DUST Search - Dev Blog: Planetary Conquest

All Channels

Announcement and Events

Dev Blog: Planetary Conquest

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 189 post(s)
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1203	Posted - 2013.03.15 00:06:00 - [1] - Quote Ok, so first of : great job on the DB and the first iteration of PC. Unlike many others, i am confident it wont suffer from much obvious flaws when it launches Dummy Corp exploit This is a valid point. But there are obvious flaws to using that as a valid tactic. And it's the amount of district available. Available districts will eventually run out. And to use that tactic, you need to have a district for your bogus corp to generate clones so it can fake attacks on your official corp district and avoid a real ennemy attacking it. Even then, the clone generation rate is insufficient as i think you need to have at least a 100 clones to attack a district => please do answer that interrogation : You need a minimumof a 100 clones to launch an attack ? Is that minimum amount pre or post attrition effect ? So, you can either try and defend your bogus corp district from other corps attacks but as you wont focus much ressources on it so you dont lose too much money, it wont last long against a corp willing to invest 400 hundreds clones The other solution is to have a bogus corp with no district to attack one of yours using the Genolution pack. And then it's 20 Million per day to protect one district that will generate 6 million top. So, not a valid tactic at all on the long run Turning skirmish into a clone depletion oriented mode I would tend to disagree there as well. If i understand correctly Defenders will be able to focus the amount they want from their available clones on the district to a fight.(please confirm or correct) With the fact that if they lose, they will AT LEAST lose 100 clones. BUT, if they only engage 100 clones in the fight, they wont lose more. Thus, attacking the MCC is as much a valid tactic as depleting clones. Outside of extreme circumstances, sending to battle less than 100 clones or more than 120 or so wouldnt make any sense as you will risk a 100 no matter what. So, send at least a 100 and not a lot more so it is not interesting for the attacker to focus on your clone count only. On that matter, i find this will probably make the clone count a bit low to see battles ending through MCC being destroyed (it(s already low in most pub skirmish). If i get it right, those specs mean that most battles will be 100 vs 100 for 32 player fights. Defenders will try to limit losing way more clones than the minimal 100. Attackers will then try to attack with roughly 100 clones after attrition to minimize risk of losing way more clones than the fight can sustain. Why use 400 clones when the "MCC timer" wont allow you to use all of them. Especially when in the event of a victory without taking the district, your remaining clones go back to their home district meaning you'll have to suffer attrition again for a second attack and swarming the opponent with clones wont especially make you more succesfull. Maybe remaining clones from an attack should be able to stay in some kind of "wait mode" in a war barge next to the district if you decide to attack again so you dont suffer attrition again, and again, and again. Making investing a large nimber of clones in an attack a more interesting tactic. Anyway, that's how i see it after that first evening of thoughts. Also, if this is how it goes down, it will be a very limited clone number for most battle for a 32 player skirmish. I would have raised the minimal loss of clones for defenders to 150 just to make sure most battle are fought with enough clones so that MCC destruction has a chance to happen. Even if that would have mean tweaking the base clone generation and attrition %. y that defenders wont be able to send in some more clones from another district for one hour after an attack ?[/b] If yes, then defending is clearly doomed as the attacker will obviously end up by taking that district even if it takes him 5-6 rounds of attacking. Also, this goes back to "defending must give an edge". If you can't send reinforcements between 2 fights because the attacker swarms you, you really have no edge at all. You have a handicap. And the 20% clones gathered from destroying the ennemy MCC wont change much on the long run. => Do we have to pay for the MCCs ? i think not but dont think i saw the answer anywhere. To be continued.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1203	Posted - 2013.03.15 00:07:00 - [2] - Quote Fights Dynamic I agree with many other forumer about skirmish being a poor designed game mode for such an interesting conquest design. Skirmish 1.0 would have been way more interesting. Also, what happened to the explanations from the "seeding the universe" conference about districts being made of a main hub map and several secondary maps ? But, as we're stuck with skirmish for now, i find it very VERY weird that the defender will start with null-cannons being neutral ! That's a huge non-sense. So what ? You're warned 24h ahead that you're gonna be attacked and nobody thought it was a good idea to turn those on ? Defending MUST offer some kind of advantages on the battlefield. Maybe you guys could implement a kind of delay so the attackers are frozen for a minute when the fight starts. Would be a cheap way to give that edge feeling to the defenders without doing too much damage. But, i guess that could lead to other problem such as attackers starting with a too big disadvantage if they fail to conquer at least 1-2 null-C in the first 2-3 minutes of the game. CEO \ Directors able to start fight\manage ressources I agree with my fellow forum mates with the fact that we need more roles. A dedicated role for PC would be nice. But the worst solution would be to make it CEO only. What about dust corps with an EVE CEO ? Also, it would mean that ONE player is essential to ANY PC action. No, not a good idea. The raw question part => Did i understand correctly that defenders wont be able to send in some more clones from another district for one hour after an attack ? If yes, then defending is clearly doomed as the attacker will obviously end up by taking that district even if it takes him 5-6 rounds of attacking. Also, this goes back to "defending must give an edge". If you can't send reinforcements between 2 fights because the attacker swarms you, you really have no edge at all. You have a handicap. And the 20% clones gathered from destroying the ennemy MCC wont change much on the long run. => Do we have to pay for the MCCs ? i think not but dont think i saw the answer anywhere. One last suggestion Please, do have a new sub-forum for PC discussions soon. There are so many topics, one thread can't hold everything and allow decent discussions. Cheers and GG
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1203	Posted - 2013.03.15 08:41:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Did i understand correctly that defenders wont be able to send in some more clones from another district for one hour after an attack ? Correct, the attacker has an hour exclusivity period from the time the attack started to decide to launch a new attack. During this time it is not possible for the defender to move more clones in or for anyone else to attack it. Remember though, if you win the defence your district will regenerate clones before the next attack, plus you get the biomass payment and the 20% bonus on remaining clones so it is possible to actually come out ahead after a successful defence. In case you win a defense. Does the attacker still gets that "prime hour" during which he has dibs on attacking you and you cannot send in reinforcements from another district ? Would make sense that the winning side gets an edge. Attacker wins => "Dibs" Hour + no clone generated for defenders + no possible backup for defenders Defender wins => "Dibs Hours" can remain so the attacker can take its revenge BUT Defenders do generate clones and can send in more clones. Would be a good bargain. Also, a question i didnt get an answer for. More of a precision tbh: Say a defender has 350 clones in its district and is under attack. Do ALL the clones get automatically involved in the battle ? Or do the defender decide how much he wants to commit ? I understand the defender chooses to send 50/100/200 or more as he sees fits
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1203	Posted - 2013.03.15 08:44:00 - [4] - Quote trollsroyce wrote: You are forgetting the obvious solution of "do not defend, just flip more and more, get clones to flip faster". You're wrong on that one Trolls. It all comes down to how many districts are available. And the fact that even a 20 man corp can hold one or two district without that much problem means it's gonna be pretty crowded, pretty fast. So, flipping districts and dont care about fights wont work as at some point, there wont be any district left to flip.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1203	Posted - 2013.03.15 10:14:00 - [5] - Quote trollsroyce wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: trollsroyce wrote: You are forgetting the obvious solution of "do not defend, just flip more and more, get clones to flip faster". You're wrong on that one Trolls. It all comes down to how many districts are available. And the fact that even a 20 man corp can hold one or two district without that much problem means it's gonna be pretty crowded, pretty fast. So, flipping districts and dont care about fights wont work as at some point, there wont be any district left to flip. The numbers here might be off by a lot: GÇó at the league of 10000 atmospheric nullsec planets GÇó lets approximate that to 10 districts per, resulting 100000 to grow exponentially in. Give a no-show rate of 10%, and flipping 1000 per day using afk loners to flip after no show, you gain 100. Will you lose that daily? Perhaps, probably not if the attackers are roleplaying with 16 man squads. In any case the exponential growth in beginning gives a massive clone advantage, as well as isk. Being able to hold 10000 districts by just attacking and setting nasty reinforce timexones seems viable, but: GÇóGÇóGÇó it all comes down to CEO and clone seller clickfest. you want to win this game? prepare for burn outs. this will be worse than planeteering in EVE You're thinking way too far ahead. Things will obviously evolve. This is planetary conquest 0.1. Only 250 districts. No room for much flipping and no fighting. Do make feedback and have thoughts with the current data. It's absolutely impossible to figure out the big big picture immediatly. Steps are required.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1210	Posted - 2013.03.18 16:14:00 - [6] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: I want to open this up for discussion, we are currently thinking of increasing the clone starter pack to 200 clones. This also means an increase from 20 million to 40 million ISK in cost. There are a few reasons for this, but before I go into that I want to hear your opinions and thoughts without influencing them. Sounds good. Makes first district more populated. Even allows for quick rush on an empty district. May avoid a mass split of big corporations. But may make splitting much more interesting. I'll have to think of it after swallowing the past pages of this thread
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1219	Posted - 2013.03.19 14:16:00 - [7] - Quote Hmm ok. Tough getting back in that thread. My head is buzzing from all those new informations and previous post i'd want to comment. Btw guys, great talks. Even if sometimes some people tends to go in very weird place of thought, let's just blame it on being tired of looking at all that text and numbers. So now about those new numbers : Raising minimum clone loss to 150 (+50%) This is probably the best move to me. I was really afraid of corps dropping battle as soon as they reached 100 clone loss. Any smart defender never would go above the minimal clone loss on one fight UNLESS the rest of its clone stock is ridiculously low. So, having that minimal clone loss being at least as high as it is in pub game was mandatory to avoid frustrating battles ending as sniper fest or hide and seek in the MCC. GOOD POINT ! PS: Setting minimal clone movement to 150 kinda make sense but wasnt that much needed. If a corp thinks it can attack with 100 clone and win, or just want to send back up to another district with 100 clone, it should be able to. Raising starter packs price and clone amount (+100%) Ok, so to me, this wont change much when PC starts but it is still a good move for further down the line as many of you already pointed out. A corp that would wish to enter PC 6 month after it started cant possibily run fights with only 100 clones. And that, even if they can still attack over and over with Genolution pack using the "priority hour" or "dibs hour" as i like to call it. By the way, it should definitely have an official name. Raising starter packs doesnt really stop people from using Genolution Bomb to harass an ennemy through an alt corp. And all those talks about a mechanic not being sustainable is a waste of time. ANY conquest is by essence unsustainable if you dont end up winning and collecting ISK from your conquered territory. But, spending a ton of money because you're pretty sure you'll be able to defend your new owned territory long enough that it will be in the end a good operation ISK wise is the definition of "conquest". Raising Clone regeneration rate (+250% then ~+100% compared to original number) This adresses one the other concern is discussed for quite a while on IRC with both null and foxfour. With the old numbers, it was obvious that spamming attacks with the dibs hour was the definition of a mandatory win. Especially in the case of a corp with say 5 districts vs a corp with only 1. When i saw the numbers suggested in the first post ( 100 native, 150 with PF), i thought "dude, snooze fest, attacking is now a drag... The low generation rate was probably there to balance the loss of clones through attrition that implies a heavier investment of the attacking corp to field the minimal clone loss compared to the defender. With the first suggested numbers, attacking would have become a massive pain in the ass and big corps would all have known that counter attack was the best way to go to conquer and defending a solid decision. With attrition, 20% bonus and everything, 100/150 regeneration rate was way too high. Simple math could confirm that : Day 1 : Attacking corp : Cargo Hub - 450 clones Defending corp : Production Facility - 300 clones 1 jump away. Attackers sends 188 clones, fields 150 post-attrition and wins. Defenders stops when reaching 150 clone loss and watch MCC blow up. Attacker still has 40 clones left. A good victory. Day 2 : Attacking corp : Cargo Hub - 302 clones left after battle - 402 clones post RT. Defending corp : Production Facility - 150 clones Attackers sends another 188 clones. Win, 20 clones left = district taken. Total cost of conquest : 316 clones. If the defender wins on the other hand and manages to save 40 clones. Attacker loses all clones. Day 3 Attacking corp : Cargo Hub - 214 clones post battle - 314 Clones post RT Defending corp : Production Facility - 150-110+150 = 190 clones. In that case, a draw game for a 1 jump away fight ends up : Attackers 336 clones lost \|\| Defenders 260 clones lost Base population loss post RT : Attacker 31% \|\| Defender 37% Same draw scenario but with latest numbers : Total clone loss : Attacker loss : 336 (unchanged) \|\| Defenders : 260 (unchanged) District population left post RT: Attacker : 264 \|\| Defender : 140 Base population loss post RT : Attacker 42% \|\| Defender 54% The first number gives us a very minimal difference in base population loss post RT in case of a draw game. When the attacker had two clone generation and the defender only one. It doesnt feel like a good enough difference and it's just a 1 jump away fight. For a 2 jump fight, the defender may have lost less clones in % than the attacker who got 2 clones reinforcement. Results with 75 native and 100 with PF look way better. Garret's maths were already good but it though i might add another example ( https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=628857#post628857) Cheers. Now, to go further with those explanation : Obviously, if the attacking corp has 3 districts from which it sends an attack every other 3 days and the defender only has one districts, it gets way more difficult for the defender as its regeneration rate when winning wont benefit from any break coming from the attacking district wearing off of clones to use. (garret example) So yeah, defending your only district against a strong attacker with multiple base district for attacking will be tough. But again, that's what alliances are for. And even if the defender isn't the one counter attacking to avoid the enemy forces of focusing all its strength on this one district, others in the universe wont hesitate in backstabbing the attacker. So overall, the tweaking of the regeneration rate sounds good. Will write about other stuff in next post.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1220	Posted - 2013.03.19 15:16:00 - [8] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Alright I ran some numbers just to see how it would turn out. Assuming loss of 100 clones by attacker and defender every battle, meaning 50 left over for stealing by the defender if they win. Roughly the same criteria as Blacknova earlier. A is attackers, D is defenders. The first numbers after each day is the starting forces(after clone reinforcements), the second line is the outcome of the battle, and the third line is the aftermath. Those numbers are not surprising at all. For the sole fact that even when attacker and defender both win a game, attacker gets 2 clone reinforcement when defender only gets one (check my post above). And you're forgetting the fact that most fight wont play out on the same planet and that includes attrition. Also, what are the odds that this attacking corp isnt attacked at the same time while committing all those clones in the conquest of one district. FInally, it only makes sense that a corp attacking over and over and over again a district ends up wearing out the defenders clones if they cant manage to win more games that their assailants. It's called a "siege" situation. And in most historical cases, it never ends well. Now, i would like to suggest something for discussion. What if an attacker couldnt attack the same district for 24h when losing a fight ? Or could still attack it but not using the same base district to move the clones for 24h ? Adding some kind of cool down. I havent thought this through but could be an interesting talk. Corp 1) (District A B C) vs Corp 2) (District D E F) 1) District A attacks 2) District D and loses. Either 1) cannot attack any of 2) districts => Sounds lame. But had to list it Or 1) cannot attack 2) District D => Kind of the opposite of the "Dibs Hour" offered to the attacker. Or 1) cannot attack with District A any of 2) District => Losing kinda locks the base district actions. Or 1) cannot attack with District A 2) District D => Only a specific lock between the two incriminated districts. The whole point behind that idea is the fact that the attacker seems to have a nice upper hand on the defender. Yeah attrition will hurt when attacking very remote district but the "Dibs Hour" and the fact that you can prevent the defender from generating clones while you still generate yours if you're not under attack is a lot. Against that, the sole perk for defending is the 20% "cashback" on the unused clones the attacker brought to the fight. And i wouldnt be surprised to see attackers ruin on purpose all of their clones when a game seems lost. Using militia gear and killing themselves just to avoid offering clones to the enemy. Or, what about offering a deal for defenders through the reward system ? When winning, defender could choose to process used biomass into new clones instead of getting full ISK reward ? Just to keep the discussion going.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1221	Posted - 2013.03.19 16:21:00 - [9] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Now, i would like to suggest something for discussion. What if an attacker couldnt attack the same district for 24h when losing a fight ? Or could still attack it but not using the same base district to move the clones for 24h ? Adding some kind of cool down. I don't generally like the idea of anything that further de-incentivizes attacking or makes it harder to do so. I do think the Defenders should get more than 20% of unused clones, though. Closer to 40%, maybe. If that means letting them reuse biomass instead of selling it (or instead of stealing 40% of remaining clones), okay.The attackers not only have several means by which to deplete their own clone reserves if needed, but also decide exactly how many clones they send to a battle (with a minimum of 150, obviously). This doesnt de-incentive attacking. Some mechanic could just add a feelin of "set-back" just like losing as a defender gives you that feeling as you dont generate any clone. In fact, all those talks about defenders vs attackers balance only comes from one main issue : The fight itself. Defending should give you an upper hand by having more defensive positions, turrets, etc... Thus implying less clone loss than the enemy when winning, making the whole system solid. Aaaahh. Skirmish 1.0 i miss you so bad.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.03.19 20:25:00 - [10] - Quote Something obvious just crossed my mind and kinda invalidates any calculation of clone count for 1vs1 district battle in the previous math i've seen in this thread. And it's about the RT. Let's say both district engage in the fight have a RT set between 12h00-13h00pm.And both have a cargo hub. Same planet. No attacks on district A. District A (attackers) 450 clones District B (defenders) 450 clones. Regen rate 75 clones per RT. Day 1 District A attacks District B at 9h00 am with 150 clones. Come RT. No fight. Excess clone is sold for district B District A is at 375 clones. Day 2 12h00. RT starts, both district generate clones District A is at 450 clones District B sells the excess of clones. Fight happens. Attackers win through MCC destruction. Defenders lose 150 clones. Attackers lose 140 clones. 10 clones sold. District A sets another attack with 150 clones at 12h45 once battle is over. District A : 300 clones District B : 300 Clones Day 3 12h00 District B doesnt generate clones. District A does. District A : 375 clones District B : 300 Clones NO BATTLE happens as it's not been a full 24h since the first fight Don't know if you guys took that into account but it's important. Or at least that's the way i understood that part of the wiki Quote: The biggest takeaway from the above examples is that when a district looks at the reinforcement timer to determine when the battle will happen or when to unlock it always happens on or in the reinforcement window after a minimum of 24 hours. It would be nice to know if what matters is the overall RT or the beginning of the RT regarding that rule. If it has been answered before then my bad but i dont think so. Let's move on. Day 4 12h00. Clone generation for district A District A : 450 clones District B : 300 Clones Fight happens. Defenders win, attackers lose all 150 clones. Defenders lose 120. District A : 300 clones District B : 180 clones. Attackers decides to keep attacking at 12h50. Day 5 12h00 Both district generates clones. No fight happens (still depending on the previous rule) District A : 375 clones District B : 255 clones Day 6 12h00 Clone generation etc.. District A : 450 clones District B : 330 clones Fight happens and so on. Overall, if there's actually almost 48h between two fights, an attacking district will replenish its 150 lost clones automatically between 2 fights no matter if it's a win or a loss. When a defender will automatically be wronged even if he manages to keep a 1:1 W\L ratio. And i really dont think the 20% "stealing" of clones from the rest of the attacker clone stock will ever be enough to compensate that. Though that fact would be a massive incentive to attack as it would be pretty easy to get back the lost clone even when losing, this tends to go in the way of the "defender doesnt stand a chance" fact. Obviously, this leaves out all the other variable such as potential foes for the attacker, attrition, and base cost for clone movement. I'm starting to think that maybe the "not generating clones" for defenders when losing a battle may not be a good way to go. Perhaps a 50% reduction ? But first things first, anyone knows for sure how the 24h rule works out when the action is taken during RT ? Foxfour ? Nullarbor ? Thoughts people ? And garret, i well know the drawbacks of attacking that are already in place. I was just pointing out that they dont seem as significant as the ones the defender has to deal with

Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.03.19 20:37:00 - [11] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Or, what about offering a deal for defenders through the reward system ? When winning, defender could choose to process used biomass into new clones instead of getting full ISK reward ? Just to keep the discussion going. Garrett Blacknova wrote: Instead of biomassed clones being 50,000 ISK each, you get a choice. Either you can sell them, or you can rebuild clones from them. Because of all the processes involved in recovering viable parts and actually reclaiming them, it should be at a MASSIVE loss in numbers - even worse than the 20% you get back from capturing clones that survive a battle. I'm leaning towards maybe a 5 or 10% reclamation rate, and because you've taken the most intact - and therefore valuable - parts from the biomass, the remainder is only going to have enough resale value to cover the cost of producing those extra clones. At least we agree on that being a possible solution. I guess a 25-30% clone recuperation could be a decent choice. Either cash in, or reinforce your clone stock. For a battle with 200 clones killed on the BF (leaving MCC loss aside as they arent taken into account in the reward system) it would be 50-60 clones as insta reinforcement. Which would make the cost of one of those clone : ISK reward for 200 clones killed : 10 000 000 25% clone generation instead : 50 clones. 200K Which is the price of a Genolution clone. Yet, this solution could be used to create clones easily when PC launches. Create alt corp, buy Genolution pack. Attack Mother corp district with 200 Clones. Lose them all in the fight on purpose => Mother Corp chooses to get clones and not ISK => 50 clones for 40 Millions. 800K each. => Could be used by very rich corp but still remains way too pricy to be a valid daily tactic.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.03.19 21:28:00 - [12] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: NO BATTLE happens as it's not been a full 24h since the first fight Don't know if you guys took that into account but it's important. Or at least that's the way i understood that part of the wiki I think that if the attacking corp attacks again the attack occur the next day (23 hours later), and not 47 hours later. That's how I understand some of the answers from FoxFour in this thread. Yeah ? so it would be the sole exception ? TBH, i'd rather not have 47h delay between 2 fights on the same district
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.03.19 22:31:00 - [13] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Let's say both district engage in the fight have a RT set between 12h00-13h00pm.And both have a cargo hub. Same planet. No attacks on district A. District A (attackers) 450 clones District B (defenders) 450 clones. Regen rate 75 clones per RT. Day 1 District A attacks District B at 9h00 am with 150 clones. Come RT. No fight. Excess clone is sold for district B District A is at 375 clones. You've already lost me. District A would have to wait, in the case of this example, 27 hours after Setting an Attack against B to actually Launch it. If the RT is at 1200-1300, then no fight can happen at any other time. Also, how is District A at 375 clones without fighting? Unless you mean that 150 is somewhere in limbo between Districts A and B and A doesn't need to account for them when accumulating clones, which I'm almost positive is incorrect. The clones themselves don't move out of the district until the actual fight, and therefore you can't send 150 off right before your RT and get 75 back while keeping the 150 in limbo. Nope, it has been said clone movement is done instantly. So when setting the attack, your 150 clones would 'leave" your district and idle in the targetted one. Unless it works differently for fights. The whole point of this post was to raise questions.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.03.19 23:34:00 - [14] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Nope, it has been said clone movement is done instantly. So when setting the attack, your 150 clones would 'leave" your district and idle in the targetted one. Unless it works differently for fights. The whole point of this post was to raise questions. This particular question - do the clones travel immediately on declaring the attack, or immediately on INITIATING it? - is an important one that I'm now surprised we didn't think to ask earlier. As for the scenario you're presenting though, the OPTION to attack is created just BEFORE the attacker goes into battle. They have one hour to accept that option, and if they take it, the attack is initiated based on the time the option was created - NOT the time it was accepted. This allows you to effectively declare an attack an hour later than you should be allowed to under normal circumstances. ok so the "dibs hour" gives you the possibility to not wait 24h+ before rematch. Makes sense and thanks for clearing the air. Let's hope Foxfour or Null can give us an answer regarding clone movement timing when setting an attack.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.03.20 00:05:00 - [15] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Nope, it has been said clone movement is done instantly. So when setting the attack, your 150 clones would 'leave" your district and idle in the targetted one. Unless it works differently for fights. The whole point of this post was to raise questions. This particular question - do the clones travel immediately on declaring the attack, or immediately on INITIATING it? - is an important one that I'm now surprised we didn't think to ask earlier. As for the scenario you're presenting though, the OPTION to attack is created just BEFORE the attacker goes into battle. They have one hour to accept that option, and if they take it, the attack is initiated based on the time the option was created - NOT the time it was accepted. This allows you to effectively declare an attack an hour later than you should be allowed to under normal circumstances. ok so the "dibs hour" gives you the possibility to not wait 24h+ before rematch. Makes sense and thanks for clearing the air. Let's hope Foxfour or Null can give us an answer regarding clone movement timing when setting an attack. TECHNICALLY, it "backdates" the attack order to a moment before the RT. 11:59:59 Attack option created for the target district of the attack that's about to happen. THIS is when an attack using the option is actually created, not the time that the option is claimed. 12:00:00 Attack begins. 12:00:01 - 12:59:59 At any point during this window, the attacker can claim their option to attack, and it activates as of the option's creation - thus allowing the attack to effectively have already been initiated before being confirmed. Another thing I'm curious about is whether or not this attack can be initiated before the battle ends. We already know it's possible - if unlikely - to draw a battle out for more than an hour. If it looks like that hour is about to run out, can you initiate the attack for the following day in spite of the battle still continuing? And more importantly, if you can, and you do, and after setting the follow-up attack, what happens if you win the battle and claim the district? does the attack turn into a normal clone move? Is it cancelled? Do you get to launch an attack on your own territory? Yeah i get the whole concept of back dating. And the back dating is a good idea. Yet i would say the best solution for the "dibs hour" would be that it starts right after the fight ends. Thus leaving plenty of time to decide wether or not to attack. Also, and i didnt think about it before. Defenders would then have the opportunity to send back up for the district under attack while the fight happends and before the re-attack action is taken thus locking the district. This possibility for a defender to resupply clones to a weak district between attacks should be an option. It's a choice between having faith in your strenght and weakening another district to have an extra insurance of protecting the one under attack.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.03.20 00:27:00 - [16] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Booker DaFooker wrote: Parson Atreides wrote: Booker DaFooker wrote: given that the act of moving your clones into a district is what either claims a district or sets up an attack, I think we can safely say that the movement of clones is instant I think of attacking an occupied district more as setting down a flag and saying "okay we're going to hit these guys, so you can't". It sounds a little strange, but it makes a lot more sense then "okay we've moved these 150 clones to this district and we're going to wait 24-47 hours for the defenders to get ready before we attack". Also, it makes more sense that moving them to one of your own districts or to an unoccupied district wouldn't take any time because there's no one to stop you from just walking in. With an enemy district, there is. I think you have to suspend lore a little bit here regarding the 24 hour delay, your district is invaded by the arrival of enemy forces, but the delay is forced on us because of real world considerations to allow players from all over the world to play this game without descending into timezone chaos. Clearly, within new eden a defence would be immediately mounted The thing is, both gameplay and lore work better with the way I think it works. You wouldn't have attackers stacking 150-200 past the clone limit, and you wouldn't have fictional mercs in the EVE/Dust universe sitting around playing cards while there were enemies on the other side of the door. Yeah well. Regarding lore and such. If you receive an attack notice and clones move at the last moment, why would your district be locked in a way that even stops you from getting reinforcements from another district for the next 24 hours ? Just sayin, lore is to be forgottent atm.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1223	Posted - 2013.03.20 08:49:00 - [17] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Yeah well. Regarding lore and such. If you receive an attack notice and clones move at the last moment, why would your district be locked in a way that even stops you from getting reinforcements from another district for the next 24 hours ? Just sayin, lore is to be forgottent atm. I didn't say it was perfect, but I could level the same inquiry with regards to why you can't reinforce a district with mercs even when the enemy is already there. Surely 150 mercs can't blockade an entire district, and even if they could, why couldn't mercs come up behind them and attack anyway? Just think of that timer as a way to let your forces know they need to start planning and setting up strategies to attack the district, and there was some intelligence leak that alerted the enemy, so they know you're coming. I agree. Thus why it would be good to know if attacking clone move instantly. No matter the answer and the lore. Then it's just a matter of knowing if it can be tweaked and what solution is the best.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1223	Posted - 2013.03.20 12:43:00 - [18] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: After thinking about this a lot while I slept all day (because asleep is when I do my best thinking, apparently), I've realised that sending the attackers instantly is a GOOD thing for the game. Why? Because it forces the attackers to balance out the delays in attacking and the delay in their own reinforcements replacing the attacking clones. And because it gives the attackers some chance to attack while also having at least a chance at defending themselves against someone else - or a retaliatory attack from another district under the same (or allied/hired) ownership. Lets say the attacker has their RT set to 06:00 and the defender has 12:00. If the attacker declares their attack at 11:30 to minimise the amount of warning their target is given, that means they're waiting for almost 18 hours with a 150 clone hole in their defenses. If they instead launch their attack at 5:30 to better line up with their reinforcements, then they give the enemy Corp an extra 6 hours' notice about the attack, which could potentially mean the difference between having your best player (or a high-tier squad from a friendly/mercenary Corp) and not getting to them in time. Good thinking. Though the insta travel of attacking clones also has a downside that advantages the attacker. It allows him to replenish clones even before the attack. Say RT at 6:00 for the attacking district. Fully stocked with clones (300 default district) Attack is set at 5:30 => 150 clone insta move out => 150 clones remaining. At 6:00 => Generates clones => 225 clones remaining. 250 with a PF. That's a huge incentive to attack if you have a good amount of money and dont care much about selling excess clones. With that and the fact that the defensive district has no option to send in reinforcement as soon as it's under attack + the no-generating clones when losing MCC and you have many downside in defending. Also, i saw my last remark was unnoticed so displaying it again: When a district is "under attack", you cannot move clones to it. OK. When the fight actually happens, attacker gets "dibs hour". OK When can the attacker decide to use that dibs hour to attack again the next day ? After battle ? Before ? both ? Garret raised that question before and it deserves an answer. Point is to determine if the defensive corp can get a time during which its district goes back to "online" between the beginning of the RT and the battle and before the decision of the attacker to keep on attacking is made. Having the status of its district to go back to "online" would thus mean being able to move clones in or out. Example: District A attacks District B RT is 12-13 => District B is locked. No movement of clones allowed. Next day, RT starts at 12h00. => What is the status of District B ? Online again ? Still locked until battle happens and is over ? => If it goes back to online, nothing stops the defender to move clones in or out. => If it stays locked for the entire RT (which would make sense) then nothing changes compared to our previous simulation. => Other option would be to have district B go back to "online" status and give the option to the attacker to send a second attack notice even before the first fight happens. That could create a very tensed time during which both defender and attacker would have to anticipate their next move. Do i back up that district and risk that this attack is just a decoy for me to drop guard on another one ? Should i block that district reinforcement by re-attacking it without knowing if that first fight will be successfull ? What do you guys think is best ? Should a defender be able to reinforce its district with clones from another district between two attacks from the same assailant ?
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1223	Posted - 2013.03.20 14:03:00 - [19] - Quote Extra question : does buying an SI affects your district status in any way ? Example : can you first buy a new SI and then change RT ? Does buying a New SI locks your district so you then cannot attack or move clones ?
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1223	Posted - 2013.03.20 15:29:00 - [20] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Extra question : does buying an SI affects your district status in any way ? Example : can you first buy a new SI and then change RT ? Does buying a New SI locks your district so you then cannot attack or move clones ? This one the wiki answers. Link.. Changing RT, SI, being reinforced or being attacked all locks the district. Damn, SI change isnt in the "action tab" and i forgot about the scenario part.

Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1225	Posted - 2013.03.21 00:30:00 - [21] - Quote Guys, i'm glad you feel the same way about defenders being able to send in reinforcement between attacks. Or have the option to get bonus clones instead of biomass ISK. Or whatever option anyone would suggest so defenders cannot beaten over time even by doing well in fight. So yay us ! Now, for CCP_FoxFour, there's one thing i'd like to be cleared out : If a corp attacks a district with 150 clones. And loses the battle through MCC destruction. Does the defender gets 20% of the non-consumed clones ? Or does that rule just applies for clones past 150. Examples : attacker goes in with 150 clones. Lose 100 on the BF before its MCC blows up. Defender gets 10 clones. True or False ? Attackers goes in with 200 clones. Lose 100 on the BF before MCC blows up. Defender gets 10 clones or 20 clones ? My opinion is that defender should get 20% of the attacking clones leftover no matter how many clones were sent to the battle by the attacker (150 or more). Dont think we got a clear answer on that specific point.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1228	Posted - 2013.03.21 09:05:00 - [22] - Quote trollsroyce wrote: I would like the defenders to start with all installations and NULL cannons blue. This would make sense lorewise and give a much needed advantage to defense. After this kind of boost, if attackers win they deserve the spoils and if defenders lose they deserve the clone loss and lockdown. I tend to agree with you pal. But skirmish 2.0 isnt really compatible with such plan. I fear that if the defenders can manage to hold the defense in the first 4 minutes, turning the tide may then be very difficult to achieve. Especially in a fight where the two teams are very close in terms of efficiency. Skirmish 1.0 was much better to give defender a tactical advantage at the start of the fight. Going back to the reinforcement idea for defenders. I agree that in the case of a corp attacking with just genolution packs in order to get its first district from a corp holding 3 or more, it would make it very difficult if they can't manage to win 2-3 fights in a row. On the other hand, the current system is very unfair to a corp defending its only district against a corp holding 2-3 districts as all numbers point out that the defender will see its clones count wear off even he manages to win 1 out of 2 fights. So it's more a matter of picking the less evil solution. Obviously, being able to move clone to a district that has been attacked should only be possible when the defender is winning. But the current mecanics point out that the defender may have that option no matter the outcome of the match. Example : Defending district RT : 12-13 Day one, attacker sends an attack notice. At day 2, when the RT starts, district should go back to "online" according to the general rules we can see in the wiki. Dibs hour is set at 11:59 like garret explained a few post backs so if the attacker decides to keep attacking, he doesnt have to wait almost 48h to attack again. The fight starts at 12h15 and ends at 12h45. Then, attacker has one hour to decide if he wants to attack again. And if he does, the game will consider that attack notice being sent at 11h59, locking the defending district. So, unless an attack notice locks the target district for the whole RT (which would be an exception from the general rules), defenders always has a time between RT start and end of the battle during which its district is "online". In that time, nothing would stop him from moving clones to the district. And as clone movement between friendly district is done instantly, backup could arrive even before the fight starts. We need more information on how this goes down : - Does the defending district goes back to online state when RT starts and before attacker decides to use dibs hour to attack again ? - Can an attacker decide to attack again before or after the fight ? (at the moment, i think it would be after)
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1230	Posted - 2013.03.21 11:43:00 - [23] - Quote Absolute Idiom II wrote: Booker DaFooker wrote: Absolute Idiom II wrote: Let's imagine a corp with 3 districts. If only one district is under attack they will never be at risk of losing the district no matter the quality of their attackers since they can easily reinforce with 150 clones per day. This principle expands out to corps with larger numbers of districts. A corp will only suffer a net loss of clones if more than 1 third of it's districts are under attack. At this stage, it's not possible to accurately predict how many districts will be attacked each day and so calls for REQUIRED reinforcements are premature. I'd like to see the current system in action before we start theory crafting that reinforcements are REQUIRED to be allowed. You are using old numbers, current proposals are 75 or 100 with PF. Even if they went ahead with the 100 and 150 option (which I personally much prefer as it makes districts more valuable) then the 150 will still only apply to a lucky third of districts A restock of 150 would certainly solve the question of any disadvantage tor winning defenders though Nope, I'm using current numbers :) 150 minimum clone loss for the district under attack. 2x 75 = 150 clone generation for the 2 other districts not under attack. This means that corp can reinforce the attacked district with 150 each day for no net loss of clones - making their districts invulnerable. Yeah but not generating ISK either as they dont sell any excess of clones. THe attack still has an impact on the economic side of the defending corp. The real problems we have are with the cases of 1 small corp with one district facing 1 big corp with several. We all agree a small corp winning 3 fights in a row defending or attacking should keep\get the district. At the moment, there may be loop holes that could prevent that. An i guess there are many other loop holes we havent seen yet.