51 (edited by Kaldenines 2014-09-10 11:10:28)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

I think the problem is not locking itself but that SAP stability goes up when nobody shows up. Imo it should just stay the same when nobody does the SAP.

Also the pvp zones are too small for the current mechanics (sparks, interzone and other TPs, pvp alts, gate alts, detectors, probes ).  There are too few islands, too few connections leading on/off pvp isalnds and the lack of connections between different beta pairs is just mind boggling (any news on the new TP network?).

As a side note, if this is ever implemented, it may be worth considering making maximum stability higher (160-200ish) so that corps who want to have their max aura can get there without having to alarm clock against some solo ninja in the early hours of the morning.

+1
-Confucius

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

If nobody shows up, that's up to the attacker really.

If the defender could take their own SAP, actually attacking a station would be problematic and... abusable. smile

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

53 (edited by Burial 2014-09-10 12:36:22)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Syndic wrote:

If nobody shows up, that's up to the attacker really.

If the defender could take their own SAP, actually attacking a station would be problematic and... abusable. smile

If attackers are there and win, the stability goes down. If defenders are there and win, the stability goes up.

If neither are there, the stability should stay there not move up.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a SAP defenders have to do for increasing the stability. Something as simple as delivering a special item from the SAP loot container to the terminal could do the trick.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

That places an upkeep on the station as SAPs have to be rescanned and alarmclocked, allowing the attacker to recouperate from alarm clocking while the defender has to alarm clock all the time.

It's an extremely bad idea since it heavily discourages small corps from going after a station, by making it mandatory to have 24/7 presence.

And outside of CIR/77, there's not a corp in the entire history of this game that has had actual 24/7 presence.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

I keep saying this but actually you woud need a 12 hour presence.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Artificially creating a problem where there is none and then compromising for a solution that is unnecessary in the first place is a waste of developer time.

Actual player major complaints about the game are missions and PVE - with good reason because they're terrible. Revamping PVE and missions will take up at least a year of development time.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Whoever comes on top on more of the SAPs gets the outpost. The change only moves the win-by-default clause to draw when no one shows up.

Why exactly should outpost stability increase with no work?

58 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-10 16:12:07)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:

Whoever comes on top on more of the SAPs gets the outpost. The change only moves the win-by-default clause to draw when no one shows up.

Why exactly should outpost stability increase with no work?


What happens if the defenders show up and no attackers show up? What is used in game to register successful defense?

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Because you went the trouble of taking a station at 100 to zero.  Then from 0 to 100?  I don't know if you know this Burial but there several man hours that go into scanning and showing up for a sap.  I mean most people do have jobs, so it takes coordination on an alliance level to ensure the station gets attacked.  That's where the work is.  Then its a tedious waiting game by the corp.  For defense.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

60 (edited by Burial 2014-09-10 16:27:58)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:
Burial wrote:

Whoever comes on top on more of the SAPs gets the outpost. The change only moves the win-by-default clause to draw when no one shows up.

Why exactly should outpost stability increase with no work?


What happens if the defenders show up and no attackers show up?

Burial wrote:

If attackers are there and win, the stability goes down. If defenders are there and win, the stability goes up.

If neither are there, the stability should stay there not move up.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a SAP defenders have to do for increasing the stability. Something as simple as delivering a special item from the SAP loot container to the terminal could do the trick.

They deliver a special item from the SAP loot container to the terminal that increases stability.

Ville wrote:

Because you went the trouble of taking a station at 100 to zero.  Then from 0 to 100?

People are supposed to defend the stations they use anyway. Right? If SAP ends and item is delivered to the terminal, they get the cookies.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

What are they defending their station from, the game or the people who can't be bothered to play the game?

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

While your item submission for the defenders would work just from a mechanic aspect. I think it doesn't work as a station holding game mechanic.

I would rather see the removal of the current system and it replaced with a system that the attackers need to place an item saying they want to attack. And when this happens the defenders only need to defend to hold it or lose to lose it. (Of course this is a high level description)

Enough with the current rolling server mechanic system that dictates when attacks will happen or not. That type of system is better suited for faction warfare type play style. Where specific bonuses keep changing hands.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

63 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 11:21:16)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

/* */

64 (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-09-10 16:59:33)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Kaldenines wrote:

I think the problem is not locking itself but that SAP stability goes up when nobody shows up. Imo it should just stay the same when nobody does the SAP.

Also the pvp zones are too small for the current mechanics (sparks, interzone and other TPs, pvp alts, gate alts, detectors, probes ).  There are too few islands, too few connections leading on/off pvp isalnds and the lack of connections between different beta pairs is just mind boggling (any news on the new TP network?).

This. 

As for SAPs I've always considered the auto defense mechanic broken. One of the objectives of Intrusion 2.0 was to encourage active usage of the outpost you own. Despite the time it may take to scan a dozen SAP timer that hardly constitutes a good reason to leave it. We're not supposed to be able to manage so many outposts.   

I like idea of some type of action for Defender to take, such as simply right clicking some panel for few seconds just to register a presence. This would not defend the SAP only activate the points received if no successful attack. A compromise would be to have reduced auto defense points, like 1/5 the current. So if you have an active SAP and no Defender is there to activate the thingy-mcbob, and no one attacks, defender gets 3 points. If defender activates thingy-mcgiggle  a d no successful attack then standard 15 points.

Point is that active presence should mean something.

Oh yeah, also *** kill sparks on Beta (or permit one and only one and only if you own outpost).

Sparking to other games

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Rex Amelius wrote:
Kaldenines wrote:

I think the problem is not locking itself but that SAP stability goes up when nobody shows up. Imo it should just stay the same when nobody does the SAP.

Also the pvp zones are too small for the current mechanics (sparks, interzone and other TPs, pvp alts, gate alts, detectors, probes ).  There are too few islands, too few connections leading on/off pvp isalnds and the lack of connections between different beta pairs is just mind boggling (any news on the new TP network?).

This. 

As for SAPs I've always considered the auto defense mechanic broken. One of the objectives of Intrusion 2.0 was to encourage active usage of the outpost you own. Despite the time it may take to scan a dozen SAP timer that hardly constitutes a good reason to leave it. We're not supposed to be able to manage so many outposts.   

I like idea of some type of action for Defender to take, such as simply right clicking some panel for few seconds just to register a presence. This would not defend the SAP only activate the points received if no successful attack. A compromise would be to have reduced auto defense points, like 1/5 the current. So if you have an active SAP and no Defender is there to activate the thingy-mcbob, and no one attacks, defender gets 3 points. If defender activates thingy-mcgiggle  a d no successful attack then standard 15 points.

Point is that active presence should mean something.

Oh yeah, also *** kill sparks on Beta (or permit one and only one and only if you own outpost).

I have always consider the current intrusion 2.0 system broken as a whole. That is why I don't think it would be wise to keep making small changes to something that needs to be removed from the game and replaced with a new system.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

66 (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-09-10 18:48:21)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:
Rex Amelius wrote:
Kaldenines wrote:

I think the problem is not locking itself but that SAP stability goes up when nobody shows up. Imo it should just stay the same when nobody does the SAP.

Also the pvp zones are too small for the current mechanics (sparks, interzone and other TPs, pvp alts, gate alts, detectors, probes ).  There are too few islands, too few connections leading on/off pvp isalnds and the lack of connections between different beta pairs is just mind boggling (any news on the new TP network?).

This. 

As for SAPs I've always considered the auto defense mechanic broken. One of the objectives of Intrusion 2.0 was to encourage active usage of the outpost you own. Despite the time it may take to scan a dozen SAP timer that hardly constitutes a good reason to leave it. We're not supposed to be able to manage so many outposts.   

I like idea of some type of action for Defender to take, such as simply right clicking some panel for few seconds just to register a presence. This would not defend the SAP only activate the points received if no successful attack. A compromise would be to have reduced auto defense points, like 1/5 the current. So if you have an active SAP and no Defender is there to activate the thingy-mcbob, and no one attacks, defender gets 3 points. If defender activates thingy-mcgiggle  a d no successful attack then standard 15 points.

Point is that active presence should mean something.

Oh yeah, also *** kill sparks on Beta (or permit one and only one and only if you own outpost).

I have always consider the current intrusion 2.0 system broken as a whole. That is why I don't think it would be wise to keep making small changes to something that needs to be removed from the game and replaced with a new system.

I agree that in general the whole thing needs a full revamp, but priorities and development time, etc. You know a full revamp is a large endeavor. Though hardly perfect I think we can survive it in it's current form with a few tweaks...

1.) Max 1 spark per character on Beta and only if in corp that owns outpost
2.) "Action" requirement to earn the points from a successful defense of SAP
3.) Maybe passive income incentive for owner in form of SAP loot auto-dropped into to corp hanger 15 minutes after successful Defense (giving ninjas and whomever that 15 minutes to collect it first).

But again who is listening? I know Zoom ain't.

Sparking to other games

67 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-10 18:43:55)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Rex Amelius wrote:
Gremrod wrote:
Rex Amelius wrote:

This. 

As for SAPs I've always considered the auto defense mechanic broken. One of the objectives of Intrusion 2.0 was to encourage active usage of the outpost you own. Despite the time it may take to scan a dozen SAP timer that hardly constitutes a good reason to leave it. We're not supposed to be able to manage so many outposts.   

I like idea of some type of action for Defender to take, such as simply right clicking some panel for few seconds just to register a presence. This would not defend the SAP only activate the points received if no successful attack. A compromise would be to have reduced auto defense points, like 1/5 the current. So if you have an active SAP and no Defender is there to activate the thingy-mcbob, and no one attacks, defender gets 3 points. If defender activates thingy-mcgiggle  a d no successful attack then standard 15 points.

Point is that active presence should mean something.

Oh yeah, also *** kill sparks on Beta (or permit one and only one and only if you own outpost).

I have always consider the current intrusion 2.0 system broken as a whole. That is why I don't think it would be wise to keep making small changes to something that needs to be removed from the game and replaced with a new system.

I agree that in general the whole thing needs a full revamp, but priorities and development time, etc. You know a full revamp is a large endeavor. Though hardly perfect I think we can survive it in it's current form with a few tweaks ...stated above.

If they tweak it. I think zoom said he wouldn't mind tweaking so the lockout feature doesn't happen until higher stability then current 50.

As for more tweaks beyond that it is up to them at this point. After gamma is in game I don't think this will be a big issue again for a bit.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

68 (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-09-10 18:56:54)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:

If they tweak it. I think zoom said he wouldn't mind tweaking so the lockout feature doesn't happen until higher stability then current 50.

As for more tweaks beyond that it is up to them at this point. After gamma is in game I don't think this will be a big issue again for a bit.

Yes I read that and I think that is a useless tweak. It seems more like an attempt to placate the current forum campaign on lockout. It is NOT a solution to the problem ...the problem being easy control of all Beta outpost for whomever is the Dominant Power.

With Active defense requirement (corp only, no allies) and
More severe limitation of Sparks on Beta (if any allowed at all)
Imminent island distance change reducing IZ effectiveness
and return of Gamma as a place to draw some activity away from Beta

We may, may see a more accessible Beta. At least that is the goal. Fully achieving that goal will never come, in my opinion, with out massive increase in island count, but we all know the development time on that given current constraints.

Sparking to other games

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Rex Amelius wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

If they tweak it. I think zoom said he wouldn't mind tweaking so the lockout feature doesn't happen until higher stability then current 50.

As for more tweaks beyond that it is up to them at this point. After gamma is in game I don't think this will be a big issue again for a bit.

Yes I read that and I think that is a useless tweak. It seems more like an attempt to placate the current forum campaign on lockout. It is NOT a solution to the problem ...the problem being easy control of all Beta outpost for whomever is the Dominant Power.

With Active defense requirement (corp only, no allies) and
More severe limitation of Sparks on Beta (if any allowed at all)
Imminent island distance change reducing IZ effectiveness
and return of Gamma as a place to draw some activity away from Beta

We may, may see a more accessible Beta. At least that is the goal. Fully achieving that goal will never come, in my opinion, with out massive increase in island count, but we all know the development time on that given current constraints.

I think the entire issue right now comes down to two main factors.

Development time to get good / new features into the game.
population.


Outposts can be owned by other players/corporations, but no one wants to take the time and resources to fight for the outposts. They just give up or don't even try. They could but they don't. I don't think that is a reason to make changes to current mechanics.

Others issues

vets not having areas to spread out.

But at the same time I do see a need to change the entire intrusion system. Yes they can do some tweaking. I would wait and see what gamma 2.0 brings and hope its better received than intrusion 2.0.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

70 (edited by Syndic 2014-09-10 20:56:23)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

I'll quote myself here to explain why this entire discussion perpetrated by two individuals is pointless, and point out that the majority of actual new players quit because of bad PVE.

That's what needs to be improved, not pretending station locks are the only reason homeboy PVP quadboxer couldn't get a station, and now the whole game has to change so homeboy can at least dock in a station.

Syndic wrote:

Artificially creating a problem where there is none and then compromising for a solution that is unnecessary in the first place is a waste of developer time.

Actual player major complaints about the game are missions and PVE - with good reason because they're terrible. Revamping PVE and missions will take up at least a year of development time.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Eloquent as always Syndic. By all means lets ignore every problem in the game that can be fixed or balanced until the PVE revamp that you said would take a year.. Seems like a great idea...

I would love to hear from this quadboxing Homeboy you speak of. Or is he some fictional character created to try and further your adgenda? I know what my money is on...

Those of you lucky enough to have your lives, take them with you. However, leave the mods you've lost. They belong to me now.

Scarab Kill Count:2

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Shadowmine wrote:

Eloquent as always Syndic. By all means lets ignore every problem in the game that can be fixed or balanced until the PVE revamp that you said would take a year.. Seems like a great idea...

I would love to hear from this quadboxing Homeboy you speak of. Or is he some fictional character created to try and further your adgenda? I know what my money is on...

The quad boxer was Jita, referring to this battle:
http://www.perp-kill.net/related/260068
Surprise was killed first, not on that mail and Tonnik exploded later.
Then Jita tried to say he was running 5 accounts and experienced lag in pvp.  Similar to the Norhoop battle were he rage quit the game.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

What matters is that steam players are quoting bad PVE as one of the main reasons.

Current intrusion system is balanced 50-50 + home advantage for defender, meaning there is no need to reinvent the wheel when there are evidently much more important things to be done.

Like fixing PVE.

The fix obviously doesn't have to be one gigantic patch 1-2 years from now, that would be counterproductive - consistent monthly patches adding bits and bobs.

Greatest feature added to this game in the last 3 years - has been the goddamn autopilot!

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Ville wrote:
Shadowmine wrote:

Eloquent as always Syndic. By all means lets ignore every problem in the game that can be fixed or balanced until the PVE revamp that you said would take a year.. Seems like a great idea...

I would love to hear from this quadboxing Homeboy you speak of. Or is he some fictional character created to try and further your adgenda? I know what my money is on...

The quad boxer was Jita, referring to this battle:
http://www.perp-kill.net/related/260068
Surprise was killed first, not on that mail and Tonnik exploded later.
Then Jita tried to say he was running 5 accounts and experienced lag in pvp.  Similar to the Norhoop battle were he rage quit the game.

Look how many lies you can fit in a paragraph. Now that's trying hard.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

75 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 16:15:47)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Syndic wrote:

Current intrusion system is balanced 50-50

That's the dogma of Perpetuum: Blob or GTFO. The suicidal situation where PVP and blobbing have become one.