|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 03:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
gbghg wrote:But i can see large corps like PRO mounting wave attacks if they have to. So if you successfully defend a district they can instantly field a new team and basically repeat the process until they finally take control. part of me worries that taking districts will just end up as a game of attrition. Have mounting an assault on a District requires a MCC. So if a corp like PRO wants to assault all 14 Districts on Planet X they need to field 14 MCC's. So long as MCC"s have a decently high ISK price like 250 mil ISK + (and something not ISK based like LP to keep them more scarce - don't do Titans again) should help limit zerging a bit.
This would make the risk of attacking a District very high. Win and you get a District and / or plunder. Lose and you're out a MCC, a lot of suits / gear, and have nothing to show for it. This will entice corps to send in their 2 or 3 Elite Assault Squads with the MCC's to take a few districts, then once taken the B Team squads defend while the Elites go take other Districts.
Free Beers wrote:Just make sure you put in district transfer in dust ASAP.
-districts can be taken and sold off. Just like mercs can be paid to take a planet. There isn't 100% chance they will. Selling a district afterward is just another market for stuff. Dust needs this economy function 100% agree. This opens up a huge meta game for DUST corps. Corp A owns Planet X but you want it? Hire us! We'll take it and transfer all 14 Districts to you, for a fee. Or maybe Corp B takes Planet Z knowing it will become more lucrative in the future, selling it off for profit.
Its a good market tool that will benefit DUST greatly. |
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 03:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Will the defenders be able to place defensive structures (walls, turrets, shields, CRU's, etc) in their Districts? If so, you technically don't need to show up en-masse to defend if your defense is good enough.
Example: Me and 23 buddies take a nice lucrative District on Planet X. We invest a billion ISK into putting in AA Turrets, Blaster Turrets, high reinforced walls, multiple Skyfire batteries and a host of other fun defensive structures throughout the District. It is an attacker's nightmare (The Crown from Planetside 2). So when an enemy lands 24 guys to come take it we only need a few guys to defend it - our automated turrets and walls do most of the dirty work.
What's more fun is that, if we lose our District, the attacker now holds it. Some Districts will become well known for being difficult to take. |
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 04:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Severus Smith wrote:Will the defenders be able to place defensive structures (walls, turrets, shields, CRU's, etc) in their Districts? If so, you technically don't need to show up en-masse to defend if your defense is good enough.
Example: Me and 23 buddies take a nice lucrative District on Planet X. We invest a billion ISK into putting in AA Turrets, Blaster Turrets, high reinforced walls, multiple Skyfire batteries and a host of other fun defensive structures throughout the District. It is an attacker's nightmare (The Crown from Planetside 2). So when an enemy lands 24 guys to come take it we only need a few guys to defend it - our automated turrets and walls do most of the dirty work.
What's more fun is that, if we lose our District, the attacker now holds it. Some Districts will become well known for being difficult to take. Except the problem is you have 0 people show up to defend a place, because your limited numbers are protecting what you think are the most important of all the targets. Wait what? Sorry, I think I missed your point.
If I am in a Corp of 24 guys and we own 2-3 Districts (which we make into bastion fortresses) why wouldn't we show up to defend them if they are attacked (8 defenders per District if all three were attacked simultaneously)? I know in your examples your talking about a 24 man corp holding 100 Districts, which I think is grossly unrealistic. 24 guys can hold a handful, especially with defenses, but not 100.
A small focused corp should be a pain to a large corp. It's like the Battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans held off thousands of Persians because they were forced to fight on a battlefield that eliminated their numerical superiority. 24 focused, supplied, and skilled players should be able to hold a District against a 3000 player Corp because every battle will be 24 vs 24. |
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:And had the navy in the battle of thermoplae able to land those 300 spartans and 10,000 greek regulars would have been slaughtered. luckily unlike the movie, the greek navy was just as intelligent, stalemating the hostile navy in a narrow striaght and attacking near dusk limiting the engagement time. The second Persian navy was however like the movie and got smashed by a storm.
Another war you should look to in where numbers vs quality is end of ww2 with russia and the german's and possibly the rest of the allies had market garden not sucked all the fuel for patton's armor column.
...
A far more accurate war to portray the scenario of large vs small would be the romance of the three kingdoms in china where the infamous Sun Tzu wrote his manuscripts on warfighting, after all the kingdom he served was by far the smallest of the three and managed to hold out very well. Unluckily there were not convenient passes, choke-points, or magical shields (in eve's case) that would have stopped the larger enemy from crushing the smaller nation. It was a various sets of delaying tactics division and conquering and many other nice tricks that focused more on doing the most with the least amount. Interesting, I like it. But I was going for more the spirit of these historical events, not the defacto letter. A small focused force can repel a larger force if the larger forces numerical superiority cannot be fielded. Realistically a 3000 player corp should be able to deploy all of their players at once to overwhelm a smaller defense. But, due to game mechanics our matches only allowing 24 vs 24 then a small corp can repel a larger force for a prolonged time.
Either way you have a system where a single, or small amount, of Districts can be defended by a small corp. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. A small focused corp should be able to take and defend single Districts from larger, more spread out, corps.
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:What has changed between now and then? We have MCCs, Warbarges and can nearly drop soldiers anywhere we have a CRU in control at.
Also there are talks about allowing eve players to eventually use the doomsday weapon to scorch a planet's districts of all facilities and soldiers. Get too dug in and well.... boom? Those fortresses become a tomb. Doomsdays are only usable by Titans which cannot be used in Lowsec (where DUST sov is happening). So this will apply to Nullsec and the solution will be for Nullsec corps to not allow an enemy Titan to get in orbit above their planets. Also, once a Titan fires it's Doomsday it's unable to warp for 10+ minutes, it's essentially stuck there, so it's a very risky thing to do. So a Titan may decimate a District, but then get destroyed because it couldn't warp out. I think most people would trade a District loss for a Titan kill any day.
As for the MCC's Warbarges and such... yah. You got me there. The game limits it to 24 vs 24 due to the PS3's processing power. But it could be explained in game with bandwidth limits (like drones) or somesuch that restrict the maximum amount DUST mercs being fielded to 24 on a side..? Either way, we can't field all 3000 players at once to take a District. Only 24 per match.
|
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Well we can go back and forth all day though. Just do know that it is possible that a war may have more than 1 24vs24 match being timed up at the same time and that defenders that don't show are more likely to get punished for having a 0v24 match pitted against them. There may be mechanics that would bottle neck it out but over multiple month war I dont see a 24 man corp holding out against a force that large in maintain the same lands when the fight first started.
Also null sec is where aboslute player conquest mode will happen, low sec (FW) will be npc hand holding conquest. There will be a special wedge of low where players can still conquer but as to what level is uncertain.
I am however throwing my bet towards that there will be no shield timers but more of a sovereignty flip timer. That districts will be 'raidable' and can be ransacked and disabled thus making it very possible to go out of 'alphabetical' order in destroying a target corp's bases. IE taking out the power plant that's powering the shield generator protecting the tank factory that you oh so hate your opponents for.
Until the blog comes out however we wont know the full or even partial details on how its all going to go down. Truthfully, I think we're both saying the same thing. I completely agree that a war will have more than 1 battle happen at a time. And that a 24 man corp holding more than one District may have to field 12 men in two battles or 8 men in three (and so on). And again, complete agreement that a 3000 man corp will eventually win out against a 24 man corp if the siege goes on for weeks.
I am just trying to emphasize that the DUST sov mechanics should allow small corps to defend themselves somewhat against large corps. In current EVE nullsec a small corp can do nothing if Goonswarm of TEST decide to take them out. 10,000 ships vs 100 ships is a slaughter no matter how skilled you are. This leads to giant mega-alliances and stagnation where power is in the number of ships you can field. With engagements limited to 24 vs 24 then numerical superiority isn't everything. You can have 24 Elite players holding off wave after wave of attacks on their 1 or 2 Districts for a few days / weeks. Eventually they will lose, but it won't be like EVE nullsec - the small corp can hold them off for a bit and possibly win through attrition.
|
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:I'm would hate to in a middle of a corp batle to find someone attacking my district and its undefended. I have no issue with scheduling a head of time to battle. Its fair to all parties to do that. As the example I gave earlier what if a corp from the UK wakes up saturday morning at 8 am their time (3 am mine) and schedule an attack for my district even 4 hours later which is noon their time and 7 am my time. so just having a delay of 4 hours would make little difference. how about if it was an 8 hour delay. So the UK guys schedule it for 8 am their time on a monday morning. We find out sunday night that we have a corp battle to defend our district at 3 am. Again still the schedule delay does little to help the fact we aren't there to fight. Trust me if thats they way we are going I will be able to grief corp after corp using shell corporations. You could just spam attack contracts and show up and take the districts where you have no resistance and get free districts/loot. As I said to FoxFour I'll put up my indepth ideas with example later on (need to finish work for the day first ) This is based off the assumption that it is only one match to take a District. What if it's a single match to take a single PI node. If each match occurred every 2 hours then taking a District would take 44 hours in this example. That's enough time for you to respond and repel the invaders.
