Avallo Kantor
617
   |
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Some feedback:
Overall I find a lot of the ideas within interesting, but I feel quite a bit of it is setting up new systems where old / current systems can be expanded into the functionality instead.
1) Spy Satellites:
This could instead be a Corporate Warbarge / Flotilla module that produces MCCs. The same mechanics still apply:
-Cost money
-Require Build Time
-Can be destroyed on failed attack (perhaps up it to 100% chance on loss?)
-Carrying cap.
Instead of having it be it's own mechanic, it could just be rolled into the Corp Flotilla. Modules can be added either to build and store, or having separate ones for each. Upgrading the levels can provide faster build times, and larger capacity.
This way, you utilize already existing mechanics and ideas (MCCs, Warbarges, Warbarge modules) to implement this idea.
2) Out of Corp contracts:
In EVE there is a system of standings that players can set other players to (High (blue) -> neutral (grey) -> Bad (red) with a few in-between) Corps can also dictate mass standing settings for other corps, and players that all members can see.
So then, if this system is implemented in DUST, it could be used to allow you to set limits on what sort of outside (not in corp) help you are willing to accept. (For example, only accepting high ranking players, or only accepting not red players )
3) Ringers:
Have a Corp Flotilla module that affects maximum Ringer Contracts you can hold at a time increasing per module level.
|
Avallo Kantor
620
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 13:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
G Clone wrote:
See, this is why we're doing this: Feedback and collaboration :)
@1 - Spy Satellites:
This is simply meant to be any gating-mechanism - doesn't have to be spy-sats, could be warbarges or anything else. We wrote some of this before CCP Rattati really started to discuss the new-and-improved P.C., so we just needed an example :)
Note: chance of destruction on a loss must be less than 100%, since otherwise we put too much strain in the process, and wont get the number of attacks we're looking for.
Maybe allow for larger batches? (2 per production cycle)
Also, interesting thought with the 100% "loss" rate: If win is by clones ,then defending District can Steal the derelict MCC. This allows Defenders to potentially gain the ability to counter attack on a failed assault in a natural way. Also loss of Warbarge indicates a cost that prevents attackers from being mindless spammers. (Note Raiding could be the mode that only has a % chance of losing Warbarge on defeat, allowing for plentiful raids)
That said, I can certainly see why you would want to keep up a certain ability to press attacks, and why you would want a non-100% chance loss rate. My main issue comes from the idea that I generally feel RNG can make planning battles ahead of time be tricky. Also players generally find RNG loss mechanics to be unfair, even if mechanically speaking they are not.
G Clone wrote:
@2 - Standing:
Could be very interesting, though the console limits what UI/UX paths can be taken - perhaps limit it to inter-corp standing, and not inter-player? Might also be another "link" between EVE and DUST, by having inter-corp standing be the same in both games? Then naturally both games need CRUD access to this.
Will try to reach out to Grit Breather and Bamm Havoc on this, since they know EVE better than I.
Speaking technically, the standing is just a single integer value assigned to a player via another player that only they are aware of, or in the case of a corp only they are aware of (programmatically speaking) There are 5 levels (color coded) and could be set via a simple modal selection screen upon the options menu for interacting with a player or corp. Then you just need to use the database already in place for standings, and create an endpoint for DUST entities to view said list.
Case in point, EVE members of a corporation (with correct permissions) can already assign standings to other entities for that corporation, it is simply a matter that DUST players have no way of viewing it. Technically speaking it should not be overly difficult to add, and would allow a bit more interconnection between DUST and EVE.
G Clone wrote:
@3 - Ringers
Limiting formal contracts could be interesting, and using Corp Flotilla might work. In #1, you're suggesting that the gating-mechanism be related to Warbarges and the Flotilla, so I have to wonder if loss of a Warbarge could impact this? I.e., you lost a match, the warbarge (or whatever) is destroyed, and you're no longer having the capacity for all your contracts...
Perhaps I was a bit unclear, but the idea is that the Corp Warbarge / Flotilla is basically a corp version of the Warbarge now. (only larger and with different abilities)
What is sent to PC matches is the MCC (the thing in the sky) and those are what are destroyed upon attacks. Currently there is no planned way to destroy the corp Warbarge, and thus I did not include it in my plan. So losing battles would not have you lose your capacity for this list.
G Clone wrote:
@4 - Increasing attack-delay relative to district size
I think I can follow where you're going with this, but it means larger districts becomes easier to defend, not harder. The basis is, bigger districts are desirable due to (A) more resources = more rewards and (B) bigger/funner battles = more rewarding gameplay. in return, these have to be harder to defend and more risky to own, to have a risk-reward scenario.
A fair point, I was just thinking more of the RL concerns and logistics of it. A potential 4-hour time window is too quick to get a large number of players together to defend a district, or perhaps any. The goal with any PC organization is, in my opinion, to avoid it needing to be a second job. Corporations should not be forced to defend it at all hours, or have to constantly come into conflict with sleep / work.
If you are interested in making them more vulnerable, might I suggest a popular proposal to Sov changes to EVE online? To be short: A district has an attack window, and this window is decreased based on activity.
So for example: Normal District has huge 8 hour window (+/- 4 hour of set time) while highest activity district may only be vulnerable 1 - 2 hours.
So with DUST, just have that be based on District size, where Larger districts would be "vulnerable" for longer periods of time. So for example, say a Corps "prime time" is 8 pm, then for a Extra Large District, an attack could occur between 4 and 12. Meanwhile for a Tiny District, an attack could happen between 7 and 9.
As a note, I do like the majority of the proposal, and I'm happy you are seeking feedback. |