DUST Search - [Uprising] Planetary Conquest

Bendtner92 wrote:

Parson Atreides wrote:

So all clones the attacker sends die regardless of how many you lose in the battle and how many you send? That makes it seem like "minimum clone loss" only ever applies to defenders (and calculations for clones stolen), since it's impossible to send less than 150 as an attacker anyway. I was under the impression the remaining get sent back to the attacking district.

This line from the wiki makes me think you're wrong "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." If attackers had all clones destroyed (whether or not they die in battle) when they lose but could only send a minimum of 100 anyway, then it should just read "The defending side loses a minimum of 100 clones if they lose" since it's already understood that the attackers lose everything.

If the attacker loses the match he loses how many clones he brought.

Quote: "20% given to defender, rest destroyed" if the attacker loses. Note this is the old numbers, as it would be 50% given to the defender.

The line you quoted is mostly related to the defender, but it's also related to the attacker in the way that if the attacker brought 100 clones and only 75 were killed he would lose 100 regardless. If he brought 125 and all of them were killed, all of them would be lost.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 26 post(s)
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 198	Posted - 2013.03.31 10:04:00 - [1] - Quote I don't like the changes at all. The last version of PC was already too advantageous to attackers, but this is even worse. So far, the counter-point to the argument that attackers won't send more than 150 seems to be that in a 16v16 with coordinated squads on each side, you'll have more deaths and thus be more enticed to bring more than 150 clones. Okay, I'll buy this. Let's bump the clone count an attack is most likely to bring up to 200 with 150 expected to be destroyed. Assuming two sides of equal skill: If the attacker wins, he gets a minimum of 37 clones (50 if they had a PF), and the defender loses at least 150, and the defender doesn't produce any clones. If the defender wins, he gets 25 clones (we're assuming 200 clones brought and 150 killed in battle), and his PF makes more, but he's lost 150 in the battle. He's still going to come out pretty negative even if he wins. At best he gets 125 clones before the next attack after losing 150. NOTE: I'm saying the defender loses 150 because that's the number people seem to want to use for coordinated 16v16 games not because I'm confused about minimum clones destroyed for a loss. The problem here is the same as before--the defender is losing clones regardless of outcome if it's a fight between equally skilled opponents. If they lose, the cost is devastating. If they win, they're still going to lose clones overall, due to how many they lost during the actual battle. I'm going to show the penalties in terms of clones lost for both sides for both victory and defeat assuming 150 lost in the fighting for each side (I'm counting clones that would have been produced if the defender hadn't lost as clones lost): Attacker wins: A: -150 (lost in battle) + 75 (clones produced in home district without PF) + 37 (stolen production without PF) = -38 clones D: -150 - 75 (clone loss due to no production) + 0 = -225 effective clone loss A: -150 + 100 (clones produced in home district with PF) + 37 = -13 clones D: -150 - 75 + 0 = -225 effective clone loss A: -150 + 100 + 50 (stolen production with PF) = 0 clones lost total D: -150 - 100 (clone loss due to no production) + 0 = -250 effective clone loss A: -150 + 75 + 50 = -25 clones D: -150 - 100 + 0 = -250 effective clone loss Attacker loses: A: -150 + 75 + 0 = -75 clones D: -150 + 75 + 25 (remaining clones from attacker's 200 after 150 minimum loss) = -50 clones or D: -150 + 100 (with PF) + 25 = -25 clones A: -150 + 100 + 0 = -50 clones D: -150 + 75 + 25 (remaining clones from attacker's 200 after 150 minimum loss) = -50 clones or D: -150 + 100 + 25 = -25 clones Best case scenario for the defender here is they lose 25 clones even after winning and the attacker loses 75 (no PF for attacker). Worst case for the defender is they effectively loses 250 clones (though only 150 will be lost from the district's reserves) and the attacker loses 0 (assuming PF for both sides). I understand CCP's desire to get people to attack a lot, but this system makes it basically impossible for a defender to be successful against an equally skilled opponent if they lose even once--which they will do based on the definition and consequences of "equally skilled".
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 198	Posted - 2013.03.31 10:56:00 - [2] - Quote Tiluvo wrote: Apologies, Parson, but I am going to invalidate all that typing you did with one sentence. Minimum Clone Loss only affects the loser of the battle. If the defender has 300 clones and wins after losing 50 of them, that's all they lose. I realize that. The 150 I'm subtracting is because the general feeling in the thread is that sending 150 probably won't be enough to ensure a victory (could lose 150 in the actual fighting itself) given the 16v16 nature with coordinated squads. Also, because I was talking about equally skilled opponents, that means for each clone the attacker loses, the defender will lose one as well. In other words, I'm saying if we take the idea that 150 attacking clones won't be enough because that many could be lost in the fight, then the defender is going to be losing that many too (again, assuming equally skilled opponents). If we don't choose to use more than 150 in our theorizing, then "clone stealing" really only helps attackers. Will respond to Bend's post in a minute.
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 198	Posted - 2013.03.31 15:23:00 - [3] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: That's not what I meant though (and therefore your examples are still slightly wrong ). If the attacker attacks with 200 clones and loses, he loses all those 200 clones no matter how many were killed. If only 150 were killed, 25 of the remaining 50 clones go to the defender while the other 25 clones get destroyed with no ISK going to anyone. So all clones the attacker sends die regardless of how many you lose in the battle and how many you send? That makes it seem like "minimum clone loss" only ever applies to defenders (and calculations for clones stolen), since it's impossible to send less than 150 as an attacker anyway. I was under the impression the remaining get sent back to the attacking district. This line from the wiki makes me think you're wrong "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." If attackers had all clones destroyed (whether or not they die in battle) when they lose but could only send a minimum of 100 anyway, then it should just read "The defending side loses a minimum of 100 clones if they lose" since it's already understood that the attackers lose everything. Quote: Wouldn't that not just lead to a big blue donut? 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?
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 198	Posted - 2013.03.31 15:54:00 - [4] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: Parson Atreides wrote: So all clones the attacker sends die regardless of how many you lose in the battle and how many you send? That makes it seem like "minimum clone loss" only ever applies to defenders (and calculations for clones stolen), since it's impossible to send less than 150 as an attacker anyway. I was under the impression the remaining get sent back to the attacking district. This line from the wiki makes me think you're wrong "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." If attackers had all clones destroyed (whether or not they die in battle) when they lose but could only send a minimum of 100 anyway, then it should just read "The defending side loses a minimum of 100 clones if they lose" since it's already understood that the attackers lose everything. If the attacker loses the match he loses how many clones he brought. Quote: "20% given to defender, rest destroyed" if the attacker loses. Note this is the old numbers, as it would be 50% given to the defender. The line you quoted is mostly related to the defender, but it's also related to the attacker in the way that if the attacker brought 100 clones and only 75 were killed he would lose 100 regardless. If he brought 125 and all of them were killed, all of them would be lost. The minimum clone loss could be 1 and the attacker would still lose all the clones he brought though (according to the way you're reading it), so it doesn't make any sense to apply "minimum clone loss" to the attacker numbers (other than for stealing clones) when all clones they bring die anyway after a loss.
Parson Atreides Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising 198	Posted - 2013.03.31 16:24:00 - [5] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: Parson Atreides wrote: The minimum clone loss could be 1 and the attacker would still lose all the clones he brought though (according to the way you're reading it), so it doesn't make any sense to apply "minimum clone loss" to the attacker numbers (other than for stealing clones) when all clones they bring die anyway after a loss. It's not the way I read it, it's the way it is. I've read the wiki several times now and have seen most, if not all, of FoxFour's answers to PC, so I should know how the current mechanics would work. It does make sense to apply it to the attacker. If the attacker brings 200 clones, loses the match and only loses 100 clones in the battle, 50 of the remaining clones would be downright lost (with biomass given to the defender), 25 given to the defender and the last 25 destroyed (with no ISK given to the defender). If it wasn't applied to the attacker it would imply that 50 of the remaining clones would be given to the defender and the other 50 destroyed. What you're saying makes sense, and I'd actually prefer it that way, but the line should make some mention of the calculation of clones the defenders receives but instead makes it seem as if the minimum clone loss is going to have some effect on the number of attacking clones left over after everything (calculations included). Maybe I'm hung up on the idea that when a defender loses their MCC, they lose 150 max (assuming they didn't lose more clones in the fight), but if an attacker loses their MCC, they lose all of the clones, instead of just the 150. I thought of it less as "all attacking clones are in the MCC" and more as 150 are stored in the MCC and the rest are sort of in the background ready to be called upon, much like the defending clones where 150 are lost if the MCC dies, but there are more in the background ready to be used if the defenders lose more than 150 in the battle.