|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Vance Alken
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
94
   |
Posted - 2013.02.26 21:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Free Beers wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:0 Try Harder wrote:Right now there's almost never an ISK incentive to do a corp battle.
I like them, but I still have to get all of my isk from pub stomping. Giving me isk from pve isn't going to make me feel better either, as I want to have organized matches against decent opponents! This comes down to who is offering the reward and what is on the line as a risk for them. The fact that the best defense for FW is to not accept the defense contracts... is broken. What would be awesome is an area of space that players own districts, make money, make more money by attacking, and the fighting is so intense that only the best survive. That would be awesome. 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? My apologies, I did miss understand that. You are correct though that not all DUST corporations will want to participate in owning districts when that eventually does come around. We are aware of that. The really nice thing about corporation battles right now is that they allow two corporations just to set up an arena type match. If you remove the FW bit of them they can be fun with limited to no risks and rewards or extremely competitive with lots of ISK on the line. This is something we are aware of and are actively thinking about. As for the null sec NAP fest: The problem with null sec in EVE as I see it is that an organization (corporation, alliance, coalition, whatever) will expand and take as much territory as they can hold, or think they can hold. Once they have reached that limit they stop. Then they start adding friends on so they they are even safer. There is no point in attacking anything except for the explosions (which I think are awesome) or for taking it. If you are extended to the limit though taking it is not really an option. Stop for a moment, this is just random chit chat and discussion here, even though I know some of you will still run off as if this is all done and done, this is just me discussing stuff because discussion is fun. Anyways, what if once you own whatever you think you can you still wanted to attack. Not because you want more stuff, but because after an attack the winner walks away with more than they would have if they sat there and did nothing. So you can sit there and just make money, but attacking without the intention to take ownership gives you the chance to make more money. Thoughts? Again, random discussion.
Like pillaging a district?
You're still going to sink ISK into the attack, which some corps just won't want to risk just like they don't want to risk expansion. It would be a safer form of attack though, and if you leave a few worlds empty and ruined you force the defenders to sink ISK into rebuilding, and maybe strengthening their defenses for next time. And maybe you're selling them the equipment (that you made from the minerals you stole from them, or just flat out stole) that you'll come back to steal later.
I want to see an MCC equipped with a tractor beam sucking up all the PI goodies!
[man this draft saved stuff really gets in the way of posting]
edit: oh man, blackmailing a weak corp for "insurance" money! Space mobsters! |
Vance Alken
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
94
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 22:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
0 Try Harder wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Anyways, what if once you own whatever you think you can you still wanted to attack. Not because you want more stuff, but because after an attack the winner walks away with more than they would have if they sat there and did nothing. So you can sit there and just make money, but attacking without the intention to take ownership gives you the chance to make more money. If it's an initial "NPC reward", corps can just attack themselves for $. Will the reward from attacking be more than not even if you lose control because the mercs you paid have finished their contract? It seems risky -.0 I think it's highly likely that you'll get a monopoly like IRL. Corps will just have agreements with each other not to attack themselves, because everyone will make more isk if no one has to spend resources to defend.
See my post on the last page, you wouldn't make ISK directly, and NPC ISK faucets wouldn't be involved at all. It's all about the salvage and stolen goods you get from razing and pillaging!
Ooh, raze and pillage your own districts (presumably faster/more possible than packing up everything and moving) that you know you're gonna lose to take away the material gains the attackers would get (they'd still get their contracted ISK ofc, as long as they have one/it fits the contract). Scorched Earth tactics! |
Vance Alken
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
95
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 22:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Telcontar Dunedain wrote:gbghg wrote:Telcontar Dunedain wrote:One thing -
Talking about districts is a failure.
It's either you own the whole planet or its nothing.
Having to fight 14 simultaneous districts at a time to take or hold a planet would be complete crap.
In other words there needs to be a battlefront such that you can only attack one district at a time and you lose the right to keep attacking at some point after losing 1-3x. 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. You sure you want this? 24players x14 districts....
You're assuming that 24 players are required for every battle, that the corp even has enough material to spread out around 14 districts at once (We only have 1000 clones, 8 CRUs, and 3 backup MCCs that can only carry 200 clones each, as well as some of our most common equipment. We lost the rest in space on the way here, where do we put what we have? Do we even try?) and that the defenders will be able to field for all 14 districts as well.
That isn't required, war isn't fair, and if it is, someone, somewhere, ****** up. (and someone, somewhere, probably screwed up if it isn't as well) |
Vance Alken
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
96
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 23:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Raze Minhaven wrote:Kain Spero wrote:Telcontar Dunedain wrote:
No, I meant that planets should be taken district by district until the entire planet is either owned or not. No income until the whole thing is owned.
When the planet is attacked its at one point ie a "landing" point. Ideally as the fight progresses across the surface multiple maps might open for a fight at the same time (2-3?)....
I think the progression idea is fine but only getting benefits if you own the entire planet doesn't work for me at all. 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
I think the best district to start the attack from should arise from what the owners have done with the land. Say a massive fortified deposit of *rare mineral for important good*, you want it, but it has so many orbital cannons and ground defenses that it's suicide to drop on it at first, instead you drop on their weaker district that still has a nice stockpile of materiel. You capture that (they didn't raze it before you got there) and get their materiel (and other loot) to put towards your war effort, and now since you're on ground you can cross that to get to the next district, avoiding orbital cannons in the super-fortified position.
Planets don't have edges like continents do :p
Also, district count should be based purely on planet size, a small planet might only have 4-6, while a very large might have 18-20. |
Vance Alken
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
96
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 00:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
gbghg wrote:Morathi III wrote:Telcontar Dunedain wrote:gbghg wrote: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. This is what is happening in Eve. Nullsec is a big zerg of idiots, making that same thing occur in Dust514 would be a really bad thing. How many skilled players would continue to play if they win every match yet lose the war because of a poorly designed mechanic? 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? But if we go by that logic PRO will win everything because they have the numbers to throw at districts repeatedly until they finally take them over.
Red tides to win means resource cost.
Most obviously in clones, if your 24 cheapo fit militia players are up against my 12 (2 squads) of prototype fit players, you're gonna be spending big on clones. If we're also taking down your cheap equipment as soon as it lands and shooting down your cheap MCCs as soon as possible, you're gonna be fighting resource loss. Not to mention the home field advantage, knowing the good spots (say, a mass driver resupply-drop uplink-revive logi and a sniper/scanner fit scout on a roof locking down a primary chokepoint built in PI mode that your cheapo militia snipers can't even reach). Sure, one of my men is worth thousands of yours, but each one of them might go through multiple battles without even going into armor.
If you field a full 336 man deployment to tackle all 14 of my districts at once, I can pick and choose what is most important (probably, in this case, clone and equipment stockpiles), defend that, and wait for reinforcements. |
|
|
| |
|