also ccp, think , if you have a standard timer, for those who prime time is different like japans night time is. your forcing them to play american timers, if anything your looking at a possible lawsuit cause no where in your ula does it state that this is a primarily an american time game. the way you have it is fine, it calls for logistics just like on eve, eve people want to hit the russians they have to plan a week or two in advance, alarm clock that, make sure the approriate pilots will be available. this is no different on dust. your just listening to the dumbest qq in game so far to date.and if anything i will be on the foriegners side. because a set default timer forces other to grind while a select group does not have to do a damn thing. you call that balance? the game is balanced timer wise, just not as many foriegn players, and no one is to blame but your company and your advertising ability as well as sonys advertising of your game.do your self a favor save your time , effort and money, and just advertise to get a bigger player base in the regional timers that your lacking player count. like do i seriously have to tell you how to run a company correctly? so what if 65% if the players complain about timers,(all american timers) , to set a default is to single out, to single out people is possible and most likely a lawsuit, i know i would if you had it 12 hour different from when i played,

You dont understand at all how this is going to work apparently. PC when it released was a massive land grab with people getting as much land as they could and changing the timers to suit themselves. Luckily at that time we had a playerbase of around 40k so there was a good player base for all regions and time zones. So balance was had with corps attacking corps based on their timers. However we now have a player base of 10k or less. the main players are North American, followed by EU then Asia. The goal is to make timers have a default time for the district to make sure there is always a districts to attack at different time zones. This in theory will allow a broader timer placement instead of our current 00:00-05:00 (117 Districts) and 12:00-13:00 (37) making up 63% of our districts. So the 245 districts will be split evenly between all 23 hours of the day making each hour have 10.7 districts in that hour. If the community lets that shift it shifts gradually based on activity and not by instantaneous transfer.

Example- Nyain San taking a district out of thier timezone and instantly setting it to 12 thus unattainable by defenders to attempt to retaliate. The goal is when the attackers take a district they have logistical issues trying to achieve a timer that suits them. This gives defenders a chance to retake the land. Should the New owner be able to defend the district at this default timer they are rewarded by being allowed to slowly adjust the timer to something more suited to them.

This gives foreigners, as you say, protection against a team that is "alarmclocking" to quickly take the district and change it to something unattainable. Again everyone can still "alarmclock" to take a district but if its a timer that is well out of reach of your corps comfort zone you will have to prepare to get up multiple days in a row to defend till you can spend the cp to get it to a more manageable timer.

I can see the elites holding out just fine. 'Several hundred players' sounds so grand, but in the end it's 16v16. It doesn't matter how many average players are in the attacking corp, if there's a solid A-team in the defending corp the defending corp will do just fine.

^ This is the driving dynamic of our lobby-based FPS.

This is also the reason raids need to have tactical value in terms of softening up the target in later fights: the non-elites become valuable because they can potentially put the A-team in a better position for the big fight.

Textbook badposting

I- New Concept: Command Points
Command Points will be earned by players in Corporations doing Corporate Missions. This is akin to "fuel" proposed by the community.



II- Updated Concept: Changing Timers
All timers can be changed as is possibly currently, in the 1st hour of being conquered. District Timer changes will cost Command Points, few for short changes, massive for massive changes. This should make rapid, huge leaps in timers very difficult to maintain and make it more desirable to hold land in your "own" timezone.

III- New Concept: Raids
We want to make it possible to add District Raiding, in the form of short warning challenges. Raids will not cause Districts to be lost, but the margin of win will dictate how much ISK the Raiders get away with. You should put up a fight to defend your district against Raids, but it will not buckle you to let one Raid slide. Perfect to train New Players, both on Attacking and Defending. These might be in 8v8, 12v12 or 16v16 varieties.



IV- Updated Concept: Maps
We want to move from always fighting on Cargo Hubs, so while PC2.0 is being implemented, maps should be more randomly generated and possibly all SI' bonuses set to zero.



Look forward to seeing your feedback!

Interesting posts operator. I agree with you on some points, disagree on a couple. But mostly nicely thought out.

As far as raiding: I think it should be kept to 8v8 or 12v12. This is an entry level opening to PC and a means for PC corps to make use of their members who can't do PC because a lot of PC corps have set in stone fight teams. Raids should be open to more than the conquest window.

Upon a raid that is repelled tge defenders should gain an IMMEDIATEA OPPORTUNITY TO DESTROY ATTACKER ASSETS in the form of a retaliatory attack initiated immediately after a successful defense.

Warbarges should not be destroyed unless yours are destroyed when you lose a district. However wrecking clone assets and causing CP loss is an option to represent infrastructure damage.

However if raiders go unopposed there should be no opportunity to retaliate.

I am fine with adding variety to the game by adding 8v8 and 12v12 battles to the proposed raiding system, but raids should also increase Dust's overall capacity for full 16v16 matches. Raids aren't just an opportunity for non-PC qualified people to be involved in team matches, they also present the opportunity for A-teams to get more reps in between their standard PC battles.

I am fine with adding variety to the game by adding 8v8 and 12v12 battles to the proposed raiding system, but raids should also increase Dust's overall capacity for full 16v16 matches. Raids aren't just an opportunity for non-PC qualified people to be involved in team matches, they also present the opportunity for A-teams to get more reps in between their standard PC battles.

Yep, but I have gotten a vibe that a lot of PC players want this to be a landholder exclusive toy, a stance I am viciously against on all levels.

Its supposed to be ragtag pirate corps trying to loot a seemingly badly defended area, or privateers making ISK by being paid to be a thorn in someone elses side.

In all honesty, I understand some of their concerns, like not wanting to defend against 100 half assed raids from random corps all day long. But I think alot of their want for the land requirement is so that they can use it as leverage to make arbitrary rules as to who is allowed to raid who where when and why.

If someone wants in on raiding, and they have to own land, they can be threatened with the loss of their land and ability to raid by larger crops/alliances who want to enforce their rules. (example: Dont raid our districts while were out pub stomping...or else!). That would ruin the entire dynamic of raiding. Its supposed to be ragtag pirate corps trying to loot a seemingly badly defended area, or privateers making ISK by being paid to be a thorn in someone elses side.

You remove that dynamic, and you end up with "diplomats" and handshakes, and ect. Thats great and all if you have time to build an empire. But not all corps have 7 days a week reliable players for that. Alot of corps can only operate at peak on the weekends. Non landholding raids is the only way alot of people would be able to participate in entry level PC.

6 v 16 isn't interesting gameplay unless the six have a wildcard that matters.

There's no value in a game mode where one side risks everything and the other comparatively nothing.

Yep, but I have gotten a vibe that a lot of PC players want this to be a landholder exclusive toy, a stance I am viciously against on all levels.

6 v 16 isn't interesting gameplay unless the six have a wildcard that matters.

There's no value in a game mode where one side risks everything and the other comparatively nothing.

Correct, and that same equation works in the inverse as well, 16v 6 isn't interesting gameplay either, nor does it have any value since it very much is one side risking comparatively nothing relative to the incredible potential of the other.


Truth is, all raiders will be looking for the most poorly defended districts first, because if that many people were actually looking for actually challenging PC matches there'd be a hell of a lot more active PC players . Which is, IMO, fine. I just consider, as a fair "risk" the raiders take, the idea of a raiding party to possibly enter a district where they are not just matched but outnumbered to be a worthwhile possible balancing element.

In my opinion attacking the hard ones would be more entertaining.

I like dying in a fire. I learn more about how to rip people by losing to them a few times than I ever did stomping them.

Raiding, like just about any other activity in PC, FW or Pubs, WILL be a negotiable service commodity regardless of it's structure. This is DUST after all, derivative of EVE, where Player Created Content is overwhelmingly Player Created Politics-based. To think otherwise is self-delusion.

From my perspective, which by no means is neccessarily the all-encompassing perspective of all PC players, it isn't about wanting Raids to be an "exclusive toy" but rather that there be, exactly as you yourself suggest, some, "retaliatory attack" aspect that is at least roughly the same loss potential as what district holders have. I personally suggested WarBarge or WarBarge Strategem destruction/incapacitation so that Raiders wouldn't have to be landholders, they lose WarBarge assets instead inhibiting further raids for a time. If WarBarge incapacitation isn't on the table then Raiders basically would have to hold land so that a "retaliatory attack" can occur. That, OR raids don't go down on districts but on Corp HQs instead since every corp has one of those.

Simply winning a defense raid should cost the other side a uncomfortable ammount of isk. That negates the need to have messy counter attack system. The raid attackers should be going by the seat of their paints losing a raid badly should = a week or two of regrinding the CP or isk needed to attack again.

Making it land only compley defeats the point of raiding been entry level PC and will have the effect of making it pointless to join new corps as they won't be able to get a look in anyway nor have the means to train up a PC team.

I am fine with adding variety to the game by adding 8v8 and 12v12 battles to the proposed raiding system, but raids should also increase Dust's overall capacity for full 16v16 matches. Raids aren't just an opportunity for non-PC qualified people to be involved in team matches, they also present the opportunity for A-teams to get more reps in between their standard PC battles.

Simply winning a defense raid should cost the other side a uncomfortable ammount of isk. That negates the need to have messy counter attack system. The raid attackers should be going by the seat of their paints losing a raid badly should = a week or two of regrinding the CP or isk needed to attack again.

Making it land only compley defeats the point of raiding been entry level PC and will have the effect of making it pointless to join new corps as they won't be able to get a look in anyway nor have the means to train up a PC team.