| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
4424
   |
Posted - 2015.01.25 15:27:00 -
[31] - Quote
A good point has been made. Raid attacks large or mall need to require an MCC/CLone pack. Essentially a raid needs require the same resource build up as a normal district attack.
I actually thought that this would always be the case, but it seems other didn't think so.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Travis Stanush
Y.A.M.A.H
334
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 14:11:00 -
[32] - Quote
bump
No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6074
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 16:51:00 -
[33] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:A good point has been made. Raid attacks large or small need to require an MCC/CLone pack. Essentially a raid needs require the same resource build up as a normal district attack.
I actually thought that this would always be the case, but it seems other didn't think so.
I'm among the latter group, and I disagree with you, Kain Spero. Apologies in advance for the wordiness to follow :-)
Missed Oportunity
There is a large percentage of players in the game who are not presently awash in Isk. Many of those players (and the corps who employ them) wish to try their hand in the big leagues. Many more would jump at the opportunity to earn a paycheck. I say we let them try. What better way than through Raids? And what better time than now? All the excitement and buzz that will be PC 2.0's "grand opening" is likely to attract a crowd. It'd be a missed opportunity to let that crowd walk by and not invite them in.
Increased Participation
If we want to get the crowd in and involved, we must mind our Barriers to Entry. If we set them high, the crowd will walk by PC 2.0's "grand opening" disinterested; if they can't afford the entry fee, why would they bother to care? If, on the other hand, we set them low (at least, for a part of PC) there's a good chance we'll get them, keep them in and see a permanent increase in PC participation.
Lipstick on a Pig
Raids should be less like High Risk / High Reward PC matches and more like playing the Penny Slots. Low Risk, Low Reward, Low Barriers to Entry. This formula adds fish to the pond and keeps them coming back for more. Increasing participation is not only good for the game, but is also sure-fire way to shakeup PC. If we fail to add fish to the pond, PC 2.0 will end up looking just like PC 1.0. All that work on a new playground, only to attract the same spoiled kids. Status quo maintained. Lipstick on a pig.
Passive Income (Conquest) > Active Income (Raid)
When a fledgling corp outlays X million Isk on a clone pack, it does so with the intent of turning of turning a profit. With this initial investment, it sets out to attack a district, occupy said district, and eventually recover its initial investment plus gains thanks to the passive income generated by said district. Passive income is inherently more valuable than active income; this is especially true in Dust, where a large and successful corp can readily multiply sources of passive income. Raids are different from Conquest. There is no passive income stream at the end of the Raid road. These are strictly Active Income activities and a 'bit like gambling. If a Raid fails, the Raiders lose a 'bit of money. If the Raid Succeeds, the Raiders make a 'bit money. The Conquest model pays more in the end -- and pays passively, which is huge -- so the requirement of large initial investment can be justified. Requiring a large initial investment from Raiders does not make sound economic sense.
These are my initial thoughts. Thank you for reading.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6074
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 18:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
Feasible Raid Models
Low Risk, Low Reward Raids w/ High Barriers to Entry
- New game; same players
- Low odds of increase in short-term participation rates
- Low odds of increase in long-term participation rates
High Risk, High Reward Raids w/ High Barriers to Entry
- New game; same players
- Low odds of increase in short-term participation rates
- Low odds of increase in long-term participation rates
High Risk, High Reward Raids w/ Low Barriers to Entry
- No Limit Poker; everyone can afford to play, at least initially
- Fair odds of increase in short-term participation rates
- Low odds of increase in long-term participation rates
Low Risk, Low Reward Raids w/ Low Barriers to Entry
- Penny Slots; everyone can afford to play; everyone can afford to lose
- Good odds of increase in short-term participation rates
- Good odds of increase in long-term participation rates
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6074
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 18:30:00 -
[35] - Quote
Infeasible Raid Model: Low Risk, High Reward Raids
This model is fundamentally infeasible, as it violates principles of risk and reward. As a rule, risk and reward must go hand in hand; as one increases, so goes the other. If we were to assume Low Barriers to Entry, portions of Radar's raid model come dangerously close to violating the risk-return tradeoff principle.
If 0.H Raiders win, we get huge paychecks and lots of booty, up-to-and-including officer gear. The district holder is hit hard; his passive revenue stream is interrupted, and his farming operations enter a recovery period. We get rich and ruin their day. And if we so chose, we can do permanent damage by hitting the same corp over and over again. And if we lose, oh well! Nothing lost but a few CP and whatever we paid on our suits. We'll stomp some pubs and try our luck tomorrow.
^ Not exactly what Radar said, but you get the idea. This model isn't sustainable. It offers huge reward potential at negligible risk exposure. Such an environment would be dominated by Raiders. This approach could fixed increasing the risks of raiding or increasing barriers to entry, but both of these would drive away the fledgling corps we're seeking to attract to PC. A better option, in my opinion, would be to lower rewards (and damage potential) of raids. The potential for raid reward should be much higher than pubs, but not as as high as the rewards of actually holding land.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
4439
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 00:23:00 -
[36] - Quote
Adipem, you have to remember that the purchase cost of clone packs will be going away and from what I can tell most corporate side ISK cost will be disappearing as well. In that way the barrier is going to be largely disappearing.
From what's been discussed in some PC threads before if CCP goes with the MCC model you could have variations on the size of MCC, but I think in the end simplifying the system to you have X MCC and therefore X Attacks/Defenses would be better for the system as a whole. The expense of the raids can then be varied by how much CP they cost.
Corporate Command should only be able to store so many MCC so without districts to expand your MCC storage you would be limited in how many raids you can launch at any one time. In the same vein district owners would have to reduce their MCC stock and make themselves more vulnerable to attack if they decide they want to raid like crazy.
You want to open up PC and ISK free clone packs/ MCC will do that. At the same time you don't want raids being spammed all over the place when a large part of their intent is to give non landholders access to planetary conquest and give a more immediate way for landholders to engage in PC outside the normal 24-48 hour timer delays for conquest matches.
Your thoughts about the rewards for raiding needing to be tempered are spot on though. We want raiding to be rewarding enough to entice people to engage in the game mode, but it can't outshine players becoming involved in district conquest wars when they are capable.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6091
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 04:15:00 -
[37] - Quote
Thanks, Kain. I'd forgotten that we were doing away with high-price clone packs. The concepts and concerns above may or may not still apply; you guys know best. Here are a few more thoughts:
On Districts
Basic Components for Merc Barge and Corp Flotilla can be purchased with Isk, salvaged or manufactured by Districts. Rare Components are generated exclusively through Districts. Early stage upgrades are fairly inexpensive and can be accomplished using Basic Components; advanced stage are upgrades are costly and many require Rare Components. Holding districts is the surest way to procure Rare Components, though they can also be procured by successfully Raiding a District. Different types of Districts generate different types of Rare Components.
In addition to manufacturing Basic and Rare Components, Districts can also provide a source of passive income through clone sales. Once a district reaches 100% of its clone capacity, excess clones are automatically liquidated. Districts which generate revenue are most likely to be Raided, as the higher the clone volume on hand, the more a Raider is able to steal. Districts below 50% capacity are immune to Raid.
On Raid Reprisals
Following a successful Raid, a district holder is given option to pursue and counterattack Raiders. The counterattack much be launched with 5 minutes of Raider victory, else Raiders make a successful getaway. If counterattack is not launched, clones stolen by Raiders are immediately liquidated (5 minutes after victory). If counterattack is launched, Raiders are given of notice Ambush (you've been waylaid!) and a brief opportunity to assemble. If Raiders ignore counterattack or are defeated in the Ambush to follow, 50% of the clones stolen from district are returned to district. If Raiders successfully defend themselves, they escape with 100% of the clones stolen, which are automatically liquidated following the match.
Assorted Attack Types
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vb8fkfEqJKbDK8QTbJsWz_UKD7I_UhBwB0SSbtwlikM/edit?usp=sharing
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
4464
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 14:05:00 -
[38] - Quote
Adipem,
I think you schedule of attack types works well. I don't think the core clones on a district should be affected by raiding though. Raiding being about the daily clone production would strike a good balance for Risk v Reward.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6205
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 15:00:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Adipem,
I think you schedule of attack types works well. I don't think the core clones on a district should be affected by raiding though. Raiding being about the daily clone production would strike a good balance for Risk v Reward.
Double Post: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2598875#post2598875
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.
I think it likely that Raiders will be our best bet at keeping PC farm-fest free. A successful Raid should impact Landholder income. In times of Peace, it'll be the only thing which can.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
4465
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 15:11:00 -
[40] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:
Hypothetical:
Assume that districts at maximum clone capacity generate passive Isk.
Except CCP is moving to active clone selling which means overflow clones are just lost and don't generate anything.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2585758#post2585758
CCP Rattati wrote: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
I still think that if PC 2.0 is going to be successful clones need to be divested from being a tool of war.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6209
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 15:15:00 -
[41] - Quote
I could be wrong, but PC 2.0's Conquest Model presently lacks incentive sufficient to justify its risk exposure. From what we know so far, most corps would favor the Raider Model. I think it likely that Rattati will "add value" to holding Districts to bring Risk/Reward into equilibrium. Hence my assumption of passive Isk.
(it very well may end up being something else of value)
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
4465
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 15:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:I could be wrong, but PC 2.0's Conquest Model presently lacks incentive sufficient to justify its risk exposure. From what we know so far, most corps would favor the Raider Model. I think it likely that Rattati will "add value" to holding Districts to bring Risk/Reward into equilibrium. Hence my assumption of passive Isk.
(it very well may end up being something else of value)
The ability to sell clones using CP would add value to districts for sure. If we moved to a MCC style system to determine attacks that can be made and deciding district ownership then I could even see raiding allowing the theft of more clones than just the daily production.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |