51 (edited by Celebro 2011-08-02 19:16:55)

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Hi Arga, smile

It begs to question: If we have 2 kind of outposts won't large corps choose the more effortless one to defend? . Like instead of having  1 beta II outpost they could own 3 beta I outposts and spoil the intended mechanic.

Just a thought: have local chat on beta islands based on region, and you will see players flocking in to beta, with or without intrusion 2.0.

Why?.. simply it's much safer and easier to defend by far. Right now the defenders are at a disadvantage.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Of course they could C, just like they can now live on Alpha risk free. But having an outpost is going to have some benefits, and having a 'harder' outpost will have more benefit.

There's lots of outpost right now, compared to the active player base. Even if the top (5) corps all took 1 beta-1 outpost, that would still leave (4) for smaller corps to wrestle over.

But as was pointed out, even for an active larger corp, its going to be hard enough to keep (1) outpost over 50%.

If the beta-ii's remain empty, then the devs can look at boosting the benefits for those higher, or have no benefits on beta-i other then docking rights (no auras).

The decision to make (2) levels of beta outposts is the hard decision, the balancing part is something that can be worked on.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

I'm not so sure defenders are at a disadvantage, if you take into account that they are expected to have a presence anyway.

What it will do is cut down the defending corps ability to go out roaming, in numbers. But if SAP's are going active but no one is coming to them for PVP, they're more free to go off and roam.

Again though, and I think this addresses Syndic's comments, there's more outposts then corps able to hold them.

It's totally a perspective of the low population, as to what constitutes a Mega-Corp. Really, 300 active players over multiple times zones is not a Mega-corp, nor would they be fieldin superblobs. Having 20-25 PVP accounts on hand 24/7 is a BIG corp yes, but its by no mean supermassive game breaking.

Simply - the game is played globally. It can NEVER be anything other than 24/7 unless they have one game in EU and another US, but I don't think anyone wants that.

The compromise is already there, losing 1-2 SAPs during your off hours doesn't put ownership at risk, it simply makes the outpost less valuable.

Maybe the benefits per % need to be looked at more closely, and rebalanced more lenient. The basic premise however is better.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

So it would be preferable to cater for what the future player count might be? Couldn't they tweak that in the future?

Doesn't make much sense.. low player base is certainly partly to blame for a loads of issues including pvp, outpost ownership and market, some cannot be fixed but certainly made easier with certain temporary mechanics in place.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

it goes back to balance of the famous risk vs reward, but yeah they can and probably should make some kind of allowances for server population. They nered minerals because of low pop, so it's not like they're not aware of the issue.

But, it's really not the dev's fault that there are 20 seperate pvp corps with 11 people (not acutal numbers, just making a point). Player community said that alliances are not a priority, so either corps are going to have to merge, or the outposts will again sit empty.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Arga wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Therefore in order to maximize the ownership of your outpost

That's the key here. Maximize.

the 100% stability is something only the strongest corps are going to be able to maintain, because you can't miss any SAPs at all.

A corp doesn't need to have a 24/7 presence though to get the other benefits.

However, if your talking Min/Max, then yes.

But you CAN'T have it both ways. Either an outpost is valuable and as such would require protecting, or it's not worth having at all. Making an outpost valuable, but easy to have and own, isn't balanced. It just means who ever happens to get there first will keep it and be unbeatable.

I think this is a good compromise.

I'm not arguing anyone should be able to have an outpost, I'm arguing that there are alliances (grupations of big percentage of concurrent subscriptions) out there that operate together in terms of living on the same island, producing in the same outposts, and doing trade in the same outposts.

So, in order for the other corporations that are not on the "owner" sheet to be able to defend their outpost that they're living & producing in, they would have to... Hope someone is online from the owning corporation? And if they touch the SAP, they do harm to their alliance?

Besides, since the SAP activation timers are "random", there is a "random" possibility you'll get X SAP's activating in your corporation's off-time. Snowball & etc to follow from that random possibility?

I mean, the LOGICAL reaction to this would be to do a massive recruiting spree, merge corporations and/or bring in new players to ensure 24/7 presence, if you want to get the maximum/optimal "return" reward for the risk of living in an open-PVP zone.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

57 (edited by Annihilator 2011-08-02 20:21:54)

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

YES more corp merging, less individuality, more chance to infiltrate a corp and raid their storage! /sarcasm

i hate to say, but i agree with syndic.

*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: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Of course the analysis of that situation is spot on.

But if alliances can assist in holding outposts, then it's no longer about corporate power, and it opens the door again for large alliances controlling more then one outpost/Island.

That doens't mean you can't ally, it just mean that each outpost owning member has to be capable of pulling their own weight. That seems reasonable?

Also, even if they can only hold the stability at 50%, that means they keep control of the outpost for alliance use. The benefits of outpost owenership aren't alliance wide, its for that corp. The 'shiny' benefits sit unused, wasted by the alliance allowing a corp to own something they can't stablize.

But yes, changing this mechanic will absolutely require a change in how the game is played to take the most advantage. But as I mentioned, the community in general is against NAP's and alliances, so it's not surprising that a mechanic was presented that doesn't benefit alliances.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Anni -

The environment can only present the best logical solutions. If players choose to do something else sub-optimal, then is it really a dev issue to correct it?

The community has basically declared Beta outposts not worth owning, even though some corps do. They could just leave it as-is, and wait for the community to get strong enough or over-crowded enough that there's nothing else in the game to do but own an outpost; or more likely the game would just fade back to just a few hardcore players.

So, they are changing something, and before it's even implemented - there's outcry that its not going to work.

I understand Syndic's point, his alliance has the most to lose from this; well, maybe not 'lose' but they have the most at risk if it's too hard to defend or the system has flaws. And it's not like beta where they can reset it if it totally messes something up.

Anything they change, to something this basic in the pvp game, is going to effect some corps negatively. It can't be a plus to everyone.

So, the key here is that it doesn't support alliances, and the corps involved in the alliance see that as an issue.

The question is, if the game is moving away from supporting alliances, then they need to adjust.
If it's not, then the dev's need to make some allowance for alliances.

It's not a democratic decision, either way someone is going to be pissed, but it would be nice to know before they implement it if alliances are going to be supported in game or not.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Arga,

It's clear alliances and NAP fests is not popular , but not at the expense of having mega corps ruin the individuality of smaller corporations. This could make it even worse than a NAP fest specially with such a small player base imo.

RIP PERPETUUM

61 (edited by Syndic 2011-08-02 21:04:28)

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Arga wrote:

Of course the analysis of that situation is spot on.

But if alliances can assist in holding outposts, then it's no longer about corporate power, and it opens the door again for large alliances controlling more then one outpost/Island.

That doens't mean you can't ally, it just mean that each outpost owning member has to be capable of pulling their own weight. That seems reasonable?

Also, even if they can only hold the stability at 50%, that means they keep control of the outpost for alliance use. The benefits of outpost owenership aren't alliance wide, its for that corp. The 'shiny' benefits sit unused, wasted by the alliance allowing a corp to own something they can't stablize.

But yes, changing this mechanic will absolutely require a change in how the game is played to take the most advantage. But as I mentioned, the community in general is against NAP's and alliances, so it's not surprising that a mechanic was presented that doesn't benefit alliances.

But it is virtually the same thing. Either you have 5 corps of 100 people, or you have 1 corp of 500 people. It is still the same 500 people living on the same island doing the same thing.

This system currently promotes having 500-man corps. Which is fine, if that is direction the Developers want to take the game. But again it raises the question, how will other 20-30 man corps compete against 500-man corps?

I've been gaming for a long time so I guess my definition of "pulling weight" would be that someone is present when they're online. I mean, nobody can expect corps to maintain current sizes, and increase activity to 24/7 12/1! How do you demand from someone to be online at 6 AM on a working day to "pull their weight"? Consistently, day after day after day? People are just gonna get burned out of the game, or we're going to step into a whole new dimension of "hardcore beta vets". All 10-20 of them.

But for discussion sakes, if people divorce their wives, quit their jobs, hook themselves up to IV nutrients and game 16 hours a day - how are they pulling their weight in those 8 hours when they're sleeping? Its a bit silly example, but as you say this is an international game across all timezones. Alliances between corporations are the logical solution to covering your corporation's weak timezone. Either that, or merging corporations to give 24/7 coverage.

I may be getting a bit lost in my train of thought, but don't get me wrong I totally see what the Devs are doing here. Nudging people to disband alliances. I'm quite sure it'll be the exact opposite, and we're only gonna end up with monster-corporations that will eat any new small corporations that come into the game.

