76 (edited by Syndic 2014-09-11 11:30:24)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:
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.

... as in 50% - 50%, not 50 players - 50 players.

[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

It would if defenders wouldn't have the win-by-default clause every missed SAP.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Also, Perpetuum is much more balanced then EVE. Interference and explosion damage are an excellent anti-blob mechanic (thanks Styxy!), and Perpetuum doesn't have capital mechs that teleport around the map while being immune to ewar therefore making their only counter more capital mechs.

[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

Defenders definitely do win by default if the attacker doesn't attack. That's kind of the point of being the defender.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

80 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 11:51:56)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Defenders already get the benefit of no stability loss when no-one is attacking. To get further benefit of stability increase, defenders should actually be there and defend. If neither defender defends nor attacker attacks, the situation shouldn't change.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

What does the defender defend against if the attacker doesn't attack?

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

82 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 12:05:55)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Nothing, then it's free stability points and SAP loot for 5 minutes of work. If attacker attacks and no-one is there to defend, it's the same. That's 50/50 balance.

83 (edited by Syndic 2014-09-11 12:35:33)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

50 - 50 balance is the current system where the defender standing there for 1 hour, attacker finishes SAP in 10 minutes, and winner reduces/increases stability.

Defender also has the home field advantage as I mentioned, which is fine.

50-50 balance is not forcing defender to behave as the attacker 24/7 or their stability doesn't go up after ninja strikes. That's a recipe for burnout, and the game has lost enough casuals who can't keep up with the pace already.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

84 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 12:57:42)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

If the defender really is standing there for 1 hour then everything is fine, right? He transports the item to the terminal and gets the stability points. Heck, he doesn't even have to stand there for 1 hour to do that.

This change affects only when the defender is not there. If someone isn't there to transport the item back to the terminal or even more, defend it's own station, he should not get any free hand-outs.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:

If the defender really is standing there for 1 hour then everything is fine, right? He transports the item to the terminal and gets the stability points. Heck, he doesn't even have to stand there for 1 hour to do that.

This change affects only when the defender is not there. If someone isn't there to transport the item back to the terminal or even more, defend it's own station, he should not get any free hand-outs.

By that logic, everyone eligible to attack the outpost who chooses not to attack should be penalized as well.

[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

It's already penalized. The punishment is increased stability if the defender chose to defend it.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

But you're setting rules on HOW the defender can defend.

By the same logic, SAP's should only be possible to complete by 10+ accounts, a single ninja shouldn't be able to complete a SAP. If eligible attackers don't show up, their corporations should be penalized by ~100M NIC for a no-show.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

88 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 14:37:13)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Stability can be altered by a single player in both cases. Why should the attackers be penalized any more than they currently are?

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

The attacker gets to:

Choose to engage.

When to engage.

How to engage.

How's the attacker at a disadvantage again?

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.

90 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 15:02:54)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

The attacker can already choose if, how and when to engage, Ville. It wouldn't be any different than now. The end result would vary only if the defender wasn't there.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Attackers are not currently penalized.

They enjoy the privilege of choosing when and which outpost to attack, while the defender enjoys the privilege of home advantage.

Defender has to defend for 1 hour (therefore multiple attempts possible for attacker), while the attacker has to attack for 10 minutes (therefore if the defender loses the first engagement, he's probably lost the SAP).

Your logic dictates that if the defender isn't actively participating, he should be penalized by stability not increasing. Again, applying that logic to the entire equation would dictate that the attacker(s) should also be penalized for not actively participating.

And the only way to penalize the attacker for not actively participating would be with a monetary cost, which brings us full circle to Intrusion 1.0.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

92 (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 19:51:01)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Syndic, now you are just complaining about how Intrusion 2.0 mechanics work.

The essence of outpost ownership is the defense of the property. Just as much as the attacker having to go through the effort of attacking island no-one is using, should the defenders go through similar effort of defending island they got no use for.

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:

If the defender really is standing there for 1 hour then everything is fine, right?

I read this and it just yelled at me. You know what it yelled?


BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:
Burial wrote:

If the defender really is standing there for 1 hour then everything is fine, right?

I read this and it just yelled at me. You know what it yelled?


BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:

Syndic, now you are just complaining about how Intrusion 2.0 mechanics work.

The essence of outpost ownership is the defense of the property. Just as much as the attacker having to go through the effort of attacking island no-one is using, should the defenders go through similar effort of defending island they got no use for. This is the only thing that gets changed.


I disagree. The essence of the outpost ownership is attacking. You must attack to own one. And since you really don't own it seeing how it is a static NPC outpost defending it should be easy in the current control system.

I would agree that outpost ownership is defense of property when it comes to gamma.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

96 (edited by Celebro 2014-09-11 15:20:22)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Ok how about remove scanning from saps, intrusion system has no known set time but for defender to get stability increase he needs to 'tap' the sap so as to show presence.

Removing sap time will be harder for attacker but if defender does not roam diligently all his outpost he would run the risk of losing them, unless they are living there which would be much easier to defend outpost that are used but not those that are not in use.

Edit: Defender just taping the SAP and defending it succesfully will get them stability increase only.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

I think one thing that people are missing here.

Why are people not attacking any of the outpost that are currently under control by a corp/allies other than your corp/allies? I am not talking about a simple lets go hit a couple SAPs. I am talking about a full out plan to attack and keep attacking until the outpost is taken?

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:

I think one thing that people are missing here.

Why are people not attacking any of the outpost that are currently under control by a corp/allies other than your corp/allies? I am not talking about a simple lets go hit a couple SAPs. I am talking about a full out plan to attack and keep attacking until the outpost is taken?


You need like 7-8 successful attacks to get outpost and the last 2 attempts will get it blobbed so what's the point?

I think it would be interesting if neither defender or attacker does not know the set SAP times, specially with faster robot speeds easier to roam.

RIP PERPETUUM

99 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-11 15:38:29)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

I think one thing that people are missing here.

Why are people not attacking any of the outpost that are currently under control by a corp/allies other than your corp/allies? I am not talking about a simple lets go hit a couple SAPs. I am talking about a full out plan to attack and keep attacking until the outpost is taken?


You need like 7-8 successful attacks to get outpost and the last 2 attempts will get it blobbed so what's the point?

I think it would be interesting if neither defender or attacker does not know the set SAP times, specially with faster robot speeds easier to roam.

Well, but wouldn't that still fall under your statement: "You need like 7-8 successful attacks to get outpost and the last 2 attempts will get it blobbed so what's the point?"

Does your statement change if the SAP times are not known?

If SAP times are not known will corps start to fight for outposts?

If corps will fight for outpost if SAP times are not know then the change is not making the defender stand around for an hour to get some item etc.

The change would be to leave everything alone and take away SAP time prediction.

Th main point here is if no one wants to attack and fight to take any of the outposts.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

100 (edited by Syndic 2014-09-11 15:40:11)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:

Syndic, now you are just complaining about how Intrusion 2.0 mechanics work.

The essence of outpost ownership is the defense of the property. Just as much as the attacker having to go through the effort of attacking island no-one is using, should the defenders go through similar effort of defending island they got no use for. This is the only thing that gets changed.

You misunderstand me.

I've actually played this game with Intrusion 1.0 and 2.0, and I prefer 2.0 vastly because it discourages blobbing. However, I'm laying out how the system works currently, and how your logic impacts both the defender and the attacker. You are only focusing on 1 side of the equation, which is a logical fallacy.

If there is no attacker, there is nothing to defend the property from.

Syndic wrote:

Attackers are not currently penalized.

They enjoy the privilege of choosing when and which outpost to attack, while the defender enjoys the privilege of home advantage.

Defender has to defend for 1 hour (therefore multiple attempts possible for attacker), while the attacker has to attack for 10 minutes (therefore if the defender loses the first engagement, he's probably lost the SAP).

Your logic dictates that if the defender isn't actively participating, he should be penalized by stability not increasing. Again, applying that logic to the entire equation would dictate that the attacker(s) should also be penalized for not actively participating.

And the only way to penalize the attacker for not actively participating would be with a monetary cost, which brings us full circle to Intrusion 1.0.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice