| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gunner Nightingale
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
575
   |
Posted - 2013.05.21 18:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
The long and short of it is the PC system needs to be less restrictive and be a results driven system, get the win and you have the ability to recommit if you are the attacker and make changes to your district if you are the defender. In the end WInning is the ONLY thing that should mater, to the victor goes the spoils after all. Jump to edit 2 for more info.
Thanks to Mavado and others who have shown me why micro pushes are being penalized because of the current lock on flip condition. I mean you have teams making concentrated weekend pushes and are being forced into attacks in cruddy timers back on the week simply because they didnt get to control the outcome of their newly one territory. This is not a job and even if it were the only thing should matter is results.
TO THE VICTOR GOES THE SPOILS; sorry HARRY TRUMAN I REJECT YOUR 14 ponts.
1. Remove lock on capture state when a district flips: It main purpose to prevent early land grab and change of timers is over. Moreover if you commit to 2-3 attacks over a weekend to take a timer that isnt in your ideal TZ you shouldnt be forced to defend it at that crummy timer during the week simply because you didn't have the option to make changes while you are exposed to .
2. Automatic sale of clones
Any action that would cause a district to overfill will cause the extra clones to be sold to the Genolution corporation and the funds from the sale deposited into the corporation wallet. This includes things such as:
A district generating clones
Moving clones to a district
Clones returning from a battle
This is from Evelopedia.
This is not working as intended. Autosale of my clones locked the district that or moving clones for attack or the clones that returned to the district after the attack was over locked my district but none of these conditions should lock the district. This last one could most likely be the reason since its moving clones back into the district after the attack which could be confusing it with a lockable condition if you do it from another friendly district or using clone pack it could be because of the the extra clones we brought back from successful attack.
3. A timer should unlock at the top of the reinforcement window. Again basing this on the locked condition of districts that remain locked through a reinforcement window without having actions completed onto it.
4. Successful attacks are not taking all districts into an offline state. ***MAJOR BUG***
5. Remove the minimum of 24 hrs to perform actions and make it simply timer to timer. (except changing the timer itself) If i change my timer and then want to move clones out to attack allow me to do this please. The minimum 24 hr rule on attacks is more then enough of a restriction, restricting every action to a 24 hr to 24 hr action just creates unneeded red tape. To be succint any action performed on the district that is not a timer change or an attack should not be mandated to the minimum 24 hours rule
6. Note when an unlock condition is supposed to end(we know it should be 24hr but if we can see it in the timer circle wheel when viewing the district saying it will unlock on this date it will help us better find if there is bugs with it.
Edit
7. Make the reinforcement window a protected block of time to allow for changes to be made on the district and make the status changes occur at the top of the hour if they aren't already. Again the minimum 24 hr rule protects it anyway from a corp attack for 47 hrs regardless.
8. While obvious to those that understand the mechanics perhaps a second clock is warranted to note how long the 1hr recommit time ends given the battle starts at at multiple times. Or simply make all fights at the top of the hr with no fights extending past the 30 min mark.
3 & 7 in conjunction with 8 will allow for greater versatility of corp district clone use since once a beachhead is established a corp can't use the protected window to snipe a district with a last second attack before it unlocks. They would have to commit to it before the reinforcement window thus commit them to fight the next day. Additionally it will allow for better use of district clones for followup attacks if timers are properly coordinated.
Edit-2
Make the district status a results driven system, winning gives you the control of what happens to the system. If you are the defender and you win you get a grace period, if you are the attacker you get the control to recommit(or if you flip you get control with a 24 hr 1 time recommit from the ousted owners to attack and try to take control back using the aforemention results driven district control; Ie you lose your district and you have the option to recommit, if you win then you are in control of the district to attack or not, if you lose again the defenders well they won so they have a cooldown as it was their district all along and they won)
|
Deluxe Edition
TeamPlayers
EoN.
294
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 18:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1 |
SILENTSAM 69
Pro Hic Immortalis
RISE of LEGION
467
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 19:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
I completely disagree with 1. This should stay how it is because it gives the people who lost a chance to try and fight back. If they conceded the lose then the attackers are free to change the window, but not until the lose is conceded.
I agree 2 is a problem.
3 sounds okay, not that concerned.
4 is a very bad issue that needs attention. I know there are issues that are causing Districts that should have been taken, to not be taken. Things like clones reinforcing after losing a battle.
5 I can get behind. It is annoying that you have to choose one action or the other. Things may improve with this idea.
6 and 7 I am not concerned with.
8 is likely a bad idea. I am thinking server resources and stuff may be issues with scheduling the battles. I like that they do not always happen at the top of the our, and that there is some small room of movement in the time. |
Maximus Stryker
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
469
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
good stuff Gunner
|
Synthetic-Method
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
10
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Yes please... Do this CCP! |
RECON BY FIRE
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
183
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Well this sounds like an interesting proposition. |
Deluxe Edition
TeamPlayers
EoN.
294
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
SILENTSAM 69 wrote:I completely disagree with 1. This should stay how it is because it gives the people who lost a chance to try and fight back. If they conceded the lose then the attackers are free to change the window, but not until the lose is conceded.
I agree 2 is a problem.
3 sounds okay, not that concerned.
4 is a very bad issue that needs attention. I know there are issues that are causing Districts that should have been taken, to not be taken. Things like clones reinforcing after losing a battle.
5 I can get behind. It is annoying that you have to choose one action or the other. Things may improve with this idea.
6 and 7 I am not concerned with.
8 is likely a bad idea. I am thinking server resources and stuff may be issues with scheduling the battles. I like that they do not always happen at the top of the our, and that there is some small room of movement in the time.
8) having battle times randomly in the window puts undue stress on corps holding districts, meaning we can't set our timers as 8-9, 9-10, and then 11-12 because defences will likely overlap if attacked on multiple districts. The current mechanics force corporation to place 1 hour buffer times between timers which turns the game in a lot of waiting around for the next PC battle to start.
If the problem is with the servers they should upgrade them, the current system is very very boring. I hate having to sit around an hour waiting for the next defense to pop. |
Maximus Stryker
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
469
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
SILENTSAM 69 wrote:I completely disagree with 1. This should stay how it is because it gives the people who lost a chance to try and fight back. If they conceded the lose then the attackers are free to change the window, but not until the lose is conceded.
I agree 2 is a problem.
3 sounds okay, not that concerned.
4 is a very bad issue that needs attention. I know there are issues that are causing Districts that should have been taken, to not be taken. Things like clones reinforcing after losing a battle.
5 I can get behind. It is annoying that you have to choose one action or the other. Things may improve with this idea.
6 and 7 I am not concerned with.
8 is likely a bad idea. I am thinking server resources and stuff may be issues with scheduling the battles. I like that they do not always happen at the top of the our, and that there is some small room of movement in the time.
re: #1 the losers had 2 or 3 matches at their chosen timer, how much more of a better chance do you want them to have...? |
semperfi1999
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
454
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gunner you should quit you day job and just work on fixing the problems with PC. |
EnIgMa99
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
343
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
this |
|
|
ZiwZih
The Tritan Industries
RISE of LEGION
154
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 20:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
How courageous of CCP to release something like PC without test server... |
Telcontar Dunedain
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
423
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 21:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
Where is CCP and the CPM in this thread?
Get your minds on the actual game we are playing not the AWOX stupidity. |
Gunner Nightingale
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
589
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 21:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
semperfi1999 wrote:Gunner you should quit you day job and just work on fixing the problems with PC.
Sorry nothing beats the fun of my day job, all im doing is applying the same process of used in my profession and applying it to the game, not a big deal.
Now if i end up failing in RL and CCP wants to pay me to do these things well........ |
VEXation Gunn
IMPSwarm
Negative-Feedback
4
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 21:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
ZiwZih wrote:How courageous of CCP to release something like PC without test server...
CCP doesn't need a test server. Its a business decision to be reactive to things instead of proactive. Regardless of how game breaking they are |
Gunner Nightingale
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
589
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 22:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
SILENTSAM 69 wrote:I completely disagree with 1. This should stay how it is because it gives the people who lost a chance to try and fight back. If they conceded the lose then the attackers are free to change the window, but not until the lose is conceded.
I agree 2 is a problem.
3 sounds okay, not that concerned.
4 is a very bad issue that needs attention. I know there are issues that are causing Districts that should have been taken, to not be taken. Things like clones reinforcing after losing a battle.
5 I can get behind. It is annoying that you have to choose one action or the other. Things may improve with this idea.
6 and 7 I am not concerned with.
8 is likely a bad idea. I am thinking server resources and stuff may be issues with scheduling the battles. I like that they do not always happen at the top of the our, and that there is some small room of movement in the time.
Sam i amended 1 in some edits i should clear it up better.
Edit-2
Make the district status a results driven system, winning gives you the control of what happens to the system. If you are the defender and you win you get a grace period, if you are the attacker you get the control to recommit(or if you flip you get control with a 24 hr 1 time recommit from the ousted owners to attack and try to take control back using the aforemention results driven district control; Ie you lose your district and you have the option to recommit, if you win then you are in control of the district to attack or not, if you lose again the defenders well they won so they have a cooldown as it was their district all along and they won)
The direction im thinking now this
On district flip the ousted corp has one last chance to re-engage and attack the next day. If they fail the attack the district goes back an online state and the new "landlords" get control to make changes as desired.
A deeper more meaningful way to do this is the results driven district state. Winning gives you the control of the conflict.
So if you are the defender and you are attacked and you win, well then you have control over your district functions, (yes this means timer changes too).
BUT if you are the attacker and you win then you have the control you get the option to recommit or dont recommit.
Now i make room that it can be a conditional results based system where these condition dont take place as a defender until after 2 maybe 3 attack attempts to give people a chance to try and get a win(not really how warfare works but to me gameplay>realism)
The idea is that control of a districts to keep it in a locked state(by attacking) or performing defensive actions(changing timers, structures etc) is not restricted by mechanics in its entirety by results.
Its a results driven system instead of a process(mechanics) driven system. It also gives more meaning to winning and greater risk of defeat. This type of risk/reward is far better than simply offering loot to both teams. |
Kendra Catlen
OverKill Corp
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 01:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
ugiu |
Gunner Nightingale
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
593
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 04:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
What?
|
Gunner Nightingale
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
601
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 17:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
bump. |
CHICAGOCUBS4EVER
TeamPlayers
EoN.
309
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 17:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
oh 1 other suggestion... fix the @$@#$@ lag
|
Goat of Dover
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 18:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
I am not going to act like I understand all of what you have posted and edited but, what I did understand was to the victor go the spoils and that make a good bit of since to me. Like you said attacking has to be more and intising and a good way to do that is to put a larger penalty o losing. Ie not having control of the functions. |
|
|
GEORG FUN
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 18:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Disagree.
PC is not about single victories but economic warfare. Victories already tilt the economic warfare as supposed and the balance between first person gungame, economic strategy and metagame is working now and doesn't need a fix.
Instant timer changes would give too much of a leeway for purely gungame based groups - the advantage is already big with current mechanics. |
Kira Lannister
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
925
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 19:02:00 -
[22] - Quote
-_-
*impersonates darkcloud*
FIX DA TIMAS! |
Gunner Nightingale
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
608
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 00:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
GEORG FUN wrote:Disagree.
PC is not about single victories but economic warfare. Victories already tilt the economic warfare as supposed and the balance between first person gungame, economic strategy and metagame is working now and doesn't need a fix.
Instant timer changes would give too much of a leeway for purely gungame based groups - the advantage is already big with current mechanics.
Economic warfare still exists because larger organizations can continue to followup fights but now its on the victors terms. Continual and constant attack keeps that beachhead on the defensive, Consider this change in timer the attack on normandy and storming the beach.
Its up to the larger entity to prevent that beachhead through victory or economic might by keeping the timer continually under attack. The only difference here is the victor of the territory is dictating the time of the battle and even then not until one more attempt to follow up with a counter offensive attack, Win that you can keep attacking on the district timer that the district is set to. Lose then risk the timer being changed to a timer that may not be in the ideal timezone of the losing organization. It doesn't prevent you from following up the attack but it forces you to manage ALL your resources not just your Economics.
Its in fact more in depth, it requires proper management of not only finances but player resources.
In the end its a better system because it still allows for all the other parts of the game.
It put even greater importance on awoxxing, sabotage, economics. As it is a single beachhead doesnt create an immediate domino effect, it still allows for the metagaming through the use of player coalitions and intelligence networks to prevent such losses from snowballing.
Moreover history has shown us time and time again how its often the smallest groups using guerilla tactics and covert operations to dismantle large entities. Its up to the large entities to use the full weight of its might to wipe out enemies not just a game mechanic. |
EnIgMa99
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
349
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 14:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
bump |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |