OSG is an example of a Corp, and in some cases individual players, that simply off-ramped and are paying for it. We know that and arenGÇÖt whining about it; we are working to fix things on our end. HoweverGǪyou not acknowledging the significant ways the playing field is stacked in your favor in many ways doesnGÇÖt make you any better than those pointing fingers and griping.

In my honest (and completely unworthy of discussing PC-related matters) opinion, the underlined part is what really doomed the current version of PC. You guys reached the point to where buying your services pretty much guaranteed a victory; naturally, such a setup automatically favored the older/richer corps that could afford you all as opposed to the smaller corps that were looking to make a name for themselves. The moment smaller corps could begin to mount any sort of threat to the older/big corps they could call mercs in and put the problem to bed for good.

If PC is going to become anything more than what it currently is, there needs to be some sort of penalty for bringing in outside help--for example, a small loss of clones (in the actual battle) for each ringer brought in (with smaller penalties for bringing in alliance members) to promote the idea of corporations being self-sufficient. I also think that there should be some of limit placed on a player's ability to fight in PC match after PC match to reduce the ability of a corp to rely almost exclusively on their "A" team. It could be something like having a "travel time" that prevents you from fighting in one district and then immediately fighting in another; such a change could make strategy have a much more prominent role in battles as corps would have to decide where to divvy up their best talent if they're facing multiple battles.

Last but not least, strength in numbers should actually mean something. A corporation of 2,000 mediocre players should pose an equal--if not greater--threat than a smaller corp of top-tier players.

Just my two cents.