DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

Kain Spero wrote:

Roman837 wrote:

All very interesting suggestions.

My theory. To make raids much more attainable on both side...woukd be to make raids only be 8 attackers and 8 defenders.

Make the map always a 4 point map.

Reasons why. Raids are lightning fast. They hit you hard. The enemy wouldn't form a large army to do a raid. It would be seen. Instead the pick the best of the best. The small elite raiders. And they hit.

The defender...When sensing a battle always prepares. They man the walls and have their army ready to repel. In a raid. It may be tough for every corp...even large corps...more so for the smaller corps to get 16 players to go defend it. 8 tho is very manageable.

Or as we see now in PC(myself as guilty party) included...The 16 defenders will be picked not from your corp...but from who ever you can scramble.

raids need to be small party's. Please make them 8 vs 8. Attacker has the advantage of selecting the best 8 and preparing before they attack. Defender needs the benefit of the doubt that they can field 8 players aswell. 16 may be very tough for small corps.

Other than that..If you successfully defend a raid...your district should be free from being raided for a locked period of time but not locked from being hit with real attack. When a district gets hit by a real attack it should cease all production of goo. This prevents people from locking them selves with alt corps and cashing in on goo.

Something to consider as well is to allow raids to vary is size with differing CP cost and rewards based on the raid size.

Exactly what I was thinking brother :)
Also, remember now that autosell will no longer be a thing and if you are in the under attack state you can't manage a district which means you won't be able to sell off clones.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4382	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:10:00 - [181] - Quote Shutter Fly wrote: 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. Yeah, essentially you should want to show up to prevent the negative outcomes of a raid. The idea of MCC replacing clones as the mechanics of conquering and determining ownership I think really starts to shine when you begin to look at things like raiding. A raid puts your clone production at risk but not necessarily your stock of MCC that ensure your district ownership is unaffected. The issue I see with raids is that the stakes of a raid need to be balanced. Too low and defenders don't care and don't show up, too high and we end up with the "best 16" being picked to defend against a raid. I think generating/not generating would be a good way to determine is a district is raidable and limit the number of raids. Stopping clone production would allow you to "soften" up a district as a precursor to an actual attack as well. Once we add district resource production down the line though in addition to clones I think we'll need a more robust system like this: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=186091 Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 916	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:06:00 - [182] - Quote All very interesting suggestions. My theory. To make raids much more attainable on both side...woukd be to make raids only be 8 attackers and 8 defenders. Make the map always a 4 point map. Reasons why. Raids are lightning fast. They hit you hard. The enemy wouldn't form a large army to do a raid. It would be seen. Instead the pick the best of the best. The small elite raiders. And they hit. The defender...When sensing a battle always prepares. They man the walls and have their army ready to repel. In a raid. It may be tough for every corp...even large corps...more so for the smaller corps to get 16 players to go defend it. 8 tho is very manageable. Or as we see now in PC(myself as guilty party) included...The 16 defenders will be picked not from your corp...but from who ever you can scramble. raids need to be small party's. Please make them 8 vs 8. Attacker has the advantage of selecting the best 8 and preparing before they attack. Defender needs the benefit of the doubt that they can field 8 players aswell. 16 may be very tough for small corps. Other than that..If you successfully defend a raid...your district should be free from being raided for a locked period of time but not locked from being hit with real attack. When a district gets hit by a real attack it should cease all production of goo. This prevents people from locking them selves with alt corps and cashing in on goo. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4382	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:15:00 - [183] - Quote Roman837 wrote: All very interesting suggestions. My theory. To make raids much more attainable on both side...woukd be to make raids only be 8 attackers and 8 defenders. Make the map always a 4 point map. Reasons why. Raids are lightning fast. They hit you hard. The enemy wouldn't form a large army to do a raid. It would be seen. Instead the pick the best of the best. The small elite raiders. And they hit. The defender...When sensing a battle always prepares. They man the walls and have their army ready to repel. In a raid. It may be tough for every corp...even large corps...more so for the smaller corps to get 16 players to go defend it. 8 tho is very manageable. Or as we see now in PC(myself as guilty party) included...The 16 defenders will be picked not from your corp...but from who ever you can scramble. raids need to be small party's. Please make them 8 vs 8. Attacker has the advantage of selecting the best 8 and preparing before they attack. Defender needs the benefit of the doubt that they can field 8 players aswell. 16 may be very tough for small corps. Other than that..If you successfully defend a raid...your district should be free from being raided for a locked period of time but not locked from being hit with real attack. When a district gets hit by a real attack it should cease all production of goo. This prevents people from locking them selves with alt corps and cashing in on goo. Something to consider as well is to allow raids to vary is size with differing CP cost and rewards based on the raid size. Also, remember now that autosell will no longer be a thing and if you are in the under attack state you can't manage a district which means you won't be able to sell off clones. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 917	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:02:00 - [184] - Quote The idea is to promote fights correct? If you want fights. Make raids 8 vs 8. Both teams can manage finding 8. For a raid and 8 for the defense. Also. Make raids...corp only. Attack and defense. This will promote using your own guys. It will also prevent well established large groups from forming raiding party's based off their elite friends. Make it corp exclusive. Yes. Defenders with land...will need to recruit. And will stop alt corps from just using alts to raid and bringing in their real corp as ringers. 8 vs 8. Way to go with raids. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 813	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:13:00 - [185] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Roman837 wrote: All very interesting suggestions. My theory. To make raids much more attainable on both side...woukd be to make raids only be 8 attackers and 8 defenders. Make the map always a 4 point map. Reasons why. Raids are lightning fast. They hit you hard. The enemy wouldn't form a large army to do a raid. It would be seen. Instead the pick the best of the best. The small elite raiders. And they hit. The defender...When sensing a battle always prepares. They man the walls and have their army ready to repel. In a raid. It may be tough for every corp...even large corps...more so for the smaller corps to get 16 players to go defend it. 8 tho is very manageable. Or as we see now in PC(myself as guilty party) included...The 16 defenders will be picked not from your corp...but from who ever you can scramble. raids need to be small party's. Please make them 8 vs 8. Attacker has the advantage of selecting the best 8 and preparing before they attack. Defender needs the benefit of the doubt that they can field 8 players aswell. 16 may be very tough for small corps. Other than that..If you successfully defend a raid...your district should be free from being raided for a locked period of time but not locked from being hit with real attack. When a district gets hit by a real attack it should cease all production of goo. This prevents people from locking them selves with alt corps and cashing in on goo. Something to consider as well is to allow raids to vary is size with differing CP cost and rewards based on the raid size. Exactly what I was thinking brother :) Also, remember now that autosell will no longer be a thing and if you are in the under attack state you can't manage a district which means you won't be able to sell off clones. After all of the reading, I truly feel we need Corporation Ranks to really help in balance. I had an idea, just disappeared. Will come back. Also, people have been worried that small corps may not be able to field players in the event of a raid. Id like to clarify that a Corp can only be raided back if their Corporation Rank is high enough, and enough CP is used. Attack a Rank 1 corp while you are Rank 8, and it requires massive CP. Again, only as retaliation, not out of the blue. I believe in a 24 hr raid timer, however your district will be set at a certain timer for regen, open to attack 3 hours before and after. The timer decides regen. Raiding later and later from that timer takes more and more CP. Midnight raid? Sure. Requires lots of CP, ans you are then vulnerable to counterattack when you least expect it as well. Raiding paralyzes districts, meaning it would make Cargo Hubs very easier to take, as Radar proposed then only regen a meager 50, with 600 holding clones. Production Facilities with only 200 and 150 regen wpuld be taken in one zurge with no regen capacity. I would personally fight tooth and nail against a raid on a SRL because I want my hacked decryptor keys. "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 917	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:39:00 - [186] - Quote Can raids be a dom or an ambush. It should be about inflicting clone damage. Smash and grab. 8V8 dom or ambush woukd be an exciting change. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1424	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:43:00 - [187] - Quote I puked in my mouth when I agreed with Roman but; 8v8 Corp Specific Ambush/Domination spits I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 918	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:48:00 - [188] - Quote bigolenuts wrote: I puked in my mouth when I agreed with Roman but; 8v8 Corp Specific Ambush/Domination spits Quoted so you can't edit. GG Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
bigolenuts Ancient Exiles. 1424	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:50:00 - [189] - Quote Roman837 wrote: bigolenuts wrote: I puked in my mouth when I agreed with Roman but; 8v8 Corp Specific Ambush/Domination spits Quoted so you can't edit. GG you never hit me up on Skype ******! [email protected] I've a proposal for you I use to play this game, but my dog got sick- Zatara the Pizza Boy
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4386	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:07:00 - [190] - Quote Eh, I don't see any reason to make raiding corp specific. Let it follow the same rules as PC. Plus with the way CP work if they aren't in your corp they aren't fueling your ability to raid. 8v8 raiding can be an option but there should be a way to do 16 v 16 raiding as well. Full teams need a way to quickly access fights in PC as well as small ones. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5855	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:30:00 - [191] - Quote What if bringing in non corp members cost more CP? Call it a clone programming fee. Don't make it much, but anything over 50% ringers would result in a negative in some resource column. I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 5969	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:45:00 - [192] - Quote Random Thoughts: Raid Window What if all districts on a given planet had a fixed (i.e. cannot be changed) raid window of 1-2 hours per day? Raiders would have a selection of districts to choose among at any point during the day. Defenders wouldn't have to be at-the-ready around the clock, could pick districts which best fit their schedules, and would be better able to manage the risks of expansion. "Try to online between 18:00 and 20:00 to defend the home world!" seems like something a reasonable person from space might say. Raid Types Very much like the idea of both Small Raids (8v8) and Large Raids (16v16). Mixing up maps and modes could be fun. You have been waylaid! Love Pokey's idea of permitting land-holders to "give chase" to raiders within a short window after having been raided. What if the mode were Ambush? It would make sense mostly because "... Ambush!" but also because raiders won't necessarily have land to raid (which seems requisite to owning Null Cannons and the like). No Vader? There needs to be a really good reason to hold land; otherwise, we'll be all Rebellion and no Empire. Would make for boring movie, yes? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3504	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:53:00 - [193] - Quote raiding needs to open to any corp that wants to try it because that should be the first step into getting into PC otherwise small newb corps still wont get a look in and tbh nor will they really want to try. its very simple to just make raiding cost CP a smallish raiding corp wont be able to spam it all that much because their pool will be small and a bigger corp will be/should be more interested in taking and holding land as raiding is not most efficient way. if we tie in raiding to land ownership no-one will even bother trying, the whole point of raiding is to make it an easer barrier of entry for new people into PC. Frankly all you big boy corps who are worried about to getting raided a lot means the idea is working as intended. dont take more than can you defend its quite simple You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 921	Posted - 2015.01.24 16:53:00 - [194] - Quote 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4387	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:03:00 - [195] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: What if bringing in non corp members cost more CP? Call it a clone programming fee. Don't make it much, but anything over 50% ringers would result in a negative in some resource column. Okay, normally I hate anything that hurts freedom of association but I like this idea a lot. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:07:00 - [196] - Quote Reason why I believe raids are suppose to be exclusive to Corp members..... because if not. This is going to be easy for us to form 16 elite players....not launch real attacks for pc..watch weak corps come online. Hit them. Split profit. Don't even launch real attacks ever. Farm on our districts. Or launch vs each other. Because raids more profit. I don't want that. Corp exclusive means we include our corps in our attacks. ..and makes it so weak corps don't get raided by the elites farming them Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4387	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:10:00 - [197] - Quote Roman837 wrote: 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. If you kill the core clones off a district you risk the stakes being far too high for raids. If you want to affect the ownership position of a district launch a full attack. Stopping production and regeneration of the clones/MCC seems to be a pretty good middle ground. Let the attacker choose the size or the raid and match type. Depending on the match the stakes are raised and the rewards are different. Raid - 8 v 8 Ambush - 1x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Dom - 1.5x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Skrim - 2x CP Raid - 16 v 16 Skirm - 3x CP The potentially rewards would scale in a similar fashion as the CP. Steal 10% of Daily Clones Steal 20% of Daily Clones Steal 30% of Daily Clones Steal 50% of Daily Clones Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5856	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:11:00 - [198] - Quote If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5856	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:14:00 - [199] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Roman837 wrote: 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. If you kill the core clones off a district you risk the stakes being far too high for raids. If you want to affect the ownership position of a district launch a full attack. Stopping production and regeneration of the clones/MCC seems to be a pretty good middle ground. Let the attacker choose the size or the raid and match type. Depending on the match the stakes are raised and the rewards are different. Raid - 8 v 8 Ambush - 1x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Dom - 1.5x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Skrim - 2x CP Raid - 16 v 16 Skirm - 3x CP The potentially rewards would scale in a similar fashion as the CP. I like the idea of no showing being a stiff penalty, I think X consecutive no shows on raids should lead to an unclaimed district. I'm selling Templar Codes. 3 of 4 remaining. 200 mil ISK. Message me in game.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4387	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:16:00 - [200] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 324	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:21:00 - [201] - Quote OK so... say we go with the window of opportunity method for raiding. IE around primetime for the district. Raiders move War Barge over district raiders launch battle (8v8 or 16vv16 depending on Cp cost) raiders win and get phat lewt if they are dumb enough to stay parked over the planet then they should get counterattacked. If they loot and scoot they cant (they get out of solar system it not worth it to give chase). Assuming that War barges cannot teleport across the starmap and it takes a decent amount of time to move (out of solar system could be 20~30 min) an active player base could call in an attack on them. FI the attackers win they get some of the raiders loot back (and maybe a cut of any other loot they plundered). I think this would encourage raiding to be more coordinated by adding a level of risk. This would also encourage corp to hold districts with timers closer to their actual playtime to allow easy defense. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:22:00 - [202] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Roman837 wrote: 8v8. My answers final lol. Would be good for both sides. Make it 100 clones. If the defender no shows easy penalty. They lose a hundred clones on their districts. This will weakened their defence against a real attack. Point of raid. Strategic strike. If you kill the core clones off a district you risk the stakes being far too high for raids. If you want to affect the ownership position of a district launch a full attack. Stopping production and regeneration of the clones/MCC seems to be a pretty good middle ground. Let the attacker choose the size or the raid and match type. Depending on the match the stakes are raised and the rewards are different. Raid - 8 v 8 Ambush - 1x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Dom - 1.5x CP Raid - 8 v 8 Skrim - 2x CP Raid - 16 v 16 Skirm - 3x CP The potentially rewards would scale in a similar fashion as the CP. Steal 10% of Daily Clones Steal 20% of Daily Clones Steal 30% of Daily Clones Steal 50% of Daily Clones Do you not see the huge issue here. You are forcing the fcs to be online at all times during their districts being online. Fcs control 16 players. With help of squad leaders. This will be a mess to defend vs 16. Unless you are in a very large and elite corp. But it's very easy for us to form 16 elite players. And watch and wait for districts to hit. defender has no advantage. 8v8. Corp exclusive. Prevents us farming corps. trust me. I know. I am not concerned for my corp. Right now if this change is implemented. I will hold 4 districts. And not attack with them. Or attack friends for fun battles. I will dedicate our time to what we will call Raid Farming. We will pillage everyone using 16 elites. The small corps use to be able to counter this. Because they had time to prepare. Now. They won't. They will be slaughtered. I do not want this because I care about the game. This will greatly benefit me. 8V8. Corp exclusive. Limits the noon farming Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
hfderrtgvcd 1787	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:24:00 - [203] - Quote How much time will you have to prepare for raids? You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:25:00 - [204] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. I hate no shows as well, but I think if you make a raid cost the defender CP and they keep noshowing they'll have their CP burn out anyways. Maybe if you no show a raid it actually cost you double the CP. This way you don't get directly into high stakes ownership levels, but if a corp vanishes then you eat through their CP. Maybe if you hit 0 CP your districts become unoccupied? 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. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 325	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:29:00 - [205] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. I hate no shows as well, but I think if you make a raid cost the defender CP and they keep noshowing they'll have their CP burn out anyways. Maybe if you no show a raid it actually cost you double the CP. This way you don't get directly into high stakes ownership levels, but if a corp vanishes then you eat through their CP. Maybe if you hit 0 CP your districts become unoccupied? 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. well if say the district output was lowered after a successful raid (to simulate damage to production facilities) that was repaired after a 24 hr window. No point in looting something that's been looted already. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4388	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:29:00 - [206] - Quote Sounds like raids would be a great opportunity to train new FCs then. Also, I don't really agree that these raids should HAVE to have an FC available. Your 16 won't be able to be everywhere at once and the stakes aren't extremely high. You describing elites running amok is exactly why core ownership clones should NOT be affected by a raid. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:30:00 - [207] - Quote What is going to happen point blank. Is Planetary conquest will turn into....no conquest. Just launching 200 clones for a fun competitive fight. Then we all form raiding parties and pillage noobs. Because it will find out fun pc fights. We will farm you. This is a bad idea. Unless it's 8v8 and corp exclusive. So teams can defend vs us. We will focus purely on raid ddefences. Ans farm Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4388	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:30:00 - [208] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Kain Spero wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: If you make it impossible to profit by using +50% ringers it's win/win. You don't prevent people from playing with friends (or recruiting before accepting). It doesn't need to be impossible to make profits but if you increase the CP cost of actions then you provide a strong incentive to be in the same corp during corp actions. What I like about CP is that it opens up options like setting up a defense contract with another corp at the cost of CP. I hate no shows as well, but I think if you make a raid cost the defender CP and they keep noshowing they'll have their CP burn out anyways. Maybe if you no show a raid it actually cost you double the CP. This way you don't get directly into high stakes ownership levels, but if a corp vanishes then you eat through their CP. Maybe if you hit 0 CP your districts become unoccupied? 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. Either way if you hit 0 CP you will no longer be able to launch defensive actions as it the design of the CP system. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 5975	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:31:00 - [209] - Quote Roman837 wrote: Horrible idea. No. Raids are for resources. Not occupation. District shouldn't be effected. 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. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Roman837 Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 17:31:00 - [210] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Sounds like raids would be a great opportunity to train new FCs then. Also, I do really agree that these raids should HAVE to have an FC available. Your 16 won't be able to be everywhere at once and the stakes aren't extremely high. You describing elites running amok is exactly why core ownership clones should NOT be affected by a raid. Hence Corp exclusive. It is imperative. Defends and attacks. Corp exclusive. Maple Syrup Drinking Canadian, EVE Character Cesar Sousa, CEO of Murphys-Law



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Moody come back