|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
   |
Posted - 2015.08.02 14:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Eh, except a mechanic that only has the effect of "wasting time" is bad design really. This is an FPS game built around instances of matches. If a defender no shows they loose their district. If an attacker no shows? No consequence really at all except for wasted CP.
Mechanics should encourage players to actually fight and generate content. Defenders no showing and forcing an attacker to take three days to flip a district used to be the "boredom" punishment back in PC 1.0 and it was rightly fixed with the reup mechanic.
You no show a defense? You loose your district. There should be a similar incentive for an attacker to at least deploy a minimal amount of forces to a PC match.
If a corp completely no shows the CP wallet should be frozen for a period of X days (no CP in and no ability to spend CP) or a CP penalty to the wallet equivalent to the CP cost of the attack launched or a set amount that gives pause to leaving a battle completely empty.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Devadander wrote:Omg the tear collection factor in this thread is impossible to gauge!
My HAV are fueled for the next millennium.
Honestly. All I see is "why are so tuff to hold 20 districts? Stahp making us du theengs. QQ QQ NOT FAIR"
lol you talk about people with districts having to do things but the No-showing corp has to do nothing the hypocrosy is real.
I mean if the community really thinks that no shows should be legit tactics I guess we just go all the way and eliminate the ability to reup on attacks with more than 100 clones. Make the defenders and attackers on equal footing about who is going to play dodge 514. 
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Since some of you believe this is working as intended I will tell you why it is flawed since the first step to solving a problem is identifying it. The whole idea of PC is huge risk huge reward, so why is their a no risk huge reward aspect put into the game.
No showing requires:
no isk
no players
no planning
no financial reprecussions
and since the no-showing corp has no districts their is no risk of retaliation
Reward:
Potential timer stack
Wearing down your opponent
Preventing clones from being moved which prevents
reinforcing weak districts and
launching attacks
if a corp wins a battle but has insufficient clones for an immediate re-up and their district to launch the re-up is tied up w/ a no-show they must either start over letting them regen essentially voiding a battle or lose 30mil by throwing a clone pack at it.
the no-show may prevent the sale of clones at a more tactical time
I think the present Risk vs Reward sums up the issues quite well. The attacker literally has nothing at risk while the stakes for the defender are huge both in tangibles (the district) and intangibles (time).
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Aeon, I'm not against the ability to no show. I'm against it having no cost or consequence.
And this isn't an issue of more land than can be defended. This issue is cropping up for those with low district counts and high district counts alike. The point of CP attacks was to create low barriers to entry for organizations wanting to own land for themselves.
It's intended to be used by organizations wanting to show up, fight, and break into planetary conquest. Not for throw away matches that create server cost for no good reason.
hails8n wrote:
If there's no determined amount of times you can no show, corps can do it forever. It can be a tactic, but corps dont really have to follow up with a real attack if they don't want to. I'm against the idea completely, because this is an fps, if theres nothing to shoot at, what's the point? I mean theres no pve in those matches.
This really sums it up well.
Really though it's not hard to put people into a match for even throw away attacks. Set up a single player with a platoon and have them pull people in from wherever. Jadek had numerous raids against NF and they actually have folks show up even if it isn't a full team. What I'm getting at is that a feint is fine but sending not even one person into a match after launching an attack should have consequences.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Again, Alakia, no shows have always been seen as a bad thing in Planetary Conquest. I specifically pushed for the re-up mechanic to address it from the attacker's side. Now we are seeing it become an issue on the defender side, so it's time to address it.
Again, if you were willing to no show a match after throwing 30-80m ISK down the drain then that's a consequence and a sacrifice that's made by the attacker. Free CP attacks are important for getting people into PC, but again there should be consequences for that no show especially for corps "generating so much CP they don't know what to do with it" as some have stated.
Planetary Conquest has always been about fine balancing the risk vs rewards and in this instance it's out of balance.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 22:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Karras Hearn wrote:There shouldn't be a punishment for a valid tactic. Increase the cost of launching an attack, but don't punish anyone for no showing, thats not how new eden works
The if its a valid tactic should we go back to the days where a district holder could no show for two days and then show up for the third day?
There is a reason that this specific behavior has been addressed in the past that you seem to have trouble connecting with or realizing.
Hell, one of the major reason that PC was set up in the first place was because Corp battles were turning into dodge 514 where someone would see an opponent they feel that couldn't complete with and would just no show that match.
The design intent has been and will always be to get player to fight against each other as this is an FPS and to balance out instances where fighting doesn't actually occur (elimination of district locking and passive ISK) has been balanced out where possible. That's the other side of the coin here as well with corporations selling off corps full of CP. We could easily see this all turn into mass district locking to cover districts from attack while landholders grow clones and then sell after the no shows.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 23:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Karras Hearn wrote:
I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for no-showing, I'm saying that those consequences should be in the form of the cost of attacking not by punishing them after the fact. Because punishing after the fact won't stop it from happening and those who are determined to do it will find ways around it. Punishing after the fact will also unfairly punish those who are being paid to no show by rivals of the defending corp, which is also a valid tactic (I don't know if it is actually happening, but it could and is a valid tactic)
I'm glad we agree here.
The problem with an increased cost for CP attacks is that it could negatively impact the barrier to entry for corps trying to get into PC. Sure an ISK cost could be added to attacks even when you don't hold land, but I think that unfairly hits players trying to enter into PC. The specific act of no showing should be targeted to prevent impacting the barrier to entry. Thus a CP cost for no showing etc.
At the bare minimum whether a defender or attack no shows there needs be a mechanic in place where the match auto completes giving victory to the team that bothered to put bodies in the match. Again, it's terribly easy to put people into a match (heck you can even start a pub squad) and avoid no show penalties while keeping the ability to feint and various other forms of emergent game play.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
Kain Spero
Negative-Feedback
5
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 04:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Kain Spero wrote:Karras Hearn wrote:
I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for no-showing, I'm saying that those consequences should be in the form of the cost of attacking not by punishing them after the fact. Because punishing after the fact won't stop it from happening and those who are determined to do it will find ways around it. Punishing after the fact will also unfairly punish those who are being paid to no show by rivals of the defending corp, which is also a valid tactic (I don't know if it is actually happening, but it could and is a valid tactic)
I'm glad we agree here. The problem with an increased cost for CP attacks is that it could negatively impact the barrier to entry for corps trying to get into PC. Sure an ISK cost could be added to attacks even when you don't hold land, but I think that unfairly hits players trying to enter into PC. The specific act of no showing should be targeted to prevent impacting the barrier to entry. Thus a CP cost for no showing etc. At the bare minimum whether a defender or attack no shows there needs be a mechanic in place where the match auto completes giving victory to the team that bothered to put bodies in the match. Again, it's terribly easy to put people into a match (heck you can even start a pub squad) and avoid no show penalties while keeping the ability to feint and various other forms of emergent game play. Maybe. A begrudging maybe. Depends on what sort of numbers you're thinking of.
Really starting with finishing off the battle if no one shows up would be a good start.
The CP penalty I think would need to at least 7500 CP (equivalent of moving/selling 150 clones), but I'm not sure if that would be of enough consequence to matter. Again, we'd be trying to recreate the pause given to folks that were throwing out clone packs at 30 to 80 million ISK a pop. A freeze on the CP wallet has also been suggested as well, but I'm not sure how much I like that idea. Something like the CP wallet being locked out for X days (no CP in or out).
As someone said earlier though if people want to engage in something more meaningful than "weaponized boredom" we need raiding mechanics that can allow fights to occur in PC in less that 24 hours potentially with 8v8, 12v12, 16v16 set ups.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
|
|
| |
|