DUST Search - Announcement:Changes to Planetary Conquest Reward Mechanics

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Aeon Amadi wrote:

Pokey Dravon wrote:

Aeon Amadi wrote:

Then let's set the math aside.

What functional, logical, immersive, or performance gaining reason do you have for having BPO's in PC? What is their functional purpose other than exploiting a defensive move to freely defend a district you know you are going to lose and forcing the enemy to incur ISK losses by doing so? How is that in any way fair for the attackers who have to deal with it?

Are you saying that scorched earth tactics are an exploit? To that sounds like a war of economy.

To me, it seems incredibly meta to use cheap/free gear in order to dupe the enemy into incurring more losses than they intended. If I know I'm going to lose a battle, I'm going to make damn sure that I make the guy taking my stuff suffer as much as possible. I think that in of itself, New Eden at its finest.

Now don't get me wrong, in the current state of PC with this being the ONLY profitability in a district....it's not a good thing. However pending upcoming changes, I could see it as a valid tactic in winning the ISK war (since innate profitability will be baked into owning a district outside of ISK)

Scorched Earth tactics are burning everything as you fall back to prevent the enemy from using it.

Scorched Earth tactics are -NOT- letting them have it anyway and giving them a run for their money with absolutely no risk on your end.

It'd be cool if it were a choice factor but this is an obvious choice. If I lose the first battle for the district, the second is where I start weighing my options. If I feel it's absolutely necessary to keep the district, I'll fight - otherwise, why bother wasting ISK? It's not a choice, it's a default, and every PC entity -ever- will make that choice; thereby, it's not so much a choice as a "use this tactic always and forever".

It's going to get old -real freaggin quick- and, again, I see absolutely no reason why it should be a thing. The entire point of all of this was to offer good fights, wasn't it? Why sacrifice or risk those good fights by giving a mechanic like this when the simple solution is to simply prevent BPO's and APEX suits from being used in PC?

Every time I brought up BPOs and APEXs, I heard "we don't have an economy for them to affect". Okay, well, we have player trading. We have asset selling. How far back are we going to move this goal post before we start seriously considering the implications that riskless, lossless assets have on the game?

EDIT: Long story short, you're just taking one terrible meta (players giving up early and just letting their enemies have the district) and replacing it with another (fielding BPOs and doing damage with no risk/loss). The only players losing with this new mechanic are the attackers.

Well since the primary profitability within PC in Rattatis new design has absolutely nothing to do with ISK at all, that aspect is non-issue.

I'm not entirely sure what you're worried about. People using cheap gear? Doesn't that simply encourage the opposing side to use cheaper gear as well? What it does is encourage a sense of "use the bare minimum of what is necessary to win" . If one team is using BPOs, then you should use BPOs as well. Don't have a BPO? Use a standard ISK suits.

Worried about losing money that way? You could literally mulch yourself in a PC match, and make all of the money you lost from running standard in a single pub match. The lost profitability from the other team running BPOs is simply not that much compared to them running standard suits and militia modules.

Or are you worried you'll need to use proto gear to beat a team using BPOs? Well then you probably shouldn't be in PC.

So again, under the new system, this simply allows people to use cheap gear to wear the enemy down if they want to. However since ownership of the district will actually provide benefit that isn't tied to ISK, what you end up with is a system where ISK is the means to fight the battle, but if you want to win, you're going to use the best you have because owning the district is valuable to you. So the moral of the story is, don't use more than you have to, but you might want to up it up a notch to secure the win if you want the true profit, which is in district ownership.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
nickmunson Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 79	Posted - 2015.04.15 20:16:00 - [1] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Then let's set the math aside. What functional, logical, immersive, or performance gaining reason do you have for having BPO's in PC? What is their functional purpose other than exploiting a defensive move to freely defend a district you know you are going to lose and forcing the enemy to incur ISK losses by doing so? How is that in any way fair for the attackers who have to deal with it? Are you saying that scorched earth tactics are an exploit? To that sounds like a war of economy. To me, it seems incredibly meta to use cheap/free gear in order to dupe the enemy into incurring more losses than they intended. If I know I'm going to lose a battle, I'm going to make damn sure that I make the guy taking my stuff suffer as much as possible. I think that in of itself, New Eden at its finest. Now don't get me wrong, in the current state of PC with this being the ONLY profitability in a district....it's not a good thing. However pending upcoming changes, I could see it as a valid tactic in winning the ISK war (since innate profitability will be baked into owning a district outside of ISK) Scorched Earth tactics are burning everything as you fall back to prevent the enemy from using it. Scorched Earth tactics are -NOT- letting them have it anyway and giving them a run for their money with absolutely no risk on your end. It'd be cool if it were a choice factor but this is an obvious choice. If I lose the first battle for the district, the second is where I start weighing my options. If I feel it's absolutely necessary to keep the district, I'll fight - otherwise, why bother wasting ISK? It's not a choice, it's a default, and every PC entity -ever- will make that choice; thereby, it's not so much a choice as a "use this tactic always and forever". It's going to get old -real freaggin quick- and, again, I see absolutely no reason why it should be a thing. The entire point of all of this was to offer good fights, wasn't it? Why sacrifice or risk those good fights by giving a mechanic like this when the simple solution is to simply prevent BPO's and APEX suits from being used in PC? Every time I brought up BPOs and APEXs, I heard "we don't have an economy for them to affect". Okay, well, we have player trading. We have asset selling. How far back are we going to move this goal post before we start seriously considering the implications that riskless, lossless assets have on the game? EDIT: Long story short, you're just taking one terrible meta (players giving up early and just letting their enemies have the district) and replacing it with another (fielding BPOs and doing damage with no risk/loss). The only players losing with this new mechanic are the attackers. Well since the primary profitability within PC in Rattatis new design has absolutely nothing to do with ISK at all, that aspect is non-issue. I'm not entirely sure what you're worried about. People using cheap gear? Doesn't that simply encourage the opposing side to use cheaper gear as well? What it does is encourage a sense of "use the bare minimum of what is necessary to win" . If one team is using BPOs, then you should use BPOs as well. Don't have a BPO? Use a standard ISK suits. Worried about losing money that way? You could literally mulch yourself in a PC match, and make all of the money you lost from running standard in a single pub match. The lost profitability from the other team running BPOs is simply not that much compared to them running standard suits and militia modules. Or are you worried you'll need to use proto gear to beat a team using BPOs? Well then you probably shouldn't be in PC. So again, under the new system, this simply allows people to use cheap gear to wear the enemy down if they want to. However since ownership of the district will actually provide benefit that isn't tied to ISK, what you end up with is a system where ISK is the means to fight the battle, but if you want to win, you're going to use the best you have because owning the district is valuable to you. So the moral of the story is, don't use more than you have to, but you might want to up it up a notch to secure the win if you want the true profit, which is in district ownership. you are taking out roles that ccp intended to be played in every game, there is no such thing as a cheap logi suit that would be viable, bpo links why? 15 seconds can not be used tactically . tanks forget about it, so there for av role is gone. theres 3 roles automatically thrown out of pc. its pretty much the same now as an ambush game mode just with an objective. love me or hate me. you kill me i hunt you.
nickmunson Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 90	Posted - 2015.04.17 00:15:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Frame wrote: Dear players, Last night we changed PC reward mechanics from Biomass to GÇ£Keep what you KillGÇ¥, on a team basis. CCP has been aware of an exploit involving alt-farming ISK through the Biomass No-Show method for some time now until we could gauge the situation. After lengthy discussions with the majority of District holders, we have decided to switch the reward mechanics to a new method, which has been previously discussed in the Features and Ideas Forums. This means that Team A will earn Team BGÇÖs ISK losses, split equally among Team A members, and vice versa. This means that District battles are no longer GÇ£winner takes allGÇ¥, making it viable to stick it out, switching to more cost effective gear and causing enough losses on the enemy to break even. As the exploit was the only viable way of creating wealth in PC, we hope this change will influence a bigger shakeup in PC tactics. We may reduce the cost of Clone Packs to initiate a Raiding aspect, where Corporations decide to try to make money by minimizing their losses and inflicting more than their own cost plus the Clone Pack. We are also preparing changes to Planetary Conquest, introducing Command Points and Earned District Income (not passive) which allows us to say GÇ£while Districts are not economically valuable now, they will beGÇ¥. This has also been extensively discussed in the forums. Some corporations may decide to stop investing in PC, some will change their tactics, and we predict that some will continue exactly as they have been, and collect as many districts as possible before the changes. A change is coming, and we hope it will be worth it. can you open it up to more regions besides molden heathe cause after living there MOLDEN HEATHE is extremely isolated and not relevant to the eve community, as well as one alliance and a coalition has managed to push out ALL dust alliances and corps, and pretty much farm the moons and do pirate things . you light up a district the spy network goes up and you will probably get killed. so your whole eve bonus is completely worthless since there is no eve alliance living there or capable of contending with who live there. love me or hate me. you kill me i hunt you.