Oh ho ho.

This is gonna be good.

*munches popcorn*

True, but it will hopefully give one place to gather the feedback that is easier for me and the team to filer through

Constructive thread time, I know, trolling fun, but every now and then we need a constructive thread. So here we go.

Planetary conquest

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?

Constructive thread time, I know, trolling fun, but every now and then we need a constructive thread. So here we go.

Planetary conquest

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?

What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?

What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?

What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?

What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?

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. :)

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?

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?

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?

As I stated previously

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

Currently im realizing its not just killing attacks but everything in this game. Any change that is made because its being made during the reinforcement time is forcing the system to remain locked for >24 hrs. Because it will be 23 hours to the next reinforcement window EVERY time you make a change to the district.

The mechanic needs to be a timer to timer function such that actions can be conducted at the next timer. Personally i dont think it should be even limited to one action timer. But if it needs to be one action per timer fine but make the changes timer to timer. The only exception should be a change in the timer itself. If there is any change in the timer, apply the minimum 24 hr rule then. This will always result in 2 cycles before the district will unlock. Also as a safety make any changing the timer a mandatory 24 hr wait time since the last action this should prevent abuse like changing to cargo hold, adding clones and then changing timer in very short order.

===================================================================================================

TL;DR with scenarios so not really TL;DR

Everytime you make a change on a district you are doing so during the reinforcement time. Therefore it will always be 23 hrs to your next timer. The minimum 24 hr rule therefore is pushing every lockable action on a district to 47 hrs before the district will unlock.

Scenario: I have a district its timer is 0100. I make a change at 0100 (this is still <24 hrs away cause the system tracks seconds in the background but lets be realistic and say i made the change at 0101) So i make a change to the district at 0101 well now that is <24hr from 0100 so my district will remain locked past the next timer and onto the following days timer because the next 0100 is <24hrs away.

--Point is 24hr is too restricting, using 23 hrs works better. WHY? because any changes that result in a lock will still unlock the district the following day.

--What about abuse of the clone generation? Ok lets say i make a change to my timer at 0100 and change it to 0000 I made the change at 0101 and that is 0000 is now 22hrs 59mins away, cant abuse it going backwards. Okay how bout 0100 to 0200 okay so that will be a 25 hr wait period. So where is the harm?

--What about a person abusing this to rapidly change structures and then fortify their districts with clones. So What? They still have to defend, waste isk or move clones to keep resupplying them. And attacking a district brings all of that to a grinding halt.


But as it is now every actions that results in a locked state creates a 47 hr delay in future actions because of the minimum 24hr mechanic, minimum 23 hrs mechanic will do just fine because any action performed during the timer will result in an unlock at the next timer. Thus creating the request i make in pt 5 of my original post.


The biggest caveat to above is this: The minimum 23 hr rule will result in one less day of clone production of newly won districts and will force counter attacks to take place the very next day with only 1 cycle of clone generation(not sure if this is desired i understand why you have the mechanic the way it is for this scenario, it ensure any acquired district will be at least in a codition requiring 2 min 150 clone loss attacks before the territory is lost). However im not entirely sure it will be an issue because im still learning how that works because reading the blog its seems you have encoded it to ensure there will be at least 2 reinforcements on newly acquired land before an attack can take place. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate the min 23 hr mechanic and still ensure that but im still trying to think that part through.

OR

If it is at all possible to separate attack actions from everything else then it is perhaps wise to maintain the minimum 24 hr restriction on deploying clones onto an enemy district.

Thanks.

I suggested this, but as it was pointed out to me, ALT corps freaking alt corps would abuse the crap out of it.


Unfortunately there is no good answer. But i for one would rather the entry into PC be lower even if it means economic might can overwhelm.

I have suggested a few things to help mitigate it though.

1. Currently a successful defense will yield 50% of clones from any clones over 150 brought to battle. Problem is no one brings more than 150 clones. So if you are only producing 80 clones that is your buffer before you can be beaten down by attrition over time. Frankly an 80 clone loss is very easy to come by in a tough fight.

Solution: Make it 50% of clones brought to battle regardless of number. So if its 150 clones you will earn 75 of them from a successful defense, add that your 80-100 clone generation, successfully defending really pays off and makes people think 2x of just mindless throwing ISK at you. As far as how to account for such a high yield, lets simply say that from x number of clones destroyed you can salvage the parts to yield a 50% return.


2. Currently there is a minimum 150 clone movement on attack, with this you can only obtain 50% of the clone generation of the district you are attacking. That is 40-50 clones. Again makes raiding not all that profitable once you factor in clone loss to and during battle and the ISK transport cost.

Solution: Make it 100% that means you can raid a district and gain 80-100 clones for winning the attack. That is a great raiding yield while not increasing passive ISK gain.

Originally i thought lets just increase the clone generation. That would only make things worse since your are creating a larger passive ISK faucet. Now ISK generation comes from actively attacking or successfully defending.

Most important you will note is that WINNING is the predominant factor that yields your rewards.

Now if you did this and lowered the ISK cost of clone attack to 40-60M It wouldnt be so bad. Sure ppl could use their ISK printers to use more clone pack attacks but if they aren't winning then they are basically paying you to fight them. If they are winning by farming small corps well then that might be where a good MERC organization can help--Fortunately I know of such an organization ;)


I think reducing the ISK clone cost and perhaps adding a sliding scale with increased cost or increase the cost for overall usage up to a max cost after x number of uses could be another way to go. Most importantly I was told that the defensive rewards may be too high for a single successful defense so perhaps tweak the percentages.

So as line item

1. Make active participation more rewarding than passive land holding
2. Make the entry and reentry into PC lower
3. DItch the idea of trying to tweak the numbers to force localized fighting, let people battle it out all over MH and then if PC opens up create escalting costs for newer regions for pathway to entry begins in one place and as people get better and has more money will branch into higher tiers of constellations(novel idea needs more thought).
4. Start moving towards a merc model let create better EVE rewards and incentives for EVE players to hold the land and let them hire out mercs or hold dust corps to defend/attack for them.

So please make raiding more fun

But more importantly create Dust styled gamemodes around PC. Create a capture the clone facility as a CTF mode, create a demolition or domination game mode for PC that has a different way of playing the game. Create an ambush variant that works in PC, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK SKRIM 1.0.

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. :)

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.

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?

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. :)

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).

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?

Now you might be saying this is unfair to the attackers but this is where it gets interesting. (Continued next post)

2. Get rid of the NPC FW factions and allow them to become player controlled.

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.

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. :)

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?

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?

When it comes to a fight that can actually flip a District it should be played as Skirmish 1.0 was played. It was a far better game mode, and this would feel more like an actual capture.

Possible solution allow us to press the battle if both sides agree. I mean we are all sitting around our machines and ready to play.

p.s. Sorry for the lack of response from me, just really busy with super special stuff. :P I am still reading this thread though and taking notes so please keep talking. :D

p.p.s. WOOT! Post 100 in the thread! :P

You didn't say secret.

So what you working on?

Crap... that will teach me. Lots of stuff really. I don't want to give exact specifics, but things like how orbital bombardments work, how players find matches (syncing for FW with an entire team anyone?), squads that have multiple squads, roles, things like that. It is a bit all over the place right now but that is not just me but team true grit.

Holy Mother of Luminaire, they are actually doing things we want. Don't let our petty forum squabbling distract you. Keep working.

squads that have multiple squads

CCP 5 year plan

1. putting lipstick on a pig

Need a pig first.

What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
1. Winning
2. Alliance communication.
3. The star map

What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
1. Uselessness of owned districts.
2. Game modes
3. MCC sniping on all map

Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?

Star map, it's just cool as **** and shows how big this could become if handled right

Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
1. Uselessness of owned districts.

Right now once a district is taken...that's it, other than defending it once in a while. That is boring, tedious and is slowly turning players away from PC.

The fix (suggestions could be flawed)
I) Let us use our districts, for training new players, role finesse, pilot test schools and inner corp/alliance test fights.
II) Make the districts do something, other than offer clone count maximums
Research facilities: All corp members get bonus' per research facility owned (example: Core dropsuit upgrade modules gain 1%)
Barracks: +1%/hour SP gain, per barracks district held
Cargo Hub: -5% cost for ISK items in market place
Overview: the idea being that the ownership of these districts benefits the whole corp, and the want to have them would be furthered.
III) Upgrading your districts, moving turrets, adding cargo containers/cover.
IV) Being able to jump onto our district at any time to just purely **** around, Nova knife tanks and what not.

Crap... that will teach me. Lots of stuff really. I don't want to give exact specifics, but things like how orbital bombardments work, how players find matches (syncing for FW with an entire team anyone?), squads that have multiple squads, roles, things like that. It is a bit all over the place right now but that is not just me but team true grit.

What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
1. Winning
2. Alliance communication.
3. The star map

What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
1. Uselessness of owned districts.
2. Game modes
3. MCC sniping on all map

Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?

Star map, it's just cool as **** and shows how big this could become if handled right

Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
1. Uselessness of owned districts.

Right now once a district is taken...that's it, other than defending it once in a while. That is boring, tedious and is slowly turning players away from PC.

The fix (suggestions could be flawed)
I) Let us use our districts, for training new players, role finesse, pilot test schools and inner corp/alliance test fights.
II) Make the districts do something, other than offer clone count maximums
Research facilities: All corp members get bonus' per research facility owned (example: Core dropsuit upgrade modules gain 1%)
Barracks: +1%/hour SP gain, per barracks district held
Cargo Hub: -5% cost for ISK items in market place
Overview: the idea being that the ownership of these districts benefits the whole corp, and the want to have them would be furthered.
III) Upgrading your districts, moving turrets, adding cargo containers/cover.
IV) Being able to jump onto our district at any time to just purely **** around, Nova knife tanks and what not.

Barracks: +1%/hour SP gain, per barracks district held

I'm all for districts giving bonuses to corp members except this. This would give corps that can hold sov even more SP gap between corps that want to join the fight. SP gain should be the same for all players and equally available (ok, don't start the P2W arguments, I know them all)

CCP 5 year plan

1. putting lipstick on a pig

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?

What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?
1. Winning
2. Alliance communication.
3. The star map

What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?
1. Uselessness of owned districts.
2. Game modes
3. MCC sniping on all map

Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?

Star map, it's just cool as **** and shows how big this could become if handled right

Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it?
1. Uselessness of owned districts.

Right now once a district is taken...that's it, other than defending it once in a while. That is boring, tedious and is slowly turning players away from PC.

The fix (suggestions could be flawed)
I) Let us use our districts, for training new players, role finesse, pilot test schools and inner corp/alliance test fights.
II) Make the districts do something, other than offer clone count maximums
Research facilities: All corp members get bonus' per research facility owned (example: Core dropsuit upgrade modules gain 1%)
Barracks: +1%/hour SP gain, per barracks district held
Cargo Hub: -5% cost for ISK items in market place
Overview: the idea being that the ownership of these districts benefits the whole corp, and the want to have them would be furthered.
III) Upgrading your districts, moving turrets, adding cargo containers/cover.
IV) Being able to jump onto our district at any time to just purely **** around, Nova knife tanks and what not.

Likes:
1. Concept
2. EVE connection
3. Friendly Fire

Things I would like to see changed:
1. Execution
2. No EVE alliance = No orbital!
3. Friendly FIre in FW

Why I like the Concept of PC:
This is a combination of points 1, 2, and 3 in my likes. These battles actually matter and the stakes are much higher than throwing away a bunch of ISK to pad personal stats. Tactics and strategy (which have been missing from Dust as of late) come into account because you can't just blob up and zerg everything and clones are finite.

What ruins PC:
Having the warbarge in PC is literally a spit in the face to everyone that bought UVTs and took the time to form an EVE alliance, plain and simple. Get rid of the warbarge and you'll see more Dust corps interacting with EVE players. If anyone complains, tell them "Welcome to New Eden." Besides, I've seen several good corps put in work without even needing an orbital. Having access should be a privilege for those with an alliance, not a right to all.

Also, in any battle that affects EVE influence, I would motion for FF to be turned on at all times. This is the kind of importance these battles need, along with higher rewards for those higher stakes. If you make this change, you'll see a lot of more tactically oriented corps rise in the ranks and not just pub stompers blobbing everything in Caldari Logi suits, Thukker Grenades and TAC ARs. (Yes people still run around with TAC ARs)

Edit: Defenders and Attackers in PC need to feel like defenders and attackers. Skirmish 1.0 would really help with this. Neutral territory could work as well if there were an implemented system where two sides engage on unclaimed territory.

I like that stepping on peoples toes is the entire point of PC. There shouldn't be room for everyone to have a district; if there was there woudn't be much of a reason to attack. And so the current number of districts is probably about right.

OTOH, there is definitely an issue with not being able to attack districts outside of your own peak TZ. Our enemies' districts have reinforcement timers deep into US TZ and so we can't feasibly attack and conquer those districts. The same applies in reverse.

So whilst we're sitting right next door to each other, both corps have plenty of districts that are not under attack.

Makes me think that you should only get bonuses from your district for the period of the day that you are willing to have it vulnerable to attack. Can only defend it for 4 hours per day, in EU TZ? Then you get only 4 hrs worth of reinforcements.

Or possibly some sort of 'hot racking' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_racking where a district can have multiple owners all responsible for defending whatever they are capable of. It's probably too complex to implement or understand though...

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?

I went through this thread yesterday, gathered all the feedback, made some lists, prioritized and weighted all the feedback, and we are using it to help guide our roadmapping.

Thank you ALL for your help and feedback! :D

Lag fixed
Better loot
Skirmish 1.0

the entire thread? Because I have made some updates to my post a week ago that was located way earlier.

Skirmish 1.0 would save this game >.>

I'd like to see Ambush OMS as a game mode in PC, even Domination too.

I went through this thread yesterday, gathered all the feedback, made some lists, prioritized and weighted all the feedback, and we are using it to help guide our roadmapping.

Thank you ALL for your help and feedback! :D

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?

Enjoy:
+ REAL loot
+ Starmap change according to results.
+ Get to use an actual team for the first time!


Dislike:
- The lag which takes away the feel of control
- Lack of helping tools to manage corp members and the team
- The same heightmaps, maps, all around the world. Takes away the feel that we are somewhere else.

on likes:
It's great to have a team of 16 and finally there's a place for specialized people (speedhackers, snipers, explosive experts etc). It would be better tho if we had adequate comm systems and tools to manage people.


Dislikes:
It's so boring that everyone knows every map like the back of their hands. Gameplay would be more organic if hills and angles would be different each time. It would also be cool that the defenders would have at least the advantage of knowing their home turf.