I would like it see it possible one day to setup up an 'ambush' game mode where the defending territory sends out clones to attack the inbound forces.

While risking clones and a second battle, if the defenders win the attack is repelled if there is insufficent clones to continue. If the defenders lose the attackers will arrive still and would have suffered clone losses on thier own end.

Attacking forces set thier timer per attack on when they can be ambushed and this is publically viewable in attacker infomration but the defender does not have to take advantage of it.

sure why not, it sounds cool. That could be for troops moving across land, and my idea could be for troops moving through space. The defenders try to destroy the clone trucks or something and the attacks try to defend them.

Had a short talk on IRC hammering out the idea a bit more.

Ambuses will take place in the 'outskirts of {Target Disctict} and for all interaction purposes will be basically in the same district when it comes to properties and orbital interactions.

This form of ambush is a bit special, the attackers would have defensive positions and location on the map.

There are more CRUs than normal and they are controlled by the attackers by default.

Basically even if moving though space, they have to pre-stage somewhere to setup to prepare to attack the district this is where it can be explain on why the attacker can setup thier timer of vunerability.

Defenders don't have to ambush but if they choose the clones they send are not going to be comming home.

Defenders only goal is to clone out as many attacker clones as possible.

Timer is arbitary but probably explained on how long they can keep the tac net sattelight overhead.

Defenders will lose all clones sent regardless of win or lose.

If time runs out and attackers still have more than enough clones to finish the attack, its considered a draw.

Number of attacking clones available is equal to the post transportation costs.

Attackers will lose clones of what gets killed.

Additionally any CRU destroyed or captured by end of the match will net additional clone losses. Any CRU held by the attackers will not penalize the attackers. Appox 10 clones lost per CRU captured or destroyed.

If attackers lose more than minimally required to attack a district the attack is then canceled.

If defenders send evereything and not repel the attack the district automatically flips control to attackers.

Normal skill points apply. Salvage may apply nomrally but may not for the defenders. Normal kill rewards apply.

No other penalties or clones raided that will be handeled by the target district's condition.

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.

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)

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.

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.

You're right, I forgot to include the additional 25 stolen, I'll go back to change it, but it isn't going to affect the overriding point.

These incentives should come in the form of planetary bonuses or unique district bonuses (maybe for number held or number held in a system or on a planet) and not at the cost of further placing defenders at a disadvantage.

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.

Wouldn't that not just lead to a big blue donut?

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.

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 will the game mode look like? I was thinking the old conquest mode would be nice. Also can this thread get a sticky?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What will the game mode look like? I was thinking the old conquest mode would be nice. Also can this thread get a sticky?

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.

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...

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?