DUST Search - [Uprising] Planetary Conquest

Maximus Stryker wrote:

Goric Rumis wrote:

[quote=Laurent Cazaderon]
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


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 26 post(s)
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1264	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:36:00 - [1] - Quote Okay so first. How in hell did i NOT see this thread before Now, thanks to garret and FF's response, i didnt have to read the whole thread to see what is changed. And honestly, i'm a bit worried about those new stuff. More than ever, defenders wont stand a chance against an attacker. the result of a draw game will be A LOT MORE in favor of the attacker than the defender. Why ? Attacker when losing a fight will STILL generate clones on its base district Attacker will NEVER see any clone being stolen as the current game mode CANNOT justify sending more than 150 clones in a fight. So, defenders will NEVER still anythin. Attacker will instead ALWAYS steal clone when winning as it's based on the district clone production output. Bottomline => bad idea. If the final pages of the first PC thread had been read, it would have been clear that attacking doesnt need some more power. yes, i understand, you want avoid a snooze fest. But the way you're doing it, Districts will flip and flip and flip and flip again. In the end, there will be no meaning at all as you just wont be able to keep your district against a foe that really wants you out. Even if you defend successfully more than you lose. Example : I'll use default districts, equipped with a Prod Facility. So clone count 300 on both. Clone Gen is 100 per RT. A is Attacker. D is Defender Let's skip directly to first battle day. (So notice send day-2) A attacks with 150 clones.As attacking clone movement is done instantly the day the notice is sent, its district has refilled in the mean time. so both districts have 300 Clones in stock when fight starts A wins through MCC destruction. A Loses 100 clones D loses minimal clone loss. A gets 50 remaining + 50 from defenders PF going back to district. Sold => 10 Millions Pure profit A uses dibs hour to attack again with 150 clones. They move instantly. Clone count after first battle : A= 150 D=150 Second fight A gets Reinforcement D gets none. Clone count before battle : A=300 D=150 Defenders wins through MCC destruction or clone depletion (doesnt matter tbh). D Loses 100 clones. Attackers loses all clones. Defenders get jack clones. A uses dibs hour and attacks again with 150 clones (why bother with more). Clone count after 2nd battle and 3rd attack set : A= 150 D=50 Third fight A and D gets reinforcement Clone count : A= 250 D=150 (1 Victory on both sides though). D wins again. same conditions. A attacks again with 150 clones. Clone count after 3rd battle and 4th attack set : A = 50 D= 50 Fourth Fight A and D gets reinforcements Clone count : A=150 D= 150 A wins the fight and loses 100 clones. D loses district no matter clone depletion or MCC. Why ? When defender managed to win 2 fights ? And the defender 2 fights ? It's a draw and yet defender loses ? Imagine that for a corporation that manages to get ONE district in a few month. They spend hundreds of millions to get a district with Geno Packs. They DONT HAVE any clone reinforcement each day PAY for each attack. A very expensive price... And then, when they got their ONLY district, they get stormed this way..... Even if defenders had won the fourth game, it wouldnt be over. Attacker would just come back. Maybe use a friendly district to cover for its low clone count after setting the attack. And even then he would still ALWAY have at least 150 clones to defend... Attackers have WAY TOO much advantages compared to defenders. A status quo on the battles on the ground should be in favor of the defender. Not the other way around. I agree this doesnt take attrition into account. But the whole point of attrition is to guarantee some kind of logic in the progression of the military campaign of the corps right ? So nobody would actually attack 4 jumps instead of securing a base allowing you to be closer to your real foe. This stealing clone systems doesnt fix anything. I think it makes the disbalance even worse. PC is gonna be a permanent shifting of lands. Mark my words, you'd better be the one to attack and consider defending a waste of your time. Something else, about dibs hour and attack intricacies. By the way, what happens when a district attacks an attacking districts ? What about dibs hour ? still available ? A attacks B then C attacks A. When first fight is done between A and B. Can A use its dibs hour ? Should it ? Isnt it locked by the attack coming from C and supposedly blocking all clone movement ?
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1264	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:41:00 - [2] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: 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. That's a real shame...... SO we'll have to wait another 5-6 month before having a chance to just exchange loot between corp members ? That and PC requesting more and more corp management and us getting only corp mail. Yay !
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1264	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:44:00 - [3] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: 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. :) 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
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1264	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:51:00 - [4] - Quote 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....
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1265	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:15:00 - [5] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: 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? Any kind of role customisation or new roles, asset hangar ( player exchange of items could have been used to do that in a way), tax system, corp wallet transaction history. Alliance chat and mail is cool and nice. But without any way to actually put the alliance into play without using squad to mix alliance players in one game, or exchange districts, or trading clones, it's not that important imo.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1266	Posted - 2013.04.03 14:33:00 - [6] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: 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. Okay, i get that. But let's get back to holding districts. Please do check my previous post #102. If attacking is profitable. Why hold back and not take the district ? Even if you decide to not hold it in the future, the way attacker regen clones compared to defender will make it quite easy to wear off the defender even when losing as much fight as you win. AFAIK, in any conquest game the defender as the advantage on the BF due to defensive positions. In PC, it wont be the case. So fight will be played on a leveled playing field but the result of the battle wont be as good for defenders as it for attackers : => Defending district is locked => Defending district cannot get reinforcement from another district between fights => Defending district doesnt get clone regen when losing => Defending district gets a 50% of the remaining clones above 150 when defeating the attackers. (which will imo never happend) => Attacking districts gets 50% of the Clone production when winning (Which production ? the one of the next RT ? The one of the RT during which the battle happens ? A purely virtual clone production ?) => Attacking districts gets clone regen no matter the outcome of the battle => Attacking district has insta-move of clones when attacking, allowing next RT to refill clone launched in attack. Already preparing the follow up attack. => Attacking districts can get clones from friendly districts between two battles => Attacking district has dibs hour Isnt that list explicit enough on how unbalanced both parts of a territorial fight are ? The whole point is that a successfully defended district gets the perk to..... work as intended. And even that isnt true as it can be locked immediatly through the attacker dibs hour... Kind of a bitter victory right ? Why not add a safe time for defenders so they can refill their district when they win a fight ? Either from genolution or friendly district ? Why not make the clone stealing based on the the remaining clone even below 150 ? So defenders are guaranteed (unless mass suicide, that can happen) to steal some clones. Why not offer defenders to turn part of the biomass from the fight into back up clones ? Defenders need to be treated better. And that isnt incompatible with giving incentive to attack. I'd even say it's better if you got incentive to attack AND a real challenge in taking a district instead of just pounding it over and over.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1266	Posted - 2013.04.04 08:38:00 - [7] - Quote slypie11 wrote: You just gave me a great idea. Why not let defending districts get reinforcements from other districts. This would encourage expanding your empire, and huge multi front offensives to lock down as many districts as possible and destroy lots of clones It would make sense that a corp succesfully defending a district can add reinforcement from another district they own. But that doesnt solve the problem of Corp A with multiple districts vs Corp B with its only district it just manage to get. No reinforcement can come from another district in that case for Corp B. Sextus Hardcock wrote: Just to add some perspective here. Every concern about it being in favour of attacking can benefit the defender. Instead of sitting back and being attacked, you have to proactively defend yourself by attacking districts your opponent has, which he will be using to reinforce himself with. Attacking must be more rewarding than defending, otherwise the system will be gamed, and everyone will just sit around making money. A corp sitting back and only defending isnt something we would see much imo. For the sole reason that corps will probably seek action. And also because attacking, even when not defeating the opponents district can get you money through loot and biomass reward. If using 150 clones can earn you more than selling them to Genolution, then there aint no problem of people sitting around. What i'm focusing on here is the fact that a defender winning should get its defense back to a decent level. IF an attacker wins two fights in a row, it's enough to take the district in any case. Unless the defending district has a cargo hub, you then need to win 3 times in a row. And even then, if attacker wins twice, and loses twice, defender will still be in a critical situation as it will only recover 150 clones thanks to those 2 wins (still thinking that no attackers will use more than 150 clones to attack on a regular basis) which only compensates for 1 loss. And that doesnt make up for the lost clones in the two fights they won... In the mean time, the attacker will have plenty clones replenished and will keep pounding.. Just to be clear, i'm not saying defending should be easy. I'm just saying that a defender that prevents being defeated twice in a row shouldnt lose its district through some kind of wear off effect. And the current mecanics clearly shows that's gonna be the case. Even a single defeat puts the defender in a very harsh situation compared to the attacker. Also, you mention that for multi-district corp, it will make corps defend by attacking. Yeah it will, but the result may very well end in a never ending district exchange. Suggestion : If the point is to make attacking more interesting ISK wise, then make it so that defenders ISK bonus through biomass is only about half the biomass, the rest being turned into reinforcement clones. Example: fight with 200 clones destroyed. => 100 Biomass turned into ISK for player bounty : 5 Millions. 310 K ISK per player. => 100 biomass turned into reinforcement clones with a 50% loss : 50 Clones. With the reinforcement the defender gets next RT, it's either 150 clones replenished with a PF, which compensates a lost fight. With a CH or other, it's "only" 125 but is enough imo to allow defenders a break. That solution insures defenders to get clones out of a won battle just like attackers, no matter how many clones were used to attack. Also, it makes attacking more interesting than defending regarding individual bounty. And a successfull attacker will still manage to win the district.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1266	Posted - 2013.04.04 14:15:00 - [8] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Sextus Hardcock wrote: Just to add some perspective here. Every concern about it being in favour of attacking can benefit the defender. Instead of sitting back and being attacked, you have to proactively defend yourself by attacking districts your opponent has, which he will be using to reinforce himself with. Attacking must be more rewarding than defending, otherwise the system will be gamed, and everyone will just sit around making money. A corp sitting back and only defending isnt something we would see much imo. For the sole reason that corps will probably seek action. And also because attacking, even when not defeating the opponents district can get you money through loot and biomass reward. If using 150 clones can earn you more than selling them to Genolution, then there aint no problem of people sitting around. Incorrect. A corp sitting back and only defending is something u would see alot of , hell give ppl the chance and u wont see any fighting among alot of ppl at all. Why? because ppl hate taking risks, its human nature. Look at the current DUST corp v corp feature of accusations of who dodges who, why cant ppl get fights when there is 0 meaning to these current fights......u add risk to that and ppl will setup the donut shop. Sure ppl can get loot through attacking other districts thats all well and kool BUT why take that risk when u can go zerg with a full team in FW and possibly get mixed teams on the other side and make lots of ISK there Attackin and imho active upkeep of ur district through PvE and the raiding mechanic Nova mentioned would encourage more fights, altho the raiding upkeep mechanic would prob result in alot of smaller less skilled corps not being able to maintain their districts hence i also mention PvE as a way to do it. 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
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1267	Posted - 2013.04.04 18:51:00 - [9] - 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.
Laurent Cazaderon Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 1269	Posted - 2013.04.05 08:49:00 - [10] - Quote Maximus Stryker wrote: Goric Rumis wrote: [quote=Laurent Cazaderon] 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 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.