|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 189 post(s) |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
1
   |
Posted - 2013.03.15 10:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
What I just want to confirm is:
If I get one spy into another corp he could pull in 5 other guys for my side and because of friendly fire make it essentially 22 vs 10 and any kills they got on my 'commandos' would come out of their pocket?
This is going to be a murder fest :) |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 11:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:R F Gyro wrote:5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:What I just want to confirm is:
If I get one spy into another corp he could pull in 5 other guys for my side and because of friendly fire make it essentially 22 vs 10 and any kills they got on my 'commandos' would come out of their pocket?
This is going to be a murder fest :) Welcome to New Eden Not included in the release with this feature, but something we want to do is create a new role that allows people to kick other people from matches. So without giving people full director roles you can select people you trust and let them sort of help control matches. For this release though, yes that is very much a possibility.
I'm quite fine for that, it makes trust and loyalty a lot more important in game!!
Anyone want to employ any ex-southern Legion into their corp ??
I'm sure we have a few spare... |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 11:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mr Gloo Gloo wrote:Possible scenario :
Corp A with 100 members split and make 100 corp.
They put in the same alliance.
Each corp take a distric.
Then, they all going back to the 1st corp --> they own 100 district the first day.
I know that districts are own by the corp, and not the alliance. Just to be sure that you thought about this ;) !!!
that would only work if you could merge corps, instead you would need to abandon the corp freeing the territory. |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 01:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Okay this is a really important question to me about the current conquest system.
Who really wants to sell your conflict resource (clones) for a profit in a conflict game?
We need to encourage the players to spend their clones in conflict and reward them for doing so regardless of if they are a defender or attacker.
Your current system is based on the premise that we should be farming these clones to make a profit and this is fundamentally flawed for a game designed around FPS (unlike EVE).
Currently by looking over the posts here I can see your system is making people apprehensive about spending their clones in conflict and being the defender has developed an association with unacceptable risk.
If you work on the premise that conflict should be perpetual and territory will change hands only in one of two circumstances:
A. The leadership makes a strategic error and leaves a territory under resourced.
B. The troops make a tactical error and expend excessive resources attempting to win the match.
It will be much more enjoyable for players to be involved in the primary premise of this whole system.
List of potential changes I would suggest:
1. Make losing clones in combat more profitable than selling clones.
Why? It encourages players to enter combat regardless of the risk of territorial loss and discourages a farming mentality.
2. Make winning the match by MCC destruction more benificial than clone count.
Why? If it is more benificial to win by killing the MCC than by cloning the enemy it will encourage players to fight even after they hit the minimum loss threshold.Yes, sometimes players will want to hold back but it will be a tactical decision on the part of the battle commander and that adds another level of realism and complexity for corparations and battle commanders to consider at a strategic level.
3. Make the make the Minimum loss for a match equal to the Maximum possibly generated by a territory.
Why? A territory will naturally be able to perpetually support either Offense or Defence but will quickly be depleted if it attempts to achieve both at the same time. This means that the Corparations involved will have to make a stategic decision what to with each territory as conflicts evolve. Smaller corporations will be able to earn a continual profit by just defending their one small piece of territory and keep a toehold in the conquest game no matter how larger their enemy while larger corporations with greater aspirations have hard decisions to make about how they will balance earning profit and maintaining conquest and defending existing territory.
4. Give corparations the ability to buy clones up to 1/100,000 Warpoints which they can keep in reserve on their GÇÿWarbargeGÇÖ, but only allow them to deploy to 1 territory per day.
Why? This removes the ability of shell corportations to maniplulate the market in a way that destroys game play. Yes, massive corportations will be able to hold a massive number of clones in reserve but they are already going to find a way through weight of numbers and ISK to hold more territory and should be encouraged to participate in the conquest game without an excesive advantage. This also gives solid limitations which are hard for them to circumvent and allows them to perpetually keep a foot in the game at the potential of a very high cost in ISK which then need to earn somewhere. Also think of all the potential options it gives every corp in the way it can contribute to the above ideal of perpetual warfare, almost every reasonably sized corp will be able to maintain one daily conflict without it being a complete drain on their conquest based resources.
Some examples of the effects:
Large Corp attacks Small Corp (regardless of clones deployed)
If Small Corp wins it earns profit, keeps territory and Large Corp pays the cost.
If Small Corp is currently defensive and losses they keep their territory and Large Corp earns profit but gains no territory and has spent their 1 daily recharge.
If Small Corp is currently on offense and loses, Large Corp earns profit and potentially gains territory. |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 05:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:Okay this is a really important question to me about the current conquest system.
Who really wants to sell your conflict resource (clones) for a profit in a conflict game?
Ships, moon resources, control towers, ammunition, modules, etc. are all conflict resources in Eve Online yet plenty of people buy and sell them like the New York Stock Exchange. But that doesn't mean the vast majority of the players don't use those resources to start conflicts. Much of the reason for buying and selling (once the market opens up to allow a player-controlled economy) is to fund for wars. Much of the reason for farming is to fund wars. So far, Eve Online has thrived under this system and I'm confident it will help FPS players as well since it provides a supplemental source (secondary) income to the average corp needing to find ways to fund their battles.
I understand how that works for EVE and in that environment it makes sense because EVE has periods of both peace and war. This is because EVE has other things to do. In DUST 514 there is nothing but war... |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 09:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:Okay this is a really important question to me about the current conquest system.
Who really wants to sell your conflict resource (clones) for a profit in a conflict game?
Ships, moon resources, control towers, ammunition, modules, etc. are all conflict resources in Eve Online yet plenty of people buy and sell them like the New York Stock Exchange. But that doesn't mean the vast majority of the players don't use those resources to start conflicts. Much of the reason for buying and selling (once the market opens up to allow a player-controlled economy) is to fund for wars. Much of the reason for farming is to fund wars. So far, Eve Online has thrived under this system and I'm confident it will help FPS players as well since it provides a supplemental source (secondary) income to the average corp needing to find ways to fund their battles. I understand how that works for EVE and in that environment it makes sense because EVE has periods of both peace and war. This is because EVE has other things to do. In DUST 514 there is nothing but war... There will be areas that are more peaceful... and you primarily sell off excess clones, not the ones you plan to attack with. Border zones will likely be under constant attack, whereas a district 2-4 jumps from the front lines wont likely see as much action due to clone attrition.
Will you really be selling them? Wouldn't you instead be moving them to the front lines to bolster your forces for other attacks and defences? I mean the average front line territory under sustained assault needs between 2 and 5 territories to support it depending on which currently suggested system you choose..
|
|
|
| |
|