I don't want to wind up in a situation where 24 man corp winds up owning 100 planets because of anti-zerging mechanics and the defending smaller group wins by default by not showing up to any of the fights. Now defending a single planet or two I can see more feasible to hold for a 1 fielder team.

I'm also seeing possible scenarios where teams may post contracts for cheap to see if weak teams will take the bait to attack their own districts in hope that they make money on the salvage.

I'm also seeing possible scenarios where teams may post contracts for cheap to see if weak teams will take the bait to attack their own districts in hope that they make money on the salvage.

There are going to be holes in any system that is put into effect, the goal is to make it the best system for the majority and just take the others with a grain of salt because no matter how much they change the system it will never be perfect.

You should care. If the economic incentive isn't addressed properly there won't be FW contracts from Eve to drive Dusters to fight. Without the proper economic drivers in place Dust could very well die in the crib.

No business arrangement can hope to continue to exist if the parties involved end up operating at a loss. The interaction between Dust and Eve MUST be mutually beneficial to both games.

My hope is that the changes that CCP are working on take this into account and Beers is worrying over nothing, but hoping for the best does no good if we don't get the results that are needed to ensure Dust's growth and success.

Yay sandbox!

OK, so what you are HOPING for is a more perfect model of WHAT capitalism is, yet in review of the ACTUAL operations of capitalism it is CONSTANTLY operating at a LOSS. Even though this is the case, capitalism STILL PERSISTS.

I find your logic in this case, especially in the fact that you are talking about warfare, which even in the context of human history HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED at a loss. War has only been profitable to a small number of people and the margin of profit in it is relative to that of a descent restaurant, which is to say running at a profit of 5-10% out of the kitchen at a cost of 20-35% total cost to the establishment for materials and labor, while the front of the house may net a 20-25% profit from the remaining 50-70% of total cost of operation.

The real matter is, like other people have stated, you are basing this off of incomplete mathematical models that are COMPLETELY based on ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS on what it will TYPICALLY cost a corp to provide defense or seizure services on provided contracts in Faction warfare.

Kain and Beers; both of you ASSUME to much, and apparently you have forgotten what assumptions do: they make and ass out of you and them.

The purpose of making this kind of interaction to run at such a potentially low margin of profit on both parts is to perpetuate the mining, wormhole exploration, trading, industrial production, and etc. that currently has grown stagnant in EVE.

Once again the Imperfects have proven their name all to well by their attempt to present an INCOMPLETE picture or what is possible through their narrow vision and INCOMPLETE understanding of CCP's intentions. This is supposed to be a Hamster wheel, nothing more. If you don't like it, get OFF.

I see nothing wrong with this,

OK, so what you are HOPING for is a more perfect model of WHAT capitalism is, yet in review of the ACTUAL operations of capitalism it is CONSTANTLY operating at a LOSS. Even though this is the case, capitalism STILL PERSISTS.

I find your logic in this case, especially in the fact that you are talking about warfare, which even in the context of human history HAS ALWAYS OCCURRED at a loss. War has only been profitable to a small number of people and the margin of profit in it is relative to that of a descent restaurant, which is to say running at a profit of 5-10% out of the kitchen at a cost of 20-35% total cost to the establishment for materials and labor, while the front of the house may net a 20-25% profit from the remaining 50-70% of total cost of operation.

The real matter is, like other people have stated, you are basing this off of incomplete mathematical models that are COMPLETELY based on ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS on what it will TYPICALLY cost a corp to provide defense or seizure services on provided contracts in Faction warfare.

Kain and Beers; both of you ASSUME to much, and apparently you have forgotten what assumptions do: they make and ass out of you and them.

The purpose of making this kind of interaction to run at such a potentially low margin of profit on both parts is to perpetuate the mining, wormhole exploration, trading, industrial production, and etc. that currently has grown stagnant in EVE.

Once again the Imperfects have proven their name all to well by their attempt to present an INCOMPLETE picture or what is possible through their narrow vision and INCOMPLETE understanding of CCP's intentions. This is supposed to be a Hamster wheel, nothing more. If you don't like it, get OFF.

unless they are 24 very wealthy mercs who hire other mercs to do most their business.

In terms of priority I would rather see the ability to contract other corporations to take a district for you. That would also mean contracting other corporations to help you defend your district as well.

exactly. And that's why all those talks about million here, million there make no sense to me.
If the planetary conquest in Dust achieves to end up like EVE's 0.0 you 'll be able to say you succeed. As as flawed it may be, it's still a freakin damn good system for a single shard persistent universe with player oriented conquest !!

So devs, dont break you head. Go with something simple, dont add too many control system. And build from there.
As you said before, what you should focus on is having something as tweakable as possible, and with as many layers as possible. Beyond that, it's all experimentations.

Beers, where do you see anything related to a SI-IMP grudge ? oO
If the guy disagrees, like i do, and he's SI doesnt mean its because you're an IMP.

I get the tone is a bit rough, but what you're saying is just as embarrassing for you. If you cant handle someone disagreeing (which i know you can) then stop posting as well.

Bingo.

If you are good at picking solid contractors out and can negotiate good contracts that keep it profitable to defend your districts, then you are winning at the corporate level. Now, trying to keep affordable contracts up and running for defenses of thousands of districts also seems nearly impossible. So unless those 24 members are just filing paperwork all day to get good contracts, it still sounds like a major challange.

In terms of priority I would rather see the ability to contract other corporations to take a district for you. That would also mean contracting other corporations to help you defend your district as well.

Dust can't be turned in to a 23/7 job.

because the timer Idea would be horrible in dust

So the advantages of large corps shouldn't be zergfest514 but more of a defensive one. Which in turn allows them to reap the benefits if they maintain rewards.

You've refered to a sandbox multiple times. In a sandbox this option would be viable. I understand we are talking "priority" of options presented though. The option to sell districts would be huge, so many differentials in the metagame would present themselves if this option was included. Otherwise the only 2 ways I can see to dump a district is abandon it (if option available) or let someone take it.

I agree with priorities.

Excuse me for being a software nerd and being so insistant about this. I think there is really a great need for it. Even if its implemented very simply in the next build.

Create role and just give it to CEO
Let it have the same transfer function as CO offices
Will have to have a interface to piggy back off though.

We don't need a market place right away we have 3rd party services. Plus I would rather districts be handled in the back room as it makes the meta game more fun. Having a district market place turns this into a real estate game and gives out way to much info and will cause super griefing.

What the **** Caz? He said nothing about the subject the just spouting random statistics out of his ass then referred specifically to Kain, myself, and Imperfects. If thats not off topic then I dont know what the **** is. Don't defend him for being a dumb ass because you disagree with me.

For the record none of this is about disagreeing at all. I read what he wrote and I understand what he is saying. Him calling me and imperfects out over it is stupid and why he got the response he did.

Now stay on topic

Care to expand upon this? The purpose of timers in EVE is to eliminate having to be on 23/7 and know that if you go to sleep your stuff will still be there tomorrow.

Personally I would rather see everyone be aggressive, not defensive. If everyone is being defensive, then no one is attacking and there is not much game.

Okay lets start with a timer. I'll try to keep it brief and not write a novel I completely understand why we have it in EvE and understand how bad it would be without it. In dust I don't think an "attack window" timer or having to "seige" a district 8 hours a head of time to be fair to the district defender will work.

To me this slows the game down and takes a lot of timing/tatics/strategy and meta game out of it. I go back to the fps player and the fact that most will want to log on and look for a fight (yes there are hardcore players that will always be on) To me the idea an alligance/loyalty persistance standing model is better suited. I know I have spouted it many times before in this thead so I won't bore you with it again.

The core part of it has a similar effect to a timer though and doesn't punish the defender for not being awake. Simply put if you attack and no defender is there you now "occupy" the district. There then is a 8 hour cool down where no standing changes. After that the occupying corp get say 1 point an hour in standing. They have to reach 51 standing to take control district(though while occupying the district they do reap the rewards).

So the owner of the district would still have to fight to take it back or risk losing control totally. The district owner will also have time to take it back. The amount of time is always based on standing to there could a war of attrition over 1 district in some instances

/me just wants to have a discussion about random stuff :'(