DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 564	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:20:00 - [331] - Quote That was not my intention.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 784	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:33:00 - [332] - Quote Well, at least admit you see that it was funny. C'mon, it's funny! Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Terry Webber Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 565	Posted - 2015.02.01 07:39:00 - [333] - Quote Whatever, let's just get back on topic before we derail this thread any further.
Radar R4D-47 0uter.Heaven 912	Posted - 2015.02.01 08:06:00 - [334] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: You're idea limits hits per district, my idea limits hits based on indvidual daily success. To-mae-to,To-mah-toe Why are you trying to limit a gamemode? This reduces activity server wide. Since Warlords Endgame will revolve around CP why would CCP limit the amount of times someone can raid when we have a limited amount of a resource we have to produce? If 0.H has 2000CP and to raid it cost 200 CP we better be able to use all of our CP to raid if that's what we feel like doing that day. You all keep forgetting CP is going to be the driving factor of everything. I posted this back on page 5. No one should be limited by mechanics only by a resource. Currently we can PC as much as we want but it costs time and isk. So why should we limit raiding? As long as raiding has a cost to limit its infinite potential then a corp can only raid till that cost can no longer be met. That being said CCP will make or break the game based off this currency the community knows nothing about. So I hope it is implemented with extreme caution.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4471	Posted - 2015.02.01 13:16:00 - [335] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: You're idea limits hits per district, my idea limits hits based on indvidual daily success. To-mae-to,To-mah-toe Why are you trying to limit a gamemode? This reduces activity server wide. Since Warlords Endgame will revolve around CP why would CCP limit the amount of times someone can raid when we have a limited amount of a resource we have to produce? If 0.H has 2000CP and to raid it cost 200 CP we better be able to use all of our CP to raid if that's what we feel like doing that day. You all keep forgetting CP is going to be the driving factor of everything. I posted this back on page 5. No one should be limited by mechanics only by a resource. Currently we can PC as much as we want but it costs time and isk. So why should we limit raiding? As long as raiding has a cost to limit its infinite potential then a corp can only raid till that cost can no longer be met. That being said CCP will make or break the game based off this currency the community knows nothing about. So I hope it is implemented with extreme caution. I agree that raids would need to be limited by resources. At the same time owning districts and engaging in direct territorial warfare needs to be hands down better than raiding in terms of wealth generation/ rewards. If holding land doesn't provide better rewards than raiding does then everyone will just attempt to be raiders. Raiding should be more expensive in terms of unit of wealth generated per CP and it should cost similar resources in terms of clones/MCC as a district attack. In the end corporate command needs to have a more limited storage capacity of clones/MCC as well, which makes sense with corporate command acting as a single permanent district. Requiring the expenditure of an MCC/clones in order to raid will ensure that the decision to raid is made carefully by landowners as it would weaken their ownership position on a district. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
danthrax martin Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 285	Posted - 2015.02.01 18:24:00 - [336] - Quote Landowners are who you want to initiate raids? BS. All I need is some guys and a clone pack to initiate PC. I'm fine with cp+isk+(clones?)(warbarge?) But the idea to require land makes me very confrontational and want remind people that a majority of the playerbase does not hold land. Kitten off Pro Gal 'mando, Assault, Scout, Pro Sentinel ak.0 Suicidal A/V Moron General pain in the @ss
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4472	Posted - 2015.02.01 22:13:00 - [337] - Quote danthrax martin wrote: Landowners are who you want to initiate raids? BS. All I need is some guys and a clone pack to initiate PC. I'm fine with cp+isk+(clones?)(warbarge?) But the idea to require land makes me very confrontational and want remind people that a majority of the playerbase does not hold land. Kitten off Requiring land to initiate a raid would defeat the whole point of a raiding system. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 616	Posted - 2015.02.04 07:03:00 - [338] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: danthrax martin wrote: Landowners are who you want to initiate raids? BS. All I need is some guys and a clone pack to initiate PC. I'm fine with cp+isk+(clones?)(warbarge?) But the idea to require land makes me very confrontational and want remind people that a majority of the playerbase does not hold land. Kitten off Requiring land to initiate a raid would defeat the whole point of a raiding system. This. times 10. Of course anyone should be able to raid. Did y'all forget? Sandbox! That being said -- not being able to hit non land holding corps back for a raid does seem a bit carebear and allow for some abusive risk free trolling. (I say the above despite having said, earlier in this thread, that smashing non land holding corps and keeping them out of PC preemptively would be crap) So I think I see where the people who think land should be required come from. Risk free attacks is a ludicrous concept. There has to be some middleground where non land holding corps can raid, and can be attacked in return in some way that does not cripple them and remove them from PC. I have ideas on that -- but poorly formed and not well thought out. So I'd leave it to y'all to start that process if y'all agreed with the above statements.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback 4480	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:03:00 - [339] - Quote I think probably the easiest way to address the issue is to ensure that the raiders have to bring something to the table that they can lose. This would mean requiring a MCC or Clone Pack in addition to the CP cost to initiate the fight. Ideally though I think after being raided you should be able to make a revenge attack against the corp that raided you. I don't think a system where you attack someone's corporate command would work. I imagine a revenge attack being something like an Ambush and it would only cost CP to participate (no MCC or clone pack required). Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3546	Posted - 2015.02.04 15:19:00 - [340] - Quote Tbh raiding and being pirate in EvE involve the same amount of risk. If you ambushed you risk what ever your carrying and all the pirates risk is their ships. But if pirates want to settle down and get somewhere you need to build a station and you bet your ass the people who they used to raid will comma knocking. So frankly nope we did need a counter attack system. You can cost s raiding corp millions in lost equipment and even if they win your still getting the land output. And if that corp that's been raiding everyone tyrs to get their own land well there's going to be a lot of people looking for payback. And again raid limited by CP spamming won't be an issue You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 785	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:53:00 - [341] - Quote Radar R4D-47 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: You're idea limits hits per district, my idea limits hits based on indvidual daily success. To-mae-to,To-mah-toe Why are you trying to limit a gamemode? This reduces activity server wide. Since Warlords Endgame will revolve around CP why would CCP limit the amount of times someone can raid when we have a limited amount of a resource we have to produce? If 0.H has 2000CP and to raid it cost 200 CP we better be able to use all of our CP to raid if that's what we feel like doing that day. You all keep forgetting CP is going to be the driving factor of everything. I posted this back on page 5. No one should be limited by mechanics only by a resource. Currently we can PC as much as we want but it costs time and isk. So why should we limit raiding? As long as raiding has a cost to limit its infinite potential then a corp can only raid till that cost can no longer be met. That being said CCP will make or break the game based off this currency the community knows nothing about. So I hope it is implemented with extreme caution. A "resource limit" is a "mechanical limit", you have to have the resource to engage in the activity. If CP is going to be the be-all and end-all of Raiding I'm A-OK with that provided a successful raid defense saps some of that sweet sweet Raider CP. Or something like that. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 785	Posted - 2015.02.04 19:56:00 - [342] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: I think probably the easiest way to address the issue is to ensure that the raiders have to bring something to the table that they can lose. Exactly what I'm saying and proposed various ideas to address. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 785	Posted - 2015.02.04 20:51:00 - [343] - Quote Imp Smash wrote: Kain Spero wrote: danthrax martin wrote: Landowners are who you want to initiate raids? BS. All I need is some guys and a clone pack to initiate PC. I'm fine with cp+isk+(clones?)(warbarge?) But the idea to require land makes me very confrontational and want remind people that a majority of the playerbase does not hold land. Kitten off Requiring land to initiate a raid would defeat the whole point of a raiding system. This. times 10. Of course anyone should be able to raid. Did y'all forget? Sandbox! That being said -- not being able to hit non land holding corps back for a raid does seem a bit carebear and allow for some abusive risk free trolling. (I say the above despite having said, earlier in this thread, that smashing non land holding corps and keeping them out of PC preemptively would be crap) So I think I see where the people who think land should be required come from. Risk free attacks is a ludicrous concept. There has to be some middleground where non land holding corps can raid, and can be attacked in return in some way that does not cripple them and remove them from PC. I have ideas on that -- but poorly formed and not well thought out. So I'd leave it to y'all to start that process if y'all agreed with the above statements. We got to "land required" after other ideas were presented. Imp Smash wrote: Risk free attacks is a ludicrous concept. There has to be some middleground where non land holding corps can raid, and can be attacked in return in some way that does not cripple them and remove them from PC. This^ is all I'm getting at. AND that since we're creating a "new" gamemode (Raiding) we could have an opportunity to actually create a new gamemode (like a traditional FPS BOMB or VIP mission) that would do waaaay more to provide new content and gameplay then having yet another way (it'd be the 4th way iirc) to queue up an Ambush match. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 6382	Posted - 2015.02.05 00:57:00 - [344] - Quote "Raid Reprisal" A CP-free counter-attack option offered to Landholder within 15 minutes following a failed Raid defense. Playmode: 50 clone Ambush On landholder victory, reclaim 50% of whatever the raiders stole (clones, components, etc). On landholder defeat, reclaim 0%. Standard Salvage rules apply. ^ A derpaderp-free response option for Landholders. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
TheD1CK Dead Man's Game RUST415 1750	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:51:00 - [345] - Quote So we are eagerly awaiting PC changes, hopefully it opens up gameplay a bit more And the possibility of a new game-mode, is epic so I'm looking forward to see how this works We are all aware, CCP, the PC players and the non-PC players have different views to the extent this may have caused releases to be pushed back until March (fingers crossed) If possible I'd like to see an update from CCP Rattati, on how or when changes will be deployed On another note, I recently began sourcing support from PC corps, to open up Districts for new PC corps In my opinion there is a range of talent active, so now is the best time to get involved and get practicing. Districts should not be taken lightly, they are costly to fight over and require dedicated teams to defend them If possible I'd like to see an update on land-holdings, will this be wiped when changes deploy?? If not then I would encourage corps with stable activity of about 15 mercs for their PC timer to get in touch The majority of corps in PC are welcoming to new corps getting active and respect that you need time to practice. The initial intention was to open up Districts and let new blood come in and take them, But given the uncertainty with PC changes, and to avoid poachers I would like to see feedback from any interested corps, and let them know there is support if they look for it - This is taken from a thread I posted in the Ideas section, posting here for visibility
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 787	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:12:00 - [346] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: "Raid Reprisal" A CP-free counter-strike option offered to Landholder within 15 minutes following a failed Raid defense. Playmode: 50 clone Ambush On landholder victory, reclaim 50% of whatever the raiders stole (clones, components, etc). On landholder defeat, reclaim 0%. Standard Salvage rules apply. ^ A response with boundaries. An opportunity to teach those pirates a lesson. Could even call it "risk free" if you'd like. I'd prefer less of the "risk-free" Ambush aspect (we have those, they're under 'Ambush' in Public Contracts) tho I do like the 15 minute Reprisal Attack idea. A Get 'em Before They Get Away kind of thing. What if it cost CP, say half of what it costs to raid, but it a win returned 80% of assets stolen with the remaining 20% NOT going to the raiders but instead being "lost" (damaged, destroyed, hidden, w/e). Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 836	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:39:00 - [347] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: "Raid Reprisal" A CP-free counter-strike option offered to Landholder within 15 minutes following a failed Raid defense. Playmode: 50 clone Ambush On landholder victory, reclaim 50% of whatever the raiders stole (clones, components, etc). On landholder defeat, reclaim 0%. Standard Salvage rules apply. ^ A response with boundaries. An opportunity to teach those pirates a lesson. Could even call it "risk free" if you'd like. I'd prefer less of the "risk-free" Ambush aspect (we have those, they're under 'Ambush' in Public Contracts) tho I do like the 15 minute Reprisal Attack idea. A Get 'em Before They Get Away kind of thing. What if it cost CP, say half of what it costs to raid, but it a win returned 80% of assets stolen with the remaining 20% NOT going to the raiders but instead being "lost" (damaged, destroyed, hidden, w/e). I really wouldn't like that, because then teams could fight the raid battle, lose, but know they stalled enough to gather the ringers to stop the Raid. Retaliation Raid concept was my idea, but you damage the other corp's CP production "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 790	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:48:00 - [348] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: "Raid Reprisal" A CP-free counter-strike option offered to Landholder within 15 minutes following a failed Raid defense. Playmode: 50 clone Ambush On landholder victory, reclaim 50% of whatever the raiders stole (clones, components, etc). On landholder defeat, reclaim 0%. Standard Salvage rules apply. ^ A response with boundaries. An opportunity to teach those pirates a lesson. Could even call it "risk free" if you'd like. I'd prefer less of the "risk-free" Ambush aspect (we have those, they're under 'Ambush' in Public Contracts) tho I do like the 15 minute Reprisal Attack idea. A Get 'em Before They Get Away kind of thing. What if it cost CP, say half of what it costs to raid, but it a win returned 80% of assets stolen with the remaining 20% NOT going to the raiders but instead being "lost" (damaged, destroyed, hidden, w/e). I really wouldn't like that, because then teams could fight the raid battle, lose, but know they stalled enough to gather the ringers to stop the Raid. Retaliation Raid concept was my idea, but you damage the other corp's CP production Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 790	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:53:00 - [349] - Quote Its a cool idea, 501, the RaidReprisal, I like that it creates an opportunity for there to be an equitable risk to raids considering the rewards. Also it helps to make effective raiding be a product of effective planning and target selection. Just like PC. Since, you know, its supposed to be a PC "variant". XD I'm excited to see how it turns out and go raiding, youguys too? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6960	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:57:00 - [350] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". No. They win the raid match? They keep something. Reprisal raids cannot reduce potential profit to zero. THAT should require winning the raid in the first place. AV

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 791	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:18:00 - [351] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". No. They win the raid match? They keep something. Reprisal raids cannot reduce potential profit to zero. THAT should require winning the raid in the first place. Completely valid point. A 50-50 split doesn't seem right tho, you pickpocket me and run and I chase you, catch you and take my wallet back I don't split half the contents with you. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6961	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:32:00 - [352] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". No. They win the raid match? They keep something. Reprisal raids cannot reduce potential profit to zero. THAT should require winning the raid in the first place. Completely valid point. A 50-50 split doesn't seem right tho, you pickpocket me and run and I chase you, catch you and take my wallet back I don't split half the contents with you. I'm gonna say at most you get back 40%. Enough to be worth reprisal, not enough that you get to feel like you can casually blow off the raid while you muster the ringers. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 795	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:18:00 - [353] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Which would still happen, raiders win the reprisal they keep what they took-district loses it, raiders lose the reprisal they don't keep what they took BUT even after the recovery district still loses 20% of what was taken, is "unrecoverable". No. They win the raid match? They keep something. Reprisal raids cannot reduce potential profit to zero. THAT should require winning the raid in the first place. Completely valid point. A 50-50 split doesn't seem right tho, you pickpocket me and run and I chase you, catch you and take my wallet back I don't split half the contents with you. I'm gonna say at most you get back 40%. Enough to be worth reprisal, not enough that you get to feel like you can casually blow off the raid while you muster the ringers. Funny, I was thinking the most raiders who lose a reprisal would be entitled to was along the lines of 30-40%. Again, you rob me and I catch you, you are not keeping 50+% of what you took. If raiders can pick when/where/who to target essentially instant battles there's a huuuge advantage in their risk mitigation, which really would only be balanced by some other equally mitigating " thing". A chance at recovering 40% isn't equally mitigating. It's mitigating, but not equally. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6966	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:32:00 - [354] - Quote There is no equal mitigation. You want to mitigate your loss? Win the initial raid battle to begin with. Not after most of the loot is transferred off planet. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 15:48:00 - [355] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: There is no equal mitigation. You want to mitigate your loss? Win the initial raid battle to begin with. Not after most of the loot is transferred off planet. Risk, not loss. Raiding risk should be equally mitigated somewhere with Defenders' risk somehow. If Raiders want to mitigate their losses, as your logic goes, then they need to not just raid but get away with it too. Win both the Raid and the Reprisal. Which works very well, IMO, very true-to-life. Not only must the "crime" be performed but also the getaway . How many episodes of COPS show a guy successful at robbing the liquor store but failing hard at the getaway? Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6978	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:26:00 - [356] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: There is no equal mitigation. You want to mitigate your loss? Win the initial raid battle to begin with. Not after most of the loot is transferred off planet. Risk, not loss. Raiding risk should be equally mitigated somewhere with Defenders' risk somehow. If Raiders want to mitigate their losses, as your logic goes, then they need to not just raid but get away with it too. Win both the Raid and the Reprisal. Which works very well, IMO, very true-to-life. Not only must the "crime" be performed but also the getaway . How many episodes of COPS show a guy successful at robbing the liquor store but failing hard at the getaway? they win the raid they get the lion's share of the loot. The reprisal is a halfass recovery effort by someone trying to save face after getting their asses kicked. They should not be able to recover a majority of the loot. Only part of it. AV
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:43:00 - [357] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: There is no equal mitigation. You want to mitigate your loss? Win the initial raid battle to begin with. Not after most of the loot is transferred off planet. Risk, not loss. Raiding risk should be equally mitigated somewhere with Defenders' risk somehow. If Raiders want to mitigate their losses, as your logic goes, then they need to not just raid but get away with it too. Win both the Raid and the Reprisal. Which works very well, IMO, very true-to-life. Not only must the "crime" be performed but also the getaway . How many episodes of COPS show a guy successful at robbing the liquor store but failing hard at the getaway? they win the raid they get the lion's share of the loot. The reprisal is a halfass recovery effort by someone trying to save face after getting their asses kicked. They should not be able to recover a majority of the loot. Only part of it. They win they raid they get what they earn only so long as they can escape with it. The Reprisal is a asset recovery collection by someone who had a thief break in while they were otherwise occupied. They should be able to recover the vast majority, if not absolutely all, of anything removed from the district. It's balance. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Travis Stanush Y.A.M.A.H 366	Posted - 2015.02.06 17:52:00 - [358] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: There is no equal mitigation. You want to mitigate your loss? Win the initial raid battle to begin with. Not after most of the loot is transferred off planet. Risk, not loss. Raiding risk should be equally mitigated somewhere with Defenders' risk somehow. If Raiders want to mitigate their losses, as your logic goes, then they need to not just raid but get away with it too. Win both the Raid and the Reprisal. Which works very well, IMO, very true-to-life. Not only must the "crime" be performed but also the getaway . How many episodes of COPS show a guy successful at robbing the liquor store but failing hard at the getaway? they win the raid they get the lion's share of the loot. The reprisal is a halfass recovery effort by someone trying to save face after getting their asses kicked. They should not be able to recover a majority of the loot. Only part of it. They win they raid they get what they earn only so long as they can escape with it. The Reprisal is a asset recovery collection by someone who had a thief break in while they were otherwise occupied. They should be able to recover the vast majority, if not absolutely all, of anything removed from the district. It's balance. you seem to confuse petty crime with raiding one is preformed by guys in ski masks the other is by Vikings, Huns, Vandals, and Goths. Edit: Not trying to be a **** but you seem to think this is one or two dudes sneaking into your house at night, I am thinking small army. No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 801	Posted - 2015.02.06 18:56:00 - [359] - Quote Travis Stanush wrote: you seem to confuse petty crime with raiding one is preformed by guys in ski masks the other is by Vikings, Huns, Vandals, and Goths. Edit: Not trying to be a **** but you seem to think this is one or two dudes sneaking into your house at night, I am thinking small army. Don't let my downplaying of what "Raiding" is insofar as its place in the wider spectrum of crime as some misunderstanding on my part on the concept. Every historical raiding group you named and every contemporary raiding group (Somali pirates, for ex.) comes from somewhere, and goes back to somewhere. Thats part of whats missing in this "raiding" equation, as proposed. ALSO, when caught NONE of those groups is just re-released to continue raiding wihout penalty. This is another part of what's missing from this OP. I'm all for suprise raiding. I (and many others) feel that RAIDING is a great idea BUT under no circumstances should it be, by its srructural mechanics, an essentially risk-free auto-queue Ambush match paid out of district assets. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6981	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:14:00 - [360] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: you seem to confuse petty crime with raiding one is preformed by guys in ski masks the other is by Vikings, Huns, Vandals, and Goths. Edit: Not trying to be a **** but you seem to think this is one or two dudes sneaking into your house at night, I am thinking small army. Don't let my downplaying of what "Raiding" is insofar as its place in the wider spectrum of crime as some misunderstanding on my part on the concept. Every historical raiding group you named and every contemporary raiding group (Somali pirates, for ex.) comes from somewhere, and goes back to somewhere. Thats part of whats missing in this "raiding" equation, as proposed. ALSO, when caught NONE of those groups is just re-released to continue raiding wihout penalty. This is another part of what's missing from this OP. I'm all for suprise raiding. I (and many others) feel that RAIDING is a great idea BUT under no circumstances should it be, by its srructural mechanics, an essentially risk-free auto-queue Ambush match paid out of district assets. You seem hellbent on making it unprofitable entirely AV



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.

Moody come back