1-Telc my concern is isk for the eve side FW corps. It has to be worth it to the corp to employ mercs. I know you and I and many many others are tired of pubs and want to do corp battles and take other peoples stuff. th

I tried to stay general because it gets real cloudly on how/if dust based or non FW corps can actually own districts. Just a lot of unknow questions and concerns.

I have no idea how nonFW lowsec will work or what value will be had.

2-isk will be generated eve side to the owners of districts and we will be paid by them (isk sinks) to take or defend said districts.

So that is indirect benefits really telc. Indirect benefits such as PI bonus or higher LP conversion is for individuals not acutal corps in the militia. There needs to be direct benefits to the corp that owns or wants to own the district/planets for mercs to be employable on a consistant basis.

again so many unknows to work with but the fundamental philosophy of beind and isk sink to eve seems counter productive and broken now

You seem to miss the point not every corp wants to own districts but still want to fight corp battles. What I am hearing is "this isk/reward is in owning the districts". So I assume thats passive isk/resources/lp to be earned for it? Which if I remember correctly is how nullsec became a big blue bag of fun.

Tell me where I am wrong?

this is funner

have you forgotten that we will be dropping from orbit, there is no reason why we can't hit multiple districts simultaneously, and it will make things vastly more interesting as some districts will fall and others will be held leading to a patchwork of control across a planet. It will also prevent corps from deploying their a-teams in every battle and ensure much wider participation of players in battles over planets.

Again though, if you just own planets owning 14 planets is the same as owning 14 districts instead.

It would force dust alliances to actually work together to hold territory, rather than having each corp trying to control it's own little empire, and imagine the scale things would reach if you tried to hit an entire system in one go, thinking about it gets me reaaly excited about what this game could become.

This.

If someone wants to take out America (without nukes) they would pick a landing zone or two on the same coast and hit them at the same time. They may take LAX and maybe PHX. They would gain the benifits fo the ports / harbors in LAX and well theres nothing to gain for PHX but you need to take it to move westward. You obviously cant drop right in on Dallas or Chicago and except to take the country from us silly well-armed Americans.

There should be key districts that could be wealth / resource centers that net the holding faction some sort of bonus. The bonus could be actual bonus or a determinant bonus. Using the example above if someone takes out DC well the military might be in a bit of a disarray for a bit which may make it easier to take some of the other coast line cities.

Bigger / more valuable planets would have more districts. You cant say every planet would have 14 districts, because that would assume every planet is the same and well nothing is the same in eve or in life. I think figuring out what benefits and district sizes is the start to really implementing them properly. After that progression is easy.

my .02 isk

Your wrong, that prevent you to control everything if you want a district you need to protect it, that help small corp to stay alive in their district

To Mr. dunedain:

Dont need to have 500 lol, but i dont want 500 imp waiting near my district when i finally make one, the game is not only for big corp is for everyone if you cant defend the district you just conquer ok fine... But you lose it immediatly its comon sense for me , you can be attack by anywhere its planet not country for each district you need to put a team like 16 or 24

I think the fact that only certain districts can be attacked depending on the ground situation also gives a logistical dynamic to the way we take planets.

As one of my favorite sayings goes: "Tatics wins battles, but logistics wins wars."

I DO think that you should be able to deep strike troops tactically behind enemy lines (maybe this is where the attacking with no intent to own can come in).

I understand your point of view but you cant hold a solar system with 24 clone lol, if you want this envergure like zion and seraphim its easy... Only 1 corp and not 3

Its a difficult system to balance because if you go too far one way you will see small corps with most if not all of their members getting into fights regularly while the larger corps will have large groups of people who only get in 1 or 2 battles while everyone else lazes about doing nothing. But if you go to the other extreme larger corps will just zerg the smaller ones meaning that we will end up with a system where the largest corp wins through numbers.

Like you said adapt or die.... Find more recruit , yes that bring your elitism a bit lower but if you want more you need to have more clone, and you dont need to be more than your opponent because your corp is the best, so whats your point hold anything in 3 month? Why playing then?

I dont play eve and i have nothing against you, i just bring a different point of view, i can understand you dont like it, my goal is to have a healthy game

If you're winning all your matches, but LOSING at the larger metagame, that's your own fault as a corp.

I always thought taking a planet was going to be like playing Risk. We look over a map ahead of time in the war barge.

a guy sits in the mcc overlooking all the districts like a world map and distributes the needed equipment into strategic locations. Just like risk but instead of a roll of the dice the soldiers on the ground determine the outcome.

This would give rise to some grand master tactians calling the larger picture, but the individual batles by district are handled by the core of 24 mercs on the ground with there leaders by squad platoon etc.

So if 14 districts are needed to hold the planet a batlle could start in any of the 14 depending on location resources to nab, or other strategic needs, then a battle unfolds to the next district that it touches like we see when we zoom out on the maps( Game play similar to the original map in the first build.) After all the null cannons are flipped and helled simultaneously for a certain amount of time or clones depleted the battle moves to the next district.

Now the null cannons are out of the way the mcc can move up keeping us supplied. If not drop ships will need to be used to get troops further in with up links until the mcc can drop more crus and turret defenses, etc.

These battles become wars of attrition

Corp A has 24 People
Corp B has 2400 people

Corp A has 100 Territories
Corp B wants them.

Corp A can only fight one battle a time, Corp B can simultaneously attack everything A has in one go.

If pure anti Zerg methoods where instated then 1 man corps would ruin most of dust.

...

You may call this zerging
....

c'mon who do you play tau? eldar? space marines, imperial guard?

and bones the gameplay isn't persistent you're right but the meta game is, and there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to go "hey lets hit this district tonight" and be able to attack it, if we went with your idea you could end up with a situation where you have enough players to attack the district now but you can't launch an attack for 12+ hours. the same is also true of the defending corp.

while the mechanic may be there you have to think of the practicallity and how consistantly this would occur. Griefers like me will work out ways to abuse timers.

when I say consistancy I can just point to the dustOB channel. The first month or so there where so many eve toons wanting to help and try this out. Now very few if any are interested.

There has to be prolonged motivation and just having timers to prepare can and will be brutal. Also for the record we don't plan to own districts at all, just bash them for people. That said, I still have great concern for the mechanics and motivation invovled here and just want the best for the game and those that want to own districts

It won't.

CCP foxfour

I sat down at my computer to type out my idea and i realized something you probably already know. It's not an either or ideaology when it comes to timers or persistant control model but a combination. If you stick with just one type you expose players to certain strong negatives with either one. The combination minimizes this

So forgive me for assuming once again.

I see a timer window that the defender sets. That attacker chooses to attack during this widow the rewards are greater for the attacker if it wins. Now the attacker can choose to attack at any time it wants (and may have a slight negative to the owner of district) but its a hollow victory. An occuping corp should not force a change in district loyatly or reward to the owner. If anything its a seige of the district to force a fight. That said the defender once seiged can choose to fight to remove the siege at anytime.

This will strongly encourage players to attack during the defenders window. If not the defender can choose any time to force a fight to remove the occupancy of the district. You should be able to do anything to your district till you repeal the occupiers though. So you can attack when you want but it doesn't really help.

change of topic

I still think there needs to be a global alliegance system so that the more districts/planets/systems a corp holds the higher the loyalty factor is required to maintain the x,y,z bonues etc.

Last

I have talked to a bunch of eve and dust corps and the idea to transfer control of districts is a big deal to them also. One even suggested to me that you can make it eve side for now to limit the dust coding.

So while you thinks its a low priority its very high for us in terms of meta gaming. Which is needed greatly in dust as even eve is just a space game without the meta.

back later have to troll scrub corps in LFBattle channel