shine when you begin to look at things like raiding. A raid puts your clone production at risk but not necessarily your stock of MCC that ensure your district ownership is unaffected. The issue I see with raids is that the stakes of a raid need to be balanced. Too low and defenders don't care and don't show up, too high and we end up with the "best 16" being picked to defend against a raid. I think generating/not generating would be a good way to determine is a district is raidable and limit the number of raids. Stopping clone production would allow you to "soften" up a district as a precursor to an actual attack as well. Once we add district resource production down the line though in addition to clones I think we'll need a more robust system like this: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=186091 Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 916	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:06:00 - [182] - Quote All very interesting suggestions. My theory. To make raids much more attainable on both side...woukd be to make raids only be 8 attackers and 8 defenders. Make the map always a 4 point map. Reasons why. Raids are lightning fast. They hit you hard. The enemy wouldn't form a large army to do a raid. It would be seen. Instead the pick the best of the best. The small elite raiders. And they hit. The defender...When sensing a battle always prepares. They man the walls and have their army ready to repel. In a raid. It may be tough for every corp...even large corps...more so for the smaller corps to get 16 players to go defend it. 8 tho is very manageable. Or as we see now in PC(myself as guilty party) included...The 16 defenders will be picked not from your corp...but from who ever you can scramble. raids need to be small party's. Please make them 8 vs 8. Attacker has the advantage of selecting the best 8 and preparing before they attack. Defender needs the benefit of the doubt that they can field 8 players aswell. 16 may be very tough for small corps. Other than that..If you successfully defend a raid...your district should be free from being raided for a locked period of time but not locked from being hit with real attack. When a district gets hit by a real attack it should cease all production of goo. This prevents people from locking them selves with alt corps and cashing in on goo. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4382	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:15:00 - [183] - Quote Roman837 wrote: All very interesting suggestions. My theory. To make raids much more attainable on both side...woukd be to make raids only be 8 attackers and 8 defenders. Make the map always a 4 point map. Reasons why. Raids are lightning fast. They hit you hard. The enemy wouldn't form a large army to do a raid. It would be seen. Instead the pick the best of the best. The small elite raiders. And they hit. The defender...When sensing a battle always prepares. They man the walls and have their army ready to repel. In a raid. It may be tough for every corp...even large corps...more so for the smaller corps to get 16 players to go defend it. 8 tho is very manageable. Or as we see now in PC(myself as guilty party) included...The 16 defenders will be picked not from your corp...but from who ever you can scramble. raids need to be small party's. Please make them 8 vs 8. Attacker has the advantage of selecting the best 8 and preparing before they attack. Defender needs the benefit of the doubt that they can field 8 players aswell. 16 may be very tough for small corps. Other than that..If you successfully defend a raid...your district should be free from being raided for a locked period of time but not locked from being hit with real attack. When a district gets hit by a real attack it should cease all production of goo. This prevents people from locking them selves with alt corps and cashing in on goo. Something to consider as well is to allow raids to vary is size with differing CP cost and rewards based on the raid size. Also, remember now that autosell will no longer be a thing and if you are in the under attack state you can't manage a district which means you won't be able to sell off clones. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 917	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:02:00 - [184] - Quote The idea is to promote fights correct? If you want fights. Make raids 8 vs 8. Both teams can manage finding 8. For a raid and 8 for the defense. Also. Make raids...corp only. Attack and defense. This will promote using your own guys. It will also prevent well established large groups from forming raiding party's based off their elite friends. Make it corp exclusive. Yes. Defenders with land...will need to recruit. And will stop alt corps from just using alts to raid and bringing in their real corp as ringers. 8 vs 8. Way to go with raids. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 813	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:13:00 - [185] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Roman837 wrote: All very interesting suggestions. My theory. To make raids much more attainable on both side...woukd be to make raids only be 8 attackers and 8 defenders. Make the map always a 4 point map. Reasons why. Raids are lightning fast. They hit you hard. The enemy wouldn't form a large army to do a raid. It would be seen. Instead the pick the best of the best. The small elite raiders. And they hit. The defender...When sensing a battle always prepares. They man the walls and have their army ready to repel. In a raid. It may be tough for every corp...even large corps...more so for the smaller corps to get 16 players to go defend it. 8 tho is very manageable. Or as we see now in PC(myself as guilty party) included...The 16 defenders will be picked not from your corp...but from who ever you can scramble. raids need to be small party's. Please make them 8 vs 8. Attacker has the advantage of selecting the best 8 and preparing before they attack. Defender needs the benefit of the doubt that they can field 8 players aswell. 16 may be very tough for small corps. Other than that..If you successfully defend a raid...your district should be free from being raided for a locked period of time but not locked from being hit with real attack. When a district gets hit by a real attack it should cease all production of goo. This prevents people from locking them selves with alt corps and cashing in on goo. Something to consider as well is to allow raids to vary is size with differing CP cost and rewards based on the raid size. Exactly what I was thinking brother :) Also, remember now that autosell will no longer be a thing and if you are in the under attack state you can't manage a district which means you won't be able to sell off clones. After all of the reading, I truly feel we need Corporation Ranks to really help in balance. I had an idea, just disappeared. Will come back. Also, people have been worried that small corps may not be able to field players in the event of a raid. Id like to clarify that a Corp can only be raided back if their Corporation Rank is high enough, and enough CP is used. Attack a Rank 1 corp while you are Rank 8, and it requires massive CP. Again, only as retaliation, not out of the blue. I believe in a 24 hr raid timer, however your district will be set at a certain timer for regen, open to attack 3 hours before and after. The timer decides regen. Raiding later and later from that timer takes more and more CP. Midnight raid? Sure. Requires lots of CP, ans you are then vulnerable to counterattack when you least expect it as well. Raiding paralyzes districts, meaning it would make Cargo Hubs very easier to take, as Radar proposed then only regen a meager 50, with 600 holding clones. Production Facilities with only 200 and 150 regen wpuld be taken in one zurge with no regen capacity. I would personally fight tooth and nail against a raid on a SRL because I want my hacked decryptor keys. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 917	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:39:00 - [186] - Quote Can raids be a dom or an ambush. It should be about inflicting clone damage. Smash and grab. 8V8 dom or ambush woukd be an exciting change. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1424	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:43:00 - [187] - Quote I puked in my mouth when I agreed with Roman but; 8v8 Corp Specific Ambush/Domination spits I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 918	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:48:00 - [188] - Quote bigolenuts wrote: I puked in my mouth when I agreed with Roman but; 8v8 Corp Specific Ambush/Domination spits Quoted so you can't edit. GG Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1424	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:50:00 - [189] - Quote Roman837 wrote: bigolenuts wrote: I puked in my mouth when I agreed with Roman but; 8v8 Corp Specific Ambush/Domination spits Quoted so you can't edit. GG you never hit me up on Skype ******! [email protected] I've a proposal for you I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4386	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:07:00 - [190] - Quote Eh, I don't see any reason to make raiding corp specific. Let it follow the same rules as PC. Plus with the way CP work if they aren't in your corp they aren't fueling your ability to raid. 8v8 raiding can be an option but there should be a way to do 16 v 16 raiding as well. Full teams need a way to quickly access fights in PC as well as small ones. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5855	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:30:00 - [191] - Quote What if bringing in non corp members cost more CP? Call it a clone programming fee. Don't make it much, but anything over 50% ringers would result in a negative in some resource column. I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 5969	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:45:00 - [192] - Quote Random Thoughts: Raid Window What if all districts on a given planet had a fixed (i.e. cannot be changed) raid window of 1-2 hours per day? Raiders would have a selection of districts to choose among at any point during the day. Defenders wouldn't have to be at-the-ready around the clock, could pick districts which best fit their schedules, and would be better able to manage the risks of expansion. "Try to online between 18:00 and 20:00 to defend the home world!" seems like something a reasonable person from space might say. Raid Types Very much like the idea of both Small Raids (8v8) and Large Raids (16v16). Mixing up maps and modes could be fun. You have been waylaid! Love Pokey's idea of permitting land-holders to "give chase" to raiders within a short window after having been raided. What if the mode were Ambush? It would make sense mostly because "... Ambush!" but also because raiders won't necessarily have land to raid (which seems requisite to owning Null Cannons and the like). No Vader? There needs to be a really good reason to hold land; otherwise, we'll be all Rebellion and no Empire. Would make for boring movie, yes? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3504	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:53:00 - [193] - Quote raiding needs to open to any corp that wants to try it because that should be the first step into getting into PC otherwise small newb corps still wont get a look in and tbh nor will they really want to try. its very simple to just make raiding cost CP a smallish raiding corp wont be able to spam it all that much because their pool will be small and a bigger corp will be/should be more interested in taking and holding land as raiding is not most efficient way. if we tie in raiding to land ownership no-one will even bother trying, the whole point of raiding is to make it an easer barrier of entry for new people into PC. Frankly all you big boy corps who are worried about to getting raided a lot means the idea is working as intended. dont take more than can you defend its quite simple You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 921	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:53:00 - [194] - Quote 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4387	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:03:00 - [195] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: What if bringing in non corp members cost more CP? Call it a clone programming fee. Don't make it much, but anything over 50% ringers would result in a negative in some resource column. Okay, normally I hate anything that hurts freedom of association but I like this idea a lot. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:07:00 - [196] - Quote Reason why I believe raids are suppose to be exclusive to Corp members..... because if not. This is going to be easy for us to form 16 elite players....not launch real attacks for pc..watch weak corps come online. Hit them. Split profit. Don't even launch real attacks ever. Farm on our districts. Or launch vs each other. Because raids more profit. I don't want that. Corp exclusive means we include our corps in our attacks. ..and makes it so weak corps don't get raided by the elites farming them Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4387	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:10:00 - [197] - Quote Roman837 wrote: 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. If you kill the core clones off a district you risk the stakes being far too high for raids. If you want to affect the ownership position of a district launch a full attack. Stopping production and regeneration of the clones/MCC seems to be a pretty good middle ground. Let the attacker choose the size or the raid and match type. Depending on the match the stakes are raised and the rewards are different. Raid - 8 v 8 Ambush - 1x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Dom - 1.5x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Skrim - 2x CP Raid - 16 v 16 Skirm - 3x CP The potentially rewards would scale in a similar fashion as the CP. Steal 10% of Daily Clones Steal 20% of Daily Clones Steal 30% of Daily Clones Steal 50% of Daily Clones Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5856	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:11:00 - [198] - Quote If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5856	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:14:00 - [199] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Roman837 wrote: 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. If you kill the core clones off a district you risk the stakes being far too high for raids. If you want to affect the ownership position of a district launch a full attack. Stopping production and regeneration of the clones/MCC seems to be a pretty good middle ground. Let the attacker choose the size or the raid and match type. Depending on the match the stakes are raised and the rewards are different. Raid - 8 v 8 Ambush - 1x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Dom - 1.5x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Skrim - 2x CP Raid - 16 v 16 Skirm - 3x CP The potentially rewards would scale in a similar fashion as the CP. I like the idea of no showing being a stiff penalty, I think X consecutive no shows on raids should lead to an unclaimed district. I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4387	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:16:00 - [200] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 324	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:21:00 - [201] - Quote OK so... say we go with the window of opportunity method for raiding. IE around primetime for the district. Raiders move War Barge over district raiders launch battle (8v8 or 16vv16 depending on Cp cost) raiders win and get phat lewt if they are dumb enough to stay parked over the planet then they should get counterattacked. If they loot and scoot they cant (they get out of solar system it not worth it to give chase). Assuming that War barges cannot teleport across the starmap and it takes a decent amount of time to move (out of solar system could be 20~30 min) an active player base could call in an attack on them. FI the attackers win they get some of the raiders loot back (and maybe a cut of any other loot they plundered). I think this would encourage raiding to be more coordinated by adding a level of risk. This would also encourage corp to hold districts with timers closer to their actual playtime to allow easy defense. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:22:00 - [202] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Roman837 wrote: 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. If you kill the core clones off a district you risk the stakes being far too high for raids. If you want to affect the ownership position of a district launch a full attack. Stopping production and regeneration of the clones/MCC seems to be a pretty good middle ground. Let the attacker choose the size or the raid and match type. Depending on the match the stakes are raised and the rewards are different. Raid - 8 v 8 Ambush - 1x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Dom - 1.5x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Skrim - 2x CP Raid - 16 v 16 Skirm - 3x CP The potentially rewards would scale in a similar fashion as the CP. Steal 10% of Daily Clones Steal 20% of Daily Clones Steal 30% of Daily Clones Steal 50% of Daily Clones Do you not see the huge issue here. You are forcing the fcs to be online at all times during their districts being online. Fcs control 16 players. With help of squad leaders. This will be a mess to defend vs 16. Unless you are in a very large and elite corp. But it's very easy for us to form 16 elite players. And watch and wait for districts to hit. defender has no advantage. 8v8. Corp exclusive. Prevents us farming corps. trust me. I know. I am not concerned for my corp. Right now if this change is implemented. I will hold 4 districts. And not attack with them. Or attack friends for fun battles. I will dedicate our time to what we will call Raid Farming. We will pillage everyone using 16 elites. The small corps use to be able to counter this. Because they had time to prepare. Now. They won't. They will be slaughtered. I do not want this because I care about the game. This will greatly benefit me. 8V8. Corp exclusive. Limits the noon farming Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
hfderrtgvcd 1787	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:24:00 - [203] - Quote How much time will you have to prepare for raids? You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:25:00 - [204] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. I hate no shows as well, but I think if you make a raid cost the defender CP and they keep noshowing they'll have their CP burn out anyways. Maybe if you no show a raid it actually cost you double the CP. This way you don't get directly into high stakes ownership levels, but if a corp vanishes then you eat through their CP. Maybe if you hit 0 CP your districts become unoccupied? Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. This is not promoting good fights this is promoting noob farming. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 325	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:29:00 - [205] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. I hate no shows as well, but I think if you make a raid cost the defender CP and they keep noshowing they'll have their CP burn out anyways. Maybe if you no show a raid it actually cost you double the CP. This way you don't get directly into high stakes ownership levels, but if a corp vanishes then you eat through their CP. Maybe if you hit 0 CP your districts become unoccupied? Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. This is not promoting good fights this is promoting noob farming. well if say the district output was lowered after a successful raid (to simulate damage to production facilities) that was repaired after a 24 hr window. No point in looting something that's been looted already. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4388	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:29:00 - [206] - Quote Sounds like raids would be a great opportunity to train new FCs then. Also, I don't really agree that these raids should HAVE to have an FC available. Your 16 won't be able to be everywhere at once and the stakes aren't extremely high. You describing elites running amok is exactly why core ownership clones should NOT be affected by a raid. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:30:00 - [207] - Quote What is going to happen point blank. Is Planetary conquest will turn into....no conquest. Just launching 200 clones for a fun competitive fight. Then we all form raiding parties and pillage noobs. Because it will find out fun pc fights. We will farm you. This is a bad idea. Unless it's 8v8 and corp exclusive. So teams can defend vs us. We will focus purely on raid ddefences. Ans farm Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4388	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:30:00 - [208] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. I hate no shows as well, but I think if you make a raid cost the defender CP and they keep noshowing they'll have their CP burn out anyways. Maybe if you no show a raid it actually cost you double the CP. This way you don't get directly into high stakes ownership levels, but if a corp vanishes then you eat through their CP. Maybe if you hit 0 CP your districts become unoccupied? Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. This is not promoting good fights this is promoting noob farming. Either way if you hit 0 CP you will no longer be able to launch defensive actions as it the design of the CP system. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 5975	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:31:00 - [209] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. Districts should be affected to the extent that a successful raid interrupts farming operations. If the raiders are beaten back, then back to business-as-usual. Incentives for showing up for the fight. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:31:00 - [210] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Sounds like raids would be a great opportunity to train new FCs then. Also, I do really agree that these raids should HAVE to have an FC available. Your 16 won't be able to be everywhere at once and the stakes aren't extremely high. You describing elites running amok is exactly why core ownership clones should NOT be affected by a raid. Hence Corp exclusive. It is imperative. Defends and attacks. Corp exclusive. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law

Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:32:00 - [211] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Roman837 wrote: Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. Districts should be affected to the extent that a successful raid interrupts farming operations. If the raiders are beaten back, then back to business-as-usual. Incentives for showing up for the fight. Farms of resource yes. Clones no Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 325	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:34:00 - [212] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Roman837 wrote: Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. Districts should be affected to the extent that a successful raid interrupts farming operations. If the raiders are beaten back, then back to business-as-usual. Incentives for showing up for the fight. That's what i am thinking if the raids are restricted to around your primetime then it wont really be a big deal to throw someone in there to defend. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4388	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:38:00 - [213] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Sounds like raids would be a great opportunity to train new FCs then. Also, I do really agree that these raids should HAVE to have an FC available. Your 16 won't be able to be everywhere at once and the stakes aren't extremely high. You describing elites running amok is exactly why core ownership clones should NOT be affected by a raid. Hence Corp exclusive. It is imperative. Defends and attacks. Corp exclusive. I would have to strongly disagree. I think something like Thor mentioned where it cost more CP to bring in ringers would be fine, but players should be allowed to freely associate even if there is a cost to that. Corps may very well want to bring only potential recruits on a raid to try them out as well as a myriad of other potentials. Corp purity is a much lower priority than the freedom to associate in what's the only real sandbox arena in Dust. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 325	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:38:00 - [214] - Quote Raiding should really have its own thread. If Mr Spero would be so kind as to put his best ideas forth in a separate thread then we can properly hash this out there. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 861	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:40:00 - [215] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: Regarding Raids We have been screaming for some type of game mode in which you can have a competitive setting without the high stakes of PC and if done right this may be that mode. Raid Mechanics The attacker should not need a district to launch an attack from i suppose this is self explanatory but it needs said. Removing that gap gives everyone the opportunity to perform this action. CP cost should be proportional to actually sending an attack to take a district, for corps that own land, and be substantially less for corps that do not. This gives an endgame for corps that do not wish to participate in PC but rather be a pirate type corporation. This makes it more difficult for a corp in PC to try to manage raiding with the other CP actions. As much as i want this to be a big battle a raid, as opposed to a battle, is a small scale event and should be handled as such. 6v6 or 8v8 in a domination type match would be ideal for a raid. Battles should also have no clone limit and play until the MCC is destroyed to allow sides to use as many resources as possible/wanted to achieve victory. A vehicle cap should also be in place of 1 major vehicle HAV/ADS and 1 minor Vehicle LAV/DS. This makes the match much more tactical and prevents a corporation from deploying 6 tanks to hold the one point. A 1 minute warning should be all a corporation receives and this 1 minutes can be within 1 hour of your timer for example 0.H has a district timer set at 01:00 A raid can happen at 00:01-02:01 if the raid is placed at 00:00 or at 2:00. This is a perfect raid style timer. Making your opposition scramble to find people not currently deployed to defend against the raid. The War Barge should also only be 1 minute long. Many may disagree with this short of a warning but a raid should not give you advance warning because with greater then 2 minutes i can get the 6-8 of the best 0.H players into this battle as if we knew it was going to happen the whole time. Even with 2 minutes it will still be relatively easy to field a team to fight those battles. I also believe multiple raids by different corporations on even the same district should be allowed. Doing so would cause those small elite corps like 0uter.Heaven the inability to field the players necessary to prevent all raids from being successful and keep us out of pubs where we destroy the hopes of many players. Since raids cost CP this makes corps that have districts less able to Send Attacks, Sell Clones, Move Clones, Change Timers and (if anyone read my previous thread) Change Map Layout. Raid Benefits Raids need to have great incentive for the competitive player base not currently in PC to use their CP to do raids. So in light of that statement i believe A successful Raiding Corporation should receive PC style payouts (ISK and Salvage) AND massively increased chance for random officer gear drops. Should the match result in a no show by the defending corporation there needs to be a severe penalty either through isk or CP I currently don't know how to penalize and need help from the CPM's and CCP to make it worthwhile to at least provide a resistance or for the attackers to stay through a noshow. This further takes competitive players from public matches and gives the new players a chance to love the game. A successful Raided Corporation will receive NO isk, Enemy Salvage and a Massively increased chance for random officer gear drops. The no isk part is essential as this makes the defending corporation want to be as efficient as possible. If say 0.H gets raided by P.E we will want to attempt to win the match with minimal casualties due to the isk inefficiency possibility. However if officer gear is more circulated we will finally see them used in PC due to the ability to have a reliable way to earn more. I know its a wall but a lot of arguments could be settled about time for notice before a raid, reasoning behind size of the raid, incentive to perform a raid and with feedback incentive for corporations to want to actively defend against a raid.
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:42:00 - [216] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Roman837 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Sounds like raids would be a great opportunity to train new FCs then. Also, I do really agree that these raids should HAVE to have an FC available. Your 16 won't be able to be everywhere at once and the stakes aren't extremely high. You describing elites running amok is exactly why core ownership clones should NOT be affected by a raid. Hence Corp exclusive. It is imperative. Defends and attacks. Corp exclusive. I would have to strongly disagree. I think something like Thor mentioned where it cost more CP to bring in ringers would be fine, but players should be allowed to freely associate even if there is a cost to that. Corps may very well want to bring only potential recruits on a raid to try them out as well as a myriad of other potentials. Corp purity is a much lower priority than the freedom to associate in what's the only real sandbox arena in Dust. Kane. Roman837 the CEO will thrive on this change. We will farm everyone via raids. My corp will do great given our connections. Dan the dude who plays on Roman837. Sees this as a bad idea. And will promote huge coalitions of farming. We will fight each other in pc for the thrill of competition. Shake hands..then go to our raiding chat. Check the star map for people outside our "friend zone" and raid them. Because as you all have pointed out there is no reason for us to go own much land. So why try and take land. When you and your corps can own that land. And through your hard work...fund us. Sad. But very true Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4388	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:47:00 - [217] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: Raiding should really have its own thread. If Mr Spero would be so kind as to put his best ideas forth in a separate thread then we can properly hash this out there. That's actually a good point. If people want to start putting their proposals here I'll try to keep it organized like Fox's PC thread: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=188647&find=unread Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:50:00 - [218] - Quote Fellas. These are all great ideas. It's amazing that our I'm out can directly influence a game. Some of you hate me in game. I'm not speaking as I do in game. I want this game to thrive. The changes currently will allow my corp and corps like mine. ..to explode. I truly want to limit that and give you the best advantage. We are experts at 16 v 16 combat. We are experts at quick decisions and forming teams. We have the connections and net works. Please limit us. You may have 12 good active players online to defend vs our 16. Why not make it so you can bring in your 8 best. Making so our 16 elite don't stomp you. Yiu stand a better chance. Making it corp exclusive gives you an even better chance! Please head this advice. Or I am not responsible for your hate when we use the mechanics given to us to farm you. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 5975	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:51:00 - [219] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Roman837 wrote: Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. Districts should be affected to the extent that a successful raid interrupts farming operations. If the raiders are beaten back, then back to business-as-usual. Incentives for showing up for the fight. Farms of resource yes. Clones no And if the two are one and the same? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:54:00 - [220] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Roman837 wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Roman837 wrote: Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. Districts should be affected to the extent that a successful raid interrupts farming operations. If the raiders are beaten back, then back to business-as-usual. Incentives for showing up for the fight. Farms of resource yes. Clones no And if the two are one and the same? I hope they are not. Clones are for combat. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4389	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:58:00 - [221] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Roman837 wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Roman837 wrote: Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. Districts should be affected to the extent that a successful raid interrupts farming operations. If the raiders are beaten back, then back to business-as-usual. Incentives for showing up for the fight. Farms of resource yes. Clones no And if the two are one and the same? I hope they are not. Clones are for combat. It sounds like clones may be for ISK while MCC are for combat potentially. Anyways got a thread up to focus the raid discussion so we don't make Rattati's life a pain by burying the other responses to the PC proposal: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=188647&find=unread Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4389	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:59:00 - [222] - Quote mispost Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1425	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:03:00 - [223] - Quote Kane, I am watching you. You smell the iskies and I see what you are doing lol Go right ahead. I'll be seeing you in pubs soon. You'll be knocking the dust off of your character. Funny stuff...I wonder who you are already in talks with about a return...hmmm....we will see in due time I suppose. I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3504	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:51:00 - [224] - Quote Roman to be fair, why should you not be aloud to go "noob" farming, before everyone freaks out. at No point should raiding ever be better than a straight up district fight. secondly as long as raiding has a CP cost, going "Farming" should not be an option, you can however have a favourt squishy target, EvE is harsh, if your 16 guys want to run around and just cause chaos, i say go freaking nuts, people should fear a well organised pirate group. But your hits should only ever been seen as annoying. physical keeping hold of the land should still generate a profit, even if it gets frustratingly dented. the only reason 16 man super teams are felt so strongly at the moment is beucase the general population of MH is low, if it gets bigger with lots of raids and people taking over stuff (lots of land flipping) your pirate corp effect should be just background noise to larger wars. to be blunt MH is the end game, the training wheels are off, fights will not be fair, Corps should only be taking land when they are strong enough to hold it, if newbs get owned by raiders then its a good sign they should hit the trainning room beucase it wont be long before someone takes the land of them anyway. but been Farmed should just be annoying and only a threat if you really are getting hammered. also noob corps could pay for ringers to see you guys off. Merc life should be well and truely kicking off with Raids. "i will pay you guys 20 mill to keep this corp busy" etc i totally get the logic behind owning land = yay can raid. but i think it completely defeats the point of making getting into PC easer, people will just flock to big corps in order to take part their will be 0!!!! point trying to join a new corp trying to grow and get into PC. we must always allow Newb corps a chance to take part Raiding is a good option. You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4391	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:03:00 - [225] - Quote bigolenuts wrote: Kane, I am watching you. You smell the iskies and I see what you are doing lol Go right ahead. I'll be seeing you in pubs soon. You'll be knocking the dust off of your character. Funny stuff...I wonder who you are already in talks with about a return...hmmm....we will see in due time I suppose. It's more that I sense some actual fun coming back to Dust, but I'm sure folks will find ways to make those ISKies as well. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 1555	Posted - 2015.01.24 19:18:00 - [226] - Quote Roman837 wrote: trust me. I know. I am not concerned for my corp. Right now if this change is implemented. I will hold 4 districts. And not attack with them. Or attack friends for fun battles. I will dedicate our time to what we will call Raid Farming. We will pillage everyone using 16 elites. The small corps use to be able to counter this. Because they had time to prepare. Now. They won't. They will be slaughtered. I do not want this because I care about the game. This will greatly benefit me. And I will look forward to showing up and ruining your boat party.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 813	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:01:00 - [227] - Quote I have to disagree Roman. If anything, not being able to bring help will stunt Raiding. MULA, despite what ppl say, is a strong corp. 8 of you could definitely beat 8 FWA if this ever happened. So being able to ring out, these new corps that will get raided in pc shpuld have that option. This way there are pirate corps, and Security corporations. Pay us 10 mil a week from your districts and we'll put an alt on your corp so Im on when your guy's primetime is done. Ill ferry in my corp to defend your holdings. Raiding should also include the ability to attack whenever, but the farther away from a corps primetime, the more CP. A corp can be raided once every few hours, with the CP needed to raid slowly decreasing to regular. Yhink of it as a district on high alert. Defenses are high, so commanding your men to attack so soon again takes a lot more CP There shpuld be different raids. Some change the size and content of your raiding party, others change how sudden the raid will be, and others still determine the amount of resources able tp be gained, be it clones, isk, or CP "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Mima Sebiestor Mima Sebiestor's Solo Corp 4	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:02:00 - [228] - Quote I have not read every page here. I apologize for any duplication in my request. Please add a requirement so that PC/raiding battles can only be entered by the corporations involved. This would effectively remove ringers, and allow for a more rewarding (challenging) experience for field commanders. Along with the timer update, fielding full teams shouldn't be an issue. Corp mates getting left out of PC, due to a mixed 'A' team fielding PC (all day), may still be an issue. This also allows recruitment to be more specific in seeking desired suits/vehicles. The benefits of an alliance should be revisited as well. Should the ringer rule be implemented, maybe the alliance could field teams, if and only if it is in defense of a raid, targeted against one of it's own corporations. I also think that an even larger scale 'alliance battle/conquest' could be fun!
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 813	Posted - 2015.01.24 20:15:00 - [229] - Quote Mima Sebiestor wrote: I have not read every page here. I apologize for any duplication in my request. Please add a requirement so that PC/raiding battles can only be entered by the corporations involved. This would effectively remove ringers, and allow for a more rewarding (challenging) experience for field commanders. Along with the timer update, fielding full teams shouldn't be an issue. Corp mates getting left out of PC, due to a mixed 'A' team fielding PC (all day), may still be an issue. This also allows recruitment to be more specific in seeking desired suits/vehicles. The benefits of an alliance should be revisited as well. Should the ringer rule be implemented, maybe the alliance could field teams, if and only if it is in defense of a raid, targeted against one of it's own corporations. I also think that an even larger scale 'alliance battle/conquest' could be fun! I really dont feel limiting this one's one battles would be the way this goes. Say ( Extreme Example), I leave OH and make a Raiding Corporation. I should have to pay more CP, but being able call your friends and provide them content I feel is a far better sandbox. In PC, you get your best to defend districts and attack. In raiding, you should be able to do so as well. The kicker is if you have enough time to do so. With your alliance part however, it raises a cool idea. Alliance corps require less CP to ferry in. They are right there in allaince chat, should allow for tjem to come in and help if you're on short notice. And It would be really sick if raids across multitudes of allaince districts occur so everyone is busy , followed by Defense Network Seiges, and then Pcs the next day all day. That could be a very fun alliance battle. Hell, you should.be able to raid a corp in more than one day to keep them busy, but there are diminishing rewards after the first. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Jadek Menaheim Xer Cloud Consortium 5176	Posted - 2015.01.24 23:50:00 - [230] - Quote Felt nifty being a fly on the wall in Bamm Havoc's chat with the CPM on Team Speak. Kane Spero brought to my attention the idea of having to spend command points to accept and kick players from corp. I'm considering whether it would be beneficial to the meta of corp hiring and giving leverage to workers by having the kick player from corp cost more CPs than accepting and processing their application. Might offer some interesting gameplay if you can get a bunch of alt characters into a group and proceed to sabotage the CP pool by mass removing them yourself from the corp. Neckbeard for Good charity shave

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5861	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:04:00 - [231] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Felt nifty being a fly on the wall in Bamm Havoc's chat with the CPM on Team Speak. Kane Spero brought to my attention the idea of having to spend command points to accept and kick players from corp. I'm considering whether it would be beneficial to the meta of corp hiring and giving leverage to workers by having the kick player from corp cost more CPs than accepting and processing their application. Might offer some interesting gameplay if you can get a bunch of alt characters into a group and proceed to sabotage the CP pool by mass removing them yourself from the corp. I don't think there needs to be anything at this point that would dissuade corps from recruiting. I'm selling Templar Codes. 2 of 4 remaining. 175 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4406	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:25:00 - [232] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Felt nifty being a fly on the wall in Bamm Havoc's chat with the CPM on Team Speak. Kane Spero brought to my attention the idea of having to spend command points to accept and kick players from corp. I'm considering whether it would be beneficial to the meta of corp hiring and giving leverage to workers by having the kick player from corp cost more CPs than accepting and processing their application. Might offer some interesting gameplay if you can get a bunch of alt characters into a group and proceed to sabotage the CP pool by mass removing them yourself from the corp. I don't think there needs to be anything at this point that would dissuade corps from recruiting. Actually I only think you should have a cost for kicking a member or them leaving. Even that maybe a bit iffy. The reasoning being if you are just farming recruits and not doing anything with them and they start leaving then it drains your CP. Also, this would limit the use of loading into a corp, filling it with CP, and then leaving. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 817	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:28:00 - [233] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Felt nifty being a fly on the wall in Bamm Havoc's chat with the CPM on Team Speak. Kane Spero brought to my attention the idea of having to spend command points to accept and kick players from corp. I'm considering whether it would be beneficial to the meta of corp hiring and giving leverage to workers by having the kick player from corp cost more CPs than accepting and processing their application. Might offer some interesting gameplay if you can get a bunch of alt characters into a group and proceed to sabotage the CP pool by mass removing them yourself from the corp. I don't think there needs to be anything at this point that would dissuade corps from recruiting. Actually I only think you should have a cost for kicking a member or them leaving. Even that maybe a bit iffy. The reasoning being if you are just farming recruits and not doing anything with them and they start leaving then it drains your CP. Also, this would limit the use of loading into a corp, filling it with CP, and then leaving. Or you could be sabotaged by people you thought were serious in joining, only to find they leave and you now have far less CP. No thanks "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4406	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:36:00 - [234] - Quote There could always be a grace period of X days. It seems like it would be important to only recruit members serious about joining. Also, if corp history becomes available you look at someone's history and it shows they are a corp hopper then you don't recruit them. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 819	Posted - 2015.01.25 02:59:00 - [235] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: There could always be a grace period of X days. It seems like it would be important to only recruit members serious about joining. Also, if corp history becomes available you look at someone's history and it shows they are a corp hopper then you don't recruit them. Clarify please "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15678	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:03:00 - [236] - Quote CP per earned Component, should go up from low to max based on how long you have been in the corporation. That means a gang of 16 elites cannot go around multiple alt corps, filling up their CP pool and moving on. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7972	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:51:00 - [237] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: CP per earned Component, should go up from low to max based on how long you have been in the corporation. That means a gang of 16 elites cannot go around multiple alt corps, filling up their CP pool and moving on. Can we call them Strategy Points from now on? Please? Like, gawd =C Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 944	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:53:00 - [238] - Quote Is this going to be retro active just like the loyalty ranks and points? So corps can start at a certain level on the scale? Or are we all starting at zero? A huge no to CP being used to accept or kick players. And a no the size Kane's ego to CP being drained by people leaving. Just playing with you Kane. Couldn't think of something else that would represent how much I ment that no. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6001	Posted - 2015.01.25 03:55:00 - [239] - Quote Aeon Amad wrote: Can we call them Strategery Points from now on? Please? FTFY Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 819	Posted - 2015.01.25 05:00:00 - [240] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: CP per earned Component, should go up from low to max based on how long you have been in the corporation. That means a gang of 16 elites cannot go around multiple alt corps, filling up their CP pool and moving on. That works very well. Make sure it tracks actuve players, so you cant "bake" alts in anotger corp yo get the CP while you currebtly dabble "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!

Assert Dominance Ahrendee Mercenaries 772	Posted - 2015.01.25 07:55:00 - [241] - Quote please remember to keep the gallente research lab out of the rotation until its fixed (if its ever fixed). LogicGäó
Haerr Nos Nothi 2205	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:23:00 - [242] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: Raiding corps who don't own land is a bad idea. Why? To me raiding seems like a good fit for players trying to dip their toes into PCs. And for players who wants to have fun competitive matches during the weekends but no obligations during the weekdays. Point being that if any measure is taken to prevent pure raiding corps from existing those measure ought to be weighed against who else would be limited/excluded from participating in some fashion in PC. Besides the ability to launch raids is already limited by the ability to generate clones/mcc, is it not? CCP Rattati wrote: 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. If you could limit the 'timer change' change to 1h/day, so that instead of a huge X hour leap it would take a bit of time before the new timer settles in, that would be awesome! What if the cost of changing timers was modified by (A) Number of Districts on New Timer and (B) Number of Districts on Current Timer? This would add some form of penalty for "over populating" timers as well as completely emptying certain timers of districts. and/or What if District timers started to "drifted" back towards their initial timers? (After having fully settled into their new timer) Say at a rate of: 1h difference from initial = 1h drift over 1 week 2h difference from initial = 2h drift over 1 week 3h difference from initial = 3h drift over 1 week 4h difference from initial = 4h drift over 1 week 5h difference from initial = 5h drift over 1 week 6h difference from initial = 6h drift over 1 week 7h difference from initial = 1h drift over 1 day (with 1h/day being the limit) ... This would in effect add a maintenance cost to keeping District timers away from their initial timers, and in doing so add a logistical element where if you overextend your corps ability to generate CP you potentially open yourself up to attacks slightly outside of your comfort zone. (Some smart UI where you can allocate CP resources for (semi-)automatic maintenance would make this mechanic a lot smoother.) An other thought was some form of (?random?) District timer drift as a result of raids and/or "the active isk generation capability of districts"... or some form of temporary District timer displacement; example "District Timer +/-1h30m for 3days" if you no show against a raid... Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉn¦ñ
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4420	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:23:00 - [243] - Quote Assert Dominance wrote: please remember to keep the gallente research lab out of the rotation until its fixed (if its ever fixed). I have to agree and pretty strongly. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6732	Posted - 2015.01.25 11:54:00 - [244] - Quote So now: While I am a HUGE proponent of raiding... It's a secondary focus. It should be impossible to completely drain a corp of benefits from holding a district by raiding alone. poor choices and resource misallocation on the part of the defenders has to play a hand, as does ACTUAL for keeps Planetary conquest attacks. I've been focusing on other things, so I have to ask. Has there been a solid idea of what a landholding corp will GAIN to make putting up with other attackers, potential ISK loss and the possibilities of people like me who giggle at the thought of playing Reaver, worth the investment? It really NEEDS to be compelling to have someone be willing to both put up with this crap and put in the necessary effort to do more than train a small cadre of fighters and ringers. It needs to be worth the effort of training a "home guard." AV
Cavani1EE7 Murphys-Law 890	Posted - 2015.01.25 12:43:00 - [245] - Quote Assert Dominance wrote: please remember to keep the gallente research lab out of the rotation until its fixed (if its ever fixed). What he said. 10100111001 Shield tanking is hard mode /period. 10100111001
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14636	Posted - 2015.01.25 13:48:00 - [246] - Quote Assert Dominance wrote: please remember to keep the gallente research lab out of the rotation until its fixed (if its ever fixed). No, you will suffer our FREEEEEDDDDDOOOOM!!!! . . . No but seriously, this needs to happen. It's annoying in pubs, I can only imagine what happens in a PC environment. Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Heimdallr69 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 4437	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:30:00 - [247] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: What if bringing in non corp members cost more CP? Call it a clone programming fee. Don't make it much, but anything over 50% ringers would result in a negative in some resource column. If all this goes down you can plan on seeing me raid all the districts. I won't join another corp I'm done with that. Why should I be penalized for not being in an active corp? I thought we were supposed to be Mercs. Removed inappropriate content - CCP Logibro
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5875	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:37:00 - [248] - Quote Heimdallr69 wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: What if bringing in non corp members cost more CP? Call it a clone programming fee. Don't make it much, but anything over 50% ringers would result in a negative in some resource column. If all this goes down you can plan on seeing me raid all the districts. I won't join another corp I'm done with that. Why should I be penalized for not being in an active corp? I thought we were supposed to be Mercs. I don't think it should be a bad thing at all. But the idea of the penalty would be to push leadership to expand their numbers. For people to start corps, etc. When the alternative proposal is corp only, I think this idea is better. I'm selling Templar Codes. 2 of 4 remaining. 175 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Heimdallr69 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 4437	Posted - 2015.01.25 17:44:00 - [249] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Heimdallr69 wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: What if bringing in non corp members cost more CP? Call it a clone programming fee. Don't make it much, but anything over 50% ringers would result in a negative in some resource column. If all this goes down you can plan on seeing me raid all the districts. I won't join another corp I'm done with that. Why should I be penalized for not being in an active corp? I thought we were supposed to be Mercs. I don't think it should be a bad thing at all. But the idea of the penalty would be to push leadership to expand their numbers. For people to start corps, etc. When the alternative proposal is corp only, I think this idea is better. I understand that, I just don't want us to be left out =ƒÿó Though raids may be the best place for mercs Removed inappropriate content - CCP Logibro
Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 5048	Posted - 2015.01.25 18:31:00 - [250] - Quote I think Radar and Haerr that you're misunderstanding me. I not suggesting that raiding shouldn't be a mechanic. I am stating that empowering corps to raid other corps who own no land and do not with to participate in PC...is a bad idea. For various reasons. Founder & CEO of Fatal Absolution Skype: Zatara.Rought Email: Zatara.Forever@gmail official pawn of ArkenaKirkMerc

501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 820	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:16:00 - [251] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: I think Radar and Haerr that you're misunderstanding me. I not suggesting that raiding shouldn't be a mechanic. I am stating that empowering corps to raid other corps who own no land and do not with to participate in PC...is a bad idea. For various reasons. That's why districts need to be immensely helpful, and increase your CP in some way. More districts, more CP, more actions to be taken, more Pcs and Raiding, repeat "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 9725	Posted - 2015.01.25 19:53:00 - [252] - Quote Cavani1EE7 wrote: Assert Dominance wrote: please remember to keep the gallente research lab out of the rotation until its fixed (if its ever fixed). What he said. Can we get an Amen? Born Deteis Caldari. Rejected by my Kinsman. Found a new family in the Vherokior Tribe. Nobody messes with my family
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 778	Posted - 2015.01.25 22:10:00 - [253] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: I think Radar and Haerr that you're misunderstanding me. I not suggesting that raiding shouldn't be a mechanic. I am stating that empowering corps to raid other corps who own no land and do not with to participate in PC...is a bad idea. For various reasons. What "various" reasons? Not trying to be provocative, but i want to understand why you think raids should be restricted to PC corps. "I have Reasons" means nothing, you really ought to share with the class. Shouldn't raiding be the first stepping stone in getting high SP players out of pubs and into PC? PC players that defend their district during the 'raid window" (if we get one) gets a good reliable source of revenue. There will already be a minmum corp threshold to prevent smaller corps (like mine) from launching attacks, and i assume that will apply to raids as well. So, why? Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5879	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:11:00 - [254] - Quote Wait, you'll be able to raid corps that don't have districts? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I'm selling Templar Codes. 2 of 4 remaining. 175 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 574	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:23:00 - [255] - Quote I gotta agree with Zatarra here. I am all for sandbox Everyone Vs Everyone play -- at the same time, the biggest reason being that raiding non landholding corps is bad, is that you can raid any small newb corp who are trying to build up a wallet, PC team, etc.. to take a run at PC and keep them out of the game from the get go. Not very cool. Also, where would the fight take place? No internal ship battles yet ;P
Pseudogenesis Nos Nothi 1429	Posted - 2015.01.25 23:39:00 - [256] - Quote We desperately need an initialism that isn't CP >_> I'm with Aeon on this one, it's just too weird Stabby-stabber extraordinaire Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉn¦ñ I stabbed Rattati once, you know.
LAVALLOIS Nash 466	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:32:00 - [257] - Quote I dont think corps should have to hold land in order to do raids. It removes the idea of raids being an entry level way of getting into PC. By making it for land owners only, it just makes it another collusion scheme. Where instead of playing PC, the established corps will just make deals to decide who gets to sit on what land and then "raid" eachother for mini games. If a space station map existed, i would say that raiding corps should be able to spend a bit of ISK to register for a space station office. So that they too could be raided. (With the idea being if they dont want to get raided/participate in raids, they can cancel their office space). But because thats not feasible for now, i dont think locking raids to land owning corps is the solution. Its the idea of maintaining and such that is keeping people out of PC. Making it so they still have to go through the land owning hassle just to participate just leaves the same barrier in place. Great for the establishment, not so great for anyone looking to get in. Not to mention it would ruin the idea of pirate and privateer corps. Corps like that would be built around the central idea of being raiders, and not the idea of being a structured military. By forcing them to have the same vices and requirements as a land owning corp with a command and control organization....it removes the idea of raiding corps existing, and instead raiding just becomes a "wing of service" established corps deploy. (Instead of raider corps and conquest corps, you just have one conglomerate with raiding and conquering teams. Boooooooring! )
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3511	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:49:00 - [258] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: I gotta agree with Zatarra here. I am all for sandbox Everyone Vs Everyone play -- at the same time, the biggest reason being that raiding non landholding corps is bad, is that you can raid any small newb corp who are trying to build up a wallet, PC team, etc.. to take a run at PC and keep them out of the game from the get go. Not very cool. Also, where would the fight take place? No internal ship battles yet ;P that newb corp should be rraiding to build up its wallet and train it's PC team under the new system. Not owning land. just like owning a station in EvE it takes time and not the first thing a newb corp trys to do You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:09:00 - [259] - Quote How are you supposed to raid a non-land holding corp? Where? That's the point, non land holding corps don't have a location you can pin down and attack. Not only that it would easily allow landholders to attack and suppress new corps to keep them from having the chance to break in. You can raid a static srstronghold. Raiding a flotilla of Frankensteinian warship chop jobs strikes me as something only a lunatic would contemplate as more than an idle mental exercise. AV
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:56:00 - [260] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: How are you supposed to raid a non-land holding corp? Where? That's the point, non land holding corps don't have a location you can pin down and attack. Not only that it would easily allow landholders to attack and suppress new corps to keep them from having the chance to break in. You can raid a static srstronghold. Raiding a flotilla of Frankensteinian warship chop jobs strikes me as something only a lunatic would contemplate as more than an idle mental exercise. Seriously go to your Corporation, look @ Headquaters. Coordinates to be counter-raided. Raiding "smaller corps without land would not be feasible. Counter-raiding in an attempt to jam them from raiding you for a while should be allowed however. Say you're a PC Corp with 10 districts. You have guys on and everything, but there are 20 corps raiding you. Are you SERIOUSLY not allowed to do anything back to them. No way to track where the raiders went? For a Significant (As in you defend several Raids without losing the CP), you should be able to initiate a Counter-raid on someone who raided you recently (Let's do, within that day). It takes a little while longer (About 20 minutes), but it should be allowed. Otherwise there is no real risk vs reward for Raiders who show up in BPOS , only reward if they win, and nothing if they lose. Nothing is not a risk. Losing something a risk. Counter-raiding would not be feasible all the time if getting mass-attacked, you have no time for it. But if only one of two raiding corps attack, you should be allowed to counter, in an attempt to steal back a little isk and CP that was stolen from you. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!

steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3511	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:54:00 - [261] - Quote As opposed to counter raiding you could just have losing a raid sting quite a bit say your corp losses a few mill in the process that goes to the victor as they salvage your MCC You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Pseudogenesis Nos Nothi 1432	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:02:00 - [262] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: As opposed to counter raiding you could just have losing a raid sting quite a bit say your corp losses a few mill in the process that goes to the victor as they salvage your MCC This is a good idea, I do think the penalty for losing a raid should be higher for the attackers, but only slightly. They are losing on enemy territory, after all. They don't have the luxury of salvaging their losses or wounded on their own terms. Stabby-stabber extraordinaire Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉn¦ñ I stabbed Rattati once, you know.
Booby Tuesdays Ahrendee Mercenaries 1259	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:33:00 - [263] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: CP per earned Component, should go up from low to max based on how long you have been in the corporation. That means a gang of 16 elites cannot go around multiple alt corps, filling up their CP pool and moving on. How is this corp loyalty calculated exactly? Is it cumulative, or only current? What dictates how long you have been in a corp? Does it add up all the total time you have been a member over several years, or is it only taken from your most recent stint? Say Merc 'A' has been in and out of Corp 'A' a couple times, but the total time spent in the Corp according to Dust Boards is 1 year and 8 months. Merc 'A' has just joined back with Corp 'A' as most of its players are starting to come back. However, according to the current stint on Dust Boards, they have only been a member for 2 weeks. Half-Assed Forum Warrior / Half-Decent Commando / Damn Good Logi / Matari Loyalty 7
Haerr Nos Nothi 2213	Posted - 2015.01.26 19:23:00 - [264] - Quote Zatara Rought wrote: I think Radar and Haerr that you're misunderstanding me. I not suggesting that raiding shouldn't be a mechanic. I am stating that empowering corps to raid other corps who own no land and do not with to participate in PC...is a bad idea. For various reasons. Oops my bad, I completely misunderstood you, and you are right of course, being able to attack landless corps would just be plain bad. ... Hey you just gave me an idea! Everyone misses the old corp matches, yeah? There could be a way of allowing landless corps to temporarily expose themselves to attacks... How about making a few districts, not necessarily in MH, that are held by Mordus Legion: * They always have 0 clones on them, making them available for instant claiming. * They generate nothing. * Any attacks launched against one of the districts initiates without delay. (10~15mins warbarge timer.) * After a battle has taken place the district reverts back to being under Mordus Legion control. * If claimed and no battle is initiated within an hour the corp automatically withdraws and the district reverts back to Mordus. In addition to old style corp matches it would also allow for player run tournaments and events... What do you guys think? Is it doable?
Heimdallr69 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 4448	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:04:00 - [265] - Quote Haerr wrote: Zatara Rought wrote: I think Radar and Haerr that you're misunderstanding me. I not suggesting that raiding shouldn't be a mechanic. I am stating that empowering corps to raid other corps who own no land and do not with to participate in PC...is a bad idea. For various reasons. Oops my bad, I completely misunderstood you, and you are right of course, being able to attack landless corps would just be plain bad. ... Hey you just gave me an idea! Everyone misses the old corp matches, yeah? There could be a way of allowing landless corps to temporarily expose themselves to attacks... How about making a few districts, not necessarily in MH, that are held by Mordus Legion: * They always have 0 clones on them, making them available for instant claiming. * They generate nothing. * Any attacks launched against one of the districts initiates without delay. (10~15mins warbarge timer.) * After a battle has taken place the district reverts back to being under Mordus Legion control. * If claimed and no battle is initiated within an hour the corp automatically withdraws and the district reverts back to Mordus. In addition to old style corp matches it would also allow for player run tournaments and events... What do you guys think? Is it doable? The way CCP has been going lately I'd say anything the PS3 can handle is possible. Would take some time though. Your idea is a good replacement for corp battles but for some reason I thought they were bringing corp battles back? Removed inappropriate content - CCP Logibro
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4568	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:28:00 - [266] - Quote Haerr wrote: Zatara Rought wrote: I think Radar and Haerr that you're misunderstanding me. I not suggesting that raiding shouldn't be a mechanic. I am stating that empowering corps to raid other corps who own no land and do not with to participate in PC...is a bad idea. For various reasons. Oops my bad, I completely misunderstood you, and you are right of course, being able to attack landless corps would just be plain bad. ... Hey you just gave me an idea! Everyone misses the old corp matches, yeah? There could be a way of allowing landless corps to temporarily expose themselves to attacks... How about making a few districts, not necessarily in MH, that are held by Mordus Legion: * They always have 0 clones on them, making them available for instant claiming. * They generate nothing. * Any attacks launched against one of the districts initiates without delay. (10~15mins warbarge timer.) * After a battle has taken place the district reverts back to being under Mordus Legion control. * If claimed and no battle is initiated within an hour the corp automatically withdraws and the district reverts back to Mordus. In addition to old style corp matches it would also allow for player run tournaments and events... What do you guys think? Is it doable? I think it would be cleaner and work better if the counterattack took place on the War Barge or something of that nature. That would require a new map of course but you could have a placeholder map in the meantime. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6786	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:29:00 - [267] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Words Retaliation strikes aren't what I'm talking about. You should get the opportunity to take shots back at a raider team to recoup some of what you lost. Hell, you could make it a follow-up attack directly after the raid to keep them from escaping. HOWEVER, I don't think that being able to pull strikes on the poor bastard one man corp or hopefuls looking to enter into PC to crush them before they try is a good piece of design space. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15815	Posted - 2015.01.27 00:19:00 - [268] - Quote Booby Tuesdays wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: CP per earned Component, should go up from low to max based on how long you have been in the corporation. That means a gang of 16 elites cannot go around multiple alt corps, filling up their CP pool and moving on. How is this corp loyalty calculated exactly? Is it cumulative, or only current? What dictates how long you have been in a corp? Does it add up all the total time you have been a member over several years, or is it only taken from your most recent stint? Say Merc 'A' has been in and out of Corp 'A' a couple times, but the total time spent in the Corp according to Dust Boards is 1 year and 8 months. Merc 'A' has just joined back with Corp 'A' as most of its players are starting to come back. However, according to the current stint on Dust Boards, they have only been a member for 2 weeks. The exploit prevention can only work if its "current term with corporation", ie time since you last joined it. It would not be a long time, let's say 3 weeks, just enough for someone to not bother corp hopping, not talking eternity to build loyalty. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Duke Noobiam The Dukes of Death 351	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:48:00 - [269] - Quote I like the idea of a CP cap. Many are asking for a higher cap that would be directly proportional to the number of districts owned. I would rather see the cap be proportional to the number of players in the corp.
nickmunson Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 43	Posted - 2015.01.27 07:50:00 - [270] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, after a lot of feedback, and a combination of ideas from veterans, plus all the known issues we wanted to fix, we have a proposal. I will try to explain as simply as I can, without going too much into details. I will followup and update the OP with Q&A collected from the thread. I am not going to explain the back story or why we are doing things, that has been covered already in multiple threads. Here goes: 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. New Concept: Corporate Missions Players will gain access to Corporate Missions by unlocking the Stratagem: Mission Network in their Corporate Command structure 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. 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. 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. New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 think that is all, remember, read, digest and reply, thoughtfully. This thread will be rigorously and mercilessly kept "tidy". All non-constructive comments will be deleted, without hesitation. And here is a diagram for you chart lovers. [img]http://puu.sh/eU0Xx/eacaee5035.png[/img] All numbers, subject to thorough feedback and scenarios from current top District holders on what are feasible and non-burdensome Command Point earnings and costs. Look forward to seeing your feedback! im gonna say this once STOP LISTENING TO FREAKING PLAYER QQ"S damn, are you stupid ccp, think bout this, you are gonna single out other time zone players and corps that are in certain just for a couple qqs.. this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard you say so far. you want to make this just a game for americans who wont pay so much then find, but your punishing corps that are all aussie, jap and chinesse, which are the rare time zones, which you have very little amount of corps like that, if you want those corps to stop playing pc by all means do this stupid idea. cater to the few americans who qq that timers are unfare and hiding cause a groupd of friends all play and have the same sleep and work schedule. take my corp we are at the 0600 timer which playrs qq to you about . but if you look we are most active then cause we formed friendships with players around the world who play the same time and over 2 years built something strong. tired of you cottling a couple winers for this game you get paid to develop a game then do that. but dont touch the timers . god ruin the game some more . love me or hate me. you kill me i hunt you.

nickmunson Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 43	Posted - 2015.01.27 09:41:00 - [271] - Quote also ccp, think , if you have a standard timer, for those who prime time is different like japans night time is. your forcing them to play american timers, if anything your looking at a possible lawsuit cause no where in your ula does it state that this is a primarily an american time game. the way you have it is fine, it calls for logistics just like on eve, eve people want to hit the russians they have to plan a week or two in advance, alarm clock that, make sure the approriate pilots will be available. this is no different on dust. your just listening to the dumbest qq in game so far to date.and if anything i will be on the foriegners side. because a set default timer forces other to grind while a select group does not have to do a damn thing. you call that balance? the game is balanced timer wise, just not as many foriegn players, and no one is to blame but your company and your advertising ability as well as sonys advertising of your game.do your self a favor save your time , effort and money, and just advertise to get a bigger player base in the regional timers that your lacking player count. like do i seriously have to tell you how to run a company correctly? so what if 65% if the players complain about timers,(all american timers) , to set a default is to single out, to single out people is possible and most likely a lawsuit, i know i would if you had it 12 hour different from when i played, love me or hate me. you kill me i hunt you.
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 877	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:10:00 - [272] - Quote nickmunson wrote: also ccp, think , if you have a standard timer, for those who prime time is different like japans night time is. your forcing them to play american timers, if anything your looking at a possible lawsuit cause no where in your ula does it state that this is a primarily an american time game. the way you have it is fine, it calls for logistics just like on eve, eve people want to hit the russians they have to plan a week or two in advance, alarm clock that, make sure the approriate pilots will be available. this is no different on dust. your just listening to the dumbest qq in game so far to date.and if anything i will be on the foriegners side. because a set default timer forces other to grind while a select group does not have to do a damn thing. you call that balance? the game is balanced timer wise, just not as many foriegn players, and no one is to blame but your company and your advertising ability as well as sonys advertising of your game.do your self a favor save your time , effort and money, and just advertise to get a bigger player base in the regional timers that your lacking player count. like do i seriously have to tell you how to run a company correctly? so what if 65% if the players complain about timers,(all american timers) , to set a default is to single out, to single out people is possible and most likely a lawsuit, i know i would if you had it 12 hour different from when i played, You dont understand at all how this is going to work apparently. PC when it released was a massive land grab with people getting as much land as they could and changing the timers to suit themselves. Luckily at that time we had a playerbase of around 40k so there was a good player base for all regions and time zones. So balance was had with corps attacking corps based on their timers. However we now have a player base of 10k or less. the main players are North American, followed by EU then Asia. The goal is to make timers have a default time for the district to make sure there is always a districts to attack at different time zones. This in theory will allow a broader timer placement instead of our current 00:00-05:00 (117 Districts) and 12:00-13:00 (37) making up 63% of our districts. So the 245 districts will be split evenly between all 23 hours of the day making each hour have 10.7 districts in that hour. If the community lets that shift it shifts gradually based on activity and not by instantaneous transfer. Example- Nyain San taking a district out of thier timezone and instantly setting it to 12 thus unattainable by defenders to attempt to retaliate. The goal is when the attackers take a district they have logistical issues trying to achieve a timer that suits them. This gives defenders a chance to retake the land. Should the New owner be able to defend the district at this default timer they are rewarded by being allowed to slowly adjust the timer to something more suited to them. This gives foreigners, as you say, protection against a team that is "alarmclocking" to quickly take the district and change it to something unattainable. Again everyone can still "alarmclock" to take a district but if its a timer that is well out of reach of your corps comfort zone you will have to prepare to get up multiple days in a row to defend till you can spend the cp to get it to a more manageable timer.
nickmunson Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 44	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:54:00 - [273] - Quote also you guys are forgetting eve bonuses for all of this. make it worth while. if your gonna bring something this big to game . then make it worth while on dust and EVE. id like better bonuses and/or more bonuses then we currently get eve side. you want to see dust progress cater to the eve players cpm, ccp caters to them, you get eve interested in dust it will get ccp more involved as well. it works both ways. as of right now the bonuses are gay, and i could contract my eve toon to the highest paying corp to pay me to drop bombs for the battle then drop tags. as of right now, no corp or alliance in game has enough power in game to get the obs, which are a game changer. ask war ravens, they lost a 1.6 mil pod yesterday. you want to make the game bigger, get more eve involved, they will prolly try dust out as well thus increasing player basis on dust. pos bonus gay, indy bonus kinda cool. production lab nothing, love me or hate me. you kill me i hunt you.
nickmunson Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 44	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:59:00 - [274] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: nickmunson wrote: also ccp, think , if you have a standard timer, for those who prime time is different like japans night time is. your forcing them to play american timers, if anything your looking at a possible lawsuit cause no where in your ula does it state that this is a primarily an american time game. the way you have it is fine, it calls for logistics just like on eve, eve people want to hit the russians they have to plan a week or two in advance, alarm clock that, make sure the approriate pilots will be available. this is no different on dust. your just listening to the dumbest qq in game so far to date.and if anything i will be on the foriegners side. because a set default timer forces other to grind while a select group does not have to do a damn thing. you call that balance? the game is balanced timer wise, just not as many foriegn players, and no one is to blame but your company and your advertising ability as well as sonys advertising of your game.do your self a favor save your time , effort and money, and just advertise to get a bigger player base in the regional timers that your lacking player count. like do i seriously have to tell you how to run a company correctly? so what if 65% if the players complain about timers,(all american timers) , to set a default is to single out, to single out people is possible and most likely a lawsuit, i know i would if you had it 12 hour different from when i played, You dont understand at all how this is going to work apparently. PC when it released was a massive land grab with people getting as much land as they could and changing the timers to suit themselves. Luckily at that time we had a playerbase of around 40k so there was a good player base for all regions and time zones. So balance was had with corps attacking corps based on their timers. However we now have a player base of 10k or less. the main players are North American, followed by EU then Asia. The goal is to make timers have a default time for the district to make sure there is always a districts to attack at different time zones. This in theory will allow a broader timer placement instead of our current 00:00-05:00 (117 Districts) and 12:00-13:00 (37) making up 63% of our districts. So the 245 districts will be split evenly between all 23 hours of the day making each hour have 10.7 districts in that hour. If the community lets that shift it shifts gradually based on activity and not by instantaneous transfer. Example- Nyain San taking a district out of thier timezone and instantly setting it to 12 thus unattainable by defenders to attempt to retaliate. The goal is when the attackers take a district they have logistical issues trying to achieve a timer that suits them. This gives defenders a chance to retake the land. Should the New owner be able to defend the district at this default timer they are rewarded by being allowed to slowly adjust the timer to something more suited to them. This gives foreigners, as you say, protection against a team that is "alarmclocking" to quickly take the district and change it to something unattainable. Again everyone can still "alarmclock" to take a district but if its a timer that is well out of reach of your corps comfort zone you will have to prepare to get up multiple days in a row to defend till you can spend the cp to get it to a more manageable timer. like i said a waste of time, effort and money, when the money they are using to pay their workers on this project could just as easliy be used in advertising their game more. god for bid a business does business stuff. the highest player base games are that way due to good advertising, the game could be the way it use to be with 40k player base. but ccp would actually have to do work and not let the players do it for them. free labor. love me or hate me. you kill me i hunt you.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3513	Posted - 2015.01.27 12:28:00 - [275] - Quote Man hide posts is really useful function =ƒÿå You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2458	Posted - 2015.01.27 13:03:00 - [276] - Quote 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 the driving dynamic of our lobby-based FPS. This is also the reason raids need to have tactical value in terms of softening up the target in later fights: the non-elites become valuable because they can potentially put the A-team in a better position for the big fight. PSN: RationalSpark
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6793	Posted - 2015.01.27 14:07:00 - [277] - Quote Vrain Matari 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 the driving dynamic of our lobby-based FPS. This is also the reason raids need to have tactical value in terms of softening up the target in later fights: the non-elites become valuable because they can potentially put the A-team in a better position for the big fight. Plus raids have another benefit to the attacker. If you can't beat the B-team, home guard, whatever you want to csll it you either need to practice more or pick an easier target. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6793	Posted - 2015.01.27 14:13:00 - [278] - Quote nickmunson wrote: Textbook badposting There are more than 100 players in DUST. Molden Heath was never intended to be the goodfite playground of a select few. It was intended to be a continual warzone, with all veterans eventually moving to push on the valuable ground. And I would point out that you referring to the Japanese players as "japs" is hardly complimentary and commonly regarded as a racial slur. If you are going to refer to a racial group, have the courtesy to actually address them and their concerns with the same courtesy you would demand. Please refrain from badposting in the future. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 775	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:35:00 - [279] - 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 - [280] - 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 - [281] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6835	Posted - 2015.01.29 11:18:00 - [282] - Quote 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. AV
SirManBoy Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 832	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:01:00 - [283] - Quote 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6840	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:28:00 - [284] - Quote 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. AV
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 823	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:29:00 - [285] - Quote 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. Have 16 raids require more CP than 8, while defenders are allowed to bring in however many they wish. If ypu only have enough CP for a squad but the corp youre raiding has 30 on, there is no reason why only 6 out of 30 defenders can help. 6 vs 16 is far more competitve, and gives help to defenders. This will encourage raiders to raid simultaneously with other corps to split forces "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6844	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:50:00 - [286] - Quote 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. AV
LAVALLOIS Nash 467	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:57:00 - [287] - Quote 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.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6182	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:23:00 - [288] - Quote Lavallois Nash wrote: 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. ^ This one gets it. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:35:00 - [289] - 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.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 823	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:36:00 - [290] - 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. A reasonable point. Perhaps allow a certain amount of defenders to wnter without a CP cost, but extra require CP. We dont need less people to try PC, we want more. Limiting certain raids to smaller numbers lessens getting more people into raiding. 16 vs 16 should not only be open to corps qith land otherwise we have the same problem we have now "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:50:00 - [291] - 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 - [292] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6848	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:04:00 - [293] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 779	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:17:00 - [294] - 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.
Lavallois Nash 469	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:36:00 - [295] - Quote 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6852	Posted - 2015.01.30 10:47:00 - [296] - Quote 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. AV
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3529	Posted - 2015.01.30 11:47:00 - [297] - Quote Simply winning a defense raid should cost the other side a uncomfortable ammount of isk. That negates the need to have messy counter attack system. The raid attackers should be going by the seat of their paints losing a raid badly should = a week or two of regrinding the CP or isk needed to attack again. Making it land only compley defeats the point of raiding been entry level PC and will have the effect of making it pointless to join new corps as they won't be able to get a look in anyway nor have the means to train up a PC team. You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6856	Posted - 2015.01.30 12:50:00 - [298] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: Simply winning a defense raid should cost the other side a uncomfortable ammount of isk. That negates the need to have messy counter attack system. The raid attackers should be going by the seat of their paints losing a raid badly should = a week or two of regrinding the CP or isk needed to attack again. Making it land only compley defeats the point of raiding been entry level PC and will have the effect of making it pointless to join new corps as they won't be able to get a look in anyway nor have the means to train up a PC team. Setting raiders back a week of effort isn't going to encourage the behavior. Raiders are light, fast in and out. If raiders lose a week PC losses should cost a month of effort. I keep hearing ideas how to completely shut down raiders and make it unfeasible rather like breaking into PC currently. More raids = more battles, more ISK payouts. Raiders risk what they bring. PC corps risk what the cannot or cannot be bothered to defend. AV
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4464	Posted - 2015.01.30 13:59:00 - [299] - Quote SirManBoy wrote: 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. I have to agree here. There is no reason to force raiding to only be 8v8 or 12v12. With a command point system being introduced there is an easy and effective way to scale the costs of raiding with larger raids costing more CP and smaller raids costing less. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6205	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:52:00 - [300] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: Simply winning a defense raid should cost the other side a uncomfortable ammount of isk. That negates the need to have messy counter attack system. The raid attackers should be going by the seat of their paints losing a raid badly should = a week or two of regrinding the CP or isk needed to attack again. Making it land only compley defeats the point of raiding been entry level PC and will have the effect of making it pointless to join new corps as they won't be able to get a look in anyway nor have the means to train up a PC team. Hypothetical: Assume that districts at maximum clone capacity generate passive Isk. Scenario: Farming proves to be more efficient than fighting. Between occasional bouts, the Big Boys invariably blue up, their at-rest state being at peace rather than at war. The types who fail to play nice or lick boot will be labeled warmonger and promptly removed. Those corps removed (in addition to outcasts, fledglings, casuals and upstarts) will become the Raider Corps. In Peace Time, these rebels exist to disrupt your Risk-Free Farming Operations. In War Time, their services can be purchased to detract from the revenue base and reinforcements of your enemies. Their role in PC is different from yours as a landholder, but their role in PC is nonetheless meaningful and active. Conclusion: If this hypothetical were to become reality, it would be our responsibility to prevent the Big Boys from farming PC 2.0. If they get rich again, no one would be to blame but us. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley

steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3535	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:15:00 - [301] - Quote 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 You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6870	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:15:00 - [302] - 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 pretty much, a lot of this has to be with the understanding that raids cannot lose you the district. they can only interrupt stuff. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:28:00 - [303] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6876	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:31:00 - [304] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:36:00 - [305] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6876	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:42:00 - [306] - Quote 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 sh*t, no raids for you. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 783	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:43:00 - [307] - 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 - [308] - 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 - [309] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6877	Posted - 2015.01.31 06:29:00 - [310] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. Why should we assume raiders will get paid for a loss? In the context of how PC works, getting paid for buggering up and getting splattered by the defenders hardly strikes me as a profitable action. So if PC gets no payouts on a loss, wjy would we assume raids magically get paid for getting their asses whupped? And prison isn't possible when all a merc has to do is suicide and go home. Further, the way it's worded EVERYONE has to burn CP If they want clones to participate in PC and raids. So if you raid and your clone supply gets flushed you can't raid till you regenerate more clones. Same as with PC. Stocking a district with clones will cost CP. No more auto generation. AV

Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 562	Posted - 2015.01.31 07:46:00 - [311] - Quote 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.
Lavallois Nash 470	Posted - 2015.01.31 09:16:00 - [312] - Quote 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.
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 898	Posted - 2015.01.31 09:39:00 - [313] - Quote 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. 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. 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.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6878	Posted - 2015.01.31 10:53:00 - [314] - Quote 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. AV
Snake Sellors Hellstorm Inc General Tso's Alliance 500	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:53:00 - [315] - Quote Love the idea of raiding, any chance of higher tier salvage from raiding? so as to provide a real reward for raiding beyond isk? looking forward to seeing how raids work out
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:57:00 - [316] - 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 - [317] - 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 - [318] - 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.
danthrax martin Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 284	Posted - 2015.02.01 00:25:00 - [319] - Quote 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. Pro Gal 'mando, Assault, Scout, Pro Sentinel ak.0 Suicidal A/V Moron General pain in the @ss
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 00:47:00 - [320] - 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 - [321] - 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.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6278	Posted - 2015.02.01 02:33:00 - [322] - Quote danthrax martin wrote: I see an uprising of stompees given the ability to exact revenge... and I love the idea. You and me both. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6905	Posted - 2015.02.01 02:42:00 - [323] - Quote 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 AV
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 562	Posted - 2015.02.01 02:47:00 - [324] - Quote 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.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6278	Posted - 2015.02.01 03:00:00 - [325] - Quote 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. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:01:00 - [326] - 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 - [327] - 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.
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 563	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:08:00 - [328] - Quote OPERATOR, I'm in a corp that already has districts. That's one of the reasons why I said I'm not interested.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:08:00 - [329] - 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 - [330] - 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.

Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 564	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:20:00 - [331] - Quote That was not my intention.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:33:00 - [332] - 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.
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 565	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:39:00 - [333] - Quote Whatever, let's just get back on topic before we derail this thread any further.
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 912	Posted - 2015.02.01 08:06:00 - [334] - Quote 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.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4471	Posted - 2015.02.01 13:16:00 - [335] - 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. I agree that raids would need to be limited by resources. At the same time owning districts and engaging in direct territorial warfare needs to be hands down better than raiding in terms of wealth generation/ rewards. If holding land doesn't provide better rewards than raiding does then everyone will just attempt to be raiders. Raiding should be more expensive in terms of unit of wealth generated per CP and it should cost similar resources in terms of clones/MCC as a district attack. In the end corporate command needs to have a more limited storage capacity of clones/MCC as well, which makes sense with corporate command acting as a single permanent district. Requiring the expenditure of an MCC/clones in order to raid will ensure that the decision to raid is made carefully by landowners as it would weaken their ownership position on a district. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
danthrax martin Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 285	Posted - 2015.02.01 18:24:00 - [336] - Quote 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 Pro Gal 'mando, Assault, Scout, Pro Sentinel ak.0 Suicidal A/V Moron General pain in the @ss
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4472	Posted - 2015.02.01 22:13:00 - [337] - Quote 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. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 616	Posted - 2015.02.04 07:03:00 - [338] - Quote 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.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4480	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:03:00 - [339] - Quote 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. This would mean requiring a MCC or Clone Pack in addition to the CP cost to initiate the fight. Ideally though I think after being raided you should be able to make a revenge attack against the corp that raided you. I don't think a system where you attack someone's corporate command would work. I imagine a revenge attack being something like an Ambush and it would only cost CP to participate (no MCC or clone pack required). Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3546	Posted - 2015.02.04 15:19:00 - [340] - Quote Tbh raiding and being pirate in EvE involve the same amount of risk. If you ambushed you risk what ever your carrying and all the pirates risk is their ships. But if pirates want to settle down and get somewhere you need to build a station and you bet your ass the people who they used to raid will comma knocking. So frankly nope we did need a counter attack system. You can cost s raiding corp millions in lost equipment and even if they win your still getting the land output. And if that corp that's been raiding everyone tyrs to get their own land well there's going to be a lot of people looking for payback. And again raid limited by CP spamming won't be an issue You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 785	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:53:00 - [341] - 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 - [342] - 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 - [343] - 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.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6382	Posted - 2015.02.05 00:57:00 - [344] - Quote "Raid Reprisal" A CP-free counter-attack 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 derpaderp-free response option for Landholders. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
TheD1CK Dead Man's Game RUST415 1750	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:51:00 - [345] - Quote So we are eagerly awaiting PC changes, hopefully it opens up gameplay a bit more And the possibility of a new game-mode, is epic so I'm looking forward to see how this works We are all aware, CCP, the PC players and the non-PC players have different views to the extent this may have caused releases to be pushed back until March (fingers crossed) If possible I'd like to see an update from CCP Rattati, on how or when changes will be deployed On another note, I recently began sourcing support from PC corps, to open up Districts for new PC corps In my opinion there is a range of talent active, so now is the best time to get involved and get practicing. Districts should not be taken lightly, they are costly to fight over and require dedicated teams to defend them If possible I'd like to see an update on land-holdings, will this be wiped when changes deploy?? If not then I would encourage corps with stable activity of about 15 mercs for their PC timer to get in touch The majority of corps in PC are welcoming to new corps getting active and respect that you need time to practice. The initial intention was to open up Districts and let new blood come in and take them, But given the uncertainty with PC changes, and to avoid poachers I would like to see feedback from any interested corps, and let them know there is support if they look for it - This is taken from a thread I posted in the Ideas section, posting here for visibility
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 787	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:12:00 - [346] - 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.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 836	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:39:00 - [347] - Quote 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 "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 790	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:48:00 - [348] - 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 - [349] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6960	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:57:00 - [350] - Quote 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. AV

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 791	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:18:00 - [351] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6961	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:32:00 - [352] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 795	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:18:00 - [353] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6966	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:32:00 - [354] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 15:48:00 - [355] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6978	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:26:00 - [356] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:43:00 - [357] - 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.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 366	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:52:00 - [358] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. 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. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 18:56:00 - [359] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6981	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:14:00 - [360] - Quote 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 AV

Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 366	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:26:00 - [361] - Quote 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. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:35:00 - [362] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6983	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:49:00 - [363] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. Nothing described is risk free AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:52:00 - [364] - 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.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 366	Posted - 2015.02.06 20:10:00 - [365] - Quote 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. 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" 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.* No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6988	Posted - 2015.02.06 20:19:00 - [366] - Quote raiders risk clones, wasted CP and possibly an MCC build. Landowners realistically risk losing a few bucks. and clones. Suck it up, cupcake. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 802	Posted - 2015.02.06 20:58:00 - [367] - 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.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 366	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:05:00 - [368] - Quote 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. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 802	Posted - 2015.02.06 21:05:00 - [369] - 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.
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 931	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:40:00 - [370] - Quote 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.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 803	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:44:00 - [371] - 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 - [372] - 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.
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 931	Posted - 2015.02.06 22:52:00 - [373] - Quote not what I meant. If you crush a team of raiders you really think they will waste their resources on another loss against your corp?
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 803	Posted - 2015.02.06 23:18:00 - [374] - 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.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 368	Posted - 2015.02.07 14:57:00 - [375] - Quote 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. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 808	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:58:00 - [376] - 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.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 368	Posted - 2015.02.07 20:59:00 - [377] - Quote 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. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 808	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:26:00 - [378] - 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 - [379] - 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.
deezy dabest 2138	Posted - 2015.02.08 12:06:00 - [380] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. So now not only will players who spend hundreds of thousands of AUR on warbarges have a damage bonus giving them a significant advantage when it os pro v pro but they will also be able to lock their district at a cash price?

deezy dabest 2142	Posted - 2015.02.08 13:20:00 - [381] - Quote What is to stop corporations from creating 100s of alts total strictly to feed components to the corporation and avoid the paywall?
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 368	Posted - 2015.02.08 16:56:00 - [382] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: "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 than 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 since after being 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. Well thats the main problem even though Rattati has requested feedback we have no idea if any of the ideas we have presented can even be implemented. Although the window approach should be simple modification of existing mechanics. I am aware of the recent merger Roman has preformed with the creation of SOP. 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. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 368	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:01:00 - [383] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. So now not only will players who spend hundreds of thousands of AUR on warbarges have a damage bonus giving them a significant advantage when it os pro v pro but they will also be able to lock their district at a cash price? Thankfully this is only a concept and not the final stage. If players only generated CP through completing daily missions then I think this will make it more "free player friendly". No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
deezy dabest 2142	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:23:00 - [384] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: deezy dabest wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. So now not only will players who spend hundreds of thousands of AUR on warbarges have a damage bonus giving them a significant advantage when it os pro v pro but they will also be able to lock their district at a cash price? Thankfully this is only a concept and not the final stage. If players only generated CP through completing daily missions then I think this will make it more "free player friendly". I hardly expect CCP to scrap the money portion of PC. Unfortunately this will just leave districts with an auctioneer standing on them to see who will pay CCP the most to have their tag on a district.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 368	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:56:00 - [385] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: deezy dabest wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. So now not only will players who spend hundreds of thousands of AUR on warbarges have a damage bonus giving them a significant advantage when it is pro v pro but they will also be able to lock their district at a cash price? Thankfully this is only a concept and not the final stage. If players only generated CP through completing daily missions then I think this will make it more "free player friendly". unnecessary hyperbolic statements Yes the donation of warbarge components for CP is a bad idea, however the idea behind it is not. If CP generation is made to be dependent on player activity and completely disconnected from the donation of components. Also if Corp war barges are different as in requiring components AND CP to upgrade. Player corps should be rewarded from having a large and active player base. Do you think this is more balanced? I think this is a fair middle ground allowing CCP to make some cash while preventing AUR from being a factor in PC. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Vitantur Nothus nos nothi 1928	Posted - 2015.02.08 19:56:00 - [386] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. Spitballing We are mercenaries. We ~~fund~~ fight the wars of other men. We have taken to the skies, but we still fight because we are paid to fight, and good pay has never been in higher demand. Corp as Employer, Merc as Employee. Symbiotic relationship as best relationship. An Active Merc generates Command Points for his Corp by completing Corporate Missions. These Command Points can be used by an Active Corp to expand into new Resource Bases, harvest / fortify / modify existing Resource Bases, or attack-occupy / attack-raid the Resource Bases of other Corporations. As Active Mercs are requisite to Corp Activity, behind every Active Corp are Active Mercs. Corporate uses aside, a Merc is a Merc, and Mercs get paid. Common corporate compensation includes Isk, but the compensation a Merc really wants is Components. Active Mercs want Components, so Active Mercs want Active Corps Active Corps want Command Points, so Active Corps want Active Mercs
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7023	Posted - 2015.02.09 11:11:00 - [387] - Quote Rather than donating, why not just have every complete mission a player finishes generate a set amount of CP? This would reward highly active corps and prevent donating several thousand components generated With AUR in order to CP spam raids, PC attacks, MCC builds and clone generation. That way you have a reason to want a high number of players generating CP as much as possible. Large, more importantly, ACTIVE, corps should natively generate a lot of CP. Small or inactive corps should bemore natively llimited in their CP capacity and with the raiding planned you will need to involve more players in PC than a tiny, 25 man group to take and hold wide swathes of land. AV
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4550	Posted - 2015.02.09 17:11:00 - [388] - Quote Quite simply the donation of components to get command points needs to be off the table. The completion of daily missions needs to be tracked and used to generate command points or something of that nature. Using warbarge components will just lead to some nasty P2W scenarios and potential alt farming. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
JIAF-PR Inmortales LLC Smart Deploy 194	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:42:00 - [389] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. Spitballing We are mercenaries. We ~~fund~~ fight the wars of other men. We have taken to the skies, but we still fight because we are paid to fight. And good pay has never been in higher demand. Corp as Employer, Merc as Employee, Components as Compensation: An Active Merc generates Command Points for his Corp by completing Corporate Missions. These Command Points can be used by an Active Corp to expand into new Resource Bases, harvest / fortify / modify existing Resource Bases, or attack-occupy / attack-raid the Resource Bases of other Corps. As Active Mercs are requisite to Corp Activity, behind every Active Corp are guaranteed to be Active Mercs. Corporate uses aside, a Merc is a Merc, and Mercs get paid. Common corporate compensation is Isk, but Isk is easy to come by. The compensation a Merc really wants -- the good stuff -- is Components; have to keep the rust-bucket afloat, and whatever's extra can be readily converted to Isk. Active Corps need Command Points, so Active Corps want Active Mercs. Active Mercs need Components, so Active Mercs want Active Corps. Active Corps need Components to attract and compensate Active Mercs. Active Corps get Components faster by participating in PC and Raids. TL;DR: Symbiotic relationship best relationship. All this argument come down with Aurum. PD: I want my custome wallet Papá Pitufo a regresado.
Vitantur Nothus nos nothi 1932	Posted - 2015.02.10 00:49:00 - [390] - Quote JIAF-PR wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. :: snip :: All this argument come down with Aurum. No aspect of the argument involves Aurum. * Components are generated by corp-owned, district-based factories. * Components are stored within corp-owned, district-based facilities. * Components are distributed as payment to personnel for services rendered. When Raiders succeed in looting your Corp's factories or facilities, your paycheck will show it. You are as motivated to show up and defend as the Raider is to Raid. Isk is old news. What we all want is components. What we'll all get is increased activity.


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16993	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:56:00 - [391] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: JIAF-PR wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. :: snip :: All this argument come down with Aurum. No aspect of the argument involves Aurum. * Components are generated by corp-owned, district-based factories. * Components are stored within corp-owned, district-based facilities. * Components are used as payment to personnel for services rendered. * Components can be raided from district-based facilities and factories. When Raiders succeed in looting your Corp's factories or facilities, your paycheck will show it. You'll be as motivated to show up and defend as the Raider will be to Raid. Isk is old news. What we all want is components. What we'll all get is increased PC activity. Or so I hope :-) We have been mulling this, the component idea seemed smart at the time, but alt-farming ruined it. We also foresaw the p2w so were thinking of a cap of donations anyway. The updated idea is that CP is only earned, basically by doing daily missions. Components can be earned and donated, maybe at a cap but components would only upgrade the Corporation/Fleet Command Center (versus MCC). We haven't completed figured out altfarming in that context. Vitantur's idea of Districts creating components is a sound one as well. Please take the tinfoil hats off, this is getting quite exhausting. Constructive feedback in dev feedback threads is a requirement. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16993	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:59:00 - [392] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Rather than donating, why not just have every complete mission a player finishes generate a set amount of CP? This would reward highly active corps and prevent donating several thousand components generated With AUR in order to CP spam raids, PC attacks, MCC builds and clone generation. That way you have a reason to want a high number of players generating CP as much as possible. Large, more importantly, ACTIVE, corps should natively generate a lot of CP. Small or inactive corps should bemore natively llimited in their CP capacity and with the raiding planned you will need to involve more players in PC than a tiny, 25 man group to take and hold wide swathes of land. exactly "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16993	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:59:00 - [393] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: JIAF-PR wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. :: snip :: All this argument come down with Aurum. No aspect of the argument involves Aurum. * Components are generated by corp-owned, district-based factories. * Components are stored within corp-owned, district-based facilities. * Components are used as payment to personnel for services rendered. * Components can be raided from district-based facilities and factories. When Raiders succeed in looting your Corp's factories or facilities, your paycheck will show it. You'll be as motivated to show up and defend as the Raider will be to Raid. Isk is old news. What we all want is components. What we'll all get is increased PC activity. Or so I hope :-) exactly "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 15067	Posted - 2015.02.10 05:29:00 - [394] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: PC community wrote: The future be whack yo exactly Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4553	Posted - 2015.02.10 09:48:00 - [395] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: JIAF-PR wrote: Vitantur Nothus wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points. :: snip :: All this argument come down with Aurum. No aspect of the argument involves Aurum. * Components are generated by corp-owned, district-based factories. * Components are stored within corp-owned, district-based facilities. * Components are used as payment to personnel for services rendered. * Components can be raided from district-based facilities and factories. When Raiders succeed in looting your Corp's factories or facilities, your paycheck will show it. You'll be as motivated to show up and defend as the Raider will be to Raid. Isk is old news. What we all want is components. What we'll all get is increased PC activity. Or so I hope :-) We have been mulling this over, the component=CP idea seemed simple and smart at the time, but alt-farming ruined it(Thanks Jadek!). We also foresaw the p2w coccerns so were thinking of a cap of donations anyway. The donations were more, "oh no, we are out of missions, we are running out of CP so everyone donate a few so we can hold the district" scenario. The updated idea is that CP is only earned, basically by doing daily missions. Components can be earned and donated, maybe at a cap but components would only upgrade the Corporation/Fleet Command Center (versus MCC). We haven't completed figured out altfarming in that context. Vitantur's idea of Districts creating components is a sound one as well. Please take the tinfoil hats off, this is getting quite exhausting. Constructive feedback in dev feedback threads is a requirement. This sounds good. Thank you for listening to the feedback about the Warbarge component -> Command point chain! Playing the game to get CP makes way more sense. I think helping upgrade the corporate command center with donated components is fair. The devil will be in the details of what all you can do with the Corporation/Fleet Command Center upgrades. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8647	Posted - 2015.02.11 02:18:00 - [396] - Quote Here's my thinking about the whole CP and daily missions thing: Personal Missions Example: All corp members make 50 kills individually. Corp daily missions that are completely on a character-by-character basis runs the risk of being gamed by alts. Just load up your corp full of all your alts, do the dailies on all of them, instantly more CP generated than you would expect for the amount of real-body players. Another thing is that (and this is just a personal preference) I personally don't like having corp missions be just more daily missions like we already have. It puts a lot of weight on the player to be expected to go beyond being active and having to do the daily missions and some of the ones we currently have are just.... well they're just balls (that vehicle kill assist thing is annoying). If I'm inactive for whatever reason, my corp suffers this way. A corporation should be able to manage their players personally, without having to consider how gameplay mechanics affect them. A corporation shouldn't have to think, "Okay, well, we have 25 guys pulling in components... but Johnny NoBody is away on maternity leave (or whatever reason) so we really only have 24 guys pulling in components." Corporate "Event" Missions Example: All corp members make 2,500 kills corp-wide. With this method you run less risk of it being gamed by alt-warfare, but run a higher risk of 'Alt-Corps' in which they just put all their alts into a separate corp and do pretty much the same thing. The difference here is that - assuming we're not doing donations - you can hard cap how many components a corporation can make based on their activity as a whole instead of the activity of their individual players. This way, if I'm inactive, my corp doesn't have to suffer. They can kick me out for being inactive but they don't have to consider all the math behind it, the other members can just take up the slack. It's also more fun (at least in my opinion) because then I -FEEL- like I'm making a difference in my corporation instead of it feeling like a job and having to meet a quota. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 812	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:11:00 - [397] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7112	Posted - 2015.02.11 22:34:00 - [398] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. 6v12 offers no tactical advantage to the raiding party and every advantage to the defenders. Unless the raiders get a sh*t-hot tactical advantage that will allow them to overcome 12 proto stacked crazies then 12 v12 should be the away it goes. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 812	Posted - 2015.02.11 23:02:00 - [399] - 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.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 380	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:41:00 - [400] - Quote 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. I believe your suggestion will only place new corps at a disadvantage. I understand that you are trying to curtail the power of the mega corps however we both know that those 6 players will still win just because they have been playing together for years already (teamwork> all) It is not uncommon for a single squad of elites to win battles in pubs with little effort. Ambush is the closest thing currently and we see how many one sided stomps are there. Frankly I really think there is nothing we could possibly implement to prevent them from being the masters of raiding. We both know that there is hardly anything we can do to prevent the top slayers from annihilating new corps without also crippling said corps. 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. I understand that there is a very large role for meta in PC thats why I said small corps should be discouraged from holding land because generally speaking small corps are ill equipped to defend themselves from current PC powerhouses and the long and confused history that formed them. That is something we both agree upon. Raiding MUST be profitable and accessible enough to get them in the door and start to build their own legacies. 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. Unfortunately CCP has left PC to suffer in limbo so long that it really is impossible to fix much of anything without creating negative feedback. Right now it is either they displease the PC crowd who has become so entrenched in PC that it is practically impossible to break them (due in part to passive ISK and the tedious speed at which ANY fixes were implemented) or well keeping the exact same crowd in PC as they have now.. We both know that CCP will have to bite A bullet but which one is up to them. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7122	Posted - 2015.02.12 06:45:00 - [401] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. 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. AV
Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 65	Posted - 2015.02.14 08:34:00 - [402] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, Stuff With this, will players be able to own their own MCCs and pick whether to use a charron or a cestus?
GrimzOvaHourz The Forgotten Spirits 80	Posted - 2015.02.14 13:50:00 - [403] - Quote when dis coming out
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4600	Posted - 2015.02.14 15:37:00 - [404] - Quote GrimzOvaHourz wrote: when dis coming out https://trello.com/b/R44szWCe/dust-514-development-roadmap Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
GrimzOvaHourz The Forgotten Spirits 80	Posted - 2015.02.14 23:45:00 - [405] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: GrimzOvaHourz wrote: when dis coming out https://trello.com/b/R44szWCe/dust-514-development-roadmap when dis 1.1 coming out
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 880	Posted - 2015.02.16 11:03:00 - [406] - Quote No exact date yet "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7228	Posted - 2015.02.16 17:26:00 - [407] - Quote drop HMG to 2000 RPM, increase range to 40m. puts it at 650 DPS-ish. AV
MRBH1997 Knights Of Ender RISE of LEGION 150	Posted - 2015.02.19 08:34:00 - [408] - Quote Will older corporations have more of a head start on the level of their corporate command or will we have to work our way up just like newer corporations? CEO of Knights of Ender Corporation Recruitment Channel: Ender's Keep One of the best tankers out there.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7294	Posted - 2015.02.19 08:54:00 - [409] - Quote MRBH1997 wrote: Will older corporations have more of a head start on the level of their corporate command or will we have to work our way up just like newer corporations? Odds are, like the warbarges, older players aren't getting a head start. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 19:24:00 - [410] - 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.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7330	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:13:00 - [411] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 823	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:04:00 - [412] - 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 - [413] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7342	Posted - 2015.02.20 22:50:00 - [414] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.20 23:59:00 - [415] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7350	Posted - 2015.02.21 05:48:00 - [416] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:26:00 - [417] - 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 - [418] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7353	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:24:00 - [419] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:42:00 - [420] - 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.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7353	Posted - 2015.02.21 18:59:00 - [421] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 825	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:08:00 - [422] - 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.
ReGnYuM State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 3481	Posted - 2015.02.25 21:24:00 - [423] - Quote Can we possibly get a separate sticky regarding raiding mechanics. More information regarding their format of 8v8 12v12 and 16v16 etc The possibility having corporations specialized in raiding intrigues me.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7367	Posted - 2015.02.26 11:08:00 - [424] - Quote ReGnYuM wrote: The possibility having corporations specialized in raiding intrigues me. ya think? AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7367	Posted - 2015.02.26 11:16:00 - [425] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. I've done PC both attacking and holding. I've also AWOXED for hire. Magic was nowhere involved. 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 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. 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 851	Posted - 2015.02.26 20:59:00 - [426] - 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 - [427] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:46:00 - [428] - Quote 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. AV
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 21:50:00 - [429] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 851	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:09:00 - [430] - 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 - [431] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7380	Posted - 2015.02.26 22:49:00 - [432] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. I'm aware. Let me goad the idiots into sperging off please. I know how PC works. I just didn't find the way it's set up fun to play except as an occasional excuse to go pop some tryhard tanks for the funzies for people who need an AV ringer. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 858	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:50:00 - [433] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7395	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:11:00 - [434] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:56:00 - [435] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7398	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:39:00 - [436] - Quote 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. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:57:00 - [437] - 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.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7398	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:03:00 - [438] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: 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. Alts are no fun. I'd rather just tell you I'm going to do horrible things, do said horrible thing and laugh at people who inevitably go " I can't believe you did that horrible thing!" Alts make the experience feel cheap. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:15:00 - [439] - Quote LOL **** yo' couch!! Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7400	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:16:00 - [440] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: LOL **** yo' couch!! Exactly. AV

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 862	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:56:00 - [441] - 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.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4622	Posted - 2015.03.02 08:42:00 - [442] - Quote It still makes me sad to look at the road map and realize that raids are at least 4 months away if not more. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 868	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:54:00 - [443] - 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.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4757	Posted - 2015.03.16 11:51:00 - [444] - Quote https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2680855#post2680855 Something that seems to be relatively untouched by these changes is clone logistics. Currently the attrition rates are far to forgiving and the differentiation between Surface Infrastructures leaves the Cargo Hub as the best choice for both attack and defense. I've written up a proposal with some suggestion SI changes and attrition changes with the following goals in mind: 1. Make location more significant 2. Make fights occur more often 3. Make being under attack a bad thing 4. Give clear advantages and disadvantages to each SI https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n0svKNAiqWr0rhSgOEQ6JpMVjZYAi_bOuXaDF7hzhgI/edit?usp=sharing Ideally I would like to move away from clone attrition and just use an escalating command point cost for longer range attacks. If this were done the 50% mark of clone attrition would become the new maximum jump range for a surface infrastructure. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Balistyc Farshot The Exemplars 112	Posted - 2015.03.23 19:37:00 - [445] - Quote The core problem with districts gaining value is that people will hoard and stack them (This happened last time). It is going to happen! I was discussing with some of my fellow PC players and I would like to see the corps that cross a certain threshold of Districts to have their timers removed or significantly reduced. Also take off locking the districts. If you are at the top of the list with 50 districts, you can be attacked with a 1 hour notice (Could be a prototype to raiding). The Active player missions requirement will make a good move in this direction to stop ringer corps, but we are all aware that if value is associated to districts, some corps will hoard the districts and find a way to gather more resources than the others. This makes holding more districts dangerous and it becomes a double edged sword. Newer corps without districts could then stack timers and multi attack the monster corps who hold the most districts. Let me know your ideas. Now to start shotgunning and REing again, everyone will love this play style. Face Palm!
Golden Day Corrosive Synergy Rise Of Legion. 1227	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:51:00 - [446] - Quote Balistyc Farshot wrote: I was discussing with some of my fellow PC players and I would like to see the corps that cross a certain threshold of Districts to have their timers removed or significantly reduced. Also take off locking the districts. If you are at the top of the list with 50 districts, you can be attacked with a 1 hour notice (Could be a prototype to raiding). No. I know you wan't it *( -í° -£-û -í°)*
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4887	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:30:00 - [447] - Quote Balistyc Farshot wrote: The core problem with districts gaining value is that people will hoard and stack them (This happened last time). It is going to happen! I was discussing with some of my fellow PC players and I would like to see the corps that cross a certain threshold of Districts to have their timers removed or significantly reduced. Also take off locking the districts. If you are at the top of the list with 50 districts, you can be attacked with a 1 hour notice (Could be a prototype to raiding). The Active player missions requirement will make a good move in this direction to stop ringer corps, but we are all aware that if value is associated to districts, some corps will hoard the districts and find a way to gather more resources than the others. This makes holding more districts dangerous and it becomes a double edged sword. Newer corps without districts could then stack timers and multi attack the monster corps who hold the most districts. Let me know your ideas. Creating arbitrary numbers on a district limit just creates a reason for arbitrary alternate corporations. It's a balancing act. You want people to desire more land to create conflict but there needs to be a reasonable escalation in the "cost" of holding that land and/or extracting that wealth. The command point generation will be key. In order to extract that wealth from districts will require a growing number of command points per day, so, as a result, more active players. I would also have CCP consider having all PC fights happen at the top of the hour rather than randomizing them throughout the hour (an attack on a district set to 2000 will happen at 2000 rather than the random 2000 to 2050 currently in increments of 10 minutes). This would make everyone's scheduling lives easier and also make timer stacking someone who tries to overstock districts easier as well. Also, it seems that Planet Raiding has been taken off the backlog and put on 1.2 (huray! ), so that will hopefully expose corps to fights that can happen within 24 hours. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 8436	Posted - 2015.04.01 14:13:00 - [448] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Also, it seems that Planet Raiding has been taken off the backlog and put on 1.2 (huray! ), so that will hopefully expose corps to fights that can happen within 24 hours. Within 24 hours? I was hoping Raids could be carried out on-the-fly. Have 16 corpmates online? Check the starmap, find an open raid window, raid. Having to schedule Raids in advance will make them less appealing to those of us who aren't willing or able to commit to a schedule. Many of us are casuals, and giving those casuals a shot a catching the bigboy L33T corps with their pants down would be a great way to keep PC moving and interesting. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4944	Posted - 2015.04.03 12:40:00 - [449] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Also, it seems that Planet Raiding has been taken off the backlog and put on 1.2 (huray! ), so that will hopefully expose corps to fights that can happen within 24 hours. Within 24 hours? I was hoping Raids would be more like surprise attacks carried out on-the-fly. Have a bunch corpmates online? Check the starmap, find an open raid window, raid. Having to schedule Raids in advance will make them less appealing to those of us who aren't willing or able to commit to a schedule. Many Dusters are casuals, and giving those casuals a shot a catching the bigboy corps with their pants down would be a great way to keep PC lean, moving and interesting. On-the-fly Raids would also provide an outlet for competitive play. Why stomp pubs for pennies with 5 friends when I can earn real money in more competitive matches with 15? "Within" probably should read better as "under". Right now you have to wait a minimum of 24 hours to get a fight in PC for a district attack. I agree these should be very short notice fights. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 973	Posted - 2015.04.04 20:08:00 - [450] - 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.

ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1909	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:59:00 - [451] - Quote a lot of fluff and not enough substance all i see is plasters and bandages trying to keep pc alive. you are taking all this in the wrong direction. districts should be won and lost over multiple battles over weeks or even months if the war rages on. not this instant random battle system you have in place where a district is won or lost in a single fight. first pc was owning made you rich and nothing else. the next iteration meant owning pc made you poor and open to attack by everyone. this new pc is not going to be more of the same. a big imbalance most players will want to avoid. you need to completely revamp the system. the attacker always sets the time frame and those timers are always set so their "A" team can consistently do all their battles meaning almost always winning over a corp with multiple teams fighting on multiple fronts. not saying the "A" team shouldn't be able to do that. they shouldn't be able to rely on that to almost guaranty a win. if pc was say 4 small and 1 large battle (4 small facilities and 1 large command center) requiring simultaneous attacks of the 4 small before the main complex could be attacked to take control then pc for control would be a much better place. this allows for shifting boundaries adding to complexity and increasing time. imagine a war raging on for months going backwards and forwards between the same 2 corps over a single district. that would be awesome. what is not awesome is the current commitment to a district fight which is a few hours of pub matches worth of isk and time meaning there is no real loss or effort and i don't see anything in the OP suggestions which addresses this. for the raiding you suggest this would allow players to attack any small facility allowing the defender team to react or not without the loss of the district while allowing nobs to break into pc. if you are invested in pc it should take time and effort not a fleeting interest or a random fight. pc is my current wall in dust. i cant come back till its interesting, time consuming and rewarding. at the moment i could delete millions of isk and be in the same point i would be if i did a few pc matches and won. there is no reason for pc. effort and time is not rewarded. its too simple. simple would have benefitted a contract system with eve online but we will never see that so we need that eve complexity down on the ground instead. simple short battle systems should be left to pub matches. pc needs multi stage complexity allowing players and corps to apply themselfs and invest as much for as far as they want to get into it. All Hail Legion
SoTa PoP Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 6395	Posted - 2015.04.05 18:39:00 - [452] - Quote 1) UI needs to be reworked and made user friendly. No one outside of forum goers will understand that from Star Map as CEO or Director you can play a weak version of Facebook that actually leads to something fun. 2) More explanation in game about Star Map, Cooperation, and Planetary Conquest in general. It needs to be clearly said that mercenaries who band together can fight for land and what the benefits are and how it can effect there experience here. 3) Channels listed in log in that people can join to meet other like-minded mercenaries. This would go a long way in even FW to bringing people together who've gained an interest in doing more in this game. But there definitely also needs to be a place where people who want to find a route to PC but don't know how can find an easier method of finding what they need/want. 4) Costs of clone pack should be scaled. 50 clones = 10 mil. 100 clones - 25mil. 150 clones - 40 mil, 200 clones - 65mil. This will make the 'buy in' into PC affordable for corps who can break deals/contracts with PC corps. But they also have the available option of fighting there way in still, and the corps with the extra ISK can assure a good fight with an even greater clone pack. 5) Geography and borders need to matter in PC. Where you are right now isn't as important as how many you have, that needs to change. If I hold a district in Sakulda and want to hit Hrober and have to pass through several enemy spaces to do so there should be more consequence. Like-wise, negating these consequences through the infrastructure known as Science Lab is a sound concept - but the map itself needs to be removed. Nobody is willing to reach a little further if it means they may have to fight on that map. Get rid of it. 6) we really do need more land... Fights don't occur often as it is because of the time needed to set one up is draining, so increasing the actual amount of gameplay instead of finding a way to make it more enjoyable after nearly 4 years of the same thing might be more important. So instead of increasing fights volume - spice it up with 8v8 and make Raids special, not just another match on a smaller scale. n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ I watch anime for the plot
Operative 1174 Uuali Y.A.M.A.H 582	Posted - 2015.04.05 20:12:00 - [453] - Quote Only one thing matters to meGÇª disconnect kdr to PC involvment. Kdr is a horrible epeen mechanic that has nothing to do with one's overall capability to assist in winning a game. It boils the game down to nothing but simple run and gun behavior. PC could represent so much more and players would be able to contribute more than just proto assault roles. I can understand players being trained up to proto suits and mods as minimum qualifications, but kdr doesn't reflect things such as sacrificing one's self to push or hold an objective, crashing dropships et al and logi support. Recruitment for PC is just about recruiting the best of the best shooters, nothing more. It's just a leet member's club. PC should be for everybody who wants to help with actually conquering planets and doing it with the full spectrum of roles and equipment available. Tactics would be more than just brute force attrition warfare. Some other rating should clarify what a player is actually contributing in ways other than just shooty shooty. Death is a serious businessGÇª So is running a shoddy, half-baked game company.
IgniteableAura Pro Hic Immortalis 2166	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:10:00 - [454] - Quote New Concept: Member Donations Corporation Members can also "fuel the war" by donating their own Components, generating Command Points If I read this correctly that means AUR = Command Points. Which means as many as you want through donation. That's bad. Overall thoughts So far this system is too complex for people to get involved. Some convoluted process will not get new players into PC games. More resources to manage complicates and confuses new players. Especially if a dedicated UI is not made that is easy to manage. If a corp has to come to the forums and read an FAQ to understand PC mechanics, its too complicated. Having to manage yet another resource is going to be confusing for anyone except those willing to dive into the specifics of how to Min/Max their CPs. Casual players that only do public matches won't give a damn about the spreadsheets required to participate at that level. This current iteration likely will only bring back PC vets, not introduce new PC players to the game. Sadly in order to get more involvement you need more planets and districts that allow 4v4, 6v6, 12v12, 16v16, and 32v32. With smaller player counts (12v12) and limited districts you have a current "cap" on how many people will ever play. EX: only 100 districts and each battle can have 24 players....likely means 100 x 24 = ~2,400 players that will ever participate in PC. Even during what I would call the "highest active PC diversity", there was less than 500 unique players. By increasing the player count and total number of districts (4v4, 32v32) you end up increasing the diversity of the player base. Corps with only 32 highly competitive players won't ever hold a 32v32 district. A corp of 1000 members won't have a 4v4 district because it won't provide the benefits a large corp needs. My Youtube Biomassed Podcast
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4958	Posted - 2015.04.06 21:33:00 - [455] - Quote Components being donated to generate command points was actually taken off the table as far as I know because of the ability to buy components with AUR. If it hasn't been then it should be. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
tritan abbattere DBAG CORE 60	Posted - 2015.04.11 22:55:00 - [456] - Quote In there was a thing called Orbital construction for MCC. Would be cool if eve players could attack this so eve can help out the ground troops. IDK if this could be a cool way to make eve - dust coop thing going again. I am the all mighty Tritan. Fear me for I am a MassHole
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4989	Posted - 2015.04.12 02:37:00 - [457] - Quote tritan abbattere wrote: In there was a thing called Orbital construction for MCC. Would be cool if eve players could attack this so eve can help out the ground troops. IDK if this could be a cool way to make eve - dust coop thing going again. At this time I don't think we are going to be able to get any kind of Eve dev support. In order to make planetary conquest meaningful it seems we are going to have to do it ourselves on the Dust side. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 20619	Posted - 2015.04.14 02:53:00 - [458] - Quote We are now in discussions with 99% of District holders in PC. Will lock this and store until we have more news. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



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

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

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back

Moody come back