Unless PC is set up so that all corps can participate. That want to at least.

Should still go for FW at first. Increase the gains, and do one weekend a month where it's like 10x the normal gains.

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.

Until the players playing on the planets can control or have direct influence over Planetary Infrastructure Material creation in New Eden..

PC largely looses the spark that it once had without it having some hope of actual purpose. The entire motivation around people organizing and giving up free time to participate in PC... Was that it was going somewhere that had actual meaning and impact on the New Eden Galaxy.

So it largely got treated as a training ground in anticipation for more influence and future reason to have tactical 16 man teams that where well practiced.



Until DUST 514 has a stake in the New Eden Galaxy Sandbox.... Any PC changes will strictly be cosmetic.. And merely placate the uninformed and or ignorant.

OK.

My general disregard for all things PC related is reasonably well documented. D-UNI tried it and by the time I decided to pull us out of it, the egos, histrionics, drama, epeen and exploits damn well near broke me personally and made me dread logging on lest I got dragged into yet another bitchfest of which my caring about was precisely zero. I very nearly quit the game entirely because of it.

PC is played by a minority of the player base, a passionate and vocal minority but minority nevertheless.

Any examination of the mechanics of PC is I feel not going fully service its potential, without addressing the question as to why its not as popular as it should be is kind of silly. Yes potential, I might not be its biggest fan but I know it could be something special if its failings a force multiplier for player participation are addressed and dealt with.

Rattati asked in the OP, 'Please, pass the message forward, and especially if you or your corporation was active in PC, and quit for whatever reason.' (my underlining).

It's vitally important that we use the opportunity that we have now, to find those reasons to quit and see what can be done about them now rather than later.

Was it logistical, time consuming, a failure in UI or explanation? Time pressures, technical problems or just plain odd boring?

Let CCP know.

With alot of the top corp players having 100's of millions and even billions of isk per player i dont see alot of room for improvement. Just like the matchmaking it was let go for to long, this should have been fixed before these players were able to exploit a broken system. At this point in pc bigger corps are giving districts to little corps to then attack and farm them. So unless your gonna take a portion of that isk away any changea will still result in these top corps dominating all others.

With alot of the top corp players having 100's of millions and even billions of isk per player i dont see alot of room for improvement. Just like the matchmaking it was let go for to long, this should have been fixed before these players were able to exploit a broken system. At this point in pc bigger corps are giving districts to little corps to then attack and farm them. So unless your gonna take a portion of that isk away any changea will still result in these top corps dominating all others.

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

How about Gear level restricted systems and planets.
0.6-0.8 SYSTEM Milita gear System Standard
0.5 System Advanced
0.4 System Advanced
0.3 System Advanced
0.2 and 0.1 Proto
0.0 Above proto

0.6-0.8 Conservation Districts or the Slums where poor Corps can have a more of a chance to hold districts,Gear restricted Systems.

Lock out on a character basis
In Eve you can't fight for the enemy miltia .
Corp and Characters that have to choose what Sec Status they fight in and they will be locked into that Sec.They can ring in their Sec but not ring in the other sec status.
Planet Bob is Sec 0.7
Planet Frame is Sec 0.2
Elite Players to play in PC Attacking to Take District or defending District must Register to that Sec number and will be locked out of the other Sec Systems .

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.

Here's the problem with PC. The only reason to egt into PC... is to do PC. I gain no benefit of PC outside of doing even more PC. As mentioned earlier it becomes "I do raids in order to get better gear to go do more raids." What can PC give me that pubs do not?

Now we could have owning districts give bonuses in Dust, like extra damage, more health, better regen, cheaper item costs, etc. But then we widen the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The reason sovereignty and wars work (well, somewhat) in Eve is because there is so much more to do in Eve than PVP. There's mining, ratting, industry, missioning, all kinds of activities that aren't about killing other players. So by owning systems in nullsec, I can provide an area to have miners get resources for my industry moguls, who then build ships and modules for me to go gain even more systems. All of the considerations of war, from the fighting to the logitics and supply lines, are player-controlled. Dust has no such variety. We can kill other players in pubs, kill other players in FW, or kill other players in PC. No other options for gameplay exist. No industry, no mining, no PVE content... Only PVP, PVP, PVP. So any bonus we give to districts either is OP, like a damage bonus for owning a district, separating the rich from the poor even more, or you give a bonus to clone packs or other PC logistics, which returns us to the "I raid to get gear to raid with" circle.

What we need, and honestly should have had from the beginning, is non-PVP gameplay in Dust. Clearing rogue drones, maybe some form of industry, or maybe helping Eve players gain salvage in special sites, as proposed in a thread that came out before Rattati came along. Sadly, these will likely never happen. But until we have something to do other than kill other players, any bonus that districts give will either be OP or not worth the effort.

PI in Eve is on Planets ,it doesn't make isk it makes things ,Let the districts make PI Resources that are used in upgrading War-barges and the structures themselves on the Districts. Lower Sec Planets can have a more valuable Resource to make them worth fighting over.

Well for starters playing against the same 16 every pc gets stale, I'd say make two separate types of districts, one that pays more or is more rewarding but is for the best competition. And the second being the "starters" districts they're not as rewarding but still help you get your foot in the door and practice before going for the top tier corps. I think this would help new corps instead of them fearing that they will just be pubstomped by vets. Just my thoughts

A part of this revamp is finding a unique, non power creep, reward, such as but not limited to district unique customization f.ex.

Thing about raiding, and difficult things, is that the fun is in the doing, it's not for everyone, but there is meaning in it, even if others find it repetitive or boring. Some of my best gaming experiences were WoW raids, but not "just for the loot to get better loot", it's not as simple as that. I also play W40k that takes hours to plan, even more hours to paint (if you do that) , make terrain, get your stuff to a friends house, all for a battle that may be lost in the first round. It's still fun.

The problem right now is that the rewards don't equal the time investment. Also there are too few people interested in the setting up. The logistical burden falls on a few people and they often burn out faster than they can be replaced.

In Eve the zerg can balance the wealthy older entities(or used to be able to), because of our lobby shooter structure we can't make that happen in a single match, we have to find a way to introduce a zerg mechanic, but as naturally and immersively as possible.

A successful implementation of PC will be a game of check and balances on several fronts. That means for each factor in PC we have to set up competing mechanics. The community has already touched on all of this, i'm just trying to corral ideas into game rules in this post.

It would be good at this point to know what the devteams's warbarge is going to do: in his origainal post, quoted by Maken above, Rattati implies that the warbarge mechanics will address alts and district locking through 'loyalty rank' and 'command point' mechanics. I have no idea what this actually means. It's prolly time to spill some of the beans, Rattati.

Most of this is going to orbit around the idea of a Strategic Resource(SR). For now this will be isolated to Dust but if we do the job right what we set up now will be ready for near-seamless integration with EVE. What is the SR? No frakkin' clue atm, but it doesn't matter for the ruleset, just keep it EVE-relevant.

Strategic Resource balance mechanic
Make the SR over-subscribed. Make spending SR useful/necessary for district maintenance, defensive bonuses, offensive bonuses, clone transport bonuses and make it a tradeable commodity between corps/players.

Empire size balance mechanic
Positive feedback mechanic: SR 'extraction' scales with # districts held.
Negative feedback mechanic: Raid generation rate scales with # districts held.

Alt Corp Balance Mechanic
Positive feedback mechanic: Give logistical & defensive bonuses/tools to single-corp holdings.
Negative feedback mechanic: SR production will be lower for a set of districts split up over alt corps.
Warbarge mechanic: Dunno but Rat says he's got this taken care of already.

Elite Player Corp lobby match power
Positive feedback mechanic: Income generation through destroyed-equipment salvage.
Negative feedback mechanic: Raid windows based on # districts held + SR oversubscription.

That's some of the main systems, just to illustrate the balancing mechanics. Whatever systems the devteam do come up with they should all be fully parametrized and server-side configurable.

