DUST Search - Announcement:Dev Blog: Balancing the Conquest of Planets

Leither Yiltron wrote:

I'm afraid that the new reattacking system is another buff to small teams of core players, which is already the predominant mode of operation in Planetary Conquest for the moment. Basically it allows for a dynamic timer manipulation at the cost of clones. Here's the scenario:

MLG Pro Skeelz [MPS] is a small corp with around 100 characters in it. Counting alts and activity, their nightly PC contingent is a core of 16 players who are on the bleeding edge of SP gain (18 mil +). As such their win ratio in PC would probably be over 50% without the gear advantage. With it, they're consistently pulling up to 70-80%.

Immense Elitists [IEL] is a much larger organization. They have 500+ characters, and so they can run two teams simultaneously if they want to on a given night. They have two very competitive teams with but with average 9mil SP per players (so they're out-geared by MPS)

IEL have a numbers advantage and so they attack 2 of MPS's districts. District 1 (D1) is attacked with 150, and D2 with 166. D1 and D2 have the exact same reinforcement time. Let's say for the sake of argument that the two battles queue up at the exact same time, and that both are Cargo Hubs.

MPS see that they can't defend both at the same time. Here's what they do. We're going to assume that the FIRST battle on D2 lasts just as long as the battle on D1.

MPS fight D1 on the first battle. Their gear and skill allows them to win handily. D1 locks by the new defense rules.

Meanwhile they don't show up to D2 for the first battle. It takes just as long. IEL have 150 clones by the end.

The second fight for D2 initiates. IEL and MPS fight, MPS again win handily. The district locks due to the new defense rules.

If IEL reattack IMMEDIATELY on both districts, this will be the state of both districts when those attacks happen:

D1 = full on clones | generates 160 between two days

D2 = 450 - 150 (first defense no show) - 100 (second defense win) + 80 (second day's reinforcement) = 280

So now MPS defend D2 in the first attack and noshow on D1. Same outcomes, IEL reattacks:

D1 = 280 by the same math as D2 the last time

D2 = 280 - 100 (win first defense) + 160 (two days of reinforcement) = 340 !!!!!

So basically a core team with a gear advantage can now defend DOUBLE the districts in the same hour of reinforcement. Now there are some things to be said about adjacent hours, but in general keep in mind that this is costing IEL a lot of clones as well and morale isn't improving by facing the same team of 18mil+ SP players who you can't beat with tactics because of the gear difference.

Also keep in mind that IEL has to have tons of resources to do this: at least 6 districts because of some timer mechanics I discussed previously.

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

I already dropped Fox a line about this other thing, but so that we can all chew on it together:

You can't beat competitive teams with 100 clones in a PC match, simply from experience. I'm afraid that the 80 clone number was skewed by corps who fought in the first week or so of PC for 1 or two matches and then stopped attacking as their clone pack assaults failed.

If that's the case, the 100 clones per clone pack number is too low in general. Leaving it at this number will make corps wishing to clone pack go very selectively for those organizations that can't sport strong A-teams that have a high chance of killing your 100 clones before MCC victory is anything like possible. That is to say, they'll strangle new corps in the crib.

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

Ani had something to say about the cost-benefit analysis of holding a district earlier, and I'd like to emphasize some commentary on a line from the dev blog:

Dev blog wrote:

Basically it means you guys are bad at math, calculating ROI, estimating risk, those kind of things... OR what it means is you just want to have fun... in a video game... Who knew?

I know that ROFL has poured over the cost-benefit analysis of districts extensively. Running a corp in PC is kinda more like running a government than a corporation. Your goal is not to make money, it's to provide a service and also (as quoted) to have fun. Most people will fight until the coffers run dry because what else is there to DO with the ISK?

There's also a very sticky point to the mathematics, and that's the opportunity cost of fighting for a district. Fighting over a district will, in general, cost you 1 mil ISK per person per battle in gear. We'll ignore the opportunity cost of the clones you use in the battle, as that will even make it WORSE.

