DUST Search - [Uprising] Planetary Conquest

S Park Finner wrote:

My goals for withdrawal as an option are

Give players more options
Keep mechanisms that need programming to a minimum
Give designers the greatest flexibility to manage risk / reward over the broadest number of dimensions by adjusting game parameters rather than re-design
Have the design plausible within the game world

I believe withdrawal does that

Players get to leave the battle under controlled circumstances if they think the situation warrants it.
It is a player controlled button to initiate an action (battle shutdown) that already exists in the game -- a minimum programming change from that point of view
Designers can vary the cost of withdrawal along multiple dimensions

It makes sense. One option we don't have in DUST 514 now is to leave a battle as a team. It is a legitimate option.

There are positive benefits for future play.
Other game modes could use the withdrawal mechanism
If players eventually transport clones it lays the groundwork for pricing and options.
The meta-game


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 26 post(s)
Goric Rumis Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 121	Posted - 2013.03.28 22:48:00 - [1] - Quote So attackers would have to consider a trade-off between bringing only the minimum number of clones and being easier to clone out, against the risk of strengthening the defender with extra clones. Whereas in the previous version, the defender is strengthened by the number of clones lost, period--so you might as well risk as much as you can afford. I could only see this working if the battles last long enough for 200+ clones to get killed. That doesn't seem to be the case with the current Skirmish format, most of the time anyway. You'd need the battles to last long enough that the attacker questions whether 150 clones will be enough to win the battle. Then again, I've heard something about hour-long battles, so maybe this adjustment is already being made.
Goric Rumis Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 121	Posted - 2013.03.28 23:00:00 - [2] - Quote G Torq wrote: Would it make sense to have separate battle-types whether the attacker wants to conquer the territory or steal clones? For the record, I would like to see this kind of objective included as an additional battle-ending condition rather than an altogether different type of battle. If I were an attacker, I'd like to leave the defender in the dark about what my exact motive was for attacking. And as a defender, it's a lot more fun to figure it out than to know from the word go. This also gives you the option of playing a ruse with the majority of your team while one squad breaks off and hits the real objective.
Goric Rumis Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 122	Posted - 2013.03.28 23:24:00 - [3] - Quote Lustmord-8 wrote: Not sure I'm liking the clone numbers for the defender side if they win. If the attackers are smart they could not ever give the defenders clones if they lose but the attackers will get at least 37 clones after every victory. Seems biased to attackers. Not sure of a solution though. It makes sense from a "lore" perspective: since the lost clones are biomassed and sold for ISK that's distributed to the winning mercs, it would be double-dipping to give the winner a portion of the lost clones (that have already been biomassed). It also requires the attacker to balance two risks: risk getting cloned out vs. risk giving the defender more clones. My only concern is that the battles will last long enough for this to be a consideration for the attacker. I've never been in a Skirmish match (under the current parameters) that was cloned out.
Goric Rumis Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 123	Posted - 2013.03.29 04:46:00 - [4] - Quote S Park Finner wrote: I suggest the attackers could loose by destruction of their MCC GÇô in which case they would loose all the clones they brought and the defenders would get the ones that were not used up at the time the MCC was destroyed by loss of all their clones GÇô in which case the defenders would not get any additional clones by withdrawal GÇô in which case the defenders would get half the clones remaining GÇô some had to be left behind in the retreat. In all cases, the additional biomass the district acquires from the dead clones would boost it's production during the next cycle. Logistical problem with this: Attackers would just withdraw as soon as it was apparent they were going to lose. Unless the attackers simply forget to withdraw, or the match really is that close, you're going to end up with exactly the same results FoxFour has proposed: defenders get half the remaining clones, provided any are left.
Goric Rumis Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 129	Posted - 2013.03.29 19:19:00 - [5] - Quote S Park Finner wrote: My goals for withdrawal as an option are Give players more options Keep mechanisms that need programming to a minimum Give designers the greatest flexibility to manage risk / reward over the broadest number of dimensions by adjusting game parameters rather than re-design Have the design plausible within the game world I believe withdrawal does that Players get to leave the battle under controlled circumstances if they think the situation warrants it. It is a player controlled button to initiate an action (battle shutdown) that already exists in the game -- a minimum programming change from that point of view Designers can vary the cost of withdrawal along multiple dimensions - Change the proportion of clones lost - Change the proportion of clones given to the defenders - Charge an extra cost in ISK to pull out (transport workers' union demands a bonus for jumping into the hot LZ) - Dis-allow re-attack option if the attacker withdrawals - Change the bonus to the next production period from left over biomass It makes sense. One option we don't have in DUST 514 now is to leave a battle as a team. It is a legitimate option. There are positive benefits for future play. Other game modes could use the withdrawal mechanism If players eventually transport clones it lays the groundwork for pricing and options. The meta-game This is a worthwhile set of objectives, but in the context of the original conversation I'm not sure it helps PC. We want to encourage attackers to fight to the end, and if you penalize them for not bailing out then battles will frequently end in withdrawal at the last minute. My advice for now would be for withdrawal to have the same effect as MCC destruction, so that the only perk to bailing out early is that you get to keep half of the clones you would have lost if you had stuck around (with the disadvantage that the defender also gets to keep more clones). We can discuss whether there would be some other difference between losing and withdrawing, but I don't think you'll gain much traction with the suggestion that people should be penalized for losing instead of withdrawing. Withdrawal should be a stop-loss measure, not something you have to do every time it looks like you're going to lose. I would also say the withdrawing team should have to get all players behind their own redline in order to withdraw. That way at least it requires some coordination and isn't a last-second bailout.
Goric Rumis Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 137	Posted - 2013.04.04 20:32:00 - [6] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Depends on how much you could get out off attacking.... You get biomass reward, loots (irrelevant though for uprising....) and steal clones when winning that you can sell back. Anyway, not my point here. Main concern is about how a defender can see its clone count destroyed step by step even when defending successfully as much as losing. Also, you forget that there is no backing out from a fight. So if you want to avoid being stormed too much, you'd better keep attacking and show your fangs. Comparing BC and PC is a non-sense. So i wouldnt bet on how corps will play it 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.
Goric Rumis Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 138	Posted - 2013.04.05 23:29:00 - [7] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Maximus Stryker wrote: 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 Goric, exactly. And Maximus, it may kill the rythm of the battles to have a 48h delay between two fights just because you failed one attack.Let's not forget the situations where Corp A would attack Corp B on several districts. One lost fight shouldnt stop the whole process. Defenders just need to make successfully defending a district good enough to sustain next attacks without wearing off when losing reasonable amount of clones. Alternative idea: After a battle there's a 1-hour lockout period, but it goes to the winner instead of the attacker. So if the defender wins, they can reinforce. After the 1-hour lockout period, the original attacker is free to attack again, but doesn't have exclusivity. Thoughts?