DUST Search - Return Passive Isk to PC

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Return Passive Isk to PC

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
hfderrtgvcd 661	Posted - 2014.10.06 20:22:00 - [1] - Quote There is basically no incentive to own more than a handful of districts anymore. District locking is now impossible so I fail to see why it should not be returned. It would breathe some life back into pc and encourage more corporations to take part. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4881	Posted - 2014.10.06 20:25:00 - [2] - Quote I think it should return as well, but it doesn't need to be as high as it was. Level 4 Forum Warrior PSN: wbrom42
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3979	Posted - 2014.10.06 20:47:00 - [3] - Quote Passive ISK should not be returned to PC while there's no viable way to prevent rampant exploitation that will in turn be used to harm other game modes. The end to district locking didn't prevent a complete lock-up of any sort of competition in the mode so everyone could just sit back and rake in ISK. Nothing has been done that will prevent another Dirt Nap Squad-esque situation where 98% of the districts are just free farming slots. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3979	Posted - 2014.10.06 20:59:00 - [4] - Quote As a note, if anyone has ideas on how we can make PC viable and difficult to exploit, without like, you know, introducing PvE, please share. Just remember my newly coined Soraya's Law: "Stupid ideas tend to be exploitable." CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Cavani1EE7 Murphys-Law 304	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:06:00 - [5] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Passive ISK should not be returned to PC while there's no viable way to prevent rampant exploitation that will in turn be used to harm other game modes. The end to district locking didn't prevent a complete lock-up of any sort of competition in the mode so everyone could just sit back and rake in ISK. Nothing has been done that will prevent another Dirt Nap Squad-esque situation where 98% of the districts are just free farming slots. It didn't have to be completely removed, 2 million ISK per day would've been fair.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3979	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:11:00 - [6] - Quote Cavani1EE7 wrote: It didn't have to be completely removed, 2 million ISK per day would've been fair. 2 million ISK a day for no effort is still free money. For General Tso's Alliance, that'd be 296,000,000 ISK every day for free. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3424	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:24:00 - [7] - Quote PC should never have been one-match endeavors. when the lock timers went off the corp contracts should have gone out to every merc corp with an attack/defend option. If you could muster a full team, you can participate. District win/loss is weighted so the lion's share of the district fight goes to the defending and attacking corp of course. If you win, your corp earns 40% of the total win/loss count, with the rest being subdivided among the other corps that participate. That way if you LOSE, there is a slim chance that the random pubbies who defend will save your bacon, or burn your house down. You cannot control who can attack/defend. You can only ban corps that are caught Awoxing and teamkill spreeing, giving you the option to lock them out of future corp contracts. Yes CCP should let you look at the team stats at the end. if the overall count of 55% victory goes to the attacker, the district flips, if to the defender, the district locks and goes back into safe mode. End-of-day reward is 3m ISK deposited to the corp wallet to represent taxes, fines, biomassed rivals, etc. District locks for 72 hours. Locks must be staggered so all time zones have available PC battles every day. Current battle payouts are formulated for High-risk, high-reward, with victorious corps paid richly, and losing corps get a pub welfare check. Is it idiot proof? No. But if your district comes open and neither you or the attacker battle for your district, you have just handed over the fate of your property to random a**hats who may or may not care about whether you get to keep the loot.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1207	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:30:00 - [8] - Quote Passive ISK affects other game modes so it should never return. The idea is to promote good fights and simply having hundreds of districts to fight over for no reason is a problem. The districts should merely be the set up for tournament style competition. Every district should be ranked, 1 to whatever, and no corp team should be able to hold more than one district, then we all play to see how high we can get. You can challenge only three spots above your current rank. It is all about pride and bragging rights so it should be about proving how good you are. Because, that's why.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3982	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:34:00 - [9] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: Passive ISK affects other game modes so it should never return. The idea is to promote good fights and simply having hundreds of districts to fight over for no reason is a problem. The districts should merely be the set up for tournament style competition. Every district should be ranked, 1 to whatever, and no corp team should be able to hold more than one district, then we all play to see how high we can get. You can challenge only three spots above your current rank. It is all about pride and bragging rights so it should be about proving how good you are. This isn't a bad idea in itself, a ranked league scenario. But it's not even close to related to Planetary Conquest, which is meant to be a territorial fight. Your suggestion sounds like an entirely separate type of mechanic. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
hfderrtgvcd 663	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:41:00 - [10] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Nothing Certain wrote: Passive ISK affects other game modes so it should never return. The idea is to promote good fights and simply having hundreds of districts to fight over for no reason is a problem. The districts should merely be the set up for tournament style competition. Every district should be ranked, 1 to whatever, and no corp team should be able to hold more than one district, then we all play to see how high we can get. You can challenge only three spots above your current rank. It is all about pride and bragging rights so it should be about proving how good you are. This isn't a bad idea in itself, a ranked league scenario. But it's not even close to related to Planetary Conquest, which is meant to be a territorial fight. Your suggestion sounds like an entirely separate type of mechanic. What's the point of getting territory if the only thing you can do with it is get clones to get more territory? You can't fight in here! This is the war room.

Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 783	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:44:00 - [11] - Quote Remove the 24+ hour timers and payout ISK weekly instead of everyday.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 3985	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:54:00 - [12] - Quote hfderrtgvcd wrote: What's the point of getting territory if the only thing you can do with it is get clones to get more territory? That is one of the multiple inherent problems with Planetary Conquest. I think it's unredeemably broken, but I'm open to ideas how to make it better. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Atiim 12800	Posted - 2014.10.06 21:55:00 - [13] - Quote I think it should, simply because that would create an incentive to hold a district. What's sad about the current system, is that the only way to obtain a constant stream of revenue is through constant victories. Which turn, encourages bigger and better organizations to attack nothing but the weaker and inexperienced groups, as they're guaranteed to make a profit. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game RUST415 498	Posted - 2014.10.06 22:20:00 - [14] - Quote Passive isk should be killed... With fire... & stay dead... Poke it with a fiery piece of metal and make sure it stays down!!! But yeah if you got isk based on what you destroy that would work. The same thing should be done for pubs as well. It does suck going all out to win a battle and getting jack **** for it, unless you spam enough matches to be sure you get a few wins. Pub matches still have proto teams that keep going no matter how many suits you down, because for every bad match they'll get a few 100% profit matches... If everyone could afford to use a few proto suits in pubs there wouldn't be a problem... It may even end the camp the redzone for money, if people got a decent payout for trying to win pub matches.
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 3349	Posted - 2014.10.06 23:37:00 - [15] - Quote Returning passive ISK will solve so many problems and provide actual incentive. Tanker/Logi/Assault
Viktor Hadah Jr Negative-Impact Gentlemen's.Club 5298	Posted - 2014.10.06 23:48:00 - [16] - Quote Passive ISK might be better although it is still a sh*t mechanic that can easily be manipulated. and under the passive ISK mechanic PC was a literal blue donut under one alliance for months because not many corps in this game has the balls to fight anymore no matter what way PC is done. EVE 21 Day Trial
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 4627	Posted - 2014.10.07 00:12:00 - [17] - Quote I was thinking about this earlier, and had a couple ideas. They are mutually exclusive, and having absolutely zero PC experience may be completely ridiculous, so you let me know. They are not completely fleshed out, so maybe they are just idea starters and could help someone with more experience spark a better one, or give them some additions and changes that make them more viable. Scenario 1: Tiered districts. As it stands, it costs one price to attack any district, and you get one set of rewards. What if there were multiple tiers? For example, you could have certain districts that would cost 5 mil to attack, others 10, 20, and 40. Each will have rewards that are proportional. This would enable smaller corps to participate without onerous costs, and could provide enough benefits for them to move up in tiers. Scenario 2: The costs of attacking a district were reduced the longer a corp held one (this also assumes passive isk). I see this as a way to prevent some of the blue donut that happened previously. By enabling more corps, who may not be in an alliance, to attack long held districts, they would hypothetically have incentive to attack a corps districts, and perhaps put enough of a corps districts at risk that a corp with a lot of districts couldn't simply hold on to all of them for a long time. Also, this could incentivize a corp in an alliance to break that alliance with the cost/benefit analysis being sweetened over time. Perhaps there are mechanics I am not aware of that would negate this, but that was my thinking. You can always tell a Millford Minja
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 3350	Posted - 2014.10.07 00:17:00 - [18] - Quote As far as other Ideas CCP can include a 100% salvage rate (the more salvage you get the more likely its something you can actually use) Adding the ability for officer weapons to be salvaged and not just from the enemy team but to get pub like drops of 3 officer weapons and preferably that drop rate increased Adding ISK to the corp wallet for every victory. A huge problem right now is without passive ISK corps have trouble recovering getting into PC because you have to win at least two battles to flip a district costing the corp 100 million ISK (if you don't lose the re-up and have to start over) and their is no way to recuperate ISK without either donations, tax, or friendly locking. Tax is tricky because why should people who don't participate in PC have to pay for PC, and select groups in the individual PC having to pay 6,250,000 each on top of suit costs will make everyone go ISK negative and having your first few attempts in PC cost you millions even if you succeed in getting a district is discouraging. Another thing is that contrary to popular belief even when you own a district attacks are not free it costs 10,000 a clone so about 1.5-4.5 mil per transfer so if you flipped 4 Cargo hubs in a week you would lose 18 million. The ISK received would help get rid of or at least loosen these costs. Decrease clone pack cost to 45million the formula for clones to ISK for a clone pack has always been 300,000 = 1 clone it was that way when 100 clone Clone Packs costed 30m and when 120 clone Clone Packs costed 36m so why the 5 mil increase. My last idea is CCP should provide incentives that change such as hosting PC events such as: Every member of the corp owning the most districts on oddelulf will receive 3 copies of ever officer side arm. Their can be prizes of officer weapons or ISK or Boosters or really anything attached to certain Districts/Planets/systems for certain periods of time. Tanker/Logi/Assault
hfderrtgvcd 672	Posted - 2014.10.07 00:18:00 - [19] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: I was thinking about this earlier, and had a couple ideas. They are mutually exclusive, and having absolutely zero PC experience may be completely ridiculous, so you let me know. They are not completely fleshed out, so maybe they are just idea starters and could help someone with more experience spark a better one, or give them some additions and changes that make them more viable. Scenario 1: Tiered districts. As it stands, it costs one price to attack any district, and you get one set of rewards. What if there were multiple tiers? For example, you could have certain districts that would cost 5 mil to attack, others 10, 20, and 40. Each will have rewards that are proportional. This would enable smaller corps to participate without onerous costs, and could provide enough benefits for them to move up in tiers. Scenario 2: The costs of attacking a district were reduced the longer a corp held one (this also assumes passive isk). I see this as a way to prevent some of the blue donut that happened previously. By enabling more corps, who may not be in an alliance, to attack long held districts, they would hypothetically have incentive to attack a corps districts, and perhaps put enough of a corps districts at risk that a corp with a lot of districts couldn't simply hold on to all of them for a long time. Also, this could incentivize a corp in an alliance to break that alliance with the cost/benefit analysis being sweetened over time. Perhaps there are mechanics I am not aware of that would negate this, but that was my thinking. They're good ideas but I don't think they would be possible because the cost of a clone is constant. If you implement your idea you would have to completely rework the way clones are bought and sold. Scenario 2 would also be far too easy to abuse. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
hfderrtgvcd 672	Posted - 2014.10.07 00:19:00 - [20] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: As far as other Ideas CCP can include a 100% salvage rate (the more salvage you get the more likely its something you can actually use) Adding the ability for officer weapons to be salvaged and not just from the enemy team but to get pub like drops of 3 officer weapons and preferably that drop rate increased Adding ISK to the corp wallet for every victory. A huge problem right now is without passive ISK corps have trouble recovering getting into PC because you have to win at least two battles to flip a district costing the corp 100 million ISK (if you don't lose the re-up and have to start over) and their is no way to recuperate ISK without either donations, tax, or friendly locking. Tax is tricky because why should people who don't participate in PC have to pay for PC, and select groups in the individual PC having to pay 6,250,000 each on top of suit costs will make everyone go ISK negative and having your first few attempts in PC cost you millions even if you succeed in getting a district is discouraging. Another thing is that contrary to popular belief even when you own a district attacks are not free it costs 10,000 a clone so about 1.5-4.5 mil per transfer so if you flipped 4 Cargo hubs in a week you would lose 18 million. The ISK received would help get rid of or at least loosen these costs. Decrease clone pack cost to 45million the formula for clones to ISK for a clone pack has always been 300,000 = 1 clone it was that way when 100 clone Clone Packs costed 30m and when 120 clone Clone Packs costed 36m so why the 5 mil increase. great ideas My last idea is CCP should provide incentives that change such as hosting PC events such as: Every member of the corp owning the most districts on oddelulf will receive 3 copies of ever officer side arm. Their can be prizes of officer weapons or ISK or Boosters or really anything attached to certain Districts/Planets/systems for certain periods of time. lol no You can't fight in here! This is the war room.

Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 9670	Posted - 2014.10.07 00:35:00 - [21] - Quote I'm hoping CCP doesn't repeat this broken system in Legion. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 4629	Posted - 2014.10.07 01:37:00 - [22] - Quote hfderrtgvcd wrote: They're good ideas but I don't think they would be possible because the cost of a clone is constant. If you implement your idea you would have to completely rework the way clones are bought and sold. Scenario 2 would also be far too easy to abuse. Could you vary the tiers by number of clones needed to attack? Would it even make a difference if they were able to implement a tiered system, or would it just end up changing things and getting the same, or a worse, outcome? You can always tell a Millford Minja
hfderrtgvcd 679	Posted - 2014.10.07 02:34:00 - [23] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: They're good ideas but I don't think they would be possible because the cost of a clone is constant. If you implement your idea you would have to completely rework the way clones are bought and sold. Scenario 2 would also be far too easy to abuse. Could you vary the tiers by number of clones needed to attack? Would it even make a difference if they were able to implement a tiered system, or would it just end up changing things and getting the same, or a worse, outcome? The number of clones you attack with is the number of clones you get for that battle. For example, if you send 100 clones, you only get 100 deaths before you lose. If they were able to add a tier system I definitely think pc would improve. It would be more accessible to smaller or lower-skilled corps while still providing an incentive to attack and hold districts. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
One Eyed King Land of the BIind 4634	Posted - 2014.10.07 02:41:00 - [24] - Quote How does the passive ISK work? Would that be a constant as well, or could they vary that, like creating a significant drop off for any district that was held for a long period of time without having been defended? This way if they wanted to make more isk, they would be inclined to attack and less inclined towards peace treaties. You can always tell a Millford Minja
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 384	Posted - 2014.10.07 02:51:00 - [25] - Quote No cause i dont want other people to be filthy rich as im. Now go back to your militia suits and try to farm pubs you peasants. on another note a (in)offical announcement from CCP: BUY AUR SUCKERS! Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Kierkegaard Soren THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 531	Posted - 2014.10.07 03:45:00 - [26] - Quote PC needs to give a substantial reward to those that successfully participate within it, without creating a sort of feed-back loop of infinite ISK generation that can then be ploughed back into pub stomps and the like. It also needs to be a mechanic that can be implemented with the dev resources at hand, which rules out rewards that do not currently exist within the game. It's very tricky, but what about this: Holding districts increases your weekly skill point cap limit. The general idea is that holding onto a district for a week will increase the sp cap for all the members of the occupying corp for the next week. Losing it before the seven days are up gets you no bonus, losing it after seven days causes you to lose the bonus for the week after that. The bonus is based off of the number of districts you hold, but is done in a bracket-like fashion which give diminishing cap bonus returns for higher levels of district acquisition. So for example, holding 1-5 districts gives you, say, +10k sp cap, holding 6-15 rewards you with +18k, 16-25 for 24k and so on. (The numbers are just an example to demonstrate the principle). Smaller corps can hold a few patches of turf and all members benefit with a meaningful reward, and defending that reward will take comparatively less effort to an alliance that holds caste swathes of territory, and whilst the rewards for their members will be pretty substantial they won't have an overpowering edge that limitless isk can provide in other arenas. Just a thought. Feedback appreciated. Dedicated Commando. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." -Paul Atreides.
hfderrtgvcd 683	Posted - 2014.10.07 03:47:00 - [27] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: How does the passive ISK work? Would that be a constant as well, or could they vary that, like creating a significant drop off for any district that was held for a long period of time without having been defended? This way if they wanted to make more isk, they would be inclined to attack and less inclined towards peace treaties. Districts generate clones which you could either sell, use to attack other districts, or move to another district. I suppose they could cause a dropoff in clone generation but that could easily be worked around with self-attacks from an alt corp. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4001	Posted - 2014.10.07 04:57:00 - [28] - Quote I see ideas in here about tiering off districts. I think there's a lot of value in such a concept. But how do you make holding the smaller/less valuable districts unappealing to the blue donut? CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
TheD1CK Dead Man's Game RUST415 1325	Posted - 2014.10.07 11:33:00 - [29] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I see ideas in here about tiering off districts. I think there's a lot of value in such a concept. But how do you make holding the smaller/less valuable districts unappealing to the blue donut? There is very few ways to stop the larger corps feeding off the easier competition, and to be honest The only way to truly do it would be put security levels on Corps in Dust and the Districts provided And literally block the big teams from farming the smaller sides.. I do not like this idea myself.. But there is not many ways to stop mercs attacking teams for easy wins As for Passive ISK, how rich did the mercs in PC get via this? and you cut it off .... understandable But cutting it off without removing some of the ISK that fell from the sky leaves only those who got In first and started farming early can afford battle costs no issue, why would newer mercs want to compete with that? A passive ISK payment COULD be restored and have it factor that 1 District pays X ammount Adding a second district brings in 75% of X. A third District brings 50% of X. And no.4 brings 25% of X District no.5 pays no passive ISK, And district no.6 comes at a cost, so a passive payout rather than income Each District from 6 + costs an increasing ammount for your corp to control. This gives corps incentive to hold land, but removes the need for land hoarding As for the comments on GTA making 296,000,000 this again is CCP's fault, Alliance size in Dust Whatever about Eve side they can use the mass numbers we use 16 mercs at one time. Having Alliances pool together the top section of competition kills activity for them and for the rest. That said, DUST mercs should have a cap on how many can be in one Alliance, this 'may' promote more fighting on the ground, and a better experience for your gamers tosses handful of 0.02 ISK Innapropriate Irrelevence... Welcome to the Dust Forum, hang around to see why everyone else left :/
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 974	Posted - 2014.10.07 12:31:00 - [30] - Quote hfderrtgvcd wrote: There is basically no incentive to own more than a handful of districts anymore. District locking is now impossible so I fail to see why it should not be returned. It would breathe some life back into pc and encourage more corporations to take part. no passive isk! you PC runners get far too much isk as it is and is feeding the protostomping mindset of corps in pub matches. [[LogiBro in Training]] Level 2 Forum Pariah

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4004	Posted - 2014.10.07 13:51:00 - [31] - Quote TheD1CK wrote: As for Passive ISK, how rich did the mercs in PC get via this? and you cut it off .... understandable But cutting it off without removing some of the ISK that fell from the sky leaves only those who got In first and started farming early can afford battle costs no issue, why would newer mercs want to compete with that? Very rich. Unfortunately, removing ISK from players gets very very dicey. Especially since in some cases, players may have spent AUR on gear used to "earn" it. TheD1CK wrote: A passive ISK payment COULD be restored and have it factor that 1 District pays X ammount Adding a second district brings in 75% of X. A third District brings 50% of X. And no.4 brings 25% of X District no.5 pays no passive ISK, And district no.6 comes at a cost, so a passive payout rather than income Each District from 6 + costs an increasing ammount for your corp to control. This is frequently proposed EVE side to fix sov, and it's flawed here for the same reason it is there. Nyain San 1 holds a district, Nyain San 2 holds a district, Nyain San 3 holds a district, Nyain San 4 holds a district, etc. In a sandbox environment, artificial limits like that are fairly easy to circumvent. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 386	Posted - 2014.10.07 14:47:00 - [32] - Quote PC balancing is nearly impossible ya know why? Cause dust isnt eve where you just need a large amount of scrubs to hold land/take it. Dust is set in a relatively fair enviroment and that is 16vs16. You cannot bring more players and most certainly each players FPS skill is important. Those with faster reflexes and aiming will allwayws be superior over the masses of scrubs. If this game would be 32vs32 then you could make more of a difference in PC matches. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4004	Posted - 2014.10.07 14:57:00 - [33] - Quote Nah, Bright Cloud, then you'd just have groups of 32 pro players versus 32 scrubs. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Denchlad 7 Dead Man's Game 698	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:12:00 - [34] - Quote What if we take Cavanis idea of 2 Million per District, but, each day you hold said district you get paid less and less (1.8 Million, 1.6 Million, etc), therefore encouraging your corp to take other districts if you still wish to collect the isk from it. Might actually liven up PC a bit so daily fights return. Only issue I see is GTA corps flipping each others districts daily with no shows. So to make it harder, what if we changed it so you cant attack a district held by an Alliance Member, forcing, as an example, FA to attack say a PE district if they want isk, rather than an ML or GAM district for flipping. I'll expand the idea further at some point. The Connoisseur of Weapons. 19/19 L5 P1. "GET BACK HERE YOU SCRUB" - Lorelei Zee 2014
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4004	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:17:00 - [35] - Quote Denchlad 7 wrote: What if we take Cavanis idea of 2 Million per District, but, each day you hold said district you get paid less and less (1.8 Million, 1.6 Million, etc), therefore encouraging your corp to take other districts if you still wish to collect the isk from it. Might actually liven up PC a bit so daily fights return. Only issue I see is GTA corps flipping each others districts daily with no shows. So to make it harder, what if we changed it so you cant attack a district held by an Alliance Member, forcing, as an example, FA to attack say a PE district if they want isk, rather than an ML or GAM district for flipping. I'll expand the idea furrher at some point. I see you caught the problem with your own idea. But your proposed solution is also flawed. I am affiliated somewhat with the Goons, though we are not in an alliance. Corps could leave an alliance just so they can flip districts back and forth. Or they could just use alt corps. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3436	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:17:00 - [36] - Quote You add diminishing returns to held districts, ordered by value. Your first district is 100% benefit. Second district is 80% benefit, 3rd tier 60 and so on, with every district past the 5th being worth only 5% of it's total value while retaining all costs to maintain.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4004	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:27:00 - [37] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: You add diminishing returns to held districts, ordered by value. Your first district is 100% benefit. Second district is 80% benefit, 3rd tier 60 and so on, with every district past the 5th being worth only 5% of it's total value while retaining all costs to maintain. Altcorps? CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3439	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:30:00 - [38] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: You add diminishing returns to held districts, ordered by value. Your first district is 100% benefit. Second district is 80% benefit, 3rd tier 60 and so on, with every district past the 5th being worth only 5% of it's total value while retaining all costs to maintain. Altcorps? Soraya think very hard and tell me of any system ever in EVE or other game that the players never figured out how to exploit and game the ever living sh*t out of. But see my previous post about opening PC district flipping to all corps so that people pulling blue donut crap can be utterly screwed by being lazy.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4004	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:35:00 - [39] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Soraya think very hard and tell me of any system ever in EVE or other game that the players never figured out how to exploit and game the ever living sht out of. Planetary Conquest should not be enabled to ruin the rest of the game. If we can't come up with an at least mildly* robust framework for PC ISK generation that isn't donutable, it shouldn't be allowed to come back. I'm only poking holes in ideas so that everyone can get on the same page of why this is so problematic to solve, so that hopefully someone can figure out a solution that will work. Breakin Stuff wrote: But see my previous post about opening PC district flipping to all corps so that people pulling blue donut crap can be utterly screwed by being lazy. Which post? CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Denchlad 7 Dead Man's Game 698	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:35:00 - [40] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Denchlad 7 wrote: ~snippity snoopity I love the booty~ I see you caught the problem with your own idea. But your proposed solution is also flawed. I am affiliated somewhat with the Goons, though we are not in an alliance. Corps could leave an alliance just so they can flip districts back and forth. Or they could just use alt corps. Realistically though, how many of said corps would run without an Alliance again? And as Breakin said, we will find a way of exploiting whatever system is put in place anyway. And Breakins idea is quite good too. Add the payment system in place, and ERA in their prime and NS would find it extremely hard and not cost efficient at all to hold that much land. The Connoisseur of Weapons. 19/19 L5 P1. "GET BACK HERE YOU SCRUB" - Lorelei Zee 2014

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4004	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:36:00 - [41] - Quote Denchlad 7 wrote: Realistically though, how many of said corps would run without an Alliance again? And as Breakin said, we will find a way of exploiting whatever system is put in place anyway. The problem is, alliances don't matter. The actual alliance structure is nothing but a name badge on the forums. The actual "alliance" is people's willingness to work together, and as long as that still exists, corps will be happy to drop alliance in order to exploit the mechanic. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Denchlad 7 Dead Man's Game 699	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:38:00 - [42] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Denchlad 7 wrote: Realistically though, how many of said corps would run without an Alliance again? And as Breakin said, we will find a way of exploiting whatever system is put in place anyway. The problem is, alliances don't matter. The actual alliance structure is nothing but a name badge on the forums. The actual "alliance" is people's willingness to work together, and as long as that still exists, corps will be happy to drop alliance in order to exploit the mechanic. True. Issue is, if we find a fix to that, something else will be exploited is some way or another. I'll +1 Breakins earlier linked post however. The Connoisseur of Weapons. 19/19 L5 P1. "GET BACK HERE YOU SCRUB" - Lorelei Zee 2014
Haerr Clone Manque 1583	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:59:00 - [43] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: What's the point of getting territory if the only thing you can do with it is get clones to get more territory? That is one of the multiple inherent problems with Planetary Conquest. I think it's unredeemably broken, but I'm open to ideas how to make it better. PC - Random Surprises What PC district owners want is a way to make ISK off of their controlled territory. This is where Raids/Invasions (Pirate raid or Sansha invasion) comes in. Any district at full capacity that is not under attack is subject to the possibility of a Raid/Invasion during their timer. A Raid/Invasion spawns a contract ~5-20 mins before the timer, depending on how many clones the Pirates send but also to make it more tedious for corps to attempt blocking and/or farming raids on their own territory using alts. Squads which have one or more players which are in corps that hold a district in MH are unable to accept raid/invasion contracts. The Pirate faction should take into account how successful a corp is at defending their districts when spawning contracts - the more a corp wins against the raiders the more seldom the Pirates will launch attacks against them. 'Just a rough mock up; if the CPM thinks it is worth exploring (i.e. if it is at all possible to implement) then the community can pitch in to fill out the gaps. Maybe it will be possible to do team deploy in combination with this since it is such a sought after feature. Not Jebus's alt. // Now residing in Ana. // ... I think I might be one of Appia's alts ...
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4019	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:59:00 - [44] - Quote Okay, so after further explanation on Skype, Breakin's concepts are distinctly Not Awful(TM), though it would probably involve some pretty heavy code work on CCP's part. Lot of good ideas on how CCP can move forward with real territorial gameplay in the future. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4019	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:08:00 - [45] - Quote Haerr wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: What's the point of getting territory if the only thing you can do with it is get clones to get more territory? That is one of the multiple inherent problems with Planetary Conquest. I think it's unredeemably broken, but I'm open to ideas how to make it better. PC - Random Surprises What PC district owners want is a way to make ISK off of their controlled territory. This is where Raids/Invasions (Pirate raid or Sansha invasion) comes in. Any district at full capacity that is not under attack is subject to the possibility of a Raid/Invasion during their timer. A Raid/Invasion spawns a contract ~5-20 mins before the timer, depending on how many clones the Pirates send but also to make it more tedious for corps to attempt blocking and/or farming raids on their own territory using alts. Squads which have one or more players which are in corps that hold a district in MH are unable to accept raid/invasion contracts. The Pirate faction should take into account how successful a corp is at defending their districts when spawning contracts - the more a corp wins against the raiders the more seldom the Pirates will launch attacks against them. 'Just a rough mock up; if the CPM thinks it is worth exploring (i.e. if it is at all possible to implement) then the community can pitch in to fill out the gaps. Maybe it will be possible to do team deploy in combination with this since it is such a sought after feature. Haerr, a raid system doesn't sound horrible, but again, the idea of restricting to people in or out of corps with districts just leads to altcorping. ;) Districts could be held by one or two man corps that just ring in their team. Also, if anything, being successful defending against raids should lead to more contracts being spawned, as the only way to maintain churn is to keep the stress high on top end landholders. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Haerr Clone Manque 1583	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:12:00 - [46] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Haerr wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: What's the point of getting territory if the only thing you can do with it is get clones to get more territory? That is one of the multiple inherent problems with Planetary Conquest. I think it's unredeemably broken, but I'm open to ideas how to make it better. PC - Random Surprises What PC district owners want is a way to make ISK off of their controlled territory. This is where Raids/Invasions (Pirate raid or Sansha invasion) comes in. Any district at full capacity that is not under attack is subject to the possibility of a Raid/Invasion during their timer. A Raid/Invasion spawns a contract ~5-20 mins before the timer, depending on how many clones the Pirates send but also to make it more tedious for corps to attempt blocking and/or farming raids on their own territory using alts. Squads which have one or more players which are in corps that hold a district in MH are unable to accept raid/invasion contracts. The Pirate faction should take into account how successful a corp is at defending their districts when spawning contracts - the more a corp wins against the raiders the more seldom the Pirates will launch attacks against them. 'Just a rough mock up; if the CPM thinks it is worth exploring (i.e. if it is at all possible to implement) then the community can pitch in to fill out the gaps. Maybe it will be possible to do team deploy in combination with this since it is such a sought after feature. Haerr, a raid system doesn't sound horrible, but again, the idea of restricting to people in or out of corps with districts just leads to altcorping. ;) Districts could be held by one or two man corps that just ring in their team. Also, if anything, being successful defending against raids should lead to more contracts being spawned, as the only way to maintain churn is to keep the stress high on top end landholders. Oh well, maybe there will some other chance to get Guristas Scout suits... ^_^ Not Jebus's alt. // Now residing in Ana. // ... I think I might be one of Appia's alts ...
Haerr Clone Manque 1583	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:15:00 - [47] - Quote Hold on maybe if there was a fee to field non corp members in defence of a raid? (So that it would only be profitable with a full corp team.) Not Jebus's alt. // Now residing in Ana. // ... I think I might be one of Appia's alts ...
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2239	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:20:00 - [48] - Quote Aside from my idea for PvE integration / "Farms and Fields," I don't see a much better option than what we have now. ISK should be earned on way or another, simply holding land isn't a very "content filled" feature. As things are, ISK is "passively" generated as your districts create clones. Use these clones to attack other districts and if you win, you earn money. You don't have to take over the district, just fight the 2-3 re-ups (I'm not too sure on the specifics) and no show the last. If you take the district, you can sell it back or to another corp. It's most efficient to do this because clone packs cost about as much as winning, so it's very inefficient to solely use them instead of district clones. Again, I'm not too familiar on the numbers, but if PC isn't worth doing, perhaps increasing the payouts could incentives more players. Dust was real! I was there! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4021	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:21:00 - [49] - Quote Haerr wrote: Hold on maybe if there was a fee to field non corp members in defence of a raid? (So that it would only be profitable with a full corp team.) You'd also need a tax to joining or leaving corps as well, which would have larger effects on the game as a whole. Otherwise people would just jump around. I think there's merit in the notion of just spawning assault raids from pirate factions on districts that would degrade clone counts and income. Within one's timer, it could be expected that they must either defend, or the district might just end up "unclaimed" if they don't. Another thing I think may be key to fixing PC is randomizing the PC timers (with heavier weight to time zones where there are more players on) and then disabling timer changes. The ability to stash 50 districts in the 12:00 timer has to end for any rework of PC to succeed. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Haerr Clone Manque 1583	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:32:00 - [50] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Haerr wrote: Hold on maybe if there was a fee to field non corp members in defence of a raid? (So that it would only be profitable with a full corp team.) You'd also need a tax to joining or leaving corps as well, which would have larger effects on the game as a whole. Otherwise people would just jump around. I think there's merit in the notion of just spawning assault raids from pirate factions on districts that would degrade clone counts and income. Within one's timer, it could be expected that they must either defend, or the district might just end up "unclaimed" if they don't. Another thing I think may be key to fixing PC is randomizing the PC timers (with heavier weight to time zones where there are more players on) and then disabling timer changes. The ability to stash 50 districts in the 12:00 timer has to end for any rework of PC to succeed. Perhaps requiring that a player has been a corp member for a full day before being able to participate would work? I dislike the 00:00 & 01:00 timers just as much as the 12:00 timers! Besides failing to successfully defend a district makes it vulnerable to opportunist attacks from other PC corps... Not Jebus's alt. // Now residing in Ana. // ... I think I might be one of Appia's alts ...

Haerr Clone Manque 1583	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:34:00 - [51] - Quote Say no to PvE! This is an opportunity for the PC corps to provide content to the non-PC corps! Not Jebus's alt. // Now residing in Ana. // ... I think I might be one of Appia's alts ...
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4021	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:46:00 - [52] - Quote Haerr wrote: Perhaps requiring that a player has been a corp member for a full day before being able to participate would work? I dislike the 00:00 & 01:00 timers just as much as the 12:00 timers! Besides failing to successfully defend a district makes it vulnerable to opportunist attacks from other PC corps... Maybe. That's a very restrictive system though. Not sure it's very sandbox-y. The concept of weighting timers by player population would mean there would always be timers for all time zones. Just more of them where there's more players to use them. So ideally, in any given time zone, you'd have a proportional number of districts to the playerbase. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 786	Posted - 2014.10.07 17:02:00 - [53] - Quote Having attacks take place the same day they're launched would fix a lot. It's a whole lot harder getting ringer teams with 30 minute notice vs 24-48 hours.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4024	Posted - 2014.10.07 17:16:00 - [54] - Quote Dust User wrote: Having attacks take place the same day they're launched would fix a lot. It's a whole lot harder getting ringer teams with 30 minute notice vs 24-48 hours. The question is, is it right to turn maintaining districts into a job, where you must have a full team logged in every day at the same time, or risk losing your district without a fight? And while this would hurt vet corps ability to assemble ringers, a lot of newer corps wouldn't be able to manage under this system at all. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4024	Posted - 2014.10.07 17:18:00 - [55] - Quote Side note: Really loving the ideas and discussion coming out of the thread, even if they're ideas I try to shoot down. Definitely hoping to bring this thread to CCP and have a discussion on how to revive PC. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 786	Posted - 2014.10.07 17:24:00 - [56] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Dust User wrote: Having attacks take place the same day they're launched would fix a lot. It's a whole lot harder getting ringer teams with 30 minute notice vs 24-48 hours. The question is, is it right to turn maintaining districts into a job, where you must have a full team logged in every day at the same time, or risk losing your district without a fight? And while this would hurt vet corps ability to assemble ringers, a lot of newer corps wouldn't be able to manage under this system at all. Maintaining districts is already a job. This idea probably wouldn't work too well now because nobody cares anymore but if it would have been this way from the start I think PC would be in a very different state right now. Losing your district would be a good thing. District flips need to be way easier to accomplish. Under the current system winning 3 consecutive battles on possibly 3 separate days is ridiculous. New corps can't manage now so why not try something new.
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 1721	Posted - 2014.10.07 17:49:00 - [57] - Quote Dust User wrote: Maintaining districts is already a job. And that there ladies and gentlemen sums up in just 6 words everything that is wrong with the PC game mechanic. And when I think about all the dev time it gobbled up when things like new weapons, suits, racial parity, balance, vehicles etc etc would've benefited the game more, I get a little depressed. CPM 1 member CEO of DUST University Vist dustcpm.com
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 2536	Posted - 2014.10.07 17:54:00 - [58] - Quote PC is pointless without actual EVE integration, at least FW has an effect EVE side as well as giving players Loyalty Points that can be spent on Aurum Substitutes or specialist/state gear that is flat-out just "Better." At this point I'd like to see a removal of the pointless PC and re-introduce Corp Matchmaking, until we actually find a reason why anyone should give a damn about owning literally useless land that has zero effect Dust side or EVE side. "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3457	Posted - 2014.10.07 17:58:00 - [59] - Quote I'm brainstorming a proposal at the moment. Let's see if I can iron out the OBVIOUS kinks and exploits, then make it simple as possible.
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 787	Posted - 2014.10.07 18:34:00 - [60] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: PC is pointless without actual EVE integration, at least FW has an effect EVE side as well as giving players Loyalty Points that can be spent on Aurum Substitutes or specialist/state gear that is flat-out just "Better." At this point I'd like to see a removal of the pointless PC and re-introduce Corp Matchmaking, until we actually find a reason why anyone should give a damn about owning literally useless land that has zero effect Dust side or EVE side. There is a point to owning land, it's called having Clan Battles. Once you get hooked it makes pubs so unenjoyable and boring. For all the fail PC has become it is still one of the best Clan Battle systems in any game I've ever played. Most games with so called "clan support" have no way of setting up battles without q-syncing and crossing your fingers that you actually get in the same game.

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4045	Posted - 2014.10.07 18:36:00 - [61] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'm brainstorming a proposal at the moment. Let's see if I can iron out the OBVIOUS kinks and exploits, then make it simple as possible. It's gotta be both simple and light on UI. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens Capital Punishment. 345	Posted - 2014.10.07 21:36:00 - [62] - Quote PC does need a change at least some tweaks, personally I see much less battles than before, there's less incentive to participate, I also get that the way things were before left the game mode open to much exploitation and 'blue doughnuts' Removing passive ISK solved some problems but made things uninspired for several participants. I like the idea of more battles happening on a district at each day and the surprise factor it would cause. Just brainstorming as we all are, What if? Each district, one timer, no passive ISK generation. Add to that "Waves of Opportunity" (, couln't help myself): To generate ISK (which I think is done selling clones excess clones?) you need to open up the district to more danger than just your preset timer, say a window of 2~3 hours after your usual battle timer in which the district is open to any attack (first come first served). Said attacks could come from a ready for action CORP or even by an individual putting a bounty on the district (more thoughts on that later) If defending a district seems like a lot of work and you can't afford to field a team you simply don't generate ISK (you can still get attack on your usual timer though as currently), if your team is ready and set to defend you get a hefty profit for your time - granted you don't get attacked or you successfully defend Taking it a step further, say you're a director in charge of a district, you want to generate ISK but aren't sure you can defend it, you could risk opening it and get lucky with no attacks, or maybe even setting any possible contracts on the district as open to alliance or open to general public in which case you can set a contract reward for a successful defense, some set ISK amount per participant taken out of the CORP wallet. As mentioned before, during these "waves of opportunity" any Corp can attack or an individual can put a bounty by fronting up a clone pack. In the case of a bounty this contract would be open to the public and the one putting it would offer a reward in case of a successful attack, it the attacking party wins, the district is awarded to the owner of the bounty contract. These "Wave of opportunity" contracts would appear on the special contracts section of the battle finder according to the visibility options: Corp, Allience, or Public. if public it could show the contract reward for defense or capture. There would be only one attack per district during the open timers, but as soon as one is over another could be set if still within the timeframe of the wave of opportunity. Thoughts? www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
Michael Arck 5854	Posted - 2014.10.07 23:57:00 - [63] - Quote It is my understanding it was removed to loosen the foothold of elite corporations. People praised it. Now, people want it back. What in the world? We need to start thinking about B, C, and D...instead of just thinking about A. Archistrategos / The 7th Prime / Selah *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2174	Posted - 2014.10.08 00:05:00 - [64] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: It is my understanding it was removed to loosen the foothold of elite corporations. People praised it. Now, people want it back. What in the world? We need to start thinking about B, C, and D...instead of just thinking about A. I don't want it back. Leave it gone, come up with something else that gives value to Districts. Treat them a planetary versions of the things outposts can do in Eve. Come up with something that isn't poofing Isk from nowhere. Let them be profitable, but make them be profitable only because someone else in the economy is expending Isk. IDGAF if people can make shedloads of Isk from Districts so long as it isn't just Isk from nowhere flooding the pockets of Dusts gated community residents. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1211	Posted - 2014.10.08 05:35:00 - [65] - Quote What is broken in PC is just a micricosm of the biggest problem the game has, the strong have incentive to prey on the week. If there is passive ISK, the strong exclude all others, if it is based on wins, the strong attack the weak. We need a system where the #1 team either can't or has no incentive to, attack the #60 team. #1 should be defending from top 10 teams and #60 should be playing against #55-65. Otherwise we have the same broken system of a few players dominating everything. Because, that's why.
Viktor Hadah Jr Negative-Impact Gentlemen's.Club 5307	Posted - 2014.10.08 05:46:00 - [66] - Quote 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. EVE 21 Day Trial Templar BPOs EVE 2nd decade CE items
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4057	Posted - 2014.10.08 07:43:00 - [67] - Quote 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? CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Michael Arck 5861	Posted - 2014.10.08 08:06:00 - [68] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Like i said before both mechanics current and past are sht 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 think the answer is no, off the top of my head. You need a mechanic that makes people want to play PC and since art imitates life, money makes the world go round. Other than that, I don't see an incentive to bring people to PC because the playerbase is WAY different now. Maybe the answer will appear later. But bringing back passive ISK? Nope. All you will do is take it out later when people complain about it. Blaming it for the reason why somehow in October of 2014, they are getting "protostomped" in pub matches. Archistrategos* / The 7th Prime / Selah *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain
Haerr Clone Manque 1584	Posted - 2014.10.08 08:19:00 - [69] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Like i said before both mechanics current and past are sht 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? No matter what mechanic or system used for PC the 16v16 lobby shooter matches aren't going to become more sandbox-y. Any "sand" will have to come before the matches even start. I doubt with the restrictions, hot-fix + minimal UI changes, that; that is going to possible. In the mean time there needs to be a game mode especially for competitive team play. Something that does not exclude most of the Dust players by default. Perhaps that game mode could be a continuous tournament. One tournament per server. * Server selection weighted by the ping times of players in the team. * Continuous queue. * Teams face each other based on win streak. * For a win your team gets +X% rewards. * For a lose your team loses its accumulated bonus and is kicked out of the queue. + Team deploy + Always available + Available to all + Can be done with minimal UI changes - Not sandboxy at all. Edit: Made a THREAD
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 216	Posted - 2014.10.08 08:50:00 - [70] - Quote I dont like passive isk yet there investment in going for Pc is just not worth it. No point in holding on to territory, or announcing to other corps i will attack you at your best time in two days so you can get everybody ready. I have borrowed heavily from ideas i have heard before in Pc discussion. There ought to be all three game modes as an option in PC. Whichever game mode you choose imapacts what you can do to the district you attack. District open for attack without warning for 1 hour 30 min out of every 24. Staggered timers are set by CCP, so you can only invade districts you can feel comfortable with holding on to. District 1 at 6 am EST, district 2 at 7 am EST, planet by planet etc. Phase 1 Ambush Raid:.. Attackers are allowed 1 small 50 man clone pack. High payout based on clones killed, based on the price of the clone pack. 15 mil isk means maximum 15 mill payout divided equally to the winning side. Top of the board gets same payout as bottom, its a CORP battle so all corp members get the same payout. No shows means no payout for either side. Attackers if they win gets to wear down the enemy district clones. Defenders if they win, lock thier district against that attacker for the day, clones are restocked, and earn some isk based soley off of kills. No clones killed means no payout. Defender no shows means the second phase of the invasion is unlocked. Phase 2 Skirmish: Open only to teams who have defeated the district owners in Ambush Raid. 15 minute window to buy extra clone packs for both sides, the attackers keep clones in addition to the clones they save from Ambush. Payout is the same, equivalent to clone pack invested by both sides. Defender wins district is locked. Attacker wins/ defender no shows 3rd phase is unlocked. Domination: Last Stand. 15 minute window for extra clones purchased as necessary. Payout for flipping district/ keeping district equivalent to total isk invested from both sides. If the Attacker invested 30 million isk and the defender never showed up then the attacker would keep the isk and get a district but earn no more than that. You cant farm when you make no profit. However a long drawn out battle would see 1 side keeping thier isk as well as all of the isk invested by the other side. Payout for the fight and a massive payout for winning the battle for the district. If two sides show up from the same corp/ alliance and dont fight but just hang around, they get zero isk because nobody died, nothing was lost. TL; DR, Every corp gets a window to attack every district, thus opening up PC to more corps. This allows more causual players to show up and maybe **** up another corp without planning days in advance. Following through means a massive payout. Defenders can get decent payout by playing actively Ambush an 1 and a half each day If your corp doesn't feel like holding on to a specific district, just no show and attack some other corp the day after.You should rewarded handsomley for actively defending a district, and activley defending it should not take hours and days of prep work. Better side wins. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

One Eyed King Land of the BIind 4662	Posted - 2014.10.08 19:29:00 - [71] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I see ideas in here about tiering off districts. I think there's a lot of value in such a concept. But how do you make holding the smaller/less valuable districts unappealing to the blue donut? My idea would be to have a greater number of smaller districts such that a large corp couldn't possibly hold and defend all of them. Owning too many would force them to thin out their power, and make them susceptible to attack. The greater the number of districts that smaller corps can attack, the less able a large corp is of monopolizing them. With more incentives to hold higher tier districts with less thinning, they would in theory be encouraged to try and hold on to the fewer, more profitable tiers. Whether the actual mechanics of this would work you could say better than I. Or if there is a way to make additional changes to make this viable. Soraya Xel wrote: Haerr wrote: Hold on maybe if there was a fee to field non corp members in defence of a raid? (So that it would only be profitable with a full corp team.) I think there's merit in the notion of just spawning assault raids from pirate factions on districts that would degrade clone counts and income. Within one's timer, it could be expected that they must either defend, or the district might just end up "unclaimed" if they don't. I like this idea, but how would this work? Could they re tool the Special Contracts section, or would there be a change to Pub contracts? It seems at least one of them would require a client update. You can always tell a Millford Minja
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 9696	Posted - 2014.10.08 19:53:00 - [72] - Quote The trick with districts is that you have to work with what's only available. You also have to account for the clones and come up with a proposal that is the least-exploitable and doesn't require a change in the UI while encouraging more battles and disrupts the blue doughnut. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4079	Posted - 2014.10.08 19:56:00 - [73] - Quote Disrupting the blue doughnut is hard, Maken. Ask the General Tso's guys what would have to be done to the game to make them drop their allies, stop allowing Nyain San to hide under their skirt, and actively and intentionally go after each other. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 9696	Posted - 2014.10.08 20:01:00 - [74] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Disrupting the blue doughnut is hard, Maken. Ask the General Tso's guys what would have to be done to the game to make them drop their allies, stop allowing Nyain San to hide under their skirt, and actively and intentionally go after each other. I guess we'll have to look towards Eve Online as an example of how to deal with that considering right now that Eve has a blue doughnut problem but CCP announced changes for Eve that seem to aim a proverbial Thale's sniper rifle right at that doughnut starting with the jump range of certain ships. On Twitter: @HilmarVeigar #greenlightlegion #dust514 players are waiting.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4079	Posted - 2014.10.08 20:26:00 - [75] - Quote Jump range changes as announced, so far, will likely benefit the CFC in the end. Nothing announced so far has yet come close to breaking EVE's doughnut. ;) The CFC's vast resources means it can better cope with the change than others, leading to a net advantage for them. Sov changes may make it easier for new powers to break into sovereign space, but are still unlikely to actually fragment the coalition. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 796	Posted - 2014.10.08 23:15:00 - [76] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Disrupting the blue doughnut is hard, Maken. Ask the General Tso's guys what would have to be done to the game to make them drop their allies, stop allowing Nyain San to hide under their skirt, and actively and intentionally go after each other. Win battles consistently and start flipping their districts, it works every time. Problem is they re-shuffle and form a new one. Generally with the guys that broke them up.
Haerr Clone Manque 1588	Posted - 2014.10.09 09:48:00 - [77] - Quote Can we have a 'Team Deploy' mode that does not require us to put in millions of ISK? * Standing Corp contracts for Faction Warfare (so that you could queue a team (16 players) together) * Standing Corp contracts for Team Pub matches (again ability to queue 16 players together) Just something.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4091	Posted - 2014.10.09 13:55:00 - [78] - Quote Haerr wrote: Can we have a 'Team Deploy' mode that does not require us to put in millions of ISK? * Standing Corp contracts for Faction Warfare (so that you could queue a team (16 players) together) * Standing Corp contracts for Team Pub matches (again ability to queue 16 players together) Just something. A highlight point is that I feel any mode where you can queue 16 players together should always pit you against 16 players who also queued together. Queue sync FW matches versus randoms is generally a stomp. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Haerr Clone Manque 1589	Posted - 2014.10.09 14:59:00 - [79] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Haerr wrote: Can we have a 'Team Deploy' mode that does not require us to put in millions of ISK? * Standing Corp contracts for Faction Warfare (so that you could queue a team (16 players) together) * Standing Corp contracts for Team Pub matches (again ability to queue 16 players together) Just something. A highlight point is that I feel any mode where you can queue 16 players together should always pit you against 16 players who also queued together. Queue sync FW matches versus randoms is generally a stomp. Could this work then? Continuous tournament. * One tournament per server. * Server selection weighted by the ping times of players in the team. * Continuous queue. * Teams face each other based on win streak. * For a win your team gets +X% rewards. * For a lose your team loses its accumulated bonus and is kicked out of the queue. * Accessed by TCOs, queue contract accepted by TLOs. Since it is team only? (Just a thought...)
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4097	Posted - 2014.10.09 15:09:00 - [80] - Quote I think a tournament/ranking system would need to be an entirely different mode than PC. I think it'd be a great option to have. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.

ZDub 303 Escrow Removal and Acquisition Negative-Feedback 3298	Posted - 2014.10.09 15:18:00 - [81] - Quote There was a lot of discussion about this with Kane Spero back before he pushed for the killing blow to PC. The truly optimal solution to PC needs to be a bottom-up approach instead of the top-down approaches we currently have. No source of income in a game should be paid directly to a corporation wallet which would then need to be 'paid' to members. Instead corporation assets should be paid for with taxes... even though in Dust there is very little other than clone packs for a corporation to even purchase. I still think the optimal solution would be to make research labs generate zero clones per day and some amount of static isk. Excess clone production is worth zero and sales from killing clones is worth something. This would be the only dust solution I can think. In legion hopefully they will move more towards a farms and fields style of play. Where you can do highly profitable PVE on your own districts which then pays some amount of corp tax. It gives line members and corporation leaders both a reason to want to own districts. You only want to own as many districts as you can use though, as it will obviously get very expensive to defend massive amounts of space you cannot use. However, that needs to be balanced with a 'not enough' philosophy to prevent people from feeling like they have enough and no reason to attack. There needs to be some sort of conflict driver as well obviously. Possibly spawning 'anom' style things with lots of concentrated PVE in a short time with a long respawn. Then some sort of resources worth fighting for that deplete and redistribute over time. In the end, I think EVE's solutions to lack of conflict drivers in null sec is going to apply to Dust/Legion as well. You can see a lot of parallels. They are nerfing capital ship force projection through jump fatigue changes. There is a clear analogue to this with both unlimited range clone packs and then the change to clone projection throughout molden heath. Its very clear that the changes to attack range and clone death rates that were made in early uprising where incorrect. The entire game mode suffers from force projection issues and is likely why its remained a largely unpopular game mode. Its a general failure of game design unfortunately. I honestly do not think anything can be done to make PC in Dust worthwhile to play. It needs a complete redesign, which requires Legion unfortunately. The best they can do is make PC worthless, so the isk faucet doesn't impact Legion players when/if they do allow some amount of character/asset transfer. I hate to say it, and I know many of you don't care but its in Legion's best interest for Dust's PC game mode to remain worthless. That is why it is this way. B C R U are letters, not words - Wierd Al Yankovich
Haerr Clone Manque 1589	Posted - 2014.10.09 15:23:00 - [82] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I think a tournament/ranking system would need to be an entirely different mode than PC. I think it'd be a great option to have. The reasons for mentioning Dust roles are that the "backbone" for implementing a continual tournament is already in place, you could likely use the existing back end systems to run the tournament in a different region. Corp guy accepts queue contract. Match contract spawns in the available corp contracts for the next timer. (When a suitable opposing team has been found.) If you win then a contract for the next timer will automatically spawn.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 649	Posted - 2014.10.10 12:13:00 - [83] - 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.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2183	Posted - 2014.10.10 14:13:00 - [84] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Like i said before both mechanics current and past are sht 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. Find Moon Find District Clear Moon/Anchor Tower Seize District Invest in Fuel/Mods/Stront Kiss Ass* Accumulate Moon Goo Accumulate Isk Safely Transport Goo to Market Accumulate More Isk from Ether Sell Goo to a player for profit Print even more Isk from Ether since the NPC Buy Orders for Clone Biomass NEVER DRY UP!!!! Do you see the difference? First one is that to Moon Mine, you need to invest in things that allow you to collect the commodity you want to sell for profit. This expense is even beyond those necessary to find the moon (DOTLAN or a whole lot of Survey Probes) and clear the moon (billions paid to mercs or spent on funding your own attack). After that, you need to defend your moon and keep your tower out of RF (this is similar in that you need to defend your District) so that it can collect the valuable moon goo which you seized the moon for. Once you have accumulated a reasonable amount, you need to transport this valuable cargo from your tower to market and hope and pray to whatever god you hold holy that you don't get ganked and lose it all in a matter of moments. Get it to market safely? Well, then you need to sell it to another player for Isk that they are losing and you are gaining. Even if you take away the steps in bold and place the towers deep in the blue doughnut, Moon Mining is still vastly riskier than PC if for no other reason than potential for ganking during transport. There is no such risk associated with selling Clone Biomass back to Geneolution. It is purely riskfree Isk generated from ether straight into your corp wallet Leave PIG in Dust as little more than a bad memory and move forward to develop something that is truly impactful and allows Districts to be a profitable part of Dust without simply converting ether to Isk. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4110	Posted - 2014.10.10 14:36:00 - [85] - Quote 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. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Bradric Banewolf D3ATH CARD 400	Posted - 2014.10.10 15:00:00 - [86] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: PC is pointless without actual EVE integration, at least FW has an effect EVE side as well as giving players Loyalty Points that can be spent on Aurum Substitutes or specialist/state gear that is flat-out just "Better." At this point I'd like to see a removal of the pointless PC and re-introduce Corp Matchmaking, until we actually find a reason why anyone should give a damn about owning literally useless land that has zero effect Dust side or EVE side. Yep. The land is pointless, and needs more than just isk value. Passive isk isn't the answer. District control needs to affect both eve and dust. CCP could implement a trade market and a better PC experience by making districts have a more effective purpose other than flag waving?! You got it right with the loyalty store and factional warfare! I think this is what PC should've been all along. Districts should be in a constant contested state for control with the corp winning the most battles controlling large chunks of the district control. At certain levels of control being reached that corp can begin to reap the benefits of their labor in the form of production. Cargo hubs could hold gear produced in the production facility, but would need to be protected. Smaller corps could try to pirate gear and resources producing great fighting for everyone, and implementing the pirating system so many have asked for. I know alot of this would require a client-side fix, but one more may very well fix our current PC situation. As it is now the player base has largely loss interest, and can't trust each other pass alpha?! "Anybody order chaos?"
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3544	Posted - 2014.10.10 15:20:00 - [87] - Quote Passive isk was exploited to the benefit of a few players and to the detriment of the majority of players. Anyone who says otherwise is trolling or blind. PC was locked down as content for an elite few and all others denied entry so that corps could harvest hundreds of millions per week. Alt corps engaging to lock out battles each week with clone packs that did not expend was a thing. Allies would similarly lock frienly districts and not deploy. Only one battle per day is allowed per district. Many corps have deliberately set the lock timers to exclude 90% of players due to Most people having jobs and needing sleep, creating an artificial buffer that discouraged anyone from wasting the effort it would require to get 16 bodies for a midnight raid. All of these factors ended with endless isk for a few and no entry for others. Claiming it wasn't exploited outright is like claiming that the earth is flat or that devouring arsenic is safe. Passive ISK needed to not be a thing and should have been killed with fire in its infancy. It contributed nothing useful to the game as a whole. It did, however, insure that a select few players would never have to concern themselves with the same difficulties suffered by the rest of the playerbase. Keep saying you don't like the claim that it was exploited. Im a goon. We excel at abusing bad mechanics but this one took the cake so thoroughly that even we were disgusted by the sheer stupidity of it.
Sequal Rise Les Desanusseurs 101	Posted - 2014.10.10 15:40:00 - [88] - Quote Bring back passive isk payout (not as much as before) but prevent corps from having more than 2 districts. It'll become MUCH more fun, with MUCH more corporations having districts! Check that corps doesnt create secondary ones/academy corps in order to have more districts, and your problem will be solved! Sorry for my bad english ^^
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2184	Posted - 2014.10.10 17:06:00 - [89] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Passive isk was exploited to the benefit of a few players and to the detriment of the majority of players. Anyone who says otherwise is trolling or blind. PC was locked down as content for an elite few and all others denied entry so that corps could harvest hundreds of millions per week. Alt corps engaging to lock out battles each week with clone packs that did not expend was a thing. Allies would similarly lock frienly districts and not deploy. Only one battle per day is allowed per district. Many corps have deliberately set the lock timers to exclude 90% of players due to Most people having jobs and needing sleep, creating an artificial buffer that discouraged anyone from wasting the effort it would require to get 16 bodies for a midnight raid. All of these factors ended with endless isk for a few and no entry for others. Claiming it wasn't exploited outright is like claiming that the earth is flat or that devouring arsenic is safe. Passive ISK needed to not be a thing and should have been killed with fire in its infancy. It contributed nothing useful to the game as a whole. It did, however, insure that a select few players would never have to concern themselves with the same difficulties suffered by the rest of the playerbase. Keep saying you don't like the claim that it was exploited. Im a goon. We excel at abusing bad mechanics but this one took the cake so thoroughly that even we were disgusted by the sheer stupidity of it. Your closing statement should be the subtitle of everything written about PC ever. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3551	Posted - 2014.10.10 20:04:00 - [90] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Your closing statement should be the subtitle of everything written about PC ever. No that subtitle is "10% of the fun for 1000% of the normal price."

KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 650	Posted - 2014.10.10 22:48:00 - [91] - 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 - [92] - 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.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4130	Posted - 2014.10.12 01:29:00 - [93] - Quote 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.) CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 651	Posted - 2014.10.12 09:06:00 - [94] - 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.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2190	Posted - 2014.10.12 14:35:00 - [95] - Quote 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. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 359	Posted - 2014.10.12 18:49:00 - [96] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Cavani1EE7 wrote: It didn't have to be completely removed, 2 million ISK per day would've been fair. 2 million ISK a day for no effort is still free money. For General Tso's Alliance, that'd be 296,000,000 ISK every day for free. Then why do we even fight to get all districts and then not care? We are fighting for stuff like production facilities at the very least production facilities should give us money in legion at most cause no matter what you do someone's going to find a way to exploit Caldari Loyalist I speak for the rabbits
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 651	Posted - 2014.10.12 21:25:00 - [97] - 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.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4147	Posted - 2014.10.13 02:04:00 - [98] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: And what exactly was wrong with what happened before? It was constant non-stop warfare! You and I remember "before" very differently. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2190	Posted - 2014.10.13 16:33:00 - [99] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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. Constant non-stop warfare? What? Do you mean the same group of people throwing Districts around and changing the names and compositions of their Alliances to maintain a visegrip chokehold on "ISK from Ether"? You call that constant warfare? Really? Do you even know the definition of warfare? It was all bad, from the start, we even told CCP this and they insisted on releasing a horribly broken system that only really benefited those who were some of the more egregious asskissers. 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. This blue doughnut exists as it did when passive Isk was still a thing and it is as stable as it is because you're all in the circlejerk despite the lack of Passive Isk. I can't believe you actually misquoted one of the worst movie quotes ever, I mean, there are people who still credit the behavior displayed in Wall Street with the recent financial crises. Honestly make me think that you're even more of a tool than I thought before reading that. Finally, the removal of passive Isk removed the stillborn from the bassinet, there was no baby in there, just a dead thing that needed to be disposed of rather than allowed into the nursery. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 828	Posted - 2014.10.13 17:06:00 - [100] - Quote 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.

KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2014.10.13 19:47:00 - [101] - 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.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4157	Posted - 2014.10.13 20:01:00 - [102] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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. There is one group of people to whom passive ISK was a "good" thing: People able to easily mass it, and horribly unbalance the game through rampant proto-stomping. It helped an excruciatingly small percentage of the playerbase. How it helped them, was to help them ruin the game for everyone else. Passive ISK is inherently bad. It's bad in EVE, we have ten years of evidence on that. It's bad in DUST, where we knew it was bad going in, and all evidence since has proved it. The only way I can support ISK coming back to PC is when someone figures out a way to prevent a 99% blue donut farm for the ISK spread among the tryhard folks with no competition. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2191	Posted - 2014.10.13 20:32:00 - [103] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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. You say you are speaking from experience and close observation and that I am not. I respond that you have been desensitized by proximity and blinded to how bad Passive Isk is and how it is toxic to/for the community as a whole (about which you obviously give no **** since you only care about you and your circlejerk buddies). I have an outside perspective, I am therefore capable of making unbiased observations unlike yourself. You actually think that the "good" (your term, not mine) that came from PC outweighed the bad. I hate to tell you this (actually no I don't), but you and the rest of the circlejerk becoming stupid rich at the expense of new players and everyone else in the community who didn't want to kiss your asses is not good. If we had to sacrifice the PC participant portion of the community to bring back all of the people we've lost due to the asshattery of the PC participant portion of the community, I'd move forward with the plan without a second thought. Yeah, I typed it, I'd sacrifice a small (cancerous) percentage of the playerbase who honestly don't care about the game beyond their own fictional wallet balance for a playerbase that was 10 (if not 100) fold what it is now. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Dr PepperPoP Bragian Order Amarr Empire 825	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:05:00 - [104] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: KA24DERT wrote: 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. There is one group of people to whom passive ISK was a "good" thing: People able to easily mass it, and horribly unbalance the game through rampant proto-stomping. It helped an excruciatingly small percentage of the playerbase. How it helped them, was to help them ruin the game for everyone else. Passive ISK is inherently bad. It's bad in EVE, we have ten years of evidence on that. It's bad in DUST, where we knew it was bad going in, and all evidence since has proved it. The only way I can support ISK coming back to PC is when someone figures out a way to prevent a 99% blue donut farm for the ISK spread among the tryhard folks with no competition. This is absolute non-sense. You're basically saying it's not right for players to succeed more then others when they put more effort into it. Passive ISK isn't inherently bad - it's quite the opposite - as it provides motivation and value to your actions in PC. Where as the current system punishes you for trying. Our PC representative on the CPM is ******* GONE on this matter, he's basically abandoned us to those who've never succeed so are against passive ISK. That is what is wrong, your view point. Weight the cons and pros then try to say ISK is inherently bad for this game.
Dr PepperPoP Bragian Order Amarr Empire 825	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:06:00 - [105] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: KA24DERT wrote: 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. You say you are speaking from experience and close observation and that I am not. I respond that you have been desensitized by proximity and blinded to how bad Passive Isk is and how it is toxic to/for the community as a whole (about which you obviously give no **** since you only care about you and your circlejerk buddies). I have an outside perspective, I am therefore capable of making unbiased observations unlike yourself. You actually think that the "good" (your term, not mine) that came from PC outweighed the bad. I hate to tell you this (actually no I don't), but you and the rest of the circlejerk becoming stupid rich at the expense of new players and everyone else in the community who didn't want to kiss your asses is not good. If we had to sacrifice the PC participant portion of the community to bring back all of the people we've lost due to the asshattery of the PC participant portion of the community, I'd move forward with the plan without a second thought. Yeah, I typed it, I'd sacrifice a small (cancerous) percentage of the playerbase who honestly don't care about the game beyond their own fictional wallet balance for a playerbase that was 10 (if not 100) fold what it is now. And you need to stop posting. PC players care FAR MORE about this game then the rest of you do. FAR MORE.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2191	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:10:00 - [106] - Quote Dr PepperPoP wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: KA24DERT wrote: 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. You say you are speaking from experience and close observation and that I am not. I respond that you have been desensitized by proximity and blinded to how bad Passive Isk is and how it is toxic to/for the community as a whole (about which you obviously give no ** since you only care about you and your circlejerk buddies). I have an outside perspective, I am therefore capable of making unbiased observations unlike yourself. You actually think that the "good" (your term, not mine) that came from PC outweighed the bad. I hate to tell you this (actually no I don't), but you and the rest of the circlejerk becoming stupid rich at the expense of new players and everyone else in the community who didn't want to kiss your asses is not good. If we had to sacrifice the PC participant portion of the community to bring back all of the people we've lost due to the asshattery of the PC participant portion of the community, I'd move forward with the plan without a second thought. Yeah, I typed it, I'd sacrifice a small (cancerous) percentage of the playerbase who honestly don't care about the game beyond their own fictional wallet balance for a playerbase that was 10 (if not 100) fold what it is now. And you need to stop posting. PC players care FAR MORE about this game then the rest of you do. FAR MORE. lolno kiddo Those who are against Passive Isk are not against Passive Isk because they've never succeeded, there are those of us who were against it before it was even officially released (Do I have to post the link again?). Just because you kissed ass and played exclusionary games with all of the other people who refused to kiss ass means ** all to everyone who isn't in your little circlejerk. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:15:00 - [107] - 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.
Dr PepperPoP Bragian Order Amarr Empire 825	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:19:00 - [108] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Dr PepperPoP wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: KA24DERT wrote: 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. You say you are speaking from experience and close observation and that I am not. I respond that you have been desensitized by proximity and blinded to how bad Passive Isk is and how it is toxic to/for the community as a whole (about which you obviously give no ** since you only care about you and your circlejerk buddies). I have an outside perspective, I am therefore capable of making unbiased observations unlike yourself. You actually think that the "good" (your term, not mine) that came from PC outweighed the bad. I hate to tell you this (actually no I don't), but you and the rest of the circlejerk becoming stupid rich at the expense of new players and everyone else in the community who didn't want to kiss your asses is not good. If we had to sacrifice the PC participant portion of the community to bring back all of the people we've lost due to the asshattery of the PC participant portion of the community, I'd move forward with the plan without a second thought. Yeah, I typed it, I'd sacrifice a small (cancerous) percentage of the playerbase who honestly don't care about the game beyond their own fictional wallet balance for a playerbase that was 10 (if not 100) fold what it is now. And you need to stop posting. PC players care FAR MORE about this game then the rest of you do. FAR MORE. lolno kiddo Those who are against Passive Isk are not against Passive Isk because they've never succeeded, there are those of us who were against it before it was even officially released (Do I have to post the link again?). Just because you kissed ass and played exclusionary games with all of the other people who refused to kiss ass means ** all to everyone who isn't in your little circlejerk. And is there a reason you want to kill the only interesting part of this game that's loaded with players who've dedicated themselves to play Dust? You're actually cool with isolating and hurting this very loyal fan base for the casual crowd who will quit a month later more then likely. It's absurd. Passive ISK needed to be down-graded, that was all. It's removal was ludicrous.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2191	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:26:00 - [109] - Quote Dr PepperPoP wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Dr PepperPoP wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: KA24DERT wrote: 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. You say you are speaking from experience and close observation and that I am not. I respond that you have been desensitized by proximity and blinded to how bad Passive Isk is and how it is toxic to/for the community as a whole (about which you obviously give no ** since you only care about you and your circlejerk buddies). I have an outside perspective, I am therefore capable of making unbiased observations unlike yourself. You actually think that the "good" (your term, not mine) that came from PC outweighed the bad. I hate to tell you this (actually no I don't), but you and the rest of the circlejerk becoming stupid rich at the expense of new players and everyone else in the community who didn't want to kiss your asses is not good. If we had to sacrifice the PC participant portion of the community to bring back all of the people we've lost due to the asshattery of the PC participant portion of the community, I'd move forward with the plan without a second thought. Yeah, I typed it, I'd sacrifice a small (cancerous) percentage of the playerbase who honestly don't care about the game beyond their own fictional wallet balance for a playerbase that was 10 (if not 100) fold what it is now. And you need to stop posting. PC players care FAR MORE about this game then the rest of you do. FAR MORE. lolno kiddo Those who are against Passive Isk are not against Passive Isk because they've never succeeded, there are those of us who were against it before it was even officially released (Do I have to post the link again?). Just because you kissed ass and played exclusionary games with all of the other people who refused to kiss ass means ** all to everyone who isn't in your little circlejerk. And is there a reason you want to kill the only interesting part of this game that's loaded with players who've dedicated themselves to play Dust? You're actually cool with isolating and hurting this very loyal fan base for the casual crowd who will quit a month later more then likely. It's absurd. Passive ISK needed to be down-graded, that was all. It's removal was ludicrous. And your willingness to hurt the PC crowd shows nothing more then tears - and your 'link' can just be said you knew you wouldn't be competitive so you were against it from the start. I wasn't the one who was quoted in the link. Get your facts straight kiddo. This "very loyal fan base" as you put it, did everything they could to isolate and exclude everyone who was not a part of their circle. Which then drove out many of those who would still be here and loyal had they not been choked out by Passive Isk and cronyism. Also, in closing, get it right, I didn't kill PC. It was DOA and then had its corpse desecrated for lulz by the farmers. I had nothing to do with its death, you did. Leave Passive Isk out, move on with development (with or without former farmers, it is their own choice to leave if they do). The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Dr PepperPoP Bragian Order Amarr Empire 826	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:31:00 - [110] - Quote You mean, they tried to play conquest in a conquest mode?! How dare those jerks!! It's almost like - they tried to play the game! That's not isolating people - that is just how conquest games work. The weak will get expelled until they can come back harder. The fault of PC is that CCP has no avenue for corps to use to gain entry into PC without loads of ISK and taxing members - but that's what CCP intended - they wanted you to recruit a lot of people and tax them to prepare for PC. But, far as development vs PC fix goes - I'm with you on that. Fix the core first. But everything about how PC is right now is wrong compared to how it was when passive ISK was around - corps don't fight, there's no war, no meta, it's just stale and keeps getting staler.

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2191	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:37:00 - [111] - Quote Dr PepperPoP wrote: You mean, they tried to play conquest in a conquest mode?! How dare those jerks!! It's almost like - they tried to play the game! That's not isolating people - that is just how conquest games work. The weak will get expelled until they can come back harder. The fault of PC is that CCP has no avenue for corps to use to gain entry into PC without loads of ISK and taxing members - but that's what CCP intended - they wanted you to recruit a lot of people and tax them to prepare for PC. But, far as development vs PC fix goes - I'm with you on that. Fix the core first. But everything about how PC is right now is wrong compared to how it was when passive ISK was around - corps don't fight, there's no war, no meta, it's just stale and keeps getting staler. Good, it should stay that way. PC was an abortion, it wasn't a game mode, it was trash thrown together shoddily by a like farmer who built it to be something that would make them more popular. Raze it and rebuild it from square one. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Dr PepperPoP Bragian Order Amarr Empire 826	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:46:00 - [112] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Dr PepperPoP wrote: You mean, they tried to play conquest in a conquest mode?! How dare those jerks!! It's almost like - they tried to play the game! That's not isolating people - that is just how conquest games work. The weak will get expelled until they can come back harder. The fault of PC is that CCP has no avenue for corps to use to gain entry into PC without loads of ISK and taxing members - but that's what CCP intended - they wanted you to recruit a lot of people and tax them to prepare for PC. But, far as development vs PC fix goes - I'm with you on that. Fix the core first. But everything about how PC is right now is wrong compared to how it was when passive ISK was around - corps don't fight, there's no war, no meta, it's just stale and keeps getting staler. Good, it should stay that way. PC was an abortion, it wasn't a game mode, it was trash thrown together shoddily by a like farmer who built it to be something that would make them more popular. Raze it and rebuild it from square one. -.- can't argue against that, lol. It was supposed to get skrim 1.0 or some game mode that was it's spiritual successor - but it never came. :'( :'(
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3626	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:51:00 - [113] - Quote Dr PepperPoP wrote: The weak will get expelled until they can come back harder. And they can do it right after we decide we have had enough ISK by locking all of our districts with alt corps! Quote: The fault of PC is that CCP has no avenue for corps to use to gain entry into PC without loads of ISK and taxing members - but that's what CCP intended - they wanted you to recruit a lot of people and tax them to prepare for PC. And then district locking and blue locking became a thing and even the corps WITH the money couldn't participate ANYWAY. Quote: But, far as development vs PC fix goes - I'm with you on that. Fix the core first. But everything about how PC is right now is wrong compared to how it was when passive ISK was around - corps don't fight, there's no war, no meta, it's just stale and keeps getting staler. It's almost like no one has offered a constructive alternative to the passive ISK welfare check. Hmmm, this resembles something a certain hamster might have said. Something about how all of the pilots knew the ADS was broken, was a problem and said nothing, then didn't provide any real feedback or suggestions on how to tone it down so it was more reasonable... Then the toy got smacked with a hammer. Everyone cried. Passive ISK was toxic. The methods used to farm it were so BLATANTLY toxic that my corp dropped out of PC after handing a buncha tryhards their asses in three districts for over a month and a half. Let's think about that for a second: Mechanics that are too toxic and crappy for Goons to want to exploit. That should tell you that there was NOTHING good about PC passive ISK generation.
hfderrtgvcd 787	Posted - 2014.10.13 22:56:00 - [114] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Dr PepperPoP wrote: The weak will get expelled until they can come back harder. And they can do it right after we decide we have had enough ISK by locking all of our districts with alt corps! Quote: The fault of PC is that CCP has no avenue for corps to use to gain entry into PC without loads of ISK and taxing members - but that's what CCP intended - they wanted you to recruit a lot of people and tax them to prepare for PC. And then district locking and blue locking became a thing and even the corps WITH the money couldn't participate ANYWAY. Quote: But, far as development vs PC fix goes - I'm with you on that. Fix the core first. But everything about how PC is right now is wrong compared to how it was when passive ISK was around - corps don't fight, there's no war, no meta, it's just stale and keeps getting staler. It's almost like no one has offered a constructive alternative to the passive ISK welfare check. Hmmm, this resembles something a certain hamster might have said. Something about how all of the pilots knew the ADS was broken, was a problem and said nothing, then didn't provide any real feedback or suggestions on how to tone it down so it was more reasonable... Then the toy got smacked with a hammer. Everyone cried. Passive ISK was toxic. The methods used to farm it were so BLATANTLY toxic that my corp dropped out of PC after handing a buncha tryhards their asses in three districts for over a month and a half. Let's think about that for a second: Mechanics that are too toxic and crappy for Goons to want to exploit. That should tell you that there was NOTHING good about PC passive ISK generation. You do realize district locking has long since been fixed, right? The only way to do it now is at a considerable loss. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3626	Posted - 2014.10.13 23:00:00 - [115] - Quote hfderrtgvcd wrote: You do realize district locking has long since been fixed, right? The only way to do it now is at a considerable loss. Doesn't also change the fact that modifiable timers made attacking districts unfeasible for the majority of players. The number of timers set between 10PM and 3 AM (you know, most of us have jobs and sh*t, right?) made it unfeasible for anyone but rabid, jobless packs of neckbeards to attack a PC district.
Dr PepperPoP Bragian Order Amarr Empire 826	Posted - 2014.10.13 23:25:00 - [116] - Quote I'm not even sure what Breakin's point is - the mechanics he's blaming don't even exist anymore. All your QQ is just, "I can't play with you guys cause I has life." That's a tough break and none of our or even CCP's fault. Best thing you can do is build a team and make the change yourself, that's why CCP calls PC a sandbox, after-all, some of this content is expected of us to make ourselves, so you QQing bout timers is ridiculous.
hfderrtgvcd 788	Posted - 2014.10.13 23:28:00 - [117] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: You do realize district locking has long since been fixed, right? The only way to do it now is at a considerable loss. Doesn't also change the fact that modifiable timers made attacking districts unfeasible for the majority of players. The number of timers set between 10PM and 3 AM (you know, most of us have jobs and sh*t, right?) made it unfeasible for anyone but rabid, jobless packs of neckbeards to attack a PC district. lolwhat. why don't you go to dotlan and check the timers for yourself. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 653	Posted - 2014.10.14 05:50:00 - [118] - 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.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2191	Posted - 2014.10.14 13:03:00 - [119] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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 that 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. I was wondering when the blanket invalidations would come along. Funny thing is that the first time I heard "tryhard" used was on the MAG forums by a member of the self-professed elite for anyone putting effort into what they found to be an effortless activity. IDK if that is how breakin was using it, but I find it amusing that the word appears to have come full circle. Also, farming is exactly what it was, I never said that it didn't take at least some effort (pucker, kiss, now give that leather cheerio some tongue). I think you meant "fought tooth and nail to alt-lock and demoralize the rest of the community" rather than "fought tooth and nail to attack and defend". Give it up, more members of the community view PC as being toxic and needing a total revamp than will agree that it is all fine and hunky-dory and just needs Passive Isk reintroduced. Passive Isk was a bad idea from day one and the only people who don't see this are the people who want to hoard it for themselves. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 655	Posted - 2014.10.15 06:16:00 - [120] - 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.

Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 837	Posted - 2014.10.15 13:23:00 - [121] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2191	Posted - 2014.10.15 19:22:00 - [122] - Quote Dust User wrote: KA24DERT wrote: 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. Add a "District Mortgage" that scales per District owned. Make the District Mortgage 75% of whatever the amount of Passive Isk is, if the District will give you 1m Isk per day, the District Mortgage is 750k per day. If more than one District is owned, the District Mortgage should increase by 20% for each additional District beyond the first. 1 District Owned: +1m Passive Isk/-750k District Mortgage 2 Districts Owned: +2m Passive Isk/-1.65m District Mortgage 3 Districts Owned: +3m Passive Isk/-2.7m District Mortgage 4 Districts Owned: +4m Passive Isk/-3.9m District Mortgage 5 Districts Owned: +5m Passive Isk/-5.25m District Mortgage Most of your Isk is going to pay for your District Mortgage, as you take more Districts, Passive Income rapidly becomes nil. SI modify both your Income and your Mortgage. Cargo Hubs: +15% to both Production Facility: +20%/+10% Surface Research Lab: +10%/+20% If it were something like this, where it would be a massive pain to exploit, I could get behind it..... possibly. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
Atiim 12955	Posted - 2014.10.15 19:32:00 - [123] - Quote Why would there be a fee for conquering a district? The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
hfderrtgvcd 802	Posted - 2014.10.15 19:58:00 - [124] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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. really good ideas. I suggest you make a thread if you want ccp to see it. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2191	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:32:00 - [125] - Quote Atiim wrote: 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. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13577	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:48:00 - [126] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Atiim wrote: 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. Very fair sentiment. I am hoping for Legion the have something like this. Low thresholds of passive ISK while the value of holding such districts lies in the activities you can participate on that district. "We were commanded to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocents caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 3646	Posted - 2014.10.15 21:51:00 - [127] - Quote Here. My last attempt to be constructive on the topic of Planetary Conquest. From here on out only mockery for tryhards will ever again grace my posts unless you bore me. Have a look and see if it's something people can get behind.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 00:41:00 - [128] - 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.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 418	Posted - 2014.10.16 01:00:00 - [129] - Quote No to passive ISK cause im a former entitled PC participant and dont want any 1 else to be as rich as me. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2192	Posted - 2014.10.16 13:17:00 - [130] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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. lol I guess I should've figured that I would have to explain checks and balances to you. If I were honestly looking to punish land ownership, I'd have reversed the numbers in my suggestion. What don't you get? Passive Isk is a toxic subject to everyone who hasn't been farming it for the past 18 months or those who plan on kissing ass so they can hope to get some as well. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....

Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4201	Posted - 2014.10.16 15:17:00 - [131] - Quote Atiim wrote: 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. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 839	Posted - 2014.10.16 15:20:00 - [132] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Atiim wrote: 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?
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4208	Posted - 2014.10.16 16:13:00 - [133] - Quote Dust User wrote: 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. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 4977	Posted - 2014.10.16 16:54:00 - [134] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Dust User wrote: 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. It might sound good in your head, but it wouldn't work. I'd agree with you, if you had the ability to clear drone infestations or something to maintain your districts. But you shouldn't be punished because people aren't attacking you. I think that perhaps clone generation should progressively slow down if clones aren't being used. As the district sees activity the generation per day starts to increase. So someone sitting on a bunch of districts not doing anything could be mass attacked and they wouldn't recover the clones as fast even if they successfully defended the district. Level 4 Forum Warrior Help Me Reach Level 5
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 839	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:05:00 - [135] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Dust User wrote: 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. lol That sounds like a terrible idea. As Thor said, you shouldn't be punished because everyone else is a bunch of pussies.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4216	Posted - 2014.10.16 17:21:00 - [136] - Quote Dust User wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Dust User wrote: 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. lol That sounds like a terrible idea. As Thor said, you shouldn't be punished because everyone else is a bunch of pussies. It's one of the few ways ISK generation could be responsibly re-added into the game. I will never support a system that just dumps ISK into the game for landholders being in the game again. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
Dust User KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 839	Posted - 2014.10.16 18:33:00 - [137] - Quote So far the best idea I've seen is one timer per hour. This would also prevent "squatting".
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 20:00:00 - [138] - 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.
Soraya Xel Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 4244	Posted - 2014.10.16 20:41:00 - [139] - Quote 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. CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 22:38:00 - [140] - 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.

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2192	Posted - 2014.10.16 22:54:00 - [141] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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. 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). The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 657	Posted - 2014.10.16 23:38:00 - [142] - 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 - [143] - 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.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5004	Posted - 2014.10.17 02:44:00 - [144] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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-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. Word Level 4 Forum Warrior** Help Me Reach Level 5
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2192	Posted - 2014.10.17 11:49:00 - [145] - Quote KA24DERT wrote: 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-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. No, I admit that you're a bunch of whiny entitled children that wouldn't have known the difference had Passive Isk never been introduced. There is only one reason why there were more fights during the PC era than during the Corp Battle era, there was zero incentive outside of bragging rights to fight back during Corp Battle era that it is. The inclusion of Passive Isk did include an incentive for participating in PC, it was simply a terribly misguided and poorly thought out incentive. FW was a player driven effect on New Eden, everytime they eased the transition of a system from one faction to another, that was an effect driven by players in New Eden. Gamer media =/= New York Times (sorry to inform you) and I doubt if NYT does regularly run gamer stories that they are anywhere but buried as a 100 word article somewhere deep in the back of the paper. While your suggestions might bring more people into sandbox, the sand in the sandbox that you're suggesting is infested with parasites. I never called you a tryhard, get it straight kiddo, you need to keep your arguments separated. While we're leveling bot accusations at one another, we could replace you with a bot and it wouldn't complain about the absence of Passive Isk in PC at all. I think that would be overall healthier for the game at large. Allow me to correct your closing statement "I don't add anything to the conversation that you and your cronies agree with". I am not here to be popular, I am here to discuss playing a game that I enjoy playing. IDGAF what you or anyone else thinks of me or my thoughts. The Universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive So it is, so it's always been....
KA24DERT TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 667	Posted - 2014.10.17 20:30:00 - [146] - 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.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.