Phase 2/3 - Warbarge Flotilla (Corporation Warbarge)
Mobile Factory - generates Warbarge Components // OR // The Flotilla depends solely on donations of Components from Members
Mission Network - Corporate MIssions are available to all Corp Members, with higher rewards // AND // possibly some earned Activity Points that are needed for Flotilla Actions
Clone Vats - generates Clone Packs // MCCs if we change the name of Clone Packs to MCC's // may need Components to claim
[img]Hangar[/img] - upgrade MCCs or more owned

Phase 4 - Warbarge Flotilla (Corporation Warbarge)
Space Elevator - claims unique resource from Districts owned
and more

If you've never played a Total War game, this footage will probably give you a decent idea of how a campaign works, but more importantly what the map looks like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQVodJKAkI0

For dust PC, I would do something similar to this, but "turns" can be done every 24 hours and how much you can do with those turns is dictated by district placement, clone count placement, and most importantly your number of available command points.

Now in Shogun 2, you have clearly defined borders around every province, as well as a town/castle at the center of it. Now replace the concept of a province with a district, and the town/castle with a planetary infrastructure of the corporations choice. Armies move about the map in Shogun 2 as icons of the general or highest ranking officer leading them. In Dust, they would be MCC's loaded with clone detachments.

But as in Total War, provinces/districts could also be upgraded with optional facilities on the side with more other functionality specific to that district. One such optional infrastructure when fully upgraded could make it so that the primary infrastructure has additional friendly large turret installations placed around defensive locations. Perhaps another upgrades the missile installations so that they have increased ranged and anti-air capability, shutting down early game enemy dropship strategies. Perhaps another is simply an increased clone reserve for that district, plain and simple.

Now ideally, I'd like it so fighting multiple battles in a row on a district meant fighting in different locations on that district for each battle. And having optional infrastructure gives us an excuse to do this.

Attacking from the north could have you engaging on one of the optional infrastructures to take out that ones specific advantage prior to the final showdown on the primary infrastructre, but leaving the advantage from the southern infrastructure at full strength. If an attacker is willing to take their time, they could drag out the engagement and hit every one of the optional facilities before taking on the main target in its weakened state.

(it also stands to reason that one of these optional facilities would be a skyfire battery for knocking out enemy eve support, but this demands that somebody on the EVE devteam actually gives a damn sadly)

The thing we've been doing with putting your squads in corp squad finder to build squads is pretty ingenious, but it wouldn't work in most corps because you'd have jackasses jumping in those squads.

We need a team builder UI in a bad way. I think many FCs would probably have paid quite a bit of money for one. How many hours wasted saying, "how many in your squad??"?

OK.

My general disregard for all things PC related is reasonably well documented. D-UNI tried it and by the time I decided to pull us out of it, the egos, histrionics, drama, epeen and exploits damn well near broke me personally and made me dread logging on lest I got dragged into yet another bitchfest of which my caring about was precisely zero. I very nearly quit the game entirely because of it.

PC is played by a minority of the player base, a passionate and vocal minority but minority nevertheless.

Any examination of the mechanics of PC is I feel not going fully service its potential, without addressing the question as to why its not as popular as it should be is kind of silly. Yes potential, I might not be its biggest fan but I know it could be something special if its failings a force multiplier for player participation are addressed and dealt with.

Rattati asked in the OP, 'Please, pass the message forward, and especially if you or your corporation was active in PC, and quit for whatever reason.' (my underlining).

It's vitally important that we use the opportunity that we have now, to find those reasons to quit and see what can be done about them now rather than later.

Was it logistical, time consuming, a failure in UI or explanation? Time pressures, technical problems or just plain odd boring?

Let CCP know.

OK.

My general disregard for all things PC related is reasonably well documented. D-UNI tried it and by the time I decided to pull us out of it, the egos, histrionics, drama, epeen and exploits damn well near broke me personally and made me dread logging on lest I got dragged into yet another bitchfest of which my caring about was precisely zero. I very nearly quit the game entirely because of it.

PC is played by a minority of the player base, a passionate and vocal minority but minority nevertheless.

Any examination of the mechanics of PC is I feel not going fully service its potential, without addressing the question as to why its not as popular as it should be is kind of silly. Yes potential, I might not be its biggest fan but I know it could be something special if its failings a force multiplier for player participation are addressed and dealt with.

Rattati asked in the OP, 'Please, pass the message forward, and especially if you or your corporation was active in PC, and quit for whatever reason.' (my underlining).

It's vitally important that we use the opportunity that we have now, to find those reasons to quit and see what can be done about them now rather than later.

Was it logistical, time consuming, a failure in UI or explanation? Time pressures, technical problems or just plain odd boring?

Let CCP know.

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