Mako LandSharkX
Liberum Sapiens Xenodochi
50
   |
Posted - 2013.06.21 03:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
TLDR: "Lengthier/weightier battles give more time and encouragement for eve-side support and make the 24hour lockout per district worth the wait."
Quote:How would you all feel about Eve players owning the stuff you are fighting for in addition to Dust ownership as well? As long as there is a decent mercenary/contract system in place I would love this.
Quote:What about Eve players not only providing OBs, but having the option of taking on the role of a Field Commander? I wouldn't be against this, but it would have to be a role that could be filled dust side as well. I'd also assume it'd require lengthy development of eve-side features/systems for viewing/monitoring dust battles, which I'd like to have regardless of any field commander option. This could encourage dust players to either make more eve friends for efficient commander support or encourage more dust players to make an eve capsuleer so they can command themselves. The systems involved for this to be possible should allow for eve players to throw orbitals of their own choosing rather than wait for dust mercs to relay a target and vice versa when orbital cannons can fire on eve pilots from the ground. I'd edit ZDub 303's addition of having beacons to allow squad commanders to lay where they want the strikes and for dust/eve commanders to drop them.
Quote:One battle every 24 hours per district doesn't, even on paper, sound like engaging futuristic warfare. How would you strengthen the eve dust link by altering this feature in particular I'm fine with the 24 hour grace period until clone movement is fully operated by eve players. A few changes I'd like to see tested together would allow for that one battle to be more heavily weighted and worth the wait.
Massively Increase the hit points of MCCs and make their destruction a flat out victory coupled with a bonus 'mcc salvage' reward. This would allow one battle to always determine a districts ownership instead of up to 3. Close battles would persist longer and make clone count the deciding factor. With a large mcc salvage reward some may want to maximize profit by tactically trying to control the map while not cloning out the enemy until their mcc is destroyed perhaps encouraging less 'red lining' or giving the enemy a chance to pay a surrender fee.
Add stacking bonuses to null cannons to do more damage the more objectives held. If mcc health is increased this would seem neccessary to make map domination worth the effort and quicken the pace of a landslide match. I'd actually even argue for a hacking option to turn off/set objectives to netural for those wanting to delay the match or corporate spies to further sabotage.
Add a 'surrender' option, that requires approval by the opposing side, which would allow full retreat of mcc and the amount of clones/assets an mcc can carry. This would allow sides to settle mid match on a potential fee for surrender similar to 'ransoms' in eve, and ease the sale of districts between consenting corporations. Think of both MCCs as bieng 'tackled' until both sides agree that one may leave. This allows the future to have actual 'tackle' installations that once controlled/destroyed allow MCC's to retreat without consensus.
I don't know the 'lore' behind mcc's and districts-but it seems to me that clones should be treated purely as assets and the MCC as what controls a district while housing those said assets (mcc control = district control). So the new winning conditions for PC would be the same whether defending or attacking.
If an MCC is destroyed-whatever clones remain on the district would then belong to whoever owns the district along with the district itself (excess clones sold/shipped/etc).
If all clones are destroyed before the MCC that cloneless MCC is forced to retreat and the district is owned by the other.
With current mcc health this would be far too easy of a victory condition though. I'd like the the mcc health to be substantial enough it could survive a match with evenly held districts upwards of 40+ minutes and the stacking bonuses high enough that a full objective ownership would blow the MCC in about 8 or less if held the whole time (numbers obviously up for tweaking/balancing). These changes would make the most sense if the MCC's themselves were purchasable assets that corps would fear loosing, and perhaps allowed fitting options down the line. Having MCC's as assets could allow for some nifty district control benefits/bonuses/manufacturing options. MCC's with more health resulting in lengthier battles would be beneficial eve-side imo, since eve-side things don't tend to happen as quickly as dust battles. |