DUST Search - Productive Topic - what Defines 'Indie'

CHICAGOCUBS4EVER wrote:

Ive gotten to the point where I believe its time that us among landowners and active participants in PC to sit down and make a hard definition of 'indie' as this has several definitions currently and lots of people are abusing the term and using it to ring, hold land, attack so and so, etc etc.

ANY corp that calls themselves 'indie' MUST have personnel to wage a battle.

ANY corp that is established and experienced cannot fall under this 'Indie' label
example: 187, Pro Hic (were independent before), STB, and many others.

ANY corp that acquires a preset # of districts is no longer considered 'indie' 3 is the current # still up for discussion

*removed* alliance membership being a factor

the entire premise of the term 'indie' is for the little guy... the corp that is up and coming, building up their roster and bottom line are at an SP and experience level much lower than the veteran corps.

I now open the floor for discussion. I will edit the OP as we agree on parts of the definition


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
pseudosnipre DUST University Ivy League 105	Posted - 2013.07.31 18:48:00 - [1] - Quote CHICAGOCUBS4EVER wrote: Ive gotten to the point where I believe its time that us among landowners and active participants in PC to sit down and make a hard definition of 'indie' as this has several definitions currently and lots of people are abusing the term and using it to ring, hold land, attack so and so, etc etc. ANY corp that calls themselves 'indie' MUST have personnel to wage a battle. ANY corp that is established and experienced cannot fall under this 'Indie' label example: 187, Pro Hic (were independent before), STB, and many others. ANY corp that acquires a preset # of districts is no longer considered 'indie' 3 is the current # still up for discussion removed alliance membership being a factor the entire premise of the term 'indie' is for the little guy... the corp that is up and coming, building up their roster and bottom line are at an SP and experience level much lower than the veteran corps. I now open the floor for discussion. I will edit the OP as we agree on parts of the definition 1. Please quantify "personnel" (roster depth > 24) or qualify "wage a battle" (assuming intent is to prevent no-shows) 2. Please define established (in-game duration, pre-eon/loi war?) and experienced (cumulative character months or corp sp) 3. Taking a third district becomes akin to leaving battle academy and may spell end of corp unless you join eon or can best their top players 3x per 48hrs. Cubs, I like what you are attempting. Considering eon has accumulated a significant portion of the "top" players, an emerging corp may need to wait until most of you get bored/move on = not getting good fights. Only good fights atm will be eon v eon. Just saying
pseudosnipre DUST University Ivy League 106	Posted - 2013.07.31 19:07:00 - [2] - Quote Suggestion: independent status revoked if non-corp players exceeds 2 in any PC. Burden of proof incumbent upon petitioner. Hired tankers may break the utility of this rule, but it's a start.
pseudosnipre DUST University Ivy League 106	Posted - 2013.07.31 22:09:00 - [3] - Quote pseudosnipre wrote: Suggestion: independent status revoked if non-corp players exceeds 2 in any PC. Burden of proof incumbent upon petitioner. Hired tankers may break the utility of this rule, but it's a start. Follow-on suggestion: Create all-inclusive list of top-tier vet corps here on the forum. Having been a member of a listed vet corp removes your "amateur" status. Corps maintain independent status by insuring that all corp members participating in PC retain amateur status.