As I stated previously

5. Remove the minimum of 24 hrs to perform actions and make it simply timer to timer. (except changing the timer itself) If i change my timer and then want to move clones out to attack allow me to do this please. The minimum 24 hr rule on attacks is more then enough of a restriction, restricting every action to a 24 hr to 24 hr action just creates unneeded red tape. To be succint any action performed on the district that is not a timer change or an attack should not be mandated to the minimum 24 hours rule

Currently im realizing its not just killing attacks but everything in this game. Any change that is made because its being made during the reinforcement time is forcing the system to remain locked for >24 hrs. Because it will be 23 hours to the next reinforcement window EVERY time you make a change to the district.

The mechanic needs to be a timer to timer function such that actions can be conducted at the next timer. Personally i dont think it should be even limited to one action timer. But if it needs to be one action per timer fine but make the changes timer to timer. The only exception should be a change in the timer itself. If there is any change in the timer, apply the minimum 24 hr rule then. This will always result in 2 cycles before the district will unlock. Also as a safety make any changing the timer a mandatory 24 hr wait time since the last action this should prevent abuse like changing to cargo hold, adding clones and then changing timer in very short order.

===================================================================================================

TL;DR with scenarios so not really TL;DR

Everytime you make a change on a district you are doing so during the reinforcement time. Therefore it will always be 23 hrs to your next timer. The minimum 24 hr rule therefore is pushing every lockable action on a district to 47 hrs before the district will unlock.

Scenario: I have a district its timer is 0100. I make a change at 0100 (this is still <24 hrs away cause the system tracks seconds in the background but lets be realistic and say i made the change at 0101) So i make a change to the district at 0101 well now that is <24hr from 0100 so my district will remain locked past the next timer and onto the following days timer because the next 0100 is <24hrs away.

--Point is 24hr is too restricting, using 23 hrs works better. WHY? because any changes that result in a lock will still unlock the district the following day.

--What about abuse of the clone generation? Ok lets say i make a change to my timer at 0100 and change it to 0000 I made the change at 0101 and that is 0000 is now 22hrs 59mins away, cant abuse it going backwards. Okay how bout 0100 to 0200 okay so that will be a 25 hr wait period. So where is the harm?

--What about a person abusing this to rapidly change structures and then fortify their districts with clones. So What? They still have to defend, waste isk or move clones to keep resupplying them. And attacking a district brings all of that to a grinding halt.


But as it is now every actions that results in a locked state creates a 47 hr delay in future actions because of the minimum 24hr mechanic, minimum 23 hrs mechanic will do just fine because any action performed during the timer will result in an unlock at the next timer. Thus creating the request i make in pt 5 of my original post.


The biggest caveat to above is this: The minimum 23 hr rule will result in one less day of clone production of newly won districts and will force counter attacks to take place the very next day with only 1 cycle of clone generation(not sure if this is desired i understand why you have the mechanic the way it is for this scenario, it ensure any acquired district will be at least in a codition requiring 2 min 150 clone loss attacks before the territory is lost). However im not entirely sure it will be an issue because im still learning how that works because reading the blog its seems you have encoded it to ensure there will be at least 2 reinforcements on newly acquired land before an attack can take place. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate the min 23 hr mechanic and still ensure that but im still trying to think that part through.

OR

If it is at all possible to separate attack actions from everything else then it is perhaps wise to maintain the minimum 24 hr restriction on deploying clones onto an enemy district.

Thanks.

I suggested this, but as it was pointed out to me, ALT corps freaking alt corps would abuse the crap out of it.


Unfortunately there is no good answer. But i for one would rather the entry into PC be lower even if it means economic might can overwhelm.

I have suggested a few things to help mitigate it though.

1. Currently a successful defense will yield 50% of clones from any clones over 150 brought to battle. Problem is no one brings more than 150 clones. So if you are only producing 80 clones that is your buffer before you can be beaten down by attrition over time. Frankly an 80 clone loss is very easy to come by in a tough fight.

Solution: Make it 50% of clones brought to battle regardless of number. So if its 150 clones you will earn 75 of them from a successful defense, add that your 80-100 clone generation, successfully defending really pays off and makes people think 2x of just mindless throwing ISK at you. As far as how to account for such a high yield, lets simply say that from x number of clones destroyed you can salvage the parts to yield a 50% return.


2. Currently there is a minimum 150 clone movement on attack, with this you can only obtain 50% of the clone generation of the district you are attacking. That is 40-50 clones. Again makes raiding not all that profitable once you factor in clone loss to and during battle and the ISK transport cost.

Solution: Make it 100% that means you can raid a district and gain 80-100 clones for winning the attack. That is a great raiding yield while not increasing passive ISK gain.

Originally i thought lets just increase the clone generation. That would only make things worse since your are creating a larger passive ISK faucet. Now ISK generation comes from actively attacking or successfully defending.

Most important you will note is that WINNING is the predominant factor that yields your rewards.

Now if you did this and lowered the ISK cost of clone attack to 40-60M It wouldnt be so bad. Sure ppl could use their ISK printers to use more clone pack attacks but if they aren't winning then they are basically paying you to fight them. If they are winning by farming small corps well then that might be where a good MERC organization can help--Fortunately I know of such an organization ;)


I think reducing the ISK clone cost and perhaps adding a sliding scale with increased cost or increase the cost for overall usage up to a max cost after x number of uses could be another way to go. Most importantly I was told that the defensive rewards may be too high for a single successful defense so perhaps tweak the percentages.

So as line item

1. Make active participation more rewarding than passive land holding
2. Make the entry and reentry into PC lower
3. DItch the idea of trying to tweak the numbers to force localized fighting, let people battle it out all over MH and then if PC opens up create escalting costs for newer regions for pathway to entry begins in one place and as people get better and has more money will branch into higher tiers of constellations(novel idea needs more thought).
4. Start moving towards a merc model let create better EVE rewards and incentives for EVE players to hold the land and let them hire out mercs or hold dust corps to defend/attack for them.

So please make raiding more fun

But more importantly create Dust styled gamemodes around PC. Create a capture the clone facility as a CTF mode, create a demolition or domination game mode for PC that has a different way of playing the game. Create an ambush variant that works in PC, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK SKRIM 1.0.