Imagine if Teamplayers weren't in EoN

would be like asking to imagine if HS wasn't in LOI. Or, to imagine if all the vets stayed.

I was involved in every major war/conflict in PC for the first two years. From day one all the EoN wars and through DNS and up to Romans boat. Consider me a PC historian :)

DNS was when I first became active in PC. It seems I missed all of the really good stuff. Well, except for absolutely destroying ERA. How do you destroy a corp? Take away 13 districts in one day, that's how.

I'm still curious how they didn't realize the potential of The Spinner though... Dude had everything they were looking for AND everything we expected of our team. There isn't a 16 man team that he wouldn't have make better, but I don't think they included him in their A team. Their loss.

The reality of the situation is that PFBHz broke apart pretty much right when 16 vs 16 was finally implemented. So really during the competitive peak of PFBHz it was 8 man teams which made it more difficult for others who were not as competitive to get into the teams.. Of course the corp wanted everyone to get PC experience so they did a lot of "non A-team" fights for the others.

Not as many people would have gone under the radar if they had implemented 16 vs 16 sooner. However the corp did do a lot of PC fights that weren't "high risk" so that everyone could get involved and get some experience. We had an excellent 8v8 team and really only saw the best team composition (IMO) play once, and proudly gave IMP their first loss. Though being a mentor corp I feel 16 vs 16 in a competitive scene we wouldn't stand a chance against IMP/IE, not that I don't have love for my PFB brothers. They've always been a more "competitive only" group from what I've seen in the past few games.

Things must've changed because I never experienced R* being one of the top competitive corps. Must've picked up some talent at some point.

Ehh it's easy to say how good you are when you have TP and RND in your alliance..R* was good but not top 10

Say whatever you want because I was still a top 5 landholder long after TP stopped playing Dust 514. It's funny when guys like you speak on things you know nothing about. EoN was a loose organization that rarely rang for each other. We all had our own teams and every Corp in EoN accomplished their own goals.

And NS was the top land holder..I never said they rang for you it just makes you less of a target with those powerhouses on your side..

Sorry but ERA would have smacked Cap..taking districts from dead/dying corps doesn't mean anything

Or are you referring to when a certain someone launched attacks they weren't supposed to so ERA decided to drop all their districts and no show?

[quote=Heimdallr69]

Albeit I see people like ydubbs here saying everything after X time is meaningless....eyes of the beholder. As long as one carries the flag, does its colors mean nothing to those who march behind it?

There's a reason why noone mentions SOG although they have had their grip on planetary conquest for the longest while now in PC. Why is that reason?

Because their primary means of stranglehold to ensure success was full exploitation of most every mechanic possible to not have to actually fight? **** like spamming mass attacks to take a whole team into an empty battle while avoiding any populated or actively monitored ones? Or spamming whatever the most broken/exploitative fit was available after any patch? Relying on total game-break glitches like the LAV glitch to not just win but avoid fairly earned losses? Because the only time or reason they rose to anything that could be considered a grip on PC is after they're basically the only people still playing the game at all anymore? I mean **** man, I fkn PWN at monopoly when I play solo. And don't even get me started on Command and Conquer when it's to 4 players and I am all 4, table flips and all.

They earned their no-prize.

They were a strong team long before any use of LAV glitches.

All teams exploited some sort of FOTM weapon/suit combo or cheesy mechanic to win.

mass attack or not, SOG was holding their own.

"only people still playing the game at all".....goes straight to my point.

Well, I don't claim to be any sort of be-all end-all of PC but I for my active PC period never saw a strong team. The couple times they actually fought I did see a whole lot of one-dimensional fotm spam tho. And definitely saw a lot of peek-a-boo games deployed in battles they were no-showing while they tried to scout out an empty match to load 16 into.

By "only people playing" I do mean literally the only people playing. Any point along the DUST timeline can be use as a litmus for the "successful because everyone left" arguement rhetorically except for when the active player numbers actually support it. Pre or post the Rogue Wedding, for example. Difference between that and this tho is the active playerbase numbers are so low now, soooooo low, that there's not even a contest. It's a win by default.

Which to the original question is why nobody in their right mind applauds their "success" that way. It undermines the definition of success in competition and equates mere (albeit sustained) participation to viable, active competition. Hell, trophys all around in that case, my NPC corp owned Molden Heath in that case.

Fwiw, I think if there's going to be timeline correlations to events (totally worthwhile for context) those should probably be the larger external RL events that shaped the game like say, Pre Uprising-Uprising (for the old guard, betaperiod stuff) Uprising-Rouge Wedding (for the actual release stuff) Rouge Wedding-Server Close announcement (for the post RW period). Even several months prior to closure announcement tho playerbase numbers were in steep decline. But as a general breakdown, that encompasses the vast majority of viable playing period, marks the biggest shifts imo without delving too far into the Nerf/Buff update meta carousel that occurred and leaves plenty of room to showcase everyone ever involved in MH/PC and where notable also discuss those metachanges and how they affected groups individually.

The couple months prior and this post Closure announcement period is very epilogual, worthy of inclusion as well but in exactly that sort of context. The Epilogue.

Someone just posted this link in another thread in this section.

http://youtu.be/c3Wz8CiCSFg

Now, I'm not saying SOG was a better corp. I'm just saying that SOG is/was a good corp. But people don't give them props because it was after a certain point in the timeline.

Yeah, happened to tune in and just saw that. I'm not sure which one I find funnier, the irony of the source or the soundbite clip that took me down memory lane. There's memories and/or footage of everybody losing maybe even losing hard at some point. CAP worked to achieve, SOG has worked to achieve, that's a given. Quality work produces quality results tho and I guess, really, thats the only difference between your interpretation or mine. Although even then we are both cognizant and respectful of the relative time frames (which is always a factor) since, as any craftsman can attest, timing is always a factor in achieving quality. Just as circumstance is always a factor when evaluating results.

In many ways that post Rogue Wedding period is arguably a more challenging period to have risen to the top in since a huge piece of that already experienced playerbase quit. Leaving the playing field a little more even and success more reliant on skill with tactics and strategies versus simple SP domination. Not to discredit the beta groups but there can't be much denial about that SP and what it meant in matches between pre-Uprising combatants and post-Uprising combatants. That's just that RPG thing: play more, skill more, be/do more.

Just as the argument about success in the full decline period. There's just significantly fewer players total. Very significantly fewer total. After a certain point the effect of that change in circumstance can't be neglected.

Which may be part of Shep's point about the standard-bearers who subsist. Built of the remains of one or a thousand, does the banner mean any less to those who'll still carry it? And should it mean any less to those who see it from afar? I could be totally wrong, Shepherd's a bigboy, he can explain himself. But as far as historical records go, so long as the timeframes are there for the results evaluations and the results themselves are accurate all the history really needs is accurate transposition. Accuracy of internal dramatics included.


Rereading the last couple pages on this I don't think we're really in much disagreement about conclusions. Just which sets of parameters are framing and defining them. Molden Heath/PC and what the corps who've been there and what those leaderships and players did while they were there speak for themselves.

Two things.....now if timeline doesn't matter and one agrees wholeheartedly with Shep's point about those "still carrying the banner", then it doesn't end. And S.O.G., for what it's worth should get their just due. There was a moment where everyone was nervous (some even scared) about facing S.O.G. But imo, it doesn't matter cause corps picked up what was left when others retired.

Secondly, sp gap wasn't the issue either. From the start of pc, everyone was here and most were floating around the same amount of sp. CRONOS, EoN, ROFL, LOI, NF, STB, Zion, etc. The first exodus began with the Imps and PFBHz. But mostly everyone was still here. EoN became the first dominant force in pc on a massive scale. Then after the FEC war, EoN left minus a few guys. PC wasn't what it was but it was still alive as AE became the powerhouse. Sp still wasn't an issue because pc still consisted of vets. There were small corps trying to get in but it was a skill issue and not an sp issue. Anyone that came in when the game was released would have had enough sp to be competitive.

People were starting to fade out but it wasn't until fanfest '14 where you saw the huge exodus from the game. People left the game cold turkey. After that there was no real competition left. I believe this is when OH rose to dominance but there was no real opposition. All of the players that were in the dominant corps that stayed had to find a new home. So corps that started to get some success, acheived it because the bad boys left and not moreso because they "caught up in sp".

A lot of the corps that came up later and achieved some sort of pc success want to put it all on sp and I can appreciate that. But it wasn't the case. The game was out for more than a year and they would have had enough time to catch up in sp.