could see a single match being best 2 of 3 or something, after each map go back to lobby and 10min countdown begins again for subs etc.

I would also like to see the ability of the defender to choose the side it wants. Honestly its only fair being the owner of a district to start on the side you prefer.

but none of this should even be discussed until we can get PC matches running smoothly for every single person on this game that chooses to participate, regardless of their geographic location.

This doesn't seem fair..

If they paid the investment in clones to get the district.. They should do what they want with it. You are taking away their rights to do with their land as they please.

This is what I posted in the CCP PC Feedback thread... I think it could really work.

Attacker Wins:
Allow a couple options for when an attacker wins their first PC battle on a district:
1. Option for a follow up attack in 10-30m. Follow up attacks would use the same clones that you already have on the district from the first attack, incentivizing the use of more than 150 clones per attack. You can follow up attack a maximum of 2 more times (and claim a district immediately).

2. Option to reinforce attack. This leaves the current amount of clones on the district attacking, and allows you to send more to reinforce for another attack tomorrow.

3. Option to withdraw from attacking. This sells off the clones and unlocks the district to be attacked by someone else tomorrow.


Defender Wins:

1. There should be an option to place a 3 day lock out timer on the district with reduced clone production. First night produces no clones, second and third night reinforces with 40% clone production. There is a slight penalty for doing this but allows defenders to take a break if they need it.

2. no lockout, 100% clone reinforcement immediately. (This is what happens now.)

Same 1 hour timer to make a decision, if timer expires then we default to Option 3 for attackers and Option 2 for defenders.

Pretty spot on. I'm not sure about a 3 day lock, but I do like the fact that you reduce production for increased defense. For option 3 for the attacker winning I would say return the clones to the district they came from unless it was a gen pack attack. In that case they get sold off.

I do like the reinforce idea you put forward in Option 2. It makes sense that the clones are parked on the district and you reup the side of the attack. The only change I would make is that I really think that if you take a huge numbers hit in your first attack and drop below 150 clones you don't get access to Option 1.

This is what I posted in the CCP PC Feedback thread... I think it could really work.

Attacker Wins:
Allow a couple options for when an attacker wins their first PC battle on a district:
1. Option for a follow up attack in 10-30m. Follow up attacks would use the same clones that you already have on the district from the first attack, incentivizing the use of more than 150 clones per attack. You can follow up attack a maximum of 2 more times (and claim a district immediately).

2. Option to reinforce attack. This leaves the current amount of clones on the district attacking, and allows you to send more to reinforce for another attack tomorrow.

3. Option to withdraw from attacking. This sells off the clones and unlocks the district to be attacked by someone else tomorrow.


Defender Wins:

1. There should be an option to place a 3 day lock out timer on the district with reduced clone production. First night produces no clones, second and third night reinforces with 40% clone production. There is a slight penalty for doing this but allows defenders to take a break if they need it.

2. no lockout, 100% clone reinforcement immediately. (This is what happens now.)

Same 1 hour timer to make a decision, if timer expires then we default to Option 3 for attackers and Option 2 for defenders.

the only argument to that zdub is matches are scheduled ahead of time. This allows corps time to set up personnel ensure availability etc.

Having an option to attack 30min later....right after a match will not work out well I don't think.

Ppl get on for wars and often log off after. Not everyone is like us nolifers and I don't think its wise to force people to be on longer than they want.

Scheduling the mass attack using the current tim ing system I think has greater potentail to appeal to everyone. Otherwise its will come down to corp A taking even greater advantage of the timers and availability of corp B than it already is

3. Option to withdraw from attacking. This sells off the clones and unlocks the district to be attacked by someone else tomorrow.

Actually, I think that the ability to attack immediately actually is better for those that want to get on and get off rather than fighting the same hour 2 to 3+ days in a row. Often times a lot of time gets put into to preparing for a battle as well and with the current mechanics all of that preparation has to be repeated for several days in a row.

O I agree this could be a cool option. I thought zdub was suggesting corp a wins and right THEN would get to choose for the immediate reup 10m later...

Im just saying this should be scheduled ahead of time, or at the very least require confirmation from both sides before the attack is allowed to go through on such short notice.

Im all for anything that brings back any of the old socom feel... wars best 2 of 3 maps but that was literally a single room with the 3 maps. 1st map over, back 2 lobby for 5min countdown then straight into next map etc.

For PC I think the skirmish 1.0 setup could be utilized for attacking a district in 1 go... at least from what I've heard about 1.0

IMO, This sounds like a 'retreat' option. In the case of a 'retreat', I think the defenders should get the attackers' clones that they leave behind. Or maybe a portion of them. I dunno.

PC is a unique monster to tackle. I don't usually participate in PC but I will give my opinion anyways. I agree that the problem is burn out do to routine and lack of players. I would like to see a battle that lasts hours or even days with changing front lines. To me a 15 minute battle is too quick and only encourages the use of top players. If the battles lasted all day and allowed us to advance towards a main goal as we capture smaller points then we could use more of our corp mates and any awoxing would have a lesser effect on outcome. Skirmish 1.0 is a good start but there should be more objectives over a larger area. It would also allow for more tactics and better use of dropships. The biggest problem is the burn out rate due to overuse and poor mechanics.

I like this idea a lot.

Honestly the burnout, PC lagging issues and odd defend/attack times have left a lot of players out in the cold. Can't tell you how many times the attack/defend times are just impossible to get people on.

IMO, This sounds like a 'retreat' option. In the case of a 'retreat', I think the defenders should get the attackers' clones that they leave behind. Or maybe a portion of them. I dunno.

Daedric, when I say open to immediate attack I only mean after the usual initial wait and then a subsequent victory. If at any point an attacker is defeated when pressing the attack then I think that should trigger a 2 day or maybe even 3 day wait as Zdub suggested. The key for me is that victory through fighting should be properly rewarded, and not fighting or defending your holdings should be punished.

Maybe the solution there is to limit the lockout to the corporation that did the attack. This could help alleviate dummy corps being used to lock down a district.

On the grief option to reduce clone production that why Zdubbs suggestion that it be an option to lockdown the district at reduced clone production makes sense. If you want to be free from attacks after a victorious defense you have an associated cost. If you are ready to defend again then go for full clone production, but be open to attack.

That seems legit. if clone production is VERY limited when a district is locked up, then that can stop exploiting. Maybe possibly limiting the transfer of clones to and from that district so they cannot lock themselves and keep resupplying from other districts, I can see this possibly being an issue when there is a integrated economy and clones can be bought and sold in EVE. I would hate to see them lock themselves only to just keep fully resupplying their clone counts to be very hard to kill.

Example: If down the road, a maxed out district can hold like 600 clones, then you would have to win 4 fights against them. If they lose 3 in a row but win the 4th, they could lock the district for 3 days, resupply themselves and then you have to win 4 in a row to take it from them.

That seems legit. if clone production is VERY limited when a district is locked up, then that can stop exploiting. Maybe possibly limiting the transfer of clones to and from that district so they cannot lock themselves and keep resupplying from other districts, I can see this possibly being an issue when there is a integrated economy and clones can be bought and sold in EVE. I would hate to see them lock themselves only to just keep fully resupplying their clone counts to be very hard to kill.

Example: If down the road, a maxed out district can hold like 600 clones, then you would have to win 4 fights against them. If they lose 3 in a row but win the 4th, they could lock the district for 3 days, resupply themselves and then you have to win 4 in a row to take it from them.

Yeah the numbers can always be tweaked, and I do like returning the clones to district... but do you pay travel costs both ways?

Regardless, its the core idea that matters... I think the winners of each battle need more options... and the ability to reup would be huge and some sort of lockout so defenders can take a breather.. if not 3 days.. maybe down to 2 days with 40% per day or something. It can just get wearing have to defend 4-5-6 times in a row...

I really wanna say no to the minimum clone count for reup but you are probably right... no need to waste everyone's time on a halfhearted attack.

However.. there is another thing to consider.. if clones aren't being sold off every battle.. then there are no individual payouts. I think a record of each battle, with all of the participants.. where directors of a corp can individually issue a contract payout to reimburse each player would be necessary. It also adds a new layer of complexity to economic warfare, as corps would have to fulfill the contracts themselves (which makes sense cause its player generated content!) and if their members don't get paid...

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.

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.

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?






This is exploitable, Defender could use fake corps to lock a district at the cost of only a few clones.

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?






This is exploitable, Defender could use fake corps to lock a district at the cost of only a few clones.

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.

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 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 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.