We are all discussing putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound here. PC is, at best, high stakes, winner take all skirmish, at worst, an ISK faucet. Pull the plug, start over with a more meaningful Dust/EVE crossover game mode.

Some kind of Counter argument

Disband DNS and stop hugging eachother like you do now, while locking everybody else out from PC and you'll see a positive effect on PC participation...

The negative affects of these options is welcome because to the community, the coalition your involved in has negatively affected everyone else by denying them a chance to fight. So according to the community, anything that will remove DNS & N-F form PC will be greatly welcomed by all. (If you want to know where I though of this, look through the forums and see how much complaining small corps are doing).

We are all discussing putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound here. PC is, at best, high stakes, winner take all skirmish, at worst, an ISK faucet. Pull the plug, start over with a more meaningful Dust/EVE crossover game mode.

The current land holders will adapt and overcome as they always have, so these changes wouldn't remove them from participating in PC. My concern is that this could reduce or eliminate corps, especially new ones, working towards getting involved in Planetary Conquest since the promise of wealth from passive ISK would be gone. Now what we are looking at is the incentive being that players work towards forming strong organizations to fight others in order to get ISK and that could very well be a positive direction.

You have to understand that having land has the inherent negative of the game basically saying, "You will play at X time if someone chooses to attack you or you will loose this land." That negative is offset by the passive ISK and the corp programs like payroll and vehicle replacement that it can fund. As a result when you remove passive ISK entirely is could lead many corps not even trying to enter the PC arena because there is no way to set off the entry costs.

I guess it comes down to whether or not the negatives of turning off passive are outweighed by it's benefits.

I've heard lots of different views on the issue, but I would like to hear as many opinions as possible. If there was no passive ISK and you only got ISK from fighting would you want to hold land?

This would also be in light of increasing clone pack sizes back to their original 150 at the current 300k per clone cost. Fighting getting you double what you receive now but no passive ISK to prop up payroll, vehicle reimbursement, or the hiring of ringers. The only issue is you only collect the payment when you win your fights and if you can't win your fights you end up with nothing.

Remove the passive ISK completely. Have districts act like POS's in EVE that generate different amounts/types of resources. These resources can be sold to industry people (in eve) that will build all the gear/modules/etc in DUST and sell it back.

Thus you have an open market that uses generated ISK from PUB matches to determine price of the goods, that will determine the price of the resources generated from the districts. Corporations will have to sell the generated resources at prices that will reflect what the general public can afford for those goods. If no one can afford proto gear any more then resource values will drop, and when people can afford good expensive proto gear then prices will rise. Economy 101.

As for that, people will fight over the districts but they won't go out of control over the passive ISK income (******* stupid imo). This is exactly the Moon-Goo exploit that happened a few years ago in EVE, trillions of ISK flooding the game... Absurd.

Also having districts "mine planets out" of resources causing shifts in which districts hold which resources will mean that corporations will continually fight in regular (or irregular) intervals for the most valuable districts. (Resource shifting).

As for attacking districts, they need to change the mechanic completely. It should be free to attack a district, but should require reinforcement windows to win-over a districts control. (which should require new modules like TCU's in EVE).

DUST needs to reflect EVE sovereignty warfare if it is going to make any good PC mechanic.

And for the love of all that is holy we need Corp Battle's back in game so we can practice against other corps, or duke it out with those that we absolutely loathe, like Escrow and DDB and, yes you, you quebec fools (I won't even capitalize your name).

Why don't you do what you want and don't bother the community you say you want OUR feedback but you come on the forums and tell us what your planing todo and won't stray from it. You just want the community to recognize what your doing.

You say you want to let everyone fight but do you think making a clone pack cost from 36,000,000isk to 60,000,000isk is a good idea???

FYI bud your stepping 24,000,000isk in the wrong direction.

NO small corp is willing to pay more than 10,000,000isk for a clone pack just to get there butt kicked in by ancient exiles or nyisn sain PERIOD.

I've heard lots of different views on the issue, but I would like to hear as many opinions as possible. If there was no passive ISK and you only got ISK from fighting would you want to hold land?

This would also be in light of increasing clone pack sizes back to their original 150 at the current 300k per clone cost. Fighting getting you double what you receive now but no passive ISK to prop up payroll, vehicle reimbursement, or the hiring of ringers. The only issue is you only collect the payment when you win your fights and if you can't win your fights you end up with nothing.

I've heard lots of different views on the issue, but I would like to hear as many opinions as possible. If there was no passive ISK and you only got ISK from fighting would you want to hold land?

This would also be in light of increasing clone pack sizes back to their original 150 at the current 300k per clone cost. Fighting getting you double what you receive now but no passive ISK to prop up payroll, vehicle reimbursement, or the hiring of ringers. The only issue is you only collect the payment when you win your fights and if you can't win your fights you end up with nothing.

In fact, $80M is too low. The reason that CCP reduced the number of clones in the pack is because they wanted to limit the clone pack attacks. I agree with their intention but instead of nerfing the number of clones, they should have just raised the price. $120M for 200 clones sounds about right....$120M - $150M or so.

The Idea of holding land to do nothing more than defend it? No I wouldn't bother, I would fight to take it from someone but I wouldn't put effort into defending it if I don't get a benifit.

There needs to be a reason, something that makes me care, that makes me want more land than I have.

1) Ground-Based Facilities need to give HUGE bonuses to Alliances and Corporations. For Example
Gùå Research Facilities lower the time to research/produce blueprints, while increasing the number of runs per blueprint.
Gùå Production Facilities reduce the production time/resource consumption of producing items
Gùå Space Elevator Facilities allow for the transferal of resources at a faster rate than mining them by hand.
Gùå Mining Facilities while producing small amounts of resources also restrict mining in adjacent districts by Capsuleers, forcing them to either mine elsewhere or pay levies as set by the Space Elevator
Gùå Storage Facilities alloe resources to be stored on planet where EvE pilots cannot salvage/mine/steal or otherwise obtain without permission.

2) Allow Dust-Mercs to run missions to sabotage/steal resouces from these facilities
Gùå Allow Blueprint Segments to be stolen / delay completion of the current blueprint research
Gùå Allow inventory items to be stolen / delay completion of a manufacturing run
Gùå Disable Taxes Levies / Halt all interplanetary transport of materials
Gùå Disable Minning Operations
Gùå Steal Resouces

Doing this will mean people like myself will hold land not just for the sake of holding it, but because of the industrial power it can grant. Done correctly PC should provide income for its custodians, but in a far more round about way then the current method of selling surplus clones.

Well I guess it will be coming out of your wallet then not mine:)you realize that corp contracts in beta were 5-10 million right? And everyone still wants that game mode returned right? Soooooo yeah PC is gonna still be broken after fanfest in 2014.

increasing the clone pack cost and number of clones is a good idea. 120 clones definitely needs to be increased to at least 150..at most 200. But then you don't want people to just spam clone packs all the time. You want attacks to be strategic..instead of launching clone packs and hitting any district from anywhere. So, you have to increase the cost of the clone pack....$80M was a good number. I don't think it should be lower than that.

It used to cost $240M to takeover a hub. CCP got that part right

btw you just don't want smaller corps attacking your districts more often :) join me in a pub match and you will taste my laser beams

No.

My basic thoughts:
- Need incentives to attack large amounts of isk for a win from biomass and salvage
- Need incentives to hold land (not just winning the ISK by winning a defense contract) free clones, isk from biomass and salvage

- Possibility, much better EVE rewards. Since EVE is not interested in DUST at the moment, make the the rewards for holding districts & space stupid helpful to EVE players. Like, really really helpful to them.

- If no passive ISK for owning districts, than maybe DUST players can get other rewards like a "booster" By owning districts...you get more stuff when you play pubs...kinda like how when you have increased loyalty to a faction, you get stuff from their store, when when you own a district, you get higher reputation and that reputation allows pubs to be more profitable, perhaps in both terms of ISK and SP.

I've heard lots of different views on the issue, but I would like to hear as many opinions as possible. If there was no passive ISK and you only got ISK from fighting would you want to hold land?

This would also be in light of increasing clone pack sizes back to their original 150 at the current 300k per clone cost. Fighting getting you double what you receive now but no passive ISK to prop up payroll, vehicle reimbursement, or the hiring of ringers. The only issue is you only collect the payment when you win your fights and if you can't win your fights you end up with nothing.

In fact, $80M is too low. The reason that CCP reduced the number of clones in the pack is because they wanted to limit the clone pack attacks. I agree with their intention but instead of nerfing the number of clones, they should have just raised the price. $120M for 200 clones sounds about right....$120M - $150M or so.

No passive isk no reason to even have PC other than a pissing contest.

I can't disagree more.

PC would be more dead than it is now. If clone packs were cheap (10 mil) there would be fighting. You'd need to be in a god mode donut for 4 or 5 months to afford 120 mil clone packs.