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.

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.

I have a theory that this is the initial cause of the nap fests.

You sure you want this?

24players x14 districts....

Why? We can look at planets as a unit or districts as a unit. Both are just units. Want to own a system own all the planets versus want to own a planet own all the districts. Six of one half a dozen of the other. Except if we do districts planets, solar systems, constellations, and regions are all bigger achievements. It really comes down to what do we want the first achievement to be, a district or a planet?

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

You sure you want this?

24players x14 districts....

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.

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?)....

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?)....

You sure you want this?

24players x14 districts....

24x14 = 336 players already to go into matches simultaneously.

Sounds...idiotic

My thoughts:

1) Using the gear/vehicle loses from the tourney teams I could easily forecast each side losing over 100mill isk in gear per match when we hit 24v24....

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

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

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

Not sure I would put much effort into this for any kind of first pass at this kind of thing when we do get around to it. I can see the need for it, but I can also see the need for so many other things of higher priority.



You are correct and we are already thinking about this kind of stuff. It makes ones head spin though. I have said in a few other places how hard this kind of thing is. At least it is for me. Trying to find any kind of reference or example for this kind of stuff is just impossible. Gotta love having a research and statistics department though. Love those guys.

My point being that as a planet is taken that there is some sense of progression or strategy as we pick maps and districts moving across.

Having the entire map open constantly for idiots to zerg it would pretty much ruin the game.

A corp or alliance should be able to succeed in taking and holding a planet without having to "blue" half of dust514.

This is the big problem in nullsec in Eve and replicating that stupidity in this game would be a huge failure.

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

But what could stop an enemy from dropping troops behind enemy lines to cause confusion and weaken any response to the main landings, we need more than a couple of districts available to fight on at any time or we're just going to see the same names keep popping up battle after battle as each corp consistently sends its best players into the same matches, i personally think we should have at least 3-5 districts open to attack at any time, and that can apply to both sides, so while you might have just secured one district the enemy could retake another.

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.

Would love if you elaborated. :)

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

We don't have 500 at all.

I think we are closer to your size.

I'm arguing for a system that allows a small/medium force to be able to take and hold territory and not require 500.

It should be 24 most of the time and 48 sometimes.

We don't have 500 at all.

I think we are closer to your size.

I'm arguing for a system that allows a small/medium force to be able to take and hold territory and not require 500.

It should be 24 most of the time and 48 sometimes.

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