Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Well said Triglav.  In order for AC to save their game, they need to take steps to right a wrong.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

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.

Really? How many saps have you defended? How many have you defended against an intruder? How many have you defended against Novaforce? As far as i know, the answer to all those questions is NONE, and i know for a fact that the answers to questions 2 and 3 is NONE. Until you've done that you have absolutely no authority to comment that part or comment that part of gameplay.

Also I dont die often, and when I do, you're not on my mind or on the tip of my tongue at all.


I'm not wasting my energy commenting anything else, P is not worth it any more.


/signing off this thread.

28 (edited by Mark Zima 2011-12-07 18:39:28)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Atticus wrote:

If you put the time into your outpost. And live out of your outpost. And use your head a bit..

I did exactly that for the past 3 months and what? It doesn't matter ***. No amount of time and work I put into the outpost will help me against ninjas or blobs. Counterblob is the only defense and you don't even need to live on the island for that...

The usual island activity and I2.0 are like separate dimensions.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Meshoo wrote:

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.

By doing this the point of living on beta MOOT!. I can log in run to beta attack my own sap and tp out and claim to live on beta, and still have time to go ninja 3 other islands. Domination is living in beta and defending your sap. The wait mechanic is not fun be glad its only 1 hour and not 2-3 I'm not really seeing how this is an issue if you only take what you can keep.

Participate, Congratulate cause everything else will be seen as HATE.
Max yellow max all skills lvl 10 min max for the win

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

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.

True Story:  Having to post threads on the forums claiming your not failing, really means you are failing.  Real winners can remain silent while their actions speak for themselves.

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: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Ville wrote:
Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

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.

True Story:  Having to post threads on the forums claiming your not failing, really means you are failing.  Real winners can remain silent while their actions speak for themselves.

Glad to see this thread is not going to get closed! Oh wait.... BTT

Living on beta is now all about living on beta. No one can have cake and eat it too.

You hold what you can hold the rest of the areas will be Free for all which will make for more Pew this patch is a sucess imo.... Only thing im not sold on is scanning for times.

Participate, Congratulate cause everything else will be seen as HATE.
Max yellow max all skills lvl 10 min max for the win

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

One huge issue I can see in the near future is passive saps.  With these extreme shield fits that we seen in the tournament whats stopping a 4 man tyrannos group to just sit there on it and keep a smaller corp who can't field the large number to break shield tanks?  The answer is nothing.

http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=10966

Is a prime example of this.  He nearly took the passive sap, and tanked these guys for 2~3 minutes.

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: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

The funny thing of this whole thread is 62nd are THE ONLY ones defending the new intrusion. So i would hazard to guess that it is because they have not had to constantly defend their SAP's, a situation that may change in the future then we will see them crying that they are getting blobbed. they have no issue killing 4 with 7-10 but if they get killed by 7-10 then its OMG BLOBBBB.

34

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Seriously I2.0 favors big ACTIVE corporations and alliances. SovNov, if you can't handle it you are doing something wrong. Ofc, it's easier to *** about something instead trying to adapt.

Get more ACTIVE people into your corporation and/or alliance if you lack numbers (since you want to get EVERY intrusion).

This system has ~48h and you are whining on forums and try to get quick fixes instead trying to crack it and get upper hand compared to other corps.

But honestly I see some old mindsets applied to the new system, which won't work/.


Agents, for the f. sake! You want sandbox, but you cry like *** theme park carebears. Even DEV needs to spend his time on telling you how to do stuff...

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!

Example of the full time job mental ***. fuuu

"you're not in an MMO to make friends, you're there to make enemies smile"

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

First of all good job to the Devs for implementing this refreshing feature to the boring Beta Islands.
The Change blows some fresh wind in the underused Beta Islands where 75% of all Outposts were owned by Corps but never used. It attracts a bit of roaming activity to those undefended Outposts and there is a decent Reward in for everyone. If more smaller Corps go for the initial costs (which are still rather high for small corps and nonexistent for large Alliances) there can be some interesting skirmishes in the future.

As for the intention of creating a direct relation between the Outpost Holders Activity on the Island and the Outpost Stability,in my opinion  there are  still a few flaws in the Current System. Defenders are at a Loss with this new System some of the Sap Goals are rather easy to fulfill and a larger force attacking will almost always win against smaller defending forces the reasons for this are displayed in many posts in this thread(needs re-balancing). Shouldn't be too hard to give the Defenders a little bonus in defending and i don't mean just the corp owning the outposts (i know devs hate alliances).

I think the main Reason for the negative and in most cases unconstructive  Critics is that this Patch is not what the rather small Community of this Game hoped for. I my opinion it is still not worth it to live on Beta the risk of being ambushed while doing your lucrative Beta Business, Epitron mining in most cases, stands in no Relation to the Reward other activities can be done on Alpha as well and there is no Content exclusive to Beta wich makes it worth to be a big Target by living there. This caused 2 big Alliances to form for sheer self protection you know the rest of the story. Today there simply is no other way in permanently living there than being big ... the opposite should be the case if this game wants a future. The Intrusion Patch did nothing to change this rather the Opposite. The other reason is that these 2 Alliances hoped for well Alliance feature seeing that at least 75% of the active beta population is in an Alliance...
I personally hate Alliances if they consist of such a big %tage of the Server Population so iam probably on the site of the Devs for not doing any Alliance Features roll.

36 (edited by Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia 2011-12-07 19:57:27)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

The funny thing of this whole thread is 62nd are THE ONLY ones defending the new intrusion.

Can we keep comments on topic?

This is simply not true. Others from corps are figuring out the pros and cons. In fact we've posted some cons.

What you mean to say, is when it's easier for you to hold 8 stations again just logging in once a week, that people will cry blob. Of course, when your large alliance can own 8 stations easily, and then just focus on one target, what would you expect? You have only one real force on the server fighting you.

But that's not going to happen, you're going to have to pay the price now, of holding 5 stations - 6 stations by being logged in and active enough to do that. You don't want to do that though. You want to log in for a bit, then log off. You now take a station on the enemy side, the enemy can just harass the new one, or the others you own.

The system should reward active players, prevent alliances from dominating the whole map, and encourage smaller groups to enter. It certainly wont by making it easier for larger alliances to do so. Friedrich pointed this out in his radio comment. Mechanics that allow larger alliances to do easier work will just make the server two sided.

Dan posted some good points.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

There are dozens of new players on alpha just waiting for a chance to hold an outpost.

If veterns decide to quit the game, the next generation of players will take over, and they will work the mechanics currently in place.

They'll start by stockpiling bots, modules, and ammo on alpha. If they don't have to fight veterns, since they've left the game, there's a good chance they'll take some SAP's and form a foothold on beta.

As they stabilize, they'll recruit more players. Its NEW for them, so they'll do the alarm clock and CTA's and consider 1 hour of sitting there a BLESSING that that didn't have to use resources to protect it.

After they're stabilized, they'll start getting bonuses.

Meanwhile, other alpha players are grouping up to take other beta outposts.

-----

This is a new mechanic, which means that everyone is really starting over in how outposts need to be treated. If 13 months of game play makes you not want to do CTA and wake up at all hours to defend something just to get back to where you were before the change, then that's your choice.

Stop playing, take a break, or take a step back and look at the game with new eyes.

Strategically, Pull back.

Assess how the new system works.

Devise a new plan.

Implement it.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Agra, where are the new players coming from? They don't advertise, word of mouth at this point could be bad depending on how many now bitter players there are.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga wrote:

If veterns decide to quit the game, the next generation of players will take over, and they will work the mechanics currently in place.

We don't want this to happen, but notice this. Suppose an alliance decides, well we only need to log in 1 time a month now to hold our outpost. This can't happen under the current system, and as arga says, newer corps that have more activity can take these outposts that are left open while the less active alliances aren't playing.

Why should people who don't actively play a game be rewarded with a stake in territory?
They shouldn't.

The newer players should be, who are active and vibrant.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Shijima wrote:

Agra, where are the new players coming from? They don't advertise, word of mouth at this point could be bad depending on how many now bitter players there are.

I prettymuch see new players every time I log in.

41 (edited by Egil 2011-12-07 20:37:45)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

It's all working as intended. If the big lazy alliances leave the game. We won't miss them.
The devs are clear with this patch. They don't want big stomping alliances owning beta! Intrusion 2.0 is all centered around corps spread across Nia. THIS is the game I want to play.

I even think that there should be a high penalty for one corp owning more stability than for example 140. So a bigger corp can't just stomp a smaller one out of their outpost.
In my eyes these are exciting changes. We'll see in the coming weeks how it plays out.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Trap Card wrote:
Shijima wrote:

Agra, where are the new players coming from? They don't advertise, word of mouth at this point could be bad depending on how many now bitter players there are.

I prettymuch see new players every time I log in.

And the peak server load is like 200 per day.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Shijima wrote:
Trap Card wrote:
Shijima wrote:

Agra, where are the new players coming from? They don't advertise, word of mouth at this point could be bad depending on how many now bitter players there are.

I prettymuch see new players every time I log in.

And the peak server load is like 200 per day.

Which is vastly above the server load a couple months ago when I would log on to see 80ish in general chat.

These days I log on and see 180+ in general chat alone.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Something that got dropped from the initial blog was being able to purchase stability.

Having to spend billions NIC to shutdown a SAP would be an alternative occasionally for large established corps.

It would have to be large enough so it couldn't easily be used to 'buy' stability on multiple Islands. It would also be an increasing cost based on the %.

So maybe 10 Million NIC to buy a SAP from 5%-15%, 100 Million for 15%-30%, 1 Billion for 30%-50%, 10 Billion for 50%-75% and 100 Billion over 75.

With SAPs going active 2 times per day, there aren't any corps that could currently pay 200 Billion NIC per day for very long.

SAP payments cancel the next SAP, meaning it wont go active so no loot.
Purchased SAP's are worth 5% regardless of the type of SAP.
Scheduled SAP's can't be purchased, its always for the next SAP.
If Corporation doesn't have enough NIC to cover the payment at the time the next SAP would get scheduled, it goes ahead.
SAPs can't be purchased consecutively.

Lets say station is at 45% and a passive SAP is scheduled to go active in 4 hours.
The corp expects that the next SAP after that will then fall into a period where they aren't likely to have defenders online.
They Choose the Pay-SAP option.
In 4 hours the SAP goes active, and they defend it succesfully.
Immeditaly, 10 Billion NIC is removed from the Corp wallet, the next SAP is cancelled, and the stability raises to 55%.
The next SAP will not be for at least 16 hours; the 8 hours for completing the current SAP and another 8 hours for the next SAP. Odds are it will be closer to 24 hours until the next SAP.

What this really does is give vetern corps something to do with the NIC they have been stockpilling, but it doesn't allow them to maintain high levels of stability for any length of time. They also can't do (2) in a row, nor could many corps afford to pay multiple outposts at high stability for very long.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Many F-navies has reported on the dev blog the problems we are talking here. I would thanks everyone who troll / flame / rage on us on the general and the forum... but after thinking this patch seems getting better and better.
For every fanboys specialised in the anti-gaming (i don't need to say that's Novablobers), i hope you realise the sillly situation you are and i hope you'll enjoy that patch.
Regards Anivia

46 (edited by Dazamin 2011-12-07 22:52:22)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Egil wrote:

It's all working as intended. If the big lazy alliances leave the game. We won't miss them.
The devs are clear with this patch. They don't want big stomping alliances owning beta! Intrusion 2.0 is all centered around corps spread across Nia. THIS is the game I want to play.

I even think that there should be a high penalty for one corp owning more stability than for example 140. So a bigger corp can't just stomp a smaller one out of their outpost.
In my eyes these are exciting changes. We'll see in the coming weeks how it plays out.


Aren't we all allowed to have fun in this game however we choose to play? Is it not possible to have good stuff for small gang PvP without making it mind numbingly boring / rage inducing for others?

I see the good points of this patch for the smaller PvP focused corps, but if you guys can't see some of the issues we're talking about, I think you're either a) Deliberately ignoring it or b) Think that your way is the only right way to play the game.

Also where are these Alpha corps who want outposts? I see the same names on them all so far

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

This is epic! See the problem is people are trying to hold mOre then what they need. Now being in a big alliance is more of a hassle with having to get huge numbers up organize a fleet every four to 16hours. Corps now have to be more self reliant then ever and if your corp doesn't have the ability to stand on its own even just a little bit a big alliance is gonna drain it's self out try to hold all there bases. Yes saps are a little to easy to capture I agree but I2.0 I think is the move in the right direction. It's gonna be more benoficial to be in a single stable corp then a huge alliance that relies on pure numbers to beat the compotition.

We are playing chess and the rest of perp is playing checkers.   http://stringcan.com/wp-content/uploads … 80x305.jpg     
http://www.youtube.com/user/Alkore321/videos

48 (edited by Arga 2011-12-07 23:50:03)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Dazamin wrote:

Aren't we all allowed to have fun in this game however we choose to play?

Also where are these Alpha corps who want outposts? I see the same names on them all so far

Choosing a play style doesn't mean you automatically get to have fun doing it, only that the game doesn't prevent you from doing it.

Direct case in point, sitting and mining for 8 hours is very boring for some players, while others find it enjoyable. If you hate mining, yet choose that play style, then you aren't going to have fun doing it.

Its 100% up to the player to find a style they want to play, and have fun doing it. If they choose to play some way they aren't have fun, then that's thier choice.

If your corporation is causing you to not have fun playing, instead of trying to change the game, change corporations.

---

Those alpha corps will show up if and when there is a power vacuum on beta.

Edit: Although I responded to your post Daz, I'm talking about players in general that aren't having fun.

49 (edited by Balfizar 2011-12-08 00:02:06)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Im not gonna quote arga but to me this is the best time for a few alpha corp to take out post and if your not worried about epeen then u all just live out of one OP you just have to be smart about it and if a group is willing to push contact me and I'll give you all the advice all the info you need to atleast give it a go but beta does mean pvp so u have to be ready for it.

I want this game to grow and flourish I will give as much help to a small group of alpha corps only info and suggestions no blue standing

We are playing chess and the rest of perp is playing checkers.   http://stringcan.com/wp-content/uploads … 80x305.jpg     
http://www.youtube.com/user/Alkore321/videos

50 (edited by Dazamin 2011-12-08 00:09:22)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

I see your point Arga, but my argument is essentially that there are two kinds of corp in an environment like beta in this game (most are actually a mix of the two but lean one way or the other). You have those that want to build sandcastles, and those that want to knock them down. Both need the other to make the game interesting, but if gameplay ends up favouring one over the other too much, one side will end up leaving, and when they leave, most of the purpose for the other side disappears too.

I would say 62nd lean towards knocking down sandcastles smile and I understand what they like about this system and don't think it all needs to be junked necessarily,  but I see from the other side that those who want to build their sandcastles feel like they got screwed and the game doesn't regard their playstyle as important, and if the game doesn't want those players, why should they stay? And if they don't stay who do you shoot?

Edit: I don't have any issues with more corps on beta, I would welcome it, but heres the thing, outposts are now easy to attack but hard to hold. You think a small new corp would hold an OP at any decent stability when ppl can get loot from hitting their SAPs?