|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1617
   |
Posted - 2015.04.05 17:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Cody Sietz wrote:I think it's in a good place right now, but I'm not a CEO.
Looking forward to seeing what PC can change and become. Just so long as we don't see a return to the days of nobody fighting and the big blue donut. There is an exploit that needs to be stamped out. If everyone wants to just hold hands and sing kumbaya, I still don't think I have an answer for that 
I think there needs to be a ranking of districts. If District A and District B are the same, why fight? Corp. A can keep District A and Corp. B keep B. If District A is better than B though they have a reason to always fight, even if it is just prestige.
The other big problem with PC is the same 16 guys can dominate the whole thing, certainly a 100 or so can, and do. The solution is to force players to be stationed on a limited number of districts and only can defend those districts. Corporations should be able to have unlimited districts, but they have to hold each with different players. This would mean that a 200 man corp wouldn't have the same 16 guys playing every PC and new corps could have a chance against the Team B and Team C districts.
What is being proposed was too complicated for me to figure out but I didn't see those two problems being addressed and they are the two that kept me from PC.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1620
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 22:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Cody Sietz wrote:I think it's in a good place right now, but I'm not a CEO.
Looking forward to seeing what PC can change and become. Just so long as we don't see a return to the days of nobody fighting and the big blue donut. There is an exploit that needs to be stamped out. If everyone wants to just hold hands and sing kumbaya, I still don't think I have an answer for that I think there needs to be a ranking of districts. If District A and District B are the same, why fight? Corp. A can keep District A and Corp. B keep B. If District A is better than B though they have a reason to always fight, even if it is just prestige. The other big problem with PC is the same 16 guys can dominate the whole thing, certainly a 100 or so can, and do. The solution is to force players to be stationed on a limited number of districts and only can defend those districts. Corporations should be able to have unlimited districts, but they have to hold each with different players. This would mean that a 200 man corp wouldn't have the same 16 guys playing every PC and new corps could have a chance against the Team B and Team C districts. What is being proposed was too complicated for me to figure out but I didn't see those two problems being addressed and they are the two that kept me from PC. On point 1, no. No one will care about the prestige of anything. We don't now, and we won't later. on point 2, you will never stop people from holding lots of land through artificial player limitation. We will just use alts, and we will hate CCP for making us do that. But we will do it all the same. You'll be pissed off, we'll be pissed off. That's a lose-lose suggestion.
How do you suggest we stop a relative handful of players from controlling PC. That is the problem. No offense, but I don't think FA vets understand that problem.
You can create maybe 5 alts that are PC worthy, I don't see a problem with that. I think having another corp. owning the top district and rubbing your nose in it in the war room will motivate people.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1620
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 22:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:I do not have much experience with pc and that is large a product of my first experiences with it while I was a director in 2shitz1giggle. Now, most of our players in that corp weren't amazing in fact I was probably one of the best in their roster, and I only consider myself to be marginally above average. The a large number aspired to pc like we have been 'told' we should, however there are/were huge barriers to entry.
A rogue director ended up going ahead and purchasing 3 clone packs taking about 35% of the total corp wallet for battles none of the other directors were even sure that people could show up for. The people we fought ended up talent pooling - grabbing 'the best' players from several other corps, and the battles themselves were a combination of every single 'easiest' and most frustrating to deal with 'tactics' from perma-spin scanning to insane equipment spam to other things.
We lost all of the matches due to 'established' pc corps being able to draw from a much larger pool of players while my corp was stuck trying to work with much lower sp 'free agents'. The worst part however is that we were fighting in the era of the blue donut isk fountain - even if we had won, corps with infinite isk could easily grind us down. Players in the corp ruined themselves financially for an unwinnable fight and promptly quit shortly after. There are too many defenders advantages even today without infinite isk being a thing.
I have ringed in about three pc matches at various times since and it's still really a question only of 'who can get the 'best' players to exploit the most mechanics, the hardest, the fastest'. Be it cru camping, re flinging, extreme highspot uplinks or any other thing (walls of heavies with hmgs & logis that are nigh impossible to fight etc)
I am extremely opposed to passive isk coming back to pc, or with costs for mcc's/clone packs being increased. I am extremely in favor of low cost raids (10million or less, maybe even something generated by corporate warbarges) that allow asymmetric warfare (you get 8 players, we get 12) especially with the intent of reducing the strength of talent pooling. I want to see reasons to hire neutral parties for attacks (without resorting to talent pooling) that are diversionary or sabotage oriented.
I believe that is everyone's experience who tried PC and no longer do. My suggestion was ranking districts and limiting how many districts each player can defend. A new team can play against the team ranked #60, instead of #1. Top teams would have no incentive to attack low ranked teams, and every team would try to move up and picking your opponent would have some meaning, whereas right now you have no idea who you will actually be pl aying. Right now I see no changes that are going to bring any new players into PC, raiding may have some potential but if everything is held by the same 100 guys, like it has been, then it will just be the same experience we see in PC now on a smaller scale.
Because, that's why.
|
|
|
| |
|