DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

Kain Spero wrote:

bigolenuts wrote:

Skimming through and I'd like to know.

Corp A raids Corp B. Corp A is not in PC but is there any way Corp B can raid them back? Will the war barges be accessible? I'm trying to keep up but my Dustanese is not very good.

Currently a Corporate Command cannot be raided AFAIK, but I think being able to counterattack a raid using a district map would be a good feature to implement. Essentially this would be a revenge attack that a Corporate Command can come under following a raid.

Radar, raids affecting district production and causing an expenditure of defender command points seems like a sufficient penalty and effect on Planetary Conquest. Basically if successfully raided your clone production stops the same way as a loss currently does on a district but your core clone/ MCC count is unaffected.

Whether no shows are punished or not I think would come down to whether raids happen around the district timer or if a district being open to a raid 24/7 approach is taken. In any case, the CP cost of raiding needs to be balanced against the CP cost of manually selling clones so that raiding is a more CP expensive way of gathering ISK. I imagine raiding would also cost clones/MCC no matter the outcome. In the case of a no show (maybe the shields of the MCC aren't lost on victory) then the raider keeps their MCC/ clones. This would allow you to immediately raid again even if you don't have MCC/ clones in storage. I think a mechanic like that would provide enough of a benefit if there is a no show.

In the case of a raider no-showing (MCC shields aren't lost on victory) have the raid not cost the district owner any CP.

