Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
271
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 02:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Intro: We all like huge battles with many players. Unfortunately the PS3 and network limitations limit the maximum amount of players in a single match.
[SUGGESTION:] For grandest planetary objective, have multiple matches opening at same timer. The exact match starting time can be very same, or stepped a bit. The different maps have interaction on very limited way, defined by objective statuses.
The interaction can be soft to give advantage to either side, or hard making it mandatory to succeed on one map to let friends proceed on other map at the same time. At simplest, it could be that attackers have to win two of three matches to win the planetary command center - very easy to program.
This would make it feel that there's something happening beyond this battlefield, multiple battles on multiple fronts. Remember Return of the Jedi's epic final battle? More interestingly, this would make it possible to have truly epic offensive while going around the technological limitations. Having 24, 48 or even 96 (hardly never get there) on one side is not going to be enough as we're gonna have corps or alliances with thousands of players with hundreds online at a given time. This gives possibility to many corp members to get onto important fight, not just the cadre.
Examples of soft objectives: "hold that XL AA battery and opposing MCC takes more damage"" "Capture that shield generator and remove WP requirement penalty of +300% generated by it" "Hold that objective and friends on main map gonna have to hold one less objective" "Hold that airfield/artillery installation and your side is gonna have off-map support (lol)" "Hack that link station and district satellite becomes connectable"
Examples of hard objectives: "Hack that console and draw bridge lowers on other map" "Hack consoles and per hacked console a target on other map becomes destructible (or just loses it's resists)" "Hack stuff and command bunker becomes accesible" "Destroy power plant to disable energy gates" "hold that XL web battery and opposing MCC cannot go any further to dock" "Destroy or capture orbital artillery to give Eve fleet ability to stay in orbit" =)
Note: If someone points that small organisations would be discriminated, remember that Dust corps are mercs who are fighting for money. Just hire someone for that side objective!
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
337
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 07:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
The idea has a lot of merit, and I can certainly see this kind of things working, so long as the communications were improved drastically.
Until PS4 hits, I think this is one of the better ways I've seen to get higher player counts into matches...
However, at this stage, with Planetary Conquest to be open to even small corps, requiring multiple full teams to take an objective would be severely unfair to the 'little' guys.
+ 1 for the idea anyway. |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
254
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 07:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Awesome idea. This would give a meaningful thing to do for a lot of leftover players. Lorewise it seems just as functional as 16 mercs flipping over districts of millions. |
trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
254
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 07:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Catering to small corps is artificial and doesn't happen in New Eden. Small corps should go mercenary or renter. Alternately they should be good enough to hold the districts even while losing the siege battles. |
Ten-Sidhe
Osmon Surveillance Caldari State
442
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 10:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
I would suggest web mcc movement by 75% or so like in EvE.
For those that were not around for old skirmish mode, only one mcc moved across the map and match ended if it made it across map or it was destroyed. Slowing it down would extend the match timer and make it easier to win for side trying to blow up mcc.
These side objectives could be optional for the attacker, they could either delegate some of main attacks clones for them, or send clones from a different district for them.
Maybe if the effects lasted for a time it could be primary battle to soften up district before trying to take it. For example, if a secondary battle took an asset, it stays that way for battle the next day unless defender sends clones to take it back. It could have a separate reinforcement timer of less then 23hr set by the attacker. This would give defender a chance to attack it sometime before the next attack on district to try and remove the bonus.
Few details like this and pc could be quite the complex game in it's own right.
|
KalOfTheRathi
Talon Strike Force LTD
306
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Just get Sony to sign a waiver for their Exclusive support of DUST. Should be easy. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
2779
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 12:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
If you have not seen it I highly suggest taking a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pNmCRti9dFM#t=1316s
The whole thing is really awesome, but I linked directly to the section maybe most interesting to this discussion.
Having the battles going on simultaneously might be a bit much, but then again maybe not for super critical SI. We do want to move towards this kind of thing though where multiple fights are required to take a district, each fight is on a different level, and winning or losing one battle has an effect on the next.
That is what we are working towards, and plans change, but for now we are focusing on the basics.
Mostly I just wanted to share that video because I think it gives a good idea of where we are trying to go. |
|
CODE Breaker93
Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Intro: We all like huge battles with many players. Unfortunately the PS3 and network limitations limit the maximum amount of players in a single match.
[SUGGESTION:] For grandest planetary objective, have multiple matches opening at same timer. The exact match starting time can be very same, or stepped a bit. The different maps have interaction on very limited way, defined by objective statuses.
The interaction can be soft to give advantage to either side, or hard making it mandatory to succeed on one map to let friends proceed on other map at the same time. At simplest, it could be that attackers have to win two of three matches to win the planetary command center - very easy to program.
This would make it feel that there's something happening beyond this battlefield, multiple battles on multiple fronts. Remember Return of the Jedi's epic final battle? More interestingly, this would make it possible to have truly epic offensive while going around the technological limitations. Having 24, 48 or even 96 (hardly never get there) on one side is not going to be enough as we're gonna have corps or alliances with thousands of players with hundreds online at a given time. This gives possibility to many corp members to get onto important fight, not just the cadre.
Examples of soft objectives: "hold that XL AA battery and opposing MCC takes more damage"" "Capture that shield generator and remove WP requirement penalty of +300% generated by it" "Hold that objective and friends on main map gonna have to hold one less objective" "Hold that airfield/artillery installation and your side is gonna have off-map support (lol)" "Hack that link station and district satellite becomes connectable"
Examples of hard objectives: "Hack that console and draw bridge lowers on other map" "Hack consoles and per hacked console a target on other map becomes destructible (or just loses it's resists)" "Hack stuff and command bunker becomes accesible" "Destroy power plant to disable energy gates" "hold that XL web battery and opposing MCC cannot go any further to dock" "Destroy or capture orbital artillery to give Eve fleet ability to stay in orbit" =)
Note: If someone points that small organisations would be discriminated, remember that Dust corps are mercs who are fighting for money. Just hire someone for that side objective!
MAG had a pretty descent approach to it. In a domination match there were only about 60 player per match, but there was another group (the platoon) playing. It had a limit on players per match so there put two matches on one map. i don't know if it would work or not that's just a thought. |
Etero Narciss
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
120
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
I love it!
However, I don't think that "hard" objectives should make it impossible for the other battle to be won. Instead, it should make it "significantly harder".
The bridge example is a good one to use. For instance, even though the bridge isn't lowered, you can still fly over the chasm. On the other hand, doing so means that your dropship becomes the target of every Swarm and Forge on the opposing side. It makes it still possible to win, but the challenge becomes much, much greater. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
875
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:If you have not seen it I highly suggest taking a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pNmCRti9dFM#t=1316sThe whole thing is really awesome, but I linked directly to the section maybe most interesting to this discussion. Having the battles going on simultaneously might be a bit much, but then again maybe not for super critical SI. We do want to move towards this kind of thing though where multiple fights are required to take a district, each fight is on a different level, and winning or losing one battle has an effect on the next. That is what we are working towards, and plans change, but for now we are focusing on the basics. Mostly I just wanted to share that video because I think it gives a good idea of where we are trying to go.
Fellow Mercs, if you haven't watched this Vid do it it's well worth the time
0.02 ISK Cross |
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
279
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 21:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote: . .
However, at this stage, with Planetary Conquest to be open to even small corps, requiring multiple full teams to take an objective would be severely unfair to the 'little' guys.
. .
I re-emphasize that A) smallest corps might not be the ones to try to hold the planet's single space elevator (or something) anyways. B) Ringers are currently to be possible to bring C) The very idea of Dust is battle for money, for contracts. Smallest corps may have to resort to hiring people to fight some battles on 'wrong' time zones already. Fighting someone elses fight is fundamental part of Dust's philosophy (atm at least)
Thx for comments in any case |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |