Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:

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.

I would suggest doing it on a trial basis. If were full of *** , the problems overcome the benefits and nothing changes in six months then change it back. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I would like to reiterate that this will help alongside sparks. This gives the opportunity and the room to breathe. The incentive still needs resolving. Missions will help, industry is the really important one though, give people a reason to get out there and risk assets mining and hauling 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."

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Beta-2's shouldn't be unlocked anyway. Anyone looking for closed outposts should have the option for closed outposts.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Burial wrote:

Beta-2's shouldn't be unlocked anyway. Anyone looking for closed outposts should have the option for closed outposts.

+1

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)

Obviously this would be properly announced, but do you guys think that this change needs a longer grace period?

30 (edited by Jita 2015-07-20 15:15:51)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Obviously this would be properly announced, but do you guys think that this change needs a longer grace period?

Well I don't think its unreasonable to give people a bit of time to move assets / assault other stations on beta 2 etc and get settled before it happens but on the other hand I think sooner rather than later.

I'm happy with either, i'd let the current station holders decide.

1st of September maybe?

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)

Would there be a way to get island statistics before and after change? We can aggregate kills from the KB but I would like to know the number of unique visitors to the islands and the overall amount of industry being done (total number of manufactured cycles completed, total amt of items recycled etc) If opening up Beta 1 stations is done under the guise that it will encourage overall island useage then fine, however, after the trial period if all it has done is increase pvp then we should find another alternative and revert back to locked stations.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Obviously this would be properly announced, but do you guys think that this change needs a longer grace period?

Turn Domhalarn into a beta2 island then, because you kowtowing to Jita and Burial (as always) turns our secured beta & gamma into no-mans land reachable from Alpha and the surrounding stations.

We're the only alliance actively using beta and gamma for a while now, you seem quite happy to change things willy nilly with no consideration how it impacts people playing.

It took a Dev intervention to breach Fortress Dom. big_smile

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

We've been roaming it and apart from killing probes haven't really seen anyone using it.

34 (edited by Annihilator 2015-07-20 19:01:56)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Burial wrote:

Beta-2's shouldn't be unlocked anyway. Anyone looking for closed outposts should have the option for closed outposts.

actually, it would be more logical the other way round. B1 already has 1 free terminal, and more outposts. B2 has only two outposts, which would limit damage from the test run.

DEV Zoom wrote:

Obviously this would be properly announced, but do you guys think that this change needs a longer grace period?

no grace period necessary, you could do this with the next patch, since spark teleporting will be close to unnecessary with the teleport grid changed on alpha 2, we could then already test how it will feel without.

so - only one thing i would suggest for unlocked stations: a traffic log for the actual owner, to see who was docked when, but terminal chat mirrored mechanics from the "terrain local chat"

*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)

Annihilator wrote:

actually, it would be more logical the other way round. B1 already has 1 free terminal, and more outposts. B2 has only two outposts, which would limit damage from the test run.

I think that's a good point.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

actually, it would be more logical the other way round. B1 already has 1 free terminal, and more outposts. B2 has only two outposts, which would limit damage from the test run.

I think that's a good point.

Well the point of locking a B2 is to secure the island. You can't secure an island with a beta.

Another point would be that this reduces possible locations from 9 to six.

That said, the beta 2 islands are currently the least used and so might have the least impact.

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)

Aye Pod wrote:

Would there be a way to get island statistics before and after change? We can aggregate kills from the KB but I would like to know the number of unique visitors to the islands and the overall amount of industry being done (total number of manufactured cycles completed, total amt of items recycled etc) If opening up Beta 1 stations is done under the guise that it will encourage overall island useage then fine, however, after the trial period if all it has done is increase pvp then we should find another alternative and revert back to locked stations.

Thats a good idea. See if it actually works or not.

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)

Jita wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

actually, it would be more logical the other way round. B1 already has 1 free terminal, and more outposts. B2 has only two outposts, which would limit damage from the test run.

I think that's a good point.

Well the point of locking a B2 is to secure the island. You can't secure an island with a beta.

Another point would be that this reduces possible locations from 9 to six.

That said, the beta 2 islands are currently the least used and so might have the least impact.

I can imagine the jabber pings for people to login and move their *** to nova already...

Reading this signature fills you with determination.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Back in the day with bigger population, alliances mostly used to live on Beta 2's for a reason. It's more secure without the open terminal, which is something someone looking for safety would want. Beta 1's also have more outposts for players to use.

But it's fine either way, whatever you decide.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

I'm starting from the assumption that in order for someone to be able to live on a beta island, a secure terminal is needed. Beta1s already have this, but Beta2s are completely shut off in this sense. So if nothing else, opening up beta2s would expand the space where players who are not part of the corporation/intrusion warfare (or don't want to be at all, just do high level missions for example) can also play and live.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:

I'm starting from the assumption that in order for someone to be able to live on a beta island, a secure terminal is needed. Beta1s already have this, but Beta2s are completely shut off in this sense. So if nothing else, opening up beta2s would expand the space where players who are not part of the corporation/intrusion warfare (or don't want to be at all, just do high level missions for example) can also play and live.

Its my view that beta should be a progression.

Beta 1 is training beta, open stations, more danger good reward (alledgedly). Missions up to level 4 maybe

Beta 2 is real beta, you can lock all stations and secure them, no Beta 2 station to worry about so its basically drop probes and gg. Top level missions.

This way Beta 2 is aspiration, higher reward, higher safety, more effort.

from there you get gamma which is a lot more secure, supposedly more reward, even more effort.

I think if you do it the other way around its really hard to secure a beta 1.

That said, idgaf, i'm just happy that something is finally happening. If others feel strongl;y it should be the other way around then why not.

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)

Also ... Maybe rename?

Alpha
Beta
Delta
Gamma

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)

Jita wrote:

That said, the beta 2 islands are currently the least used and so might have the least impact.

vs

Jita wrote:

Beta 2 is real beta, you can lock all stations and secure them, no Beta 2 station to worry about so its basically drop probes and gg. Top level missions.

If there is correlation regarding the underusedness then this doesn't sound too optimal to me. Sounds like shutting down for the sake of shutting down and get yourself bored.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Jita wrote:

That said, the beta 2 islands are currently the least used and so might have the least impact.

vs

Jita wrote:

Beta 2 is real beta, you can lock all stations and secure them, no Beta 2 station to worry about so its basically drop probes and gg. Top level missions.

If there is correlation regarding the underusedness then this doesn't sound too optimal to me. Sounds like shutting down for the sake of shutting down and get yourself bored.

Fair enough. I'm all for beta 2's, i think it would be good to reduce the impact to the people in beta 1's like CIR, NSE and ERA.

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."

45 (edited by Ville 2015-07-20 20:32:31)

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

I don't even know how to even respond to you people.  It must be awesome to think that two players who have since stopped playing your game and magically come back can have this wonderful idea about "Emergent Gameplay" with no back up data but keep saying "emergent gameplay" over and over again can make an idea that is completely detrimental to Alliances actually Living on Beta.

Dev Zoom:  Avatar Creations CREATED the locking mechanic to curb players from being able to instant undock alts from stations and scan SAP timers of the stations.  You CREATED the locking mechanics because it was too easy for players to dock mass forces in an outpost and ghank players from behind.  And all the alt players who sit in station and monitor traffic in and out of the station. 

If you want to unlock outposts for new players to use at their discretion that's fine.  But stop using outposts players actually live and use.  I don't want to use Beta Outpost that I can be scouted in.  I don't want my enemy to know every movement I make.  I want a little privacy at times,  We know whose alts are who and whose alts are miners.  If I see them in a station, I know what they are there for.  If I monitor traffic in and out of the station I can learn what time zone they play in and when.  If I know that I am just going to monitor and ghank.  The ONLY Emergent Gameplay is for people who want to grief industry and offensive players who make it super easy to undock alts to scan saps and do them.

If you want to make an Island where players can do high level missions then do just that, MAKE A *** ISLAND(3).  The reason Alliances are on Beta 1s is because they have missions and people actually do them.  The other reason is because there are MORE outposts for the alliance to farm SAP loot.  And there is less roaming spawns which make it easier for people to do industry.

*Edit:  And don't tell me people didn't monitor the station logs because I still have the Dump site that's hosted on our site that allows you to easily import Online/Offline/Leave channel that sorts, databases and records and keeps a running total of peoples player times, most popular play time and what terminal.  There were 4 other corps in game that used the same thing.

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)

Jita wrote:

Fair enough. I'm all for beta 2's, i think it would be good to reduce the impact to the people in beta 1's like CIR, NSE and ERA.


I'm looking at this from a pure game mechanics perspective, and didn't want to involve politics or current owners at all (shame or not but I don't have the time to follow that), even though we happen to be in CD.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

Ville: that's why we're not doing this for all beta outposts, so everyone can have their own preferred way of living on beta.

But just to throw in a completely different idea that you can all fight over (and I'm doing myself a disservice here): we could also put in a public main terminal on beta2s.

Re: A prediction (about outpost locking)

09-09-2014:

This is the "Emergent Gameplay" they are talking about:

SmokeyIndustries wrote:

Mmmm I wonder how many baphomets I could lose at koykili if stations get unlocked. I think I still have 50 or 60 fitted ones in the Nonconformity's storage. That's what I originally made them for, but danachov instead. Enough to make sure you'e in that station 24/7 with someone cause if not, I might disrupt your nora farming, or epi mining or group circle jerks or whatever you guys do there anyways.


That kinda sounds like fun. Let's do it! I wouldn't even have to quit playing Diablo 3 to do it either. Can we please please please do it Dev Zoom?!


Gremrod wrote:
SmokeyIndustries wrote:
Syndic wrote:


Although your idea of what would grief us is quite funny. lol


You'd be crying to dev zoom inside a week to have it changed back, betcha.

So that is why you guys want it changed, to only grief people with the change?

SAME THREAD.

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Syndic wrote:

As someone who played with unlocked outposts for a year or two, I remember very well why they were locked in the first place. lol

No Sh*t. the people crowing on about removing station locks couldnt have been playing this game before they were put in.
Stations without locking were the biggest pain in the neck to deal with when you tried to live on a island.

Having an enemy with mechs IN OUR OWN HOME STATION (that was done A LOT) is very hard to deal with.
Also lack of station lock made camping in corps / alliances stupid easy.

But hey if the idiots want it removed then please DEVs do it. the QQ that will endup on the forums will be worth it tongue

^  Same Stuff I am trying to warn about.

You Want to Fix the game Here you go:

Gremrod wrote:

The game world needs to be bigger. If the issue is with one entity controling all the islands. Add more beta islands beyond the ability for a single entity to control all of them.

The game world is too small. I think it would be better to increase the world size rather then change outpost mechanics. Add more islands and outposts.....

You want "Emergent Gameplay"  Listen to Gremrod.

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)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ville: that's why we're not doing this for all beta outposts, so everyone can have their own preferred way of living on beta.

But just to throw in a completely different idea that you can all fight over (and I'm doing myself a disservice here): we could also put in a public main terminal on beta2s.

How easy is it adding islands with just public terminals?

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)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ville: that's why we're not doing this for all beta outposts, so everyone can have their own preferred way of living on beta.

But just to throw in a completely different idea that you can all fight over (and I'm doing myself a disservice here): we could also put in a public main terminal on beta2s.

If you can add Beta Terminals to B2 Islands, why not just auto generate some NEW islands, Make them ALL NPC Terminals and Roaming Mobs stick some inner island TPs around it and some entrance points and GG?

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.