Fighting a PC battle takes about an hour: at LEAST 30 minutes of prep time (almost definitely more), and about 25 minutes of fighting.

In pub matches you can make about 750k/man-hr. This ISK is virtually guaranteed. For one PC battle then it's 12 million you could have been making in pubs with that 16 man team. (750*16*1)

Fighting a PC battle for clones at 50% win ratio (assuming binomial distribution, which we haven't been able to test against) is like this. Gear loss is 16mil no matter what. 50% of the time you get clone ISK back. I'll use the new clone number and approximate 250 destroyed clones.

.5(150*250) - 16000 = 2750k = 2.75mil

Keep in mind that 16million is lowballing horribly on gear loss. It's much higher with tanks and the current price of gear.

So you could either get a guaranteed 12 million ISK playing for an hour with those 16 people in pubs, or you could get an EXPECTED 2.75mil ISK in a PC match. That expectation is a horrible number to use, too, because it ignores so many other factors involved with PC matches. Risky factors.

Going into PC is an opportunity loss of ISK unless you don't get attacked, AKA don't fight, AKA don't have fun.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 30 post(s)
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 77	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:04:00 - [1] - Quote What is the minimum clone movement and what is the minimum clone loss after defeat, still 150 or is it now to reflect the new change in genolution packs? For clarity the minimum clone loss i refer to is the number of clones lost for MCC destruction and in instance when the real number of clones lost is less than the minimum number(currently its 150; in the original iteration when geno packs were 100 it also was 100) Here is the dilemma. A new corp takes an EMPTY district(unlikely as more are to be taken over, will work those numbers in a second). So 100 clones are placed on a district and it enters a locked state as it should. I assume Min 48 hr rules still applies to newly taken districts (empty, taken over) then that will generate 160-200 clones resulting in 260-300 clones vs 260-300 vs 300-310 clones on the district at time of attack. The numbers i get this is are as follows Old numbers 150+80+80=310 which will be 300 on a research lab and 310 on a cargo hub 150+100+100=300 on a Production facility(300 max clones), excess sold off. New numbers 100+ 80+80=260 on both labs and cargo hubs (making cargo hubs a very risky prospect for takeover because it will be at roughly 50% max capacity on new takeover) 100+100+100=300 which works well for prodcution. Based on this i would advise production facilities as the major attack and defense target to stay near maximum levels and have the best buffer to consistent attacks. Point is 150 clones minimum loss with only a 80-100 clone generation may have some weird effects. Now here is the major point 150 min clone loss is still needed mainly because requiring a minimum 100 clones to relaunch attacks without adding additional clones will make followup attacks past a 2nd attack very difficult, so taking over cargo hubs will be a 2 day prospect which is fine, but if the min clone loss is dropped to 100 it will be difficult to get 3 total attacks on a non hub with the min 100 clone requirement for followup. The next question is about ceasing a followup. There is a 47hr delay if a defender successfully defend. What if an attacker wins but doesnt followup for the 5 min attack either because they chose not to (is this even an option) or they lack the 100 clone needed for followup, will the reattack take place 23 hrs later or 47 hours later? Ill post more stuff as i work scenarios through in my head, but this came to me first so ill start here. As always more of it will crystalize as its seen in action.
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 77	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:16:00 - [2] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: We were just talking about in our corp chat. I don't think you should lose the minimum 150 clones if the MCC is lost with these new dynamics. To avoid the redline hiding, maybe lower it to 100. Nope if you drop it to 100 you are looking at 3-5 followup attacks and you arent going to have enough clones for that 3 followup attack unless you bring 300 clones at the least. Avg clone loss migh be 80 but i know that number shoots up in hard fights. So yea for steamroll fights you can get away with it but otherwise executing more than 2 followups in a single attack with the min 100 clone requirement is very unlikey.
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 77	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:23:00 - [3] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: I love it, although I think that you should be able to attack again even after a loss immediately. There are going to be a ton more fights from this, but I think the only downtime should be after a district trades hands. Would take away the importance of winning, imo. Theres minimum clone loss so why fight at 110% when you can just burn the enemy out on defending? I like that defenders can get a moment to breathe before being attacked again if they worked hard to keep their district, especially with the threat of multiple attackers over other districts. If they don't have 100 clones they wouldn't be able to. In other words you could attack with 300 clones. Lose the first battle, but have 150 clones remaining. Technically you could win the 2nd and still have 100 clones remaining to fight a 3rd. This sounds interesting to me. Yeah but wheres the line get drawn exactly? I mean, defenders have to rally up a team, fight and then have to fight again no matter what just because the attackers launched an attack from a cargo hub on a research facility? Theyd lose just because of clone loss as theres no way to fend off the larger amount. Wed just see endless cargo hubs all over the place, especially with the new reduced attrition numbers. I think the Cargo Hub everywhere thing is a given with these new mechanics. If people want to produce more clones for more isk, then there's your risk. You could lose it within an hour. The biggest complaint from people is the lack of momentum in PC. Well you are looking at 100M ISK to convert each of these districts to hubs. Add to this it wont matter if it slows people down to 2 days of followup which is better than 3, it will create a large hole on players with only 80 clone generation on hubs you will see these things fall like dominoes in time because the hubs wont be abe to keep up with clone loss and min clone movement. With 150 clone loss and movement it will keep hubs in check with only 80 clones for followup. If anything this will force corps to diversify their districts between hubs and production facilities. Research labs were pretty much useless before this update and now they are even less so, since why have a hub to be able to fight even further away when its simpler to just establish a satellite district in a differnt part of space. There is absolutely no reason for research lab.
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 83	Posted - 2013.07.09 19:21:00 - [4] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: The new defense system seems even more carebear than before. Why should a single failed attack from one corp make a district impervious of attack from other corps for 2 days? Yes actually winning a fight is carebearish
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 83	Posted - 2013.07.09 19:55:00 - [5] - Quote The raid mechanic you know 50% of clones for successful attacks. Lets say i attack and win, I have more than 100 clones and decide to follow up. What happens to those 40-50 clones i just raided for a successful attack? Do they go back to my home district immediately or are they added to my clone count for the followup attack. Next question, do i get a 50% for each followup attack so if i attack say 2 times and its a cargo hub will i get 40 from the district for each attack?
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 83	Posted - 2013.07.09 20:11:00 - [6] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: Parson Atreides wrote: How exactly is clone stealing going to work with the new "100+ clones means you get to attack again" deal. What if as the attacker I win, thereby stealing a number of clones (let's say 40), but only have 61 clones left after the battle? Does the 40 I stole get added to 61, thus giving me 101 clones and a chance to attack again right away? Clones stolen because of a win go straight back to the district the attack was launched from. They are not counted towards the 100 minimum. They cannot be used in the immediate follow up attacks. What about the followup attack can do you get a second round of clones to steal?
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 94	Posted - 2013.07.09 23:26:00 - [7] - Quote Leither Yiltron wrote: I'm afraid that the new reattacking system is another buff to small teams of core players, which is already the predominant mode of operation in Planetary Conquest for the moment. Basically it allows for a dynamic timer manipulation at the cost of clones. Here's the scenario: MLG Pro Skeelz [MPS] is a small corp with around 100 characters in it. Counting alts and activity, their nightly PC contingent is a core of 16 players who are on the bleeding edge of SP gain (18 mil +). As such their win ratio in PC would probably be over 50% without the gear advantage. With it, they're consistently pulling up to 70-80%. Immense Elitists [IEL] is a much larger organization. They have 500+ characters, and so they can run two teams simultaneously if they want to on a given night. They have two very competitive teams with but with average 9mil SP per players (so they're out-geared by MPS) IEL have a numbers advantage and so they attack 2 of MPS's districts. District 1 (D1) is attacked with 150, and D2 with 166. D1 and D2 have the exact same reinforcement time. Let's say for the sake of argument that the two battles queue up at the exact same time, and that both are Cargo Hubs. MPS see that they can't defend both at the same time. Here's what they do. We're going to assume that the FIRST battle on D2 lasts just as long as the battle on D1. MPS fight D1 on the first battle. Their gear and skill allows them to win handily. D1 locks by the new defense rules. Meanwhile they don't show up to D2 for the first battle. It takes just as long. IEL have 150 clones by the end. The second fight for D2 initiates. IEL and MPS fight, MPS again win handily. The district locks due to the new defense rules. If IEL reattack IMMEDIATELY on both districts, this will be the state of both districts when those attacks happen: D1 = full on clones \| generates 160 between two days D2 = 450 - 150 (first defense no show) - 100 (second defense win) + 80 (second day's reinforcement) = 280 So now MPS defend D2 in the first attack and noshow on D1. Same outcomes, IEL reattacks: D1 = 280 by the same math as D2 the last time D2 = 280 - 100 (win first defense) + 160 (two days of reinforcement) = 340 !!!!! So basically a core team with a gear advantage can now defend DOUBLE the districts in the same hour of reinforcement. Now there are some things to be said about adjacent hours, but in general keep in mind that this is costing IEL a lot of clones as well and morale isn't improving by facing the same team of 18mil+ SP players who you can't beat with tactics because of the gear difference. Also keep in mind that IEL has to have tons of resources to do this: at least 6 districts because of some timer mechanics I discussed previously. ===================== I already dropped Fox a line about this other thing, but so that we can all chew on it together: You can't beat competitive teams with 100 clones in a PC match, simply from experience. I'm afraid that the 80 clone number was skewed by corps who fought in the first week or so of PC for 1 or two matches and then stopped attacking as their clone pack assaults failed. If that's the case, the 100 clones per clone pack number is too low in general. Leaving it at this number will make corps wishing to clone pack go very selectively for those organizations that can't sport strong A-teams that have a high chance of killing your 100 clones before MCC victory is anything like possible. That is to say, they'll strangle new corps in the crib. ===================== Ani had something to say about the cost-benefit analysis of holding a district earlier, and I'd like to emphasize some commentary on a line from the dev blog: Dev blog wrote: Basically it means you guys are bad at math, calculating ROI, estimating risk, those kind of things... OR what it means is you just want to have fun... in a video game... Who knew? I know that ROFL has poured over the cost-benefit analysis of districts extensively. Running a corp in PC is kinda more like running a government than a corporation. Your goal is not to make money, it's to provide a service and also (as quoted) to have fun. Most people will fight until the coffers run dry because what else is there to DO with the ISK? There's also a very sticky point to the mathematics, and that's the opportunity cost of fighting for a district. Fighting over a district will, in general, cost you 1 mil ISK per person per battle in gear. We'll ignore the opportunity cost of the clones you use in the battle, as that will even make it WORSE. Fighting a PC battle takes about an hour: at LEAST 30 minutes of prep time (almost definitely more), and about 25 minutes of fighting. In pub matches you can make about 750k/man-hr. This ISK is virtually guaranteed. For one PC battle then it's 12 million you could have been making in pubs with that 16 man team. (750161) Fighting a PC battle for clones at 50% win ratio (assuming binomial distribution, which we haven't been able to test against) is like this. Gear loss is 16mil no matter what. 50% of the time you get clone ISK back. I'll use the new clone number and approximate 250 destroyed clones. .5(150*250) - 16000 = 2750k = 2.75mil Keep in mind that 16million is lowballing horribly on gear loss. It's much higher with tanks and the current price of gear. So you could either get a guaranteed 12 million ISK playing for an hour with those 16 people in pubs, or you could get an EXPECTED 2.75mil ISK in a PC match. That expectation is a horrible number to use, too, because it ignores so many other factors involved with PC matches. Risky factors. Going into PC is an opportunity loss of ISK unless you don't get attacked, AKA don't fight, AKA don't have fun. Your numbers are off, if at any point a defender takes a loss their facility goes offline and remains offline.