Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
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? |
Bojo The Mighty
Bojo's School of the Trades
826
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'd prefer ISK.
For every spaceship destroyed in lower orbit, % of ship cost goes into paying mercs of opposing side. |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:28:00 -
[3] - 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 -
[4] - 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. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
687
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Not war points, no need to give the blob more power in Eve. Isk however I'm fine with |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:34:00 -
[6] - 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. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
203
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:40:00 -
[8] - 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 -
[9] - 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. |
Ulysses Knapse
Nuevo Atlas Corporation
203
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
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. |
|
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
687
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
It just rewards people for doing what they already should be doing |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 23:53:00 -
[12] - 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 -
[13] - 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. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
687
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 00:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
That's contribution to the actual battle, not ship babysitting |
Adstellarum
G I A N T
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 00:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
so how about the capsuleers can earn some LP just as if they were sitting in a plex.. now how it will work once PC comes out to incentive them into forming fleets and sitting there is something that would need to be looked at although I guess maybe if they own a POS at one of the moons of the Planet being attacked having that fleet there may "reduce" the battle penalty for manufacturing at the POS... we know CCP said they were going to be giving bonuses for POSes at friendly planets' moons and that it is Alliance wide bonuses well what if during battle if there are no fleets above or an equal number of ally and hostile those bonuses cease but if one side starts to have a clear advantage eve side it can start giving those bonuses again at a rate equal to difference in fleet firepower over combined firepower of both fleets so that the bonuses would never hit 100%... where as if it was an overpowering enemy fleet maybe they can help reduce the POS efficiency like instead of the normal bonuses POS manufacturing may normally have maybe they start getting closer to NPC station manufacture times same with research and other like things and moon mining would see a decrease in productivity as well as any reactors in the low sec POSes... this would then cause EVE players to really get interested in what is happening EVE side, since if it starts to effect their profit margins they won't be happy campers |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 01:37:00 -
[16] - 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 -
[17] - 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. |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
687
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 02:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
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 |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 02:14:00 -
[19] - 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.
|
Piercing Serenity
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
218
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 02:38:00 -
[20] - 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
That's exactly what we should do. DUST's goal is to provide a strong link between the two games. Looking down the road, this is another link between the two games. I don't know about you, but it would only take a few battles of getting bombarded with laser strikes (And vehicle targeting missile - coming SOON) before I'd want some support of my own. That's what we should all want for Dust. We want Dust bunnies clamoring for EVE support, and we want EVE players to search for the planets we fight over to offer support and be rewarded for it.
I'm down for this idea. |
|
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
691
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 02:39:00 -
[21] - Quote
And one that puts the vast majority at a major disadvantage is a needed one? |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
137
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 10:41:00 -
[22] - 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. |
2-Ton Twenty-One
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
468
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 10:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
It should be the same amount no matter how many ships, If you have control of the district low orbit beacon just like hacking a objective, you get a slow trickle of WP in, It does not matter if its 1 ship or 1000, as that leads to exploiting with 1000 worthless ships. if your fighting for control of the beacon no one gets wp on the ground. or they have to "hack" the beacon with their ship to gain low orbit district control while others cover that ship. |
Daedric Lothar
Onslaught Inc
123
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 11:13:00 -
[24] - Quote
Yea, I agree with the thread, Ships in EVE are going to need a good reason to hover over districts and bomb mercs. So far I haven't seen a reason I would want to log my ship in to assist, other then maybe assist myself and dual box my own orbital bomber. Plus if its a hostile area then you have to bring at least 2 ships, one for the bombing and one to defend the bomber because you have to swap your weapons to strike.
|
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
652
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:16:00 -
[25] - Quote
Sextus Hardcock wrote: 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?
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. |
Sextus Hardcock
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group
137
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:05:00 -
[26] - 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? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |