DUST Search - Return Passive Isk to PC

Alaika Arbosa wrote:

KA24DERT wrote:

Alaika Arbosa wrote:

The "undo button" should never be pressed because: Passive Isk was always a bad idea and the forum knew it before PC had even been officially released.

Returning Passive Isk will not fix the problem, it will only cause it to get worse. There is no incentive to fight because none of you actually want to fight, you simply want to farm. It was obvious way back when that that is what would occur and what happened? If you really wanted to fight, you wouldn't care about going negative fiscally, you'd be fighting for the fights and doing it in [STARTER_FIT]s if that is what it took.

Now the former farmers are crying for the return of their meal ticket, I say let the Passive Isk stay dead and move forward with developing some other reasonable method of incentivizing participation in PC. There should definitely be a way by which PC is a profitable endeavor, however, this profit should not come in the form of free Isk just for sitting on a District.

The old method was silly and made no sense in the context of New Eden. Comparing the old PIG faucet to its closest corollary in Eve (Moon Mining), you find that PC is as close to risk free isk as you can get in New Eden. You sit on a District and poof, your Corp Wallet starts ticking up numbers while you kiss your neighbors ass to not attack you so you can both farm in peace...

1) SO, returning isk to PC wonGÇÖt incentive-ize people to fight? The amount of PC activity is basically DEAD compared to how it was with passive isk.

2) Ok, so if people run prototype gear in pubs, thatGÇÖs protostomping, and if people run proto in PC, thatGÇÖs being fiscally irresponsibleGÇª so where do people run their high-end gear, work hard, and turn a profit? Why even have high end gear then?

I get your other points about how the mechanic makes no sense, but given that updates to Dust are now delivered exclusively via limited Hotfixes, weGÇÖre not getting real markets and weGÇÖre not getting PVE. This greatly limits the amount of risk and effort that can be added into ISK generation via districts.

I say put passive ISK back, lower the generation rate, fix locking, and limit timers so corps canGÇÖt hoard land.

The alternative is to have the game continually grow stale due to lack of incentive.

1) I never said that returning Passive Isk to PC wouldn't incentivize people to fight. It would, though it would result in the same thing that happened before and if you think otherwise, you're a fool.

2) When did I say that running PRO gear in PC was fiscally irresponsible? I didn't, you twisted my words to create that statement. If you are participating in PC with it's increased payouts and you can't stay in the black while running PRO, you shouldn't be running PRO gear in PC, simple as.

Adding Passive Isk back into the mix will only recreate the debacle we had before, we need many, many things done before Passive Isk should even be a consideration.

I love how you completely gloss over my assertion about fighting for the fights, save to twist my words into something that I didn't say.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 649	Posted - 2014.10.10 12:13:00 - [1] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Like i said before both mechanics current and past are sh*t don't choice one over the other make a whole new PC mechanic that works don't bring back something that has been proven that it is easily broken. The question is can we get an idea for a new mechanic that won't be so easily exploitable? I don't like this implications of the word "exploitable" to describe the previous state of PC. It took a LOT of hard work on the part of everyone engaged in warfare to keep and hold land, and the passive ISK was the carrot on the stick to encourage such effort. That ISK inspired the best content that ever happened in this game, 3 humongous wars with infighting and backstabbing galore. And now what? You can play in PC and win, but if you lose enough suits you still come up negative. Who the hell wants to raise armies, organize practices, and run grueling campaigns for THAT? Removing passive ISK killed the high-end content in this game, and bringing that ISK back will get that content flowing again. Was it an isk faucet? YES, but the game needs a real source of income. Was the Isk Faucet too big? YES! But that can be fixed by TURNING DOWN THE FAUCET. Were corps hoarding too much land? YES. But if you want to prevent people from squatting on too much land (relative to their size), then reduce the time slots available for timers! Make it so that timers can only be set at two hour intervals and a corp can only hold 12 districts unless they can field two teams. Totally removing all passive ISK from PC was an excessive measure with nothing to replace the mechanic, and it's time to get over that dogma and hit the undo button.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 650	Posted - 2014.10.10 22:48:00 - [2] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: KA24DERT wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: The question is can we get an idea for a new mechanic that won't be so easily exploitable? I don't like this implications of the word "exploitable" to describe the previous state of PC. You may not "like the implication", but it's true. Planetary Conquest was never really free of rampant district locking and blue doughnuting that has characterized the majority of it's lifetime. I thought you were referring to exploiting the core mechanics of PC, not the bugs in PC. Yep, district locking and other unintended consequences should be addressed. Also, blue donuts in Dust were NEVER as stable as blue donuts in Eve, even with all the bugs and flaws in PC. The donuts were always crumbling and being reformed. Content was always being generated right up to the point where the incentive was removed.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 650	Posted - 2014.10.10 22:51:00 - [3] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: KA24DERT wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Like i said before both mechanics current and past are sh*t don't choice one over the other make a whole new PC mechanic that works don't bring back something that has been proven that it is easily broken. The question is can we get an idea for a new mechanic that won't be so easily exploitable? I don't like this implications of the word "exploitable" to describe the previous state of PC. It took a LOT of hard work on the part of everyone engaged in warfare to keep and hold land, and the passive ISK was the carrot on the stick to encourage such effort. That ISK inspired the best content that ever happened in this game, 3 humongous wars with infighting and backstabbing galore. And now what? You can play in PC and win, but if you lose enough suits you still come up negative. Who the hell wants to raise armies, organize practices, and run grueling campaigns for THAT? Removing passive ISK killed the high-end content in this game, and bringing that ISK back will get that content flowing again. Was it an isk faucet? YES, but the game needs a real source of income. Was the Isk Faucet too big? YES! But that can be fixed by TURNING DOWN THE FAUCET. Were corps hoarding too much land? YES. But if you want to prevent people from squatting on too much land (relative to their size), then reduce the time slots available for timers! Make it so that timers can only be set at two hour intervals and a corp can only hold 12 districts unless they can field two teams. Totally removing all passive ISK from PC was an excessive measure with nothing to replace the mechanic, and it's time to get over that dogma and hit the undo button. The "undo button" should never be pressed because: Passive Isk was always a bad idea and the forum knew it before PC had even been officially released. Returning Passive Isk will not fix the problem, it will only cause it to get worse. There is no incentive to fight because none of you actually want to fight, you simply want to farm. It was obvious way back when that that is what would occur and what happened? If you really wanted to fight, you wouldn't care about going negative fiscally, you'd be fighting for the fights and doing it in [STARTER_FIT]s if that is what it took. Now the former farmers are crying for the return of their meal ticket, I say let the Passive Isk stay dead and move forward with developing some other reasonable method of incentivizing participation in PC. There should definitely be a way by which PC is a profitable endeavor, however, this profit should not come in the form of free Isk just for sitting on a District. The old method was silly and made no sense in the context of New Eden. Comparing the old PIG faucet to its closest corollary in Eve (Moon Mining), you find that PC is as close to risk free isk as you can get in New Eden. You sit on a District and poof, your Corp Wallet starts ticking up numbers while you kiss your neighbors ass to not attack you so you can both farm in peace... 1) SO, returning isk to PC wonGÇÖt incentive-ize people to fight? The amount of PC activity is basically DEAD compared to how it was with passive isk. 2) Ok, so if people run prototype gear in pubs, thatGÇÖs protostomping, and if people run proto in PC, thatGÇÖs being fiscally irresponsibleGÇª so where do people run their high-end gear, work hard, and turn a profit? Why even have high end gear then? I get your other points about how the mechanic makes no sense, but given that updates to Dust are now delivered exclusively via limited Hotfixes, weGÇÖre not getting real markets and weGÇÖre not getting PVE. This greatly limits the amount of risk and effort that can be added into ISK generation via districts. I say put passive ISK back, lower the generation rate, fix locking, and limit timers so corps canGÇÖt hoard land. The alternative is to have the game continually grow stale due to lack of incentive.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 651	Posted - 2014.10.12 09:06:00 - [4] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: KA24DERT wrote: Also, blue donuts in Dust were NEVER as stable as blue donuts in Eve, even with all the bugs and flaws in PC. The donuts were always crumbling and being reformed. Content was always being generated right up to the point where the incentive was removed. Sometimes the names changed, but it was almost always the same people. When it was removed, 99% of the game was controlled by a single alliance, because everyone just switched to the winning side any time they weren't winning rather than actually fighting. (Props to Outer Heaven and What the French for being incredible outliers in this regard.) So the people behind EoN were the same people as those behind N-F? Go tell Mavado that. Yes, many of the same foot soldiers were involved in the various wars(and you can blame that on CCP and their horrible NPE/player retention), but different leaders were behind many swings of the pendulum. Also, what you're saying is that the donut created by Kane, which was partially created as propaganda piece to show why passive ISK is bad, is why passive ISK is bad... And even that propaganda piece was falling apart the second it was born, as FA, AE, Nyan San, ERA and others were all sharpening their knives for the inevitable backstab. That war would still be raging, but instead of taking moderate measure, the whole thing was nuked from orbit, and a war that would probably still be raging was extinguished. The main problem with PC back then was the ability to hoard land(hiding behind many timers and self-locking), the lack of 150 clone attack packs, and excessive passive ISK. Fix that and you open PC up to more corps. Removing all the ISK was excessive and unnecessary, and effectively killed the high-end content in this game.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 651	Posted - 2014.10.12 21:25:00 - [5] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: KA24DERT wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: The "undo button" should never be pressed because: Passive Isk was always a bad idea and the forum knew it before PC had even been officially released. Returning Passive Isk will not fix the problem, it will only cause it to get worse. There is no incentive to fight because none of you actually want to fight, you simply want to farm. It was obvious way back when that that is what would occur and what happened? If you really wanted to fight, you wouldn't care about going negative fiscally, you'd be fighting for the fights and doing it in [STARTER_FIT]s if that is what it took. Now the former farmers are crying for the return of their meal ticket, I say let the Passive Isk stay dead and move forward with developing some other reasonable method of incentivizing participation in PC. There should definitely be a way by which PC is a profitable endeavor, however, this profit should not come in the form of free Isk just for sitting on a District. The old method was silly and made no sense in the context of New Eden. Comparing the old PIG faucet to its closest corollary in Eve (Moon Mining), you find that PC is as close to risk free isk as you can get in New Eden. You sit on a District and poof, your Corp Wallet starts ticking up numbers while you kiss your neighbors ass to not attack you so you can both farm in peace... 1) SO, returning isk to PC wonGÇÖt incentive-ize people to fight? The amount of PC activity is basically DEAD compared to how it was with passive isk. 2) Ok, so if people run prototype gear in pubs, thatGÇÖs protostomping, and if people run proto in PC, thatGÇÖs being fiscally irresponsibleGÇª so where do people run their high-end gear, work hard, and turn a profit? Why even have high end gear then? I get your other points about how the mechanic makes no sense, but given that updates to Dust are now delivered exclusively via limited Hotfixes, weGÇÖre not getting real markets and weGÇÖre not getting PVE. This greatly limits the amount of risk and effort that can be added into ISK generation via districts. I say put passive ISK back, lower the generation rate, fix locking, and limit timers so corps canGÇÖt hoard land. The alternative is to have the game continually grow stale due to lack of incentive. 1) I never said that returning Passive Isk to PC wouldn't incentivize people to fight. It would, though it would result in the same thing that happened before and if you think otherwise, you're a fool. 2) When did I say that running PRO gear in PC was fiscally irresponsible? I didn't, you twisted my words to create that statement. If you are participating in PC with it's increased payouts and you can't stay in the black while running PRO, you shouldn't be running PRO gear in PC, simple as. Adding Passive Isk back into the mix will only recreate the debacle we had before, we need many, many things done before Passive Isk should even be a consideration. I love how you completely gloss over my assertion about fighting for the fights, save to twist my words into something that I didn't say. And what exactly was wrong with what happened before? It was constant non-stop warfare! Was it ALL bad? Or was it great content that needed some tweaks? Some more accessibility to the action via bigger clone packs? Who fights for the fights? Look at the current level of activity in PC vs back when passive ISK was in the game. The lack of passive ISK has formed the most stable blue donuts in this game's history. Greed is Good. The removal of passive ISK threw the baby out with the bathwater, those wars were the closest Dust ever got to generating a New York Times headline.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2014.10.13 19:47:00 - [6] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: I fight for the fights, I don't participate in PC because I have no intention of kissing ass to be a part of the incrowd and I have neither the manpower nor the deep pockets for ringers. I'm speaking from experience and close observation, and you're not. Nobody who was close to the action, or at least watching Dustcharts or Dotlan would ever deny that there was constant warfare during the passive ISK days. Even admitting to donuts is admitting to warfare. Where do donuts come from? Fighting people for their land. Then they quickly fall apart due to infighting(greed), and because someone else wants to take over the map and make their own little empire. Rinse, repeat. It provided the best content in this game's history, and the problems with it(accessibility, number of timers, hoarding, locking) can be addressed. I think that some clever person could think of a GREAT system to replace passive ISK, but the best proposals are unlikely due to the restraints on Dust development activity. You've all been brainwashed that passive isk is inherently bad, and that may be true, but you are totally ignoring what is possible given the situation, and totally ignoring, via ignorance or selective reasoning, the GOOD that came with passive ISK.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:15:00 - [7] - Quote Dust User wrote: Actually, there was way more fights going on before passive ISK got removed. At least for those of us that wasn't scared to fight back. Stop making statements that are empirically provable. You're ruining the populist tear-circle.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2014.10.14 05:50:00 - [8] - Quote After careful analysis, I think it's safe to ignore the opinion of anyone in this thread who uses the word "tryhard" as an insult. "Hey, you there, you are trying! And dare I say, you are probably trying HARD! I mock you for your efforts! Which are greater than my efforts, and this is a wrongness! So I will call you out on your labors, and you should feel bad at your labors are being highlighted!" I also like how so many people here call those wars "farming". Like it took 0 effort or something. The only corp in this game that could probably be accused of outright farming is Nyan San. Just about everybody else fought tooth and nail to attack and defend. People who use tryhard as an insult should have no sway over PC. The psychology of someone who uses that type of slur isn't fit for competitive gaming. I'd rather be a tryhard than a tryNOT.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 655	Posted - 2014.10.15 06:16:00 - [9] - Quote Passive ISK, with the following changes, is the most feasible proposal to revive this game's high-end content, while requiring minimal dev time: 1) Limit timers to 1 per hour. Every district can have their timer changed, but only to x:00. This will mean that a corp that can reliably field a team 24 hours a day can hold 24 districts. If they want more than 24 districts, they'll need to be able to field 2 teams for at least one timer. If they want to sleep, then they can probably hold 12 districts, etc. This will greatly reduce land hoarding and open up land for smaller corps, especially with the new 150 clone attack pack. 2) Lower passive ISK payout Previous payout was too high, but with the throttle on how many districts you can actually hold and defend, the amount it should be lowered by can't be too much. Do those things, and you WILL have wars again, with greater accessibility to weaker/smaller corps. Add your tweaks to the list.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:41:00 - [10] - Quote Atiim wrote: Why would there be a fee for conquering a district? Because Alaika is focused on punishing land ownership. My model around limiting timers lets people take what they can actually defend, Alaika's model puts an upper limit on ownership no matter how skilled/large your corporation is.

KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 20:00:00 - [11] - Quote Dust User wrote: So far the best idea I've seen is one timer per hour. This would also prevent "squatting". Yeah, but ignorant theorycrafters gonna ignorantly theorycraft. Fact is that Passive Isk is a proven system that worked, most of its flaws have been fixed, and 2 more minor fixes will make it viable content generator AND open it up to all kinds of corps. The main arguments against it are philosophical, emotional, and utterly un-pragmatic.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 22:38:00 - [12] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Dust User wrote: So far the best idea I've seen is one timer per hour. This would also prevent "squatting". Each group has multiple corps, each managing whatever districts they have room for in their window of play. They ring members from the main corp for the fights. Not a solution, it's too easy to exploit. KA24DERT wrote: Fact is that Passive Isk is a proven system that worked, most of its flaws have been fixed, and 2 more minor fixes will make it viable content generator AND open it up to all kinds of corps. Passive ISK worked for TeamPlayers, sure. Because until your corp decided to give it up, you had free money all day every day. It just ruined the game for everyone else. It was free money? Tell that to Fiddle, who ran logistics for most of the operation to keep track of clone moves, districts, and timers, or Sari who kept track which facilities were on what district, and countless others who ran logistics both in Dust AND Eve to keep things rolling. More importantly tell that to the dozens of mercs that logged on almost every night(and sometimes early morning for Nyan San) for unending fights, and the fleets that battled in space for the much coveted OB support. The pursuit of that "free money" is what was DELIVERING on the promise that Dust made: meaningful fights, and meaningful interactions between Dust and Eve. But that doesn't matter because DAE HATE PASSIVE ISK, AM I RIGHT GUYS? You are only making these statements because you are ignorant, you do not know what went down, or how it went down. And this ignorance gives you the ability to confidently stab in the dark. Also, what part of the game was ruined? Pubs? Blame that on matchmaking. I don't want to stomp noobs, but if I queued up that's what happened. The abysmal Battle Academy period shows you just how much CCP cares about that problem. But pubs are honestly an inconsequential part of the game in the literal sense of the word. There's no point. A game of Destiny has about as much effect on the New Eden universe as a Pub match. Did we ruin Faction? We ran Amarr so hard that almost everyone in TP and NF got 10/10 in a week. And all of our enemies starting queuing Minmatar, and Eve pilots ran around chasing LP via OB support. Now? Try running a Faction late night and get ready to queue up for 10 minutes only to get Scottied. Did we ruin PC? Tell that the countless corps that fought with and against us, what would they have been doing if we weren't constantly stirring **** up. The removal of Passive ISK did more to ruin PC than anything else. And that's an undeniable fact.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 23:38:00 - [13] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: KA24DERT wrote: The removal of Passive ISK did more to ruin PC than anything else. And that's an undeniable fact. Of course it did, the farmers had no reason to farm anymore so they just sat on Districts and didn't attack one another because their meal ticket was gone. Removing Passive Isk did less to kill PC than including it did. Fact. It made all of you spoiled little children whine when it was removed, had it never been included, you would've just kept right on playing swinging your e-peens around like PC made you a worthwhile human. Also, so you know, if we're talking about true impact on New Eden, FW is the only game mode that has any. Pubs do ** all and PC doesn't do anything either unless you are in the Alliance/Corp that holds Districts (even then it only mimics the effects of Sov on Tower Fuel consumption). So you admit that removing passive ISK removed the incentive to take, hold, or defend districts. Then you sling a bunch of almost insults because tryhards try hard. Then you imply that without Passive ISK, PC would activity would have been fine, when we have a baseline for that (corp battles), and there were undeniably more fights during the Passive ISK era than that Corp Battle era. FW can't possibly have more of an effect on New Eden than player driven activities. It's a sandbox. The New York Times is unlikely to run a story on how hard Amarr fought Minmatar this week, but the media regularly covers the activity of the "e-*** swinging tryhards." . My changes would allow more alliances and corps to join in the sandbox, but you're not interested in that. We could replace you with a bot that says "LOL TRYHARDS" and "LOL FARMERS" and nobody would miss you in regards to this topic. You're not adding anything to the conversation.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 660	Posted - 2014.10.17 02:09:00 - [14] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Dust User wrote: So far the best idea I've seen is one timer per hour. This would also prevent "squatting". Each group has multiple corps, each managing whatever districts they have room for in their window of play. They ring members from the main corp for the fights. Not a solution, it's too easy to exploit. This merits a separate response. Each group is still throttled by the amount of teams they can field, regardless of corp tags. If a group can ally with corps and pull together a team at all 24 timers AND defeat any attackers, then they get to have 24 districts. It doesn't matter how many alt corps they have holding districts, if they don't have 16 friends to show up for the PC, they lose it. I don't get how this exploits the throttling.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 667	Posted - 2014.10.17 20:30:00 - [15] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: IDGAF what you or anyone else thinks of me or my thoughts. Right, that's why you're meditating to the sounds of the waking world at the cusp of dawn instead of slinging insults at people because you don't like their opinion. Passive ISK was a good incentive for warfare. There could be better incentives, but given dev restraints it's the best thing we have, and the flaws in it can be addressed. We all understand that you disagree, not that you care that we understand, or not like you have an opinion on it, you transcendent guy you. So just knock it off. All you're doing now is continually trolling this post with ridiculous proposals, hyperbole, and personal insults. This is the feedback section, take that BS to the war room.