trollsroyce
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
615
   |
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was a whiner and a doomsayer. I want to HTFU and begin posting better now, so I'll start with my idea of a complete re-do of the PC mechanics. This is the first in posting series for some adjustments which I think would make Dust a better experience. I cornily named it after a cliche phrase to underline the very harsh and radical approach I candidate to the game design.
TLDR: majority of battles are unimportant and only a grind to open up the important battles, Joe average gets to play PC in these grind battles. Grind battles are contracted as public games by standings.
HTFU 1: Planetary Conquest to make use of player numbers and politics.
Problematics of current system:
The main issue to me is the exclusivity of the sandbox, which is the main catch of the game as a stand out FPS. A 16 vs 16 environment has, by default, no place for low SP, low skill players. Compared to EVE sandbox, Dust by design has huge issues in being an easy entry, newbie friendly sandbox because top players will always be filling the spots in PC fights. In EVE sandbox you can bring more, so everyone is welcome.
The second big issue are timezones and timers, the way they imprison players to feel forced to play during their off times. You have to be defending at a certain time, you are allowed to attack at a certain time. The timer mechanics essentially push players into timezone blocks (CRONOS vs. US) because the dominant timezone would otherwise become the main timezone of the sandbox. Let's say players are evenly distributed amongst alliances, with 75% residing in the US timezones. This could lead to most if not all timers being ultimately adjusted to the big timezone where the big player pool allows best 16 man team form ups.
What could be learned from EVE:
In EVE, before timers come into play and force fights, there are structure grinds. These are horrible, but they allow space for all skill level players to weigh in on the alliance effort. The following solution takes this thinking and mixes it with what we have in order to alleviate the importance of timers and 16vs16 elitism.
Solution: free time grind, final timer fight.
In short: most of PC conquest of a district is grinding down defenses at any time of attacker choise; timers only come in play with the final flip over battle. A district has a reinforcement timer like now, but it also has clone shields. The offender has to grind down those shields by multiple battles in order to be able to attack the final timed battle that results in either shields coming back to full or district flip.
GRIND BATTLES:
The system is two tiered. First are the "unimportant", "bulk", "numbers game" grind fights. These are done through a system equivalent to FW: the involved alliances pay an on going contract for public games to happen on the districts of their choise, and the attacking side in those public games grinds down shield points instead of MCC hitpoints. Generally, shields take 5 victorious matches to shut down.
The defender by default joins these matches in public queues as well as the attacker, on their own sides depending on alliance/corp standings. By their public nature, these matches are supposedly (but not forcedly) inorganized. This basically fixes the issue of "no-shows" in PC; if the defender no-shows, random public gamers take their place. These shield grind matches are at least 80% of the PC fights by this system, and as they are automated by long standing contracts instead of picking single fights, they fill up without management.
FINAL BATTLE:
After the shields have been ground down comes the main fight. The timer for these main fights is chosen using the timer system in place. The final battle is the current PC iteration of clone wars, but with only one fight that will go on until the bitter end of clone depletion. If defenders win, the shields come back up to 100% and the public grind starts all over. If attackers win, the district is instantly flipped with shields online.
This final battle is the one that decides stuff. This is where you bring the best 16 man team you can ever field. This is the exclusive 20% or less of the planetary conquest. Surely steamrolling the public grind games gets you there faster, but resetting the shields is the spoils of the victor.
POLITICS AND MANAGEMENT
The system, by human nature, favors the underdog. A prominent and hated alliance will get multiple contracts on their districts for public grind down by random parties who want to see giants fall. Players pick sides on the conflict: setting alliances mutual blue gets you in the bulk PC fights. The standings have to be mutual to be selected; this helps against AWOXing.
The contract based system takes a burden off the back of management in automated battle forming. This also combats no-shows due to lack of morale. As most of the battles are automated and relatively meaningless grinds (but more meaningful than random public games which they are an alternative to), Joe average gets to participate in PC. This opens the sandbox up to newbies and casual players. All you need to do is pick sides and be accepted as a volunteer through the standings. As the matches are unimportant (they only decide how fast the important matches come up), awoxing and sabotaging is much less of an issue and the trust barrier is lowered in letting people participate in the war effort.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWS
|
trollsroyce
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
625
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
PC should have both the competitive side (final battles which mean everything) and strategic side (public battles which make final battles happen more often through politics, numbers etc).
If the prominent part of the sandbox is not open for the large public like it is in EVE (nullsec, everyone can go there and contribute) it won't generate the content needed to keep the game alive. The more players PC affects, the more stories come from it. The more stories about dust, the more players you get in the long run. |