DUST Search - [Proposal] Changes to PC timers.

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Proposal] Changes to PC timers.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 876	Posted - 2013.04.06 14:52:00 - [1] - Quote It's well known that PC is going to bring single hourly long timers into play each day. I have great concerns about this and think that something great has been passed up on too. Imagine if you're a small corp of 20 members for example, having to play every single day at that time is going be impossible, there are days people will be ill, have weddings, birhtdays etc to go to or just don't feel like playing but they are going to be needed because of the way the mechanics are daily. You could possibly lose a district because someone was ill or it was his birthday or they had a kid born or something and it's gonna ** you off because you lost your district. Now lets look at another way of doing things.. I propose that the RT's are changed into larger slots so that you can be attacked over 2-3 hours. This gives a larger window you have to defend for a start. If we couple that with allowing multiple attacks on a district in that time frame it makes it perfectly possible that a district would be flipped in a single day. Quite risky yes?... Lots of fighting and random scrambling to get people on for the fights etc but i will come back to that shortly. If it was changed and rebalanced using the above suggestion, i would reduce the number of days per week that those instances can take place. Maybe every other day or something. This would allow people to take a break from playing Dust every day, it would mean people don't suffer from burn out in game and more importantly it would allow smaller corps to defend and hold their territory each week because they are not committed to playing each and every day. They still have time to do their own things and when they do log in the best of things can happen... Escalation! Imagine you find someone at the start of their RT window with this, you can hit them just once for * and giggles but they bring out their big guns and you lose. This allows you to instantly counter attack and escalate things both above and on the ground. You're able to call in EVE side support above the district, you're able to bring in better toys and you're able to take their district that very day rather than having to plan it out over 2-3 days, they have to do the same too so the ISK pay outs and loot go up as people get more desperate to hold onto their district, it also allows counter attacks to happen in real time rather than giving people 1 days notice. Things can escalate from a small little border skirmish into all out war in the space of 2-3 hours with this while stopping people from being forced to play every day and the stress it's going to put onto corp directors and CEO's in addition to meaning that people who win a district and get it flipped, will have a day or two to keep that district, get their ** together and make a profit from the clones generated too.
Ydubbs81 RND Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 1036	Posted - 2013.04.06 15:05:00 - [2] - Quote Having to commit to one hour a day is much better than having to commit to 2 or 3 hours
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming EoN. 2669	Posted - 2013.04.06 15:22:00 - [3] - Quote Ydubbs81 RND wrote: Having to commit to one hour a day is much better than having to commit to 2 or 3 hours this. current mechanics are fine for smaller corps tbqh CW that way smaller corps can defend more than 1 district....ur method favours zerg grps more because they can fight 3-5 ongoin battles at a time Sorry but im in agreement with Dubbs.....1hr commitment is much better for a SINGLE district, if someone owns multiple they will naturally have to commit more hours PS: if ur not being attacked nothing stoppin the CEO or director changing th RT as well if he knows in advance ppl time schedules changed up.
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 876	Posted - 2013.04.06 15:24:00 - [4] - Quote You could tweak your timers though so that if you held 2-3 districts you could have one timer set for one day and another timer for another day. You're not going to get every district attacked every day but forcing people play every day is a very bad thing as you'll find out in 2 months time.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 855	Posted - 2013.04.06 15:50:00 - [5] - Quote Thinking out loud here (probably many holes in this idea but lets start a discussion anyway). What if you decide you cannot play at the next attack window you could defer it until the following day but it extends the reinforce by an hour. Potentially stacking multiple times so you could push your reinforce out to say the weekend but over a longer window. You would also need to sacrifice the clone regeneration and EVE bonuses for that time period.

Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 878	Posted - 2013.04.06 15:57:00 - [6] - Quote I'm not sure about sacrificing clones for it, because that could seriously impact smaller corps by leaving them with no isk... but it's an excellent thought.
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 878	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:00:00 - [7] - Quote Actually, how about 50% clone production so they still get a trickle of income but limit how long something can be put off for.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 855	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:03:00 - [8] - Quote Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: I'm not sure about sacrificing clones for it, because that could seriously impact smaller corps by leaving them with no isk... but it's an excellent thought. The reason for the clone sacrifice would be to balance against the district only being vulnerable for attack once over a long window versus multiple times over the days you just skipped. Although there is probably a middle ground that could be met by having reduced generation rather than 0. The other idea we have talked about is to prevent an attacker from re-attacking immediately if they lose. It would give defenders some breathing room if we find PC becoming too much of a grind but it would make conquering a district a lot more difficult since you basically need to win multiple consecutive attacks. We'll have a close eye on how all this plays out post launch to see if something like that is required.


CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 855	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:03:00 - [9] - Quote Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: Actually, how about 50% clone production so they still get a trickle of income but limit how long something can be put off for. Beat me to it

PT SD Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 221	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:04:00 - [10] - Quote Do not stop the clone regeneration completely, this would kill smaller corps. Like Cerebral has stated a 75% to 50% reduction would be better. They still need a reason to care about the district and the battles that will subsequently spawn from owning it.

Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming EoN. 2670	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:06:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Thinking out loud here (probably many holes in this idea but lets start a discussion anyway). What if you decide you cannot play at the next attack window you could defer it until the following day but it extends the reinforce by an hour. Potentially stacking multiple times so you could push your reinforce out to say the weekend but over a longer window. You would also need to sacrifice the clone regeneration and EVE bonuses for that time period. interesting idea but as CW said not sure about the clones but perhaps not a total loss? idk because ppl might just push their timers out to the weekend only and rake in the passive ISK during all that time if u leave the regen in if its over a longer window and u keep the clone regen then perhaps ppl are able to attack more than once now? maybe say i push 3 timers out from wed to sat and now we have a possible 3 attacks that can happen during that extended window? problem u now see with this is that the limited storage facility of districts that a single weekend attack 3x can flip a district. because u end up selling off the clones automatically PS: is clone storage still set at default 300?
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 878	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:07:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: Actually, how about 50% clone production so they still get a trickle of income but limit how long something can be put off for. Beat me to it Yeah, we're on the same wave lenght here. I really need you on IRC for 5 mins though if that's possible at all?
Kain Spero Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1227	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:35:00 - [13] - Quote I think it would be interesting to explore a mechanic where as a corporation holds a district longer the attack window widens, but the number of days that the district is available to be attacked are reduced. I think the delay mechanic is another interesting idea as well. I do like that you could potentially delay the attack, but the attack window gets wider and wider as you do so.
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 878	Posted - 2013.04.06 16:51:00 - [14] - Quote Yeah it's certainly something to open up to and bring that sandbox mechanic to Dust.
Ten-Sidhe Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 451	Posted - 2013.04.06 17:04:00 - [15] - Quote What if the window increases an hour by the number of times it has been pushed back a day. For example: push back first time, 1+1+2 timer Push back again 2+2+4 hour timer Push back a third time 4+7=11 hour attack window 4th 11+5+16 hours open to attack 5th time would make timer 22 hours long, so it would be very unlikely defender would ever prefer waiting all day not knowing when attack will arrive to ever set it this far out. And this would allow the district to flip easily in single day if a large corp is attacking the district. Longer then this would make timer multiple days, So timer shouldn't be able to be extended further. With this set up I think clone production could be left in place as long as attacker was given option to add more available clones or cancel attack whenever defender delayed. This would give two feasible options, 1 hour per day or 2 hours every other day. Moving the timer farther out has enough drawbacks it would not be used often. The rapidly increasing vulnerability time would deter using it unless there are very specific reasons for defender to extend more then one day, but allow only fighting on weekends if you accept a nearly full day window. Maybe some midsize corp with members in many time zones that all have weekends off but don't play during week, I think this would be a very rare corp to make this feasible.
