DUST Search - Planetary Conquest - Consideration To fair play

Gizanimo elderer wrote:

Denn Maell wrote:

There are many things wrong with PC right now. 'Hiring out' defenders/attackers isn't one of them. As one of the above posts said we are mercenaries. Hiring other mercs to do what we won't or can't is part and parcel.

Planetary Conquest isn't about a fair test of corp on corp. There is no game mode right now that facilitates that kind of back and forth. In planetary conquest you are trying to take over at least one planet. You are supposed to do everything in your power to make sure you keep your districts and the other guys don't. Non Megalomaniacs need not apply.

That being said, yes even in that context it is broken. We have only the option of trying to capture other districts and no options to sabotage or raid in a feint battle while the bulk of your corp comes in at another district for the main assault. Farming is a major issue, giving corps the ability to amass passively a vast amount of wealth for doing nothing. And there is nothing like an Isk Sink wide enough to swallow all the excess Isk.

-snip-

There is a lot wrong with PC and using dummy corps and needing everyone else to fight the battle for them is pure BS! I can understand 3,4 allies fitting the group. But 14 outside players... Really?

The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gizanimo elderer Ivory Vanguard 1	Posted - 2014.02.02 03:22:00 - [1] - Quote My thoughts are when buying a clone pack to place on a district; A corporation should expect the corporation placed should be the people actually fighting the battle. The last PC we set had 15 people from our corporation and a single outside player to fill the spot. The other side had (2) two - YES 2 people from the corp the package was placed for, and 14 people from one of the largest corporations currently seen in PC battles. I believe at least 2/3 of the team should actually be the corporation the battle is set for and if they cannot commit to the battle it should be considered a loss. 2 out of 16 is simply ridiculous- period! The need to call on 14 ringers to manage the district is beyond fair play. I understand the importance of alliances; However the dummy corp syndrome and the need to go to that extreme to maintain the district is cheap and handled more in the direction of filthy cheaters. If I wanted to battle the people from the corp we ended up fighting, I would have put a clone package on their district. What intensifies this even more is the incredible amount of local channel spamming that was done by the corp that only 2 yes (2) two players showed up for. There are people actually trying to have a good time with this game, and far too many people simply taking advantage of the over sights from CCP planning. I hope these issues are considered sometime in the very near future.
KingBabar The Rainbow Effect 1735	Posted - 2014.02.02 03:39:00 - [2] - Quote LOL so cute. This is a game for mercs. Look it up. http://s1286.photobucket.com/user/KingBabar/media/BannerKingbabarcopy.png.html
Draco Cerberus BurgezzE.T.F Public Disorder. 745	Posted - 2014.02.02 08:15:00 - [3] - Quote Hmm, so take away an opportunity to make isk... that seems so much not at all like what we do around here, not that I am against fielding your own team but... if the other way is so much more successful then why not? Edit: The corp that I belong to generally tries to field our own team before hiring but then again we did lose all our districts due to the same situation you describe. LogiGod earns his pips
Gizanimo elderer Ivory Vanguard 2	Posted - 2014.02.02 22:17:00 - [4] - Quote KingBabar wrote: LOL so cute. This is a game for mercs. Look it up. So you do not see problem with locked districts tied up with shell corporations keeping game play unbalanced for every other player, not to mention what could be considered counterfeit ISK feeding these groups? Please explain to me where this can be considered anything less than exploiting the system? Your reply sounds like it is coming from a clone that has been through corporations like crap through a goose. It isn't a secret what is going on in the broken world of Planetary Conquest and it will only take time and they will be maintaining districts for themselves with no takers and what then will it be? This isn't playing the game, it is exploitation plain and simple. Beyond that it is certain that new players have zero chance at all thus not continuing with the game. It is not doing anyone any favors. I know as long as the shell ( dummy ) corporation thing keeps going the way it is, it won't be long and there will be no reason to even have PC. So as far as the corporations guilty of this action, they are cheaters. They are cheating every other player considering DUST 514 and slowing the progress of market stability which is required to tie the market together and open it up for player trade. Some simply call it fraud in the real world. Not to mention slowing progress by continuing an unbalanced trade. How do you think CCP will ever get it right trying to work out everything they need to while turning their heads to obvious fraud by the genius of a few corporations. I play EVE too and it took years to get it the way it is now with this same action taking place. If it continues with DUST 514 this early in the development stages, it won't last another year, people would rather use their time playing something that they enjoy. This is becoming a bleak outlook over all. I would like to see DUST 514 grow, not chase away new players 13 days into their honest attempts.
Gizanimo elderer Ivory Vanguard 2	Posted - 2014.02.02 22:21:00 - [5] - Quote Draco Cerberus wrote: Hmm, so take away an opportunity to make isk... that seems so much not at all like what we do around here, not that I am against fielding your own team but... if the other way is so much more successful then why not? Edit: The corp that I belong to generally tries to field our own team before hiring but then again we did lose all our districts due to the same situation you describe. Not take away the ability to make ISK, jus do it fairly. I have ISK. My corp has ISK. We made it fair an square. Not finding new mechanics exploits to take advantage of at every turn. Sometimes one needs to know when to pull away from an unwinnable situation and people are developing those ideas right now. Just because one CAN, doesn't always mean you should.....
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 137	Posted - 2014.02.02 22:41:00 - [6] - Quote There are many things wrong with PC right now. 'Hiring out' defenders/attackers isn't one of them. As one of the above posts said we are mercenaries. Hiring other mercs to do what we won't or can't is part and parcel. Planetary Conquest isn't about a fair test of corp on corp. There is no game mode right now that facilitates that kind of back and forth. In planetary conquest you are trying to take over at least one planet. You are supposed to do everything in your power to make sure you keep your districts and the other guys don't. Non Megalomaniacs need not apply. That being said, yes even in that context it is broken. We have only the option of trying to capture other districts and no options to sabotage or raid in a feint battle while the bulk of your corp comes in at another district for the main assault. Farming is a major issue, giving corps the ability to amass passively a vast amount of wealth for doing nothing. And there is nothing like an Isk Sink wide enough to swallow all the excess Isk. The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.
Gizanimo elderer Ivory Vanguard 2	Posted - 2014.02.02 22:51:00 - [7] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: There are many things wrong with PC right now. 'Hiring out' defenders/attackers isn't one of them. As one of the above posts said we are mercenaries. Hiring other mercs to do what we won't or can't is part and parcel. Planetary Conquest isn't about a fair test of corp on corp. There is no game mode right now that facilitates that kind of back and forth. In planetary conquest you are trying to take over at least one planet. You are supposed to do everything in your power to make sure you keep your districts and the other guys don't. Non Megalomaniacs need not apply. That being said, yes even in that context it is broken. We have only the option of trying to capture other districts and no options to sabotage or raid in a feint battle while the bulk of your corp comes in at another district for the main assault. Farming is a major issue, giving corps the ability to amass passively a vast amount of wealth for doing nothing. And there is nothing like an Isk Sink wide enough to swallow all the excess Isk. I have to disagree with your logi / heavy thought. At least they are a team working in tandem, when the logi goes down the heavy is now on a timer set on his certain demise. A rail rifle on the other hand is an over ranged over powered WEAPON that can cut through all the complex shields and armor you can fit in much to short of time. I do not understand how CCP can recognize past errors, then correct them, only to begin failed the process over again. Same problem, just gave it a different name.
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 138	Posted - 2014.02.03 00:54:00 - [8] - Quote Gizanimo elderer wrote: Denn Maell wrote: There are many things wrong with PC right now. 'Hiring out' defenders/attackers isn't one of them. As one of the above posts said we are mercenaries. Hiring other mercs to do what we won't or can't is part and parcel. Planetary Conquest isn't about a fair test of corp on corp. There is no game mode right now that facilitates that kind of back and forth. In planetary conquest you are trying to take over at least one planet. You are supposed to do everything in your power to make sure you keep your districts and the other guys don't. Non Megalomaniacs need not apply. That being said, yes even in that context it is broken. We have only the option of trying to capture other districts and no options to sabotage or raid in a feint battle while the bulk of your corp comes in at another district for the main assault. Farming is a major issue, giving corps the ability to amass passively a vast amount of wealth for doing nothing. And there is nothing like an Isk Sink wide enough to swallow all the excess Isk. -snip- There is a lot wrong with PC and using dummy corps and needing everyone else to fight the battle for them is pure BS! I can understand 3,4 allies fitting the group. But 14 outside players... Really? I'm not understanding somethings you're saying here. Dummy Corps? Please explain. Also, you can see bringing in 3 or 4 outsiders, but more mercenaries being 'hired' by players to fight for players should not be? Why? Granted, I would love a mechanic where if you hire an almost complete different team they then have the option of 'capturing' the district they just defended. There simply isn't enough back-stabby things to do to the larger corps right now. The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.
abarkrishna WarRavens 287	Posted - 2014.02.03 03:32:00 - [9] - Quote Dummy corps are a great idea. It is kind of like the trojan horse. All is fair in war. I suggest you read the art of war. There is a lot more to war than just shooting people. Sure you may have felt ripped off but that's life. If you do not like it the door is over there somewhere. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
bogeyman m Learning Coalition College 59	Posted - 2014.02.05 06:38:00 - [10] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: Granted, I would love a mechanic where if you hire an almost complete different team they then have the option of 'capturing' the district they just defended. There simply isn't enough back-stabby things to do to the larger corps right now. Seriously. If you hired more than 3/4 of your team as mercenaries, why wouldn't they be tempted (and able) to keep the planet in question for themselves? I think that would solve the OP's concern right there as it would be a very effective self-correcting mechanism.



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page