1 (edited by Alexander 2011-12-07 12:49:54)

Topic: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

So it's a few days into Intrusion 2.0 and already the strain is starting to show on some peoples faces.
To put it simply I don't think the system is quite what many had hoped for or expected.
All of these issues can be addressed easily with minor changes and a few rethinks.

It's simple enough to say that outpost won't be held at 100% but then requiring 60% just to have them back to how they were before is a pretty tall order. Not unfair just unexpected.

Each SAP opens for 60 minutes but every SAP can be completed in around 2 minutes. Defenders aren't able to block SAPs unless they have more numbers. Even then PVP moves around so much the defender only needs to step away from the SAP or stop killing anyone attempting to complete them for 1 minute to lose the event.

I disliked Intrusions before but now honestly I can't be bothered with the entire system. Honestly anything that makes me miss EVE mechanics is worrying.

I had the idea of setting peak activity times per corporation (And making them public) and then every event would falls 3 hours before and after this time. Currently trying to maintain 10 people for 24 hours with the average player able to give 2 hours a day (And this is saying that we can cover all time zones evenly) will require ~120 people. Granted that the minimum time between events is 8 hours but that just means at the moment we're STILL alarm clocking defences. And not only that we're doing it for possibly nothing.

The old system was expensive and unrewarding. It meant alarm clocking a set time but at least you got a few hours warning. Now the new system is more hard work for very little reward for the amount of assets requires to maintain an outpost. Alliances that can have many corps attack or defend a single outpost are far more in favour and when we already have ~50% of the population in a single alliance I thought we should be moving away from Alliance encouraging mechanics.

Just my thoughts on it all. Take them as opinion and please don't troll. If you love the new system then please explain why. I am sure I can be convinced it's a good system but unless something happens soon I'll be just another attack with no desire to be part of an alliance. It's getting to the point where those who have left are not encouraging people to go back to EVE-Online. That can't be a good sign. People will go where the people are.

2 (edited by Norrdec 2011-12-07 12:58:25)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

My one idea would be changing the "respawn timer" for saps from 8-16 to 8-24 or more to let the people have lifes.
8-16 is just too little time to do anything, like sleeping tongue

/edit Persistant intrusions are also the way to go, I am saying that after Dev Zoom posted about it.

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

We have been discussing this in SovNov since the intrusion system went live along with its consequent hotfixes.

Main problem is that there is no mechanic for the defender to do anything about the SAP besides stand around. From the attacking side, 1-5 light ewars are enough to complete a SAP. We are a big alliance and this means we can pursue a policy of "scorched earth", where we send small gangs to all islands to keep outposts destabilized and deploy the armada to crucial areas where resistance has been either scouted or leaked through bo-tang actions.

However there is absolutely no benefit to engaging in such a "scorched earth". We find ourselves in a situation where we have SAP's coming online every 2-4 hours, meaning most of our gaming time is spent running around the world trying to catch SAPs coming online. The system sounds good on paper but after sitting around mining/scouting gates for 6+ SAP's on Novastrov, its safe to say the system is just lackluster.

Most of the people we've seen come back for the tournament and Intrusion 2.0 are in most cases voicing severe disappointment; partly because the SAPs are coming online so fast, partly because they're so piss-easy to complete, and partly because there's quite frankly nobody playing this game so aside from great fun with 62nd from time to time, we sit around the campfire on Novastrov singing kumbaya.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

man i had to check to see if hell froze over but im agreeing with my learned enemies in CIR lol smile <3 both have read my mind.

As an attacker they are great lol small gang can go in do the sap & leave. but as a defender you have to sit around for an hour & not leave the sap other wise some 1 can sneek on & kill the sap in 2 mins lol.

The system needed a change but damn i miss the old intrusion system.. i mean hell eve sov mechanics are better than this.

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

5 (edited by Dazamin 2011-12-07 14:33:17)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

From the point of view of station owners, the whole system is just a giant pain in the *** tbh. You have to guard SAPs for an hour each, so 4 hours total on Alsbale for example. As scanning stations is so easy and the scans are so accurate, everyone knows the timers, which means as the defender you have to know the timer, which means another boring (but quick) task to be done. I'd also suggest you give up on "random" timers all together, I mean seriously, Eve went through all these terrible systems, and eventually settled for the least bad option of giving some control of timers to the defender.

The talk from the Devs was about living on your Island, but that's not enough, you have to live on your SAP for that hour as they are so quick to complete.

Tbh I'm not gonna take another week of calling multiple gangs daily to sit on SAPs for an hour, especially when as far as I can tell, Destructive SAPs for example are basically undefendable from a gang of roughly the same size.

Basically the benefits are not that great, take far too much effort to obtain and defend, and a gang of 3 Ewars can make your hours of SAP guarding worthless when you go to bed.

I'm all for improving small gang PvP, but tying it in to a crazy Territorial Warfare / Loot Pinata system is not the way to do it.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Would like to hear a DEV response to this feedback, if the intention of I2.0 was to burn out the player base and have them head for greener pastures, it appears mission accomplished.   Having 2 or 3 alarm clock ops a day per OP is not something do-able with out hundreds of active players. As was said in a previous post, a gang of ewar bots can snipe out an outpost from a defender in 2 minutes. This doesn't seem like a way to encourage pvp.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

The difference between the time to complete a SAP and the time it's open might be too big, we're considering that.

There is one simple rule here to keep in mind: the shorter the time until a SAP is open (or the more time it needs to complete), the more advantage we give to defenders, and/or the more people are needed to complete it.

But honestly I see some old mindsets applied to the new system, which won't work. If you are not able to show up every 2-4 hours at one of your SAPs, chances are you own more outposts than you can handle. This works as intended and it pretty much regulates itself. Yes, the current low population means that the majority of the corporations will only be able to hold one outpost. If you are able to see this objectively, there is nothing wrong with it.

I also feel like some of you think there is stability 100 and nothing else. Stability 100 is not something we intended to be commonplace, if one corporation can reach it, it means they achieved total domination in the area. Which is exactly what Intrusion 2.0 was designed for.

"Clockwork intrusions" are in no way enforced. Both defenders and attackers make their own choice to play the game like that, it's their decision to desperately win each and every intrusion, if they really feel this is needed for their goals.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

DEV Zoom wrote:

"Clockwork intrusions" are in no way enforced. Both defenders and attackers make their own choice to play the game like that, it's their decision to desperately win each and every intrusion, if they really feel this is needed for their goals.

To be honest and direct. I think this is your personal Incarna. You managed to drive virtually your hole population of the game away. There is and will be NO life on Beta if you keep thinking and acting that way. Intrusion 2.0 is a epic fail.
You have to create ALLIANCE !!! features first. It is not possible and for a game where at prime time 200 people are online you can not pull something like this. And you can not blame the people that pay for this game for the fact that there so little online.
You have to give the defender more options to act here. And i am not only talking about the SAP. It starts with the teleporter and who is on the island.

But since you managed to almost destroy this game for the most of just just keep going. CCP will thank you for this update.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

From my point of view, adding more sandbox features like getting to set up your homebase in regards of upgrades is good and welcome.
On the other hand though, the owner currently is forced into a one hour action every 8-16 hours with a stability reward. A single attacker however could get the same stability reward in 1/60 of the needed time it takes the defender. Imho the balance between having to spend an hour and having to spend a few minutes for the same "reward" is off here too.

The ones saying "impossible" shall not disturb the ones already doing it

10 (edited by Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia 2011-12-07 16:12:08)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

The easier you make it to hold several outposts, the easier it'll be for larger groups to go on the offensive, and we'll be back at intrusion 1.0 with one alliance dominating the map.

Having the saps last an hour and having saps occur at the same time on different islands prevents large alliances from dominating the whole map. I really think this prevents an alliance form owning more then several islands. If the sap timers were cut short then, it'd just be a matter of getting one fast then going to the next.

Force entities to invest time when controlling many outposts so you limit them. I also don't think sap timers should be scan able. Bottleneck the amount of saps they can handle, or they risk openings in their stations.

If it's easier to take a sap, then an entity that tries to go on offensive will have to hold that sap while trying to take another outpost. Thus you split forces etc.

The ones complaining are doing so, because they want to make their efforts easier to control larger areas. It should be not be 1 alliance per 4 islands. lol look at player base.

I also think it's too soon to call a feedback alex.

11 (edited by Dazamin 2011-12-07 16:13:10)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

DEV Zoom wrote:

The difference between the time to complete a SAP and the time it's open might be too big, we're considering that.

