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.

I like both these ideas, especially the 1 timer per hour part. That alone would do so much to help PC.

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.

Why would there be a fee for conquering a district?

Good question.

It isn't so much a fee for conquering the District, it is more of a fee for holding the District.

In Eve, there are Sov Bills, in Dust there is no corollary, yet. This would remedy that.

It also keeps the Passive Isk to a minimum, using the example I provided, you would never get more than roughly one pub match worth of Isk from ether per day (at least until you seized a 5th District, in which case you'd be running a net loss).

Passive Isk is bad on so many levels, I can't support it unless there is a massive muzzle on it preventing the run away generation of wealth from ether.

Even if farmers decided to game the system by creating 250 Corporations to each hold a single District, they could only ever generate 62.5m per day (which is still a lot, though an order of magnitude less than what was possible previously).

If there wasn't a muzzle such as this, I'd go right back to sharpening the pitchfork and lighting a firebrand under the mobs ass.

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.

Why would there be a fee for conquering a district?

The big point to a sov maintenance bill is a cost for maintaining the district is one of the few scalable ways to penalize holding land you aren't using. If you make money off fighting on the district, but it costs money to hold the district, you only want to hold as many districts as you can fight on.

If a regular cost to district ownership was had, but you could earn a profit on combat, theory stands that you would not want to hold more districts than you could actively field players on regularly.

Scaling the cost or penalizing multiple district holdings doesn't work, because you can just use alt corps to keep any individual corp's holdings size low. But a flat cost for every district scales naturally, and there's no way to avoid that cost through shell corps.

What happens when nobody attacks your district for weeks at a time? Do you just lose ISK?

You would. Unless you're using that district to attack others and profit off of that.

Sov bill means that stagnation will equal bankruptcy.

Squatting on 50 districts in the 12:00 timer would deplete your cash flow real fast.

You would. Unless you're using that district to attack others and profit off of that.

Sov bill means that stagnation will equal bankruptcy.

Squatting on 50 districts in the 12:00 timer would deplete your cash flow real fast.

lol That sounds like a terrible idea.

As Thor said, you shouldn't be punished because everyone else is a bunch of pussies.

So far the best idea I've seen is one timer per hour. This would also prevent "squatting".

So far the best idea I've seen is one timer per hour. This would also prevent "squatting".

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.

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.



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.

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).

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.

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-peen 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.

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-peen 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.

IDGAF what you or anyone else thinks of me or my thoughts.