|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 189 post(s) |
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
This just became kitten interesting again!!!
|
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Beyobi wrote:How many players can join corporation battles? Planetary conquest will feature 16 vs 16 skirmish battles. Squad sizes are also being increased to 6 players per squad.
So would that be 2 squads of 6 and 1 squad of 4? or will the Conquest battles be 12v12 or 18v18? The planetary conquest battles are 16v16. So you can take 2 full squads in plus another partial squad.
So...two full squads...and a sniper squad perhaps... |
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 17:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rhapsodyy Darkforce wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Rhapsodyy Darkforce wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Beyobi wrote:How many players can join corporation battles? Planetary conquest will feature 16 vs 16 skirmish battles. Squad sizes are also being increased to 6 players per squad.
So would that be 2 squads of 6 and 1 squad of 4? or will the Conquest battles be 12v12 or 18v18? The planetary conquest battles are 16v16. So you can take 2 full squads in plus another partial squad. Was just thinking this. Any particular reason you dont just make it 18v18 so theres 3 full squads? The possibility of changing squad size means any number we pick could quickly not be valid. On top of that every player that we add to the match is another player that corporations need to field and the larger we require corporations to be in order to participate in this feature. For now we though 16v16 was the right balance. Yeah i understand you dont want to exclude smaller corps from gettign in on the action. Just personally i would like to see team size remain as a multiple of squad size. And the fact it is only 2 less than 18v18 aka 3 full squads just made me think hmmm why? A corp that has 16 probaly has 18 in most cases. Dont get me wrong this is far better than the 8v8 corp matches, and id like to see the size increase more over time, however i know that ccp dont want to exclude the smaller entities from carving out their little corner of space like has become so hard for new groups to do in eve. Is there any thought around the ccp tables about having differant sized corp matches? So a small planet that only has 5 districts might be 8v8 or 12v12 battles on that planet, where as the bigger planets with up to 24 districts could have the bigger corp battles. Or something like that, so that small corps can still get some competitive play and larger corps can still get into bigger battles, and yet still give everyone the chance to claim some districts? Maybe its a crap idea, but i was just thinking what happens to these smaller corps anyway when the player cap is increased again, as personally id certainly like to see us getting up to 32v32 ish numbers at some point.
How about allowing the CEO/Directors set the team sizes of a given district? That way if your corp can only field 8 so be it but if you can field 18+ you've got that option. Afterall, a corp should be able to defend it's territory with the degree of resources it is able to bring to the table. |
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 18:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kristoff Atruin wrote:...Or resources that could be useful to eve players. Read with wiki.....classified
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Planetary_Conquest#Surface_Infrastructure |
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
54
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 18:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
RECON BY FIRE wrote:Why are most of the questions always on stuff that doesnt half matter? How bout some legit questions/concerns/feedback here.
In regards to planetary conquest (NOT FW):
It is stated these battles will be skirmishes, but the only win condition is to clone the other team out. Why not just make it an ambush since this is the case? Do you not see an easy way out to defending the district? A corporation gets attacked and lets say they even field a full team of 16. They do nothing but sit in the MCC/redline and never lose a clone. The attacking team hacks all the null cannons and destroys the defending teams MCC, but the only penalty for the defending team is that they cant produce clones for a time. But it doesnt matter because they didnt lose any clones did they?
Therefore, destroying the MCC either needs to be added as a win condition for the attacking team, or something along the lines of if the defending team loses their MCC they also lose a percent amount of their clones (with possibly that same percent being added to the winning teams clones). Furthermore on this point, why would anybody field a team to defend their district if the only win condition is by clone out? If you never lose a clone you always win, even if your district cannot create more clones.
Read the wiki...destroying the MCC is a perfectly valid means of winning and obtaining the district.
|
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
54
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 18:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Surrender!?! *Walks away muttering under his breath* |
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
58
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 19:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:jackbubu wrote:Seeing how you do not continue travel costs above 7 jumps am i correct to guess that the initial launch will be limited to 1 low sec region ? (would also fit the 250 districts) Correct.
Which region? |
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
65
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 15:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Maximus Stryker wrote:This all sound very exciting, a big thank you for Fox Four for a 28 page (and counting) Q&A!
A) Do the defenders have an MCC as well or only the attackers (aka original skirmish/skirmish 1.0)? B) Is there a match timer (what if no one did anything during a match, what would happen)?
Is the following scenario accurate? Defenders have 200 clones in a district. Attackers land 250. Monday's battle: defenders lose 100 clones and attackers lose 100 clones Tuesday's battle: defenders lose 100 clones and attackers lose 100 clones Attackers have 50 remaining clones on the district so it becomes their's Wednesday, the former attackers and now district owners have 90 clones on the district The matches will use the new skirmish match system, so both sides have an MCC. There is no timer, only MCC destruction or clone depletion will end the match. After each fight the clones for the attacker are sent home. They will need to send them again. So w'e're going to have stacked attrition costs? |
Alcare Xavier Golden
DUST University Ivy League
65
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 16:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Alcare Xavier Golden wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Maximus Stryker wrote:This all sound very exciting, a big thank you for Fox Four for a 28 page (and counting) Q&A!
A) Do the defenders have an MCC as well or only the attackers (aka original skirmish/skirmish 1.0)? B) Is there a match timer (what if no one did anything during a match, what would happen)?
Is the following scenario accurate? Defenders have 200 clones in a district. Attackers land 250. Monday's battle: defenders lose 100 clones and attackers lose 100 clones Tuesday's battle: defenders lose 100 clones and attackers lose 100 clones Attackers have 50 remaining clones on the district so it becomes their's Wednesday, the former attackers and now district owners have 90 clones on the district The matches will use the new skirmish match system, so both sides have an MCC. There is no timer, only MCC destruction or clone depletion will end the match. After each fight the clones for the attacker are sent home. They will need to send them again. So w'e're going to have stacked attrition costs? You will need to pay the attrition cost for every battle, yes. I could see that slowing things down for the first week or so...lol |
|
|
|