DUST Search - FW needs a "Complex" mode.

Lady MDK wrote:

Sgt Kirk wrote:

Lady MDK wrote:

Cat Merc wrote:

CCP wrote:

Ewww, coding required.

-CCP, probably

Sounds similar to what people imagine PC raids to be like. So as long as what we think and what CCP think are similar then the code for this (or something similar) maybe already in development or on a notepad somewhere.

The only thing that would set it apart from that would be the battles being shown on the starmap which is a good idea and ccp should implement this (ccp if you do show this data - have you ever thought of sharing it with the EVE starmap and viceversa? one universe and all that?).

It would be great if we could have EVE pilots benefit from Districts besides just LP. Have it be a safe haven or support from planetary artillery or something, idk. All that requires work on EVE side so I doubt that would happen. CCP EVE side could care less about Dust and probably want to see it die.

I have always said that ccp need to show more balls when it comes to linking the gameplay. Eve pilots should not be able to flip systems without mercs and vice versa. Maybe the fw occupancy meter in eve should show both space superiority and planetary, eve pilots alone can only capture the space.

Once a system is contested the district's in that space are activated for Mercs.

I know this is a very heavy dependancy but I don't think just a stat boost is going to make eve pilots rely on dust mercs. It needs to be a team effort.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10058	Posted - 2015.04.05 04:59:00 - [1] - Quote Complex as in the facility sense to clarify. As said before we do not need to make EVE and DUST down to a 1 to 1 Ratio but by god that doesn't mean we can't look at what already works for inspiration and tweak it for Dust. (Lore however needs to be 1:1, no exceptions) In EVE you can aquire LP through various means, destroying members of the opposing faction, doing missions and providing orbital support and bolstering/capturing certain strategic sites in FW space. All that can be easily translated to DUST and I have made previous threads mentioning getting rewarded for kills. This thread will pertain to bringing FW Complexes to DUST. In EVE there are strategic sites in FW as mentioned before. What pilots can do to these sites is get near one and reinforce the site if it's friendly or capture it if it's hostile. In addition to that basic model there are novice, small, medium and large sites that can hold bigger and bigger ships respectively; The time to reinforce/capture said installations also goes up depending on the size of the site. The LP earnings from capturing/defending these sites vary depending on risk involved. To better explain it, a friendly installation in friendly space will not earn you as much as an enemy installation in friendly space but reinforcing a friendly installation in enemy space will grant you more LP so on and so forth. LP payouts get even then more complicated depending on the size of the installations so reinforcing a "weakened novice" complex in friendly space will not yield you the same amount as reinforcing a friendly "weakened medium" complex. I also forgot to add that an enemy can come by to interrupt you from doing so at anytime if they find you. that's pretty important, sorry to just shove that at the end. So with that very broad generalisation of EVE FW complexes done I'll proceed with how we can bring this into DUST. FW needs a lot of things, needs new items, new incentives and most of all, needs a new mode. Basically what this "Node" mode is playing in an Ambush style map with one objective in a very Domination like manner. Each of these nodes have to be manually searched for in the star map under the Faction Warfare tab to send your Fireteam/squad/platoon into a node. The Objective has to be constantly secured for the depending node sizes period of time until a victory can be achieved. A defining factor in this mode is the only time period this mode has is the secure time period, everything else is infinite. If you successfully secure the objective for the required amount of time then the district goes offline for 24 hours. A side note to keep in mind that if I had my way in the previous mentioned thread with loyalty kills rewarding you LP, these long slug fest will basically be a fountain of LP for players for those who can survive. Depending on the size node, ranging from novice to large, numbers of players as well as meta equipment to be used goes up as you progress through the node sizes. For Example: Novice Node - 4 v 4 militia gear only or meta level limit on suit - 5 minutes to secure Small Node - 6 v 6 standard gear and below or meta level limit on suit - 7 minutes to secure Medium Node - 10 v 10 Advanced Gear and below or meta level limit on suit - 9 minutes to secure Large Node - 16 v 16 All Combat Restrictions Lifted - 10 minutes to secure Leaving all the deeper details aside until this thread goes somewhere we would see the players choosing a District in enemy space that hasn't been too active lately so the squad leader sends his boys in to take what seems to be an easy chance for LP. Lets say we have team G trying to capture a medium node in enemy territory. While team G is goofing around in quafe suits shooting each other Team C is looking around their space in the star map looking for areas to defend. Team C squad leader notices that there are enemy units showing up over a medium node on a friendly planet and they readily deploy to the planet. In the 8th minute of securing the objective Team C comes in, takes back the objectives and has to hold it for 9 minutes and an additional 8 minutes to reverse the hacking done by Team G. It becomes the bloodiest battle that the world ever saw. With civilians looking on in total awe. The fight raged on for a century. Many lives were claimed but eventually The champion stood the rest saw the better. Sgt Kirk in blood stained armor. And just imagine all the LP from a fight such as that if loyalty kills were implemented as well as the very generous pay from capturing nodes in enemy territory. I usually make a tl;dr version of my post but all of this is pretty intricate and needs to be viewed entirely. FW needs a loyalty choice, more incentive, more LP items, more modes and more fun. Faction Warfare needs an overhaul. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 5887	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:02:00 - [2] - Quote You gotta give this man a +1 This takes into account CCP Rattati's own notes about having variance in battle size in FW and presents a way to apply it with current assets and a minimum of new coding. I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15810	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:04:00 - [3] - Quote CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17953	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:13:00 - [4] - Quote Would make for some interesting strategies in small scale games. Rather than queue sync 16 players for one Large outpost we could work across four Novice Outposts or three Small Outposts. Not to mention the very interesting team strategies you would have to develop specifically for the smaller game modes. What were your thoughts on vehicles limits Kirk? GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10058	Posted - 2015.04.05 05:26:00 - [5] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Would make for some interesting strategies in small scale games. Rather than queue sync 16 players for one Large outpost we could work across four Novice Outposts or three Small Outposts. Not to mention the very interesting team strategies you would have to develop specifically for the smaller game modes. What were your thoughts on vehicles limits Kirk? Novice is militia LAVs only for vehicles. Small would be Standard and militia LAVs and Dropships. All vehicles with respect to tier in medium and no Large mode. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17953	Posted - 2015.04.05 06:03:00 - [6] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: True Adamance wrote: Would make for some interesting strategies in small scale games. Rather than queue sync 16 players for one Large outpost we could work across four Novice Outposts or three Small Outposts. Not to mention the very interesting team strategies you would have to develop specifically for the smaller game modes. What were your thoughts on vehicles limits Kirk? Novice is militia LAVs only for vehicles. Small would be Standard and militia LAVs and Dropships. All vehicles with respect to tier in medium and no Large mode. You didn't mention tanks. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10058	Posted - 2015.04.05 06:04:00 - [7] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: True Adamance wrote: Would make for some interesting strategies in small scale games. Rather than queue sync 16 players for one Large outpost we could work across four Novice Outposts or three Small Outposts. Not to mention the very interesting team strategies you would have to develop specifically for the smaller game modes. What were your thoughts on vehicles limits Kirk? Novice is militia LAVs only for vehicles. Small would be Standard and militia LAVs and Dropships. All vehicles with respect to tier in medium and Large mode. You didn't mention tanks. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3029	Posted - 2015.04.05 08:27:00 - [8] - Quote So this? I've made several of these ideas, slight variations on them over time (due to being too lazy to find the OG one and copy/paste), and CCP still hasn't caught on. Maybe others saying [retty much the same thing will get them to catch on..... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 346	Posted - 2015.04.05 08:58:00 - [9] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably Sounds similar to what people imagine PC raids to be like. So as long as what we think and what CCP think are similar then the code for this (or something similar) maybe already in development or on a notepad somewhere. The only thing that would set it apart from that would be the battles being shown on the starmap which is a good idea and ccp should implement this (ccp if you do show this data - have you ever thought of sharing it with the EVE starmap and viceversa? one universe and all that?). Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10061	Posted - 2015.04.05 19:14:00 - [10] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: Cat Merc wrote: CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably Sounds similar to what people imagine PC raids to be like. So as long as what we think and what CCP think are similar then the code for this (or something similar) maybe already in development or on a notepad somewhere. The only thing that would set it apart from that would be the battles being shown on the starmap which is a good idea and ccp should implement this (ccp if you do show this data - have you ever thought of sharing it with the EVE starmap and viceversa? one universe and all that?). It would be great if we could have EVE pilots benefit from Districts besides just LP. Have it be a safe haven or support from planetary artillery or something, idk. All that requires work on EVE side so I doubt that would happen. CCP EVE side could care less about Dust and probably want to see it die. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*

Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9549	Posted - 2015.04.05 22:51:00 - [11] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably "So many cool ideas from the community, but not enough hours in the day." At least the PC minority is getting plenty of attention. Amarr are the good guys Join "PIE Ground Control" for secure Amarr FW syncing and orbital support
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10067	Posted - 2015.04.05 23:12:00 - [12] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: Cat Merc wrote: CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably "So many cool ideas from the community, but not enough hours in the day." At least the PC minority is getting plenty of attention. When it comes to a business grabbing the lower hanging fruit first usually buys you enough time to reach for the big goals. But meh, whatever. They're making more than enough money I guess. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3158	Posted - 2015.04.06 07:09:00 - [13] - Quote First, FW needs to be going all the time, not once or twice a week at certain times. Then it can be improved upon. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 347	Posted - 2015.04.06 07:28:00 - [14] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Lady MDK wrote: Cat Merc wrote: CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably Sounds similar to what people imagine PC raids to be like. So as long as what we think and what CCP think are similar then the code for this (or something similar) maybe already in development or on a notepad somewhere. The only thing that would set it apart from that would be the battles being shown on the starmap which is a good idea and ccp should implement this (ccp if you do show this data - have you ever thought of sharing it with the EVE starmap and viceversa? one universe and all that?). It would be great if we could have EVE pilots benefit from Districts besides just LP. Have it be a safe haven or support from planetary artillery or something, idk. All that requires work on EVE side so I doubt that would happen. CCP EVE side could care less about Dust and probably want to see it die. I have always said that ccp need to show more balls when it comes to linking the gameplay. Eve pilots should not be able to flip systems without mercs and vice versa. Maybe the fw occupancy meter in eve should show both space superiority and planetary, eve pilots alone can only capture the space. Once a system is contested the district's in that space are activated for Mercs. I know this is a very heavy dependancy but I don't think just a stat boost is going to make eve pilots rely on dust mercs. It needs to be a team effort. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3032	Posted - 2015.04.06 10:50:00 - [15] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: Lady MDK wrote: Cat Merc wrote: CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably Sounds similar to what people imagine PC raids to be like. So as long as what we think and what CCP think are similar then the code for this (or something similar) maybe already in development or on a notepad somewhere. The only thing that would set it apart from that would be the battles being shown on the starmap which is a good idea and ccp should implement this (ccp if you do show this data - have you ever thought of sharing it with the EVE starmap and viceversa? one universe and all that?). It would be great if we could have EVE pilots benefit from Districts besides just LP. Have it be a safe haven or support from planetary artillery or something, idk. All that requires work on EVE side so I doubt that would happen. CCP EVE side could care less about Dust and probably want to see it die. I have always said that ccp need to show more balls when it comes to linking the gameplay. Eve pilots should not be able to flip systems without mercs and vice versa. Maybe the fw occupancy meter in eve should show both space superiority and planetary, eve pilots alone can only capture the space. Once a system is contested the district's in that space are activated for Mercs. I know this is a very heavy dependancy but I don't think just a stat boost is going to make eve pilots rely on dust mercs. It needs to be a team effort. Flipping the systems would be really hard to get right, unless we had station fighting anyways. I honestly don't care if we could flip systems or if we were required or not. Frankly, we simply don't have enough people to actually support FW, and I'll be damned if Dust were to halt progress in EVE. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 347	Posted - 2015.04.06 11:18:00 - [16] - Quote And if a dust player (albeit one who plays eve as well by the sounds of it) doesn't care why the beck should anyone else. Can you suggest anything? Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10067	Posted - 2015.04.06 14:48:00 - [17] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: First, FW needs to be going all the time, not once or twice a week at certain times. Then it can be improved upon. You realized you just put the cart before the horse right? How is FW going to be more populated if there's no reason to play it and it stays the same? Damn dude, use some basic Logic. *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 10067	Posted - 2015.04.06 14:50:00 - [18] - Quote Lady MDK wrote: And if a dust player (albeit one who plays eve as well by the sounds of it) doesn't care why the heck should anyone else. Can you suggest anything? Getting DUST 514 off the ground is priority. Then strengthening the link between EVE and DUST FW *As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP*
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 23087	Posted - 2015.04.06 14:54:00 - [19] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: Cat Merc wrote: CCP wrote: Ewww, coding required. -CCP, probably "So many cool ideas from the community, but not enough hours in the day." At least the PC minority is getting plenty of attention. The point of the PC changes is to make it accessible to more than a minority, though. Gallente Guide one day i may leave the basement but that day is not today


Pages: 1 :: [one page]