DUST Search - Announcement:Dev Blog: Planetary Conquest: An Update

Rigor Mordis wrote:

Orion Decline wrote:

Rigor Mordis wrote:

Again, how realistic is it that an upstart with nothing can enter and compete in a market where the competition has the resources to subcontract the upstart?

You're assuming the "upstart" small Corps need to have an equal say in the matter.

This is New Eden.

We need to feel like we have an impact, but we don't need to go toe-to-toe against the bigger Corps and WIN. If we can break a supply chain, and our actions help another Corp to deliver a real blow, we made a difference.

A small Corp may not be sufficient to take and hold a District. But if we're good, we can break a crucial supply line, capture (and abandon) or cripple the district they were relying on for reinforcements, and pave the way for our employer to take and hold. If we can't own the map - and most of us can't - at least give us the tools to help SHAPE it.

Awesome! That will give the new people an incentive to join a smaller or newer corp! Roll

Should they run out and grab a subscription to EVE so that they can see how New Eden CAN be really neat? Straight

Where did I ever assume that small guys or new guys should have an equal say? I am not assuming when I say they will NEVER have an equal shot. They will NEVER become 'big' and they will NEVER be able to keep people on board and they will NEVER NEVER NEVER.

What I was suggesting was a way that it could all still be intertwined WITHOUT the upstarts HAVING to go toe-to-toe with the big corps and vice versa.

Again, can't get the MORE PEOPLE PLAYING THE GAME point across to some people. That leads me to believe that those people are some how getting off on spawn camping and the other obvious flaws that the basic battle dynamic has.

If the idea of utter domination without competition sounds like fun, then maybe those folks should just beat their wives instead of playing a game.

If numbers are what is ultimately going to matter, then the system should be designed so that ALL aspiring corps can increase their numbers competitively. Anyone who can argue against that is one of the 'sandbox' people.

If the intention is to build another little sandbox and keep the masses that weren't in the old sanbox, that's not all that cool. If the kids in the sandbox don't want other kids to come play in the sandbox, then they probably shouldn't build their new sanbox at another school's playground.

Still even more, if this game winds up sucking after all, who really loses? Not the EVE people because they are loyal to that. Not the PS3 noob Dusty that has his repertories of better games. The people who get screwed are the PS3ers who tirelessly strived to build their kills and corporations only to never reap ANY REAL fruits of their labor due to a system skewed toward the FEW. And, CCP gets screwed because they get a bad reputation with the PS3 (console) crowd and hardcore FPS folks are so unforgiving that many of them will turn their backs on any product offered in the future. Even if that product were free money and attractive mates, the FPS bunch will be skeptical.

The ultimate losers will be those who insisted on having the system skewed in their favor. For it will be those people that remain so delusional as to think they are actually are actually having fun, playing alone in the new sandbox. Cool


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 35 post(s)
Orion Decline Reckoners 11	Posted - 2013.04.08 14:53:00 - [1] - Quote As the CEO of a pretty small Corp - we only have about 20 members, including alts and a couple of not-yet-accepted applicants, I'm more than a little worried by the changes to PC right now. I can see why it's been done, but I don't like it. My Corp has - assuming the 40 million figure we had previously been given - saved up pretty hard in the hopes that we'll have a chance to claim some space for ourselves. We don't have the numbers to reliably defend our own territory, but we DO have friends in several larger Corps who would be willing to merc themselves out to us for a minimal fee. If we can maintain a district, our costs should be not only sustainable, but profitable, meaning we can afford to gift some extra ISK to the Corp members who will provide us with the most entertainment. 80 million - the price is right, imo. But not for 150 clones. There are a lot of reasons why I prefer 200 clones for this pack. Also, I think there should be a second option for either a 150 clone pack at 60 million or a 100 clone pack for 40 million. If it was the latter option, then the 200 clone pack would only be available to "new" Corps with no territory, and the 100 clone pack would only be available to land-holders. First, a less important reason - it simplifies the math. 80 million for 200. 40 million for 100. 60 million for 150. 30 million for 75. I mention 75 because it's a day's worth of non-PF production. This works. The numbers are all neat and easy to work with. It makes everything clear. If 80 million buys you 150 clones, then you get 100 clones for 53,333,333.333 ISK. That's not a simple number to work with, and it's an important amount of clones to have a clean value for. On top of that, 200 clones means more tactical options - both to attackers and defenders. It still leaves cloning the enemy out as a valid strategy, but it also helps to make MCC victory a more viable goal. With the current system, defenders will be pushing for MCC victory to minimise losses, rather than trying for something that could reasonably be called a victory. Attackers would meanwhile have a better chance of actually having enough survivors to be reasonably able to defend the district against a counter-offensive. If there was a "starter" pack with 200 clones and a "landholder" pack with only 100, you'd be less likely to be "wasting" ISK by topping up beyond your district's cap. If you could only buy 100 clones at a time, attacking directly with purchased clones rather than from a district would instantly become impractical. While you COULD technically use this to "buy" a large portion of the map early on, doing so would leave almost all your districts vulnerable. Corps would therefore be encouraged NOT to use the Genolution packs to attack when they already hold territory, and would instead be encouraged to top their districts up with the clone packs while attacking from them. One of the main reasons players were going to be limited to the single purchase was so that a Corp would have a limited offensive range around their own territory. They wouldn't be able to just buy their way into places at the far ends of the galaxy. Unless they play well enough to win a war of attrition with only 100 clones on the field at once, this plan makes such "long range" attacks less of a viable option. Still possible, but less practical than the proposed system. If there were two packs, one with 200 clones and one with 150, then the 150 clone pack would be ideal for attacking a strongly-defended district with a high (250+) clone count, while the 200 clone pack is a good option to ensure the defensibility of a heavily-weakened district when you claim it, or to better establish control over an unclaimed district. I prefer the 200/100 idea over this one, but it would be a good alternative option, and it works within the 150 minimum attack size which currently exists in the plans for PC.
Orion Decline Reckoners 12	Posted - 2013.04.09 00:03:00 - [2] - Quote Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: Any starter pack with a one purchase limit will get exploited by alt corps, thats the main reason behind the price change. And if you can buy a large enough pack to press an effective attack, it will get exploited by larger Corps to push out the smaller ones who can't afford to pay to keep up. I'd rather they exploit it with alt Corps that leave them exposed to "divide and conquer" strategies than exploit a system that's built to be exploited. Under my system, the starter packs would let someone's alt Corps swarm across the map, but they'd have to gradually work on taking over paths linking their districts before they can safely reunite into a single solid Corp that owns everything, and for the duration of that VERY long-winded process (even longer if you consider that they WILL lose battles occasionally, no matter how good they are), they'll be vulnerable to having any of their Corps basically put to siege by another wealthy Corp that DIDN'T spread themselves too thin. Lets imagine a corp with literally thousands of members decides to split into, lets say 100 Corps, so they can take almost half the map on day 1. That gives them 100 districts. Each district has 200 clones. It could be argued that they have 2000 clones, but they don't. They have 100 Corps with 200 clones each, and without the ability to transfer clones from one Corp to another, that 2000 clones is misleading. ANYONE can attack ANY district and weaken it, and there can be no reinforcing. If they want to claim a district, they have to launch a 150 clone attack - leaving only 125 clones behind on the earliest attack you can make, a small enough number to be more vulnerable to cloning out even against an attack with only 150 clones. Another Corp using a starter pack will start with a huge lead in clone numbers, and even a minimum-size attack from a same-planet district will outnumber you. The victory in your attack might be a pre-planned and foregone conclusion, but that doesn't let you consolidate anything, you just chose which district you lose. And if you instead wait for your clone numbers to build up, each and every day's delay is another opportunity for someone else to attack and claim one of your districts. As long as there are thousands of Corp, and as long as even a couple of hundred have the numbers, funding and delusions of grandeur required to try and attack wherever they see a potential weakness, splitting a corp into alts will NOT be a viable strategy, because the long-term requirements can only be sustainable when you assume the Corp's districts will be reliably safe from attack for long periods. Also, I forgot to mention in my first post, but when capturing a district, there should be an immediate "change RT" option, because otherwise newcomers will be forced into places they don't want just to get an easily-managed RT, or Corps that try to work outside their usual available hours for an attack will get their district locked into an RT they can't handle long-term. I don't think it's reasonable to use the RT mechanic as a limiting factor, because there are smaller regions with less-populated timezones which would be essentially excluded from most of the PC map simply by not having the numbers in their REGION, even if the Corp is sufficiently dedicated and capable. Australia (and to a lesser extent, New Zealand) is already getting forced out of their gaming primetime because of the inability to set RT straight after downtime. This would severely widen the area around this region of the world where the RT system is unfair. Districts will quickly gravitate towards having RTs that suit either US or EU players, and anyone who doesn't fit into those timezones will be unable to secure any districts they capture because they can't sustain the off-time play while under repeated attack from the Corps who want to keep the RT where it is.
Orion Decline Reckoners 15	Posted - 2013.04.10 09:56:00 - [3] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: I dont see how changing RT makes it a nap fest at all. It's a simple matter of "you own, you decide when to fight" And i disagree with the "hey you managed to have dudes at that time ? ok, you always can then". What about a corp using the week end to fight a corp at say 3am ? They manage to get the district winning two games in a row on friday night and saturday night. Then, comes the week and oh.... RL !!! Damn, didnt see that one coming.... Why should they then be compelled to defend their district for maybe another 4 days at 3 am despite the fact they own the place ? Doesnt make sense to me. Go ahead : bla bla alliance, bla bla defence in one day. One thing : Video-game here ! And the snooze fest you fear could happen is already turned down by the huge advantage in clone evolution between fights attackers gets. Time of fight aint snooze fest. Even worse. Why go and attack an out of your TZ district knowing you'll have to then struggle to keep it due to not being able to change RT right away ? Many could end up thinking "not worth the trouble, just gonna be a hassle" and decide to not even make the effort of syncing with specific RT just once to conquer it. This could virtually split the fights through TZs except for large corps with around the globe players. Still thinking it's a bad move. Oh dear: got 2 likes too, amazing ............................................... u do realise the other side pertains to that as well right? oh u won the district and 2 secs later changed it to aus tz now we never have a crack at it again ....RL!!! damn, didnt see that one coming.... it works both ways, the reason ccp did this way is because if YOU attack YOU have shown that YOU can already make HIS TZ, its not certain he can make YOURS for a counter attack. funny thing is u know in advance that the enemy could launch a counter attack and if u didnt plan for that counter then thats on u. also never said the TZ thing would make it a snooze fest. the PEOPLE that play in PC will make it a snooze fest nothing CCP implements can stop a Donut if the players want it no matter how enticing CCP makes attacking as for splitting fights between EU and US thats more your concern since pretty much all the good EU corps are in ur alliance. US is more split and will still has enough EU presence on the US heavy sides to attack EU. U winning a fight and auto switching the timer means there is no other big name EU corp to even challenge u whereas US has to worry about other US and ur guys cuz u guys do make fights on both US and EU TZs the ONLY ppl that can complain about timers is the AUS TZ guys imo My Corp has people based all over the world with pretty variable timezones, but I have friends in Aus/NZ timezone Corps (I'm NZ-based myself). This WILL screw Aus over even more than they already are by the downtime and post-downtime locked hour. Lets just ignore all that for now, though. Lets pretend there are US and EU Corps with US and EU timezone RTs. Now lets imagine that one of the US Corps wants to invade a district held by one of the EU Corps because it's the last district in the way of them having complete control of their own planet. They plan, and arrange for 3 days where they can field a solid team. That's all they're going to be able to spare, but they're sure it'll be ok because they can win the battle maybe on the first day with a bit of luck, and definitely on the second, giving them a day of turnaround to secure the district properly. More than half the Corp will be at work on that 4th day though, so they NEED to have it stable by then. So they attack, and sure enough, they win on the first day. The defeated Corp, who have support from EVE, know their attackers are crossing timezones, and know they just need to press the attack for a few days to reclaim "their" district, because until they ease off, the defenders can't reset their RT to a suitable time. They ask for a billion ISK loak from EVE-side, and repay the majority of it 3 days later when the defenders can't field anyone to defend, because the game is rigged to make cross-timezone attacks impractical. Now, when you consider the viability of such an obviously out-of-universe "strategy", it makes it clear that the Aus/NZ local Corps will be locked into a district or two with no ability to expand and minimal ability to even hold onto their own territory and keep the RTs in a comfortable range. Something NEEDS to be done for this to be sustainable as a worldwide playing field.
Orion Decline Reckoners 15	Posted - 2013.04.10 11:06:00 - [4] - Quote Robert JD Niewiadomski wrote: Orion, hook your Boss into EVE/DUST then you can both defend your district Or just take the couple days off from work... MMOG have a strange side-effect. It seems the game world is completely detached from RL. But occupying it players' consciousnesses and bodies containing them are not detached from RL. You can't make a perfect MMOG because of this. Somebody will always said that something is rigged or unfair due to TZ. BTW: wanted to ask if EVE Planetary Interactions can be performed on planets involved in DUST Planetary Conquest? Will this parts of New Eden influence each other? When? How? How much ISK? Thanx My PS3 is the reason my boss hired me. If he had one, I'd be obsolete. But he does play EVE, and can probably help me out if necessary. Also, my hours are really flexible, the only problem I have with operating outside my usual times is a sleeping disorder that makes it hard to function coherently for more than 12 hours a day. But the REAL problem here is when you're already taking a couple of PLANNED days off, then because you're being forced into continued defense past the amout of downtime you could arrange (or in my case, after forcing myself to operate outside my normal hours for as long as I can handle), there comes a time where you have to go back to work (or I end up passing out and waking up possibly 20 hours later). Even if it's reasonable to expect a Corp to set aside several days to capture, defend and secure a district before they can reset the RT and really call it their own, it's even more reasonable to expect a Corp who were defeated on their own terms to have to match their opponents' timezone if they want to reclaim the lost territory. If you're pushing outside your comfort zone to invade, then you DESERVE to do the same to the people who lost the fight.
Orion Decline Reckoners 16	Posted - 2013.04.10 11:19:00 - [5] - Quote Robert JD Niewiadomski wrote: Decide then WHAT is more important to you then... Sorry, but in this world you can't eat cake and still have it uneaten When people get involved into MMOG they really are commiting their RL to it. It cease to be separated... Well, first off, congratulations on your lack of anything resembling human interaction. Secondly, when you win an attack on the enemy's terms, you shouldn't be forced to defend under the terms which still give your opponents an advantage. Maybe you have the freedom to abandon the real world for gaming without notice, but it's not rational to build a game which requires that from its players. If you win, you won, and you now own that district. You should be able to set the terms on which you defend, just like your enemy did when it was theirs. If you can move outside your timezone to attack, they should be able to do the same.
Orion Decline Reckoners 18	Posted - 2013.04.10 12:11:00 - [6] - Quote Robert JD Niewiadomski wrote: Orion Decline wrote: Well, first off, congratulations on your lack of anything resembling human interaction. Orion, I would like to remind you that DUST is about killing (eating cakes part) not comforting other peoples (having cake uneaten part). This is really bad example of "human interaction"... Why you play DUST? How did you get the impression - at all - that I was referring to DUST as "human interaction" in that comment? No rational human with any sense of real world (as in "while not playing DUST" real world) forms of human interaction could possibly think that it's a good idea to choose DUST over their wife and/or job. I'm sorry, but that invalidates most of your right to actually speak about what it's like for a person to actually have a life. And after explaining several valid reasons why an immediate RT change option would be helpful, you didn't address that part of my post, so it would be nice to see your opinion of the part you didn't quote or respond to. If you don't have an answer, that's fine too. You also ignored my example where a Corp would want to hold an entire planet and used the excuse that you can search for districts where the timezones match instead of trying to counter a valid example where the current system falls apart. What if there are no districts with your timezone in attack range of any of your current districts? What if there's a specific planet you need a foothold on to let you reach somewhere you want to attack? What if you want to attack a particular Corp because they stole your territory, or otherwise caused you problems that you want revenge for? Does the search function guarantee that you'll find a planet that fits all your intended criteria?
Orion Decline Reckoners 22	Posted - 2013.04.10 15:55:00 - [7] - Quote Robert JD Niewiadomski wrote: "if you can't reach it you should not have it" Assuming you actually understood my comment here, this means that a Corp with a US base which takes a planet in a dead-end system deserves to be almost impossible to directly attack - requiring starter clone packs as the only viable attack - just because the next system over is controlled by EU players? The EU players will only be attacked by other EU players, because timezones. The US players will be immune to attack from the EU players for the same reason. So unless the US players are willing to jump 2 systems, and lose the requisite number of clones doing so, they can't attack the planet without spending 80 million to buy a new clone pack? ... Yeah, that sounds like good gameplay.
Orion Decline Reckoners 23	Posted - 2013.04.11 01:56:00 - [8] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Here's what i suggest. Kinda goes in your direction by the way kero. New "captured Hour" or "flipped Hour" state => Works kinda like the attacker "Dibs Hour". Giving the owner one hour to do one of the following things : - Change RT. Nothing else to add. District is locked right after. - New action : "Loot District" only available when flipping an owned district : takes all the remaining attack clones and "loots" the entire coming clone production. Then allows you to either sell the whole thing or move them back to a friendly district only. Would incentive corps raiding district for extra cash\clones and annoy the enemy. District is then left unclaimed and can be captured. (ISK wise, it would be a 6.4M or 8M ISK loot depending on the nature of the district) That's it. Two options answering two reason that would push a corp to attack a district in the first place : owning it (and thus defending it on its terms) or out of financial\material interest This is basically the suggestion I made in the first place. The "loot district" option seems like a nice addition though, that could really mix up the playing field. And it would make a way for non-landholder Corps who don't have the manpower to have an impact on the starmap.
Orion Decline Reckoners 24	Posted - 2013.04.11 05:57:00 - [9] - Quote Rigor Mordis wrote: Again, how realistic is it that an upstart with nothing can enter and compete in a market where the competition has the resources to subcontract the upstart? You're assuming the "upstart" small Corps need to have an equal say in the matter. This is New Eden. We need to feel like we have an impact, but we don't need to go toe-to-toe against the bigger Corps and WIN. If we can break a supply chain, and our actions help another Corp to deliver a real blow, we made a difference. A small Corp may not be sufficient to take and hold a District. But if we're good, we can break a crucial supply line, and pave the way for our employer to take and hold.If we can't own the map - and most of us can't - at least give us the tools to help SHAPE it.
Orion Decline Reckoners 26	Posted - 2013.04.11 11:03:00 - [10] - Quote Rigor Mordis wrote: Orion Decline wrote: Rigor Mordis wrote: Again, how realistic is it that an upstart with nothing can enter and compete in a market where the competition has the resources to subcontract the upstart? You're assuming the "upstart" small Corps need to have an equal say in the matter. This is New Eden. We need to feel like we have an impact, but we don't need to go toe-to-toe against the bigger Corps and WIN. If we can break a supply chain, and our actions help another Corp to deliver a real blow, we made a difference. A small Corp may not be sufficient to take and hold a District. But if we're good, we can break a crucial supply line, capture (and abandon) or cripple the district they were relying on for reinforcements, and pave the way for our employer to take and hold. If we can't own the map - and most of us can't - at least give us the tools to help SHAPE it. Awesome! That will give the new people an incentive to join a smaller or newer corp! Should they run out and grab a subscription to EVE so that they can see how New Eden CAN be really neat? Where did I ever assume that small guys or new guys should have an equal say? I am not assuming when I say they will NEVER have an equal shot. They will NEVER become 'big' and they will NEVER be able to keep people on board and they will NEVER NEVER NEVER. What I was suggesting was a way that it could all still be intertwined WITHOUT the upstarts HAVING to go toe-to-toe with the big corps and vice versa. Again, can't get the MORE PEOPLE PLAYING THE GAME point across to some people. That leads me to believe that those people are some how getting off on spawn camping and the other obvious flaws that the basic battle dynamic has. If the idea of utter domination without competition sounds like fun, then maybe those folks should just beat their wives instead of playing a game. If numbers are what is ultimately going to matter, then the system should be designed so that ALL aspiring corps can increase their numbers competitively. Anyone who can argue against that is one of the 'sandbox' people. If the intention is to build another little sandbox and keep the masses that weren't in the old sanbox, that's not all that cool. If the kids in the sandbox don't want other kids to come play in the sandbox, then they probably shouldn't build their new sanbox at another school's playground. Still even more, if this game winds up sucking after all, who really loses? Not the EVE people because they are loyal to that. Not the PS3 noob Dusty that has his repertories of better games. The people who get screwed are the PS3ers who tirelessly strived to build their kills and corporations only to never reap ANY REAL fruits of their labor due to a system skewed toward the FEW. And, CCP gets screwed because they get a bad reputation with the PS3 (console) crowd and hardcore FPS folks are so unforgiving that many of them will turn their backs on any product offered in the future. Even if that product were free money and attractive mates, the FPS bunch will be skeptical. The ultimate losers will be those who insisted on having the system skewed in their favor. For it will be those people that remain so delusional as to think they are actually are actually having fun, playing alone in the new sandbox. And here I thought my Corp qualified as one of the small ones. We don't have enough unique players sharing the same timezone for a district to be practical without having reliable merc support. At least in the early days, we expect to see ourselves ONLY working as mercs, or being hired to perform disruption attacks, breaking someone's supply routes and forcing them to pay extra (potentially sacrificing clones to the vagaries of space travel) to reinforce a district that would have been easily held without our involvement. Maybe - MAYBE - we'll get some support, join an Alliance, or otherwise get our Corp into a situation where it's practical to hold one district. We're a tight-knit gaming clan that started outside of DUST, and has no inherent loyalty to the game. If it fails, we'll move on. If not, we'll have a stable group of players here for the long-haul. Maybe we'll always be mercs with no true home. Maybe we'll have a growing impact as time goes on. As PC and the related systems backing it are expanded, and move into NullSec (we're getting LowSec to start with), maybe there will be incentives to the larger Corps abandoning their LowSec territory when HighSec is introduced. Just like PC will reduce the pubstomping in instant battles, NullSec should reduce the blue donut effect in LowSec PC. And LowSec PC needs to be brutal and chaotic and I look forward to seeing DUST players shape more than just a single region of New Eden.