Even if both corps are paid 25 mill for a 24v24 match the match is still bad when you add in vehicle/gear costs. Just using the planet being worth 2 bill a month makes district worth about 175 mill a month in isk. At that rate if the owner is attacked and forced to defend 7 times in a month there goes all the value of the district.

its not really about which corp its about any corp

Also we need to ability to transfer districts to other corps/alliances just like we do Custom Offices now in EvE.

YES! I think this may be addressed in that corporations can be allowed to take a district FOR you, but not own the district at the end of the battle.

I expect us to be very busy soon (and hopefully with no TM).

Dont worry you merely just confirm a few ideas. I ve been thinking of this for a long time now. ^^
And come on. Talking is good for the soul ;)

Or at least, just tell me if i m seeing all this the right way or if some stuff are very far from what you guyd are planning. Nullarbor woild be totally ok with you doing that i promess :D

BLARGITY!

... No matter how much a district makes though, we want to encourage people to attack other districts because giant NAP fests are terrible.

Well, again, I think your point as regards highly contested districts is valid- some districts will just not be worth fighting over.

On the other hand, I think MOST districts (after perhaps an initial flurry of activity) will be relatively stable, just like star systems in nullsec.

So, while a capsuleer might have to drop 175M ISK to defend District 4 on Intaki V, most will rarely have to do so.

Indeed, I talked with some capsuleer relatives (RP) and they said that they'd probably use the lowest bidder they could find to do jobs.

That suggests to me that if Corp A is expending 25M ISK in a battle and Corp B is expending 10M ISK, then Corp B is likely to win in the end because they can just keep pummeling Corp A until they go broke.

In my mind, this is how it's supposed to work. Corp battles and/or Merc Contracts should be about expending as little ISK as possible to do the job.

... O_O

I may have talked to much... Back to work for me.

Encouraging people to attack other districts is good but you can't stop multiple corps from just seiging a planet until the owner gives up. I'm a baddie and if somone want to pay me to make you give up your district/planets it will happen.

Thus is the way in EvE thus will it be in Dust

PS dust really needs a test server set up. It's best to let me break the game before it goes live

Oow, I love it when y'all talk too much.

Speaking of talking...

This topic of player owned districts was heavily discussed on the recent Boots on the Ground episode. I noticed we got a few hits from Iceland on my blog, so I'm guessing a few of you folks at CCP have listened to / read of our musings on the subject.

Are we close?

Will planetary districts ever be opened as "free roam" areas, where we can spawn as long as our corp / alliance owns the district and we haven't reached a defender limit (e.g. even if a battle isn't happening)?

Will EVE PI dudes ever be able to build the maps the Dust Bunnies fight over?

Can we just make war barges capitals? (Yeah, that one is really out there, I know...

I quiver in anticipation for this new Dev blog. Also the next patch.

Well, again, I think your point as regards highly contested districts is valid- some districts will just not be worth fighting over.

On the other hand, I think MOST districts (after perhaps an initial flurry of activity) will be relatively stable, just like star systems in nullsec.

So, while a capsuleer might have to drop 175M ISK to defend District 4 on Intaki V, most will rarely have to do so.

Indeed, I talked with some capsuleer relatives (RP) and they said that they'd probably use the lowest bidder they could find to do jobs.

That suggests to me that if Corp A is expending 25M ISK in a battle and Corp B is expending 10M ISK, then Corp B is likely to win in the end because they can just keep pummeling Corp A until they go broke.

In my mind, this is how it's supposed to work. Corp battles and/or Merc Contracts should be about expending as little ISK as possible to do the job.

You bring up something that has been really hard for us to figure out. There are so many factors that go into it and finding other examples to base ideas off is really hard because almost no one has done this before.

That something is how much will districts change hands once corporations can own them?

You bring up something that has been really hard for us to figure out. There are so many factors that go into it and finding other examples to base ideas off is really hard because almost no one has done this before.

That something is how much will districts change hands once corporations can own them?

Yes we know we can't stop multiple people ganging up, but can we make attacking more profitable than sitting there doing nothing?

This is where I see lp coming into play. To get LP and sweet gear/loot you need to do corp battles and such. Those wanting it will have to attack a district or planet.

Also I know I put this out last summer but I think mercs need FW and NPC corp tick down. Meaning every day they lose standing. So this means if they want to continue to have high standings and buy sweet loot for a cheaper price they need to fight.

If there is NPC reward/lp/isk/loot for corp battles then the corp paying for it will have ot play less. Thus the concern over dust corp battles being isk sinks that started this whole thread

I hope you are using a persistant control model and not a "attack it, win it, own it" model.

To be specific ill use my idea example

A district has a loyalty rating towards a corp from 0 to 100. You have to have a 60 to actually control it and make changes to it. The higher the number the more its worth.

corp A owns district and is attacked middle of night by corp B for UKland. They win by default since no one is on to defend. There is an 8 hour cooling off period after its been taken where the loyalty number doesn't change. After the 8 hours is up the current holders get a .5 increase per hour. All other corps loyalty will go down .5 per hour.

So it takes days of control to flip the district over. I would say make a corp only able to attack once per day but with the current mechanics of mercs in corp battles you could easily circumvent that by running multiple shell corps. Trust me if there is a way to freif I have planned for it

Couldnt a system like that be exploited ? I mean : Create a bogus corp, attack your district and thus "lock it". Or fight the bogus fight and get a bonus to your district "loyalty" as you put it.

that question of the defense\attack mechanics for Player Owned District and planets is probably the thing that occupies my mind the most since i first started to study dust 2 years back.

Beers, I think that the Distric and Planet Loyalty system (call it Allegiance so it doesn't get confused with LP) would solve tons of the exploitation issues.

Duh, I thought of it way back last summer scrub.

CCP confirms that Telc is right again.

GG newb

CCP confirmed something? Where! O_O

CCP confirmed something? Where! O_O

I'm new to the discussion, but as I see it the devs are going to have to make planetary ownership more expensive overall if they want DUST to be an ISK sink for EVE.

My reasoning;

It has to be cheaper for an EVE corp to employ DUST mercs than to just use their own ships to battle it out.

It there is no economic incentive it won't happen, and if there is an economic incentive it will be a net ISK gain for EVE.


So if no economic incentive curretnly exists to encourage hiring mercs, CCP has to add one.

They could increase the total cost of taking a planet with EVE resources only, or they could outright make it impossible if the other side hired mercs to defend it.

Then hiring mercs would end up costing EVE corps more than they spent in the past, but not as much as not hiring mercs.