EDIT:

Point to note, if the community (meaning, majority of the players!) was against NAPs and alliances then its logical to assume we wouldn't have any in the first place? So, considering there are 3 alliances in-game now and a 4th one growing, its safe to say the community indeed wants alliances and NAPs.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

You changed a corp pulling it's own weight to an individual. Many hands make light work.

I don't believe that majority rule is the way to design a video game, just because most players are doing something doesn't make it right.

However, I'm actually for alliances in some situations. But I don't think corps should need alliances to hold an outpost, to join together to hold an entire Island, yes.

24/7 coverage is just a fact of life on a global server. And 12/7 coverage (by a corp not 1 person) still allows outpost ownership, so we aren't even talking about if a corp can hold an outpost, its more about how much functionality can they exert on it.

This is where I think the alliance is a problem for outposts. When you have 1 or 2 strong corps and alot of smaller corps, its less of an alliance then it is 'renters and pets'.

It would be better if each outpost holding corp of the alliance could hold it's own, and have an equal voice at the table. This doesn't stop the smaller corps from using the outposts and being allied, it stops strong corps from having puppet outposts.

63 (edited by Rodger Wilcoe 2011-08-02 22:21:14)

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Arga wrote:

I don't believe that majority rule is the way to design a video game, just because most players are doing something doesn't make it right.

I agree considering it is human nature to take the path of least resistance wink

Then you couple this with herd mentality and you get sheeple. Baa! tongue

Personally I prefer a challenge and I know others do too.

64 (edited by Celebro 2011-08-02 23:35:45)

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

I know what's this all about; pets and meat shield nerf tongue

Edit: Some might say: its the same! pets would be in corp, but no they are corp members, pets  might steal your storage goods wink

What I don't want to see is:

Hey new guys want to pvp?

There are 3 choices join Alliance A, B, or C (changed to) Join corp A, B or C.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Arga wrote:

You changed a corp pulling it's own weight to an individual. Many hands make light work.

I don't believe that majority rule is the way to design a video game, just because most players are doing something doesn't make it right.

However, I'm actually for alliances in some situations. But I don't think corps should need alliances to hold an outpost, to join together to hold an entire Island, yes.

24/7 coverage is just a fact of life on a global server. And 12/7 coverage (by a corp not 1 person) still allows outpost ownership, so we aren't even talking about if a corp can hold an outpost, its more about how much functionality can they exert on it.

This is where I think the alliance is a problem for outposts. When you have 1 or 2 strong corps and alot of smaller corps, its less of an alliance then it is 'renters and pets'.

It would be better if each outpost holding corp of the alliance could hold it's own, and have an equal voice at the table. This doesn't stop the smaller corps from using the outposts and being allied, it stops strong corps from having puppet outposts.

I agree, I am totally in favor of many hands joining together to make work lighter.

Wouldn't having multiple corporations in one alliance benefit corp-identity more then forcing them into mergers to secure assets? Remember, once you lose the outpost its a few days away before the docking rights go too. Don't underestimate the herd mentality, no alliances or NAP's are gonna break over this change, they'll just be that much stronger tied.

Also, you can't really say the community (I define it as the majority of the population, do you define it differently?) doesn't want NAPs/Alliances, then do a 180 degree turn when I point out the obvious and say a game shouldn't be developed according to the wishes of the majority. I totally agree with your statement btw, game should NEVER be developed according to the wishes of the community/or wishes of the "known" CEO faces as we've seen before.

I think the best route would be one of multiple choice - players should have the option to form alliances and claim outposts as alliances, with the proceeding station income being evenly distributed between corporations. Players should also have the option to claim outposts as individual corps, if they want all the income for themselves.

That way it would be a good trade-off, either you get the income but your allies can't help you, or you get allied help but you get only a fraction of the station income.

I dont know, maybe I'm old-fashioned or too cynical but I'm tired of games where the Devs try to put you on a hamster-wheel until you burn out & leave the game. Sandbox should be about sand, choice and consequence.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Disclaimer:
Let me make it clear that what I'm posting is a personal opinion and in no way reflects on the opinion of my Corp. I've had no discussions with them at all on this topic in fact.

After reading this thread through several times today at work, it seems to me that the majority of the discussion has been about the "Max" side of how these changes effect the game, Corps. and alliances, not about the "Min" side: i.e., what are the lowest barriers to entry for these changes to be beneficial to a Corps.

I think it's impossible to read the whole devblog about these changes and not assume the devs want to create more opportunity for more Corps. while reducing the value of alliances. By opportunity, I don't just mean Beta outpost ownership but also more PvP and more economic activity, which will benefit all the players and make the game more attractive to new ones.

The discussion, so far, has primarily focused on how to make an outpost "safe" for the owner and allow them to get the maximum benefit 24/7. The "solution" to this dilemma has been mostly stated as increasing the size of ones Corp. with recruitment or the absorption of previously allied Corps. Frankly, I think the whole Max/safe line of reasoning is both a bit carebear and counter to what the devs intend and what's best for the games growth.

So let's look at the other side of the equation.
There are currently 15 Beta outposts. Considering the cost and attention required to maintain the stability of even one, it would be unlikely that even the largest Corps. (currently anyway) would care to own anymore than two. The "average" sized, current Corp. will want to focus on just one. So how many Corps. is that? It's certainly not 15 so some islands will be "open" even to smaller Corps.

Now let's factor in the advantages of owning a Beta Outpost versus the costs AND the advantages versus the costs for attacking the SAP's of another Corp.

It would take someone with more knowledge of the market and manufacturing than I have to put hard numbers on these variables but a medium-sized Corp. that is currently in an alliance does not get any direct (game-mechanic provided) benefits from being in that alliance if they aren't the outpost owner. The alliance members may choose to trade amongst themselves in favorable terms but station ownership directly benefits only the actual owner.

This won't change in the new structure BUT owning their own outpost, even if it is not maintained at 100% stability, will - or more exactly - can, do so. While outpost ownership will confer cost reductions (even to zero cost) to the owning Corp., it will also require constant "upkeep" costs in the form of ammo and items and bots potentially lost in routinely taking their SAPs.

A Beta outpost-owning Corps. ability to balance these costs against the benefits is tied to how much benefit they can draw from their outpost by manufacturing, mining, refining and selling.

These costs will be multiplied for any Corp. that owns a Beta outpost AND wants to harass another Corp. by consistently contesting the SAP's of that other Corp. I would suggest that, even for the largest Corps., there is no direct benefit in contesting someone elses outpost UNLESS you intend to take it over.

For a Corp. that owns no Beta outpost, there is also ZERO direct reward unless you intend to take the outpost.

I'm not suggesting Corps. won't do this just for grins, but, until or unless there is a game mechanic that rewards a Corp. just for taking someone elses SAP, it's going to be perceived as a waste of NIC and time very quickly.

On the flip side, it benefits EVERYONE if all the Beta outposts are owned by Corps. As stated previously, the disincentives for a Corp. to own more outposts than they can manage to keep the stability high on are great enough to stop anyone from trying to own more than a couple. But, when every Beta outpost is "owned and operating". their value is increased for everyone due to the availability of more goods, more "soft" PvP targets like miners and haulers, more hard PvP targets in the form of "guards" and SAP defenders and by the improved quality of everyone's Bots through a more vibrant market.

Beyond that, alternative types of Corps. and Corp. relationships become viable. For example, a very efficient, skilled manufacturing/mining Corp. may seek to hire other Corps. as protection for their Ops and transporting. Both will benefit. NAP's and alliances will still have value, just for different reasons...and probably on a more transitory basis.

This is all good for the game. Stability is the enemy of a sandbox PvP game...particularly stability that results from domination. Anything that lowers the cost of entry to outpost benefits will improve PO by creating more instability, increasing PvP opportunities and "spreading the wealth" directly through game mechanics.

While, personally, I'd like to see these changes released simultaneously with more of the benefits to station ownership that have been discussed, they are, without any modification at all, beneficial to the game.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Its going to make people think twice about becoming all blobbed up in alliances at one outpost and spread them out. Its not going to stop it but it will force the 'pet' corps to seriously consider what they are doing

For example lets say a corp called The Optimistic Gentlemen, TOG for short, were to fall on the wrong side of an alliance leader who we shall call *** (Monty Python reference before anyone reports me!)

If TOG had all their assets sat in ***'s back room at his corps outpost then he could immediately remove all their rights to dock and lock all their assets away from them if they upset him in anyway.  Four legs good, two legs better anyone?

So obviously *** doesnt want his 'pets' getting concerned about this as they might consider moving them somewhere else as they then wont be around to defend his island.

Hence you can understand why ***'s would rage against these changes as it doesnt suit a herd mentality and might encourage those pets to strike out on their own.

It would also enable smaller active corps to gain control of an outpost and the benefits thereof

Disclaimer:  All characters and stories are ficticious and any resemblence to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.... tongue

*edit: Yeah, yeah... it's still offensive. - DEV Zoom

68 (edited by Robbie 2011-08-03 10:53:57)

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

I didn't make my post in order to cast aspersions on the motives of any Corp. or Corp. leader but your point is well made as the ability to arbitrarily not just kick an ally but lock down their assets is indeed a major disincentive to be wholly at the mercy of the whims of another.

Remember that, especially given these and future changes, today's minor or medium Corp. may well be tomorrow's uber Corp. due to factors like more efficient production, better marketing and/or simply superior PvP combat ability...IF they are independent enough to earn the outpost benefits for themselves.

After all, It isn't the availability of T4 fittings and Heavy Mechs that results in a "professional military". Any student of recent history will tell you that having lots of T-80 tanks or Predator drones, will not necessarily win you the war.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

S-

Perp just doesn't have the in-game tools for a lot of things. The 'default' communist corporation is simply better now because trying to organize a capitalist model requires using meta-tools and is a lot of overhead.

The same is for alliances, there just aren't any tools for that.

I should have said that the community is behind improving intra-corp management before develops starts for alliances.

Better corp tools will also allow for larger corporations, which those tools including multiple squads, organizing members into groups, being able to set payroll, ect. ect.

I don't think we can wait for content like this while AC tries to get tools for both corps and alliances in place. Since corp tools help all corps, not just those allied, then that's the most bang for the buck; which leaves the outposts still corporate oasis.

What could help here, is if they let us know that there's a plan where the future alliance tools WILL let corps help each other hold outposts.

Or, what if the Beta-1 islands outposts are designed for single corps, and the beta-2's for alliances?

That is that beta-2's have an additional benefit at 100%, where they can allow other corps to defend SAPs, but not 2 in a row; or some other stipulation.

That means a small corp could save up 1 B NIC, get help capturing an outpost, buy to 100% and then only have to defend a portion of thier SAP's while the alliance can do the rest.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

We need to avoid mechanics which lead towards alliances, and encourage mechanics that encourage help smaller corps. This way there is more diversity. Unfortunately people tend not to think about the health of a game, and only think in terms of large power blocks having empty stations.

The developers made the right choice in developing this.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

One-size fits all though doesn't promote smaller corps.

I'd like to see different outposts with a varied reward/effort.

If not by Island, maybe each island has 2 or 3 (Beta-2, Beta-1) sized outposts. That makes more sense, in that 1 big corp takes the tastiest/shiniest outpost, and the other's are owned by smaller corps with less upkeep.

As was already pointed out, the Islands are too small for waring corps to be on the same Island, neither side would ever be able to field miner/harvester. So we have to expect a NAP per island at minimum, but they can also be indepenant corps if they don't have to depend on the Big outpost for protection 24/7.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Syndic wrote:

I agree, I am totally in favor of many hands joining together to make work lighter.

Wouldn't having multiple corporations in one alliance benefit corp-identity more then forcing them into mergers to secure assets? Remember, once you lose the outpost its a few days away before the docking rights go too. Don't underestimate the herd mentality, no alliances or NAP's are gonna break over this change, they'll just be that much stronger tied.

Unfortunately, formal alliances in EVE almost entirely annihilated corp culture and replaced it with alliance culture. If you look back at our oldest political maps you'll realize that back then tiny corps held sov and it was viable and they formed into bigger alliances, but those alliances weren't stable. Corps were constantly joining and leaving and it was common for civil wars to start.

Once a group of corps is tied into a formal alliance, that's no longer possible. Corps can leave, sure, but it becomes less likely as  interdependence has been created. I mean, if RG could just buy stuff on the alliance market from CIR, would they really bother building up their own industrial wing? Or would they consider it needless duplication and give it up for a bad job?

Not having that guarantee forces corps to be self dependent, and it keeps their culture alive. It also creates a more fragmented and protean political landscape, something everyone should prefer.

Will mega corps form if alliances aren't added? Well, no, probably not. Based on experience in EVE and other games, I can say with absolute certainty that mergers between corps tend to go poorly, with the old leadership irritated that they no longer have a say in the day to day operation of the corp, and the old members annoyed that they don't mesh well with the existing group. It's a difficult thing to pull off, and it's very likely that a lot of corps will say no to a merger because they don't want to lose their culture and their independent power. It's one thing to join an alliance. It's another thing entirely to give up your shared history and join another corp en masse.

Also, you can't really say the community (I define it as the majority of the population, do you define it differently?) doesn't want NAPs/Alliances, then do a 180 degree turn when I point out the obvious and say a game shouldn't be developed according to the wishes of the majority. I totally agree with your statement btw, game should NEVER be developed according to the wishes of the community/or wishes of the "known" CEO faces as we've seen before.

A community makes a great sounding board for concepts and ideas. Certainly EVE would be a better game had the devs paid more attention to the CSM.


I think the best route would be one of multiple choice - players should have the option to form alliances and claim outposts as alliances, with the proceeding station income being evenly distributed between corporations. Players should also have the option to claim outposts as individual corps, if they want all the income for themselves.

The whole purpose of this change is to get people to spread out. Allowing them to continue sharing territory on a single island is at cross purposes to this design. The nic isn't the important part, the population density is. Nova, as an example, has a way higher population density than Norhoop or Dom. Why? Because the current system rewards building a densely populated island and using that dense population to watch the gates constantly and protect activities.

It's not necessary for corps to split out of the alliance. A small corp (5-10 members) isn't all that likely to complete an SAP in the first place, let alone have guys on when it becomes active. You can easily share out some of the income from services to them to compensate them for the lack of moolah. 


That way it would be a good trade-off, either you get the income but your allies can't help you, or you get allied help but you get only a fraction of the station income.

I dont know, maybe I'm old-fashioned or too cynical but I'm tired of games where the Devs try to put you on a hamster-wheel until you burn out & leave the game. Sandbox should be about sand, choice and consequence.

There's only a wheel if you get obsessive about holding 100% stability.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

Arga wrote:

One-size fits all though doesn't promote smaller corps.

I'd like to see different outposts with a varied reward/effort.

If not by Island, maybe each island has 2 or 3 (Beta-2, Beta-1) sized outposts. That makes more sense, in that 1 big corp takes the tastiest/shiniest outpost, and the other's are owned by smaller corps with less upkeep.

As was already pointed out, the Islands are too small for waring corps to be on the same Island, neither side would ever be able to field miner/harvester. So we have to expect a NAP per island at minimum, but they can also be indepenant corps if they don't have to depend on the Big outpost for protection 24/7.

Well, the thing is you can't make it too easy for corps to grab and hold an outpost even if they're tiny. It doesn't promote pvp for a group of five guys to be holding a location as they'll never be on and available for a fight. People want NEX to grab an outpost because they figure we'll constantly have guys outside to fight with, and they're probably right.

Look at the current situation with HUN on Hokk. M2S and 62nd are frothing at the mouth because there's no one in HUN actually on Hokk. They use protection tokens or call up a huge gang (if tz convenient) to hold a location that they don't actually occupy. That's the kind of situation this change would prevent -- there's no way HUN would hold their outpost after having been entirely driven from the island.

Which is good, and working as intended.

If people want to hold an outpost they should recruit new players, build up an industrial wing and develop a military capable of pulling it off. They shouldn't rely on another group just handing them the win. That's lame!

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

After having re-read the entire thread again today, I can honestly say that there is alot of good ideas put forward here, and the changes are exactly what Perpetuum needed.

The only people that don't like what's being said, are the ones that directly stand to lose influence with this change. Power doesn't always have to come from military or economic areas, but charisma combined with the followers to do your bidding in the form of waging war or building your stuff to wage war is a dangerous tool.

I find this acceptable.

Re: New devblog: Intrusion 2.0

CIR and co wouldn't lose out from this, as they have a few good corps in the alliance stable. The most capable groups would no doubt go out to Dom and take the empty or underused outposts there.

Syndic seems most worried about the likelihood of a reduction in population density on Nova, as that impacts the defensibility of ops and increases the length of shifts for gate scouts (fewer people, same number of gates, fewer scouts). This is a logical worry, as is his fear that some corps will feel the urge to bloat up in order to minimize the risk that an SAP will remain undone.

I'd personally prefer that population density on beta islands be made more even, and that's the likely result. A single well protected island chock full of people isn't as interesting for solo or small gang pvpers as several more moderately defended ones. Since those solo guys are fun to fight and write interesting stories encouraging them is a good thing, even if it does mean more vulnerable farmers getting popped!