| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1285
   |
Posted - 2013.04.01 19:13:00 -
[61] - Quote
/me will wait patiently till ccp returns from holiday  |
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
244
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 00:01:00 -
[62] - Quote
Rasatsu wrote:Buster Friently wrote:Fine, it's your idea, but this is part of the nullsec problem in Eve. It's too easy for large alliances (note not corps) to just cordon off large sections of space and build static boundaries. Also, i wouldn't consider this a punishment, just a less than linear benefit. The real world works this way too (not that it matters much for a game) but larger populations become much more difficult to control than a linear curve would allow for.
Anyway, I'll defer to your judgement as it's your idea and thread. Also, I do support your idea in general, and even without my stipulation, I think it sounds better than what I've heard from CCP. It's impossible to distinguish a small entity that is part of a meta-corp/alliance, versus one that is part of an in-game corp/alliance. Thus all the kind of artificial limits put on in-game size of corp/alliance or territory will just mean those large entities will split up in-game.
I covered this in my first post on the subject. you are correct...to a point. There is an organizational and logistical cost to metagaming and splitting up the alliances to subvert the "large alliance space holding tax" idea. Additionally, because the alliances themselves will have to be split up, there will be less centralized control, and more room for espionage/backstabbing/betrayal etc, because the game engine won't be forcing the command hierarchy all the way down.
This will still lead to more "churn" at the nullsec level, and help to reduce the effectiveness of the blue donut phenomena.
|
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1285
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 00:20:00 -
[63] - 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 -
[64] - Quote
updated addition resistance fund Idea to allow third parties to donate to it. IE similar to eve bounty system
|
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
365
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 00:55:00 -
[65] - Quote
This idea is less **** then CCP's current PC plan. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
831
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:06:00 -
[66] - Quote
Reserved |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
831
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:06:00 -
[67] - Quote
Reserved |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
831
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:14:00 -
[68] - Quote
Reserved, regarding the 'upgrading' of SI and conflict |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
O.M.N.I. Initiative
321
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:11:00 -
[69] - Quote
So, Beers, lets say the Imperfects control the best planet in highsect space and it has 8 districts on it. They have had it for a while so their security status is maxxed out...
How would describe the ideal scenario for the 'newer but superior' smaller corp to be able to wage battle against this bastion planet?
I ask the question, because I'm not clear here about who gets the benefits of the district while it is contested? While it is occupied...do the occupiers get any economic resources? Or do the previous owners somehow get reinforcements...? What would 'fuel' the grind to take it back over if noone gets anything?
F response: I see this as possibly creating an environment that encourages farming 'reds'. Ideally under it, you'd figure out a way to find an economic equilibrium with war against some aggressor in an RvB style perpetuated environment. Any rewards from this system should only come at the net-cost to the whole system, otherwise it is farmable. I.e. 200 mill isk in resources must be spent to get back 20 mill in officer gear
A response: You say the 'higher the security status the better of a cause for a corp to attack a district with it'. I like the premise here, but how does a corp with no territory get this status if they don't have territory? Your assumption is that this system is great because it incentivises people to go look for other territories and attack, and hold that area. But once you have all of the territory that favors your alignments...then what? Also, I'd look into making these alignments correspond with bloodlines, possibly, rather than whole factions. |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
O.M.N.I. Initiative
321
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 14:17:00 -
[70] - Quote
I initially didn't read the decimals right and assumed that it might be possible to trade/flip districts and share the passive income by maintaining simultaneous high standings. Now its clear this isn't possible. Therefore it appears that districts can be under control of a different group than those people it is giving passive income to...for about a day at least? |
|
|
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
O.M.N.I. Initiative
321
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:50:00 -
[71] - Quote
So here's a practical example of your idea + my bloodlines idea...tell me if I'm using your conditions incorrectly.
The Negative Feedback Alliance has managed to take 4 planets in the Sinq Liason region accounting for 10 different districts spread among them. They have controlled 2 planets in each of the pockets of the lowsec regions and have designated the Imperfects as the Executors of the Aeman planets while Internal Error are the executors of Lermireve and Allipes planets.
The Imperfects have an easier time with the local demographics as they must only manage a harmonious combination of mostly Gallente (65%), Intaki (10%), Jin Mei (13%), and some Brutor (12%) refugees from nearby FW in Metropolis. The Imperfects easy to maintain relationship with the locals means that their Security Index growth rate is at 1.5x normal growth rate.
The Internal Error's planets are harder to maintain positive relations with,since local bloodlines are often at odds. Their total planet's relations include Gallente (32%), Intaki (19%), Jin Mei (14%), some Civire (8%) businessmen, and some liberated Khanid (22%) , and some Ni-Kunni (5%) artisans. This difficult demographic situation means that Internal Error's Security Index is much more stunted at .5x the normal growth rate (on average, different for each district).
A newly created corp (Blue Fluffy Bounty Hunterz-[BFBHz]) of only 16 members has found alignment with the Civire to come fairly easy as they have been pretty successful fighting for Caldari districts in FW and have friends farming drones in lowsec Citadel systems. The mainly Civire populated District 3, in Internal Error's Allipes IV, is the district responsible for the majority of Civire on all of Internal Error's districts. It is also currently only at a Security index of .45 for Internal Error, as their poor standings have meant security status for the district grows extremely slowly.
BFBHz has an alignment of +7.5 with Civire while IE only has a +.8. If BFBHz could take Allipes IV-District 3, it could get max status in only 3 days and possibly establish a beachead to overthrow Internal Error off the planet. However, costly reinforcements flown in from the established nearby system and surrounding districts will make the fight difficult. But the payoff for the district could be greater for BFBHz than IE if they could get roots their, as IE hadn't even begun to collect the passive benefits from the district.
After 185 million isk worth of total losses, 45 regained in salvage, and 450 lost clones between both sides, BFBHz has taken Allipes IV, District 3. I.E. is too battered to launch another counter attack for at least 48 hours. Due to the demographics of district 3 being so stacked against I.E. they realize how little benefit there is to trying to immediately take back the district. After all, BFBHz is unlikely to mount an attack against any other Allipes IV district as intel shows their Gallente relationships are quite aweful, which would mean no passive income for them for at least a week or two.
|
Maximus Stryker
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
401
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:28:00 -
[72] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Update-
New mechanic "resistance fund": There are always parts of the civilian population that loathe the merc group that is in charge of the district. There could be a group of district manage skills to lessen the impact of this
-purpose is to increase the value of the district over the long term to make it too good to pass up
- resistance factor
*A small percent of resrouces are siphoned from the merc corp in charge. Its stored indefinitely untill a new corp has taken over the district with a .60 sec status
thoughts?
Update: Per Brilliant effing Idea by Mith in IRC
The resistance fund can have isk put into it by other hostile actors (corps/mercs/pilots). Also its similar to the bounty system in eve. This is absolutely beautiful meta game idea.
----------------------
really like...
Essentially, take 5% / 7% / 10% from the profit (per day they are in control) that a corporation makes on a district and store it in a "takeover fund" so that whomever comes in and takes over the district will be rewarded with this "takeover fund".
This will provide incentive to attack, especially when these funds get to be really large numbers...
To me (a novice) this seems like it would be a "quicker" solution and would not take as many man hours to program as some of the loftier ideas shared thus far... |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
O.M.N.I. Initiative
322
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:32:00 -
[73] - Quote
Maximus Stryker wrote:Free Beers wrote:Update-
New mechanic "resistance fund": There are always parts of the civilian population that loathe the merc group that is in charge of the district. There could be a group of district manage skills to lessen the impact of this
-purpose is to increase the value of the district over the long term to make it too good to pass up
- resistance factor
*A small percent of resrouces are siphoned from the merc corp in charge. Its stored indefinitely untill a new corp has taken over the district with a .60 sec status
thoughts?
Update: Per Brilliant effing Idea by Mith in IRC
The resistance fund can have isk put into it by other hostile actors (corps/mercs/pilots). Also its similar to the bounty system in eve. This is absolutely beautiful meta game idea.
---------------------- really like... Essentially, take 5% / 7% / 10% from the profit (per day they are in control) that a corporation makes on a district and store it in a "takeover fund" so that whomever comes in and takes over the district will be rewarded with this "takeover fund". This will provide incentive to attack, especially when these funds get to be really large numbers... To me (a novice) this seems like it would be a "quicker" solution and would not take as many man hours to program as some of the loftier ideas shared thus far...
Once this fund gets much larger than any possible cost of loss, what stops a friendly alt corp from just attacking solely to get the profits? |
Maximus Stryker
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
401
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:46:00 -
[74] - Quote
Because it is going to mean losing your district. In a one-off scenario, I agree, this is very exploitable.
However, I am thinking/hoping that if EVERYONE has this going on (and most corps will have multiple districts) and districts keep changing, that will leave them vulnerable to rival corps.
If you are in the midst of swapping out for profits with an friendly/alt corp and a rival corp sees this, would that not create a good time to attack the alt corp which may not have as many members from the true corp and thus be more vulnerable to attack.
I just think that have this little incentive and keeping things constantly changing (even if friendly changes some/most of the time) will allow for more conflict and less stagnant PC. |
The Robot Devil
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
61
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 16:52:00 -
[75] - Quote
trollsroyce wrote:Excellent line of thought and something CCP should bring up whenever wormhole dust is considered. You are absolutely spot on about the scaling issues here. In EVE, you need the ability to defend in central large fights where the capital numbers escalate such that alliances can be crushed. If you have that power you can take as much space as you dare, the risk is that competition teams up on you if you over expand.
The mechanics you describe sound meaningful, they resemble wormhole space. Nullsec is a war of identity, alliances making a name for themselves and players gaining recognition and power by their efforts. Wormholes are about holding as big a fortress as you can farm, and the cultivation takes time but rewards are in personal wealth.
Thus, CCP save this draft for the future. PC works with current mechanics because it's a game of power and alliances. Wormhole PC could use this kind of personal reward mechanic.
Do you live in WH space?
|
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1306
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:03:00 -
[76] - Quote
Beren i am working on a real scenario to answer you questions. |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
136
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:39:00 -
[77] - Quote
I didn't read all the responses, so maybe someone has addressed this.
The opposite problem is that, if you make it more profitable to attack than to hold, you will end up with corps farming other corps rather than trying to take territory. So they'll be careful to ensure they never take a district so they don't shut off the low-maintenance supply of goods and ISK from raiding. What we need is a system that presents enough different kinds of incentives for different people that it encourages every mode of playing.
I like the idea of instituting a kind of feudal system in the districts, where the CEO can appoint district managers for each district, and can also give players land within each district, so that you end up with a substantial number of players having their own land.
From the perspective of an attacker, this means not just a superficial incentive for the entire corp, but pressure from individual players to take territory. If a corp has few enough members that everyone has their own piece of land, there's not going to be a lot of upward pressure to take more territory. But if you're a larger corp and have 50 players with some legitimate claim to a piece of land, you're going to get a lot of pressure to expand so these players can have their own land.
Once you have land, it would confer special benefits on those players that own it, whether it's a steady income of ISK or some kind of special resource. Then you'd have a land management mini-game that allows you to enhance your land, so you become invested in the place where you "live." This means when someone comes to attack your land you have a personal reason to defend it. Meanwhile, the people attacking have a personal interest in taking the land--they want territory of their own.
Part of this mini-game could be managing the "resistance" mentioned in the second post, so that the resistance level of the local populace is itself a sort of battle.
This would help to alleviate the problem of allied corps attacking one another, because individual players aren't going to want to give up their territory.
This would involve substantially more development than some of the other options presented, but I think it would be both a solution to many of the problems discussed here, and a great addition to the gameplay. |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
O.M.N.I. Initiative
323
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 18:58:00 -
[78] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Beren i am working on a real scenario to answer you questions.
 That's not quick enough Free Beers! I'm declaring your scenario as sad right now. I'm already disappointed. Its broken and you need to fix it, you should feel bad.
Just kidding...no but really...I'm waiting.... I will carefully read it and analyze it as a bitter Eve carebear who completely understands the minds of elite FPS players... |
Free Beers
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
1310
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:21:00 -
[79] - 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 |
The Robot Devil
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
63
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 03:46:00 -
[80] - Quote
What ever kind of mechanism is used to prevent stagnation and pull in and keep players is fine by me. I don't care if it is kind of broken. Fixing the problems is part of the fun. |
|
|
VEXation Gunn
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
264
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 18:50:00 -
[81] - Quote
So how about we revisit this now that it took less than a month for most to realize that PC is bad (even if some of you nerds asked for it) |
Baal Roo
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1585
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 20:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
VEXation Gunn wrote:So how about we revisit this now that it took less than a month for most to realize that PC is bad (even if some of you nerds asked for it)
Unfortunately, most of the problems with PC revolve around the fact that the memory leaks and poor optimizations make it unplayable. My own corp played only 2 or 3 matches before basically deciding "well, maybe next build."
The only other real problem with it is there still is no good reason to actually hold a district. It's really just more trouble than it's worth. You don't get any real bonus on the Dust side, and you don't get any real bonus on the EVE side. It's simply a chore. |
VEXation Gunn
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
264
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 20:22:00 -
[83] - Quote
baal I think ccp thought "ownership" was reward enough. In practice though there isn't much to it.
There are so many things that are broke about PC I don't think ccp can tweak enough to make a difference |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |