|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Unclaimed.
532
   |
Posted - 2013.05.21 14:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Daedric Lothar wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:To me it would make more sense for a clone loss to occur in this situation than from transport over long journeys. If someone attacked from the same place over and over again, a military would take precaution and fortify defences against their actions.
This will play out when EVE gets the ability to fly MCCs. No need to artifically make it important now
I'm thinking maybe it's a good point.
The whole reason CCP put in clone attrition based on # jumps between districts was to simulate clone loss via EVE transport.
If that is true, it might make sense to add a second attrition mechanic for repeated attacks fron the same clone base. Enemies would definitely exploit and punish clones being shipped from a predictable location.
Proposal: First two attacks no attrition, it goes up after that. It should be a function stongly dependent on the number of location an attack could be launched from, weighted inversely with clone attrition from number of jumps.
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Unclaimed.
532
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 18:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Deluxe Edition wrote:Cass Barr wrote:What Cubs said. Server latency and preferential battle times that can't be changed when you take a district both conspire to give one side or the other a very significant advantage before the battle even starts ^This... Chronos has been constantly throwing Clones at teamplayers in order to keep us at 2pm Eastern time timers. It seems W/L doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is keeping the fights at 2pm EST when most of our alliance is at work. The attackers have way to much power in deciding timers.
This is a separate issue from trying to realistically model clone attrition for game design testing purposes.
But it is a good point, and deserving of it's own thread. Timer mechanics we prolly want CCP to take a second pass at. |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Unclaimed.
533
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 01:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ignatius Crumwald wrote:I think after x number of defeats in a given district you should be able to attack an LZ to lock out attacks from that corp for x number of days. If they want to continue to harass you they need to defend the LZ.
This would also be a cool way to completely run someone off of a planet for awhile.
Ignatius! Welcome back, been a while, no? |
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD
Unclaimed.
536
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 13:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Let them keep attacking. It's expensive as hell to maintain a war of attrition like that so what do I care if another corp wants to waste their money on long term attacks?
I'm thinking corps are still living off the fat from the market repricing that came with Uprising.
Even the biggest landholders in PC are only generating enough ISK for 2 maybe 3 attacks a day. PC gear is expensive, but some peeps are making ISK off PC still. The rest has to come from previous savings and member donations.
When corps and alliances have foolishly burned through their coffers, watching your expenses will be important and things will change a lot with PC. |
|
|
| |
|