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.

Does the defender lose all 300 clones in battle automatically? What if he loses a certain number, but there are some remaining?

Does the defender lose all 300 clones in battle automatically? What if he loses a certain number, but there are some remaining?

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.

So this makes clone reserve depletion much easier as an attacker, because you walk off with 50% of their regeneration for (one?) resupply of clones right? Thus taking a district will be time compressed, if you were to win every offensive battle as opposed to the outline prior to your post on the new "clone stealing".

does it take into account both sides loses and remaining clones? because i can't see that in your examples.

Do you keep losing clones ie the movement penalty each time you attack?

Winning clones from the defender should then be "positioned" at the point of attack and not subject to movement penalty.

Not sure I understand your question. Only the winner "steals" clones, so we don't care about how many clones the winning side lost for the examples.

Not sure I understand your question. Only the winner "steals" clones, so we don't care about how many clones the winning side lost for the examples.

Just to clarify, is the attacker only "stealing" from the clones in production?

So using that example with the PF and 300 clones, if the defender lost 270 clones, meaning there are only 30 left, the attacker DOESN'T take 50% of the survivors (15 clones), but 50% of the current cycle's production (50 clones). And obviously, the remaining clones to be produced are destroyed.

Is that correct?

Just to clarify, is the attacker only "stealing" from the clones in production?

So using that example with the PF and 300 clones, if the defender lost 270 clones, meaning there are only 30 left, the attacker DOESN'T take 50% of the survivors (15 clones), but 50% of the current cycle's production (50 clones). And obviously, the remaining clones to be produced are destroyed.

Is that correct?

Not sure I understand your question. Only the winner "steals" clones, so we don't care about how many clones the winning side lost for the examples.

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?

I think so. Extra 50% of clones given to the victorious attacker of the next generation cycle (as well as those remaining above minimal clone loss requirement), but none go towards defensive reserves. But wouldn't that make clone reserve depletion even easier as the offensive victor? Hope I don't require you to buy a bottle of Ibuprofen.

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.

So I am going to try and use this section of the forums some more and start some more focused discussions with you guys, we shall see how it goes.

As some of you know I am working on a dev blog with some updates to Planetary Conquest. That is still a little ways out though as I want some more time to think about the numbers. In the mean time I am going to post this here which will also be in said dev blog. Want to start getting your ideas on it now.

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)

Previously the idea was that if the attacker sent 200 clones, lost 100 in the fighting, and as a defender you won you would get 20% of the remaining clones. In this example that would be 20 clones.

We are increasing that percentage to 50% but also making it so that this is 50% of the clones above and beyond the minimum 150 clones lost. Not immediately understandable, so let me give some examples:

In this example the attacker sends 200 clones, uses 100 clones in combat, and loses to the defender.

The attacker sends 200 clones.
The attacker loses 100 in combat.
50 more clones are destroyed to reach the 150 clone loss minimum.
50 clones remain.
25 clones are given to the defender.

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.

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

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?

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?

How about this for an idea ?

Ditch the whole minimum 150 clone loss and instead have something similar to the following:

Attacker wins by MCC
Attacker gets upto 50 clones (lore, the MCC takes the CRUs and their stock with them) from the defenders location stock.
This may cause an change ownership in the process but regardless, it adds to the attackers stockpile.
The attacker also gets their window of opportunity to secure the next assault.

Attacker wins by Clones
The attacker just wins the territory.

Defender wins by MCC
Defender gets upto 50 clones representing stores deployed in the CRU now that the MCC is destroyed.

Defender wins by Clones
The defender gets to keep the territory.

Effect:
Corps have an incentive to win by MCC because it reinforces their own stockpile, however if they are losing they have an incentive to keep fighting to the last man as otherwise their enemy will be reinforced and they will be weaker. Sending more clones is also preferable because as attacker you do not want to be winning and suddenly run out of clones, an advantage inherent to the defenders position with their complete stockpile on line.

Without the minimum clone loss we run into situations where people can lock their own districts for really cheap while still generating clones. Every attack must result in a net loss of clones when all the math is done.

I like the fact that CCP wants ppl to attack that is all well an good but one of my main concerns for PC is what happens when u say u reach the "limit" of ur ability to HOLD districts?

It would be nice if there was some sort of raiding mechanic that way u still attack and get paid for it but u wont be tied down with having to own another district u might not honestly want

Not everyone is interested or can hold vast amounts of space, some just want a small piece they can manage and just go raiding or doin merc work

Yep I agree that some form of raiding would be good to have.

Short term though there is a possibility to do some sort of low-end raiding. If you attack someone and win you're guaranteed 15 million in biomass and at least another 15 million in loot if the other team loses 150 clones and are in full proto gear. That's almost 2 million to each person. Unless you use up all of your own clones (9-10 clones each person) it could be a nice little profit for you. Do note that unless we get some kind of trading most of the loot could be useless to you.

Long term though it would be nice with some actual raiding mechanics, yes.

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.

I like the fact that CCP wants ppl to attack that is all well an good but one of my main concerns for PC is what happens when u say u reach the "limit" of ur ability to HOLD districts?

It would be nice if there was some sort of raiding mechanic that way u still attack and get paid for it but u wont be tied down with having to own another district u might not honestly want

Not everyone is interested or can hold vast amounts of space, some just want a small piece they can manage and just go raiding or doin merc work

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.

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. :(

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

What what what ? April 1st was 2 days ago...

Didn't you confirm this in Merc-Cast or Vid+¬o-Cast yesterday ?

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.

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.

This is what we are thinking yes. :)

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" ???

What do you mean by "us only getting corp mail" ???

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

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....

Corp mail from eve doesn't show in Dust from what i can tell... (inbox says 50, but cant see any of them...)

... might be something else

FW and PC will be in Uprising, as SP refund, or this is also conditional ?

Well, stop trolling us with english grammar please !!!

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?

I'll have to wait and see all the EVE side bonuses. Because, as of right now, there really is no incentive IMO to even hold districts. Its going to be more profitable to raid in militia gear.

Any kind of role customization 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.

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.

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.