| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Gunner Nightingale
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
729
   |
Posted - 2013.06.12 16:49:00 -
[61] - Quote
As i think more about this game the more I realize it is the culture of Player run corps to only want to expand as far as the economics will allow. Fact is economy is the limiting factor in player decisions because that is the only motivator in this game to gather enough ISK to run operation no more no less.
As I think back through history every major fighting civilization that expanded their empires often did so not for economics but for dominion over their fellow man, glory and immortality forged through the victories of their conquests.
Let MH and PC become the staging ground for a new way of playing this game. One in which conquest and perpetual conflict will result in greater desire to become the new alpha civilization.
1. Allow player corps to become new recognized empires in New Eden. Allow their actions to become the official lore of this game and by extension the driving plotlines of the future TV show you have in the works.
2. Get rid of the NPC FW factions and allow them to become player controlled.
3. Make this game more about the conquest, politics and intrigue than it is now and less about economics, Player in this universe are far too logical and will approach this game logically, there needs to be a better way to tap into their bloodlust that is the key to creating and perpetuating conflict. So long as people continue to think about the economics people will limit their bloodlust and only act in a manner that allows them to stay in the black. Unfortunately we are too civilized to behave like Romans, Spartans, Monguls or Vikings.
Make glory, immortality and power the motivators to fight and people will act in this manner. If we don't push in this direction we will only recreate nullsec where people will expand out as far out as their metagaming and alliances can afford them beyond this they will simply reach a steady state and steadily contract as their player counts drop over time.
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
2672
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 16:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
- The fact that you can team kill.
- The ability to control the time and place of the battle.
- The ability to own a district.
The fact that you can team kill.
This expands the metagaming aspect of Dust which then forces corporations to adapt and be careful at recruiting players.
What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
- Remove the red line.
- Allow district owners the ability to add/remove/relocate the surface infrastructure.
- Allow district owners to freely roam in the district even without a battle.
Allow district owners to freely roam in the district even without a battle.
This would allow players free time to practice everything from flying to driving to mapping out their own districts. |
DeeJay One
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
37
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 17:12:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:
- Allow Eve-side ownership of districts in addition to Dust ownership.
IMHO this would lead to all district being held/paid for by the current EVE alliances with nothing for mercenaries to pick up, but that's not the point of this thread.
Likes:
- ownership! at last we can make something real here instead of random pushes/defends (like in other games..)
- people putting squads together pre match, making plans, "forcing" load-outs for members
Dislikes/wishlist:
- feels like a job, but so does sov in EVE
- more options for timers, maybe make a bidding system, where all both corps would put their preferred timers and Dust would choose some middle ground, maybe with more rounds of bidding?
- ability to contract out districts (maybe similar to the ally system in EVE?)
|
Iskandar Zul Karnain
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
636
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 17:32:00 -
[64] - Quote
I like:
1. sovereignty
2. FF
3. meta-gaming
I would like to see:
1. Urgency;
taking a district in consecutive stages/battles similar to 'Skirmish 1.0' rather than daily appointments
consequences for gaining or losing districts, ex. bonus/penalty to other districts in proximity
2. Greater EVE connection;
Mercs need a sense of importance and purpose to keep them hooked
EVE pilot tears for the loss of a district, and mercenary contracts for conquering districts
high-value districts on moons or sleeper structures that generate rare loot would make Capsuleers take note
high-value districts of in game locations, such as political centres etc. that affect EVE wide FW payouts, etc
3. Better tool set for meta-gaming
make it easier to sell, auction, swap, trade, etc. districts
inter-corp merc contracts |
BursegSardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
161
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:05:00 -
[65] - Quote
What I like:
The feel of ownership.
Persistent map. Every time you fight there, its always the same. Very cool.
Some level of customization; changing the SI and stuff.
AWOXing is possible (but it's a little too easy, we all agree).
EVE-side bonuses!!!!!! YES.
What I don't like:
All of space is held by the massive Alliances.
That EVE corps require dust mercs to own districts.
Its all restricted to a single region.
The cost is really high to get started in it.
What needs to be added:
Disconnect of EVE side bombardments from WP's. If I have ships in orbit, I want to use them, to hell with WP. Hell, remove war barge Precision Strikes from this game feature entirely.
Contracts from EVE corps to claim districts on their behalf.
ROLES. Squad leader idea is brilliant. Do this now, so I can bring all my Smerglings back into my corp and stop needlessly stressing out 10m before a PC battle starts.
Squad finders, like EVE's fleet finders.
Resource harvesting, EVE-side production
The ability for EVE pilots to hot-drop clones into matches (either making a battle 20v16 players, or simply increasing the clones in the battle).
Closing thoughts on cost:
PC is awesome, it is probably the best thing to happen to Dust. But its so small scale and the barrier for entry is too high. First, a new corp will have to attack an established corp on a district that more than likely has a butt-ton of clones, and an inconvenient timer. Then this has to be successful at least 2 battles in a row, on average. And the 80M per clone pack on top of this is really steep.
I believe EVE players should be able to bankroll these planetary efforts. Either open up the floodgates to allow EVE corps to fully fund the attacks (give them the same interface and let them pay for initial clone drops at the same price), or allow EVE players to outright pay a corporation to claim a district for them. That way they don't need to deal with Dust chars "polluting" (trust me, some of my EVE guys use this term) corp chat, but can still gain passive clone ISK and bonuses. Not to mention you can just open up ALL of lowsec at that point and let the EVE players use mercenaries for their purpose! |
Munin-Frey
Fish Spotters Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:21:00 -
[66] - Quote
Nightbird Aeon wrote:Likes:
-Owning something that generates either revenue or assets that can be used to attack other people
-The ability to take someone else's stuff
-Battles where the entire corp can get involved and work as a larger team
Wants
-View which district is being fought over... either by viewing the map or seeing a layout when in the MCC
-Different game mode, where defenders start with all the points and attackers have to take them over before striking at a central point.
-Enable spectator mode for those members of the corp that cannot participate in the battle
-The ability to build or call in permanent installations (i.e railguns, supply depots, etc) on districts that you own, thus fortifying them.
-Owning a district has a benefit to corp members, in addition to generating revenue to the corp. For example, owning a district will give a x% reduction to the cost of a module type. As new regions open up, owning a district in Caldari space will result in a 1% reduction in the cost of Caldari drop-suits... or vehicles get cheaper, or shield modules, or armor modules, etc.
-Following up on the above... you should get "set bonuses'... like armor sets from Diablo, from owning a whole planet.
I don't play PC yet because it seems kinda half done. But this post sums up all my opinions.
For emphasis I'll add; get rid of MCC orbital strikes. I am an EVE player who sometimes plays Dust for casual fun and it is lame that you can do an orbital strike from the MCC.... what the hell are we supposed to do? Why should we care about the extra people in local? To us all the dust bunnies do is make it harder to see with somebody enters the system.
Yes Yes Yes to spectator mode and to calling in installations. I play Natural Selection 2 and that game is awesome for it's mix of FPS with RTS (and spectator mode). We need that in PC. |
Judy Maat
Rebelles A Quebec
Orion Empire
71
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:32:00 -
[67] - Quote
I am not playing PC because the Eve reward is meaningless.
no impact on planet stuff only moons..(read here POS fuel cost reduction..)
yeah wow.. like the frigate that is providing me orbital support care about his POS fuel cost..
The eve reward make no sense.. |
low genius
The Sound Of Freedom
Renegade Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:56:00 -
[68] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Constructive thread time, I know, trolling fun, but every now and then we need a constructive thread. So here we go.
This is about planetary conquest
This team does not deal with balancing. :)
For these first two questions please keep them simple and just one sentence per point.
What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?
Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
enjoyed: regularly scheduled battles, proper loot drops, owning territory
to change: lag. can't practice on my own land. can't trade gear with my corp. |
EnIgMa99
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
408
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:58:00 -
[69] - Quote
On a constructive note, coolest part of Planetary Conquest is getting a full team of your homies. I wish I could do that in more gametypes! The biggest drag on planetary conquest is the wait, there is so much waiting for this shooter. When you play a shooter you jump on to jump in the action get your kills and jump off. When you play PC you have to wait for the battle then after that you have to wait 10 minutes and then you have to play a 5 minute battle assuming they even bother to show up :'(
The pay is good the drops are better than pubs but not by much.
CCP FoxFour wrote:Please try and keep this focused on planetary conquest. We don't really deal with weapon or vehicle balance.
I made it more clear in the OP. :)
hard to play a game that is ham-stringed by gameplay and simple stability issues. |
low genius
The Sound Of Freedom
Renegade Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 18:58:00 -
[70] - Quote
Judy Maat wrote:What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
1 attacking other corps..(ho no wait..24h plus timer plus..fall asleep planing instead of playing)
2 shooting back Orbital support providers from the enemy team..(ho no. wait.. this is not possible yet..)
3 possibility to make isk (ho no wait.. everyone is farming isk in pub matches and literally trow isk out the windows in PC
What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
1 Top of the line stable network latency SLA between regional nodes. Having to regional servers fight each other instead of having the battle happen on one server that will disadvantage the team that has the bigger ping toward the battle server.
2 Eve reward is meaningless.
no impact on PLANET related stuff only moons..(read here POS fuel cost reduction..)
3. Planetary installations from Eve are absent from Dust. (are we on the same planet?)
Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?
My enemy has a strong Eve support and my only solution is to buy a 500$ pc subscribe to Eve (then wait 1 year to have decent Pvp skills) to shoot them back?
Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
EVE REWARD bro.
I know CCP is super chicken about survivability of either games without the other.
But this "rule" could never co-exist with a decent meaningful interaction between the 2 games.
yeah wow.. like the frigate that is providing me orbital support care about his POS fuel cost..
The eve reward make no sense..
your alliance brought out a loki. they must have money. (i killed it). |
|
|
Judy Maat
Rebelles A Quebec
Orion Empire
71
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:03:00 -
[71] - Quote
low genius wrote:Judy Maat wrote:What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
1 attacking other corps..(ho no wait..24h plus timer plus..fall asleep planing instead of playing)
2 shooting back Orbital support providers from the enemy team..(ho no. wait.. this is not possible yet..)
3 possibility to make isk (ho no wait.. everyone is farming isk in pub matches and literally trow isk out the windows in PC
What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
1 Top of the line stable network latency SLA between regional nodes. Having to regional servers fight each other instead of having the battle happen on one server that will disadvantage the team that has the bigger ping toward the battle server.
2 Eve reward is meaningless.
no impact on PLANET related stuff only moons..(read here POS fuel cost reduction..)
3. Planetary installations from Eve are absent from Dust. (are we on the same planet?)
Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?
My enemy has a strong Eve support and my only solution is to buy a 500$ pc subscribe to Eve (then wait 1 year to have decent Pvp skills) to shoot them back?
Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
EVE REWARD bro.
I know CCP is super chicken about survivability of either games without the other.
But this "rule" could never co-exist with a decent meaningful interaction between the 2 games.
yeah wow.. like the frigate that is providing me orbital support care about his POS fuel cost..
The eve reward make no sense.. your alliance brought out a loki. they must have money. (i killed it).
this was part of the "trow isk out the windows" that is unsustainable.
|
Doyle Reese
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
111
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:18:00 -
[72] - Quote
Quote:What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
1. Owning our own territory, having your flag in an area of New Eden
2. PC battles often bring out the best of participants in terms of complete team coordination as opposed to public matches where coordination is only regulated to within individual squads if that.
3. The real beginnings of being One Universe/One War
Quote:What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
1. MORE MODES - I'm sure I'm not the first to mention this even in this thread, but all Skirmish all the time makes PC battles similar to one another. My suggestion is to change up the Game modes based on the Defenders' clone count.
2. MAKE SOME SIS HAVE A EFFECT ON DUST BATTLES - Like having a Production Facility giving Defenders a bonus to the spawn timers, and the Communications Facility a bonus to the Defenders' scan radius and scan precision
3. LET CORPS HAVE TRAINING MATCHES WITHIN THEIR OWN DISTRICTS - I have mentioned this multiple times in multiple topics, please make this happen.
Quote:Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?
Quote:Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
I'll have to get back these two
|
Earl Crushinator
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
50
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:21:00 -
[73] - Quote
Likes:
1) We get to control something in EVE woo!
2) Get to play with a full team of people you know
3) ISK payouts are nice.
Dislikes:
1) Having control of the district beacon EVE side has no passive benefit. Starship strikes are a nice active benefit but holy crap you can't think that attacking a district without orbital support is going to go well, an outsider would think. Unfortunately this is the case.
Changing this would allow corporations that might be weaker on the ground but have a strong space presence compete for districts. Also more EVE-DUST cooperation is a good thing. Besides, when is EVE supposed to be fair?
2) Defenders have no advantage on the district they own when they get attacked.
3) You aren't creating your own sandcastle - we can't really do anything with these districts besides get attacked or sell some clones.
Now I believe greater interactions with the district for the controlling corp is on your roadmap.
ideas +Ç la carte for the dislikes:
1.1) controlling the district beacon should generate WP for their Dust team.
1.2) reduced Orbital bombardment costs for controlling Dust team, or converse, increase Orbital bombardment costs for opposing team.
1.3) increased passive damage to opposing Warbarge
2.1) control some of the control points at the start of combat
2.2) preload field with turrets/tanks for the defenders.
3.1) let us spawn in our districts even when there is no battle, either alone or with others in our corp.
3.2) PVE or some kind. Infestation? |
Kristoff Atruin
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
670
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:48:00 -
[74] - Quote
What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
Fighting over actual territory in New Eden rather than a randomly generated battlefield
The fact that districts can benefit players in Eve. Currently pointless due to being only in one region, but the concept is good.
Starship strikes from your players, instead of random militia dudes like in FW. It's more meaningful seeing their brackets in the sky.
What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
The economics - currently holding districts is an exhausting daily grind where you can only lose isk, unless you tend to crush your opposition in every battle.
The game mode - both sides are attacking in skirmish, which ruins the feeling of owning the district.
Orbital support - not a significant factor in conquest yet
Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?
Fighting over actual territory in New Eden rather than a randomly generated battlefield
It's the only game mode in Dust that truly gives a sense of location. I can look at a map and see that I'm here, these guys are over there and my buddy in Eve is waaaaaaay over there.
Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
Orbital support - not a significant factor in conquest yet
Grinding up points for a strike seems very..."arcadey", and doesn't make much sense. Even if a battle is going very poorly you would think you could radio up to your fleet and tell them where to fire. Functionally speaking there isn't that much advantage to the starship strike over the barge strike. The player fired one is great for taking out a high end HAV, but if you want to clear infantry out of a position so the npc strike is actually better most of the time, since there is never any delay between requesting the strike and receiving it and both strikes instakill all infantry.
I'd kind of like to see the barge strike removed from PC and explained in FW / instant battles as support from npc ships in space, from the corporation or faction that is paying you to fight. On the Eve side you could even have npcs warp in to the satellite beacon when a strike is requested, then warp off and despawn after.
For getting a player strike I'd rather see it based on some kind of timer, like in the fanfest tournament. This would keep the eve players from getting bored while they wait for other players to jump through arbitrary hoops. It would also make support from space actually count for something, instead of being a flashy toy that looks cool but doesn't matter. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1924
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 19:55:00 -
[75] - Quote
First off +1 for actually being a constructive Dev.
Ultimately, the problem with PC is the conflict is entirely self-justified. We have to be fighting over something unique that is useful outside of fighting for more of that something. Ability to produce Prototype+ gear or no skill requirement variants of advanced suits, stuff like that is simple and easy and worth fighting over. Specifically to PC, the ends are the means, which is transparently circular and not worth any effort. |
Espeon Bons
Not Guilty
EoN.
32
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 20:24:00 -
[76] - Quote
3 Things I enjoy in Planetary Conquest
* Strategy and Tactics
*The competitive feeling and the aura of war
*Winning with my friends
3 Things I would like to see changed
* War-barge table still doesn't show maps yet( REALLY IMPORTANT!!!)
*Servers should be fair game for both sides (less lag PLX)
*More interaction with eve( other than just orbitals) and land mass takeovers!
I really enjoy the strategic part of PC and all the variables that I have to calculate for to impose a better strategy than the enemy's.
I would really like to see more interaction with eve. I have not personally executed an Eve supported tactical strike but I'm pretty sure that the "stock orbital strikes" are just as good. I would like to see something like Alliance Orbital Destruction Strike >:O as a 3rd alternative to winning a battle. (like call of duty had the nuke in modern warfare two that would win the game even if your team was losing; which would give lone wolves like me something to strive for... i know this game forces you to be team based but it's just a thought). AND maybe landmass takeovers (like you promised in the trailer) where we work with our eve players to travel from different parts of planets to takeover and ... im getting ahead of myself p.s. don't judge me cause i played cod ... hate that stereotype |
Mc Ribwich
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
220
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 21:02:00 -
[77] - Quote
I have a few ideas, but it'll be split into two sections: Space and Land.
Land
At the moment land battles in PC are just simply skirmish matches on the same maps but with a higher risk. Now insted of making a new map for just a district I propose that one district contains 3 or 5 maps, why? well let me explain.
What I think should happen is this: when an attacking corporation puts clones on a hostile district it should force the district into a siege mode. Siege mode is where the attack is split into three stages: attack, capture and last stand.
Here are the three stages of the siege mode as told from the attackers perspective:
1 Main deployment on the outskirts and attack on outer defences
In the first battle for the district the attackers have to fight the defenders in a skirmish 1.0 battle to dock their MCC so they have a foothold on the district. Both teams get access to orbital strikes at this stage. In this case the attackers are successful and manage to dock their MMC while the defenders still have clones, so we move onto stage 2.
2 Push into inner sections of the district
The attackers were successful in docking their MCC and gaining a foothold on the district, now they must capture the installation that was built in the district. For this part of the siege the attackers must capture all the null cannons and destroy the defenders MCC in a game of skirmish 2.0, both teams can use orbital strikes in this stage. If the attackers were to win again, and this time kill all of the defenders clones they would take the district. However, if the defenders still had clones left then the siege would move onto stage 3, the showdown.
3 Final attack and push into the heart of the district - last stand for the defenders
All the attackers have to do now is mop up the remaining clones. Sounds simple right? Wrong. The defenders put time and money, blood sweat and sweet sweet tears into this district, and because of this they are going to use the rest of their clones to fight to the last man and the last bullet.
Because of this they have set up a last resort defence, and have barricaded themselves inside their last outpost which is littered with makeshift defences.
The attackers can win this battle in two ways. One by killing the remaining clones that are making a last stand, or two by blowing the doors of the outpost open using brute force and uploading a virus to the mainframe. Which will kill off all of the active defenders while capturing the remaining clone reserves. Both sides can use orbital strikes in this last stand. However if it is possible an EVE player can be a complete **** and drop down CRU's for the defenders (Only a maximum of 2 CRU'S can be dropped onto one battle, each only hold 60 clones each.)
The outcome of the battles are dynamic and are not just set in the same order, for instance:
If the defenders manage to kill off all of the clones in stage 1 then the attack has failed and the attackers loose. However, if they manage to destroy the MCC but not the clones then a last stand could occur.This has the attackers (now defenders in this case) using the carcass of the dead MCC to form a makeshift base camp so they can hold out until more clones arrive from a friendly district (with a new MCC.) This stage of the attack lasts a maximum of 4 battles, unless all the attackers (now defenders) clones run out. Orbitals can be used at this stage. And EVE players can be dicks and drop down CRU's like in stage 3.
If the defenders were to win stage 2, by destroying the MCC not the clones, then the same situation that happened in stage 1 would happen for the next battle.
Now say the defenders manage to achieve the unbelievable and kill off all the attacker's clones during their last stand, of course sweet tears would be harvested from the attackers but not only that, the defenders would win the battle for the district.
At a heavy cost. To recover from the damage that was done during the attack by the enemy the district would slowly have to regain the ability to produce clones again efficiently again. Over the course of four days the district's clone production value would go from 25% (day one) to 50% (day two) then to 75% (day three) until it is back to 100% on day four.
These three percentage stages only come into effect depending on how many stages the siege for the district got to (Eg only 25% if the enemy was defeated on stage 1, while it would be 50% if the enemy was defeated on stage 2.)
Now for space
SPACCCCCCCCCCEEEE
Seeing as an attack on one of your districts can be so devastating it should only be fair that the defending corporation can raid the clone transports that are heading for their district.
Seeing as EVE players can't blow up the transport ship, or see it, in EVE then I suggest a much more fun alternative.
When a corporation sends their clones to attack a district there should be small 50 or 30 minute (transport times are being plucked out of my head, it should be based on how long it would take a freighter in EVE to travel to the desired district) window that the defending corporation can attack the transport ship. To start off, the defending corporation would be alerted of the clones being transported to their district as soon as the attackers push the button. The transport ship would be shown real time on the Dust map and would visible to anyone in the defending corporation as maybe a red glowing dot that is slowly making its way across the map.
The defending corporation should be able to hack into the ship remotely and corrupt the clones, causing them to come to life inside the ship and wreck havoc by destroying as many clones as they can (or sabotaging the MCC whatever flotes their boat.)
Now you might be saying this is unfair to the attackers but this is where it gets interesting. (Continued next post)
|
Mc Ribwich
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
220
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 21:26:00 -
[78] - Quote
Mc Ribwich wrote:Now you might be saying this is unfair to the attackers but this is where it gets interesting. (Continued next post)
(Continued)
The defenders should be able to corrupt clones and take them over while they are being transported, but distance is a massive factor in all this. Added to that the defenders should only be able to corrupt half of the total clones maximum.
The defenders can only corrupt a certain number of clones depending on how far away the transport ship is from their district. If the the attackers have only just pushed the button to transport clones to the defenders district, then the defenders won't be able to corrupt any clones. However, if the ship if halfway to the defenders district then the defenders can corrupt half of the total number of clones they are allowed to corrupt (say the attackers only sent over 200 clones, the defenders will only be able to corrupt 100 maximum, so in this case they can only corrupt 50 clones seeing as the ship is half way to the district.)
During the entire clone journey a corruption attack can only happen once, so the defenders would have to choose the right moment to corrupt the enemy's clones. We might start seeing defenders corrupting the attackers clones just before the transport ship makes it to the district, and attackers setting up defence squads just in case their clones get corrupted
Apart from the defenders being able to cause havoc on the ship and destroy the clones that are still in the bays, clones will still be lost if players are killed, regardless if they are bring used by the defenders or attackers.
The only way the attackers can stop more clones from being lost is by re-taking the central mainframe that controls all of the clones in the ship. There is a time limit however, the battle on board the ship would only last about 10 minutes because the corrupted clones not being reanimated properly, causing them to decay.
This would only work when clones are being moved to different planets, if it was district to district on the same planet then it would be awesome to see some convoy attack sort of battle, but I have written too much already.
If CCP actually decided to use my idea then I would be more than happy, but there is probably some flaw with it that I haven't thought of. |
Ani X
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
66
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 21:42:00 -
[79] - Quote
Top 3 things I enjoy:
- The concept including the combination of round-based strategy and FPS, with all its implications (politics, economics,...)
- The competitiveness, especially to bring in a complete team / no random blues
- That there is more at stake, that it takes more effort and gives more reward than public matches
Top 3 things I'd like to see changed:
- Elimination of major technical issues: Different from public matches, most PCQ battles are barely playable or totally unplayable for 1/3 to 1/2 of our teams; mostly due to terrible FPS rate drops, lags, hitbox probems, disconnects, etc. - This is the number 1 reason for frustration and anger among UPSNE player base.
- More income for players, corps, and alliances participating in PCQ - e.g. increase ISK rewards; increase revenue by owned districts; add other sources of income (e.g. PvE, but preferably by owning districts or other activity in PCQ); currently it is not very sustainable
- Decrease battle/district ratio to prevent burn-out: There is some truth in the statement "take only as many districts as you can hold", but in practice the numbers of defense battles can vary extremely even with the same amount of districts. Either you are lucky or unlucky to farmville for multiple weeks or you get battles every day on every district for weeks. Almost impossible to make any predictions how many players are actually needed. If the use of clone-packs would be restricted and the movement of clones would be more important, it might be somewhat easier to forecast the player numbers needed. Also it could add more strategy if not everyone can arbitrarily attack everyone else on every district.
|
Templar 10
Phaze O n e
1
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 22:14:00 -
[80] - Quote
top 3 things I like about pc
1: corp deploy
2: competitive
3: salvage
top 3 things I dislike about pc
1: change the game mode up give the option to the attacker
at what they want to fight
2: get rid of the MCC sniping or at least make it easy to shoot back
that is a big game changer in PC lf u can have 1 ****** covering
two objectives and no way to shoot back.
3: game communications ( I hate to say it but zipper int got communications right when it comes
to team chat make squad only able to hear squad sqayd ldr can talk to squad and ground commander ground commander talk
to every one.
now request's change it from two attacks 24 hours apart to many 1 attack and another in an hor or two hors
first attack still 24 bours second 2 hours after that.
2nd request fix the damn lagg its a killer in PC shouldn't hindge a game mode on shoes got the better ping other wise Asia server wins hands down! Also what's the point in making two attacks on a corp that has two alarm clock defend make it so they have to do that once and have a second fight an hour or two after that no offence but alot of people rate RL more that alarm clocking to play.
3. Make the friendly fire perminant all game modes 5 tteam kills ur out |
|
|
steadyhand amarr
Amarr Immortal Volunteers
689
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 22:16:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gunner Nightingale wrote:
2. Get rid of the NPC FW factions and allow them to become player controlled.
this is just so i strongly say HELL NO.
i have an entire chat channel full of people who prefer FW at the moment over PC simply due to the fact that A we can be on a winning side but B if we lose its not the end of freaking world as we know it.
NPC faction warfare is a very very nice middle ground for those that organized fights without having to create a second job. Making them playing controled drags them into the metagame and they might as well be back in empire/PC building.
As it stands FW is player controlled as its players that move all the gears. to the point a big stopping point is were stuck on EvE players moving their asses so we can take part.
but this is for a different thread. my point is stay away from my FW
edit: steady is very tried sorry for making less sense than normal |
Mako LandSharkX
Liberum Sapiens Xenodochi
49
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 22:54:00 -
[82] - Quote
Likes:
- Risk/Reward make things feel more important even if they arn't yet.
- Orbital support from EVE (not warbarge).
- Organized team gameplay (as opposed to unorganized pub/fw).
Dislikes (change please):
- Game performance, lag, stability, etc.
- Limited engagement lockouts 1 at a time /24 hours (I support suggestions for allowing attackers to assault consecutively within the 1 hour window until a successful defense forces them to withdraw.)
- Lack of organization tools like platoons, officer chat, eve pilots in team chat, eve-side indicator of the battle progress (I'm envious of the HUD used @fanfest tourney on the beacon)
Elaboration:
I like orbitals from eve players because they are currently the only true eve/dust interactive link, and they are impressive when pulled off...but...
I don't like how inconvenient it is to coordinate with them and that they are tied to warpoints.
Eve players need a better read on the battle, they currently dont even know when it has started or ended unless told by players via chat channels. Allowing even a small number of Eve players to join team chat would help (but not if it causes more lag dust side).Something similar to the district beacon HUD shown for the fanfest tournament would be very nice eveside.
Having orbitals tied to warpoints supports a 'landslide' victory system and makes eve tactical orbitals somewhat obsolete when you can simply use the more responsive warbarge strikes the same way. I'd like to either see warbage strikes completely replaced by tacticals while making tacticals more responsive...or leave warbarge strikes in but make tactical strikes work on a separate cooldown system shared by all members of one team.
[/list] |
Kushmir Nadian
Valor Coalition
RISE of LEGION
267
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 23:02:00 -
[83] - Quote
PC Likes are persistence, EVE link and Starmap. Dislikes are Back End issues, Size and Lack of Command Structure/Abilities.
I have been embarrassed to be in PC lately as the back end issues are just becoming too much. The lag/framerate and disconnects are inexcusable. PC can't exist in this state and expect people to enjoy it. We are an inch away from putting the mode down until its ready...because right now its not. |
Prophet Endokush
The Church Of Endokush
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 00:00:00 -
[84] - Quote
I love dust, it's the game I have been waiting for.
