DUST Search - Faction Warfare/Corp Battle Flow and Implementation (Roles for Jet-Type Aircraft)

Beren Hurin wrote:

Just put this in IRC, but thought I'd put it here too. This combined with a mechanic like current sovereignty mechanics in Eve.

To capture a district you must:

1: fight an ambush to reinforce the defense relay down to 50% armor. While active it prevents hostile MCCs from entering the atmosphere above the district. Reinforced nodes then go into a timer of the defender's choosing so the next battle is up to them.

2: when the reinforcement ends, an OMS ambush then takes place around the node until it is hacked, destroyed, or armor is healed to 100%.

3: If the OMS defense battle fails and the node falls all available battles ones in the districts become vulnerable to skirmish attacks subject to the attacker's choosing.

4: Districts maintain command nodes which are MCC sized installations that represent a defender's MCC. Attacking null cannons degrade the defender's command node rather than having an MCC. Attackers win if the majority of zones in a district are taken. Ties go to the defender.

5: After 30 mins of the defense relay being destroyed, or a successful skirmish defense, the defender can launch another OMS Ambush to rebuild another defense relay. If successful the defenders can then recharge their district's relay preventing any more MCCs from entering their atmosphere. To continue the attack, the attacker returns to step 1.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.17 23:06:00 - [1] - Quote Beren Hurin wrote: Just put this in IRC, but thought I'd put it here too. This combined with a mechanic like current sovereignty mechanics in Eve. To capture a district you must: 1: fight an ambush to reinforce the defense relay down to 50% armor. While active it prevents hostile MCCs from entering the atmosphere above the district. Reinforced nodes then go into a timer of the defender's choosing so the next battle is up to them. 2: when the reinforcement ends, an OMS ambush then takes place around the node until it is hacked, destroyed, or armor is healed to 100%. 3: If the OMS defense battle fails and the node falls all available battles ones in the districts become vulnerable to skirmish attacks subject to the attacker's choosing. 4: Districts maintain command nodes which are MCC sized installations that represent a defender's MCC. Attacking null cannons degrade the defender's command node rather than having an MCC. Attackers win if the majority of zones in a district are taken. Ties go to the defender. 5: After 30 mins of the defense relay being destroyed, or a successful skirmish defense, the defender can launch another OMS Ambush to rebuild another defense relay. If successful the defenders can then recharge their district's relay preventing any more MCCs from entering their atmosphere. To continue the attack, the attacker returns to step 1. I both like, and dislike, this proposal. I like it because it outlines a very clear list of objectives that must be obtained in order to gain control of a district/planet, or defend against an incoming attack depending on which side you are on. But that's also why I don't like it. It's too orderly, too polite. It seems to suggest that Corps would set aside a time to battle over districts/planets. Corp A: We'd like to launch a surpise attack against you. How does Tuesday at 7 sound? Corp B: Well it's difficult to get enough players at 7, how about 8:30? Corp A 8:30 it is! Look forward to destroying then. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But it would seem to fit better in the New Eden 'verse if Corp B didn't know that their planets were being attacked until an emergency signal (say in the form of a notification to the CEO) was sent out AFTER Corp A had started their initial attack. This offers up the possibility of covert operations/black ops missions, as well as PVE turned PVP battles. PVE because the areas under attack might start out only being defended by NPC personnel or Drones, and PVP because as soon as the message went out, Corp B Mercs could start spawning in to defend the area. Like I said, I do like the proposal, but I feel that Game Modes should only be used as a stop gap. Game TOOLS are a better way to go, in the long run. Give us, as players, enough tools and the space to use them in, and WE will create the ways to achieve our goals.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.17 23:56:00 - [2] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: You'll find that most of us agree on this standpoint of FW Battles being more like gentlemanly duels than an actual war. I like the idea of one of these matches being underway, and then the other side recieves a warning, just like you said. However, having a slight delay before you can actually start fighting after you put boots on the ground is a lot like a small-scale version of the reinforcement timers on structures in EVE. It gives the enemy enough time with that District in their Corp Battle tab to start scrambling to put a defense together, so that you have a better chance of getting a good fight, while still allowing the element of surprise to somewhat be a factor. Some people might not want a good fight, they might just want to take territory as easily as possible. But I do see your point. I just get a liitle confused when people start asking for things that would seem to make Dust like MAG or Battlefield (arguably the only two console shooters even remotely like Dust to begin with), when this game offers so much more in potential. Not to make it seem like I'm hijacking your thread, I'll take your OP as an example. A positive one, by the way. Your proposal of keeping fighter craft in there own "sky box" is a good one, as it it would (hopefully) not only allow more players on the map, but also because it opens up the possibilty of making the maps less like Battlefield and more like Farcry, or the original Crysis. Having maps that size, regardless of the amount of players on the ground (as that number will steadily increase as technology allows) would allow for the feeling of a real battle. The infamous redline could be delegated to the edge of the District as a whole, and would allow Commanders to choose their infiltration points, and defenders to choose which areas they want to defend the most. Battles would then have a roving "frontline" as each side gained and lost territory, without having an artificial "redline" defining where you should be fighting. It allows for flanking manuevers and setting up ambushes. It allows for having an active battlefield strategy as well as the more fluid small unit tactics needed to win an egagement. Now I'm not saying that this should be implented right away. Obviously there are balance issues still to be worked out to get the core mechanics working as they should. And maybe my ideas are too ambitious to actually pull off. But I like this game, I like the potential, and I will always advocate for ideas that push it farther from the standard COD, MAG, Battlefield FPS games and more into a realm unto itself.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.18 01:59:00 - [3] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Have you ever played Frontlines: Fuel of War? Your concept sounds like what made that game hang around long after many newer titles had come out. Like BF2142, the PC version is still pretty active today. I love that idea, as it would mean that even when you go back to the same District, you may get a completely new fight, and gives the opportunity to have a real conflict over the District instead of just having a series of battles and then it's over. I haven't played Frontlines, but if it uses those concepts I might have to check it out. And yes, exactly. Same District, new battles. CCP doesn't have to come up with game modes and set standards for us play/meet. All they need to do is give us the tools, and the space. EVE is a perfect example, and since this is set in the same universe, it would make sense that it should be emulated. There are players who do nothing but mine, and players who do nothing but trade. The economy is player controlled, and greifers and shenanigans abound. All made possible by a company smart enough to give players a lot tools, and a wide open universe to use them in, and allow the players themselves to decide how best to utilize them. Now the concept obviously has some balance issues. Beren Hurin is right; allowing someone to take territory away from players without them knowing about it at all would be foolish. And there would have to be a period of time where a conquered, or successfully defended territory couldn't be attacked again. Not only to give players a chance to buff their defenses, and reap the benefits of having taken said territory, but also to give that feeling that they have accomplished something (or lost something). Otherwise you get a Planetside 2 issue, where you're constantly fighting over the same piece of ground that neither side is able to benefit from. Rendering the whole concept of planetary conquest useless.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.18 02:34:00 - [4] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: I like B more than A, and I only dislike A because I don't think it should be unique to fighters. I think vehicles should be able to pass between combat zones, as well as the person in the commander role being able to manage squads and flag them for multiple/different zones so they can move around to reinforce areas. If one of your teams is getting crushed somewhere, send another squad from a place you're easily winning - have a dropship or LAV/future-APC come pick them up and ferry them across the district to the appropriate place and help out the losing team. Assuming multiple battles are going on simultaneously anyway, and not a linear progression for one team to go through. The only reason I didn't suggest that myself is that I can't think of a way to balance what you put forward with the need to handle instancing and session changes. I liked the idea of Jets and MCCs being able to move around freely as a way to keep manageable player counts for network load, while still allowing the player to feel like they're part of a large battle. Giving fighters the ability fly over an entire District in their own "sky box" is the only way that I can think of to give them enough room to manuever. Think of Ace Combat for this idea more than anything else. I agree with Tiel Syysch, and I would also like to see that eventually, but Mobius is right. For right now we have to simulate that feel of large scale warfare until technology allows for something more.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.18 03:56:00 - [5] - Quote I like where this is going so far, but I would make two alterations. 1) I would only allow unlimited clones to the defender if they had to pay for each cloned killed. The attacking Corp would already have that cost factored in and would have payed for the clones ahead of time. It goes with the Risk Versus Reward mantra of the game as it may prove to be too costly to continue to defend the District/territory. 2) I don't think that FW battles should end with the destruction of the MCC. It should severely cripple a team that loses it, but the choice to continue to fight, or to retreat, should always be in the hands of the players.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.18 04:20:00 - [6] - Quote The first point was because I read somewhere on these forums that Corps will have to pay for the clones they take into battle, at least for FW stuff. If that's true, then the attacking Corp would have decided how many clones they wanted to commit to the battle. This would be in addition to the payout Corps would give participating Mercs. The defender, on the other hand, has not commited ANY ISK to this fight, and might not even know that they're under attack until after the fight starts. So they are given "Home Field Advantage", if you will, by allowing them to have an unlimited number of clones at their disposal. But to make it balanced, they would then have to pay for each clone reinforcement that enters the fight. Commanders then, could have a running tally of ISK lost/used for clone reinforcements that they would then use to determine if it is worth continuing the battle or calling for a full retreat.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.18 04:31:00 - [7] - Quote Skihids wrote: I like the idea of surprise attacks, but they have to simulate having a garrison in the district. It's not like the place will be completely abandoned between battles after all. A timer after a declaration of attack would allow the defending team "deploy" the garrison force. I imagine that there would also be some warning that a hostile war barge was entering your area. Well, Mobius and Beren had mentioned something about a reinforcement timer. I'm vaguely familiar with that, but I don't play EVE so my knowledge base is second hand at best. But, if I understand the concept correctly, you could have a surprise attack on one section of a District that would allow the attacking Corp to gain a foot hold/base of operations on the planet/District, that would trigger an alarm. The timer starts to count down, and the defending team has 24 hours (?) to mount a defense. After that, you would get the "roving front line" battle that Mobius suggests. The difference between this and a standard Skirish 1.0 type fight is that the attcking commander could choose where in the district he wanted to start his infiltration. It could be in the middle or on the edge, wherever he felt he had the best strategic advantage. The enemy doesn't always attack where you want him to, and often pops up when you least expect him to. Once again, this idea puts more control into the hands of the players, instead of the AI. EDIT: As for the warnings of hostile warbarges in the area, I agree with you. I also think that it opens up some interesting ideas involving Recon Missions, and Covert/Black Ops Missions as well.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.19 18:49:00 - [8] - Quote I like the way this is coming together, but I still have a few reservations. It's the damn redzone that's the problem for me. It still makes the situation a little too polite, and doesn't allow for teams to take advantage of momentum and push forward while the enemy is still disorganized. I propose this as an alternate solution for the "hard redzone" this idea currently has: The Yellow Zone (Actual color open for debate) As I said previously, the redzone should be delegated to the edge of the District. There shouldn't be anywhere on the map that one team can enter, but the other can't. So we add the Yellow Zone. The Yellow Zone indicates what areas the enemy team currently has control over. Friendly forces can still enter, and fight, inside the Yellow Zone as it would only indicate where the "Front Line" of the battle currently is. Commanders would only be able to deploy installations inside the areas that they actually control. This would then prevent Commanders from firing down friendly turrets behind enemy lines. Dropships, and characters with low profiles willing to go behind enemy lines and place drop uplinks, would become far more useful and effective than they currently are. Objectives, once taken, would then open small pockets of "Friendly Territory" around them within a certain radius. Capture enough Objectives in that area, and that whole section of the map would then open up. This would allow for a player controlled, always shifting Front Line.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.19 19:21:00 - [9] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Well, my thought as far as giving both sides time-out periods on the outside of a battle before it begins was based around trying to get good fights, rather than pushing forward so hard and fast that your enemy just decides to give up and leave. I wanted to try and avoid the way a lot of Skirmish matches end up right now, with the victor being decided in the first 5 minutes or less before the other team is redlined. I agree to a point, but remember that most Pub Matches are filled with individuals. Every time that I've either seen or heard of a match being redlined early, was because of team work. One team, using squads and communication (usually Corps), while the other team tried to Lone Wolf it. It's the difference between an organized military and a disorganized militia. New Eden is an unforgiving place, and if you want to keep what's yours, or expand upon what you already have, every person on these forums will tell you exactly what you need to do in two words: Get Good. Corps that can bring superior firepower, tactics, and strategy to a fight (not to mention baseline player skill) will always be at an advantage. And should be, in my opinion. Balance in FW means that if your Corp can't cut it on it's own, you can always ask other Corps for help. And the advantage will always be to the Defender. They have unlimited clones (I still say they should have to pay for them), and a larger area under their control at the start of the fight. Giving the attacking team a chance to go behind enemy lines balances that equation. The defending team can be setting up installations and deploying troops to halt enemy forces, while the attacking team can be sending in "black ops" teams to knock out/capture objectives. A game that is based on skill (as this one is) should have battles that are decided with skill.
Hagintora Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.02.19 19:35:00 - [10] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Rather than individual clones, since Biomass is actually an existing item in the EVE universe, I think you'll see its production start to become more important. Since our clone bodies are standardized for the most part, you would consume a certain quantity of biomass per clone, and the MCC or ground installation would only have a certain amount. This creates market demand for biomass, and encourages the defender to fight hard, but not to fight like my Planetside 2 outfit and "drown them in a sea of bodies". And another avenue for Dust to effect EVE's economy, I like it. So the defenders would pay for Biomass as they go, and the Attackers would have to bring Biomass with them? This would make it difficult for even super rich Corps to swarm large sections of space. I find this acceptable.