|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
52
   |
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just to cover some of the most likely responses:
> Rattati already asked for feedback in a separate thread
> Rattati already decided on everything for PC 2.0
We specifically asked Rat Boy about whether he'd be interested in this, prior to him announcing his PC discussion thread - it just took a while to get everyone back from Easter vacations etc.
> There's nothing new in your proposal
We disagree, but more to that point, this is a collection of ideas from multiple sources meant to work either separately or in unison.
> You think you're fancy, because you can use Word?!?
This was done in Google Doc, and there's nothing wrong with trying to make your suggestions presentable
> You should have gone via the CPM, they are all-knowing and smart and stuff, and elected to be the gatekeepers of CCP
Shut up Wormtongue.
> There's no simulations or hard math in your proposal!
This is meant to be a 1st-round write up, as part of an iterative process based on feedback
> There's barely 100 good players in DUST worthy of PC, the rest are bad and should feel bad!
We feel sorry for you and your family, and hope the new medication works.
> None of this is feasible on the PS3
As a developer myself, I think I can safely say that most if not all of it is feasible, notable exception being the 24v24 battles on XL districts.
> Why are you supporting the use of Ringers? You should work to remove Ringers!
No, ringers are an integral part of PC - this proposal should make ringers worth MORE, but only to be used in critical attacks. |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 07:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Avallo Kantor wrote: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.
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.
@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.
@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...
@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. |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 11:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
@1 - Spy Satellites / Gating Mechanisms:
Increased production batches shouldn't go above 2 or 3 at least, since a large concurrent build capacity would negate the notion of it being a Gate to pass collectively
I understand that players hate "punishing" mechanisms, even where they simply are random and fully fair; My personal opinion is "Grow A Pair", but I know this is not really a solution. If the loss-rate is 100%, at least corps will need to have a way to replenish quickly, and costs would have to be manageable.
Would it make sense if the gating-mechanism be the MCC? ..or should that be kept as something to potentially be built in EVE?
The "Flotilla" could control the max total units, consisting of Available # + Deployed # + InProduction #.
@2 - Standing:
I understand that it is simply an integer, but with 100.000 players, that's (100.000)^2 (10 billion) potential relations  - This then gets worse when that list has to be hit every time a player looks for matches he/she is eligible for, or hitting the related CREST interface. As a former DB model designer, that scares me a bit... (yes, client-side caching...)
It is also the UI side, setting, deleting, tracking all relative standings for a player, that I think would end up being unwieldy.
So, I think I'd strongly recommend limiting this to inter-corp relations.
When you say it is 1-5, which value is default? 3?
Avallo Kantor wrote: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.
Seems to me that this should be easy enough cover, as long as DUST corps get CRUD access.
@3 - Ringers
'k, it would be a "Flotilla" parameter, and unrelated to the gating-mechanism.
@4 - Increasing attack-delay relative to district size
Avallo Kantor wrote: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.
A core part of the proposal is definitely that corporations would be insane to try and cover every assault with their A-team; this is why they need to be able to increase the scope of participation to non-corp members via open contracts.
If 4-hours is insufficient (likely), the minimal time could be something like 6 or 8 hours. The current wait is ~25-47 hours, so a wait of e.g. 8-18 hours will still work well to allow a significant increase in activity.
Avallo Kantor wrote: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.
Would you be willing to do a write-up of this for the Proposal v1.1? I can create a copy of our working-doc, and give you access to it - simply send me an email on gtorq [at] thang.dk, and notify me here.
I'm also contemplating adding Standing to the v1.1 doc
Avallo Kantor wrote:As a note, I do like the majority of the proposal, and I'm happy you are seeking feedback.
Cheers 
Now, go kick some CCP minions, telling them to read it as well! |
G Clone
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 09:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
*bumb* in the hope of more feedback... |
|
|
| |
|