Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Gwyndor wrote:

There was a nice showing of vets this last weekend that I didnt wake up for in time that was able to lock down dom for a short period until syndic stopped suiciding heavy mk2's and everyone got bored. If this mechanic was in place it would make it easier for weekend ops. I dont understand what part of intrusion 3.0 idea you are complaining about other than trying to offend other players simply because you are upset about some sort of metagame or another.

I was there. But wait I don't play!

I do think sap scanning is dumb tbh. I would be happy if it was removed as it does stop me from doing stuff as I'm too lazy to scan and not important enough for access to a spreadsheet.

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."

27 (edited by Burial 2014-11-06 18:07:06)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Problem is timing: More important updates need to happen before anything associated with SAPs.

Didn't even read the suggestion; SAPs are fine.

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Of course you didn't bother to read the suggestion you are so against, you looked at the corp tag of the Op then posted accordingly, nothing new with that.

My suggestion would see more vets on the sideline come back, which is what the Rest of the Server Alliance needs right now.

It would be the case where you could look at whats getting seiged in the next 48 hours, see when it goes live, and people could log in just for that event...since the rest of the game might bore a lot of long term players.

Making the current pvp motives more than ninja sapping, setting traps to force people to pvp, and rolling the dice on activity might give the new players more motives if they know they can set a siege and have a lot of vets log on and help them.

Its a small change, imo, and will have big results.  My experience with this siege system was playing Darkfall on a server just as dead as this games server....and with sieges you get near complete server involvement....it made the game feel very alive and was motive to keep playing through siege downtime so you could at least prepare for the inevitable siege....on top of that it created a market for neutral mercenary clans...since you had a schedule you could hire people to fight for you.

Its easy to just disagree with something you didn't read just because you assume its a suggestion made to only benefit one party....based on corp tags...however im not the only player on my side who wishes we got our sht pushed in more often....and im not talking on paper wins where everyone on your side gets wiped but you kill syndic or whatever....real loss. ROTS has the numbers, just can never get them all on during the right times since SAP activity is a crap shoot.


Look past the politics for once....

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger Danger wrote:

Of course you didn't bother to read the suggestion you are so against, you looked at the corp tag of the Op then posted accordingly, nothing new with that.

My suggestion would see more vets on the sideline come back, which is what the Rest of the Server Alliance needs right now.

It would be the case where you could look at whats getting seiged in the next 48 hours, see when it goes live, and people could log in just for that event...since the rest of the game might bore a lot of long term players.

Making the current pvp motives more than ninja sapping, setting traps to force people to pvp, and rolling the dice on activity might give the new players more motives if they know they can set a siege and have a lot of vets log on and help them.

Its a small change, imo, and will have big results.  My experience with this siege system was playing Darkfall on a server just as dead as this games server....and with sieges you get near complete server involvement....it made the game feel very alive and was motive to keep playing through siege downtime so you could at least prepare for the inevitable siege....on top of that it created a market for neutral mercenary clans...since you had a schedule you could hire people to fight for you.

Its easy to just disagree with something you didn't read just because you assume its a suggestion made to only benefit one party....based on corp tags...however im not the only player on my side who wishes we got our sht pushed in more often....and im not talking on paper wins where everyone on your side gets wiped but you kill syndic or whatever....real loss. ROTS has the numbers, just can never get them all on during the right times since SAP activity is a crap shoot.


Look past the politics for once....

This sounds like going back to SAP 1.0 and it was changed, due to 'the blob' issue.

RIP PERPETUUM

30 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-07 17:09:55)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Celebro wrote:
Stranger Danger wrote:

Of course you didn't bother to read the suggestion you are so against, you looked at the corp tag of the Op then posted accordingly, nothing new with that.

My suggestion would see more vets on the sideline come back, which is what the Rest of the Server Alliance needs right now.

It would be the case where you could look at whats getting seiged in the next 48 hours, see when it goes live, and people could log in just for that event...since the rest of the game might bore a lot of long term players.

Making the current pvp motives more than ninja sapping, setting traps to force people to pvp, and rolling the dice on activity might give the new players more motives if they know they can set a siege and have a lot of vets log on and help them.

Its a small change, imo, and will have big results.  My experience with this siege system was playing Darkfall on a server just as dead as this games server....and with sieges you get near complete server involvement....it made the game feel very alive and was motive to keep playing through siege downtime so you could at least prepare for the inevitable siege....on top of that it created a market for neutral mercenary clans...since you had a schedule you could hire people to fight for you.

Its easy to just disagree with something you didn't read just because you assume its a suggestion made to only benefit one party....based on corp tags...however im not the only player on my side who wishes we got our sht pushed in more often....and im not talking on paper wins where everyone on your side gets wiped but you kill syndic or whatever....real loss. ROTS has the numbers, just can never get them all on during the right times since SAP activity is a crap shoot.


Look past the politics for once....

This sounds like going back to SAP 1.0 and it was changed, due to 'the blob' issue.


I know you wont understand this, but the blob right now, and for the last several months, has been the rest of the server alliance against us.

The issue is, we can easily get a small number of people on within a few minuets for a sap, that advantage goes away once you get a 48hr heads up for an all or nothing SAP Seige.  As you guys will be able to get a hold of all the forum vets, and at least a few people with the 10 or whatever corps are allied together.

You say we blob, everyone does, because we are able to get 5-15 (maybe 20) people on and deployed within a few minuets to handle a few players and possibly a log on trap or whatever.  Truth is, the current sap system is incredibly advantageous to us, since we are a close gaming community and very organized.

The system I suggest gives the unorganized some time to prepare and plan, meaning you can have that big siege during your peak time, with the ability to give a heads up before dropping as well as a 48-ish hour window to secure your plan.

I know most the forum vets assume this is some masterful plot to secure dominance, truth is, we are already dominant because the current system you think ninja sapping is the only hope, but hasn't worked.

Anyone who played darkfall 1.0 towards the end knows exactly what a siege system like this does, it brings the server together to fight, it causes higher activity, and increased participation.  That is exactly what the current system lacks.

Since inactivity as a weapon no longer works against us, lets get a siege system in place that creates the opportunity for people to properly prepare and plan for a large fight...lets give rise to mercenary corps who exist to provide numbers to the highest bidders...lets get rid of the old "bore them out the game" tactics employed by ninja sappers.

By all means keep the sap loot and saps on a timer for small scale loot and scoot or fights...just make taking a sation a preplanned and public event...and make it all or nothing.


This current sap system...it works when you get 10k players pvping and holding one station becomes a full time and difficult job.  I want a system that works for the smaller community we have, and one that encourages people to get involved with pvp.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger Danger wrote:
Celebro wrote:
Stranger Danger wrote:

Of course you didn't bother to read the suggestion you are so against, you looked at the corp tag of the Op then posted accordingly, nothing new with that.

My suggestion would see more vets on the sideline come back, which is what the Rest of the Server Alliance needs right now.

It would be the case where you could look at whats getting seiged in the next 48 hours, see when it goes live, and people could log in just for that event...since the rest of the game might bore a lot of long term players.

Making the current pvp motives more than ninja sapping, setting traps to force people to pvp, and rolling the dice on activity might give the new players more motives if they know they can set a siege and have a lot of vets log on and help them.

Its a small change, imo, and will have big results.  My experience with this siege system was playing Darkfall on a server just as dead as this games server....and with sieges you get near complete server involvement....it made the game feel very alive and was motive to keep playing through siege downtime so you could at least prepare for the inevitable siege....on top of that it created a market for neutral mercenary clans...since you had a schedule you could hire people to fight for you.

Its easy to just disagree with something you didn't read just because you assume its a suggestion made to only benefit one party....based on corp tags...however im not the only player on my side who wishes we got our sht pushed in more often....and im not talking on paper wins where everyone on your side gets wiped but you kill syndic or whatever....real loss. ROTS has the numbers, just can never get them all on during the right times since SAP activity is a crap shoot.


Look past the politics for once....

This sounds like going back to SAP 1.0 and it was changed, due to 'the blob' issue.


I know you wont understand this, but the blob right now, and for the last several months, has been the rest of the server alliance against us.

The issue is, we can easily get a small number of people on within a few minuets for a sap, that advantage goes away once you get a 48hr heads up for an all or nothing SAP Seige.  As you guys will be able to get a hold of all the forum vets, and at least a few people with the 10 or whatever corps are allied together.

You say we blob, everyone does, because we are able to get 5-15 (maybe 20) people on and deployed within a few minuets to handle a few players and possibly a log on trap or whatever.  Truth is, the current sap system is incredibly advantageous to us, since we are a close gaming community and very organized.

The system I suggest gives the unorganized some time to prepare and plan, meaning you can have that big siege during your peak time, with the ability to give a heads up before dropping as well as a 48-ish hour window to secure your plan.

I know most the forum vets assume this is some masterful plot to secure dominance, truth is, we are already dominant because the current system you think ninja sapping is the only hope, but hasn't worked.

Anyone who played darkfall 1.0 towards the end knows exactly what a siege system like this does, it brings the server together to fight, it causes higher activity, and increased participation.  That is exactly what the current system lacks.

Since inactivity as a weapon no longer works against us, lets get a siege system in place that creates the opportunity for people to properly prepare and plan for a large fight...lets give rise to mercenary corps who exist to provide numbers to the highest bidders...lets get rid of the old "bore them out the game" tactics employed by ninja sappers.

By all means keep the sap loot and saps on a timer for small scale loot and scoot or fights...just make taking a sation a preplanned and public event...and make it all or nothing.

Stranger : if it preplanned fights you want, then biggest blob will always win, its not about you guys or the current situation , it's about the game balancing.

RIP PERPETUUM

32 (edited by Cassius 2014-11-07 17:33:15)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

If you haven't figured it out by now let me explain.

You cannot force people to PvP.
Changing game mechanics to promote larger scale engagements will only result in further eliminating small scale engagements. People will only engage in larger scale conflicts when they have the numbers.

When we had the numbers, we ruled the server. You have the numbers and organization now. You rule now. And numbers mean capable and available pilots, not total subs.

If you had your current numbers, even double it, and the server had 1000 concurrent online users minimum at any time, you would own a much smaller chunk of the world and PvP would abound. But it's not the case right now.

Your ideas aren't bad, Stranger, just forget about the premise of changing game mechanics to promote larger fights. It won't happen.


On a separate note, Ninja Saps only work when the Station owner isn't around. If you are active and living around the station you own chances are it wouldn't be ninja'd. If you own too many stations and don't have enough players active in game to cover them, losing a sap to a ninja is your problem, not the mechanic.

33 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-07 17:37:22)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Celebro wrote:
Stranger Danger wrote:
Celebro wrote:

This sounds like going back to SAP 1.0 and it was changed, due to 'the blob' issue.


I know you wont understand this, but the blob right now, and for the last several months, has been the rest of the server alliance against us.  I use blob as the term you use to describe a small group who has more than 5 people.  That's not a blob.

The issue is, we can easily get a small number of people on within a few minuets for a sap, that advantage goes away once you get a 48hr heads up for an all or nothing SAP Seige.  As you guys will be able to get a hold of all the forum vets, and at least a few people with the 10 or whatever corps are allied together.

You say we blob, everyone does, because we are able to get 5-15 (maybe 20) people on and deployed within a few minuets to handle a few players and possibly a log on trap or whatever.  Truth is, the current sap system is incredibly advantageous to us, since we are a close gaming community and very organized.

The system I suggest gives the unorganized some time to prepare and plan, meaning you can have that big siege during your peak time, with the ability to give a heads up before dropping as well as a 48-ish hour window to secure your plan.

I know most the forum vets assume this is some masterful plot to secure dominance, truth is, we are already dominant because the current system you think ninja sapping is the only hope, but hasn't worked.

Anyone who played darkfall 1.0 towards the end knows exactly what a siege system like this does, it brings the server together to fight, it causes higher activity, and increased participation.  That is exactly what the current system lacks.

Since inactivity as a weapon no longer works against us, lets get a siege system in place that creates the opportunity for people to properly prepare and plan for a large fight...lets give rise to mercenary corps who exist to provide numbers to the highest bidders...lets get rid of the old "bore them out the game" tactics employed by ninja sappers.

By all means keep the sap loot and saps on a timer for small scale loot and scoot or fights...just make taking a sation a preplanned and public event...and make it all or nothing.

Stranger : if it preplanned fights you want, then biggest blob will always win, its not about you guys or the current situation , it's about the game balancing.


I disagree.  The smartest blob will win.  There are ways to take down a blob, ive seen it done.

Also, since you worry about blobbing over game activity, this will provide the option to hire mercs, as well as provide the ability for some corps to fight for the underdog.  This will also place a sort of weight on being liked in game.  Corporations who are hated by all will find it harder to find allies for sieges.  Also...why would a 5 or 10 man corp even attempt to siege in this situation...without first making sure they hire or have allied enough to have a chance....this removes the dice roll of ninja sapping while hoping the enemy doesn't log in.

Lets worry about the blob winning when there is actually enough players for an actual blob in the game,  the only blob ive ever seen was a small alliance bringing more people than a huge multi corp alliance conglomerate who only brought a few and got caught....


There are not enough players for a blob, a true blob....a corp with so many members no one can do anything about it...the current power structure is fragmented with many small unorganized corps, and two corps (and their two recruit corps) who are very organized.  My suggestion gives the unorganized a chance to organize a fleet capable of fighting a 20 man organized fleet....and if numbers increase, bet your *** the divide will be similar.

We saw it when JOKE got the rest of the server to fight us back when there were tons of players....the numbers were always close...

There hasn't been a blob in this game...the problem is....those who are not a close gaming community and organized....to the point where we play other games in the same TS with eachother, and able to quickly log into perp when needed....is considered a blob by 15 corps allied up to eachother...the problem there is with the mechanics favoring how we play.

But hey, when goons log on and bring 5000 players to the party during a siege....perhaps it will be time to negotiate other systems....right now this games community needs a siege system in place of the current sap system....saps are boring, cater to inactivity, and keep normal players with a life out of the pvp...as there is a higher chance for no pvp than there is for pvp.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Being in a small corp I would like to see station bonuses go based on who really owns the area. Not necessarily the server. I would like to bring my small corp in to fight as a third party for one side or neither just as a way to have content. If its preplanned fight the the alliance of everyone vs the group no one likes should be able to plan a bigger blob? Then I can come in and harrass the flanks smile

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Gwyndor wrote:

Being in a small corp I would like to see station bonuses go based on who really owns the area. Not necessarily the server. I would like to bring my small corp in to fight as a third party for one side or neither just as a way to have content. If its preplanned fight the the alliance of everyone vs the group no one likes should be able to plan a bigger blob? Then I can come in and harrass the flanks smile


The thing you or celebro don't get is that your current alliance, really the rest of the server alliance that has existed for some time but is continually disbanded and remade with the same groups of players...is the blob...the problem for you and everyone allied against us (officially or not) is that you are terribly disorganized, fractured, and unable to get a coherent fleet put together or plan to all be on the same time....so that your actual numbers would show.

We, on the other hand, have little issue getting a small group (considered a blob by the 2-5 you typically bring).  It was the same problem when JOKE was on its death bed and they would count one or two more players or heavies and consider it a loss and bail rather than fighting it out...we consistently bring the same numbers, the enemy ignores our obvious capabilities and cries  "its a hopeless blob run".

So a system like ive suggested gives the rest of the server the ability to scrap together some form of planning and organization.

For anyone who supports the current system...it doesn't work...look at the map...hell only a couple station were taken when we didn't even plan....and im sorry....pakaw takin a station for STC who has one active player (pakaw) isn't what this intrusion system should be about.

Current system promotes inactivity, if you can get the enemy to not show up out of boredom you can take a station.  The system should favor bringing the server together for fights.  You all realize how screwed up the game economy is because no one wants to pvp right?  Beta shouldn't be for people who choose to avoid pvp, or choose to ignore all the options to organize the greater half of the game to succeed.  That's whats alpha is for, and many claim Alpha is just a better place to be....


The question is, and I fear the answer no here......Does the rest of the server want this game to have larger scale fights?  Does the rest of the server actually want pvp?  From the looks of it, people only want pvp if its a no risk win...else they want nothing to do with it.  This is why I feel the current system is liked by many, its a way to boost pvp-e-peen without having to pvp.....like taking a station for a dead corp just to take it with zero intentions of pvping to defend it....

I wonder how many people would actually come back to the game if there was a big pvp battle once per week?  Seems something worthy of logging on for doesn't it?

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

btw.
why are you asking for removal of content for your own personal goal? fuuu

*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

37 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-08 22:01:54)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Annihilator wrote:

btw.
why are you asking for removal of content for your own personal goal? fuuu

you didn't read the OP, had you that question would have been answered. and as usual, you comment on a subject you don't participate in.

as I hate to address your issues with things in game you don't participate in, such as politics, I would pose to you what advantage would this have to a small alliance capable of owning every station and gamma island in game, considering even when we weren't active we still owned a majority of the map....seems to be the advantage is in the current system.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger: You come out with issues of the game that has long been a problem, and has little to do with the intrusion mechanics but more to do with little incentive to fight for pvp areas and the low population. Not only that but with the great imbalance that has plagued this game for years with old gammas , where most vets have stocked up with everything they need.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Celebro wrote:

Stranger: You come out with issues of the game that has long been a problem, and has little to do with the intrusion mechanics but more to do with little incentive to fight for pvp areas and the low population. Not only that but with the great imbalance that has plagued this game for years with old gammas , where most vets have stocked up with everything they need.

You miss the point, and as someone who doesn't play, I need to stop considering your opinions on the subject.

My suggestion is simple, a Siege system for taking stations, keep the sap system for small scale loot fights.  A system that promotes fighting for a station rather than the current system that promotes avoiding fights ninjaing SAPS in the hopes that no one responds.

That's it.  I want a system that would give reason for pvpers to log in as the siege would be publicly known at least 48hrs prior to occurring.

You don't want it, I get that, you like the current system for whatever reason....and think my suggestion would give advantage to the small group of pvpers you call a blob, and be at disadvantage to the larger player base aligned against us.  Your logic is interesting to say the least.

Either way, when I start seeing Celebro appearing at the saps ill take not that you may in fact like the no-fight sap system currently in place that is incredibly advantageous to how we play.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger, quit using buzzwords like blob and hiding the facts. The only real blob left in the game are the amount of words you post on forums.

Everyone knows what matters in PvP is the number of bots and players on the battlefield and available reserves.

Not players in corp. Not players in Gen Chat. Not players in alliance.

Your side (and nothing wrong with this btw) currently has more players available or close by for most battles than any other entity currently in game. This is why you own the world. It's really that simple.

Attempting to change mechanics to cater to your current Alliance strengths and playstyles will not promote larger scale PvP. Only when another entity has the same available numbers and pilots will you get more fights.

You started this topic with some ideas for improving the game. Not bad. But you're ending it with the same old political crap you post on every thread. Think about it.

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

you quit so therefore arent posting now

42 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-09 00:01:17)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Cassius wrote:

Stranger, quit using buzzwords like blob and hiding the facts. The only real blob left in the game are the amount of words you post on forums.

Everyone knows what matters in PvP is the number of bots and players on the battlefield and available reserves.

Not players in corp. Not players in Gen Chat. Not players in alliance.

Your side (and nothing wrong with this btw) currently has more players available or close by for most battles than any other entity currently in game. This is why you own the world. It's really that simple.

Attempting to change mechanics to cater to your current Alliance strengths and playstyles will not promote larger scale PvP. Only when another entity has the same available numbers and pilots will you get more fights.

You started this topic with some ideas for improving the game. Not bad. But you're ending it with the same old political crap you post on every thread. Think about it.


You quit the game a while ago...why linger?

No one brought politics here but you and celebro and burial...which is standard issue.  Read my OP....

You like the current sap system because I want it into something that promotes pvp...simple as that....for someone who doesn't play at least, and publicly quit  long ago.

Either way weve owned the game world for quite some time, with little effort with the current system...so if you want to make it political go for it...end result is the same only in that if you want a station youll have to pvp for it...I know that's crazy talk isnt it?


I dunno, id be more open to discussion with actual players who participate in actual game politics in regards to "politically motivated" discussions.  Talking about that with you, annihilator, burial, beast,jita,celebro...and all the other sore loser vets who think anyone cares about politics regarding their dead corps in the past.....its pointless...why even bring up politics?

You kids stay in the past, and cling to past politics where you were relevant....im looking forward and to the future...

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

43 (edited by Burial 2014-11-09 09:56:01)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Problem with Betas outposts is that they can be locked off too easily.

44 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-09 15:57:19)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Burial wrote:

Problem with Betas outposts is that they can be locked off too easily.

Problem with beta outposts is that they encourage avoidance of pvp.

Unlocking them just caters to the ninja sappers who wouldn't dare fight for a sap.

Let change the mechanics to encourage pvp fights for those who want stations, and keep the sap loot system, untie it from stability, and keep that for pawkaw to ninja hit.

Like cassius, burial, you hardly ever play the game, why does a system that is extremely advantageous to us (current system) feel so appealing to you?  Other than maybe you enjoy the fact that the game lacks any pvp....


I want to help the people who actually play, not you, celebro, cassius, or the rest of you guys....you don't play and only come here to stir up the pot and make accusations like its 2011 and STC is relevant and active.

This system helps the underdogs with greater numbers, the siege system....gives them a fighting chance, they have the numbers....but lack the continual organization that's causing us, the small alliance, to rule the game world through the actions of maybe 5-10 people.

You root for the game to die, I get it, really I do...

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

45 (edited by Gwyndor 2014-11-09 17:05:44)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

I think ninja sapping should still have its place in a new intrusion system but I think the planned sieges that are public should be the main game changers. Ninjas can easily be repelled when someone is actively using the island and knows someone entered it solo or in a small gang. Small gang and solo players should always be able to influence control some how but I dont think it should depend on them either.

Small gang and solo players to take small chunks but can somewhat easily be reversed by the holder of the terminal forcing a single fight to try and return the stability while also exposing themselves to a greater loss if they should fail.

46 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-09 17:17:20)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Gwyndor wrote:

I think ninja sapping should still have its place in a new intrusion system but I think the planned sieges that are public should be the main game changers. Ninjas can easily be repelled when someone is actively using the island and knows someone entered it solo or in a small gang. Small gang and solo players should always be able to influence control some how but I dont think it should depend on them either.

Small gang and solo players to take small chunks but can somewhat easily be reversed by the holder of the terminal forcing a single fight to try and return the stability while also exposing themselves to a greater loss if they should fail.


My idea was to keep the saps in game.  Make those mini capture points for slow tick resources and the loot drops that current occur in game.  I think they make a great small scale skirmish content....where you could just ninja the loot and profit.

I just want the actual taking of stations to be more of an organized and public event, that would allow for people to better plan, and result in some bigger fights.  Like with Darkfall where an underdog corp would siege a city, hire mercenaries and have other clans help out who just wanted to see them take something from their enemies...the powerful alliances would still be powerful, but given the prep time of a siege, the underdog stood a chance, and would be able to defend as the powerful would need to give them that 48hrs to which they were able to properly mount a defense.


There should be content aimed at ninja sapping, just not as the sole pvp content....people get bored showing up for a sap and no one else is there, both with our side and the other...its too hit or miss and random to work with a community of this size.  Reason is....its incredibly difficult to mount several attacks on the station, as the times are too random, and then you need to be there and defend so someone doesn't ninja it....works for us we have the people who love that...doesn't work for a coalition of upstarts who are not nearly as organized.

I want to see the new corps come in a big enough force to provide a decent fight, I know they have the numbers to overwhelm us, they just lack the organization, and have to continually be organized though the duration of taking a station and defending it...rather than a large orchestrated battle.

Could bring enough excitement to bring a lot of vets back, and you guys need those vets in game and active.  Just think what sieging multiple CIR/77 Stations would look like...we would need to own a reasonable amount of property to be able to defend...right now we can defend the entire game world with a handful of players....

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger Danger wrote:
Burial wrote:

Problem with Betas outposts is that they can be locked off too easily.

Problem with beta outposts is that they encourage avoidance of pvp.

Unlocking them just caters to the ninja sappers who wouldn't dare fight for a sap.

I removed all the attacks and let's focus on how wrong this is.

When stations couldn't be locked and it barely mattered who owned them we had the biggest population the server had seen and it was sustained for as long as we have seen. We also very regularly had fights both for the useless saps and roaming.

When stations couldn't be locked its a fact that some of the games best PvP was around.

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: SAP 3.0 thoughts

All I read here is an attempt to get more people around for CIR and co to log in more people to get more kills??

Pre planned so the opposition can bring more numbers which you can easily counter with 'lending' accounts to other members of your multi gaming community. 

Even if the numbers were even or greater than your alliance can bring the spy network as has been eluded to before negates that advantage.  I would propose that until there's an entity that can bring double your numbers OR has an equally effective spy embedded AND has the resources then your suggestion is nothing but game feature changes that benefit your selfish reasoning and not really solving the overall problem.

1/10

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Jita wrote:

I removed all the attacks and let's focus on how wrong this is.

When stations couldn't be locked and it barely mattered who owned them we had the biggest population the server had seen and it was sustained for as long as we have seen. We also very regularly had fights both for the useless saps and roaming.

When stations couldn't be locked its a fact that some of the games best PvP was around.

This is right and wrong at the same time. you could also say the game population was on the rise while CIR&co. was playing AA, and started to rapidly decline the moment they rampaged to get their stations back.

you could also say, that was the magic 2 weeks the 10% sale and front page exposure of the game started to lose its effect.

Now looking at what "small" or "large" scale combat is. The groups i have been with in the last few weeks always was around the interference threshhold - aka exactly the target group size that should run together as formation.
Other games advertise those numbers as "massive Multiplayer online", so i feel rather confident calling those clashes "large scale" big_smile

now back to the topic - why was there more pvp activity in the past. simple, because you had a little more risk on beta then on alpha for more reward. there have been player doing things on beta aside of mining, like farming higher tier kernels.
Those "reasons" to be there, and to expose yourself to PvP, have been removed with - orange npcs, research revamp, beacons and spark teleport.
T4 equip is nothing special anymore, its the norm, just like the balance is catered around fully t4 fit maxed extension robots.

BUT, those are factors that players that "play the game" aka logging in on jabber pings to unlock in abundant ready-to-use equip at any place of the map, probably cannot get into their ballz that they use as their main instrument for "thinking".

but hey, more player fixes everything, and those who "don't play the game" have no idea why they don't play the game, so they cannot give the DEVs suggestions on what would actually keep players in the game... since they don't know what they are not playing anymore.

btw,
thanks to Syndic for his efforts to keep the player peaks on steamcharts around 70-80 player by offering himself as easy to kill target.

*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: SAP 3.0 thoughts

The reward was a lot better. In beta nobody bothered to live in beta because there was little reward. When that changed so did behavior and now they rolled back all those changes of course its empty again.

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."