|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1257
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
I would like to thank CCP (specifically FoxFour and Nullarbor) for involving the dust community in their design ideas and discussions. That said CCP come get your whoopin.
The entrie concept of planetary control as ccp has described is easily broken mechanically and economically. It seems CCP is hell bent on bringing the same broken aspects of sov in EvE to dust.
So you are asking "Beers whats so wrong with eve sov?" I'll give you the short version since you asked nicely.
-null sov favors very large organizations (coalitions/alliances/corps) -with large entities the idea of wars and or grinding becomes a deterent because of the time involved and the economic realities. Hence the big ******* blue donut that is nullsec. Staging wars for good fights isn't what ccp intended sadly, but all thats left to do with the current mechanics. -passive isk generation benefit corps/alliances not the individual pilots. Just because alliances offer ship replacement doesn't mean the individual is being being rewarded for their efforts. -The shear amount of isk/assets that already exist in eve in the power blocks have made it impossible for any smaller groups to ever challenge. This is a legacy issue and part of the reason why CCP initially looked at dust as a possbile isk sink for EvE.
I could go on but I would rather look for a solution. So below I listed 5 simple features that my concept must include.
1 Sov must reward the individual merc, not simply a source of isk/resources for the corp/alliance (This is more of an fps player aspect) 2 effort to maintain districts should scale in a linear fashion with the number of districts controlled by a corp/alliance 3 Resources/isk should be utilize active mechanics when possible 4 The urge to fight/reward for fighting should out weigh benefits of blue donut fest 5 The resource model needs to be random, dynamic, and include existing and new resources(must be reason for eve pilots to care about dust)
Now to the basics in the most simple antinovel way i can
A. What indicates control of districts? Districts all have a security status from .00 to 1.00 (1.00 being the higest). We mercs dont actually control the districts or planets we simply have a relationship with the civilian population. The higher the security status the more rewarding the relationship is. At the same time the higher the secruty status is the more lucrative it would be for corp or alliance to attack and win a battle in the district( loot)
B. Each district/planet/system will have its own relationships with different NPC gear corporations such as allotek. When defending the district, attacking and winning, or active PVE the NPC corps will see fit to reward players
C. What is secrurity status? Security status increases on an hourly basis for the corp in control of the district (23/7), while decreasing for any other corps at a rate of .01 per hour that do not have control. Below is just me throwing out details and ideas - Sec status increases at a rate of .01 from .00 to .60 per hour -At .60 a corp will receive benefits from PVE and passive resources on the district and all timers -From .60 to .86 the rate of increase per hour will be .005. -At .86 the corp will be able to reconfigure all district structures and managed resources -From .86 to 1.00 the rate of increase is .002 -A sec status above .86 will give % bonus to passive isk/resrouces generated. Specialized infrastructures can be placed (such as system cyno jammer under control of the district). -PVE drone infestations difficulty will increase dramatically along with rewards. -Higher level meta equip such as officer gear can be available via PVP in high sec status districts and even in PVP.
Note: If a corp loses a corp battle to defend its district its now occupied. If the defending corp never attempts another corp battle over the district it will eventually flip to the occupiers. So the defender will have sec status advantage as long as they continue to fight for it. So a district can be taken in 1 battle or require many, thus a my dynamic battlefield
D. Why scale effort to be linear for districts you ask? This is the best way to not punish small corps or penalize large corps. If a corp has 1 district they will still need to defend it and farm it of drones (PVE). Having a high sec status makes it a very juicy target to be attacked and looted. If a corp has 10 districts and has the ability to defend and farm it then they should receive 10x rewards for it. My issue going back to eve is the scale factor where 10x amount of players can control 100x more and reap 100x rewards. I roll with the big alliances in nullsec and its super easy to see the negative without 1:1 effort scaling. Now I say this the benefits of having a larger corp with many districts is still there. Your players have more flexability and you will have a more diverse selections of resrouces to extract.
E How do we keep from a blue donut? First make it more lucrative to attack, pillage, takeover a highsec status district. If done right players will scour systems and planets for these and with good reason.
F How do we keep from blues farming blues to get the good gear? Introduce standing for mercs (not the way its done in eve though). Mercs will all want a negative standing aginst corp/alliances with high (-10) sec status to get the best loot and most isk. If a merc is involved in a prolonged campaign against 1 alliance his sec status could easily reach -10 after many victories. Want the best officer gear in the game? carry a -10 and win battles. So if blues wanted to farm each other it wouldn't be worth it. Also if a merc stops fighting against a corp there needs to be standing tick down. So if you have a -10 standing and don't fight them for 30 days you now have a -2. Again reward those to attack consistantly, but more importantly win. |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1257
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
reserved |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1257
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
reserved |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1259
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
GM Hercules wrote:Please don't use profanity in your comments.
Thanks
my bad I corrected |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1262
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Captain-Awesome wrote:Edited my post beers, why time based? (point c)
I hate grinding in nullsec and dont want that here. This gives corps option to fight it out or walk away. It adds to tatics and strategy of dust
I also am thinking of the fact that players will need to grind sp, maybe do FW for LP and gear, do PVE to clear districts of drones. While the focal point of the game is pvp and sov control I dont want it to be only that.
The other thing that i didn't mention is that if a corp has a .9 and above sec status in a district they can set the timer to defend every 3 days. lots of details to play with |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1264
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:I agree wholeheartedly. The only point that I'd like to make is that the cost of maintaining control of a district should not increase linearly with the number controlled. The cost should increase exponentially such that controlling larger areas becomes increasingly more difficult. The exponential curve would need to be tweaked by CCP to give a certain threshold maximum area controlled without too much fuss. Frankly, this is how SOV should be in Eve as well.
And yes, I realize that larger corps/alliances will split into smaller groups to exploit the nonlinear costs, but nevertheless, a nonlinear, exponential cost growth is the best way to encourage more dynamics and entry points for smaller groups.
i have no interests in punishing corps for being large |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1266
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:I don't think it's quite fair to say something is "broken" if it doesn't happen to work exactly the way YOU want it to work. Some of us actually enjoy the politics and metagame of managing larger groups and working together as large entities to rule over the less organized and less politically motivated. The idea that how a player interacts in New Eden isn't restricted by arbitrary game mechanics is one of it's main draws and what sets it apart.
So your guys are good at the shooting bits? That means you need to work to recruit guys who are good with the politics and metagame.
Just because You don't like those aspects doesn't mean that others don't find them "fun" and doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players who want forced restrictions to slow down the corps who actually have their **** together. If you're a small corp and that is holding back your ability to get things accomplished, then you need to up your game and grow your corp.
If you don't want to wade through the politics and the metagame, I fear you are playing the wrong game.
I do, on the other hand, agree that there needs to be incentives for even the largest corps to stay in the fight and keep waging war.
I assure you, Subdreddit (and the Dust 514 arm of TEST in general) will not be sitting on our hands, we're gonna be shooting people in the face.
I'll forgive your ignorance as to the motivation for my concept. The Negative-Feedback alliance is employeed by Goons (as if anyone didn't know by now). So we have all the meta game, isk, politics, zerg force, and most importantly propaganda that we will ever need.
I have been in nullsec a long time and understand the mechanics of it way more then I ever wanted too. At the same time I have been a competative fps player on and off for about 15 years. I am just trying to find a way to bring the best parts of both together. If you actually read my idea it's a merc-centric design where effort and activity of mercs is rewardard. I dont want size to be a benefit or negative since the average fps clan/group/organization tends to be smaller.
Test picks up PRO while goons picked up IMPS. All that time on our couch and you didn't learn anything did you? SMH |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1266
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote: I get your point, I was simply trying to provide a counterpoint that didn't seem to have been addressed yet in the thread. It was looking a bit circlejerky.
I tried to be as general as possible(and wanted to fit it all in one post). I want people to ask questions, offer up further ideas, and try to break it.
I am really focused on the mechanics and motivation of players to do x,y,z. At the same time leave the meta game intact.
There are still inherent benefits to being a large corp and owning 10 districts vs a small corp owning 1. You can make 10x isk (generally speaking) and have a wider array of resources to farm. You could easily bash on a corp with only 1 district endlessly and still make isk over all even if you lose over and over again.
I view my alliance/goons coalition as a big group in dust. We have no issues in putting forth effort to maintain what we will have in an active manner. The idea of sitting on passive resources is so EvE 2009 |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1268
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:
I'm going to jump in here again, and mention that you've sorta contradicted yourself here. I am in a small corp. No, I don't want to be in a large corp. Currently, nullsec in Eve has very little room for a corp like mine, which means that when you say "...doesn't mean the game should be sculpted in a way that only benefits players...", currently Eve in nullsec very much benefits mostly those players of very large corps/alliances. I don't have a problem with that BTW, other than to say that it'd be nice if there was a little more room in Eve (and maybe Dust) for us little corps to hide.
But, telling another player to not suggest crafting the game to better suit them, is kinda saying that you want the game crafted to make your playstyle dominant.
There should be a middle ground.
This is what i care about ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even if ccp changes nullsec to farm and fields where pilots reap rewards for effort and activity it would takes years upon years for power blocks to burn through their isk (if thats even possible)
I dont want a situation created in dust where the big power block (which i am a part of) take control and get rich like no other. We will cause inflation in the aurum secondary market and roll with balacs in pub matches for fun.
|
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1274
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 04:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:
Having said all this, I don't want to further hijack Free Beers' thread with my tweak to his idea.
