Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Terry Webber
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
672
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 23:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
As most of you guys know, CCP will add a new game mode called Acquisition to DUST 514 very soon. Eventually, Warlords 1.2 will hopefully add planetary raiding. I just recently thought that CCP can make planetary raiding work by using this game mode. When a point is captured, it would transfer ISK and mined resources from the defending corporation to the attackers. The attackers can keep this up until they run out of clones or decide to leave when they get a certain amount. The defenders have to make sure these points stay out of the attacker's hands until the attackers are eliminated or retreat.
In addition to stealing money, they could also steal other things like the defender's clones, weapons, vehicles, etc. More detail on this can be found in this thread here. |
Terry Webber
Molon Labe.
674
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 16:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Any thoughts on this? Or at least a like? |
Lady MDK
Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 18:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
At first this seemed like a nice idea however... as i understand it the point appear randomly. It wouldnt make much sence to me if I had to steal random things to get to the actual thing i wanted.
A skirmish would make more sense in my opinion...
Each of the points belongs to the owning faction and rather than being a null cannon is a part of the facility they are positioned within (so all the points are within a city for example). each point would represent things like different storage within the facility so clones, resources, weapons etc. Hacking one of these would cause a number of units to be stolen from the district as time went by with the enemy trying to take back the point (if they are able to respond to the raid in the first place - my vision could have you stealing things unopposed if the enemy cannot/wont respond to your raid of course if someone does come to try and stop you while you are stealing the goods a good fight ensues).
Of course a raid could be a combination of things.
The initial part of the raid might be taking down the facilities defenses temporarily which might involve hack a Dom style point to lower the bases shields then onto the stealing part (kinda like skirmish 1.0 - Dom objective once hacked to disable the bases shields and disarm its canons becomes the skirmish objectives to steal things??). Of course the alert would go out to the enemy once the initial Dom was hacked to get them to squad up and try to repel your attack)
Or the initial hack to drop the defenses could be the acquisition part... you must hack different points outside the base to lower defenses - one for shields, one for disabling turrets/null cannons etc.
This would in effect bring back a skirmish 1.0 feel to the raids where the attackers must actually infiltrate the enemy base before going in a picking something to steal and if the enemy is awake you can get a fight as well.
Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following.
I don't care so neither should you :)
|
Terry Webber
Molon Labe. RUST415
681
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 04:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lady MDK wrote:At first this seemed like a nice idea however... as i understand it the point appear randomly. It wouldnt make much sence to me if I had to steal random things to get to the actual thing i wanted.
A skirmish would make more sense in my opinion...
Each of the points belongs to the owning faction and rather than being a null cannon is a part of the facility they are positioned within (so all the points are within a city for example). each point would represent things like different storage within the facility so clones, resources, weapons etc. Hacking one of these would cause a number of units to be stolen from the district as time went by with the enemy trying to take back the point (if they are able to respond to the raid in the first place - my vision could have you stealing things unopposed if the enemy cannot/wont respond to your raid of course if someone does come to try and stop you while you are stealing the goods a good fight ensues).
Of course a raid could be a combination of things.
The initial part of the raid might be taking down the facilities defenses temporarily which might involve hack a Dom style point to lower the bases shields then onto the stealing part (kinda like skirmish 1.0 - Dom objective once hacked to disable the bases shields and disarm its canons becomes the skirmish objectives to steal things??). Of course the alert would go out to the enemy once the initial Dom was hacked to get them to squad up and try to repel your attack)
Or the initial hack to drop the defenses could be the acquisition part... you must hack different points outside the base to lower defenses - one for shields, one for disabling turrets/null cannons etc.
This would in effect bring back a skirmish 1.0 feel to the raids where the attackers must actually infiltrate the enemy base before going in a picking something to steal and if the enemy is awake you can get a fight as well.
Interesting thoughts. I'll write a link to your post in my original post.
|
CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation
560
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 05:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
As an advocate of the idea that Planetary Conquest should be the deep-risk/most satisfying-rewards match that many players would want to graduate to,GǪ and also as a believer that PC battles should not be TOO complicated in mission that only elite proto players feel comfy enteringGǪ. I'd like to suggest a simplified version of Lady MDK's idea:
Let PC remain a "Skirmish" battle, with main (or Letter) Objectives spread out over a vast terrain map. Where a Letter exists in a simple socket (railhead yard, Extractor head, launchpad) a simple Null Cannon panel is all we need to hack. Where a "Letter" would normally exist in a city complex (Command Center Buidling, communications building, MCC construction dock) we could have an "Acquisition" battle where your force must quickly move to hack and hold changing panels.
This would make a team have to decide whether to assault the Acquisition-style portion of the map first, or try to whittle down the opposing team's clone reserves during the easier Letter/Skirm battles and avoid the city-complex sockets until near the end of the match.
In effect, a regular Skirmish battle throughout the District, with a little "Acquisition" face-off only in one dense city socket of the map.
Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne...
No story can have life without writers and publishers.
|
Terry Webber
Molon Labe. RUST415
682
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 05:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
CELESTA AUNGM wrote: As an advocate of the idea that Planetary Conquest should be the deep-risk/most satisfying-rewards match that many players would want to graduate to,GǪ and also as a believer that PC battles should not be TOO complicated in mission that only elite proto players feel comfy enteringGǪ. I'd like to suggest a simplified version of Lady MDK's idea: Let PC remain a "Skirmish" battle, with main (or Letter) Objectives spread out over a vast terrain map. Where a Letter exists in a simple socket (railhead yard, Extractor head, launchpad) a simple Null Cannon panel is all we need to hack. Where a "Letter" would normally exist in a city complex (Command Center Buidling, communications building, MCC construction dock) we could have an "Acquisition" battle where your force must quickly move to hack and hold changing panels. This would make a team have to decide whether to assault the Acquisition-style portion of the map first, or try to whittle down the opposing team's clone reserves during the easier Letter/Skirm battles and avoid the city-complex sockets until near the end of the match. In effect, a regular Skirmish battle throughout the District, with a little "Acquisition" face-off only in one dense city socket of the map. Cool. I'll post this to my OP instead. |
Terry Webber
Molon Labe. RUST415
687
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 23:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Any other thoughts on the subject? |
Terry Webber
Molon Labe. RUST415
726
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Updated first post. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |