1 (edited by DEV Zoom 2015-07-21 00:38:01)

Topic: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom edit:

So this topic has become more than what it started as.

To recap, the current options for what we can do are (in order of preference as it seems to me):

  • Add 1 or possibly 2 new public main terminals to beta2 islands.

  • Open up beta2 outposts, leave beta1s as they are.

  • Both of the above.

  • Open up beta1 outposts.

  • Do nothing.

Original post follows:
-----------------------------------------------

So today i'm going to make a prediction.

Over and over we've talked about opening stations so that emergent gameplay can exist and people can carve a life of danger and lucrative gain in Beta. Over and over we've been told that with ten men you can take a station. Norhoop isn't even defended. Nobody is contesting SAPS because people are lazy that's why stations dont change hands. Now Joke hasn't really cared about stations but we can see why people would have that point of view.

Joke thought, lets put that to the test.

Its clear that Inda and his little ERA alliance want station ownership. They were defending their existing stations on Norhoop and attacking Initia with mixed success. While Joke didn't want to be in the same squad or Comms channel we still figured we could play a part and tip the scales in ERA's side to see if what had been talked about could be true.

Can ten people contest a station? Is Beta working? Would taking a station someone wants result in a mass login where - as we have said all along - you need to win vs 30 or 40 people or not bother?

So Joke support in a couple of fights. Through 'sources' we understand a mixed NSE / PHM / CONS gang was going to try to gank an ERA fleet and we turn up as a third party.

This happened:

http://www.perp-kill.net/related/264704

and we tip hats to our (kind of) allies in ERA and move on.

A few more skirmishes go on with us supporting alongside returning elements of Nebs among others.

http://www.perp-kill.net/related/264734
http://www.perp-kill.net/related/264740

We kill some dude in a mk2 heavy while in assaults and in response NSE drops three mk2 heavies on us. Sadly for them we were ready ..

http://www.perp-kill.net/related/264757

So at this point good fights have been had, ERA have done some saps and Joke have fought some fights and I can almost believe Beta works. Almost.

So back to my prediction. The point of this rambling thread, the whole reason why in our opinion Beta does not work. I predict that this status quo of losing fights and winning fights and stations moving from entity to entity will end with an attempt to crush this emergent gameplay with vastly superior numbers. The 'we just have ten guys' spin will go out of the window and we will see a big showing from NSE, Cons and their masters.

The game will once again demonstrate that station ownership is based upon the ability to win a pitched battle vs whichever side of the game is in control. This crushes emergent gameplay and forces a two side war on the game.

Beta is sick and removing station locking is the cure.

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: A prediction (about outpost locking)

i predict the PvP will go on until one certain group wants to have a bite from the cake that they didn't pay for.

though... i cannot understand your obsession with station locks.

*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: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Good post, thats all!

I like "ERA" though.

We had a good weeks I can say.

Energy to Earth!

18.01.2014. [12:57:58] <BeastmodeGuNs> after that i remembered all those warning about 1v1 you lol, and i found out why xD

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

So your not allied with them, your a third party. - So wrong its Right.

If you want to put your prediction to the test.

Go to Dom and take stations, see how far you get.

Prediction.  Hah!

I am Perpetuum.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Sorry but how exactly does opening up the outposts solve the numbers problem?

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Sorry but how exactly does opening up the outposts solve the numbers problem?

The short version is: it encourages emergent gameplay by giving new plays / small corps / old players the chance to choose to engage or not in a PvP area. It should go hand in hand with fixing Beta industry so that these emergent players do industry and pve on island making beta populated and so target rich, even if those targets have a degree of safety.

This content is fun and gives a stepping stone from alpha to gamma.

A better question would be, how does leaving the stations closed solve the current numbers problem?

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."

7 (edited by Burial 2015-07-19 02:00:36)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Sorry but how exactly does opening up the outposts solve the numbers problem?

There's so many reasons I could fill a book...

The two main reasons is that locks force anyone on Betas into looking for as many allies as possible, or they'll be the 40% that gets kicked off by the 60%, and secondly.. it's more suitable targets for all the corporations that right now can only fight against 1-2 alliances that drop them in 2 shots.

Have you looked at Perpetuum's Steam achievements?

Only 1% of buyers has gotten First Blood(killed a player). You've concentrated on the end-game content for far too long, you need to start concentrating on new corporations and players having fun.

PVP content is fun. Politics and wars are fun. Running assignments on Alpha makes players leave.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

station locks are not bad to begin with,
its just that the way its beeing implemented, favors not the ones that need them.
same with all the gamma mechanics with reinforce modes... they do not protect the ones that are supposed to protected by it... but they work in favor of those who DONT need it.

*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

9 (edited by Ville 2015-07-19 01:47:28)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Why does this thread sound like "We told you so if other PoE members show up to assist in having a good time and engage the community in content."?

Unlocking stations will do the following:

1.  Alliance held beta terminals.  No alliance will want a station they can have their players monitored 24/7.
2.  Decrease in industrial activity on the island.  Who's going to want to undock in something squishy knowing something can undock behind them.
3.  Increased griefing of players wanting to be able to use a beta island.
4.  Beta islands difficultly to hold will increase as, this is important ANY PLAYER will be able to dock and undock characters that can easily scan a sap AND can be used as an entrance onto an island.
5.  Decrease overall Pvp activities.  People will be able to gauge the amount of players they will be able to engage in the terminal.
6.  Makes it more difficult to secure minerals because tanks smaller haulers will have to be used.
7.  Increase rates for epriton, because more logistics to secure loot.
8.  Mission patch will allow for players the access to perform missions without owning a station.

So what emergent game play are we talking?  Offensive Pvp towards beta outpost owners?  That's the only way I see it helping.  Because people don't use betas to production or for anything other than sap farming and mining.  Why don't they use production?  No bonuses there and too easy to lose stability during off time. 

I've listed 8 items that I can see as problems already.  And removing sparks are going to help tremendously.  So can you explain exactly what emergent gameplay your talking about?

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.

10 (edited by Burial 2015-07-19 02:04:16)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

All we're suggesting is unlock Beta-1 stations. Beta-2 stay as is. Anyone wanting locked stations can have their locked stations.


Ville wrote:

1.  Alliance held beta terminals.  No alliance will want a station they can have their players monitored 24/7.

So they go to Beta-2. And to be honest, they can be monitored even now, get a station below 50, move an alt in and no-one can kick it out. Ever.

Ville wrote:

2.  Decrease in industrial activity on the island.  Who's going to want to undock in something squishy knowing something can undock behind them.

Something might be sitting under a station too. At least if you see someone in a station you know not to undock something squishy.. or perhaps get a gank-squad ready.

Ville wrote:

3.  Increased griefing of players wanting to be able to use a beta island.

No-one is forcing anyone to use Beta islands. All we're after is providing players the tools to go out and try it without committing to one side, or become pets. If they can't handle it, they can go back to Alpha, commit to one side, or become pets.

Ville wrote:

4.  Beta islands difficultly to hold will increase as, this is important ANY PLAYER will be able to dock and undock characters that can easily scan a sap AND can be used as an entrance onto an island.

Without locks, Beta station ownership is only epeen. So what if someone can scan a SAP easily.


These last ones are pretty insane, but...

Ville wrote:

5.  Decrease overall Pvp activities.  People will be able to gauge the amount of players they will be able to engage in the terminal.

That's just BS.. what about all the players not in terminal.. ?

Ville wrote:

6.  Makes it more difficult to secure minerals because tanks smaller haulers will have to be used.

Yeah, you have to tank a hauler in a PVP zone. It's pretty insane, I know.

Ville wrote:

7.  Increase rates for epriton, because more logistics to secure loot.

BS. More people mining it.

Ville wrote:

8.  Mission patch will allow for players the access to perform missions without owning a station.

What's so bad about that. Targets on the field, stuff getting blown up, more demand on the market. MORE CONTENT FOR EVERYBODY.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Ville wrote:

Why does this thread sound like "We told you so if other PoE members show up to assist in having a good time and engage the community in content."?

Unlocking stations promote the following:

1.  Alliance held beta terminals.  No alliance will want a station they can have their players monitored 24/7.
2.  Decrease in industrial activity on the island.  Who's going to want to undock in something squishy knowing something can undock behind them.
3.  Increased griefing of players wanting to be able to use a beta island.
4.  Beta islands difficultly to hold will increase as, this is important ANY PLAYER will be able to dock and undock characters that can easily scan a sap AND can be used as an entrance onto an island.
5.  Decrease overall Pvp activities.  People will be able to gauge the amount of players they will be able to engage in the terminal.
6.  Makes it more difficult to secure minerals because tanks smaller haulers will have to be used.
7.  Increase rates for epriton, because more logistics to secure loot.
8.  Mission patch will allow for players the access to perform missions without owning a station.

So what emergent game play are we talking?  Offensive Pvp towards beta outpost owners?  That's the only way I see it helping.  Because people don't use betas to production or for anything other than sap farming and mining.  Why don't they use production?  No bonuses there and too easy to lose stability during off time. 

I've listed 8 items that I can see as problems already.  And removing sparks are going to help tremendously.  So can you explain exactly what emergent gameplay your talking about?

Except that none of that mattered when stations were unlocked and beta was full of people.

Its just like eve, yes there are downsides but it still creates a stepping stone and pvp area that's populated. Eve has NPC regions that are a breeding ground for small alliances and a focus for Pvp. Once people get their feet as a Pvp entity they move in to owned stations and sov space.

Having Beta 1 unlocked and beta 2 locked creates that stepping stone. You find your feet in relative beta safety but the trade off for that is easy scouting for your enemy and so increased gank chances. Once you have the will and the power you move to Beta 2 and take a station. There you have some of the same problems but at least can lock out the scouts and people undocking on top of you. From there you have gamma where you can lock a station, have defences and so the safety goes up again but you have to be able to defend it.

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: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Ville wrote:

Why does this thread sound like "We told you so if other PoE members show up to assist in having a good time and engage the community in content."?

Unlocking stations will do the following:

1.  Alliance held beta terminals.  No alliance will want a station they can have their players monitored 24/7.
2.  Decrease in industrial activity on the island.  Who's going to want to undock in something squishy knowing something can undock behind them.
3.  Increased griefing of players wanting to be able to use a beta island.
4.  Beta islands difficultly to hold will increase as, this is important ANY PLAYER will be able to dock and undock characters that can easily scan a sap AND can be used as an entrance onto an island.
5.  Decrease overall Pvp activities.  People will be able to gauge the amount of players they will be able to engage in the terminal.
6.  Makes it more difficult to secure minerals because tanks smaller haulers will have to be used.
7.  Increase rates for epriton, because more logistics to secure loot.
8.  Mission patch will allow for players the access to perform missions without owning a station.

So what emergent game play are we talking?  Offensive Pvp towards beta outpost owners?  That's the only way I see it helping.  Because people don't use betas to production or for anything other than sap farming and mining.  Why don't they use production?  No bonuses there and too easy to lose stability during off time. 

I've listed 8 items that I can see as problems already.  And removing sparks are going to help tremendously.  So can you explain exactly what emergent gameplay your talking about?

I am on your side, so to speak.

But those are some really weak and flimsy agruments against.

As in, your basing are not even trying.  Get your *** together.

Also WITHOUT sparks, I am warming to this "Issue" at hand.

I am Perpetuum.

13 (edited by Burial 2015-07-19 02:05:54)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Perpetuum wrote:

Also WITHOUT sparks, I am warming to this "Issue" at hand.

That's why we are talking about it right now. It's the PERFECT time to do it.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Burial wrote:

All we're suggesting is unlock Beta-1 stations. Beta-2 stay as is. Anyone wanting locked stations can have their locked stations.


Ville wrote:

1.  Alliance held beta terminals.  No alliance will want a station they can have their players monitored 24/7.

So they go to Beta-2. And to be honest, they can be monitored even now, get a station below 50, move an alt in and no-one can kick it out. Ever.

Ville wrote:

2.  Decrease in industrial activity on the island.  Who's going to want to undock in something squishy knowing something can undock behind them.

Something might be sitting under a station too. At least if you see someone in a station you know not to undock something squishy.. or perhaps get a gank-squad ready.

Ville wrote:

3.  Increased griefing of players wanting to be able to use a beta island.

No-one is forcing anyone to use Beta islands. All we're after is providing players the tools to go out and try it without committing to one side, or become pets. If they can't handle it, they can go back to Alpha, commit to one side, or become pets.

Ville wrote:

4.  Beta islands difficultly to hold will increase as, this is important ANY PLAYER will be able to dock and undock characters that can easily scan a sap AND can be used as an entrance onto an island.

Without locks, Beta station ownership is only epeen. So what if someone can scan a SAP easily.


These last ones are pretty insane, but...

Ville wrote:

5.  Decrease overall Pvp activities.  People will be able to gauge the amount of players they will be able to engage in the terminal.

That's just BS.. what about all the players not in terminal.. ?

Ville wrote:

6.  Makes it more difficult to secure minerals because tanks smaller haulers will have to be used.

Yeah, you have to tank a hauler in a PVP zone. It's pretty insane, I know.

Ville wrote:

7.  Increase rates for epriton, because more logistics to secure loot.

BS. More people mining it.

Ville wrote:

8.  Mission patch will allow for players the access to perform missions without owning a station.

What's so bad about that. Targets on the field, stuff getting blown up, more demand on the market. MORE CONTENT FOR EVERYBODY.

Making it harder for station owners to live there will decrease activity. 
If station locks go you'll actually do the reverse of what your thinking is going to happen.  You'll encourage mega alliances.  Why?  The stations themselves earn revenue, taxes and production costs.   If I know xyz corp lives at a station I'm going to push the *** out of that station so I can gain the income from the stations.   You understand that's what happened in when the player base was around 300 people.  We are at like 100 now.  What do you thinks going to happen?  People will have an economical reason to flip a 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.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

I have a prediction. Zoom will cave and open up Beta stations because its a stupid idea and he loves stupid ideas when stupid people post them over and over and over on the forums.

Sparking to other games

16 (edited by Burial 2015-07-19 02:59:15)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Ville wrote:

Making it harder for station owners to live there will decrease activity. 
If station locks go you'll actually do the reverse of what your thinking is going to happen.  You'll encourage mega alliances.  Why?  The stations themselves earn revenue, taxes and production costs.   If I know xyz corp lives at a station I'm going to push the *** out of that station so I can gain the income from the stations.   You understand that's what happened in when the player base was around 300 people.  We are at like 100 now.  What do you thinks going to happen?  People will have an economical reason to flip a station.

1. Alliance sizes can't grow any bigger than they're now. It's not people's will stopping them from growing, it's the population.
2. Decrease activity? To where, below zero?? Look at the killboards. They aren't that empty because we don't go out and look, we just can't find anything.

Also, I think it's completely fine if alliances duke it out over the station ownerships and tax, as long as all the residents and their assets aren't locked off in the process. In fact, more people actually using the island and being there for the SAPs makes it a lot more difficult for alliances to hold the outposts.

Rex Amelius wrote:

I have a prediction. Zoom will cave and open up Beta stations because its a stupid idea and he loves stupid ideas when stupid people post them over and over and over on the forums.

You can go all butthurt and leave, but at least there'd be new people playing the game and having fun.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Burial wrote:
Ville wrote:

Making it harder for station owners to live there will decrease activity. 
If station locks go you'll actually do the reverse of what your thinking is going to happen.  You'll encourage mega alliances.  Why?  The stations themselves earn revenue, taxes and production costs.   If I know xyz corp lives at a station I'm going to push the *** out of that station so I can gain the income from the stations.   You understand that's what happened in when the player base was around 300 people.  We are at like 100 now.  What do you thinks going to happen?  People will have an economical reason to flip a station.

1. Alliance sizes can't grow any bigger than they're now. It's not people's will stopping them from growing, it's the population.
2. Decrease activity? To where, below zero?? Look at the killboards. They aren't that empty because we don't go out and look, we just can't find anything.

Also, I think it's completely fine if alliances duke it out over the station ownerships and tax, as long as all the residents and their assets aren't locked off in the process. In fact, more people actually using the island and being there for the SAPs makes it a lot more difficult for alliances to hold the outposts.

Rex Amelius wrote:

I have a prediction. Zoom will cave and open up Beta stations because its a stupid idea and he loves stupid ideas when stupid people post them over and over and over on the forums.

You can go all butthurt and leave, but at least there'd be new people playing the game and having fun.

See that's where it's different.  Look at your alliance compared to ours.  Your alliance focuses around Eu time zones and Aussie TZ.  Ours is predominantly US.  The reason you don't see anything roaming around is because we are out of time zones currently.  Has nothing to do with use of Beta. 

Hell, and Dev Zoom could even pull numbers but betas are very active in U.S. TZ for us.

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: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Try it for six months on beta 1. It can't possibily make the game any less populated. Leave all the other mechanics in place so owning a station will be about the station services and not about the locking mechanism.

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: A prediction (about outpost locking)

There's already open terminals on beta 1s....

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.

20 (edited by Obi Wan Kenobi 2015-07-19 03:44:48)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

This whole argument for removing station locks is the single dumbest thing I have ever seen. Those of you old enough to remember what a Sh*t fest Beta PVP was like before station locks should be the last people on earth to cry about removing locks.

Now I dare any of you to go back & find the mountain of threads for pre-station locking & see what the community was begging for & why they wanted locking.

This idiotic fixation some people get with "fix XYZ and the games population will magically reappear" has been proven wrong time & again.

Im going to make A prediction if the locking mechanic is removed. Any new or small group that controls a station will find having to deal with constant gankers living out of their own station to much to deal with.
And history will repeat yet again. Because thats what happened last time.

I just hope the DEVs have some sence to understand the difference between the peanut galleries good ideas & bad ideas.



Quick question. Why dont more people live out of Beta 1 NPC terminals?

Beta needs a buff not more dumb nerfs

Rex Amelius wrote:

I have a prediction. Zoom will cave and open up Beta stations because its a stupid idea and he loves stupid ideas when stupid people post them over and over and over on the forums.

Gotta love the vocal minority

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

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Ville wrote:
Burial wrote:
Ville wrote:

Making it harder for station owners to live there will decrease activity. 
If station locks go you'll actually do the reverse of what your thinking is going to happen.  You'll encourage mega alliances.  Why?  The stations themselves earn revenue, taxes and production costs.   If I know xyz corp lives at a station I'm going to push the *** out of that station so I can gain the income from the stations.   You understand that's what happened in when the player base was around 300 people.  We are at like 100 now.  What do you thinks going to happen?  People will have an economical reason to flip a station.

1. Alliance sizes can't grow any bigger than they're now. It's not people's will stopping them from growing, it's the population.
2. Decrease activity? To where, below zero?? Look at the killboards. They aren't that empty because we don't go out and look, we just can't find anything.

Also, I think it's completely fine if alliances duke it out over the station ownerships and tax, as long as all the residents and their assets aren't locked off in the process. In fact, more people actually using the island and being there for the SAPs makes it a lot more difficult for alliances to hold the outposts.

Rex Amelius wrote:

I have a prediction. Zoom will cave and open up Beta stations because its a stupid idea and he loves stupid ideas when stupid people post them over and over and over on the forums.

You can go all butthurt and leave, but at least there'd be new people playing the game and having fun.

See that's where it's different.  Look at your alliance compared to ours.  Your alliance focuses around Eu time zones and Aussie TZ.  Ours is predominantly US.  The reason you don't see anything roaming around is because we are out of time zones currently.  Has nothing to do with use of Beta. 

Hell, and Dev Zoom could even pull numbers but betas are very active in U.S. TZ for us.


Why are you not moving to EU TZ.

Your hurting the game Ville.  Our Alliance is hurting the game.

We need to move.

I am Perpetuum.

22 (edited by Jita 2015-07-19 09:00:09)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

You can have gankers in a station ofc, just the same as you can in Eve in Syndicate or whichever NPC space they have in 0.0. The reason why it's superior to have stations unlocked is that this would be 12 locations to have gankers saved rather than three. Without sparks this becomes a hell of a lot harder to cover and is exactly why it encourages spreading out rather than centralising.

Gankers are not a problem in eve for the same reason it won't be in perpetuum, you can only bring power to a point and it's easier to defend than to gank over a wide area.

The whole point of this Sint to provide perfect safety, it's to provide varying degrees on a sliding scale. Beta shouldn't be safe, it should provide options. If scouts and gankers are an issue then you either deal with it or you move to beta 2 or gamma where you have that extra control. With that comes extra risk.

Right now you can have gankers too - Joke have been doing it easily. The problem is we can hit you and melt back to alpha and there's nothing you can do about it. Open betas encourage corps like us and newer corps too in moving to beta to do Indy so that you may have the opportunity to catch us with our pants down in a mining op or logistics.

There will be issues ofc, Indy on beta is weak right now. You can easily scout in something and then dock before you are able to be killed. A single alt can stay inside an outpost and scout forever. These are all issues in themselves and not in station unlocking. Those scouts exist in locked terminals currently. The unkillable detectors now sit on gates. They can all be fixed but you shouldn't reduce the opportunity for emergent gameplay to do it.

The summary:

Why?

Because it provides a stepping stone. Unlocked beta 1, locked beta 2, gamma. It gives corps who can't go toe to toe with the big dogs a place of relative safety to enjoy the benefits of beta. This encourages emergent gameplay and reduces the need for alliances. You make a choice what you fight to defend your territory rather than being forced to fight to prevent station locking.

Why don't you just use beta stations?

They are constantly camped or people would. Even now these stations still have a lot of traffic and become a focus of PvP. This is a good thing.

If you unlock the stations people would just camp the outposts.

Yes they would. They would however have twelve locations to camp and not three. With the removal of sparks this becomes a lot harder and forces you to fragment your alts and forces. You have to pick who you hate the most. If and when perpetuum has five or six different entities living in locations you only get to cover a couple of them, you can't play 'whack a mole' over them all

What makes you think it would populate beta

I'm not a hundred percent sure it would on its own. Beta reward still needs work but with the removal of sparks and station unlocking the risk would be a lot better. Nobody with any sense would risk moving industry to beta while you could have all your CTs locked if you don't play for a weekend. It's a mechanic meant for big corps and alliances and doesn't work at this population.

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."

23 (edited by Perpetuum 2015-07-19 09:03:20)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Redacted.

I am Perpetuum.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Just one more point about emergent gameplay - when Norhoop was opened to New people post steam it proved a PvP heartland and gave a lot of people a good taste of the game. The problem with that island were a few but one major one was lack of space. You need space to do industry.

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: A prediction (about outpost locking)

I can see the benefits for opening up, but I can also remember why it was put in in the first place and how well it was received back then. Sure, things have changed, but I don't think we'll ever come to a consensus about this.

So to me, the best course of action seems to be the proposed idea of opening up beta1 outposts but leave beta2s as they are. That way everyone can choose their preference, maybe we'll see some ownership changes, but most importantly we'll see whether it makes any difference or not.