I am listening (or reading to be exact)
I started this for a discussion and thats what we are all having. I am trying to get feedback, not tell you want to think. I plan to refine my idea based upon feedback. Let see if we can make this buzzword of crowd sourcing actually produce someting
So by all means continue your thought process here.
|
|
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1277
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 23:37:00 -
[11] - Quote
updated with additional mechanics: resistance fund & pilliage |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1277
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 00:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
in the begining the loot/reward/resources need /will/ be dust centric. I know the day will come when resources from planets will be in demand by eve pilots(as eve nerd i can't wait). It just can't happen right away. Dust economy needs to be stable and then slowly integrated with eve economy.
CCP views corps as corps and having pilots and mercs just means you do different things. In the short term eve pilots will see only basic benefits from planetary sov. |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1278
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 00:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
Laheon wrote:Agreed re: not punishing large alliances. The "punishments" would come from the metagame, e.g. organising the alliance, maintaining hold on all the planets you want, and making sure spies don't infiltrate the alliance and do a BoB on you.
No punishment is needed for larger corps/alliance. The idea is that 1 district takes the same effort as 10 districts to maintain.
if a small corp wanted it could own 4 districts and stack the reinforce timers. If they were active enough they could farm/defend all 4 of them.
A large corp that own say 10 districts and have issues with reinforce timers. If you are US time zone you have 4 hour window you want and will have a 2, 1 hour windows that you could be forced to defend 3 districts at the same time.
In the end its not about big or small its about being able to effectively manage what you do control |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1278
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 00:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Icy Xenosmilus wrote:Alliances need their power, but if a small corp beats a large alliance, it should be able to hurt it pretty bad, or the smaller alliance should be rewarded bonus.
power doesn't come from just having numbers. Power is derived from skill of mercs, activity level of mercs, isk effieceny of merc, MANAGEMENT OF MERCS, BEING GOOD AT THE META GAME.
|
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1285
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 15:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:Free Beers wrote:Pilliage mechanic (aka telc takes your stuff): The idea is that if a corp attacks a district and wins the battle they have the option to continue seige or pillage and leave. If you select pilliage and leave you get loot (isk/bpc/whatever)
This is intended to be district raiding.
*Your standing against that corp goes down (good thing if you hate them) *Your corps sec status with that district(and npc gear corp) goes negative (you can start as low as -1.00) *If you control districts near by your sec status will take a hit (well, they know people who you just pilliaged)
Now I haven't thought of the rest of the pieces to it yet, will add more i really like the pillage idea sometimes u dont really WANT the district but just to fck around in someone back yard and grief them would also encourage more fights as ppl know they wont necessarily have to look to defend another district if they end up claiming it instead just select the pillage option and get paid
of course its a good idea, telc came up with it.
I'm just waiting on CCP foxyfour to post his list of excuses on why risk514 will be so awesome |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1285
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 16:25:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:pfft not all telc ideas are good, he plays darkfall after all and bad games like defiance
he also plays warframe.
/me just gave telc credit because all he wants it to take peopls stuff in dust |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1285
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 19:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
/me will wait patiently till ccp returns from holiday |
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1285
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 00:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
@ buster & Rasatsu
just wanted to jump again. I am trying to avoid the size of corps/alliance/coalitions all together. A district requres x amount of effort and activity to maintain/defend it and y amount to farm isk to max/isk.
what you do is reward activity not reward size.
If a 30 man corp had 3 districts and staggers the reinforce timer they will have enough players to defend. If they are super active they can make a lot of isk in those 3 districts.
Now if a corp of 300 has 10 districts the dynamics of management change but not the effort involved. You can get by with a lower percent of players active. The effort of the individual merc may vary and this is the benefit of the larger corp. Owning 10 districts creates more overall risk, but at the same time the reward for active mercs and smart corp is greater then just owning 3 districts.
so no mechanics are needed to limit size (they would be circumvented anyways).
in the end if there is a corp of 1000 mercs that have 100 districts. Thats a lot of work and management. If they can pull it of the more power to them. No effing way I would ever want to be apart of someting that big.
|
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1285
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 00:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
updated addition resistance fund Idea to allow third parties to donate to it. IE similar to eve bounty system
|
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1306
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Beren i am working on a real scenario to answer you questions. |
|
Free Beers
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
1310
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
for the record i am not an elite pvper. I would actually consider myself about average for fps games (lots of bad dust players make me look good)
I am competative gamer but i was always with small groups that had to work their ass off to be good at stuff. I am trying to protect them because they will out weigh the elite pvpers by 100 to 1.
almost done, forum pvp is keeping me preoccupied |
|
|
|