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1230	Posted - 2013.03.21 13:28:00 - [24] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: I have an idea. Transporting clones - whether for an attack or not - should take the district offline, so the attackers DON'T get their next downtime's worth of clone production. If someone declares an attack, they still get their clone production for the next downtime, which will hit as the attack comes in. It doesn't mean you're instantly screwed (you still have a minimum of 225 clones on site), but there's that little bit more vulnerability when you're sending your forces out against the enemy. Could work but should be limited to moving clones for an attack imo. Would avoid the "double reinforcement" advantage the attacker gets even when losing a fight against the defender.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1230	Posted - 2013.03.21 15:35:00 - [25] - Quote LXicon wrote: any (extra) bonuses for successfully defending a district might encourage corps to make an alt and attack themselves. if corps attack themselves and can make more ISK or net clones than it costs to mount the attack, then we'll just see a bunch of fake battles going on which prevents real fights from taking place. Self attacking with a dummy corp implies a 40 Million loss. No bonus to clone generation can ever be enough to sustain such tactic. And guys you missed my point. I'm not especially rooting for the reinforcement solution. I think it would make sense to have that opportunity but aside from that, i'm just asking question about whether or not the mechanics would allow it with the current setting. The last example i wrote down would suggest there could be a short time during which the district is online between two successive attacks and thus would allow moving clones to it. Let's figure out what the current mechanics allow you to do before arguing As for the bonus to clone generation when defending succesfully or the "take ISK from wasted biomass or bonus clone" option. those could be good solution to buff the defender a bit. PS: i think i messed up "loop holes" with "blanks" perhaps. french here, be nice ^^
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1230	Posted - 2013.03.21 15:38:00 - [26] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Pryke Bastion wrote: Well in the interests of PC, I'm curious if these districts that we control would allow any other industrial production facilities besides the clone affecting ones. With the economies split there isn't much drawing the average EVE player to PC besides good will toward alliances with the hope that one day all these manic ground troops might prove useful. I suggest that CCP allow industrialism on these districts to be tied in. Gives the EVE players an incentive to set roots in these systems with increased production capabilities and output. Might get the industrialist corps interested at any rate. Another idea to bring more interactivity. An EVE fleet could install a satellite defense system geo-synchronous with their favoured district. This would allow the district the ability to destroy or damage incoming clone assault packets sent by Genolution, Increasing the attrition rate by a modest percentile. These satellite defense networks could be destroyed by a hostile fleet, but it would be necessary to hold the system for a period long enough to root out all the cloaked satellites. This would allow more context and purpose for fleet involvement other than, "Nuke the CLONES!" Pryke out. Already gave +1 to this. My addition: hostile satellites which wouldn't do anything dramatic on their own but which would reduce the districts capabilities. For example, reduce districts production reduce attackers attrition reduce districts clone production So this why this is on-topic discussion. i think all this can only gets a +1 and is already on the roadmap. If you take another listen at the latest CAST 514, you can hear ideas about Nullsec SI thrown around by CCP_Praetorian and CCP_Nullarbor : Cynosural blockers, Sensor array etc... They also mention orbital structure set on EVE that would serve as an orbital backup for dusters. Kind of like having an EVE ship firing orbital strikes but without needing a capsuleer to actually be there. Honestly, a very good podcast everyone should listen
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1240	Posted - 2013.03.26 14:46:00 - [27] - Quote Hey guys. I had the opportunity to see [CCP]FoxFour on IRC and told him there a few details we would need some more precisions about to keep discussing what should be tweaked and what is good as is. As he's busy writing stuff i offered to send him the rest of our questions by mail so he doesnt need to scout the last pages. Just to make things clear, it's not about having his opinion on suggestions we made, but to still go deeper in the mechanics understanding. Feeling the small blanks left. So here's what i'm thinking about sending him. If you guys see anything that hasnt been answered yet that i've missed, please go ahead. if an attacker sends 200 clones (none lost on transport), and lose 100 in the battle and lose the battle itself through MCC destruction, does the 20% get taken away from the remaining 100 or only 50 because they have to lose 150 minimum? Number wise, would the defender get 10 or 20 clones in that case ? When do the clones travel to the targeted district when declaring an attack ? -Immediately after sending the notice -When RT starts on battle day -When fight starts About how the "Dibs Hour" is set up -The attack notice sent during the "Dibs Hour" is back dated to a moment before the RT so the attacker can attack on the next coming RT ? -Dibs Hour starts right after the battle ends ? -Can an attacker send another attack notice before the first fight happens or does he need to wait until Dibs Hour starts ? About the status of the targeted district on battle day, what state is it in when: -RT begins and before the battle starts -During the battle -During "Dibs Hour" and until attacker decides its next move Does the clone survival rate apply for the journey back after the battle is over? About loot "being a percentage of the items lost in the battle such as vehicles, drop suits, and weapons. Including Aurum items." -Does that include modules and equipment (so basically everything being used) or just vehicle hulls, suits and weapons -What is that percentage exactly ?
