I still have a feeling that people will be able to lock districts and make a profit.

As a matter of fact I may just have a solution in mind.

If you believe you have a method for still making a profit by locking districts, please file a bug report with details.

y'know I jjust saw an AFKer spinning endlessly the other day, it used to be whole squads though


I'm not saying "Leave CCP alone they know what they're doing! QQ"

it's more of a "Hey! CCP is just slow and extra speshul so let them work at their own pace and hope for them to put the square peg on the right hole and not sh|t their pants in the meantime and abstain from muttering that dreaded Soon tm next to the words speeder, titan boarding, all racial vehicles"

keep it up CCP you're... not despicable, just frustrating

Previously if there was no result, it would refund and reset the district state. Now no result will mean the attackers lose by default, and there will be no refund. Battles will now also terminate before the reinforcement window closes.

So in short: any time there was previously a refund, the attacker will now lose by default.

Previously if there was no result, it would refund and reset the district state. Now no result will mean the attackers lose by default, and there will be no refund. Battles will now also terminate before the reinforcement window closes.

So in short: any time there was previously a refund, the attacker will now lose by default.

I Really believe the main changes we would like to see in PC are:

a) More players in PC and not a small elite. Everyone with proto fittings/ vehicles should find his place in PC. (if the price is to sacrifice small corporation so be it)

b)More corporations involved in PC

c)More interaction with Eve

Removing the timer (or taking him down from 24h to x minutes- 2hours) wil fix a) and b).

a)To set timers larger then would mean that the corporations will stay as they are now based on nationality. Not even 10% of the timers are now in EU timezone !!!

a)It will force corporations to merge with others and recruit new mercenaries to get them into PC.

b)Making it harder to hold a district means, that every corporation will hold only a few districts. This will have as a result that a lot of districts will be defenseless at the beginning and free to take for corporations outside of PC. Alliances and politics will play a bigger role to hold a district.

Hey guys

With the Rubicon 1.3 release on 2014-03-11 we are aiming to deploy two changes, one to Planetary Conquest and one to Factional Warfare. At this stage we're waiting for QA to confirm both changes are good to go, but we have announced it earlier to give corporations in Planetary Conquest a chance to be aware of the changes.

Planetary Conquest: Locking a district will now ensure the attacker loses clones and ISK when there is no battle result

This means that if no battle takes place, or if a battle is reverted due to it not being completed, the attackers will lose clones as per a normal loss.

Factional Warfare: Adjusted the battle spawning so that factions will need to spend more time defending their districts proportionally to the number of districts they control

What this means is that as a faction controls a higher percentage of districts in the warzone, it will generate more defense contracts for that faction.

I don't see the current mechanics changing anytime soon. No offense to those on the CPM, but I think there is a slight conflict of interest here. The small elite groups of players stand to lose quite a bit if the mechanics are changed.

The current mechanics have locked the vast majority of corps out of PC. In fact there is little to zero chance that an up and coming corp can learn on the job fast enough to hold a single district. And that's buying a district from a small elite group.

The chance of a corp with players that have not been in PC taking a district from an established PC corp with clone packs are close to zero and they'd have to invest at least 144 million ISK to give a real try.

The fix to locking will lead to more fighting, but to expect any different outcome than what we've seen is insanity.

I think there is going to be a run on Renegade. Players will start leaving in mass. They will jump into one of the power alliances and then there will be a period of quiet before the two remaining powers go at it. It will be the same names, just some with different tags. One of these powers will end up with an absurd amount of land that SHOULD be undefendable and the cycle will repeat.

Hey guys

With the Rubicon 1.3 release on 2014-03-11 we are aiming to deploy two changes, one to Planetary Conquest and one to Factional Warfare. At this stage we're waiting for QA to confirm both changes are good to go, but we have announced it earlier to give corporations in Planetary Conquest a chance to be aware of the changes.

Planetary Conquest: Locking a district will now ensure the attacker loses clones and ISK when there is no battle result

This means that if no battle takes place, or if a battle is reverted due to it not being completed, the attackers will lose clones as per a normal loss.

Factional Warfare: Adjusted the battle spawning so that factions will need to spend more time defending their districts proportionally to the number of districts they control

What this means is that as a faction controls a higher percentage of districts in the warzone, it will generate more defense contracts for that faction.

If a match is a no show does the value of the destroyed attacker's clones go to the defender's corp wallet?

Isn't that CCP's job to check logs for things like this.
If you think the current problems of locking are bad, you haven't seen anything yet.
I have seen glitches that would make a dev's head spin.
However, why report them if it took this long just to stop a simple refund mechanic?
I have proof of all of this too, so don't think I am lying in the slightest bit.

This question seems to be relevant.

Hey, DEV, pls answer.

I don't see the current mechanics changing anytime soon. No offense to those on the CPM, but I think there is a slight conflict of interest here. The small elite groups of players stand to lose quite a bit if the mechanics are changed.

The current mechanics have locked the vast majority of corps out of PC. In fact there is little to zero chance that an up and coming corp can learn on the job fast enough to hold a single district. And that's buying a district from a small elite group.

The chance of a corp with players that have not been in PC taking a district from an established PC corp with clone packs are close to zero and they'd have to invest at least 144 million ISK to give a real try.

The fix to locking will lead to more fighting, but to expect any different outcome than what we've seen is insanity.

I think there is going to be a run on Renegade. Players will start leaving in mass. They will jump into one of the power alliances and then there will be a period of quiet before the two remaining powers go at it. It will be the same names, just some with different tags. One of these powers will end up with an absurd amount of land that SHOULD be undefendable and the cycle will repeat.

If you believe you have a method for still making a profit by locking districts, please file a bug report with details.

Here's a thought:

Have 2 different LP payouts depending on whether you're attacking or defending. An attack battle would pay more LP than a defend battle.

Before this change, it wouldn't be such a good idea but now that battles will hopefully spawn accordingly so that whoever is currently holding 0% will be attacking most of the time, it would sway people into fighting for that faction.

I also have always been in favor of paying LP according to leaderboard position. As it stands, a guy that AFKs earns the same LP as the guy with most WP at the end of a round.

Battles will now also terminate before the reinforcement window closes.

Hey guys

With the Rubicon 1.3 release on 2014-03-11 we are aiming to deploy two changes, one to Planetary Conquest and one to Factional Warfare. At this stage we're waiting for QA to confirm both changes are good to go, but we have announced it earlier to give corporations in Planetary Conquest a chance to be aware of the changes.

Planetary Conquest: Locking a district will now ensure the attacker loses clones and ISK when there is no battle result

This means that if no battle takes place, or if a battle is reverted due to it not being completed, the attackers will lose clones as per a normal loss.

Factional Warfare: Adjusted the battle spawning so that factions will need to spend more time defending their districts proportionally to the number of districts they control

What this means is that as a faction controls a higher percentage of districts in the warzone, it will generate more defense contracts for that faction.

You're almost certainly correct, and to an extent that's OK in my opinion as a member of a small corp who learned the hard way about PC. (on a side note, I don't think your corp-mates answer that blowing up small corps is a good solution, that's what alliances are for.)

The elite players by nature of their skill, experience, and equipment, will always dominate PC, which is more or less working as intended. Whats not intended is a small hardcore group being able to hold so much land on their own, which is what you are getting at in your last sentence.

If you ask my decidedly non-expert opinion, the "district locking" in and of itself is not the major issue. If 2 corps from the same alliance want to legitimately fight eachother over and over again like a corp battle (since we still dont have those... sigh) to keep some districts in alliance hands that's not such a big deal. The big deal is that being able to be done on a massive scale without actually fighting, and with both sides making a profit.

If a corp with 50 highly skilled members can hold 4-5 districts by such a method (and only side making any profit) that's not necessarily game-breaking, it's when that same group can hold 60(!) districts like Nyain San does, with essentially zero cost.

The zero cost at least appears to be getting fixed here. That then eliminates some of the motivation for locking as you get a lower return on your investment. The hopeful downstream effect is that the next EoN or Renegade decides its not worth it to hold 150 districts or whatever, and some small sector will always be up for grabs, I imagine.

Good job CCP.

It only took you 4-5 months since the playerbase warned you about this, but better late than never, I guess.

Now, since you are doing common sense fixes, do you plan on increasing the number of clones in the clone packs, or do you still need another half a year of data?