DUST Search - [Uprising] Planetary Conquest

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Uprising] Planetary Conquest - The stealing of clones

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 26 post(s)

CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2366	Posted - 2013.03.28 21:54:00 - [1] - Quote So I am going to try and use this section of the forums some more and start some more focused discussions with you guys, we shall see how it goes. As some of you know I am working on a dev blog with some updates to Planetary Conquest. That is still a little ways out though as I want some more time to think about the numbers. In the mean time I am going to post this here which will also be in said dev blog. Want to start getting your ideas on it now. From the previous design of Planetary Conquest as a defender if you won you would get 20% of the remaining clones that the attacker sent. We are changing the way this works and also expanding it to the attacker if they win. :D More reason to go out and attack. :D (more smiley faces? :P) Previously the idea was that if the attacker sent 200 clones, lost 100 in the fighting, and as a defender you won you would get 20% of the remaining clones. In this example that would be 20 clones. We are increasing that percentage to 50% but also making it so that this is 50% of the clones above and beyond the minimum 150 clones lost. Not immediately understandable, so let me give some examples: In this example the attacker sends 200 clones, uses 100 clones in combat, and loses to the defender. The attacker sends 200 clones. The attacker loses 100 in combat. 50 more clones are destroyed to reach the 150 clone loss minimum. 50 clones remain. 25 clones are given to the defender. Lets try another. In this example the attacker sends 150 clones, uses 100 clones in combat, and loses to the defender. The attacker sends 150 clones. The attacker loses 100 in combat. 50 more clones are destroyed to reach the 150 clone loss minimum. 0 clones remain. 0 clones are given to the defender. Simple right? Or at least makes some sense? O_O With a solid understanding of how this works when the defender wins, lets take a look at what happens when the attacker wins: Defender has 300 clones and a production facility (PF generates 100 clones a day). Attacker attacks. Attacker wins. Attacker has 100 clones at the end of the battle. Defender does not get 100 clones on their next reinforcement cycle. Attacker gets 50% of the clones that would have been generated. Attacker returns home with a total of 150 clones. So, feedback, discuss, TELL ME THINGS! :D Keep in mind it is a long weekend here so I may not be around a whole lot until Tuesday.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2368	Posted - 2013.03.28 22:01:00 - [2] - Quote 0 Try Harder wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Defender has 300 clones and a production facility (PF generates 100 clones a day). Attacker attacks. Attacker wins. Attacker has 100 clones at the end of the battle. Defender does not get 100 clones on their next reinforcement cycle. Attacker gets 50% of the clones that would have been generated. Attacker returns home with a total of 150 clones. Does the defender lose all 300 clones in battle automatically? What if he loses a certain number, but there are some remaining? No the defender would have lost the minimum lost clones, which is a number we are looking at changing, plus whatever else on top of that. While the numbers are out of date the wiki page holds true for the concept of how the minimum clone loss works: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Planetary_Conquest#Possible_Conflict_Resolutions Quote: The losing side of a battle will lose a minimum of 100 clones. If they lose 125 during the fight that is what they lose. If they lose 75 during the fight then they will lose a total of 100 at the end.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2368	Posted - 2013.03.28 22:04:00 - [3] - Quote Bojo The Mighty wrote: So this makes clone reserve depletion much easier as an attacker, because you walk off with 50% of their regeneration for (one?) resupply of clones right? Thus taking a district will be time compressed, if you were to win every offensive battle as opposed to the outline prior to your post on the new "clone stealing". Not really. Before this the defender, assuming they lost, would just have not generated the 100 clones. In this new design they still won't generate them and the attacker takes some of the clones that WOULD have been generated. Does that make sense?


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2376	Posted - 2013.03.28 22:09:00 - [4] - Quote gbghg wrote: does it take into account both sides loses and remaining clones? because i can't see that in your examples. Not sure I understand your question. Only the winner "steals" clones, so we don't care about how many clones the winning side lost for the examples.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2376	Posted - 2013.03.28 22:13:00 - [5] - Quote Telcontar Dunedain wrote: Do you keep losing clones ie the movement penalty each time you attack? Winning clones from the defender should then be "positioned" at the point of attack and not subject to movement penalty. You do. We may look at changing that later, but for now yes.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2402	Posted - 2013.03.28 22:25:00 - [6] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Just to clarify, is the attacker only "stealing" from the clones in production? So using that example with the PF and 300 clones, if the defender lost 270 clones, meaning there are only 30 left, the attacker DOESN'T take 50% of the survivors (15 clones), but 50% of the current cycle's production (50 clones). And obviously, the remaining clones to be produced are destroyed. Is that correct? That is correct yes. :)


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2432	Posted - 2013.03.28 22:40:00 - [7] - Quote Bojo The Mighty wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Bojo The Mighty wrote: So this makes clone reserve depletion much easier as an attacker, because you walk off with 50% of their regeneration for (one?) resupply of clones right? Thus taking a district will be time compressed, if you were to win every offensive battle as opposed to the outline prior to your post on the new "clone stealing". Not really. Before this the defender, assuming they lost, would just have not generated the 100 clones. In this new design they still won't generate them and the attacker takes some of the clones that WOULD have been generated. Does that make sense? I think so. Extra 50% of clones given to the victorious attacker of the next generation cycle (as well as those remaining above minimal clone loss requirement), but none go towards defensive reserves. But wouldn't that make clone reserve depletion even easier as the offensive victor? Hope I don't require you to buy a bottle of Ibuprofen. Your district had 300 clones. The district also has a production facility, so it generates 100 clones a day. I attack your district. The clones I take makes no difference. I win, because dev hax. The district will now no longer generate clones on the next cycle. During the fighting I killed 100 of your clones. Due to the minimum lose rule you lose 150 clones. Your district now has 150 clones. Because I won, and because you had a production facility, I take 50 extra clones back with me. Half of what would have been generated. I don't touch your clone reserves.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2678	Posted - 2013.03.29 23:33:00 - [8] - Quote What the hell is this doing on the second page? :P The discussion has been really good so far. I actually took today, which is a holiday, off and so should hopefully be responding to this thread tomorrow or Sunday. Just want to let the discussion go for a bit before I jump back in. :D Thank you for all the feedback so far and keep it coming.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2784	Posted - 2013.04.02 15:14:00 - [9] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: 1. Attacker buys Genolution Clone Pack (200 clones). 1.a) Attacker wins by MCC destruction. In this scenario, the attackers don't have a district to return to. They get their 50% of clones currently in production, but those are immediately sold back to Genolution. As a result, instead of having extra clones for a follow-up attack, the attackers simply get a bigger refund than they would have under the previous system, meaning there's a better chance that they'll be able to follow up with another attack. Yes correct. Garrett Blacknova wrote: 1. b) Attacker wins by clone out. When the attacker wipes out the defenders, the district becomes theirs. However many clones they have remaining after the battle will be on-site to defend. This could mean the district is highly vulnerable if they get ground down low enough on their own clone count, although the requirement for them to have at least one production cycle before being attacked will probably balance this out to some degree. They will likely get two production cycles. See example: District has reinforcement timer set to 13:00 -> 14:00 Battle occurs at 13:40 Battle ends at 14:00 Attackers win and take control of the district Someone launches an attack at 14:01 You actually get two reinforcement cycles worth of reinforcements. Garrett Blacknova wrote: 1. c) Defender wins. If the defending team wins, they hold onto the district, produce clones, and steal half of any surviving clones on the attacker's side (after the 150 clone minimum). If there are only 100 attacking clones killed, this means that the 150 clone minimum comes into play. 50 clones are treated as surviving, and the defender recovers 25 clones from the attackers in addition to their normal clone production. In this example, the attacker should still be able to sell back the surviving clones from the attack, after the minimum loss and defender clone theft are accounted for. This leaves 25 clones for the attackers as well, which are sold to Genolution as essentially a partial refund of the attack cost. In all these examples the winners also get the ISK for clone biomass. Garrett Blacknova wrote: 2. Attacker attacks from their own district with 150 clones. 2. a) Attacker wins by MCC. Minimum 150 defender clones destroyed. 50% of clone production goes to attacker, remainder is lost. Using the PF example, this means an attacker losing less than 50 clones returns to their district with MORE clones than they took in the attack. If this would put their district over its clone limit, the excess clones are automatically sold off to Genolution. 2. b) Attacker wins by clone count. Because the attacker in this example brought only 150 clones, the survivors are likely to be less than if they had brought 200 and cloned the defenders out, so in this example there's a better chance of the territory being flipped again by someone else attacking straight after it's captured. Everything looks about right, but I will point out my response to 1.b. about two possible reinforcements. Garrett Blacknova wrote: 2. c) Defender wins. With the attacker bringing only the bare minimum clone count, 150 clones are destroyed regardless of how the attackers lose. The defenders still receive ISK awards for biomassed clones, but there are no survivors to claim. This benefits the attackers, but it also involves the risk mentioned in 2. b) where a victory may still leave the district vulnerable. This really comes down to how good the defenders are, if they just barley pull out the win or win with a high KDR. The higher the KDR the less clones and equipment they lose and the better off their district is.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2784	Posted - 2013.04.02 15:15:00 - [10] - Quote M4D DOG'S DUSTBUNNIE wrote: What will the game mode look like? I was thinking the old conquest mode would be nice. Also can this thread get a sticky? I will attempt to get the next post like this stickied. :) For now it will be the same skrimish mode you are playing in DUST. We will add others to planetary conquest as they are made available and we feel they will fit. For example we don't feel ambush would fit so we are not using it.



CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2788	Posted - 2013.04.02 17:35:00 - [11] - Quote Brush Master wrote: Orca Amsel wrote: If you are going to allow the attacker to steal clones there should be some piece of surface infrastructure that they have to capture like the production facility. If the attacker does not have control of that building at the end of the match they should not get any clones for winning. Definitely some hacks points on the ground. Instead of giving people a set amount, have multiple points that could be possibly hacked with each point representing a %. If the attacker holds the points when the game ends, they get that % of clones. One problem I know that has been brought up it, what if the defenders don't show up? they lose 150 clones, but it makes no sense they would be killed when they could be captured instead. Figure out a way to throw those 150 min clones into the mix as well. The defenders not showing up is one of the many reasons we put the minimum loss rule in. It means that no matter what they are going to lose the 150 clones, if they REALLY don't think they stand a chance at winning they can still show up in free/really cheap gear and earn some salvage by fighting or at least hurting the enemy by killing some clones.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2789	Posted - 2013.04.02 18:32:00 - [12] - Quote Raze Minhaven wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Lets try another. In this example the attacker sends 150 clones, uses 100 clones in combat, and loses to the defender. The attacker sends 150 clones. The attacker loses 100 in combat. 50 more clones are destroyed to reach the 150 clone loss minimum. 0 clones remain. 0 clones are given to the defender. Simple right? Or at least makes some sense? O_O With a solid understanding of how this works when the defender wins, lets take a look at what happens when the attacker wins: Defender has 300 clones and a production facility (PF generates 100 clones a day). Attacker attacks. Attacker wins. Attacker has 100 clones at the end of the battle. Defender does not get 100 clones on their next reinforcement cycle. Attacker gets 50% of the clones that would have been generated. Attacker returns home with a total of 150 clones. So, feedback, discuss, TELL ME THINGS! :D Keep in mind it is a long weekend here so I may not be around a whole lot until Tuesday. I think its a bit too geared towards the attacker. The defender wins in the first scenario, gets some loot and some isk, but otherwise gets shafted. They won, they should get something for their efforts, otherwise it can be used to grief over and over again. If I am attacking, and unsure about my chances, why would I attack with any more than 150 clones? At least If i lose, it hurts the defender just as much as it hurts me... One of the toughest things we are balancing is at what KDR should a defending, and winning, corporation survive at. If after the release of this we need to balance it so that defenders get more money, we will do so.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2789	Posted - 2013.04.02 18:50:00 - [13] - Quote Parson Atreides wrote: Maybe I don't know what you mean by blue donut. If planets provide bonuses for controlling the entire thing, you're always going to have people either attacking your districts to prevent you from getting the bonus (or to get it for themselves) or you're going to be attacking someone else's districts because you want that bonus. Or if you get some sort of bonus for controlling more districts at like 4 controlled, then 7 controlled, then 10 controlled, etc. then you have incentive to attack as well. How is giving a few extra clones to the attacker if they win going to provide more incentive than planetary or district count bonuses? I don't know where the term came from, but people are using it to reference large coalitions of corporations or alliances that just set each other blue and never attack each other. Even on a planet scale some organizations may band together and say "you take that planet, I take this planet, we don't attack each other, maybe we help each other defend" The idea being that if they form enough friends they won't get attacked and can just sit there making ISK with no risk. Our hope is to incentives people into attacking because it can make them more money than sitting around doing nothing. While this won't stop everyone as there will always be people who want to make the safe ISK we are hoping to incentivise enough people into not doing it that it won't be a problem. We will monitor this after launch and if it is a problem we will crank up the rewards for attacking.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2789	Posted - 2013.04.02 18:53:00 - [14] - Quote 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.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2798	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:25:00 - [15] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: I like the fact that CCP wants ppl to attack that is all well an good but one of my main concerns for PC is what happens when u say u reach the "limit" of ur ability to HOLD districts? It would be nice if there was some sort of raiding mechanic that way u still attack and get paid for it but u wont be tied down with having to own another district u might not honestly want Not everyone is interested or can hold vast amounts of space, some just want a small piece they can manage and just go raiding or doin merc work And this is one of the reasons why we have made it more profitable to attack and win.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2798	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:28:00 - [16] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: I also asked this in another thread, but I recieved no answer, so I'll try here instead. Do we get regular ISK payouts in PC matches as well? Because if everyone is in full proto gear you can easily get 1 million+ ISK for a match, which would give an even bigger profit than what I outlined above. The regular ISK payout will be based on the number of clones killed.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:29:00 - [17] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Trading NEEDS to be in Uprising. Corp Armory would be nice as well if not then all this loot would be pointless ISK transfers between players or open market needed as well tbh that way ur idea we can actually sell off the loot Unfortunately item trading will not be in Uprising. :(


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:38:00 - [18] - Quote Mr Gloo Gloo wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Mavado V Noriega wrote: Trading NEEDS to be in Uprising. Corp Armory would be nice as well if not then all this loot would be pointless ISK transfers between players or open market needed as well tbh that way ur idea we can actually sell off the loot Unfortunately item trading will not be in Uprising. :( What what what ? April 1st was 2 days ago... Didn't you confirm this in Merc-Cast or Vid+¬o-Cast yesterday ? I went and double checked with everyone on the team, and no we did not say that. We did talk about the possibility of it, and how item trading plus buying aurum items and selling them for ISK would be like PLEX in EVE and let you turn AURUM into ISK. We did not say we were working on it let alone that it would be in Uprising.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:40:00 - [19] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Bendtner92 wrote: I also asked this in another thread, but I recieved no answer, so I'll try here instead. Do we get regular ISK payouts in PC matches as well? Because if everyone is in full proto gear you can easily get 1 million+ ISK for a match, which would give an even bigger profit than what I outlined above. The regular ISK payout will be based on the number of clones killed. Cool, so I assume you could actually make a decent profit by attacking and winning since you would be getting regular ISK payouts that can easily exceed 1 million ISK per player if the other team is in full proto + at least 15 million in biomass + at least 15 million in loot if the other team is in full proto and loses 150+ clones. That is 3 million+ ISK to each player. Though, the loot would probably be useless for the most part until trading is implemented, but it would still be at least 2 million ISK to each player minus whatever they lost in the match, but that shouldn't be more than 1-1,5 million ISK at most. Vehicle pilots would lose more, but they can get ISK from the corp to reimburse their losses. This is what we are thinking yes. :)


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:47:00 - [20] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: That and PC requesting more and more corp management and us getting only corp mail. Yay ! What do you mean by "us only getting corp mail" ???



CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:58:00 - [21] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: If that is the point, why would anyone bother with holding district in the first place ? And why give incentive in attacking just for fun even without aiming at holding the district ? I could understand that if it was through contracting which you discussed yesterday but atm, what's the point ? Fun ? Not sure this will actually be fun for everyone Incentivising attacking is high on our list because people will only be able to realistically hold so many districts based on how many members they have. What do they do after that? Just sit there? We want to give them a reason to attack without taking and holding the district. Why hold districts in the first place? For several reasons: Making money off of them, using them to attack other districts and make money, and also because of the EVE side bonuses.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:07:00 - [22] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: That and PC requesting more and more corp management and us getting only corp mail. Yay ! What do you mean by "us only getting corp mail" ??? you mentionned yesterday adding alliance mail and chat. And then you mentionned adding Mail Corp. Everybody understood "Mail all Corp" Tool. Like in EVE. You know.... so we can send a message to every corp member without having to type in each member individually, or spam the corp channel, etc.... Yes, as of Uprising you will have: Corp chat Alliance chat Corp mail Alliance mail I was just not sure about the "and us getting only corp mail." Only? What is being left out?


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:07:00 - [23] - Quote ChromeBreaker wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: That and PC requesting more and more corp management and us getting only corp mail. Yay ! What do you mean by "us only getting corp mail" ??? Corp mail from eve doesn't show in Dust from what i can tell... (inbox says 50, but cant see any of them...) ... might be something else Both corp and alliance mail will be working in Uprising. :)


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:13:00 - [24] - Quote Mr Gloo Gloo wrote: FW and PC will be in Uprising, as SP refund, or this is also conditional ? Well, stop trolling us with english grammar please !!! ... I don't understand... :'( I also don't work on the SP refund stuff so cannot comment on anything related to that.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2799	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:18:00 - [25] - Quote PT SD wrote: I'll have to wait and see all the EVE side bonuses. Because, as of right now, there really is no incentive IMO to even hold districts. Its going to be more profitable to raid in militia gear. We announced what they would be, just not the exact numbers, yesterday: A bonus to the manufacturing time of POS around that planet. A bonus to the fuel consumption of POS around that planet. A bonus to PI output on that planet. All of these bonuses will be alliance wide... we think... that is the current plan anyways.


CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 2879	Posted - 2013.04.05 10:55:00 - [26] - 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. You can repeat the attack from any district you own keeping in mind the attrition cost associated with distance.