Maybe a week was harsh. My point was it can't be risk free. Then again getting spanked and losing gear is still a loss.

And if the big boys are worried about raids it means it's working as intented. Fair points tbh

Operator, until DUST is open world creating a lopsided engagement is of no value.

8v8, 12v12 or 16v16.

Raiders should not have to face more stiff losses than someone who invades to conquer land.

Good raiders will utilize their best to smash in for profit. Wasting effort is wasting CP and ISK. 8v16 is not in any way balanced in a lobby shooter and served as a deterrent for people to even try.

Penalizing people for not already having land is idiotic.

all your assertion does is guarantee a PC corp is never at risk of significant loss.

If DUST was open world in PC you could have these lopsided engagements. But then if PC was open world I'd have dropped 50-100 body attack newbswarms onto districts with intent to make people scream And get buttmad.

If I am not allowed to do that to you, you are not allowed to do it to me.

Ok, but again this same logic then justifies that if there aren't enough defenders the raid can not be initiated, since 6v2 or 8v0 is "lopsided". I realize, based off my tags, what I suggest is easily construed as being intended to protect district owners however what I'm trying to protect is the game's overall balance. Essentially low to risk-free attack modes being made available at whim that glean potentially huge rewards isn't balanced. Every suggestion I've made, also, is a suggestion I realize I will have to live with too since I am also looking forward to raiding on some m*therf+ùckers .

Maybe a week was harsh. My point was it can't be risk free. Then again getting spanked and losing gear is still a loss.

And if the big boys are worried about raids it means it's working as intented. Fair points tbh

That raiding can't be risk-free is really the point, and as proposed it largely is.
Losing your gear and w/e noteriety there may be for getting "spanked" really isn't any risk at all. Why would I say that, you ask? Because losing gear and getting spanked is the penalty for losing in PUBS which are the lowest entry, lowest risk/reward mode we have.

If Raiding is to be any sort of step up away from pubs then it can NOT have the identical risk/reward scheme to it. If it does it'll be cool for about 15 minutes and then everybody involved will sit back and go, "wtf? This is just an auto-pub. "

Your suggestions have to be tempered with the understanding that raids can only do temporary damage to an enemy corp. You can't take their land away from them with a raid.

Losing a planetary conquest match and getting spanked only costs you the ISK suits and equipment you lost too, and no payout at the end of the match. That's hardly worse than pubs, especially when you have to pregenerate your own clones to make the attacks. That right there is a limiter. No clones?

tough sh*t, no raids for you.

I explicitly stated its commodity potential in my privateers line. I have no problem with raids being used in many different ways. What I have a problem with, is giving the monopoly over a game feature to a bunch of corps who, in the past, have shown a willingness to collude and sideline gameplay in the name of the bottom line. I fear that with such a system in place, the idea of raiding is lost. Instead of raider corps, there will just be the exact same corps as today, but with "raiding" and "conquering" teams.

And again, "politics" has its place in empire building and commerce. It has limited place in raiding. By its very nature, a raid is a undeclared act of aggression motivated almost entirely by opportunity. If you guys want to have politics for land holders, and for commerce folks once trading hits, I think that great community building.

However, its too ridiculous to imagine the idea of a pirate corp leader going "Ok lets see, im going to join Example Corps chat, request a meeting...ok, got a meeting with their assigned representative...hello! Us pirates respectfully request permission to raid your installation and take your ****.......whats that? come back Thursday at 7:45pm eastern? Ok! Will comply!".

in my view, raiding diplomacy is more along the lines of "ok, good raid, you got alot of our stuff. Some of it is critical to our corp, can we buy it back at a premium?".....or....."you guys got lucky and raided us while our A team was busy. You can pay us back for the damages or face our wraith".



Im completely fine with their being retaliatory strikes. it makes sense for their to be a risk/consequence for everybody involved. Me i suggested that any corp that wants to participate in raiding should have to rent office space for a few mil ISK a month, and then it would give a time window when they can raid/be raided. That way the only corps that can raid/be raided would be ones that are leasing space or the ones with districts. That way they could still be accountable in some sense. (ex: bad diplomacy = alot of daily raids on your leased space).

Its just, districts have to be earned and maintained. Not everyone has the resources and manpower to do that. Alot of weekend intensive corps could afford to do big raids on the weekend and skeleton crew defends of their HQs on weekdays, but would go broke/ get conquered trying to own and keep a district. Having your HQ hit and some of your stuff stolen a few times, or even losing your lease for a bit, is not as bad as what it costs to take/lose a district in a finite amount of districts.

No ISK payouts on full-proto losses can be staggering and is exactly the sort of thing that distinguishes PC from a pub. Clone losses in PC also cannot be ignored since they need to be replaced, either through waiting the regeneration period OR importing them from another locale and then ensuring that locale has enough. Again, this is part of that pub vs pc distinction.

If theres a clone-generation element to raiding that equates to clone self-supply which if depleted inhibits an individual from raiding for a period I'd be (depending on the numbers) ok with that. That, like that, is exactly what I was proposing with the whole WarBarge Incapacitation/Strategem destruction idea. idc how it materializes, just that there some sort of mechanism to whoop a raiders' ass enough that they can't raid for a while. Just like a fat hole in the side of a classical pirate's ship OR lengthy prison time for a contemporary Somali Pirate who's been caught.

some sort of mechanism to whoop a raiders' ass enough that they can't raid for a while. Just like a fat hole in the side of a classical pirate's ship OR lengthy prison time for a contemporary Somali Pirate who's been caught.

I...don't see the monopoly element potential here, outside of typical "blueing up" agreements. Which, btw, is what most any alliance is.

Sounds like we're on the same page with Raider HQ's/WarBarges/CorpHQs etc. Just some reasonable element which allows for an opportunity for raid retribution.

Im ok with that. Some corps might risk the chance that there will be a retaliation ,and they might not have enough people online to defend, but thats part of the dynamic. if you initiate a raid on just a "space leasing" raider corp, and they dont show, you get a bunch of their stuff and any corp that suffers a string of losses like that is either going to have to back out or declare bankruptcy.



The monopoly potential is if the most powerful corps decide that, hey, lets just sit on districts and collect their benefits, and just do raids as PC fights. And use our combined might to confiscate land from anyone who doesn't comply with the arbitrary raiding system. Its very possible. they might even get a system where they grab a bunch of districts, and then rent them out to small corps interested in raid fights, but then cancel the agreement if they raid at an inopportune time or raid a corp, like a "billboard" corp, that the regulars don't want to see raided.

The big corps in Molden Heath...will...put their own interests and bottom lines over those of the game. Thats fine, they are trying to build empires, but that doesn't mean that they should be given leverage over everything. The only leverage these powerful corps should hold is the promise of daily, repeated revenge raids.

You know what im saying? Id rather see raiders controlled through use of force, rather than see them controlled though just politics. I fear Molden Heath coming together to exile and ban a very successful raiding corp from raiding by barring their access to land. Thats what I want to prevent. I want raider corps access to be determined by their war effort. If they are always putting up a good fight, they will carve a spot people will have to respect, if they lose their fights, they will lose their ability to continue their war effort and will have to withdraw.


But yes, overall, we are in complete agreement that raiders should be vulnerable to being raided themselves, otherwise we have a unbalanced system. You should not go out raiding unless you are aware of the potential backlash from the people you just raided. Our difference of opinion mainly centers on the how this should be done.

While an individual raid's effect may be temporary the cumulative effect will be effectively permanent. Constant raiding will mean the districts never replenish, which will lead to no one holding districts and everyone just raiding, which will lead to no districts being worth raiding, which will lead to everyone coming back in here to QQ moar about PC sucking.


I haven't suggested anything that would permanently stop a raider, just common-sense types of penalties for failed raids. Accurate target acquisition failures included.

Since the raid has less potential for profit on a win, it is entirely unreasonable to inflict stiffer penalties for a loss on raiders than you would on a PC corp who failed to assault and invade a district.

So unless the same harsh penalties are levied against PC hopefuls who fail, your assertions serve only to insure that raids are always a losing prospect rather than a real potential for gain.

Making less reward cost more in risk is bass-ackward.

So your saying you want to see the same 100 or so players control raiding and control PC at the same time. For me personally it wouldn't bother me at all. However your proposal in my honest opinion is completely wrong to the purpose of the inplatation of this system. If CCP wanted the same 100 players to control raiding as we already control PC they would have updated PC only.

I'm not sure if this meant for me, Nash or both of us since we both see the merit of raiding have more relation to PC than just being pubs on districts.


Raiding is entry level PC. It is low stakes without reprecution for the new corps trying to see if they have what it takes to play with the big boys. It also allows a semi training ground for these corps. So why would you guys want to put a fear barrier in front of these corps to discourage them from doing any end game at all. No person should be condemned from playing the competitive scene of this game.

Nothing I've proposed stops anyone from trying and keeps it (raiding) more of a "high crime" (like a bank robbery) than a "low crime" (like petty vandalism) as PC in any regard deserves. A little planning to be ensure being successful is not out of line.

The risk of raiders losing is already very high against corps that own a stake in PC why would they want to take that risk of failure on top of, after losing, getting there faces stomped again in some way by the corporation thy already failed to do anything against. Wipe this thought that land owning corps should be able to retaliate against raiders. Not only does it make no sense tactically and militarily speaking but it completely destroys all chances that this new system will be used by many.

The risk isn't that high for raiders tho if they can queue those raids up at-will and raid undefended districts. 16v8 is this huge and unacceptably lopsided engagement but 8v0 isn't?

If you enter PC at any level you should be ready accept the risks of PC at any level. This should include counter-raids and if a raiding group has no raidable assets some sort of raidable asset needs to be created with the creation of raiding in general. To paraphrase a corpmate, [b] If players aren't ready to LOSE in PC they aren't ready to WIN either.

Do I have this right?

Large pc corps are afraid of the larger non-pc player base and want more restrictios than pc has?

I see an uprising of stompees given the ability to exact revenge... and I love the idea.

I see an uprising of stompees given the ability to exact revenge... and I love the idea.

If you enter PC at any level you should be ready accept the risks of PC at any level.

Smells like troll. Reward potential of raids will be limited; risk exposure will have to follow suit.

I should also mention, I proposed raid mechanics that would restrict a corp from raiding the same district more than once per day.

I already took into account your "unlimited raids" argument. That one is a simple fix. The only way to grind down a corp via raiding the way you are talking about should be through the coordination of multiple corps that systematically tear ass across all of a corp's districts.

And in the proposed system by rattati the attackers have to generate a finite number of clones.

Destroy the clones, cripple the raiders.w