Being able to raid even if you don't own any land is really the whole point behind a raiding mechanic in the first place, but I do agree that revenge attacks should be possible.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 495	Posted - 2015.01.23 10:41:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: New Concept: Raids We want to make it possible to add District Raiding, in the form of short warning challenges. Raids will not cause Districts to be lost, but the margin of win will dictate how much ISK the Raiders get away with. You should put up a fight to defend your district against Raids, but it will not buckle you to let one Raid slide. Perfect to train New Players, both on Attacking and Defending. These might be in 8v8, 12v12 or 16v16 varieties. Good news blueberries, looks like something may be seriously cutting into my usual pubstomping. Sounds like old-school CBs, only better (Yarrr) Also, I'm still a bit confused about the form the Corporate Missions are going to take. Can only one person complete each mission? Any chance we could get an example of something that could be a corporate mission?
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 496	Posted - 2015.01.23 11:50:00 - [2] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Raiding: 20 minute raid delay. Attacking force drops to map regardless of whether or not the defenders (who get an immediate muster email) are on-site. I love. If all hack points are taken and held for three minutes the raiders escape with a moderate haul of whatever. Nothing to sing about. I feel some raids should be ambush, and others depending( for more CP), could be actual Resource extraction The instant even one red dot spawns in the defense is on as the defenders trickle in to protect their assets and the battle progresses per usual mechanics. Are there unusual mechanics at the beginning? The defended districts should provide a much higher yield than undefended because the raiders have to beat the defenders for the loot and to get more time before an insurmountable defense. Makes a lot of sense. Attackers can only attack a given district once per day. I disagree. You should be allowed to attack more than once (maybe as a future Corp upgrade I digress. Personally, i play PC for the fights, not the Isk. I'd raid to see if a corp can give me a fight, and it'd suck to waste that one chance on no one being home. Allow it to be done every 5 or 6 hours, with additional upgrades allowing for more. I can raid when I get home from school, and before bed after pc Once the battle ends the district locks out further raids for an hour to give the defenders a breather. So...it can be raided by another corp?????? Raid defense costs zero CP. i LIKE As mentioned earlier: Payouts for actual fights should be increased and worth the raider force's time. Uncontested wins should feel like yeah you got loot, but you should have gotten more... Some extra input on these ideas (I like most of it): Although I like the idea of a 20 minute delay, I think 30-45 minutes would be a bit more reasonable overall. No personal complaints about 20 minutes, though. As for the match type, I can see a few possibilities (the attacker should always choose the size): - Attacking party chooses, with Skirm/Dom having slightly higher CP costs and reward payouts - Defenders choose (only the game type, not the size, which they can see and base their type choice on) - Random, with CP cost to the attacker determining odds (extra CP spent for layout intel, because the attackers can't know the layout of the district without recon) As for limits on attacks on a single district, I would think a flat 3-5hr lockdown after an attack would be sufficient. I don't think any other restrictions would be necessary. That would provide enough daily attacks that raid locking would be very difficult to keep up in terms of CP, leave a small enough window to reasonably have multiple attacks, and have a large enough window to prevent constant raids without major coordination.
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 500	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:25:00 - [3] - Quote I'm not particularly sure about the idea of raiding non-PC corps, but it doesn't make sense that they would be able to initiate raids without the possibility of retaliation. Actually, I think the idea behind the reward/loss system of raids is a bit unclear, which is making the problem even harder to pin down. My understanding of how raids could work (in terms of costs, rewards, and losses): Raids have an initial CP cost to the side that initiates, and no CP cost for the defending corp. A no-show results in a significant loss of CP (more than a raid attack, and no clone loss) The clones used in the battle have to come from somewhere, the CP cost to the attacker covers their clones, while the defenders use clones stored on the district (I imagine raids having clone counts of ~50-80). A loss by the defender results in a (smaller than no-show) loss of CP, and the clones used in the defense. A loss would require balancing clone expenditure with CP loss (losses in raids would not hinder generation, thus having a very minor impact on numbers) A win by the defender results in no CP loss, and the acquisition of any of the attacker's leftover clones The winner (attacking or defending) gets a payout based on total losses, including both gear and biomass (this may be in additional forms beyond ISK) Corps without districts can be raided, but the attack will have a significantly higher CP cost, will take clones from the defenders corporate warbarge storage, and cannot be launched on a corp with insufficient clone reserves. Once again, I'm still on the fence about raiding corps that don't own land, but I threw it in to show how I think it could be done.
Shutter Fly Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 500	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:55:00 - [4] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: bigolenuts wrote: Skimming through and I'd like to know. Corp A raids Corp B. Corp A is not in PC but is there any way Corp B can raid them back? Will the war barges be accessible? I'm trying to keep up but my Dustanese is not very good. Currently a Corporate Command cannot be raided AFAIK, but I think being able to counterattack a raid using a district map would be a good feature to implement. Essentially this would be a revenge attack that a Corporate Command can come under following a raid. Radar, raids affecting district production and causing an expenditure of defender command points seems like a sufficient penalty and effect on Planetary Conquest. Basically if successfully raided your clone production stops the same way as a loss currently does on a district but your core clone/ MCC count is unaffected. Whether no shows are punished or not I think would come down to whether raids happen around the district timer or if a district being open to a raid 24/7 approach is taken. In any case, the CP cost of raiding needs to be balanced against the CP cost of manually selling clones so that raiding is a more CP expensive way of gathering ISK. I imagine raiding would also cost clones/MCC no matter the outcome. In the case of a no show (maybe the shields of the MCC aren't lost on victory) then the raider keeps their MCC/ clones. This would allow you to immediately raid again even if you don't have MCC/ clones in storage. I think a mechanic like that would provide enough of a benefit if there is a no show. In the case of a raider no-showing (MCC shields aren't lost on victory) have the raid not cost the district owner any CP. Being able to raid even if you don't own any land is really the whole point behind a raiding mechanic in the first place, but I do agree that revenge attacks should be possible. I see show/no-show as a matter of cost management. It shouldn't be a straight matter of: show = good / no-show = bad. Not showing up would be a definite, moderate loss of one resource (CP, for example). Showing up would be betting that you can win for a moderate gain, with the possibility of anywhere from minor to severe (in relation to no-show) losses of other resources (clones, ISK, some CP). Although I mentioned clone loss, but no hit to clone production, in my previous post. I also like the idea of halted production with no loss. My only issue is the "loss" of clones (in the battle) with no actual impact on clone reserves. Also, it could diminish the returns of multiple attacking wins in a single day, depending on how the other penalties are determined.