| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Revelations 514
Red Star.
EoN.
73
   |
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:37:00 -
[31] - Quote
Daedric Lothar wrote:ZDub 303 wrote: My suggestion was to lock the district... meaning no clones in or out and reduced clone production as the price for electing to go for the lockdown.
Its just a way to give defenders a breather.
.....
Corp A now has 200 clones, and in 3 days Corp B will have 160 (lets say production is 60 instead of 80 for taking the repieve)
etc etc.
It makes the situation much more dynamic. I like this, its like being surrounded, a siege of the planet. However. Doesn't this mean the attacker would ALWAYS win as long as the attacker kept applying money to the equation? When would the defender resupply clones? Revelations 514 wrote:
You could just allow a half-hearted attack, and the clone count would be irrelevant.
Anyways, just an idea I thought I would throw out there.
This is exploitable, Defender could use fake corps to lock a district at the cost of only a few clones.
Very true. Good point sir. |
ZDub 303
TeamPlayers
EoN.
492
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
Daedric Lothar wrote:ZDub 303 wrote: My suggestion was to lock the district... meaning no clones in or out and reduced clone production as the price for electing to go for the lockdown.
Its just a way to give defenders a breather.
.....
Corp A now has 200 clones, and in 3 days Corp B will have 160 (lets say production is 60 instead of 80 for taking the repieve)
etc etc.
It makes the situation much more dynamic. I like this, its like being surrounded, a siege of the planet. However. Doesn't this mean the attacker would ALWAYS win as long as the attacker kept applying money to the equation? When would the defender resupply clones? Revelations 514 wrote:
You could just allow a half-hearted attack, and the clone count would be irrelevant.
Anyways, just an idea I thought I would throw out there.
This is exploitable, Defender could use fake corps to lock a district at the cost of only a few clones.
In the current system, as long as you continue to attack day after day the defender cannot resupply clones. So nothing really changes in that respect. If you win, as a defender.. you can continue to get 80-100 clones for clone production each day, same as always. Technically right now, if you continue to attack and the defender wins each time but loses more than 80 or 100 clones, they will eventually lose. That's no different than it works currently.
Let me clarify, no matter who wins.. the loser will always lose 150 clones.. which is why you can't be allowed to reup your attack at less than 150 with a system like this, and minimum amount to attack is 150 clones already iirc isnt it? So alt corp attacking will be just as exploitable in this new system as it is currently.. and I don't know anyone who is spending 150 clones per day right now locking their own district.
So it would function very similar as it does now, just with a few more options for attackers and defenders.
edit:
Unless you mean alt attacks with the 3 day lockout... hm.. I don't know good point. that could be exploitable... I don't know... |
Tallen Ellecon
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 17:34:00 -
[33] - Quote
The more strategic options given to both attackers and defenders the better. |
Oso Peresoso
RisingSuns
36
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 18:02:00 -
[34] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:I continue to get reports that players continue to find themselves fighting empty matches as enemies choose to force enemies to grind through districts without putting up a fight.
This really has to be stopped. If you aren't going to fight for your district then the mechanics need to favor the quick removal of your ownership of the land you either can't or are unwilling to protect. At the same time the rewards for fending off an attack have to be increased to ensure that a good balance is struck.
The sov-grinders up in space have wanted this for years. Good luck.  |
Patoman Radiant
ZionTCD
139
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 00:53:00 -
[35] - Quote
A fix would be one match flips a district, half defenders clones retreat, half are awarded to attacker.
plus, spending a week to take a planet or more, yea... no. That should be how fast a solar system should fall. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
682
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 01:44:00 -
[36] - Quote
i don't like the fact that current matches are skirmish only for PC and the ownerships is base on the clone count of the defending side. where are the clones being stored in they are not in the MCC or the landscape you are fighting on because if they don't show up to fight the attacker should have free roam on killing the defenders clones and take control right away. are you telling me that the clones are up in the warbarge where nothing can do anything to them and while land is unprotected and the warbarge magically loses clones from the MCC destruction?
i am in favor of the first match being an ambush(kind of a first push to a foothold) match where the attacking side has to last for a certain amount of time with the clones brought over. the second match current skirmish match where if the attacking side wins by clones the win the district but if then win by MCC the attacker loses 50% of the clones they ended with and the attacker gets 25% of the clones the attacker lost and goes onto round 3 of skirmish 1.0 or something close to it and if the attacker wins they get the district. and once after a round (after 1st and 2nd) the attacker could launch a counter attack. if after the first but before the second another ambush match and after the second but before the third a skirmish. the attacker would not have to buy more clone packs for each round because that is just silly just like how it is right now. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
526
|
Posted - 2013.06.29 02:40:00 -
[37] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:I continue to get reports that players continue to find themselves fighting empty matches as enemies choose to force enemies to grind through districts without putting up a fight.
This really has to be stopped. If you aren't going to fight for your district then the mechanics need to favor the quick removal of your ownership of the land you either can't or are unwilling to protect. At the same time the rewards for fending off an attack have to be increased to ensure that a good balance is struck.
A surrender mechanic for the corp that does not want to defend its district should be simple enough to implement.
Surrender the district, and ownership switches immediately.
Kain Spero wrote:The most job-like part of Planetary Conquest has to be essentially clocking in for 2 to 3+ days to fight for one district, and, on the flip side, being force to defend over and over against an enemy even though you repeatedly pound them into the dirt.
For attacking, I think the ideal would be a longer, multi-stage fight that has a serious sense of progression as you take the district. For now, I would be happy with having the attackers able to immediately attack the district and spawn the next match after successful fight as long as they have more than 150 clones left in their attack pool. One question would be would be whether or not if an attack has the option to immediately attack again or use the current mechanic of attack the next day. On this point I'm not sure if it should be mandatory or not for the attacks to be immediate.
I initially proposed an idea that the amount of time between a district being attacked, should depend on the number of jumps between that district and the nearest district of the attacker. The rule would also apply to clone packs.
Example, if the district you want to attack is one jump away from YOUR nearest district, you can attack daily. If it's two jumps, every two days, three jumps, three days, etc. This would essentially enforce a soft rule of zone of control.
OR
A rule that if you are attacking a district that is in a constellation that you do NOT have a district in, you can only do that once weekly. (However, it would only be one match to decide ownership, not 2 or 3)
Kain Spero wrote:I do think on the defense side of the equation if you defeat an attack, even if your attacker declares another attack in their exclusive window after the fight, it should be after two reinforcement periods. Also, you should be immune to an immediate attack again as described earlier if you reduce your attacker to less than 150 clones. If the attacker wins with less than 150 clones at the end of the battle they can attack again but it will not take place until the next day as is currently the case.
I'd you one better. Let the attacker, attack again, ONLY using the clones he has available. Leave it to the attacker to decide if he has the clones on hand to reattack. OR he can wait, to have an additional 150, and attack with fresh clones.
However, considering my prior proposals, this rule should only be implemented IF the two enemy corps are within 1 jump of each other, OR are within the same constellation.
With these ideas, there will be a reason for people to secure systems and constellations, in order to earn some respite. The rule of interval would apply to clone packs as well. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |