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

Flyingconejo wrote:

Thanks for sharing the incoming changes with us, and for trying to fix some of the problems Planetary Conquest have. That said, I can't say that I liked many of those incoming changes. I think they will make PC more static and risk averse than it is now. But I will wait and see before talking about them.

However, there is one thing that has troubled me enough to write about it now. I think you have made harder for new corps to enter PC by themselves. This is because two of the changes you have made:

1) Genolution pack gives you only 100 clones.

2) A follow up attack is only allowed if you win.

1) Means that a corp that has no districts and wants to enter PC, will have to attack at least with a 3 to 1 clone disadvantage, unless they are lucky enough to find a district that is not full.

2) Means that you need to win 2 or 3 battles in a row to take a district. If the defender wins even only one of those battles, he will have 2 reinforcement cycles (160-200 clones) before the next attack, so their clone reserves would be at full capacity again. Which means the attacker is back to the start point in most cases, and makes conquering a district against a better opponent by attrition almost impossible.

The combination of 1) and 2) makes very difficult for corps that are not already in PC to enter Molden Heath by themselves. In most cases, they have to attack with 100 clones against 300, and at least win 2 battles in a row to conquer a district. It is cheaper, yes, but their chances of being successful are lower. They may pull it off if they are a very good corps, but lets be honest here, the very good corps are already in PC.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 30 post(s)
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 77	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:04:00 - [31] - 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.
BursegSardaukar Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 197	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:05:00 - [32] - Quote I'm assuming the minimum clone move has been decreased to 100 as well?

CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 25180	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:06:00 - [33] - Quote BursegSardaukar wrote: I'm assuming the minimum clone move has been decreased to 100 as well? No, that is still 150.

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 577	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:06:00 - [34] - Quote 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.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1723	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:10:00 - [35] - Quote The minimum clone loss is there to make sure that non cargo hubs are taken in 2 consecutive wins and cargo hubs in 3. Reducing this increases the number of consecutive wins required which we think gives the defender too much advantage and reduces some of the volatility of these changes. We did consider the implications of dropping the minimum loss to 100 but decided it was not worth the cons.

Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 578	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:10:00 - [36] - Quote 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.
Aeon Amadi A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. League of Infamy 1870	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:10:00 - [37] - 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. Might be sleep deprivation but I dont understand this.
Aeon Amadi A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. League of Infamy 1870	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:12:00 - [38] - 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. Now, is that lack of momentum strictly from game mechanics or because there arent enough corporations actively engaging one another to make it interestingm because reducing costs on clone packs is definitely going to invite more players into the field.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 578	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:13:00 - [39] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: The minimum clone loss is there to make sure that non cargo hubs are taken in 2 consecutive wins and cargo hubs in 3. Reducing this increases the number of consecutive wins required which we think gives the defender too much advantage and reduces some of the volatility of these changes. We did consider the implications of dropping the minimum loss to 100 but decided it was not worth the cons. There's only a handful of corps out there that will be able to withstand this. There are going to be a lot of tears over the weekend.
Flyingconejo KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 152	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:14:00 - [40] - Quote Thanks for sharing the incoming changes with us, and for trying to fix some of the problems Planetary Conquest have. That said, I can't say that I liked many of those incoming changes. I think they will make PC more static and risk averse than it is now. But I will wait and see before talking about them. However, there is one thing that has troubled me enough to write about it now. I think you have made harder for new corps to enter PC by themselves. This is because two of the changes you have made: 1) Genolution pack gives you only 100 clones. 2) A follow up attack is only allowed if you win. 1) Means that a corp that has no districts and wants to enter PC, will have to attack at least with a 3 to 1 clone disadvantage, unless they are lucky enough to find a district that is not full. 2) Means that you need to win 2 or 3 battles in a row to take a district. If the defender wins even only one of those battles, he will have 2 reinforcement cycles (160-200 clones) before the next attack, so their clone reserves would be at full capacity again. Which means the attacker is back to the start point in most cases, and makes conquering a district against a better opponent by attrition almost impossible. The combination of 1) and 2) makes very difficult for corps that are not already in PC to enter Molden Heath by themselves. In most cases, they have to attack with 100 clones against 300, and at least win 2 battles in a row to conquer a district. It is cheaper, yes, but their chances of being successful are lower. They may pull it off if they are a very good corps, but lets be honest here, the very good corps are already in PC.

MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 77	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:16:00 - [41] - 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.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 553	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:18:00 - [42] - Quote @conejo It's all good man, didn't you get the memo, they just want to crank up the ISK faucet for their friends in the good ol' boys club. Broken PC is broken and will continue to be broken until any ISK generated is generated Actively through PvE that can be interfered with. Until then, it's just the good ol' boys club.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 578	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:19:00 - [43] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: 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. Might be sleep deprivation but I dont understand this. Poor wording perhaps. I'm supposed to be working! If you lose by MCC destruction, you lose a minimum of 150 clones. I think this should be lowered to 100 clones.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 1723	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:19:00 - [44] - Quote Flyingconejo wrote: Thanks for sharing the incoming changes with us, and for trying to fix some of the problems Planetary Conquest have. That said, I can't say that I liked many of those incoming changes. I think they will make PC more static and risk averse than it is now. But I will wait and see before talking about them. However, there is one thing that has troubled me enough to write about it now. I think you have made harder for new corps to enter PC by themselves. This is because two of the changes you have made: 1) Genolution pack gives you only 100 clones. 2) A follow up attack is only allowed if you win. 1) Means that a corp that has no districts and wants to enter PC, will have to attack at least with a 3 to 1 clone disadvantage, unless they are lucky enough to find a district that is not full. 2) Means that you need to win 2 or 3 battles in a row to take a district. If the defender wins even only one of those battles, he will have 2 reinforcement cycles (160-200 clones) before the next attack, so their clone reserves would be at full capacity again. Which means the attacker is back to the start point in most cases, and makes conquering a district against a better opponent by attrition almost impossible. The combination of 1) and 2) makes very difficult for corps that are not already in PC to enter Molden Heath by themselves. In most cases, they have to attack with 100 clones against 300, and at least win 2 battles in a row to conquer a district. It is cheaper, yes, but their chances of being successful are lower. They may pull it off if they are a very good corps, but lets be honest here, the very good corps are already in PC. So you have to deal with this already because losing a fight sets you back 80-100 clones on your war of attrition, costing another clone pack to finish the job. The real big change is the geno packs are now only 30mil instead of 80 so the net result is cheaper even counting a loss along the way.

STABBEY WarRavens League of Infamy 54	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:22:00 - [45] - Quote Flyingconejo wrote: Thanks for sharing the incoming changes with us, and for trying to fix some of the problems Planetary Conquest have. That said, I can't say that I liked many of those incoming changes. I think they will make PC more static and risk averse than it is now. But I will wait and see before talking about them. However, there is one thing that has troubled me enough to write about it now. I think you have made harder for new corps to enter PC by themselves. This is because two of the changes you have made: 1) Genolution pack gives you only 100 clones. 2) A follow up attack is only allowed if you win. 1) Means that a corp that has no districts and wants to enter PC, will have to attack at least with a 3 to 1 clone disadvantage, unless they are lucky enough to find a district that is not full. 2) Means that you need to win 2 or 3 battles in a row to take a district. If the defender wins even only one of those battles, he will have 2 reinforcement cycles (160-200 clones) before the next attack, so their clone reserves would be at full capacity again. Which means the attacker is back to the start point in most cases, and makes conquering a district against a better opponent by attrition almost impossible. The combination of 1) and 2) makes very difficult for corps that are not already in PC to enter Molden Heath by themselves. In most cases, they have to attack with 100 clones against 300, and at least win 2 battles in a row to conquer a district. It is cheaper, yes, but their chances of being successful are lower. They may pull it off if they are a very good corps, but lets be honest here, the very good corps are already in PC. They already said if the defender loses 1 and wins 1 they do not get the reinforcements.
MlDDLE MANGEMENT lMPurity 77	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:23:00 - [46] - 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.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 5831	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:24:00 - [47] - Quote Shadowswipe wrote: If they have a cargo hub, they can withstand 3 attacks before losing the district. Does this mean that we can have 3 battles in one day as long as we have 100 clones left after the second battle? Or is it limited to only two fights a day? As long as you have 100 clones and the enemy has some number of clones left after a successful attack you can re attack the district shortly after the battle ends If they successfully defeat your attack in the first go you and everyone else gets locked out for 2 days If you win, re attack then lose then you have to wait the next day to strike again.
Iskandar Zul Karnain Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 940	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:24:00 - [48] - Quote +1 I had my caps lock on standby but CCP delivered. I like that lower rates of attrition and cost for Genolution packs will increase volatility in Molden Heth. Newer corps will have an easier time getting into PC, while richer alliances will think less of the risks involved for fielding an attack. Expect war FoxFour. Multi-stage districts take overs is an excellent feature, and I'm pretty happy to see that it's made its way into PC so soon. Thanks! This creates incentive for strong corps to attack with numbers much greater than 100 clones in hope of taking a district in one sitting. It's also risky because if they lose they lose those clones. This will also increase volatility because we could in theory scale a massive assault and, if undefeated, take multiples districts very, very quickly. I like it.
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers EoN. 754	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:27:00 - [49] - Quote while we're talking about PC. Any thoughts on removing precision strikes from PC TTG? Its the only way we'll have a true eve-dust link in PC battles.
Gabriella Grey XERCORE E X T E R M I N A T U S 4	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:29:00 - [50] - Quote Loved the Dev Blog True Grit! Great humor and very informative!

Preda The Collector Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 13	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:29:00 - [51] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Graphs are hot. YEP!
Zhar Ptitsaa SyNergy Gaming EoN. 110	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:31:00 - [52] - Quote So these changed are better! not 100% sure on the 5 minute thing but we'll see. I'm surprised you haven't tried to fix the EVE-Dust link because thats the main sale point of this game, But atleast you are making some improvements!

CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 25182	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:32:00 - [53] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: while we're talking about PC. Any thoughts on removing precision strikes from PC TTG? Its the only way we'll have a true eve-dust link in PC battles. We would like to remove them and would also like to make getting an orbital strike like how it was during the tournament at Fanfest. EVE pilots do something to get it.

Sampson David Molon Labe. League of Infamy 26	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:44:00 - [54] - Quote Great job on the dev blog! +1 for communicating with us more over the past several weeks! My question is when will we see SI that actually look like research labs? Storage hubs? Production facilities? What about adding a fourth SI called a transportation hub that EvE players can look onto to help reduce attrition and cost of moving clones from planet to planet or system to system?
reydient ROGUE SPADES EoN. 28	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:46:00 - [55] - Quote I think the momentum can be related to this There are few other underlying issues- 1.) people are still grinding out SP because they feel its required to be better contenders 2.) some people do not under stand the dynamics of PC and politics i.e its just a first person shooter to most 15 year olds 3.) Its really difficult as a merc to see the rewards of PC - now that gaining more isk is an incentive maybe people will petition there corps to open up the wallet for salary based play ( isk )
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers EoN. 762	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:46:00 - [56] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: while we're talking about PC. Any thoughts on removing precision strikes from PC TTG? Its the only way we'll have a true eve-dust link in PC battles. We would like to remove them and would also like to make getting an orbital strike like how it was during the tournament at Fanfest. EVE pilots do something to get it. no kidding? great to hear! You guys are doing some seriously cool stuff here. Keep it up!

CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 25204	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:49:00 - [57] - Quote reydient wrote: I think the momentum can be related to this There are few other underlying issues- 1.) people are still grinding out SP because they feel its required to be better contenders 2.) some people do not under stand the dynamics of PC and politics i.e its just a first person shooter to most 15 year olds 3.) Its really difficult as a merc to see the rewards of PC - now that gaining more isk is an incentive maybe people will petition there corps to open up the wallet for salary based play ( isk ) 3 is a really big one and is why we are working on designing a system in which ISK is earned by members of corporations who own districts actively and corporations can TAX that.

ZDub 303 TeamPlayers EoN. 767	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:50:00 - [58] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: 3 is a really big one and is why we are working on designing a system in which ISK is earned by members of corporations who own districts actively and corporations can TAX that. Bringing visibility to everyone in the corp, neat idea!
oso tiburon The Generals EoN. 110	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:54:00 - [59] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: reydient wrote: if you defend your district successfully are you safe from all attackers or just the one particular? All we are doing is saying if the attacker loses the battle they lose their exclusivity. Which was the only thing that let them get an attack in the following day. It effectively means anyone can now attack the district, including the attacking corporation that just lost, but the battle will not happen for at least 47 hours. clone loss after losing is a little steep but the ability to attack right after a victory makes it nice you either keep on a roll or find out it was a fluke either way no more lonjg drawn out dist flips nice touch too on the 47 hour gap if defender wins it makes sense the mcc was pew pewed so itll take a day or so for the next wave
Ani X United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 77	Posted - 2013.07.09 19:00:00 - [60] - Quote Many thanks for the dev-blog and the numbers & graphs. A few of my personal thoughts and one question: I like the new rules regarding immediate re-attack and extra reinforcement cycle, assuming the extra cycle locks the district for attacks by any attackers, not just the attacker that lost the battle. I also appreciate that clone sell prices and bodymass prices have been increased. I also think it is favorable that small corps are encouraged to get a piece of PC by cheaper geno clone packs, so the power blocks are kept on their toes somewhat ("blue donut"). However, as far as I can tell from experience and the new numbers, owning a district is still not attractive enough. (As you mentioned in your blog, it is difficult to make predictions though, just my personal assumptions) If you own a district that is attacked every day or every second day that district will likely be a loss from a business perspective. (Assuming averages, not an elite corp) The actual reason to own a district would be to prevent a competitor to own the same district with-out being attacked. But honestly, you can be almost happy to loose a district, knowing that the new owner will have the same problems. Some of the new numbers are in favor for the business model "small elite corp takes a district and sells it right away". This is a legit business model but it shouldn't be the only profitable if PC is a mode for more than two or three corps. I also would like to see much higher value of geo-strategical aspects, i.e. it should be more important which districts you own, on which planet, in which system. Front-lines make it easier to predict the number of battles a corp or alliance is going to risk in a foreseeable distance. And it would give some kind of homeland or hinterland that is rather safe and could compensate for losses by battles in frontline districts. For achieving this: Avoid spamming of clone packs, i.e. purchasing geno packs should be restricted, e.g. one pack per cycle. In a future release you could even require a corp to have some kind of POS in orbit where they want to drop the clone pack. I also don't like the change to attritions... they could be slightly changed in favor of research labs, but the costs should be high. Last, but not least, one important question: Will Uprising 1.3 also improve technical issues we had in Planetary Conquest battles?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page