Its still not the best, you will lose nodes to attacks while you sleep, but it means that neither attacker, nor defender, get the time advantage. |
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
166
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Honestly I can't see how 1 match would take a district. Yes I am making an assumption there. The idea of just "scheduling" or a few hours notices is just broke idea to me.
No to the PI node Idea and having matches occuring every 2 hours. This would make taking 1 district impossible grind and not worth it financially. I understand what you were suggesting but it just wont work.
Ill be putting up my alliegiance model later on Oh no, I agree. That would be a grind fest. But since CCP has already said that PI buildings are what shape our terrain I have a feeling matches will be dependent (somehow) on PI node placement. The main point I was trying to make is that one match shouldn't decide if you win or lose a District.
|
Severus Smith
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
169
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 16:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Elles Wils wrote:So, in short this thread goes about 1) how to create an incentive to fight, and 2) how to organise the fights
Mostly, we have some good mechanics in place in Eve which grew over time. And in my opnion, most of these mechanics can be translated into dust.
1) Make every district generate a passive cop income. the lower the sec status of the solar system, the higher the income. If a corp owns an entire planet, multiply the income by a factor, is the entire constellation owned, an even bigger factor. You own a region? Well done, payday has arrived ;) I'm deliberately not suggesting specific amounts and factors, because this obviously would have to be tweaked.
2) How to set up fights? Now this is more challenging. In Eve we got a couple of really nice mechanics, which could be adopted for Dust. War Declaration, Bounties, Fleet Adverts and FW System Control.
So, you want to take over a district? First, you have to declare war on the owning corp. After 24 hours, fighting can legally occur, and you can order your war barges into orbit arround their planets. The more barges you got, the more planets you can assault simultaneously. The more MCC's you got, the more districts you can assault simmultaneously.
Now, how to make sure there are ppl willing to fight? Allow the owning corp to set up a Battle Advert for each district that is being attacked. They can decide who can join in on the battle based on standing and membership (no standing, light blue, blue, corp or alliance). Warring factions are automatically excluded from these Battle Adverts, negative standing is by default excluded, but can be allowed. These adverts could be set up in advance, and automatically activate once a war starts.
Any team eligible to act on the advert, can enter the battle. At that point, a match is set up which will start once both sides have a full team, or once a timer runs out. Depending on which side wins the battle, district control will shift. Once control has shifted completely to the agressing side, ownership will change. The beauty is, that timers are built into this system. Let's say you need 12 consecutive wins to flip the system. A match will start a 2 hour timer, so it will take a minimum of 24 hours to flip a system in the case noone shows up.
But what about pay-out?
Let both sides put up a contract pool on the district. Teams are payed out from this pool, based upon win/loss and value destroyed.
My 5 cents on the topic ;) I really like this. Great idea.
- The wardec is a great idea. It ensures that a defender has at least 24 hours notice that their Districts are pending attack.
- The attacker being limited by Warbarges / MCC's is another great idea. It keeps corps from spamming attacks on planets and means that they need to commit to an engagement.
- The Battle Adverts (Assault Advert / Defend Advert) would provide a nice way to control who fights on your side.
- The 12 wins (2 hour timer) part is good. I'd implement it based on points. Each District has 50 "control points" (or somesuch). Winning a match increased your CP by 1 and reduces the losers by 1. If a corp has 35+ CP then they own the District. If none of the corps fighting over the District have 35 then its contested (no one gets the benefits). This allows multiple corps to fight over the District.
Example:
- District A is owned by Corp A.
- District A is attacked by Corp B who manages over two days to win 25 matches, and lose 8. Corp A now has 33 CP, Corp B has 17. District A is now contested.
- Corp C decides to attack District A as well; they quickly overwhelm Corp A (who is stuck in a stalemate with Corp B) and win the first 16 matches. Corp A now has 17 CP, Corp B has 17 and Corp C has 16. District A is still contested.
- Corp A concedes, sells their remaining CP to Corp B and leaves. Corp A is out, Corp B has 34 CP and Corp C has 16. District A is still contested.
- Corp B wins 7 matches and loses 3 against Corp C. Corp B now has 38 CP and Corp C has 12. District A is now owned by Corp B (who has more than 35 CP).
- Fighting between Corp B and Corp C continues until Corp B wins back the remaining 12 CP or Corp C concedes.
|
|
|
|