| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
SirManBoy
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
69
   |
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
With these new PC rules, especially the one that allows attackers to immediately attack a district after an initial victory, why should the defender still incur an automatic loss of 150 clones after a defeat?
Consider the following scenario:
Lets say the defending side has a district with 300 clones on it. If the attackers assault this district with 300 clones, beat the defenders, kill 80 of their clones, and lose 80 of their own, why should the defenders actually lose 150? So now it's 220 vs 150 in the rematch? This seems unfair and odd within the context of this new mechanic.
What is everyone else's opinion on this? |
GLiMPSE X
Internal Error.
League of Infamy
212
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:With these new PC rules, especially the one that allows attackers to immediately attack a district after an initial victory, why should the defender still incur an automatic loss of 150 clones after a defeat?
Consider the following scenario:
Lets say the defending side has a district with 300 clones on it. If the attackers assault this district with 300 clones, beat the defenders, kill 80 of their clones, and lose 80 of their own, why should the defenders actually lose 150? So now it's 220 vs 150 in the rematch? This seems unfair and odd within the context of this new mechanic.
What is everyone else's opinion on this?
If you lose you lose.
Consider this.
You have 300 clones, you no show. If you dont destroy the 150 clones the district will never flip. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
5831
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Its punishment for not coming out to defend your sandbox. |
Knightshade Belladonna
Condotta Rouvenor
Gallente Federation
489
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Its punishment for not coming out to defend your sandbox.
Got to have them consequences :) |
ZDub 303
TeamPlayers
EoN.
754
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
If you win though, you get 160-200 back if im reading it right. (2 reinf timers worth) |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
5836
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:If you win though, you get 160-200 back if im reading it right. (2 reinf timers worth)
Only on the first match, if you lose the first match you get nailed with the defeated flag which means you're open to attack 5 minutes or 24 hours later. |
oso tiburon
The Generals
EoN.
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
welp better not lose .. its a thing call attrition when you lose you think those enemy clones just pack up and say ok bye ... **** pillage and murder ... more likley |
MlDDLE MANGEMENT
lMPurity
77
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
On the flipside if you win, they brought 300 clones with them so if you win they lose 150 and you get to keep 50% of what remains so thats 75 clones added back to your district.
Conclusion: Dont lose and more importantly LOGISTICS MATTER, because you have to balance how many clones you bring to battle if you look to followup attack balanced against the fact that if you lose 50% of you clones past 150 will go to the defender.
I foresee a lot of spreadsheets to figure out the magic number based on an individuals corps avg clone loss compared to the number need to ensure having a min 100 clones for followup attacks without risking too many for any losses that might occur. |
Iskandar Zul Karnain
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
947
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yeah, definitely need those minimum clone losses.
W/o it a losing team could just MCC camp over and over and over ad infinitum
And we all know how much we love when the other teams MCC camps in PC |
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
580
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
I agree that a minimum clone loss is necessary, I'm just not certain it should be 150.
It's not that big of a deal, in the event this is an issue the 50 clones is probably not the deal breaker. |
|
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
25188
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
If you have any feedback we would love to discuss it in the dev blog feedback thread: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=93217 |
|
SirManBoy
Molon Labe.
League of Infamy
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Wouldn't a mechanic where three straight wins (back-to-back-to-back) by the attacker results in taking the district address the camping and no showing without resulting in artificial losses for those defenders that actually fight?
Maybe I'm overanalyzing this whole thing, but something about losing clones that weren't actually lost in battle seems off to me. Defenders should be better able to lose while also costing the attacker serious losses in taking the district. Something akin to the concept of a Pyrrhic victory. |
Iskandar Zul Karnain
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
1031
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:
Wouldn't a mechanic where three straight wins (back-to-back-to-back) by the attacker results in taking the district address the camping and no showing without resulting in artificial losses for those defenders that actually fight?
Maybe I'm overanalyzing this whole thing, but something about losing clones that weren't actually lost in battle seems off to me. Defenders should be better able to lose while also costing the attacker serious losses in taking the district. Something akin to the concept of a Pyrrhic victory.
The risk for the attacker comes from the number of clones that must be sent to attack to take a district in one session.
If a minimum of 3 battles must be fought, on a full cargo hub, to take that district an attacker must realistically field between 200-300 clones so that they remain above the 100 threshold for reattack while allowing for losses. If the attack losses the first or second battle, they are losing those 200-300 clones.
A Pyrric victory would be one that an attacker had lost on previous campaigns where they had expected to take the district in one session.
ex.
Hellstorm fields 300 clones to attack PFBHz believing that they will be able to capture a district in 3 consecutive wins.
On the second battles PFBHz wins, and Hellstorm must re-attack after 48h with new clones.
On the re-attack Hellstorm is undefeated. The total minimum clones necessary for capuring this districts: 600.
This district will not be profitable if attacked before it generates those clones.
That's a long time to not be attacked. Hellstorm may have expanded its territory but certainly not its wallet.
Introducing some sort of mechanic to ease the loser is pretty ridiculous IMO.
If a defending corp finds itself about to lose a district like this they had better bring in some ringers.
|
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
5855
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
I would like to state only the first successful defense triggers the shield. |
Slen Kaleth
XCOM ENEMY UNKNOWN
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 19:40:00 -
[15] - Quote
Why not have not have it so if you lose by a certain amount, say your opponent's MCC still has 75% of its health then you lose the 150. That way if there are no shows they will lose the 150, and the Corps that do show will not be penalized. But if you get stomped then your penalized as well, so it is not a fool proof idea. |
MlDDLE MANGEMENT
lMPurity
98
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 01:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:I would like to state only the first successful defense triggers the shield.
I think you are wrong on that given what the dev blog states
If as an attacker at the end of a battle you still have a minimum of 100 unspawned clones another battle will be spawned 5 minutes later. This means that it is possible to take a district with only a few hours of fighting.
Keeping in mind that if the defenders win they get about 48 hours before the next fight.
If the attackers win but do not have 100 clones or more their remaining clones are sent back home and they have their exclusivity period to launch a follow up attack.
This means battles will have the following possible outcomes:
The defender wins. Any new attack will follow the normal rules of attack and require a minimum of 24 hours notice before happening.
========================================
If its the way you suggest that kind sucks for defenders then. Because why wouldnt you followup an attack then. Basically you drop them 150 win and then it doesnt even matter if you lose there is virtually no risk to you as an attacker even 100 clone loss is negligble.
Basically an attacker would win the first attack and even if they dont win the 2nd they further reduce your numbers and since a single loss on a district will keep the clone generation offline then you are simply reducing their numbers on the followup to a point that even if you do lose the match you arent helping the defense any unless you managed to have over 150 clones on the followup in which you at best give them 50% of the number of clones over 150 and the defense will be at a virtually no win situation for the next days followup since the district is likely be brought to such a low level of clones from the previous days 2nd followup attack.
This create a no risk situation for the attackers for that followup attack in which they dont even have to win to setup themselves up to flip the district they are almost guaranteeing themselves of flipping the district the next day even if they lose simply by dropping the defenders clone count.
A little clarity would help from a dev on this especially the part above the lines regarding the part about the defender winning and the min 24 hours for followup: since min 24 hours would guarantee the fight wont take place for 47 hours given the time of the followup attack will be under 24 hours away unless the attackers retain the special lock condition from the initial attack win. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |