We announced what they would be, just not the exact numbers, yesterday:

A bonus to the manufacturing time of POS around that planet.
A bonus to the fuel consumption of POS around that planet.
A bonus to PI output on that planet.

All of these bonuses will be alliance wide... we think... that is the current plan anyways.

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.

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. So that "bonus" district will generate ISK and clones you can use to refill other districts until you lose it. So why, WHY go "meh, not gonna take it". It's not like it costs you money to lose it if you dont want it.

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 winning a battle wont be as good for defenders as it will be 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 ? My point is that a successfully defended district gets the perk to..... work as intended. And even that isnt true as it can be locked immediately 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 ?
Why not raise overall clone count, minimal clone movement etc.. to incentive bigger batle, bigger ISK sink, bigger stealing for defenders when winning ? If attacker is GUARANTEED to steal 35 clones when winning, why should it be any different for defenders, worse, why shouldnt defenders get more knowing attacker will get its clone regen when losing ?


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.

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

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.

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.

Standing based would be a much better idea.

Think about renting moons with bonuses. Much easier with standings

The regular ISK payout will be based on the number of clones killed.

This is incorrect. The only ISK you get is from the clones being biomassed.

I don't think so.

See https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=667036#post667036

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

[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.

We are changing the way this works and also expanding it to the attacker if they win.

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

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

Is it confirmed that a Corp can repeat their attacks from a district other than the one they initially attacked from?

Losing 200 clones, replenishing 100 at most, you come out 100 clones down. To press the attack, you're either emtying your district (200 clones) or reinforcing with 150 clones from another district, leaving THAT district open for attack by another Corp.

Is it confirmed that a Corp can repeat their attacks from a district other than the one they initially attacked from?

Losing 200 clones, replenishing 100 at most, you come out 100 clones down. To press the attack, you're either emtying your district (200 clones) or reinforcing with 150 clones from another district, leaving THAT district open for attack by another Corp.

Unless corp A districts are also attacked and offlined making friends is a big part of EvE so corp B can be small but has a few friends to harass corp A.

Also a corp can only store so many clones so simpley offline the district their in so they can't move them. My view is that a corp will have to be a certain size to take part.

Idea if the defender wins they have the option to counterattack the district the attack was launched from. Should help remove the above problem :-)

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.

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.



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.