|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 26 post(s) |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
5
   |
Posted - 2013.03.29 08:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a terrible idea!!
This system so far gives a massive advantage to the attacker and also encourages them to attack with the minimum number of clones because then they know their enemy won't get anything! This will also get worse in long distance combats and ill give you an example why:
As a winner I'm always going to lose 150 clones, be it from transport, deaths, or minimum kills. If I send more all I can possibly achieve by sending more is to potentially loose more clones and help my enemy reinforce their district against my next attack.
If I win I get to keep my clones, take some of theirs and only lose those dead in battle or transport. So why not aim over close zones and hit those further away instead of close by as I probably won't lose based on clone count and even if I do, I don't want to leave anything behind for my enemy.
My piece of advice would be is:
Start in these examples by telling us the game effect you are trying to achieve and I'm sure players will help you tweak your ideas in ways that will help you achieve them instead of just tearing apart your hard work. |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 08:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bendtner92 wrote:5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:This is a terrible idea!!
This system so far gives a massive advantage to the attacker and also encourages them to attack with the minimum number of clones because then they know their enemy won't get anything! This will also get worse in long distance combats and ill give you an example why:
As a winner I'm always going to lose 150 clones, be it from transport, deaths, or minimum kills. If I send more all I can possibly achieve by sending more is to potentially loose more clones and help my enemy reinforce their district against my next attack.
If I win I get to keep my clones, take some of theirs and only lose those dead in battle or transport. So why not aim over close zones and hit those further away instead of close by as I probably won't lose based on clone count and even if I do, I don't want to leave anything behind for my enemy.
My piece of advice would be is:
Start in these examples by telling us the game effect you are trying to achieve and I'm sure players will help you tweak your ideas in ways that will help you achieve them instead of just tearing apart your hard work. If you only attack with 150 clones and the defender has 300 for example there's a good chance you'll lose on clone count even though you might be leading in MCC health. If you instead attack with 200 clones you're less likely to lose all of your clones before you win the match by destroying the enemy MCC. If you know you can win any match by sending not more than 150 clones every time then so be it. This new system won't change that. Sending more than 150 clones is to ensure you have enough time to take out the enemy MCC. Edit: Some examples: If you know you lose every match (being a zerg corp for example), then you probably won't send more than 150 clones no matter what the system is. If you know you can win every match with no more than 150 clones, then you probably won't send more than 150 clones no matter what the system is. If you want to make sure you have enough time to take out the enemy MCC, you'll probably send more than 150 clones in some cases.
Check how many clones the average skirmish map has right now, 150. Then count the number of times you remember losing a skirmish due to clone count. My bet its lot less often and very rarely is it when your winning the battle.
The only time I've ever seen a skirmish won by clone count when losing on MCC was when they had redlined the other corp but got redline sniped to zero because moronic blue dots kept zerging the redline and sniped.
|
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 10:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
How about this for an idea ?
Ditch the whole minimum 150 clone loss and instead have something similar to the following:
Attacker puts up 50 clones to the NPC Corp for CRU stock deployed to the field.
Attacker wins by MCC
Attacker gets 50 clones (lore, the MCC takes the CRUs and their stock with them) from the defenders location stock.
This may cause an change ownership in the process but regardless, it adds to the attackers stockpile.
The attacker also gets their window of opportunity to secure the next assault.
Attacker wins by Clones
The attacker just wins the territory.
Defender wins by MCC
Defender gets the stores deployed in the CRU now that the MCC is destroyed, this means the 50 clones.
Defender wins by Clones
The defender gets to keep the territory.
Effect:
Corps have an incentive to win by MCC because it reinforces their own stockpile, however if they are losing they have an incentive to keep fighting to the last man as otherwise their enemy will be reinforced and they will be weaker. Sending more clones is also because you do not want to be winning and suddenly run out of clones, an advantage inherent to the defenders position. |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 20:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:How about this for an idea ?
Ditch the whole minimum 150 clone loss and instead have something similar to the following:
Attacker wins by MCC
Attacker gets upto 50 clones (lore, the MCC takes the CRUs and their stock with them) from the defenders location stock.
This may cause an change ownership in the process but regardless, it adds to the attackers stockpile.
The attacker also gets their window of opportunity to secure the next assault.
Attacker wins by Clones
The attacker just wins the territory.
Defender wins by MCC
Defender gets upto 50 clones representing stores deployed in the CRU now that the MCC is destroyed.
Defender wins by Clones
The defender gets to keep the territory.
Effect:
Corps have an incentive to win by MCC because it reinforces their own stockpile, however if they are losing they have an incentive to keep fighting to the last man as otherwise their enemy will be reinforced and they will be weaker. Sending more clones is also preferable because as attacker you do not want to be winning and suddenly run out of clones, an advantage inherent to the defenders position with their complete stockpile on line. Without the minimum clone loss we run into situations where people can lock their own districts for really cheap while still generating clones. Every attack must result in a net loss of clones when all the math is done.
The problem is at the moment is that 150 clones is half of a zones stock, there is almost no incentive to send more than this so if you plan anything for larger volumes your wasting your time.
|
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 11:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Maximus Stryker wrote:Goric Rumis wrote:I see your point.
Say Corp A is a major corp with lots of districts, and Corp B is a small corp with only one district but great players. Corp A fights Corp B, loses but manages to kill 150 clones, losing 200 clones in the process. Corp B regenerates 75 clones, but Corp A attacks again with similar results. Corp B only has 150 clones now, and Corp A attacks again out of a near-bottomless pool of clone reserves, having barely made a dent and able to attack from any district and reinforce from any district to any district so that attacking with 300 clones doesn't even put a district at much risk. Meanwhile Corp B, although full of strong fighters, must inevitably lose the district.
Even if Corp B had multiple districts full of clones, the continuous "locked" state brought about by Corp A's relentless attacks would prevent it from reinforcing to counter Corp A's ability to pull clones from any district it owns for the attack.
While this works to create continual fighting among large corps (who are able to attack each other in different places at the same time), it may result in a meaningless shift of landscape between established corps who can easily lock new corps (no matter how large or how skilled) out of establishing a foothold. Eventually you'd have to have enough districts that you could constantly attack and gain new districts, because other corps will always be taking your territory from you and there's nothing you can do about it.
We might be carrying the ball a little too far here, but it's a distinct possibility. Basically, how well this strategy works depends on Corp A's ability to kill more clones than Corp B receives from daily clone generation plus the "salvage" from Corp A's remaining clones after each battle. If battles really can be an hour long, it seems likely enough for Corp A to frequently be "cloned out," thereby giving no bonus clones to the defender, while still having enough time to kill well more than the max 100 clones a district can produce. what about this scenario: Corp A attacks Corp B and wins Corp A has a window after the battle in which they are the only ones who can choose to continue to attack Corp A attacks Corp B and loses Corp A is now on a 48 hour lock out period from attacking that same district Is it confirmed that a Corp can repeat their attacks from a district other than the one they initially attacked from? Losing 200 clones, replenishing 100 at most, you come out 100 clones down. To press the attack, you're either emtying your district (200 clones) or reinforcing with 150 clones from another district, leaving THAT district open for attack by another Corp.
Not if your a large corp that can earn enough isk from your membership, you just create a dummy corp, ship it enough for 200 clones and lock it yourself for protection. The zone replenishes while locked and then gets a bonus from clone theft when the dummy loses the match.
Sure this way sounds totally non cost effective but this is eve and people will grief for fun!
Plus if you an take enough land you can then lock everyone else out and make back your money. |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion
RISE of LEGION
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 11:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
steadyhand amarr wrote:Unless corp A districts are also attacked and offlined making friends is a big part of EvE so corp B can be small but has a few friends to harass corp A.
Also a corp can only store so many clones so simpley offline the district their in so they can't move them. My view is that a corp will have to be a certain size to take part.
Idea if the defender wins they have the option to counterattack the district the attack was launched from. Should help remove the above problem :-)
I think they need to stop trying to make clones both the profit and the war resource at the same time...
Clones should be the method of obtain conflict, the more zones the more clones and hence the more conflict.
What needs to be profitable is the conflict itself, after we are all here to play a first person shooter not FarmVille. |
|
|
| |
|