PC likes- 1) biggest maps
2) biggest isk
3) the relationship with Eve
Dislikes- 1) maps are too small and known
2) the resulting effect of winning or loseing has little effect on dusties
3) the relationship with Eve is not strong enough
Thoughts...
I think PC should start with the planet, not a single map. Corps and mercs should 1st approach a planet and decide on a district to attack. The defenders should have the advantage and should be able to strategicly place defences in territory they own (like a POS in eve.) the assaulting team should have the option of where to attack from (maybe even multiple fronts). Once a district has been conquered, the territory is under new control. This way you can cut off access to vital resources and add a macro-tactical aspect. Owning all districts would allow one to build anywhere to reach all resources. Also buildings such as walls and fortresses should be implemented. With that added, siege weapons would have to come as well. I think that eventually, there should be no restricted area on the planet so that one could fly or drive from one district, to another. That would also add space for a PvE aspect (such as sleeper ruins or pirate forts).
I'd love to see any of my visions come to dust/eve (being a prophet and all) and I can't wait to see where dust goes!
-Prophet Endokush |
ZDub 303
TeamPlayers
EoN.
330
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 00:03:00 -
[85] - Quote
I also have to say I like the idea of protected districts.
Have it so you can only attack from far left or far right and push into the center districts. |
Sardonk Eternia
Multnomah Interstellar Holdings Inc.
78
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 00:28:00 -
[86] - Quote
The number one thing I don't like about PC is that it's not accessible for casuals like me. I don't have the time or inclination to join a large alliance, but if there were some sort of contract system in place, it would be easy for me to advertise myself as a ringer. Allow conditional payment, collateral, etc and I'm sure a lot of us skilled players would be able to enjoy it with our casual schedules. |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
28
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 01:06:00 -
[87] - Quote
Sardonk Eternia wrote:The number one thing I don't like about PC is that it's not accessible for casuals like me. I don't have the time or inclination to join a large alliance, but if there were some sort of contract system in place, it would be easy for me to advertise myself as a ringer. Allow conditional payment, collateral, etc and I'm sure a lot of us skilled players would be able to enjoy it with our casual schedules.
That's something that's entirely within the control of player corps/alliances. Nobody is going to hire you in a friendly-fire-enabled match without having a prior relationship with you. So, hanging out with a few corps or alliances and getting into pickup squads gives you a way in. |
Moonracer2000
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
521
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 04:38:00 -
[88] - Quote
What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
I like the star map.
What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
Are PC matches playable without performance issues now?
Do EVE players care about PC as much or more than FW?
Any incentive to participate beyond bragging rights? |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 09:47:00 -
[89] - Quote
You should probably get this thread 'stickied', CCP FoxFour. |
Red Dot 24601-HA
S.e.V.e.N.
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 11:02:00 -
[90] - Quote
Three things I like:
The interconnectivity between Dust and Eve. The idea that there can be a battle raging on the surface as well as in orbit is really cool. I would like to see more of a link between these two games. Maybe a report at the end of the match to tell both groups what happened on both games during the battle. How many clones were lost on each side/ total, how many ships were involved and how many were lost, that sort of thing.
The chance to own something and the sense that your corporation has a purpose rather than just shoot people.
The added layer of politics and intrigue that PC brings to the table.
Three things I don't like:
The high Cost it requires to participate. The cost to get into PC is way to high. The cost to maintain PC are way to high. The ingame economy has to be implemented to make PC a feasible game mode. ISK is so hard to come by in large amounts and grinding away for ISK becomes a chore. The pub games offer very little rewards, players can't trade or sell gear, players can't produce merchandise to sell even if they could sell it. The game economy needs to be more robust in order for PC to succeed. Maybe the dust side perks of having a district could be more than clone generation? How about SI that produces clones, weapons, HAVs and so on. Then allow us to sell these to other corps or the NPC market. Allow other corps to raid the districts at a much lower cost in order to steal product, sabotage production, and so on. PC as it is now is too limited in scope.
Limited game mode with no real variation in gameplay.
The affect PC has on the economy and the Dust/ EVE relationship is to limited. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |