DUST Search - PC Clone Logistics and YOU!

Cat Merc wrote:

Zaria Min Deir wrote:

Cat Merc wrote:

I would be more extreme with the attrition rates, mostly because I like the idea of set frontlines VoV

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjeeSf1Q1DyMDxsNmOc6eqqQzcdfj_17QwDE92R7c9E/edit?usp=sharing

You like the idea of set frontlines, which sure sound cool in theory... But correct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming you haven't really had to deal with PC logistics? The activity levels of PC currently also don't really support a model that is quite that harsh. Only being able to attack the same system, or maybe 1 or 2 jumps out would limit the very low activity too much to be sustainable.

The agressive variant is excessive in my opinion. The medium one looks more viable, and certainly much better than the current system, though I see room for finetuning it some. Clone attrition needs to be an actual thing, I agree, and differentiating the SIs from each other more is great. But we need to not discourage people from attacking entirely Blink

While yes I have never dealt with PC, but I find it downright idiotic that you can attack almost across Molden Heath with any sort of viability.

Could you explain more clearly how the PC mechanics don't support it other than "I know"?

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4757	Posted - 2015.03.16 11:54:00 - [1] - Quote Something that seems to be relatively untouched by the upcoming PC changes is clone logistics. Currently the attrition rates are far too forgiving and the differentiation between Surface Infrastructures leaves the Cargo Hub as the best choice for both attack and defense. I've written up a proposal with some suggestion SI changes and attrition changes with the following goals in mind: 1. Make location more significant 2. Make fights occur more often 3. Make being under attack a bad thing 4. Give clear advantages and disadvantages to each Surface Infrastructure https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n0svKNAiqWr0rhSgOEQ6JpMVjZYAi_bOuXaDF7hzhgI/edit?usp=sharing Ideally I would like to move away from clone attrition and just use an escalating command point cost for longer range attacks. If this were done the 50% mark of clone attrition would become the new maximum jump range for a surface infrastructure. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Terry Webber molon labe. General Tso's Alliance 609	Posted - 2015.03.16 12:30:00 - [2] - Quote From what I've read in the document, when clones are transferred from a certain infrastructure, the attrition rates will be different from another infrastructure? Or is it a rate for something else? I think it needs a little more clarity.
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15511	Posted - 2015.03.16 12:38:00 - [3] - Quote I would be more extreme with the attrition rates, mostly because I like the idea of set frontlines VoV https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjeeSf1Q1DyMDxsNmOc6eqqQzcdfj_17QwDE92R7c9E/edit?usp=sharing Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4757	Posted - 2015.03.16 13:18:00 - [4] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: From what I've read in the document, when clones are transferred from a certain infrastructure, the attrition rates will be different from another infrastructure? Or is it a rate for something else? I think it needs a little more clarity. The way PC logistics work any time you move clones from one district to another whether as an attack or to reinforce clones are lost in the move. This is varied by surface infrastructure already. http://dust514.com/news/blog/2013/07/balancing-the-conquest-of-planets/ Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 1237	Posted - 2015.03.16 16:41:00 - [5] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I would be more extreme with the attrition rates, mostly because I like the idea of set frontlines VoV https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjeeSf1Q1DyMDxsNmOc6eqqQzcdfj_17QwDE92R7c9E/edit?usp=sharing You like the idea of set frontlines, which sure sound cool in theory... But correct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming you haven't really had to deal with PC logistics? The activity levels of PC currently also don't really support a model that is quite that harsh. Only being able to attack the same system, or maybe 1 or 2 jumps out would limit the very low activity too much to be sustainable. The agressive variant is excessive in my opinion. The medium one looks more viable, and certainly much better than the current system, though I see room for finetuning it some. Clone attrition needs to be an actual thing, I agree, and differentiating the SIs from each other more is great. But we need to not discourage people from attacking entirely Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15511	Posted - 2015.03.16 17:00:00 - [6] - Quote Zaria Min Deir wrote: Cat Merc wrote: I would be more extreme with the attrition rates, mostly because I like the idea of set frontlines VoV https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjeeSf1Q1DyMDxsNmOc6eqqQzcdfj_17QwDE92R7c9E/edit?usp=sharing You like the idea of set frontlines, which sure sound cool in theory... But correct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming you haven't really had to deal with PC logistics? The activity levels of PC currently also don't really support a model that is quite that harsh. Only being able to attack the same system, or maybe 1 or 2 jumps out would limit the very low activity too much to be sustainable. The agressive variant is excessive in my opinion. The medium one looks more viable, and certainly much better than the current system, though I see room for finetuning it some. Clone attrition needs to be an actual thing, I agree, and differentiating the SIs from each other more is great. But we need to not discourage people from attacking entirely While yes I have never dealt with PC, but I find it downright idiotic that you can attack almost across Molden Heath with any sort of viability. Could you explain more clearly how the PC mechanics don't support it other than "I know"? Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 1238	Posted - 2015.03.16 17:14:00 - [7] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Zaria Min Deir wrote: Cat Merc wrote: I would be more extreme with the attrition rates, mostly because I like the idea of set frontlines VoV https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjeeSf1Q1DyMDxsNmOc6eqqQzcdfj_17QwDE92R7c9E/edit?usp=sharing You like the idea of set frontlines, which sure sound cool in theory... But correct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming you haven't really had to deal with PC logistics? The activity levels of PC currently also don't really support a model that is quite that harsh. Only being able to attack the same system, or maybe 1 or 2 jumps out would limit the very low activity too much to be sustainable. The agressive variant is excessive in my opinion. The medium one looks more viable, and certainly much better than the current system, though I see room for finetuning it some. Clone attrition needs to be an actual thing, I agree, and differentiating the SIs from each other more is great. But we need to not discourage people from attacking entirely While yes I have never dealt with PC, but I find it downright idiotic that you can attack almost across Molden Heath with any sort of viability. Could you explain more clearly how the PC mechanics don't support it other than "I know"? I said, the activity levels, not the mechanics. Also, where does the "I know" come from? I am talking about the fact that, in my experience, currently PC is very stagnant. There is no need to actively discourage people from participating, and my personal opinion making the clone attrition too harsh, particularly in one instant huge change from the current model, would be discouraging to some. If PC 2.0 rejuvenates PC to even near the levels of the early days of Uprising, then, sure, extreme clone attrition might be something that would work. But I believe moderation is the better first step in most changes. And I also stated A) I think clone attrition needs to actually happen and B) I think Kane's proposal is much better than the current system. So, we are already in agreement that the current system needs to change. I am simply of the opionion that the change shouldn't be as drastic as you propose. Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4760	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:04:00 - [8] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: I would be more extreme with the attrition rates, mostly because I like the idea of set frontlines VoV https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jjeeSf1Q1DyMDxsNmOc6eqqQzcdfj_17QwDE92R7c9E/edit?usp=sharing I think this may be a bit too aggressive, but I've added a variation of it to the sheet. I'd rather go medium aggression , but people's thoughts on both variations would be good. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5487	Posted - 2015.03.18 00:14:00 - [9] - Quote I like the concept that Cargo Hubs are not something you want to use to launch attacks, its certainty discourages their use if you want to project force anywhere away from the planet. I think those values look fine. As for the others, I have to go with Cat in that I think the production facility and research lab are reaching out a bit too far. Even at 50% attrition, 9 jumps is pretty long range. I think Cat's reduction however is also a little aggressive. I would likely give Production Facility 100% at 1 jump, and then reduce survival rate by 20% for every jump after that. I think the range for 100% on research lab looks good, but again I'd reduce survival rate by 20% every jump instead of the 10% you currently have. So....not quite as aggressive as your 'Aggressive' Tab, but a similar philosophy. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Ahkhomi Cypher Opus Arcana 688	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:00:00 - [10] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: http://dust514.com/news/blog/2013/07/balancing-the-conquest-of-planets/ Quick Question Are the PC logistics mechanics still as described in this link but with different numbers or should i read something else to learn about the subject? No Skill Required

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4763	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:23:00 - [11] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I like the concept that Cargo Hubs are not something you want to use to launch attacks, its certainty discourages their use if you want to project force anywhere away from the planet. I think those values look fine. As for the others, I have to go with Cat in that I think the production facility and research lab are reaching out a bit too far. Even at 50% attrition, 9 jumps is pretty long range. I think Cat's reduction however is also a little aggressive. I would likely give Production Facility 100% at 1 jump, and then reduce survival rate by 20% for every jump after that. I think the range for 100% on research lab looks good, but again I'd reduce survival rate by 20% every jump instead of the 10% you currently have. So....not quite as aggressive as your 'Aggressive' Tab, but a similar philosophy. I've added the variation to the sheet. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4763	Posted - 2015.03.18 03:24:00 - [12] - Quote Ahkhomi Cypher wrote: Kain Spero wrote: http://dust514.com/news/blog/2013/07/balancing-the-conquest-of-planets/ Quick Question Are the PC logistics mechanics still as described in this link but with different numbers or should i read something else to learn about the subject? In terms of the logistics of moving clones from one district to another those should be accurate. Clone pack prices, clone sale values, and biomass values will be outdated. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 22486	Posted - 2015.05.14 08:50:00 - [13] - Quote We are looking at this in conjunction with PC 2.0. Please consider this thread under "monitoration" "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 679	Posted - 2015.05.14 10:08:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: We are looking at this in conjunction with PC 2.0. Please consider this thread under "monitoration" CP points can cure most of the issues and open PC up to more Corps. Spent to: -Move clones, further out is more CP or higher clone loss in transit -Change infrastructure type -Change timer -Launch raids http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 6539	Posted - 2015.05.14 12:44:00 - [15] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: 1. Make location more significant I have been a big proponent of this for a long time. I think DUST would be more interesting overall if there was a larger scale tactical metta. It is more interesting to hold territory on a map, than to hold rows on a spreadsheet. If location and distance are important people will hold and control territory, if not it is just about the number of districts you own. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 6539	Posted - 2015.05.14 12:58:00 - [16] - Quote Actually after looking this over I would rather see the bonus for the Research facility reduced by 2 jumps. I want to see some of those remote systems be hard to attack. Being able to jump 6 systems over and still have 80% of your clones means you can access any district in Molden Heath by having Research Labs on just 2 planets. Edit: The point I am making is that I think you should have to hold a district on Bosena or Oddelulf if you want to attack a district in Altbrard, Hedaleolfarb, or Sakulda. This would make control of those two gateway systems (Bosena and Oddelulf) strategically important. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5160	Posted - 2015.05.14 13:00:00 - [17] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Actually after looking this over I would rather see the bonus for the Research facility reduced by 2 jumps. I want to see some of those remote systems be hard to attack. Being able to jump 6 systems over and still have 80% of your clones means you can access any district in Molden Heath by having Research Labs on just 2 planets. Fox, which attrition rate are you looking at (medium, aggressive, between the two)? Also, something I think would make PC logistics a lot more approachable would be to eliminate clone loss entirely and just have max jump ranges. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 16713	Posted - 2015.05.14 13:10:00 - [18] - Quote da comrade, I approvings. "Breakin, PS3's and PS4's can't mate. They're incompatible. Unlike Apache's and Cappuccino machines." - *Cat wisdom*
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 6540	Posted - 2015.05.14 13:10:00 - [19] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Actually after looking this over I would rather see the bonus for the Research facility reduced by 2 jumps. I want to see some of those remote systems be hard to attack. Being able to jump 6 systems over and still have 80% of your clones means you can access any district in Molden Heath by having Research Labs on just 2 planets. Fox, which attrition rate are you looking at (medium, aggressive, between the two)? Also, something I think would make PC logistics a lot more approachable would be to eliminate clone loss entirely and just have max jump ranges. EDIT: I did not see the tabs, so I was looking at medium. I was looking at New Rate With Research Lab, which you list as having 100% clone survival out to 4 jumps, and still has 80% survival at 6 jumps. I think it would be enough to give the Research Lab 100% only out to 2 jumps, with 80% at 4 jumps. The point I am making is that I think you should have to hold a district on Bosena or Oddelulf if you want to attack a district in Altbrard, Hedaleolfarb, or Sakulda. Making control of those two gateway systems (Bosena and Oddelulf) strategically important. I would not be apposed to a simple jump range instead of clone mortality. I would even be ok with being able to spend Command Points to extend that range another jump or two. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 6540	Posted - 2015.05.14 13:13:00 - [20] - Quote Ok, now that I see the tabs, I would be ok with the Aggressive tab. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5162	Posted - 2015.05.14 13:23:00 - [21] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Ok, now that I see the tabs, I would be ok with the Aggressive tab. I also updated the sheet to include you suggestions in the Medium and "Between the two" tab. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Zaria Min Deir 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 1412	Posted - 2015.05.14 15:05:00 - [22] - Quote I personally hope that if indeed changes in this vein are implemented (and they should be, absolutely), 'aggressive' isn't the first step. These things can be tweaked later, and that goes in both directions, but I would hope by now most of us see a value in making moderate changes and then finetuning them based on results as opposed to making drastic changes "just because". Have you considered installing the improved keyboard? "Go Go Power Rangers!"
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 5164	Posted - 2015.05.14 21:15:00 - [23] - Quote I have to agree. "Medium" attrition was my initial proposal, but I think that sheet 3 which is between aggressive and medium attrition is the best way to go. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 19540	Posted - 2015.05.14 22:07:00 - [24] - Quote I strongly feel that a range nerf on the Hub alone will not alleviate the desire to make every district this SI. In order to truly make it more fair would be to lower its production capabilities to the lowest number possible (1 or 0 whatever doesn't break) This will not stop hubs from being used as walls BUT they're going to require a production facility to keep rebuilding that wall and that would then expose the production facility to science facility attacks. Ideally the production facility needs to be the meat and bones SI the SI even small guys start out with then the second SI they start considering would be the hub as they grow then finally the science lab to fling out attacks to get over walls to conquer more land. There should be no problem if all SIs are production facilities or all Science facilities as they can fall relatively easily to attacks and flip more often. CPM 1, Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= ADV HAVs =// Unlocked
Zatara Rought Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5172	Posted - 2015.05.14 22:36:00 - [25] - Quote . Founder & CEO of Fatal Absolution Skype: Zatara.Rought Email: Zatara.Forever@gmail official pawn of ArkenaKirkMerc
DJINN Jecture Templar of the Glowing Blade 367	Posted - 2015.05.15 05:42:00 - [26] - Quote How about giving corps the ability to make use of their districts for something other than just PVP battles, like say a Corporation Base. Have access to corp assets like tanks, and other vehicles as well as being able to deploy to the surface to do training for actual defense and working out strategies. There is absolutely no reason to leave the districts as useless as they are in the current implementation, and it shouldn't be all about PC, but rather have an actual value to having a district. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*


Pages: 1 :: [one page]