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1241	Posted - 2013.03.26 21:16:00 - [28] - Quote Yosef Autaal wrote: [CCP]FoxFour i say let attackers steal % of clones from defenders When the attackers destory the defenders MCC(10/20% this could depend on type of building on district which attacker comes from ) This is lost on top of minimum clone amount of 150 for MCC destruction. so if the district is fully stocked with 450 clones there is possiblity to loose 210 clones minimum in a single match this might encourage defenders to attack more and not just sit in the mcc hiding and timing out the match, as the more clones they loose in a fight just means less clones the attackers will raid if they lose compared to current system defenders attacking till 150 mark then hiding so attackers only getting isk for the trouble (obviously corps will work out a optimal amount to loose in one match so they have another 2 rounds before district loss) also means attacking the mcc becomes a viable tactic of attack rather then currently where attackers want to take as long as possible to destroy mcc to get clone count down much as possible, more tactical choices are good There is already a disbalance between attackers and defenders regarding clone evolution between battle. Adding a % steal of the defender total amount of clones will just make it even bigger. See all previous pages there a plenty of obvious pointers about that. Also, if defenders know that they will lose a game and lose additional % clones to attackers, they will simply lower the amount of clones they intend to lose and make battles even less dynamic that they would have been with the 100 minimal clone loss from previous numerical mechanics.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1241	Posted - 2013.03.27 08:57:00 - [29] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Looks good, though I think on this point: Quote: About the status of the targeted district on battle day, what state is it in when: -RT begins and before the battle starts -During the battle -During "Dibs Hour" and until attacker decides its next move You might want to ask directly if it's possible for a defender to send reinforcement clones from another district in the few minutes after an attack ends and before the enemy decides to attack again or not. The point here is to detect if there is a loop hole allowing for reinforcements being sent as i dont think it would be intended in any way. If status is "online" at any point, then you can send in reinforcement. Guess i could add something like that though. About the status of the targeted district on battle day, what state is it in when: -RT begins and before the battle starts -During the battle -During "Dibs Hour" and until attacker decides its next move If the district is online at any of those moment, then nothing can stop defenders from sending clones to it from another district ?
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1241	Posted - 2013.03.27 09:56:00 - [30] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: I'm pretty sure FoxFour already said the "dibs hour" starts when the battle starts. So if the window is 12-13 and the attack happens at 12:15 the district would be in "under attack" status until the battle ends. The defenders cannot reinforce the district when under attack. The attackers can schedule another attack for 1 hour starting from 12:15, so if they schedule one before the battle ends the defenders cannot reinforce their district. They can only reinforce it if they win the battle and the attackers haven't scheduled another attack during the battle and aren't quick enough to do it after. That's the pretty sure parts i want to clear out with this.

Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1241	Posted - 2013.03.27 10:15:00 - [31] - Quote Django Quik wrote: trollsroyce wrote: PC launch date 6th may, or after we get to experiment a bit with the new dropsuits and equipment? I can't imagine PC launching the same day that everyone will be downloading the patch - that would just leave whoever can download first to get all the districts and people who have problems will get left behind with nothing. good point. they could wait the beginning of the "Sp Week" on the wednesday 8th.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1241	Posted - 2013.03.27 13:20:00 - [32] - Quote Booker DaFooker wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Parson Atreides wrote: Looks good, though I think on this point: Quote: About the status of the targeted district on battle day, what state is it in when: -RT begins and before the battle starts -During the battle -During "Dibs Hour" and until attacker decides its next move You might want to ask directly if it's possible for a defender to send reinforcement clones from another district in the few minutes after an attack ends and before the enemy decides to attack again or not. The point here is to detect if there is a loop hole allowing for reinforcements being sent as i dont think it would be intended in any way. If status is "online" at any point, then you can send in reinforcement. Guess i could add something like that though. About the status of the targeted district on battle day, what state is it in when: -RT begins and before the battle starts -During the battle -During "Dibs Hour" and until attacker decides its next move If the district is online at any of those moment, then nothing can stop defenders from sending clones to it from another district ? Although online that only effects clone production which will only go offline if a defense is lost. The district will remain locked (un-reinforceable) until battle starts, will remain locked during battle and still further remain locked throughout "dibs hour". If your attacker does not attack again then you will have an opportunity to reinforce from another district between the end of dibs hour and before any one else gives notice of an attack which will lock you again. Dibs hour starts directly after battle has finished. If attacker does not utilize dibs hour, any attack by another corps made after dibs hour will of course have to wait almost 48 hours for that battle to commence so defenders will get a chance to reinforce or produce more clones in time for it ............I think........ That's what we all think i would say. But as nothing has been confirmed by a dev, it's worth asking. Might even raise something they didnt think about in the first place. That's what we're here for. Btw, mail sent.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1245	Posted - 2013.03.28 07:19:00 - [33] - Quote Django Quik wrote: Cheers Caz. Can you ask CCP Fox Four to come back to this thread too; it misses him. He is busy writing another devblog on PC. Some things changed apparently ^^. He ll come back then i guess
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1245	Posted - 2013.03.28 07:21:00 - [34] - Quote Stexn byd wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Belzeebub Santana wrote: So large corps can put out multiple attacks or defend multiple locations, where a smaller corp has to decide whether they attack or defend? There is only 1 hr window a day to attack district A? Win or lose you wait another 24hrs to attack? So a corp of 16 holds 24 districts and can be attacked at each district that day and they have to fight all 24 or what? do the times overlap? Do the defenders choose the time or is it the attackers? The corporation in control of the district chooses the reinforcement time. seriously? so the defenders choose when the aggressors are allowed to attack? seems rather unrealistic to me, I mean wouldn't an invasion be kept secret and be a surprise? the aggressors should definitely be the ones who pick the engagement time with a short warning and some form of extra punitive measure if they don't show up for the battle. It s a needed mecanism. Otherwise you ll see corps with 1k players attack when smaller corps are offline. Realism isnt always good gameplay
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1258	Posted - 2013.04.02 12:44:00 - [35] - Quote Hey there. I asked FoxFour if he had the time to check the email i sent him. He said he was adding some answers to the next devblog. In the mean time, he answered about one thing : Clone Movement when attacking is done instantly when setting the attack. So just like any other clone movement. now go, debate
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1267	Posted - 2013.04.04 18:50:00 - [36] - Quote hey there. Here are a few hints from dear FoxFour on IRC earlier about coming Devblog on PC : Possible drop of the genolution pack limit to 1 per corp. Increase in Genolution pack Price. Modifications to the movement fee. Going up and down. By the way attrition and movement cost is also applied to clone movement between friendly districts Cargo Hub max clone may have changed.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.