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.

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.

Foxy,

Would it make sense to have separate battle-types whether the attacker wants to conquer the territory or steal clones?

Am thinking a setup where, upon attacking, the attacking corp has to decide whether it wants to try to conquer the district or simply try to steal clones.
The two attack forms can then have different conditions and mechanism, such as whether they shut down the clone-generation, beside the notion that conquest does not allow gaining clones, and an attempt at stealing clones does not allow taking over the district.

In the case of an "Steal" attempt, the attacker would not get priority in selecting to attack again; this should protect against farming, since others can jump in and conquer the territory, simply by electing to attack it.

This would also allow the use of different game-modes where applicable, and should add a bit of variation for the Corporations involved in Planetary Conquest, as a hit-and-run attempt at stealing might be more interesting at times.
Skirmish 1.0 would be suitable for regular Conquest, while current Skirmish might be suitable for stealing-attempts. Differences in the sizes of teams could also be relevant (Stealing attempts as 12v12?)


Later, you can then look at sabotage attacks (Game-mode: Ambush), where any-and-all clones sent by the attacker will be lost, but where you can perhaps cripple a district, e.g. by destroying installations, halving clone-production or cause other types of disruptions in case of a victory.

Im liking some of these ideas. The attacker would be able to pick the game mode. Ambush or Skirmish. I would give the defenders a one 1 minute head start on a skirmish map and possibly let them know what the map will be ahead of time for planning. It is there territory after all.

Though the last 150 clone on a district that battle has to be a skirmish because the attackers have to take the base out to take over.

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.

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.

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.

Im liking some of these ideas. The attacker would be able to pick the game mode. Ambush or Skirmish

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.

The idea with different game types makes sense, IMO.

But!

This is also very controversial as you simply can't make Skirmish = District Capturing and Ambush = Clone Stealing. This becomes very obvious for the Defender what is the Attacker's plan (it doesn't matter whether the game mode is displayed right after District being "attacked" or only become visible when the match starts). The idea needs more brain storming but sounds promising. As for now I can think about Ambush as pre-Skirmish battles when Attacker attacks with 100 clones to bleed out the Defender's clones. The Attacker always loses 100 but Defender loses 150 clones in case of Defender's defeat. Defender doesn't produce clones if you attack it again after losing the previous fight.

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.

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.

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.

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?