Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Shadowswipe
WarRavens
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
We will be limited to setting times on the hour, or will be be allowed finite control down to the minute?
This seems like a small thing but could actually be a big strategy point of interest if we are allowed finite control. |
Tiluvo
Digital Mercs
42
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
You set the hour range, i.e. 12.00-13.00, or 22.00-23.00. |
Shadowswipe
WarRavens
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
All the examples are rounded hours, but nowhere have I read, unless I am blind, that they have to be on the hour. I know they have to be an hour long, but could we set it to 3:16 if we wanted, or are we stuck setting it at 3:00 or 4:00 and no where in between? |
low genius
The Sound Of Freedom Renegade Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Shadowswipe wrote:We will be limited to setting times on the hour, or will be be allowed finite control down to the minute?
This seems like a small thing but could actually be a big strategy point of interest if we are allowed finite control.
it will probably be on the hour, and 23 hours available |
Shadowswipe
WarRavens
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 18:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Also it would be nice if it isn't down to the minute, that it is at least 15 min increments. The smaller the increments, the more options for play times. This is only a good thing. I can see no negatives. Casual players that want to jump on randomly and possibly find a contract to help defend a district. If they are only hour blocks, a player could get on a 3:05 and not be able to join a battle as they are all filled up until 4, but he only has an hour total to try to play and wouldn't be able to be involved in PC for that play session, even though he had more than enough time to help. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2204
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
low genius wrote:Shadowswipe wrote:We will be limited to setting times on the hour, or will be be allowed finite control down to the minute?
This seems like a small thing but could actually be a big strategy point of interest if we are allowed finite control. it will probably be on the hour, and 23 hours available They also said they're ruling out an hour either side of downtime.
And I'm not 100% certain, but I think one of the devs confirmed on-the-hour time settings in the epic PC discussion thread in the Feedback section. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
2678
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 23:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
On the hour and both the 10:00 -> 11:00 and 11:00 to 12:00 hours will not be selectable. |
|
General Tiberius1
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
379
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 00:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:On the hour and both the 10:00 -> 11:00 and 11:00 to 12:00 hours will not be selectable.
so it's actually a 22 hour attack window? |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
817
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 00:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
For now only 22 hours per day yes.
Also you get to choose a 1 hour window but the battles could be scheduled at any 10 minute interval within that hour. So if you set the reinforce from 2:00 to 3:00 you could end up with a battle that starts at say 2:40. |
|
Shadowswipe
WarRavens
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 00:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Thanks, good to know. Sorry if I missed that in the huge PC thread. I thought I read all the Dev posts at the very least. :) |
|
General Tiberius1
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
381
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 00:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:For now only 22 hours per day yes.
Also you get to choose a 1 hour window but the battles could be scheduled at any 10 minute interval within that hour. So if you set the reinforce from 2:00 to 3:00 you could end up with a battle that starts at say 2:40.
thanks for the info null |
Kristoff Atruin
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
395
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 01:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Speaking of reinforcements, here's a question I haven't seen answered yet. Say your corp owns 5 districts on a planet and one gets attacked. You lose by MCC destruction and lose 150 clones. Can send reinforcements by moving clones from one of the other districts to the one that had been attacked? I assume you could also do this if you won the battle.
On a related note, when getting attacked would you see what district the attack was coming from so that you could set up a counter attack? |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2213
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 01:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kristoff Atruin wrote:Speaking of reinforcements, here's a question I haven't seen answered yet. Say your corp owns 5 districts on a planet and one gets attacked. You lose by MCC destruction and lose 150 clones. Can send reinforcements by moving clones from one of the other districts to the one that had been attacked? I assume you could also do this if you won the battle.
On a related note, when getting attacked would you see what district the attack was coming from so that you could set up a counter attack? You're still limited to 150 clones, and you can't move clones into a district while it's listed as "under attack", so if the attacker immediately follows up with another attack, I don't think you'd be able to do this.
Not sure if you can move in between the battle ending and the attacker's follow-up declaration or not.
And while you might not directly be shown which district the attack is coming from, it should be easy enough to work out from looking at the scale of the attack and who is doing the attacking. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
2714
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 12:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Not sure if you can move in between the battle ending and the attacker's follow-up declaration or not.
No, the district will be considered locked during that time. |
|
Marston VC
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
135
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 14:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Not sure if you can move in between the battle ending and the attacker's follow-up declaration or not. No, the district will be considered locked during that time.
can an attacking corp attack multiple times within an hour? Say we start a battle at the beginning of the window, finnish before the hour is over, could we set up an additional attack? |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 22:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Smaller corps will never be able to win territory off larger corps and ill demonstrate why.
Corp A has three territories, Corp B have 10 territories.
Corp A launches an attack from A1, is good and beats Corp B in one match over territory B1.
Corp B launches attacks on A1-A3 from B2-B4.
Corp A has no territory to launch an attack on B1 from to finish the job, faces fighting to protect a depleted A1 and what's more has potentially 2 more territory at risk. They now have to fight 3 more battles just for survival and without even winning a battle the larger corp is already recovering and replenishing.
Even if corp B can't be bothered to finish them off, corp B now know their place. In conquest it doesn't matter how good you are or how much you win, a corp with more territory will always be able to beat you.
Oh and yes I know other corps could also launch attacks at the same time but based on a couple of models I ran with this example it would be possible for a corp with 10 territories to hold off 4 corps with 3 territories each by using this method and alternating between targets merely to break the sieges. Then if any of the smaller corps stopped attacking even for a day it would be possible through weight of numbers to take out all of the smaller corps one by one over a period of just over a week through weight of production vs consumption. |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
927
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 22:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:Smaller corps will never be able to win territory off larger corps and ill demonstrate why.
Corp A has three territories, Corp B have 10 territories.
Corp A launches an attack from A1, is good and beats Corp B in one match over territory B1.
Corp B launches attacks on A1-A3 from B2-B4.
Corp A has no territory to launch an attack on B1 from to finish the job, faces fighting to protect a depleted A1 and what's more has potentially 2 more territory at risk. They now have to fight 3 more battles just for survival and without even winning a battle the larger corp is already recovering and replenishing.
Even if corp B can't be bothered to finish them off, corp B now know their place. In conquest it doesn't matter how good you are or how much you win, a corp with more territory will always be able to beat you.
Oh and yes I know other corps could also launch attacks at the same time but based on a couple of models I ran with this example it would be possible for a corp with 10 territories to hold off 4 corps with 3 territories each by using this method and alternating between targets merely to break the sieges. Then if any of the smaller corps stopped attacking even for a day it would be possible through weight of numbers to take out all of the smaller corps one by one over a period of just over a week through weight of production vs consumption. You taking into account biomass gathered at the end of a battle, or clone loss due to travel distance, in these scenario's? also are these based on the original figures, or the ones CCP FoxFour has been posting since then? |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 23:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
gbghg wrote:5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:Smaller corps will never be able to win territory off larger corps and ill demonstrate why.
Corp A has three territories, Corp B have 10 territories.
Corp A launches an attack from A1, is good and beats Corp B in one match over territory B1.
Corp B launches attacks on A1-A3 from B2-B4.
Corp A has no territory to launch an attack on B1 from to finish the job, faces fighting to protect a depleted A1 and what's more has potentially 2 more territory at risk. They now have to fight 3 more battles just for survival and without even winning a battle the larger corp is already recovering and replenishing.
Even if corp B can't be bothered to finish them off, corp B now know their place. In conquest it doesn't matter how good you are or how much you win, a corp with more territory will always be able to beat you.
Oh and yes I know other corps could also launch attacks at the same time but based on a couple of models I ran with this example it would be possible for a corp with 10 territories to hold off 4 corps with 3 territories each by using this method and alternating between targets merely to break the sieges. Then if any of the smaller corps stopped attacking even for a day it would be possible through weight of numbers to take out all of the smaller corps one by one over a period of just over a week through weight of production vs consumption. You taking into account biomass gathered at the end of a battle, or clone loss due to travel distance, in these scenario's? also are these based on the original figures, or the ones CCP FoxFour has been posting since then?
To be honest those figures become only semi relevant and ill give you the maths behind this conclusion.
In the new system each zone generates 75 so ten generate a minimum of 750 but to be generous we will say 1/3 are boosted and produce 3x25 for a total of 825 a day. Now lets say they are being attacked by 2 corps on any particular day because of the defensive doctrine above. Now if they lost both battles it would cost the corp 75+150 per a zone they lose on. So if they lost on both it would cost 450 but it is unlikely they would consistently lose both but even so it would work out to be 825-450=375 net additional clones on top of their stockpile of 3000 to 3450 clones. Now considering profiling it is unlikely they are going to loose every battle so they would more likely have more than 375 additional clones to launch in attacks and so could afford to lose an additional 2 conflicts. So out of a total of 8 conflicts they would only need to win half to be up, and only a third if they won either of the defending fights.
On the part of the smaller corps they could on average generate 225 so they can only really afford to launch 1 attack every turn or in the case of the doctrine above launch 1 attack every second turn and recover from 1 defeat every turn second turn, they will however be fighting 4 conflicts every 2 turns so its not sustainable for them.
Now I know I'm not counting losses during winning games in this situation but really this will just accelerate the losses on both side which is worse for the smaller corp. Essentially the larger economy has more resources and therefore greater resilience and therefore can more often outlast its opponents.
Now if I was one of the smaller corps I would eventually notice this wasn't working and that up to three other small corps are depleting themselves trying to break into this territory and I would instead attack one of them while they are weakened and try and make some ground. Suddenly the only thing restraining the large corp from expanding collapses and that small corp grows along with the large one, while the others are decimated. After which you have a single mid sized corp and a large corp able to dominate the smaller corp.
It's economic theory 101 or in gambling terms the bigger corp is the house and the house and in the end the house always wins...
|
The Loathing
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
29
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 23:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
These results are likely to keep alliances more solid, since those who wish to break off and strike out on their own will stand little chance and those shifting to another alliance will need to think hard on numbers of their new alliance.
Either that or we will see masses of new alliances forming up for the sole purpose of taking down a planet and system. |
5Y5T3M 3RR0R
The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 00:06:00 -
[20] - Quote
Oh ****....
If you expand this model what will quickly happen is the largest corps will quickly expand until they bump up against another large corp and then change direction to consume other small corps through sheer weight of numbers until eventually only the largest corps remain. Based on a scenario of 250 territories and a daily conflict cycle this could happen within months of release.
Further more no one will be able to break in because even if you win a territory from a large corp they can immediately and perpetually siege the territory until you can no longer sustain your defences... |
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
2300
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 00:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
Marston VC wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Not sure if you can move in between the battle ending and the attacker's follow-up declaration or not. No, the district will be considered locked during that time. can an attacking corp attack multiple times within an hour? Say we start a battle at the beginning of the window, finnish before the hour is over, could we set up an additional attack? Pretty sure the attack is scheduled for the next RT, not continued stright after the first attack... |
Rugman91
Deep Space Republic
157
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 01:40:00 -
[22] - Quote
5Y5T3M 3RR0R wrote:Oh ****....
If you expand this model what will quickly happen is the largest corps will quickly expand until they bump up against another large corp and then change direction to consume other small corps through sheer weight of numbers until eventually only the largest corps remain. Based on a scenario of 250 territories and a daily conflict cycle this could happen within months of release.
Further more no one will be able to break in because even if you win a territory from a large corp they can immediately and perpetually siege the territory until you can no longer sustain your defences... This is a depressing notion. Would be like only the corps to take territory fastest initially would last |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
342
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
@5Y5T3M 3RR0R - you're supposition is entirely possible but highly unlikely and here's why :
Even the biggest corps will have to start from a single district (even using the multi-alt-corps methods talked about previously). No corp will instantly have 10 districts and will have to grow consistently over a number of weeks to gain that many. If a corp manages to do well enough to gain such a foothold, they deserve to be pretty strong in PC.
10 districts is 1/25 of the entire region covered by PC. There are at least 25 corps (if not 50 or even more) that are both big enough and strong enough to do well in PC and many many more corps that will be at least trying their hand at it. The big corps will know that the biggest threats to their sovereignty are the other big corps, so will likely concentrate on defending against them rather than expending resources on smaller corps that are less of a threat.
You can only send clones from one district on a single attack, so generating 750 clones from 10 districts a day, only 75 of them could be used to reinforce your attack numbers. Then you've also got to take into account the cost of moving clones and attrition rates too.
In summation: It's going to be really tough to get into a really strong position and even then it's still going to be tough to go around conquering districts and keeping numbers up to defend your own districts. Keep in mind that with this ratio of districts to corps will mean pretty much every district will be contested every day at least for the first month while this is all new and exciting. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |