• JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:
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?

Celebro wrote:

Yes: since you know there is a possibility of the SAP not being blobbed.

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

Celebro wrote:

If its harder to take hold and you have a good force on the island it is much easier to defend. Although it will be much harder to defend multiple 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.

Celebro wrote:

Yes you would still need to stand for an hour though but stability will rise

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.

RIP PERPETUUM
  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:

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?

Celebro wrote:

Yes: since you know there is a possibility of the SAP not being blobbed.

You currently have the same chance of not being blobbed.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

103 Reply by Burial (edited by Burial 2014-09-11 18:43:18)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Syndic wrote:

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.

If I were only considering one side I'd suggest outpost stability to lower per every missed SAP by the defenders.

Listen, no-one is forcing anyone to protect anything they don't want to. If they do, they get the bonus, if not they won't. No free hand-outs.

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

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?

Celebro wrote:

Yes: since you know there is a possibility of the SAP not being blobbed.

You currently have the same chance of not being blobbed.

No, defenders know set times.

But, the aim is to change defenders behaviour that's the one taking all outposts without making it any harder to own a few or 1, that is the issue I have with any leading alliance there is not much to do even if you have 10 outpost.

RIP PERPETUUM
  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:
Gremrod wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

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?

You currently have the same chance of not being blobbed.

No, defenders know set times.

But, the aim is to change defenders behaviour that's the one taking all outposts without making it any harder to own a few or 1, that is the issue I have with any leading alliance there is not much to do even if you have 10 outpost.

Because the defenders know the set times has nothing to do with a blob really. The attackers can bring a blob too. So this argument doesn't have merit with me.

I have always said the defender should not be at a disadvantage. The attacker needs to put forth the main/most effort.

I still think the main issue here is the size of the world is too small. More beta islands need to be added.

I like the idea of scaling the world up rather than making a bunch of changes to mechanics.

I would be fully in support of removing the intrusion system and build a new beta siege system.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod: Yes true, attackers can bring a blob too but they don't know set times either so, if you are not actively living or roaming said island then you won't know when to attack but remember to balance the attackers disadvantage stability will not increase unless SAPs are at least, 'tapped' by defender to show presence and to defend if need be.

This gives great advantage to defender, only if they are living there.

RIP PERPETUUM
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Unlocking outposts would still do the most good for the game.

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:

Unlocking outposts would still do the most good for the game.

I am still not sold that it would.

NPC terminals are unlocked on three beta islands.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

109 Reply by Gremrod (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-11 16:30:50)

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:

Gremrod: Yes true, attackers can bring a blob too but they don't know set times either so, if you are not actively living or roaming said island then you won't know when to attack but remember to balance the attackers disadvantage stability will not increase unless SAPs are at least, 'tapped' by defender to show presence and to defend if need be.

This gives great advantage to defender, only if they are living there.

I think you have one of the better simple ideas at this point. Removal of the SAP scanning times.

But I am still in favor of scaling up the world. Make it bigger than one entity's ability to control everything.....

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • CAS
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

There is a fundamental flaw with making the game world bigger so one entity cannot control it. It's not the size of the world but the number of players. STC ruled a 36 island game with 10 people and 30~ people online total, average, for 2 years. The size of the world, or SpT made no difference. It was the number of people playing. CIR/77 own what they own because there is not enough opposition, not because of the game world or SpT in its current form.

Alpha needs to be a viable area with enough content and resources for the constant new players to learn the game and establish a basic foothold of wealth and resources. Only then will this game start retaining its new growth and actually expand. Forget about making changes based on the population over the last 3 years.

111 Reply by Gremrod (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-11 21:48:32)

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Cassius wrote:

There is a fundamental flaw with making the game world bigger so one entity cannot control it. It's not the size of the world but the number of players. STC ruled a 36 island game with 10 people and 30~ people online total, average, for 2 years. The size of the world, or SpT made no difference. It was the number of people playing. CIR/77 own what they own because there is not enough opposition, not because of the game world or SpT in its current form.

Alpha needs to be a viable area with enough content and resources for the constant new players to learn the game and establish a basic foothold of wealth and resources. Only then will this game start retaining its new growth and actually expand. Forget about making changes based on the population over the last 3 years.

Yes. I will agree that game population allows for certain things to happen or not happen. But it appears there are more people currently playing then during the STC time and a single entity controls everything right now. The world is about to grow a bit bigger and we will see if the game population grows with it this time or disappears again.

There is no fundamental flaw with making the game world bigger. If this is true then gamma under that logic would only serve to allow one entity to control the game. But the devs will be putting it into the game again and I don't think it is there plan to have one entity rule all of it. Well unless the game population dies and no one is left to fight that entity for control....

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

it doesn't matter how big the game world is... when its empty and nothing to do except mining or waiting that someone shows up for a minute pew pew.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Annihilator wrote:

it doesn't matter how big the game world is... when its empty and nothing to do except mining or waiting that someone shows up for a minute pew pew.

I disagree here, a bigger game world would give a much needed buffer for new players to move to beta and beyond. Every time the game grows it shrinks again due to it's small size. Very easy for big vet corps to control the server and no where to hide for others.

RIP PERPETUUM
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

yep, buffer is necessary, but you need something to do there.

why is gamma so boring? because there is nothing to do but building around a gamma base with stuff you cannot build there for a long time,
or do gardening with a little bit of terraforming (which also requires you to buy and haul something from alpha/beta) or simply do your AFK activity, aka mining.

there is nothing to do for your combat agent while your waiting for someone showing up at your paper-base (T1) or a whole army showing up to level down your Tower Defense level (T3).

gamma made the gameworld 3 times as big.. but was there really a buffer?

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Syndic wrote:

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.

It only burns you out if you own every outpost in the game. And believe me I speak from experience. I "defended" 20 saps a day for the better part of a year. And by defended, I mean I sparked an alt in and hauled beacons and cortexes back to the station. I propose that if Cir and 77th each had one beta outpost, it would take very little effort to maintain your outpost stability. Thus resulting in no "burnout".

I suppose if a single guy tries to take his own outpost it might be tough, but a single guy isn't meant to own a beta station. But any reasonably sized corp could maintain an outpost with ease.

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
  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Everyone has different degrees of "burnout", what's normal to me and you is uber hardcore to most people.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

And I have to agree that if a defender isn't actively defending an outpost the stability should not go up. I would even still say take it a step farther and if the defender doesn't defend several saps in a row the stability should drop. It would be a great mechanic to open and unlock beta outpost that aren't in use, allowing new players to move in and/or take over. And would not affect significantly any outpost that's actively being used.

Next, while it may seem like the game world is small and needs more space. I suggest you have to be very careful in how much space you add. I feel like the amount of gamma islands added to the world in comparison to the population caused more problems than it solved. It made the game world so huge and difficult to traverse in the interest of finding action. And allowed the "turtle" gamma islands to be built in the first place. More beta islands is interesting though...

And somewhere Gremrod mentioned that the population is currently higher than it was when STC reigned... Judging from what I have seen, that is not the case. We are at about the same point.

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

118 Reply by Gremrod (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-12 01:25:43)

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

I use to log on to find 15 ppl in GC. So yeah more ppl right now than when STC controlled everything. But non-the-less let's hope the game pop grows.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Gremrod wrote:

I use to log on to find 15 ppl in GC. So yeah more ppl right now than when STC controlled everything. But non-the-less let's hope the game pop grows.

you know, not everyone is in GC... wink, they all have been hiding in alliance chat channels.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear
  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Annihilator wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

I use to log on to find 15 ppl in GC. So yeah more ppl right now than when STC controlled everything. But non-the-less let's hope the game pop grows.

you know, not everyone is in GC... wink, they all have been hiding in alliance chat channels.

Yeah, GC is no indication AT ALL of how many people may be logged in and playing. And when you're hoping around from island to island and you don't see anyone, it's because they're all masked or perhaps your lagging out, or more likely DDOSing your PC to keep you from seeing the truth. I know for a fact when I log in people are watching me and following me all the time. You can't even trust your own eyes.

Sparking to other games
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

im just reflecting on what someone from CIR or PHM always says when someone said something about GC as population indicator ("when i log in i see hundreds online in squad chat") wink

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear
  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Annihilator wrote:

im just reflecting on what someone from CIR or PHM always says when someone said something about GC as population indicator ("when i log in i see hundreds online in squad chat") wink

and I'm just poking fun wink

Sparking to other games

123 Reply by Ville

  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Our squads consistently higher than GC.

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.

124 Reply by Jita

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Ville wrote:

Our alts are consistently higher than GC.

fyp

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."

125 Reply by Ville

  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Alts/people the problem is really that 8 to 15 dudes are ruling the game.  Let me say this again: EIGHT TO FIFTEEN GUYS ARE RULING THE GAME.  Now tell me how pathetic you are 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.