****Raiding*****

Corporations with no districts should be able to be raided however for substantial LP, with a No-show stealing a large amount of the corps CP (Not enough for a recoup however. Used more if you have a grudge against a corp that stays out of PC. Similar to going to a Pirate hangout to beat the snot out of them )

Raids need to be limited in how many can happen per day for sure. Either by a rest timer, meeting certain conditions for a raid like clone overflow X days in a row, or a combination of the two.

Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected.

This is not promoting good fights this is promoting noob farming.

Districts should be affected to the extent that a successful raid interrupts farming operations. If the raiders are beaten back, then back to business-as-usual. Incentives for showing up for the fight.

They win they raid they get what they earn only so long as they can escape with it.

The Reprisal is a asset recovery collection by someone who had a thief break in while they were otherwise occupied. They should be able to recover the vast majority, if not absolutely all, of anything removed from the district. It's balance.

Don't let my downplaying of what "Raiding" is insofar as its place in the wider spectrum of crime as some misunderstanding on my part on the concept.

Every historical raiding group you named and every contemporary raiding group (Somali pirates, for ex.) comes from somewhere, and goes back to somewhere. Thats part of whats missing in this "raiding" equation, as proposed. ALSO, when caught NONE of those groups is just re-released to continue raiding wihout penalty. This is another part of what's missing from this OP.

I'm all for suprise raiding. I (and many others) feel that RAIDING is a great idea BUT under no circumstances should it be, by its srructural mechanics, an essentially risk-free auto-queue Ambush match paid out of district assets.

That isn't balanced, that a group can pick who to take and when and then attack and whoever happens to be there (unless its EVERYBODY who happens to be there ) defends. Thats not mitigating anything, thats an autoloaded ezmode.

You do that now only with a 24hr warning. I personally have suggested that there be a window of opportunity around a districts attack timer. If you cant get enough people online around your primetime then YOU should not own land.

BTW- Every single one of those pillaging groups you describe was killed, dead never to to rob/****/pillage ever again ever, when caught or successfully opposed. Which I also proposed as a possible risk mitigatory element, that losing a raid would disable those raiders' raiding ability for a period.

Its great being immortal isn't it? I have also suggested that a corp cannot raid a single district more than once per 24hrs does this not sound fair to you? You kill them enough times they will learn that you are not an easy "target"

And I'll repeat again, if raiding is a low to risk free activity with almost guaranteed profits for the raiders direct drom the disrricts assets NO ONE will hold districts, they will accumulate no assets and then become useless for raiding. And PC will be what so many lament it is, a playground for super-vet pro-teams to stage epeenstroker contests while "the community" QQs.

No kidding right? Conversely raiding has to be viable enough to convince "the community" to participate.

Seems to me we're in agreement on the fundamental ideas if not the specifics of the details. Details very few in here outside of the Devs will dictate.

Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the majority of my time fighting raiders (and raid defenders) who were just spanked off the district but since there's little to no penalty for loss after match end they just re-queued another raid attempt. As I've said a few times, Auto-queued Pub matches paid from districts.

You hope, I'll believe it when I see it.
What will also happen and then happen more often if what you describe becomes true is raiders will look to "softer" targets or districts that aren't defended (yes, like we should) and raid those, knowingly unchallenged. Which then affirms even more my assertion of raiding just becoming a 0-risk autopub, unless some other balancing element is put into place to shape it into something more meaningful as a game element.


tl;dr : Since raiders will have the enormous advantage of hand-picking the lowest possible risk matches for themselves there should be something to balance that risk/reward-wise for defenders. Whether it's defeated raider cooldowns (destroyed strategms/MCC etc) or retribution attacks or the potential of defended districts being able to field lopsided matches in favor of defenders or any of a bunch of other ideas. Something needs to be instituted as a balancer.

"If CCP goes with the window approach" everything will be balanced is = to
"If CCP goes with the deactivatable raiding strategem from raid loss" everything will be balanced which is = to
"If CCP goes with the Raid Reprisal battle-mode" everything will be balanced etc etc etc
See where we're at with this? A lot of good ideas but none of them are part of the proposal and all of them seek to address a facet of balancing this idea that also doesn't exist in the OP. On the bright-side I for one am very encouraged to see the community outpouring of intellect in recognizing this issue and proposing ideas to solve it.

btw, Theres very little indication that once raiding becomes a "thing" that it will mainly be performed by small pirate corps. As it's proposed raiding will definitely be an ez iskmaker for all the existing large corps. Hell, you needn't look any further than recent Molden Heath corporate merger history to find full pro corps consolidating their ranks in anticipation of the prospects of raiding. Large corporate landholder will have the personnel (with the SP base to be effective) to spread around and repel raiders across timezones. Smaller corps? Not so much. Which will most likely lead to fewer small corps actually having districts since after being constantly raided they'll be incredibly easy to flip by any interloper group. Not exactly a formula for robust PC growth.


I'm still optimistic about raiding though, any addition that can expand the possibilities of Mercenary Employment is worth at least trying to form and balance. Done well I think raiding will be an excellent mode. Deployed imbalanced or otherwise broken somehow*cough*just about every patch/fix/update ever*cough* and I think raiding will do far more harm than good.

So now not only will players who spend hundreds of thousands of AUR on warbarges have a damage bonus giving them a significant advantage when it os pro v pro but they will also be able to lock their district at a cash price?

unnecessary hyperbolic statements