DUST Search - FW And PC Changes Coming 3/11

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=146326

CCP Logibro wrote:

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.

It is being fixed, now quit with the childish tantrums.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5406	Posted - 2014.03.07 21:53:00 - [1] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=146326 CCP Logibro wrote: 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. It is being fixed, now quit with the childish tantrums. Sorry to steal your thunder KAGEHOSHI, but I figured that this was information that not everyone knows, so I figured I should just put this out there. -HAND lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5406	Posted - 2014.03.07 21:58:00 - [2] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: Very late. The party may as well be over. How late? I swear, everytime I go on the forums everything's already finished. FML. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5407	Posted - 2014.03.07 22:02:00 - [3] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Finally glad to see something many FW advocates discussed with CCP in September-Novemeber last year being taken on board. We could still do with FW lock timers though, each FW should be able to handle the locks from 30-60 min. I'd like to see that implemented. I just hope that they don't decide to use 24hr timers, because then one faction could have 100% sovereignty (if they tried hard enough), and the other faction wouldn't be able to hold a defense or counterattack. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND