|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
Reverberation Project
509
   |
Posted - 2013.06.06 14:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
From my understanding there are a few things CCP is looking at with respect to planetary conquest. Participation rates are a small part of it, but the bigger part is more about economic behavior.
They want to know, when they add a new commodity or territory, what is the price that different people will pay for it.
They added territory and clones with planetary conquest. Whenever a new market gets created, in Eve or IRL, there is bound to be drastic fluctuations in the value of that service or good (think dotcom bubbles). The initial value players players placed on territory and clone production was extremely high, probably much higher than their ROI from it.
In other words, Eve/Dust economics team will be able to sort through the data we are generating for PC and say...
"Between clone and equipment cost, It looks as if at least 50% of the players in PC are willing to spend around 210k isk on each clone they use in battle. The top 10% of corps spend about 10% more in costs and get 50% more in returns, and the bottom 25% of players spend about the same as everyone, but get lose 90% of their investment over time."
CCP slowly create 'zones' of economic activity and monitor where isk, services, and goods move in and out of those zones. We have the instant battle zones (highsec), faction warfare zone, and PC zone.
To CCP, they are probably very distinct in economic behavior, as the choices of how much will be spent in each match vary from one squad to the next in each 'zone'. However isk made in highsec, is generally being 'dumped' into lowsec currently. Additionally, many players still have a surplus of currency that was given to them from salvage rebates that also impacts their risk/reward behavior.
Basically, CCP is looking at player behavior and trying to figure out things like, "what is a KDR of 1.0 vs. a 4.0 worth in faction warfare, and what are they worth in planetary conquest?" They cannot very easily determine this, if they are changing the supply of goods and services by huge amounts every month.
You may ask, "Why should I give a kitten about economics, I want to fight!" Well, I feel you, but in the end, we are mercenaries, and for the game to make sense, different levels of performance SHOULD correspond to real change in reward values. To make this possible the economics of player behavior needs to be delicately analyzed and monitored. You are a part of an experiment. |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
Reverberation Project
511
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 14:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:We have not decided on that yet. We monitor the level of activity in planetary conquest and will add more districts/regions when we feel the time is right.
If we didn't allow corps to buy multiple clone packages they would have just used alt corporations. It was going to do the same thing just be a pain in the ass. That is not good game design.
Yes there would be more activity in planetary conquest if all the districts were owned by different... lets say organizations as corps can be in alliances. We are aware of that and will work towards getting more people into planetary conquest. Possibly things like making some districts easier to hold but less valuable. Or something... not really sure yet. Lots of ideas floating around, so much to do, oh god head exploding.
What isn't clear to the rewards on the DUST side of things is that some planets/districts are already more valuable than others, not only tactically, but also economically, but this relative value is mostly on the Eve side. A district with a single technetium moon, is much more valuable than a district with a couple cobalt, or silicates moons for example. Right now, moon amount or quality is the biggest determiner of district quality.
If we could have something like a POS module that was necessary to get SI bonuses from your DUST side districts to your POSes then it could be used kind of like a POCO, but in reverse. Perhaps it could be loaded with a commodity, kind of like fuel (biomass?), that then is slowly converted into isk that is transferred to the local district owners (via payment transfers to/from an NPC corp or something)... If it were to run out, then the POS bonuses stop, and Eve corps don't get isk. You could even make it able to be loaded with a variety of things, each possibly modifying SI rewards, or payments to districts...I'll think about this more and find a more appropriate thread for it... |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
Reverberation Project
512
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 15:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
mrunknown2u2 wrote: This issue right now is the districts are not that valuable. I think the Isk output should be doubled. That would promote more fights for land and also make it worth spending 160-240mil to buy into PC. Hell it's even hard to sell a district because to get the money back u have to hold the district for a month... Ccp really need to think about this doubling the Isk would be the perfect payout not too much not too little. 16-20mil. Just right.
What determines the 'payout' of land isn't only what you get from the Genolution clone buyback, but also how efficient you are at defending it. If your districts' CDR (clone death rate- amt produced vs lost) is 1 it will not even make isk from clone sales regardless of the clone buyback price. You need to have a district CDR of >1 if you want to even start to think about making isk at any level of clone rebate amount.
"The issue right now" as you put it is that, as a whole, KDR and CDR performance can ONLY BE a zero sum game. In planetary conquest, with even just a moderate level of churn/conflict only the top tier teams with a CDR >2 will be netting isk from PC. My guess is that this is 10% or so of the teams in PC. The middile 50% will be around 1 CDR, and lowest 10% around .5. The middle 50% will be bleeding isk, and the bottom 10% will be hemorrhaging it.
If you think about the math, each district can only create at max 100 clones per day (production facility). However, each day it can lose as many as 450 clones (cargo hub). So considering, that in PC you only get paid for what you destroy, the net payout will only be positive in the instances where corps can CREATE more assets than what you lose from battles plus what you destroy. The more you bring into battles and lose, the more you have to create to compensate.
In FW and instant battles this isn't the case, you are paid mostly as a function of your time and performance in battles, and profit when you lose less than this performance based pay. Also, you aren't penalized nearly as much for losing a clone in FW/highsec battles because they are 'subsidized' by your contractors. |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
Reverberation Project
512
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 16:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Another way of putting my point...
A death in PC is at least 2x as costly as a death in FW/highsec. This is because YOU don't pay the cost of your clone.
In FW/Highsec you only start to see income rates of 3+ million isk/hr at a KDR above 3 or 4 (or if you are a really good logi or farm something else). You need to have the double same success rate within PC on average to see the same returns...
Bad news though: It is a mathmatecal impossibility for more than a very small portion of the PC community to have that kind of performance level.
However the kind of player that could pull off a 4.0 KDR in PC could probably sustain a 6+ KDR in highsec/FW so the question needs to be, why would they want to spend so much time/effort in PC? |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
Reverberation Project
515
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 16:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote:@ Marston.....I agree with you. Gen packs really are not expensive to some corps and they can spam them without the loss of transfer notion.
If you make them cheaper...they will still be EVEN CHEAPER for these 'super corps'.
Go away trooper...Gen Pack cost is not the fix you are looking for...
**EDIT** unless I misread...You might be suggesting that they need to have some sort of distance factor. Which, I'm not sure how that would work? Suggestions? Maybe if we paid rent for an established office somewhere, and that became the location from which you deployed clones?
Rental offices are already a thing in Eve, and I wonder how hard it would be to make them such in Dust. The thing is that there are limited office slots, and the fewer available the more expensive they are.
It would be kind of cool if offices could act like its own mini-district, storing, but not creating clones. They couldn't be attacked either. Perhaps they could be the basis for starting to trade clones within Dust...They could behave like districts with lock times and those related rules. They'd have more strict movement penalties for attacking compared to districts though.
Directors/CEOs would manage them, and they would have the additional option of accessing the local clone market from the office. Districts would have the option of moving/selling clones to open buy orders from the various offices in the system. And the offices could transfer clones from one system to the next either to other systems' office buy orders (with a strict movement cost penalty) or their own districts in another system.
You create a couple of new skills:
Corporation Facilities Management x8 (Corporation can run 1 office at each level- up to 5 offices)
Corporate Trade Relations x4 (can have +1 clone buy/sell order at each level)
Offices would create a secondary clone market, which could raise the amount that players could earn from clones captured/created. Prices would obviously be between the genolution biomass-sell cost and the deployment pack cost.
What could be even more interesting is, if clones could be awarded as loot/salvage to individual players in FW. Then local offices throughout FW systems could buy groups of clones, which it could then use to start a FW battle of its own choosing. |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
Reverberation Project
522
|
Posted - 2013.06.07 17:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Well, why not a 24 hour warning but with a 3 hr interval? It will still be tougher to hold because you can still be scheduled with overlapping matches but at least you dont have to be on for 3 hrs everyday. Right now, you can sign on right before the battle and leave if you have real life engagements. As opposed to a ten or thirty min warning, where you have to sign on and wait for 3 hrs just in case.
The 3 hr window isn't a bad idea...I just have issue with the short warning time.
I don't know why you are disregarding all of my numbers above, Ydubbs. The more battles and churn there is in PC the more net loss there is going to be and the harder it is for small corps to sustain. The more battles that occur because of players buying clone packs the higher average clone costs are. The higher average clone costs are the more costly war is in general. The more costly, the less profitable PC is. The less profitable, the more funds are needed from alternative sources...i.e. corp taxes...re: harder it is for small corps.
What it sounds like to me is that we want something out there that lets corps 'own' their distinguishment. All we have at the moment are "pies in space" with names next to them that basically just show that at one point in time, corps had enough organization, opporunity, resources and skill to take the land.
I) There are corps that want land for the isk.
II) There are those that want it for the fights.
III) Then there are those that want it for the glory.
I) is a pipe dream for all but the best-of-the-best.
II) Have other sources to find this...but I think power blocs inhibit the accessibility of good fights, or make them come with a premium. Interestingly, I'm curious of the difference in corp experience with profits from PC compared to the old Corp betting system.
III) If many corps think they can take and hold land forever, the will find, at least now, maintaining the resources to make this possible for PC very difficult. |
|
|
| |
|