The old system spun up battles that were for the most part empty and this costs money. Now having both sides agree would cut down on it maybe, there is no guarantee you can get or force one side to show up at all.

To quote goonswarm tactics

"Make the other guy lose the will to fight."

In the most trolltastic way would be to issue a bunch of 'friendly matches and just not show up.

I have participated in all of those actions though. We don't need the OLD system back we need a NEW system instead.

I don't see the point in biting my hand though.

I explained why old system is flawed and lack of admission on your end, unwillingness to work to move forward (where as you want to go backwards) and the type of folks you're attracting to this thread has instantly disarmed my ability to promote bringing this back in front of ccp; so thanks alot.

Oh and well done, trying to make it look like I'M the reason we won't get corporation battles now, what are you? 7 years old? Jesus H Christ can we get a real CPM to comment please?

I am certainly not advocating the return of consented challenges on your behalf. If anything it be for the T-Dome guys and CPM Kane and CPM Hans is their champion when it comes to things like that.

I don't care about you consenting anything on my behalf, you've met my concerns with childish responses and attacks on both me and my peers. Not only have I reported you, but I regard any further comment from you useless and meaningless. Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

Oh and well done, trying to make it look like I'M the reason we won't get corporation battles now, what are you? 7 years old? Jesus H Christ can we get a real CPM to comment please?

In closing, all we are really looking for is at least acknowledgement that this is possible, as it is obviously something wanted. Ccp comments on the most mundane hocus pocus but can't shoot a nod in for this?

It's possible, It's wanted, and it's something the CPM will continue to encourage CCP to consider when examining Dust 514's content lineup.

The reason you're not going to hear much from CCP right now is that they are the middle of a very high-level, long-term planning process, and its clear to me that new EP recognizes that in the past promises have been made and features discussed that were never delivered up (or took ages to deliver). This only results in more player rage, and so its absolutely crucial that long-term goals and major feature overhauls are planned out and discussed with the community only after a sober vetting process that prevents the mistakes of the past (overpromise, underdeliver) from happening all over again under the new boss.

What the majority of petitioners want in this thread right now is for CCP to come out and say "this is great, we'll do this next".....which would be about as irresponsible as getting on stage at FanFest and making a bunch of claims about what was coming in the year that was in no way realistic or deliverable based on the rate the studio was able to churn out content. I think its completely healthy for CCP to reserve comment on a feature or its future until they've discussed it internally, assessed what it would take to implement, and had a realistic idea of if/when it could be delivered.* I'm certainly not going to ask them to go back to those days, and I don't really believe that anyone here does either.

Frankly, this is one of those cases where the Shanghai studio is maturing in the way they handle discussion of future work, and it should be commended, not condemned.

Thank you for the timely informative level headed post. I will now put my torch back in its holder and my pitchfork in its bale of hay.

....and THAN you can go grab your pitchforks again if don't hear what you're looking for. Fair enough?

That was a really great post. +1

But you still need to fix something in that second to last sentence.....

....and THAN you can go grab your pitchforks again if you don't hear what you're looking for. Fair enough?

Learn to read.

First off, IWS is absolutely a "real CPM" and one of our workhorses on the team, disrespecting him isn't going to impress me, or CCP, or anyone else for that matter. If you're going to lecture about maturity, make sure you're exuding it yourself. Also - I'm not sure how long you've been around these forums, but while IWS has been blessed with the urge to post prolifically, eloquence has never been his strong suit. This is a classic case of players having an absolute meltdown over a series of extremely rational (and truthful) comments about the issue.

If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

BURGEZZ LISTEN UP!

I don't want any more hostility here. We can discus our views and opinions about what went on here on our own site.
You may by all means continue to support and reply to this thread but do not continue this argument, arguing with the devs won't change anything for the better.

The next member of burgezz to attack or disrespect the CPM or CCP on this thread or any other will be disciplined.

First off, IWS is absolutely a "real CPM" and one of our workhorses on the team, disrespecting him isn't going to impress me, or CCP, or anyone else for that matter. If you're going to lecture about maturity, make sure you're exuding it yourself. Also - I'm not sure how long you've been around these forums, but while IWS has been blessed with the urge to post prolifically, eloquence has never been his strong suit. This is a classic case of players having an absolute meltdown over a series of extremely rational (and truthful) comments about the issue.

The bottom line is this, no one (not the CPM, not CCP) is putting some foot down and refusing to deliver Corp Battles. This whole approachj of "GRAB THE TORCHES, FIRE UP THE PETITION, LETS HAVE A REVOLUTION" is a huge mistaken waste of effort, just as IWS previously said.

Here are the unadulterated facts, scrubbed of hyperbole and emotion:

1.) CCP does not respond to petitions. They have never been a recognized form of getting a feature or change pushed, They're not about to be, and signing and spamming one carries zero weight in terms of actually accomplishing what you want to accomplish.

2.) There is no need to convince either the CPM or CCP that there is plenty broken with PC, and plenty of merit in having pitched battles between corporation. I've personally brainstormed ideas with devs directly and seen interest in offering this type of gameplay in the future, the lack of them coming out and promising to work on this feature tomorrow does not mean that anyone's saying "corp battles will never happen in the future".

3.) CCP is undergoing some heavy internal examination under the leadership of the new EP, they're not ready to discuss the future of Dust at this time, but they will in the not-too-distant future. No, we cannot give you an ETA.

4.) The long-term planning taking place under the new EP will have a lot to do with what major features like this get worked on and in what order.

5.) CCP is working on dropsuits and weapons and balancing in the meantime, because work must continue, and this is low-hanging fruit they can manage without needing the long-term plans finalized yet. Work on dropsuits and balances does NOT indicate that this is the most important aspect of the game, only one that is manageable independent of the larger picture, which is still being painted.

6.) Pretending that there's some battle here between the will of the players and the will of CCP or the CPM is pointless and harmful, it wastes other community member's energy by leading them into a confrontation that is both unnecessary and only going to lessen your credibility as someone trying to make positive change.

So by all means, continue to berate IWS for sharing the truth, which is that Corp Contracts are not going to magically appear in 1.8 because you made a petition and got a bunch of people angry at a perceived slight. Corp contracts will also not return in their previous form, certainly not tied to Faction Warfare and certainly not without some of the design issues addressed in the process. Will they return in some form, some day? I certainly hope so, as do all of the rest of the CPM. No one's fighting the -idea- of corp contracts, all IWS is trying to explain is that stamping our feet and bumping threads is not going to be the way this gets implemented.

If any of MY statement above is factually untrue (such as devs EXPLICITLY declaring they will not be re-implementing a corp contract system or providing corps freedom to create their own content at districts) , feel free to correct me here. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to dowse the torches and send everyone home from the riot party with the comfortable knowledge that there's no need to obnoxiously bump threads and lead a faux revolution just to "be heard". You've been heard by the CPM, you've been heard by CCP, everyone knows PC is broke and corp contracts were more fun, and all there is left to do is to chill for a bit until the new EP can share with you his plan for the future.

....and THAN you can go grab your pitchforks again if don't hear what you're looking for. Fair enough?

Thank you,

Moving forward we have to recognize that this will be calling for a new feature not an old one.

So taking that opportunity to start "with a clean slate" on how to make this feature fun how would you go about it?

The 'if you could design it' sort of thinking here and we'll try to work out issues as we imagine them.

Thank you Hans, that is an awesome answer and exactly what I believe everyone here has been looking for. I never wanted anything more or less than that, I believe that answer for now will suffice what I have been looking for. I know nothing of the mechanics, why the two systems can't interact or why any of this couldn't happen anyway. You've explained that to me, and I thank you for it.

I apoligise for hostility towards you IWS, but perhaps you owe me a similar apology.

Much appreciated Hans. This is all we were asking for.

So by all means, continue to berate IWS for sharing the truth, which is that Corp Contracts are not going to magically appear in 1.8 because you made a petition and got a bunch of people angry at a perceived slight. Corp contracts will also not return in their previous form, certainly not tied to Faction Warfare and certainly not without some of the design issues addressed in the process. Will they return in some form, some day? I certainly hope so, as do all of the rest of the CPM. No one's fighting the -idea- of corp contracts, all IWS is trying to explain is that stamping our feet and bumping threads is not going to be the way this gets implemented.

If any of MY statement above is factually untrue (such as devs EXPLICITLY declaring they will not be re-implementing a corp contract system or providing corps freedom to create their own content at districts) , feel free to correct me here. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to dowse the torches and send everyone home from the riot party with the comfortable knowledge that there's no need to obnoxiously bump threads and lead a faux revolution just to "be heard". You've been heard by the CPM, you've been heard by CCP, everyone knows PC is broke and corp contracts were more fun, and all there is left to do is to chill for a bit until the new EP can share with you his plan for the future.

....and THAN you can go grab your pitchforks again if don't hear what you're looking for. Fair enough?

Sorry for being a military hard ass, sometimes notion of boot ramming up someone's posterior to the point they're tasting leather gets the better of me at times.

Tbh, I don't think there was anything bad with the "old feature"

There was no "no showing" as it would be pointless to accept the contract if you were going to no show. Both sides made a bet. Winner took the pot. It was pretty good.

Only problem now looking back at it, I don't think their should be eve support. As eve support should be for PC. I also think there should be a hard cap of how much isk can be bet. Also, I think you should be able to choose how many players can be in the battle. A sort of slider maybe?

I also believe that no isk should be made to individuals in the battle. Only the corp should receive the isk amount that both sides put in first.