DUST Search - WPs for control of Low Orbit

Vaerana Myshtana wrote:

I support this.

It does require an overall Field Commander (in the MCC?) to receive the WP. I would also have the WP only count towards OBs and not towards his/her rewards from the match (SP/ISK).

My recommendation is:

10 WP per 10 seconds for control, plus

10 WP per 10 seconds for each Frig/Destroyer
40 WP per 30 seconds per Cruiser/Battlecruiser
100 WP per 60 seconds per Battleship
300 WP per 120 second per Capital/Supercapital

This rewards people for control and encourages the use of larger, more expensive fleets (a goal of CCP's).

Having control with a single destroyer means earning only 1200 WP towards a strike during a 10-minute Skirmish. That's hardly game-breaking, but it could easily account for one extra strike.

To guarantee an extra strike in 10 minutes just from ships' WP would require 4 destroyers. Alternately, parking a dreadnought in orbit would generate 2100 WP (1500 + control) in ten minutes.

Mind you, it might be prudent to wait to add the higher payouts until we have anti-ship cannons. In that case, control would generate 10 WP + 10 per ship every 10 seconds.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:09:00 - [1] - Quote Suggestion: give a steady stream of WPs to all members of the team who's allied eve ships control low-orbit. If allied ships (uncloaked only) are uncontested in low orbit, then Ground commander earns X WP per minute (alternately each member of the team earns 1/16X WP per minute). X would have to be fairly small amount so as to not be game breaking, but still providing a benefit to having friendly fleets in low orbit. How it works: (open to suggestion, just putting out a general idea here) If team 1 has a ship in orbit (uncloaked) team 1 earns X WP. If team 1 and team 2 have ships in low orbit, nobody earns WPs. Potentially the amount or class of ships in orbit could affect the WP gain per minute as well. This is just the starting point of an idea that could be further built on. This would create a more meaningful connection between eve and dust, without being necessary. ideas or suggestions?
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:28:00 - [2] - Quote Bojo The Mighty wrote: I'd prefer ISK. For every spaceship destroyed in lower orbit, % of ship cost goes into paying mercs of opposing side. yah and WPs for ships killed as well.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:29:00 - [3] - Quote So a steady 'income' of WPs for control of low orbit, WPs for allied ship kills in low orbit, and ISK earned from ship kills as well.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:34:00 - [4] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: Not war points, no need to give the blob more power in Eve. Isk however I'm fine with Well, there should be an amount of WPs which is acceptable however small it is. Dust corps should be incentivized to join up with Eve corps in an alliance, although it should not be an iWin button. Especially once Skyfires are implemented (sorely needed for proper balancing thb). Without Skyfires, giving advantages to Eve/Dust alliances may become unbalanced.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:40:00 - [5] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Sextus Hardcock wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Not war points, no need to give the blob more power in Eve. Isk however I'm fine with Well, there should be an amount of WPs which is acceptable however small it is. No. We should not be given free skillpoints and precision strikes for having someone hover above us. Why not? It is hardly free as Eve pilots are risking themselves sitting in a obvious location in lowsec. If it is an issue of balance, isn't it just a matter of how much WPs per minute or ship kill? Or is it a matter of "I don't have an eve arm in my alliance, I don't want to, and I don't want to be at any disadvantage for it." which is legit, but is it what is best for the game?
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:43:00 - [6] - Quote Put an incentive for fleets to sit in low orbit (not just a warp stabbed throw away destroyer with a cloak) and you'll get a lot of people looking for good fights. Pirates, Capsuleer mercs, Awoxers and gankers. It creates content, it will cause escalation. It creates a reason for a fleet in low orbit.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:53:00 - [7] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: It just rewards people for doing what they already should be doing As does, Rezzing, resupplying, capping objectives, shooting people, spawning people in a mCRU ;) DS pilots, hence that argument in invalid.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.07 23:54:00 - [8] - Quote Ulysses Knapse wrote: Sextus Hardcock wrote: Put an incentive for fleets to sit in low orbit (not just a warp stabbed throw away destroyer with a cloak) and you'll get a lot of people looking for good fights. Pirates, Capsuleer mercs, Awoxers and gankers. It creates content, it will cause escalation. It creates a reason for a fleet in low orbit. Capsuleers will not just sit there so we can get extra WP and they get nothing. The reason they show up in the first place is just to blow mercenaries up, no other reason. I highly doubt you speak on behalf of every Eve Pilot out there.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.08 01:37:00 - [9] - Quote Adstellarum wrote: so how about the capsuleers can earn some LP just as if they were sitting in a plex.. This is essentially what I'm getting at, and yes LP for the fleet (or some other reward or form of currency) would be appropriate for fleet members. Eve pilots can earn LP by orbiting a button for X amount of time in FW which contributes to flipping a system to their factions side. I think that mechanic could be used as part of PC in low and in nullsec.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.08 01:39:00 - [10] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: That's contribution to the actual battle, not ship babysitting by taking and holding low-orbit they are 1) contributing to the battle by providing superior OBs to Dusties and 2) risking their ships by hanging out in lowsec in an obvious spot. seems there should be rewards to them, as well as to dusties on the ground. Specifically to provide incentive to field an actual fleet that will stay and fight, as opposed to having a single warp stabbed destroyer which runs as soon as anyone warps in.

Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 135	Posted - 2013.04.08 02:14:00 - [11] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: So you want to give a further advantage to people with Eve support? Particularly encouraging blob tactics which shouldn't affect dust? Having oms is enough of an advantage without making it mandatory Yes, so long as its balanced. I say we should have as many dimensions to the battle field as possible.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 137	Posted - 2013.04.08 10:41:00 - [12] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: And one that puts the vast majority at a major disadvantage is a needed one? who said anything about major. From the very start I've stated that the WP rewards etc... can be adjusted to whatever is balanced. The idea being to reward the act of occupying low orbit in force, whether its 1 WP per minute doesn't matter. It is an incentive to orbital support, the rewards are adjustable. Also, Skyfire.
Sextus Hardcock Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 137	Posted - 2013.04.08 16:05:00 - [13] - Quote Vaerana Myshtana wrote: I support this. It does require an overall Field Commander (in the MCC?) to receive the WP. I would also have the WP only count towards OBs and not towards his/her rewards from the match (SP/ISK). My recommendation is: 10 WP per 10 seconds for control, plus 10 WP per 10 seconds for each Frig/Destroyer 40 WP per 30 seconds per Cruiser/Battlecruiser 100 WP per 60 seconds per Battleship 300 WP per 120 second per Capital/Supercapital This rewards people for control and encourages the use of larger, more expensive fleets (a goal of CCP's). Having control with a single destroyer means earning only 1200 WP towards a strike during a 10-minute Skirmish. That's hardly game-breaking, but it could easily account for one extra strike. To guarantee an extra strike in 10 minutes just from ships' WP would require 4 destroyers. Alternately, parking a dreadnought in orbit would generate 2100 WP (1500 + control) in ten minutes. Mind you, it might be prudent to wait to add the higher payouts until we have anti-ship cannons. In that case, control would generate 10 WP + 10 per ship every 10 seconds. Earning WP per amount of time based off the class of the largest hull in fleet is perhaps a good comprimise between spamming huge amounts of cheap ships or having a titan mean the same thing as a destroyer. for instance Destroyer = 10 WP per minute, Cruiser = 15 WP per minute, Battleship = 20 WP per minute, however only the ship of the highest class orbiting the sattelite is is used. So if you had 3 Destroyers, a Cruiser and a Battleship in the above example, you'd earn 20 WP per minute. The numbers aren't really relevant, I'd leave that to CCP to put out, and then we can collectively work out balance. WP for Ships destroyed in low orbit, ISK for ships destroyed in low orbit, and WP for allied occupying fleets in low orbit. Can we get a Dev to comment on this? Is this in the plans at all?