|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
A'Real Fury
The Silver Falcon Federation
4
   |
Posted - 2013.02.27 17:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
A few quicks thoughts. Sorry if it has been mentioned before as this is a pretty long thread.
Outside of ideological reasons I think a lot of wars are fought over resources i.e you lack something you need or want something somebody else has.
Now to avoid nap fests going on too long you can limit the amount of resources that can be derived from a given district by gradually reducing the amount of it available until you hit a minimum baseline. This would result in a weakness that others can exploit, particularly if you link resource consumption to battles. The more fights in your district, even if you win, will result in repairs needing to be made and disruption to production. This could allow small corps or even individuals into Sovereign wars as they could be used for hit and run tactics, smash and grabs, and espionage to test out or even create instability into the system.
Also resource reduction will result in these static corps moving onto greener pastures. Once this district has changed hands the new corp could use new "methods" to gradually increase production to where it was before it gradually declines again.
With large corps employing small, deniable asset, corps in a low intensity war with sovereign nations will eventually lead to all out large scale conflicts because those nations will only see their resources being depleted through equipment loss etc. These small corps could also use low cost militia gear attacks with the intent to damage production and equipment with little Isk cost to them. This way the small corps can stay profitable because their costs are very limited and the big corp/nation can employ lots of them to attack districts etc.
Within district attacks you could even reduce it to attacking specific building e.g the building where the corp stores some or a lot of their tanks which could then be destroyed or even stolen, though more likely to steal dropsuits, weapons , modules or even the resource being produced.
I think it would be interesting to have specific skills available that would allow a player to increase resources that could be derived from that district making them particulary valuable to corps who want to hold districts even to the point of hiring them away from their current corps or skills like sabotage/high explosives to allow players to create a disproportionate amount of damage in sneak or hit and run campaigns.
Hopefully these possibilities would result in a more fluid battle environment. |
A'Real Fury
The Silver Falcon Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 13:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
A few more thoughts. Some of this has been said before.
So to the mechanics of sovereignty. A lot has been mentioned about times and attacking districts when the owners are asleep and loyalty points. I think that all of these factors should be included rather than one or the other. I believe you should be able to attack a district when the defenders (actual players are asleep) and while the attackers hold the district they should be able to claim a percentage of the income of that district until such time as they are kicked out or until it is determined that they are the new owners of that district. This will allow for the idea of piracy so corps can attack and effectively loot a district with no real intention of holding it.
Now I do not think it should be as easy as just turning up and walking in. I like the idea of corps being able to set up auto and npc drone defenses so it isn't a cake walk. I also like the idea that a corp can set up defense contracts that automatically kick in if their district is attacked. For an example a corp could set up a contract that automatically goes onto the public saying if you defend this district with a timer set, like at the 30 minute or 1 hour mark, then you will get a share of a 2, 5, 10, 100 million isk bounty depending on the value of the district. The loyalty programme would work as follows:
1. Attacker takes district and get 20% of the income the district as a base line (due to some looting) but this will increase the longer they hold it and all income to the owners ceases while their district is occupied
2. With a starting point of 3%, there are always collaborators, the attacker earns loyalty points at 1% an hour until they hit 51% i.e. in 48 hours time. I think if you can hold a district etc for 48 hours it should be yours.
3. Income should derived from the district should increase at 2% an hour as you become more entrenched.
4. If the defender comes back an attacks, even if the new guys are asleep, then it all shifts back to the original owners. Say the attackers held the district for 24 hours and so had a loyalty standing of 27% then this should reduce at 2% an hour in favour of the original owners until it eventually reaches 100%. However, in terms of income it should automatically be restored at the original rate less the cost of damages.
Now a timer would come into effect if an active battle takes place in the district for sovereignty. If the attacker win this battle they get to hold the district for a minimum of 2 hours and if the defenders win they get to hold the district for a min of 4 to 8 hours.
Now the reason the time should be short is because we do not know how many districts will be available in the short term. If there are only a 100 to 200 districts, or less, released to start with and 4000 to 10000 corps actively fighting for them and you have cool off periods of 12, 24 or more hours then you will have very limited activity in this environment.
If you have all districts, or parts of it, always available for attack then you will have a more dynamic and active involvement from the corps instead of players just waiting for a district to become available for attack, getting bored, in the future. Now the timer could be adjusted as more districts become available i.e. once you have many thousands of them. The timer will become more important depending whether you are in a Hi Sec, Low Sec, Null sec etc area. The more distant you are from the home sectors the less time you have to respond to attacks and the shorter the timer is.
Now to the question of small corps and large corps my view is tough luck. If you are too small to hold a district long term 23/7 then you should loose it. I do not think you should have protected status via timers. Instead I think you should start looking for alliances with other corps in other time zones to defend the district while you are away. You could have alliance agreements that result that income from a district is shared equally or a fee is paid to the other corps for each time they successfully defend your district as well as all the variations of possible contracts that are out there.
With the option to always be able to attack other districts set out above would mean that yes you loose your district but when your corp mates are all online you can go take back that district or go attack another.
Yes we want the ability to set up matches between corps as you do for skirmish but it should not all be about this. However, active battles between corps for districts have greater value and costs of winning or holding the district than just simply moving in and taking out the npc set to guard your district.
Now to more long term goals. I do not play Eve but I understand that there are alliances that are so big that they are effectively unbeatable and untouchable. What I would like to see based on the fact that mercs from Dust will hold resource districts is the ability to restrict or even stop the supply of necessary resources to Eve corps as well as the opposite also being true. For example a Dust Megacorp could restrict the supply of fuel to eve pilots basically making their vessels defenseless to attack from other eve pilots. But the opposite will also be true as Eve pilots control the movement of resources between planets they can restrict resources e.g. critical components for making tanks going to specific districts and planets, making the the production costs of this tank astronomical. That 1 million isk tank now costs 5 million isk to produce.
Why this would be a good idea is that it allows smaller Eve Corps the ability to indirectly take out larger megacorps via paying a few large or numerous small Dust corps to take over the districts supplying fuel etc to the Eve Megacorp and then cutting them off reducing the abilities of those large fleets and more vulnerable to attack. |
A'Real Fury
The Silver Falcon Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 13:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ran out of room in my previous post.
In addition to allowing the dust and eve corps greater scope to interact it will also allow new ways of playing the game e.g. with the dust corp stopping supplies to the Eve corps and the Eve corp stopping or even attacking the ground installations, at least until they run out of the resources needed to fight their ships, the allied Eve corp could run supply runs into the Dust Corp so that they could maintain the fight.
You would also have an effect on trade i.e. if a number of Eve corps ally with a Dust corp they could run in massive suppiies of resources to that Dust corp who's production would go down enormously so that they can now produce items at half the usual costs.
Finally you have the idea of betrayal. Eventually you will have large Eve Corps allying with the large Dust Corps resulting in deadlock. However, out of shear boredom you could have a Dust "Merc" corp offered a massive bounty to betray their Eve ally's resulting in the stopping of all resources to the Eve Pilots making then easier pickings for smaller corps as their ships drift around planets without the power to run them.
Now the ultimate means of ending a deadlock or napfest is the introduction of a new enemy or an existing enemy who has been waiting quietly to attack. Now these attackers could be there for conquest or for some really alien reason and just end up destroying stuff all over the place. If you were an eve player or even a dust player and you saw a massive fleet and ground troops grinding through your region of space what would you do? Now the players should have the ability to defeat this enemy and if they do they should be rewarded with new and unknown tech but only those who choose to fight and win.
Either way this should result in massive destruction and change. The attackers could even come through a wormhole from the Milky Way or another universe. |
A'Real Fury
The Silver Falcon Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 14:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:
The same goes DUST. If someone is online and leaves the station (joins a battle) they are fair game. You should not however be able to take someones district if they are not online. This would be no fun for either side and it would encourage the development of very large corporations. If you had to have enough members online at all times to defend a district there would be no small corporations around owning just one or two districts.
I cannot see a situation where we find that acceptable. We want both small and large organizations to be able to have at the least the ability to participate in district gameplay when we get to it.
While that can certainly be justified I do believe that a limit should be placed on the length of time the district can be protected while the corp is offline. Mainly because you may end up with a situation where a new corp comes in claims a district, actively defends it for awhile, and then doesn't log on for weeks or months or more effectively taking that district off the market permanently. |
A'Real Fury
The Silver Falcon Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.03 21:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Guess we are running out of steam here. While it was enjoyable putting our views across we will need more info from CCP before we can progress. |
|
|
| |
|