|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
13
   |
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Theorycraft with me for a moment. Bear in mind that these ideas are fairly fresh so there's probably going to be a lot of issues with them (hence the point of theorycrafting).
Districts can be set as 'Active' or 'Inactive'.
In an 'Inactive' state they are fundamentally worthless. They do not generate clones, you cannot move them, you pretty much just retain ownership of the district and that's about it.
In an 'Active' state you can use them as normally like you do today.
The key difference here is that in an 'Inactive' state you retain the typical battle mechanics. Battles are announced up to 24/48 hours ahead of time, you have time to prepare, etc. In an 'Active' state, you are given at most an hours notice and the district must stay in an 'Active' state for 12-24 hours.
This forces corporations to engage in risk/reward in order to get the benefits from their districts. They can be attacked in an 'Inactive' state and have notice but will not be able to recover from the losses unless they put the district in an 'Active' state. This, in theory, would significantly reduce the farming capability as you would have to have players online to defend the district in order to farm it since it can't generate/sell clones while 'Inactive'.
Since the 'Inactive' state is functionally worthless, it is impossible to retain for long periods of time as any attacks -WILL- do damage to the clone counts, even if they are miniscule. This forces the defending corporation to set it to 'Active' at some point in order to recover the losses, thus killing district holding for district holding's sake and making it difficult to farm without actively defending.
Still thinking about how to combat the no show mechanics in a feasible way. Might have something come lunch time.
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Grimmiers wrote:I think location actually mattering would help a lot too. Being able to attack anyone anywhere makes it really easy for pc corps to get burnt out when a bunch of different corps can just attack, no show, troll, etc. Not only that, but there's no obvious reason to attack anyone. District services that benefit eve and dust and a marketplace would've added some depth.
After playing eve I thought it would be cool if dust players could fight on planetary interaction colonies too boost production, or steal isk. Planetary interaction is actually ran by drones, so it would be possible reprogram them to benefit you instead of the eve player and that eve player would hire mercs to get rid of the rogue drones. /offtopic
Basically there's little hope for a pc I'm interested in until there's a new game.
Agree'd. Might actually be an interesting solution to no shows, actually, if you could only use a clone pack to attack a district in a system that is bordering a high-sec system. This gives tactical value to systems that are deeper in that are functionally immune to clone packs and allow newer corps to bridge in on the edge systems to gain their foothold.
Thoughts?
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Arirana wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:
Still thinking about how to combat the no show mechanics in a feasible way. Might have something come lunch time.
I think you're on to something with your active state idea. As for a no-show fix, I have a few ideas that have probably been thrown around before. Idea #1 is whenever an attack is sent, instead of it costing isk, the attacker will have to put some ISK up as collateral to concord (approx. 16-32mil ISK). If the warbarge ends and there is no one on the attacker's side, the collateral is immediately forfeited to the defender to compensate for time wasted, and the battle is immediately decided and cuts to EOM(to save time), the collateral being divided up between everyone on the defender's side. If the situation is reversed and the attackers show but the defenders don't, the match is immediately decided and cuts to EOM, but the defenders did not have to put up collateral. Instead concord will directly tax their corp wallet(if its empy then it will tax the players evenly) and give it to the attackers (8-16 mil ISK). The obvious trade off is that the attackers are one step closer to flipping the district. The re-up attack warbarge will be 5 mins long instead of 10 mins to save time as well. What do you think?
I'm mixed. I'd previously stated that I was against collaterals because it wouldn't really solve the problem. Forcing corporations to pay up a sum of ISK isn't going to stop or deter no show fights from the entities that really want to do it. No shows are, fundamentally, a problem because of the 'scheduled fight' system which doesn't really make much sense in the first place but it's what we have.
The thing about collaterals is that it would just add another barrier of entry for newer entities wanting to get into PC, I feel. Outer Heaven, Ancient Exiles, etc aren't going to have any qualms forking over a few million ISK to distract the enemy with weaponized boredom. It then becomes a war of attrition that the poorer, newer corporations that weren't around for PC ISK farming will never be able to win.
Now, if the ISK went to CONCORD and simply vanished, it'd be better off because then no showing becomes a dedicated ISK sink that takes that ISK out of the economy rather than exchanging it. But even still it retains the core issues described.
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arirana wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:
Agree'd. Might actually be an interesting solution to no shows, actually, if you could only use a clone pack to attack a district in a system that is bordering a high-sec system. This gives tactical value to systems that are deeper in that are functionally immune to clone packs and allow newer corps to bridge in on the edge systems to gain their foothold.
Thoughts?
I like this idea, but being a noob to the security mechanic I have a hard time understanding the pattern to the layout of high sec and low sec systems. Are High sec systems all near eachother or are each randomly distributed? I think there would have to be a UI upgrade to the starmap to make this easier to understand for everyone.
Here's a link to Dotlan showing the security status of each system
High Sec = 0.5 - 1.0
Low Sec = 0.1 - 0.4
Null Sec = 0.0
So, Kadlina (0.4), for instance, would be a system vulnerable to Clone Packs because it's connected to Kattegaud (0.7). Whereas Klingt (0.3) would not be because it is a pipe system connected only to Weld (0.3) and Unertek (0.3).
But yes, the star map does need some work to illustrate these things =p
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
Aeon Amadi
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
DDx77 wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Grimmiers wrote:I think location actually mattering would help a lot too. Being able to attack anyone anywhere makes it really easy for pc corps to get burnt out when a bunch of different corps can just attack, no show, troll, etc. Not only that, but there's no obvious reason to attack anyone. District services that benefit eve and dust and a marketplace would've added some depth.
After playing eve I thought it would be cool if dust players could fight on planetary interaction colonies too boost production, or steal isk. Planetary interaction is actually ran by drones, so it would be possible reprogram them to benefit you instead of the eve player and that eve player would hire mercs to get rid of the rogue drones. /offtopic
Basically there's little hope for a pc I'm interested in until there's a new game. Agree'd. Might actually be an interesting solution to no shows, actually, if you could only use a clone pack to attack a district in a system that is bordering a high-sec system. This gives tactical value to systems that are deeper in that are functionally immune to clone packs and allow newer corps to bridge in on the edge systems to gain their foothold. Thoughts?
This is a very good idea. Arirana is also dead on about PC no shows, It is the absolute worst. What about also adding a timer when a colony is put in an "inactive" state? Like an upkeep? So lets say the default timer is 12hrs. If at any point the colony is placed inactive, this timer starts ticking down. If the colony is placed inactive for 2hrs then the remaining timer will be 10hrs for example. If this timer ever reaches zero, the corporation then loses this property. ( Or perhaps incur some type of penalty that withdraws ISK, CP, or DK) And allow a corporation to "refill" this timer by using DK (Hopefully influencing corps to remain active in acquiring DK through fighting)
Sort of counter-intuitive. Would be selling clones just to be able to cover the inactive DK cost. Just being 'Inactive' is enough of a punishment, really. Entities can't generate clones unless it's set to active and it is still vulnerable to attack (and subsequently, loss). So they can't recover from the losses. No real reason to add costs and timers because they can't hold the district indefinitely in an inactive state =p
Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog
Skype: nomistrav
|
|
|
| |
|