1 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 12:15:12)

Topic: Why Beta station locks have to go

I made new thread since last one already got flushed. Be nice or leave.

The game lacks any form of smaller scale PVP for newer and independant corporations.
Here's an illustration and here's a cure.

1. Completely remove the ability to lock Beta stations.
2. All Beta outposts tax from facilities and market goes to it's owner corporation.

Beta SAP mechanics can be fun if nothing excessive is at stake. It's a good Capture The Flag mini-game and I don't see any sense in removing it. After the change, it's still beneficial to own and fight over stations because:

1. Corporation gets the outpost Aura bonuses.
2. Tax from facilities and market goes to the owner corporation.

The more separate entities use Betas, the more potential PVP we all get. If there's 10 different sides spread out on Betas, it's potentially 10 times more fights and 9 times less pressure on just 1 side. Remember, to avoid the need to form blobs, there can't be anything of extreeme value that can be taken away associated with Betas.

Syndic wrote:

If you defend it you keep it, if you don't defend it you lose it. If you attack it and win, you win it and if you attack and lose you don't.
Fair system to everyone.

Any mechanic, as long as it's within rules of the game, can be considered fair since every condition can be met by any corporation sooner or later. Following that doesn't make the game more fun and less broken.

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Lemon & foom

Thats all i have to say

True Pros make a Podcast to influence the Devs minds, 
The rest of you guys are Hacks tongue

PS. I got my Highways & stopped playing b4 they came in & have never used them! ...... Irony much ? tongue

3 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 11:21:52)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

That's a logical fallacy. Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.

Since when has camping newbies into a station not been possible?

If someone decides to live from a station in a PVP zone, there's the risk of something overwhelming either camping outside or killing them. It happens regardless of stations being open or not. If players retain having Sparks in Beta outposts and terminals, it's going to be noticeably bigger problem however.

It's senseless to avoid all the benefits of opening stations only to prevent players from getting killed by not being there in the first place.

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Burial, believe me, station locks are necessary - its worse without them.

*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

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

You know as well as I know this mechanic will only be used to

1.  Disrupte ANY use of the island by an Alliance.

2.  Grief players by undocking arches/cheap bots to harass anything that leaves the station.

3.  Constantly used w/ Arkhes and Cheap bots to pop beacons.

4.  Setup zerg ghanks by use of dropping out of the station and shooting a flagged guy sitting by a station.

5.  Allow with the use of spark teleportation to log or spark people inside a terminal to drop out and try to grief them.

6.  Always know whats in terminal

7.  Infinitely scout Every fleet, EVER

8.  Decrease the overall PVP in the community with the use of alts to reduce the element of Surprise to see whether players wish to engage.

9.  Use of Detector alts permamently within a station to see a 2800 M Buffer around a terminal.

10.  Use of multiple alts to provide a presence within a terminal to make people afraid to undock.

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.

6 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 12:56:54)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Ville, most of these problems are mended with fixes long overdue anyway. This game can't be fixed with just one change. It's too broken for that. There has to be a series of well-thought-out changes.

Ville wrote:

1.  Disrupte ANY use of the island by an Alliance.
4.  Setup zerg ghanks by use of dropping out of the station and shooting a flagged guy sitting by a station.

These can be done regardless of locks. 4th point can easily be done with log-off traps.

Ville wrote:

2.  Grief players by undocking arches/cheap bots to harass anything that leaves the station.
3.  Constantly used w/ Arkhes and Cheap bots to pop beacons.
5.  Allow with the use of spark teleportation to log or spark people inside a terminal to drop out and try to grief them.

These are fixed by not allowing home station and spark teleport destinations to be set in Beta outposts. That's something that's nessecary in the grand scheme of balancing anyway.

The way I see it: Players are allowed to set home-station in any of the Alpha terminals and 1 Spark TP destination in any of the Gamma terminals. If a player dies, he ends up on Alpha and is out of the fight for however long it takes him to get back. This also prevents corporations from hell-camping players since everyone who dies ends up on Alpha without being stuck in the slaughter-loop.

Ville wrote:

9.  Use of Detector alts permamently within a station to see a 2800 M Buffer around a terminal.

Detectors need a proper fix.

Ville wrote:

8.  Decrease the overall PVP in the community with the use of alts to reduce the element of Surprise to see whether players wish to engage.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Burial do you remember how frustrating it was to attack alsbale when your enemy saw your every move from New Virginia and Hershfield?  How many fights were completely avoided at fort Douglas because we were able to scout the size and fits.  I remember specifically two.

Its like Dota, 1 team picks right off the bat then the other team counter picks.

It's easy to stick a tyro mk2 w/ a chasis scan into any station.

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.

8 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 19:02:03)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Ville, the aim of the suggestion is to shift the focus of Betas away from all-out outpost warfare and big blobs for keeping the station at all cost to island habitation by many smaller sides. It there's nothing extreme to lose, there's no need to blob up. Blobbing can be left for Gammas.

First, it considerably reduces the barrier of entry for Betas. If others lack the presence then players can just move in and use it instead of having to claim the outpost cold-turkey. Second, it increases security for assets which in return reduces the need for blobs that would defeat the "many smaller factions" motive.

Can you see the benefits?

Terminal and gate scouts are powerful, but not fixing something on a pretense of something else being broken leads nowhere. Like I said earlier, the game can't be fixed without a series of changes. Here's a change to make them at least shootable for 10-15 seconds after each undocking. With that change and unability to Spark right back in, it's nullified.

9 (edited by Ville 2014-09-09 15:40:01)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

I remember having to have a sacrificial account on the field everytime we undocked for a form up.  That accounts goal was to not allow the enemy scout that undocked from the station the ability to lock and chassis scan the group as it left for pvp action.

Do you wish for these tactics to return?

Also if you make a 10~15 second window to be shot doesn't that sound like a gate campers wet dream?  If I had a 10~15 second window to have shot Jita's Gropho we would have killed Surprise on Kentagura.  (Right now its ~5 seconds)
-The old fix for this very situation was that players were thrown further away from the gate when using interisland teleports.
-The reason why the protection timers were not amended is because the Developers felt like if you jump through a gate you shouldn't ALWAYS be killed. 
-If you put a 500 Meter around a teleport pvp zone, than scouts will sit 501 M.


-In intrusion 1.0 scenario, I could be for not having station locks.  The goal was to promote large battles with alliance to hold stations.
--What happened is the strongest power hold all the islands.

-In intrusion 2.0 was to promote small scale warfare.  It worked great!  But still had the same problems intrusion 1.0 Had, Once a determined group of people set their eyes on a prize.(One Station)  If they were a bigger force they won battles.  And slowly people stopped logging in.

In Gamma 1.0 Was great.  The problem was the lack of motivated players to siege.  Biggest problem in the beginning was investment costs Versus reward.

Gamma 2.0....  For what I can already tell you is we are going to have some serious fun for 3 months. 

The problem is there is NO ROOM.  There is no room to hide.  Opening Stations won't help, because once again the overall game world is too small.  The people getting ganked will still get ganked ninja mining.

*Edit - Horrible typing skills.

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 Beta station locks have to go

BTW you stated:

2. All Beta outposts tax from facilities and market goes to it's owner corporation.

-If the stability is always up and down because of sap warfare, do you think anyone in their right mind would want to Produce there?

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.

11 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-09 16:43:37)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Real question

What is the reason to have the beta outpost locking feature removed? I think I lost the reason since there are 9000 threads on this now.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

12 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 16:58:53)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

I'm not going to start derailing the topic any further with the scout's problem. It's an issue for another topic.

Ville wrote:

-In intrusion 1.0 scenario, I could be for not having station locks.  The goal was to promote large battles with alliance to hold stations.
--What happened is the strongest power hold all the islands.

-In intrusion 2.0 was to promote small scale warfare.  It worked great!  But still had the same problems intrusion 1.0 Had, Once a determined group of people set their eyes on a prize.(One Station)  If they were a bigger force they won battles.  And slowly people stopped logging in.

I don't think the first Intrusion system works better with unlocked stations. It just makes it easier for one entity to capture more outposts for taxes. Either way, they both would work since the main focus doesn't lay on owning stations. Capturing of a station doesn't necessarily end the operations. It just makes a cut from these operations end up in the captor's corporation wallet that can be lost again if the captor doesn't maintain strong authority on the island.

I can't overstate it enough how unlocking stations would add massive amounts of dynamic content to more players than could ever be reached with locked stations.

13 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-09 17:05:32)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Burial wrote:

I can't overstate it enough how unlocking stations would add massive amounts of dynamic content to more players than could ever be reached with locked stations.

There are 6 beta islands. Three of them have unlocked NPC terminals for everyone to use. Yet we are to see the massive amounts of dynamic content coming from them let alone even a small amount of dynamic content.....


How about this for a solution. Add more beta islands. Making the world bigger and no way for a single alliance to hold all of them.

The game world is too small..............

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

14 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 17:18:47)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Gremrod, as I said earlier, the game needs a series of changes. Anyone in their right mind will not operate on Betas with current detection and power projection problems.

Gremrod wrote:

How about this for a solution. Add more beta islands. Making the world bigger and no way for a single alliance to hold all of them.

If stations can be taken away, it will defeat the "many smaller factions" motive. People will gang up to protect what they want to keep. Even if one entity is unable to capture all of the islands then a couple can.

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

I don't think the lockdown should be completely removed. It's an incentive to have an outpost completely for you, if you think that's the best for your corp. After all you need to earn it. Or not do anything to prevent it, that's a matter of perspective.

However, I'm not against increasing the limit from the current 50 stability needed.

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

possibly worst idea you have ever written


Its sparks that is the problem, not locks





Burial wrote:

I made new thread since last one already got flushed. Be nice or leave.

The game lacks any form of smaller scale PVP for newer and independant corporations.
Here's an illustration and here's a cure.

1. Completely remove the ability to lock Beta stations.
2. All Beta outposts tax from facilities and market goes to it's owner corporation.

Beta SAP mechanics can be fun if nothing excessive is at stake. It's a good Capture The Flag mini-game and I don't see any sense in removing it. After the change, it's still beneficial to own and fight over stations because:

1. Corporation gets the outpost Aura bonuses.
2. Tax from facilities and market goes to the owner corporation.

The more separate entities use Betas, the more potential PVP we all get. If there's 10 different sides spread out on Betas, it's potentially 10 times more fights and 9 times less pressure on just 1 side. Remember, to avoid the need to form blobs, there can't be anything of extreeme value that can be taken away associated with Betas.

Syndic wrote:

If you defend it you keep it, if you don't defend it you lose it. If you attack it and win, you win it and if you attack and lose you don't.
Fair system to everyone.

Any mechanic, as long as it's within rules of the game, can be considered fair since every condition can be met by any corporation sooner or later. Following that doesn't make the game more fun and less broken.

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

17 (edited by Burial 2014-09-10 11:59:20)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

DEV Zoom wrote:

I don't think the lockdown should be completely removed. It's an incentive to have an outpost completely for you, if you think that's the best for your corp. After all you need to earn it. Or not do anything to prevent it, that's a matter of perspective.

However, I'm not against increasing the limit from the current 50 stability needed.

Fair enough. Have you given any consideration to the though of being able to lock stations being a small daily time-sink?

Rage Blackout wrote:

Its sparks that is the problem, not locks

There's a couple of fundamental problems that come with station locking:

1. Increased barrier of entry to Betas.
2. Game will end up with more empty than used Betas.

Think about it. Even if Sparks get removed and we get more Betas, do you think a couple of big alliances can't lock them all down? Want to know what we end up with? Whole lot of unused Betas, corporations being forced to join blobs or GTFO, less casual roaming PVP and game that's boring.

I have nothing against blobs, but blobs already have the blobbing content on Gamma. This game needs more small scale corporation-level PVP.

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

DEV Zoom wrote:

I don't think the lockdown should be completely removed. It's an incentive to have an outpost completely for you, if you think that's the best for your corp. After all you need to earn it. Or not do anything to prevent it, that's a matter of perspective.

However, I'm not against increasing the limit from the current 50 stability needed.

The trouble with lockdowns is there is no middle ground. Gamma provides the same ability to lock people out.

I would consider moving Beta 1 to no lockout and beta 2 allowing a lockout so that there is legitimate progression.

It's also crucial to prevent afk holding of all stations that the intrusion mechanic requires you to capture to maintain stability.

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 Beta station locks have to go

Reposted from another thread as this topic is probably more fitting.


How about something where there is the 1 hour window currently for an attacker to take a sap. If he takes it stability goes down. If it is not taken, then immediately afterwards the owner of the outpost has to complete the sap in say 15 min to get the loot and stability increase.

You could then have stability decrease if the outpost owner goes more than 2 saps in a row without taking it, or some such. And even tie the station lockout mechanic to it. Where if the outpost owner does not complete his sap he then loses the ability to lock out the station. Do this in conjunction with maybe a 75 stability or better to lock station maybe.

Add in that only the corporation that owns the station can spark into it. And we may just be having things. If the lockout is not gonna be removed, and Im still on the fence about it, tbh. Then it needs to be made much more difficult to do. And really should only be able to be done if a corp is LIVING out of the outpost.

Even a little random 15 minute timer twice a day that only shows up if you are docked in that station to go and do some menial task to keep your lockout ability. That way you need your corp living in that outpost to have a good chance at keeping the lockout up. Idk, just spitballing here.


Just another idea. Anni's idea about the mission being given during the last 15 min of sap or something for a defender would be ok also.

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

20 (edited by DarkTerror 2014-09-13 03:54:29)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

edit: multi post... sad

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

How about this.

Keep the current mechanics for station stability up to 40 or 50 %
After that SAPS need to be taken by both owner/defenders and attackers.
Failure to defend or losing a sap will drop stability (add a station owner bonus/fudge factor that UNCONTESTED saps drop stability by only half? their sap value)
set the lock out ability at 60 %

Corporations would retain nominal ownership of undefended stations but would not be able to set lockout.
Won't make much difference to actively defended stations but would make it much harder to keep multiple stations in lock out.

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

how about you all stop being lazy and fight for some stations or something

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

23 (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-09-13 07:05:45)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Just noticed OP's 'cliff' illustration as something I read describing EVE like almost 10 years ago. Find something original like also a solution to Beta issues that don't involve opening up outposts to the enemy.

You cant have rabbit holes to hide in and
You cant have your stuff back.

Bad idea all around so I guess Zoom will implement it soon

...instead of fixing sparks (max 1 on Beta and only in corp owned outpost) and
...adding an activity requirement to SAP defense point accumulation

Elimination of lockout would make outpost ownership almost totally pointless in a world already lacking incentives for ownership.

Get off this short sighted campaign and spend your influence advocating REAL solutions to the broken mechanics allowing easy control of outpost ownership. Beta is lying on the ground with two broken legs. Don't kick it in the balls.

Sparking to other games

24 (edited by DarkTerror 2014-09-13 07:58:07)

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Rage Blackout wrote:

how about you all stop being lazy and fight for some stations or something


Some people like to build sandcastles
Some people are only interested in kicking them over.
Some even appear to like it both ways.....
It's the Devs job to make it enjoyable for enough people in total to play the game so they make money out of it.

Having <insert name of latest power block/Corporation of the moment here> own all the stations waving their epeen all over the place yelling "fight you ***", does not seem to be doing anything for either the game population or the investors pockets.

The suggestion was to make it harder to own more stations than you were prepared to, or didn't have enough members to defend. The game mechanics shouldn't even allow the ability to to own the whole world (well, not without a LOT of effort to keep it).
Cutting the number of sparks (one per alpha/beta/gamma) as had been suggested would go well with it.

Re: Why Beta station locks have to go

Before sparks no one ever even came close monopolizing Beta.
After sparks it's the now the norm

How more *** obvious could the problem be?

Sparking to other games