Faerghail Verticorda Cult of the Dust Bunny Cave of Caerbannog 7	Posted - 2013.04.06 17:58:00 - [16] - Quote Another option might be to just set a schedule for the following week (n 1-hour windows) with which you can choose to use the currently planned system (given n=7 (1 hour each day)) or just one window of n consecutive hours or anything in between (i.e. 2x2 consecutive hours on Saturday and 3 consecutive hours on Sunday when n=7). Although this would mean that basically everything currently planned connected directly to the PC timers would have to be changed in some way (clone generation, EVE bonuses and the "under attack" status come to mind right now), too. Thinking about it for a bit made me realise that even with the currently planned 1-hour attack window per day (from DT to DT) something like a schedule for the next week might not be a bad idea as many people usually have different windows of availability between Mon-Thu and Fri-Sun.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.06 22:13:00 - [17] - Quote Don't see any need to make things more complicated than they already are. We already all operate under the same rules, if your guys are burning out, you don't have enough players for the amount of districts you have. And yes, people will blitz your districts on christmas eve, welcome to new eden.
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 880	Posted - 2013.04.06 22:18:00 - [18] - Quote Sextus Hardcock wrote: Don't see any need to make things more complicated than they already are. We already all operate under the same rules, if your guys are burning out, you don't have enough players for the amount of districts you have. And yes, people will blitz your districts on christmas eve, welcome to new eden. Burn out is nothing to do with just districts its being forced to log in every day full stop. I like the idea of using the 7 hours a week and placing them where you like for your districts to be vulnerable. Thats a really great idea and probably the best solution i've seen so far actually, it could even work to expand it to 14 hours per week so we have double the conflict but its around the players real playing times.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.06 22:31:00 - [19] - Quote Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: Sextus Hardcock wrote: Don't see any need to make things more complicated than they already are. We already all operate under the same rules, if your guys are burning out, you don't have enough players for the amount of districts you have. And yes, people will blitz your districts on christmas eve, welcome to new eden. Burn out is nothing to do with just districts its being forced to log in every day full stop. I disagree with you there. If you are forced to field your A line every day, every week you are over extended. If you choose to take the maximum limit of districts your players can fight for, expect burnout. Meta game includes personell management as well.
5Y5T3M 3RR0R The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 7	Posted - 2013.04.07 06:27:00 - [20] - Quote Honestly, I don't see the larger timer window as a good situation because larger corps with a 24/7 presence could just use it to hold off fights and manipulate it to gain a strategic advantage without any balancing drawback. In this situation for many corps, the extended window wouldn't make a difference hence it's an advantage with no real penalty. I would say it might be able to work if the minimum clone loss went up 50 clones per a day for defender, or even better these clones went to the attacker on a win! That way if the defender wants to put it off for 3 days (or 6 days for a hub) he's gambling the entire territory. Also it's fair to the attacker who has invested time and planning and doesn't deserve to be penalised or delayed unnecessarily with out some sort of incentive. It also prevents people using it to lock zones and deny access for other attackers, after all...how much do you trust that other corp not to steal your zone...

5Y5T3M 3RR0R The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 8	Posted - 2013.04.07 07:17:00 - [21] - Quote Okay here's another possibility (including RP): Make it like the SP timer and make it so you must choose 7 seperate hour time slots during the week. Assumptions: 1. Each time slot functions like the standard daily timer already detailed. I.e. You replenish at the start of each hour slot assigned, if your locked the you can't take actions until it is cleared. 2. You can plan attacks up to a week in advanced but must stil give 24 hours notice. 3. Zone timers changes would be applied one week and then changed the following week. Examples: Weekend Warriors open 7 consecutive zones on Saturday mornings because they all play then. Everyday Heros open 1 every week night and two on tuesday and thursday because they play after work but don't like weekends. The Nutters put them all on Thursday night because they want to play them right after SP reset. The Nutters could plan to launch an attack on the weekend warriors from Thursday night by launching one attack every second hour on Wednesday night which they could then resolve on Saturday morning in 2-3 separate fights. In game explanation: Producing clones doesn't take a lot of time but it does require supplies and the ability to ship out the clones which requires the zone to drop its shields, during the lowered shields the zone is vulnerable to attack. Expansion possibilities: Later on remove the limitation on the number of times a zone can be opened but require eve pilots to supply the zone with PI Biomass, 1 biomass per clone. These deliveries can however only be done while the shields are down and take 5 minutes to complete. This way eve attacking eve pilots could blockade sites to prevent clones being generated as well as dropping orbitals, while the defenders are in return trying to drop in supplies to break the blockade and control the space to protect their zones and supply ships.
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 884	Posted - 2013.04.07 22:15:00 - [22] - Quote Thats not a bad idea, i think it's pretty much the same as the previous suggestion on the other page though.. it's the best idea i think.
Daedric Lothar Onslaught Inc 123	Posted - 2013.04.08 12:08:00 - [23] - Quote I can see the PC timers going the way of Shadowbane. Back then in that game you could "Bane" someone's city to attack them, the defender set the attack time. Well, lol, of course, every bane was set for 3-4am. So I expect if you want to fight over a district that you get players from more timezones because you better believe that most of these are going to be set to make sure you can't field a full squad.
Alcare Xavier Golden DUST University Ivy League 139	Posted - 2013.04.08 14:47:00 - [24] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: The other idea we have talked about is to prevent an attacker from re-attacking immediately if they lose. It would give defenders some breathing room if we find PC becoming too much of a grind but it would make conquering a district a lot more difficult since you basically need to win multiple consecutive attacks. We'll have a close eye on how all this plays out post launch to see if something like that is required. I actually really like this idea as it promotes a more serious commitment to the battle. The attacker will be much more motivated to win the matches...and the defender is awarded a tactical advantage with success. The more perks we can get with district ownership the better...as long as they're balanced, ofcourse
Shadowswipe WarRavens 54	Posted - 2013.04.08 15:58:00 - [25] - Quote For corps that can't field a 16 man group every day to defend their districts, maybe making it a stacking all or nothing timer. Instead of a daily timer, you could choose to do every other day, or extreme of once a week. All bonuses would stack up until the battle. The risk is, you have one battle you HAVE to win in order to get the backlogged bonuses. So instead of fighting over 60 clone regeneration each day, you now fight over a max of 420 clones in one battle a week. If you lose, that district is locked for a week and doesn't grant the clones. The EVE bonus would also revert or be rewarded at the end of the battle. The only problem is an alt corp could easily be setup to lock the district. Maybe a counter to that is to make the district attack-able for 7 hours and allow for 7 different attackers to attack your district over that period. What about a once a week a district can go on holiday and not be open for attack on a certain day. Or after 6 days of consecutive battles, the defending corp has the option to rest on the 7th day and resume conflict on the 8th day. Resting in this way would lock the district, but no clones would be lost at lease.
Daedric Lothar Onslaught Inc 130	Posted - 2013.04.08 16:33:00 - [26] - Quote Why should we give ground to people just because they can't field a full 16 man team? Those small corps should just do FW because they aren't large enough to a big district and hold it. I mean it all sounds good in theory to help the underdog, but if you can't field an army then you lose. Thats how its been throughout the history of the entire world, if your army can't cut the mustard then you lose. However I could see subcontracting your defense agreement, if you get attacked you can have another corp buy into the contract and help you meet the 16 man minimum.
Shadowswipe WarRavens 54	Posted - 2013.04.08 16:54:00 - [27] - Quote It helps large corps too. I didn't say small corp that can't muster 16 men. I implied that it was hard to regularly get 16 man groups for every corp every day. If there is a huge corp with 100 districts, it will be very hard for them to field 1600 soldiers to be used on defending all 100 districts EVERY day. It would just be nice if there was some real world reprieve for things like holidays and vacations. As a global game, one country might be on holiday and other countries might not be. In that time span, getting everyone on every day to defend could be impossible. That said, I am actually all for no reprieves. Just trying to be a good debater and explore all angles. Big corps that lose 20 districts in a week due to scheduling might not have any trouble getting them all back the next week when they are all back to full strength.
Daedric Lothar Onslaught Inc 134	Posted - 2013.04.08 17:17:00 - [28] - Quote Well, same theory, don't try to hold territory you don't have a large enough army to control. Someone has no business holding 100 districts if they can't field the team required to defend them. I mean, how many Dust players are we expecting to be involved in PC? How many in the game total? How many Dust mercs will there be per planet? EVE alliances are just going to have to come to terms with the Dust people who will inveribly take over the territory. If not they will have to hire out people to kill them to get friendlier people in the district. This seems like a perfect price point, the really good corps with like 100 members will be able to hold 1 planet at X cost, since demand for them will be high (Maybe if Dust is worth it economy wise to EVE) then their price will go up and there will be better contracts. The point isn't really about any 1 Dust corp, but about the reason to hold territory on a planet and how it relates to the correlation between EVE and Dust. If its worth it for EVE players to care, then they will make sure they have Dusties there to defend their planets even if they have to contract many dozen of Corps to do their contracts.
Shadowswipe WarRavens 54	Posted - 2013.04.08 17:33:00 - [29] - Quote Ya, all this becomes a moot point when we get solid contracting systems in place to handle the more varied schedules and gaps in district coverage.
Robert JD Niewiadomski NULLIMPEX INC 51	Posted - 2013.04.12 19:27:00 - [30] - Quote Have posted this before here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=684686#post684686 but it was dwarfed by other posts... I repost it here slightly edited Can you comment on below described idea? It would tie the ability of preserving/changing reinforcement timer after attack to the skill of human players at playing DUST and skills of characters too... But mostly humans... RT stands for Reinforcement Timer... This proposition addresses Time Zone differences for defenders and attackers. As there were some arguments raised that you can't change RT when the district is attacked, locked and claimed. This proposition would allow conditional change of this timer during battle and as a result of mercenaries performance in said battle... Put a hackable structure on the district battle field, which upon hacking would let change RT while battle is still waged. A RT computer? . Hacking would be optional and would not influence battle result. Only it's aftereffects. It could be marked as objective RT and put inside some Comand Center (Command Node?) kind of building. This hackable Objective RT would affect immediately when the next match starts... During a match if something can be hacked away from you, you can always rehack it back. If you have balls For this RT hack to be effective after match it must be kept hacked until match ends. Before match attackers declare their preffered RT setting to be applied after succesfull hack of RT structure. Defenders can keep their present setting or set a new one as well. At the start of the first battle in a row defenders have the control other RT structure. From now on it can be hacked/rehacked multiple times until match ends. The party which keeps RT structure hacked when the match ends keeps the setting chosen at the start of match applied. Who ends up in control of the RT structure when match is over, decides who controls it when next match start. If nobody shows up again to attack, control of the RT structure returns back to defenders assuming the attacker kept it hacked when last match ended. You know, it takes some time for IT specialists to bring back IT infrastructure after some emergency. Example 1 Defenders loose but keep control over RT structure. They keep RT setting. In next match defender starts with control over RT structure. Example 2 Attackers loose but keep control over RT structure. They keep RT setting. In next match attacker starts with control over RT structure. Example 3 Defenders win and keep control over RT structure. They keep RT setting. In next match defender starts with control over RT structure. Example 4 Attackers win and keep control over RT structure. They keep RT setting. In next match attacker starts with control over RT structure. So each party needs to take RT structure hacking into account during planning the battle and it's course. This gives an opportunity for an attacker to endorse THEIR RT for next attack/defence matching their TZ. Defenders get equal chance to defend THEIR RT preference. This opportunity to change RT is based on real skill of human players at playing DUST battles. Not how much ISK they have to buy up clones. This seems fair enough to me. PS Apologies for overuse of "hack"

Kitten Commander Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 167	Posted - 2013.04.12 19:52:00 - [31] - Quote Sextus Hardcock wrote: Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: Sextus Hardcock wrote: Don't see any need to make things more complicated than they already are. We already all operate under the same rules, if your guys are burning out, you don't have enough players for the amount of districts you have. And yes, people will blitz your districts on christmas eve, welcome to new eden. Burn out is nothing to do with just districts its being forced to log in every day full stop. I disagree with you there. If you are forced to field your A line every day, every week you are over extended. If you choose to take the maximum limit of districts your players can fight for, expect burnout. Meta game includes personell management as well. This... I think it kills the meta game and the immersion to give people too many passes. This is also why alliances exist. If your corp is light, you can pull in someone else from your alliance to balance the scales. I agree that this shouldnt be all for the massive corps but that just means that the smaller ones need to work smarter through an alliance


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.