There is one simple rule here to keep in mind: the shorter the time until a SAP is open (or the more time it needs to complete), the more advantage we give to defenders, and/or the more people are needed to complete it.

But honestly I see some old mindsets applied to the new system, which won't work. If you are not able to show up every 2-4 hours at one of your SAPs, chances are you own more outposts than you can handle. This works as intended and it pretty much regulates itself. Yes, the current low population means that the majority of the corporations will only be able to hold one outpost. If you are able to see this objectively, there is nothing wrong with it.

I also feel like some of you think there is stability 100 and nothing else. Stability 100 is not something we intended to be commonplace, if one corporation can reach it, it means they achieved total domination in the area. Which is exactly what Intrusion 2.0 was designed for.

"Clockwork intrusions" are in no way enforced. Both defenders and attackers make their own choice to play the game like that, it's their decision to desperately win each and every intrusion, if they really feel this is needed for their goals.

Tbh its a bad design and you should think about how players actually play your game, not the way you wish they would. "Clockwork Intrusions" are effectively enforced, since low stability Outposts are fairly useless. The likely outcome is one or two corps have high stability and other SAPs are farmed for loot, which means scanning stations and going there at the right time, not living there (Since Alpha 2 facilities are superior to low stability beta outposts)

Having no advantage for defenders is a bad idea because it takes no account of the effort they put in to take and secure an Island in the first place, when with minimal effort, 5 guys in EWars can keep dropping SAPs while you sleep. A territorial warfare system that's based around not fighting is bad. And in case you think it's a population issue, look at Eve, players go to alliances that play in their Time Zone, no one has 24hr coverage unless they're part of a huge coalition, which I would guess you guys don't want since Alliance features aren't implemented despite the fact that 90% of beta dwellers are in alliances.

@ Mara - Controlling one Island is a pain in the *** with SAPs every few hours, also remember timers are closer because they were all started at the same time recently, expect to see more divergence in SAP times within the next week.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Ok, if your corp does not have 24 seven coverage, this patch is working as intended to remove you from beta?  Good to know.  If you or your attacker doesn't feel like defending a sap, working as intended. No one is ment to have 100% which would allow for nice upgraded OP rather than just using Alpha 2s, working as intended.   Good to hear, all i needed to hear to make my decision on if I should check out star wars new mmo.

13 (edited by Mark Zima 2011-12-07 16:20:48)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

First of all, what I am to say is based on the assumption than living on beta and keeping production on beta
is the endgame for any beta-oriented corporation (and the 1st step to terraforming, building new structures etc.)
Otherwise Perpetuum makes no sense. Living on alpha and capturing outposts for epeen purposes only is not the game I want to play, unlike some other people for whom daily PVP and random griefing is the only end-game they need.

So, the problems with I2.0:

1) Lock down mechanic benefits the attacker. Lock down is a way to evict people from their outpost, it's not helping with defence at all.
2) Most SAPs are very easy to capture and very hard to defend. Scouting is useless, even gate arkhes are useless since most OPs are relatively close to external teleports.
Unless you proactively guard the SAP for one hour (twice a day, at random time) with a force capable to exterminate _any_ intruder in under 2 minutes, you're sol. (May I remind you how hard it is to kill certain shielded setups?)
3) Island-level intrusion window visible to anyone is stupid. Only defenders and the people actively caturing the SAP (sitting on it, hacking it etc.) should see it .
4) Tying facility levels to stability means that risk/reward for beta production is even lower than before.
5) As a consequence of p.1,2 and 4: the largest blob has free reign over beta, they can lock any outpost in a few days without much effort (or at least drop it to 0 stability and ruin production facilities). So only the largest blob can afford living on beta full time. And even they feel the pressure and stress from the new system.
6) Specimen processing SAP is too different from other types and should be removed or changed to be in-line with other SAP types.
7) The lack of alliance mechanic makes for 1 corp = 1 outpost rule so you can't concentrate you forces on defending one outpost without putting too much trust to where it does not belong.
8) Stability ping-pong between time zones is entirely possible, many corps are timezone-limited (the primary reason being low server population) and p.7 prevents cross-timezone cooperation with other corps.
9) Inability to reconfigure outposy facilities without dropping the stability is BS. I felt betrayed when I saw how small L4 refinery benefit is compared to L3.

Bottom line: the new system is too stressful and hardcore, living full time on beta is very risky and unrewarding, "fun" playtime vs "work" playtime balance is fubar. With I1.0 I was free to do anything I want anytime I want, now I have to bend to I2.0 rules and timers and waste a lot of time on something that's not fun by any definition of fun.

I wish for more people to live on beta and have a healthy PVP with each other. I2.0 promotes a certain type of PVP that's not healthy IMO. It's more about griefing each other out of beta now, straining and stressing the opponent until they feel like quitting the game.

14 (edited by Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia 2011-12-07 16:24:14)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mark Zima wrote:

2) Most SAPs are very easy to capture and very hard to defend. Scouting is useless, even gate arkhes are useless since most OPs are relatively close to external teleports.
Unless you proactively guard the SAP for one hour (twice a day, at random time) with a force capable to exterminate _any_ intruder in under 2 minutes, you're sol. (May I remind you how hard it is to kill certain shielded setups?)
3) Island-level intrusion window visible to anyone is stupid. Only defenders and the people actively caturing the SAP (sitting on it, hacking it etc.) should see it .
7) The lack of alliance mechanic makes for 1 corp = 1 outpost rule so you can't concentrate you forces on defending one outpost without putting too much trust to where it does not belong.

2 keeps your enemy in check as much as it keeps you active. If 2 is made easier for you, your enemy has to defend less and can be more offensive. Think about the consequences of that.

3 Yes I agree the intrusion timer scan should be removed.

7 No to alliance mechanics, it's already there with allowing an "Alliance" to guard a single sap together for an hour. Have you actually attacked anyone saps yet that have guards?


As a side note: I'd also like to know here if anyone besides war and 62nd has gone to fight a force at an intrusion sap. If anyone has any thoughts about that. Frankly I'm glad to see the larger alliances already complaining they have to hold their saps, because the harder it is, the more they are kept in check from controlling multiple lands.

When you use eve as an example we have to also remember the large areas of space that were just left empty because it was so easy to go on the offensive.

15 (edited by Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia 2011-12-07 16:25:15)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Dazamin wrote:

@ Mara - Controlling one Island is a pain in the *** with SAPs every few hours, also remember timers are closer because they were all started at the same time recently, expect to see more divergence in SAP times within the next week.

Well if it limits big groups isn't that a good thing, vs seeing one alliance controlling all islands? Imagine what one would have to do to control 6 or more outposts, oh wait, they are already complaining trying to do such.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

DEV Zoom wrote:

There is one simple rule here to keep in mind: the shorter the time until a SAP is open (or the more time it needs to complete), the more advantage we give to defenders, and/or the more people are needed to complete it.

Shortening the time a SAP is opened will change nothing when you need 2 minutes on the average to complete it. It  have to be on both way : longer time to complete the SAP and a narrow windows when the SAP is open.

DEV Zoom wrote:

But honestly I see some old mindsets applied to the new system, which won't work. If you are not able to show up every 2-4 hours at one of your SAPs, chances are you own more outposts than you can handle.

Stop taking the exception as the rule to design intrusion 2.0. Even for a single outpost corporation, trying to live on a beta island with a 8-16 hours random timer, means that, if you are lucky, you will be able to defend your outpost once a day. Yes there is this anoying thing called real life that is not compatible with your system.

And what an exciting thing when defending means wait for one hour doing nothing.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

As a side note: I'd also like to know here if anyone besides war and 62nd has gone to fight a force at an intrusion sap. If anyone has any thoughts about that. Frankly I'm glad to see the larger alliances already complaining they have to hold their saps, because the harder it is, the more they are kept in check from controlling multiple lands.

When you use eve as an example we have to also remember the large areas of space that were just left empty because it was so easy to go on the offensive.

I'd quite like to go fight at a SAP but after two-three hrs of sitting on our own SAPs, I really can't be bothered sad

The fact is we want to hold our beta stations, so we do it, but there's a limit to how long ppl will want to do it for, and tbh no defenders = no fights if you attack.

18 (edited by Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia 2011-12-07 17:30:01)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Dazamin wrote:

I'd quite like to go fight at a SAP but after two-three hrs of sitting on our own SAPs, I really can't be bothered sad

The fact is we want to hold our beta stations, so we do it, but there's a limit to how long ppl will want to do it for, and tbh no defenders = no fights if you attack.

Put some defenders and look at times, then take an offensive group to go fight one. If your enemy comes to fight you, it's likely one of theirs will be open ( I'm hoping they continue with timers near each other)

lol chaos retook uria, ok, so nova needs an outpost on multiple islands, and they/naismith/lol complain how "hard" it is. Yes, make the system easier so that the large alliance can go back to easily logging in for 1 hour a week, then logging off.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Or maybe just allow defends to capture? I mean the point of this is to prove who's dominant, both parties can scan it out and know when it's going to be... they are more often so it's less likely to be huge groups, but this would more closely resemble the old system. This waiting mechanic is anti-fun and does nothing productive. If i'm there when it goes live, you're just making me wait, if the enemy is there when it goes live with a force that can beat mine.. they will get it.

Make saps take 5-10 mins to take, and make it capturable by attackers or defenders. Defenders get no loot.

20 (edited by Triglav 2011-12-07 17:49:29)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

*edit: Removed offensive parts. - DEV Zoom

I (and most of CIR that i know)  agree with NeX and Remedy posters.


1) Intrusion 2.0 became a *** Avatar Creations Incarna project. Devs, your GAME IS LIVE! You're treating it like it's still in close or open beta, doing radical changes, and NOT! listening and acting on public opinion, rather you seem to be on a vendetta, telling players how they SHOULD play. You're failing at keeping your sandbox FULL OF PLAYERS exactly with those actions. If you want your sandbox to be yours alone, just say so, play your own damn game, and most of people will probably go play something else. You picked the worst possible time to do it, because of you hadn't noticed EVE (yes I mentioned it), which is your main contender in the sandbox mmo niche, made a fantastic patch, and is gaining popularity very fast again, with almost every bitter vet i know (in fact I only know 1 person who hasnt resubbed,yet)  resubbing again. If you don't get your heads out of the dirt, your game is about to die in a (financial) fire.


2) Capturing time/defending time needs to be brought much closer to 1 than it currently is. It is ridiculous defenders NEED 10X the numbers of attacking force (that's why 62nd totally failed at attacking any defended sap as they dont have any fighting numbers - except in the forums where Mara counts for 13-37) just because the SAP can be finished so quickly. Any nondecent attack force can kill the SAP btw while combating defenders.


3) The SAP timers need to be brought further apart. While I agree that not any 1 corp should be owning more than a few stations, defending even 1 station becomes a tedious task after a few days of doing it. Why the hell are you treating your game like it has 3k players, and average corp has 150 players? Smell the salt, check the stats of your game and build game mechanics on that. You guys are capable of data mining, which you've proved on numerous occasions, now do it in a constructive way.


4) The mechanic needs to be inserted where the defending force can CLOSE the SAP SOMEHOW! Waiting for 1 *** hour is a waste of ANYONE's $/hr, unless you're having fun with it. We're not. EULA says that if some1's keeping players from fun, we can petition it, FINE I PETITION FOR HARRASSMENT BY AC and you need to do something about it!


5) Scanning the SAP times needs to go. Away. That's the short of it. Why? You (*you* , devs) wanted the beta islands owners to be the corp(s) that had the highest active members and highest activity on the island. Your new system only allows ANY corp to simply scan the SAP, arrive in 5 person  SMALL bot force, ninja close the SAP and GTFO.  Is that the activity YOU wanted to see? If your system were trully about highest UNDISPUTED activity on an island, then defenders should be able to SEE (physically be there) when their sap goes online and will (or should) also be able to do something about it.



Probably about 1 more point I wanted to post here, but switching from a AC supporter to AC prosecutor is  taxing and I forget quickly:)


br,
T.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Ok so I2.0 is only a few days old. The corps in beta should ask yourselves .... What's your outpost stability at right now?

I'm pretty sure if you are actively trying to defened and keep your outpost, its above 5% now. In a few more days most should be at 70-80%, if they want to be. Then your facility bonuses will come into play a lot more, and your allies facilities on the same island also. (Outpost lockout slide = pseudo alliance tool)

If one alliance can control 3 or 4 outposts on an island and keep them above 80% they are way better off. And after 2 (yes only 2 days of I2.0) its heading in this direction. If you put the time into your outpost. And live out of your outpost. And use your head a bit.

I think I2.0 is working as intended but its still too early to tell. All I know is this pvp noob is getting some fantastically difficult and challenging good fights with Nova, and loving it smile


Give I2.0 a chance first, a few weeks at least. Maybe tweak the SAP open time to 1/2 hour ( but still as easy to steal/attack) or allow Defender to be able to scan accurately the I2.0 time, while only allow Attacker to scan only up to 4 hrs in advance. A buff to defend.

Just some thoughts.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Allowing the defenders to cap the SAP would go a long way. Also, doing something about this scanning the timers thing. It doesn't really make sense. I said it a long while ago, I2 is just going to make things more aggressively annoying to hold beta with little new in the way of rewards. I'm glad it will be partially helpful to the dev  to have complete when it comes to player built structures, but that doesn't mean it should have been released without them. This is just going to funnel people back to alpha who dont want to be slaves to timers for basically the same old crap on under-used beta islands.

Take the long way around back to square one
Today we're just outlaws out on the run

23 (edited by The Shade 2011-12-07 18:20:20)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

I do not think the system is perfect but i do agree with Dev Zoom that the system should discourage world domination. It should be a *** for large alliances to own a lot of space. It should require a large amount of time to keep an empire going. The system should encourage small gang warfare to reduce stability.

Edit: I must say so it doesn't sound like im defending the new system AS IT IS. I believe many people have great ideas to make it less tedious which is for sure a good thing.

"False friends are like our shadow, keeping close to us while we walk in the sunshine, but leaving us the instant we cross into the shade."

24 (edited by Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia 2011-12-07 18:27:37)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Triglav wrote:


2) Capturing time/defending time needs to be brought much closer to 1 than it currently is. It is ridiculous defenders NEED 10X the numbers of attacking force (that's why 62nd totally failed at attacking any defended sap as they dont have any fighting numbers - except in the forums where Mara counts for 13-37) just because the SAP can be finished so quickly. Any nondecent attack force can kill the SAP btw while combating defenders.

Untrue, your defenders don't need that many numbers. What your trying to accomodate is having 10x the numbers so you can move easily from sap to sap and control more. For someone that's so unworthy, I seem to be on the tip of your tongues every time you die.

3) The SAP timers need to be brought further apart.

Absolutely not. A big group goes to point A takes it, then just goes to B then C then D, and keeps going. If A,B,C are active and on multiple islands, big group can't go to multiples unless it splits. This is important and keeps groups like yours in check.


4) The mechanic needs to be inserted where the defending force can CLOSE the SAP SOMEHOW! Waiting for 1 *** hour is a waste of ANYONE's $/hr, unless you're having fun with it. We're not. EULA says that if some1's

So you'd have to be at one place for an hour vs the other 6 you're trying to take. Well sorry, maybye the game is trying to say that smaller groups can have a chance to control an outpost.

5) Scanning the SAP times needs to go. Away.

I agree here.

Oh, we're also not failing. You've lost norhoop(which you're trying to retake), and we've managed to take saps and outpost from you on domhalarm. I count that as a push on my book, and you're complaining about having to defend "multiple" islands, which is the way it should be.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

i don't see where the system rewards you for living in an outpost.

  • intrusion times can be scanned. so any1 who wants to know when he needs to attack can acnowledge that.
    that only benefits the force that wants to keep your outpost stability low.
    -> as outpost owner zero advantage

  • SAPs cannot be done by owner, or it will decrease stability... inverse logic. Outpost owner has to prevent anyone doing maintainence on outpost external facilities! you have to prevent others from doing them in 2mins for 1 hours
    -> as outpost owner zero advantage

  • static outpost/sap position, small number of saps to do
    living there means your position is known, the distance between saps is also small. On the other hand there are 4 directions where an attacking force can enter the island and steamroll your position, or sneek in from behind.
    I saw that the area around outposts got a bit terraformed, but i doubt that it gives the defending side any superiourity regarding LoS, Range or Firepower. some outpost even having npcs fenced like cattle...
    -> as outpost owner zero advantage

  • ...

Conclusion:
Int 2.0 makes it easy to drive any1 from small to big corp out of an outpost (lowering stability = EASY)
Holding ownership of an outpost is now even more hardcore then before.
This was the reason for nerfing ERP tanks?

*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