151 (edited by Triglav 2011-12-09 23:15:00)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga wrote:

Alpha corps forming is more of a 'long term' prediction, assuming the game gets more players. If it doesn't get new players, then... well, that's not really worth mentioning.


Let's be honest. If it doesn't get new players, is it srsly worth playing? Cause the way I see it only new meat creates new sand, everything else is just same old pebbles on the same old height map.


EDIT: woo snipe!!!

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga wrote:

This is actually great news! But sort of goes into my theory that a second alliance will need to form that can withstand the SovNov, likely doing the same thing; holding an Island and fighting to make sure neither faction gets too many stabile outposts.

There is one thing wrong with your theory there, nobody needs to withstand us because I personally like a "live and let live" policy. For example, Hokk alliance hasn't attacked Novastrov's outposts since we settled the old scores, so we put aside our differences and agreed to leave each others outposts alone. Ofc we're all PVPers so roaming is always there and welcome, but we're enjoying beta and letting each other enjoy their beta experience.

I think the crucial thing is that another alliance needs to form that is not led by someone dumb enough who hasn't learned what happens when you come after us. I mean, after the last 4-5 alliances collapsed it should be pretty obvious that tagging our outposts means we start getting serious and pouring bots and pilots into a camp until there is nothing left on that alliance's particular Beta island.

So, unless someone has more then 9-10 thousand fitted heavies in stockpile, baaad idea. lol

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Thread is degenerating into 'who' is organized with 'whom' and how should 'we' organize to counter 'them'

Specific groups' behaviors and policies are well and good and difficult to keep out of the conversation, but we're talking about Game Mechanics here gentlemen and how to adjust game mechanics to better cater to all playstyles, thus attract more people to a FUN game. Face it, you can't change people, and you certainly should never change a game based on the current group x or group y behaviors and policies. I'm not making predictions on specific groups but time changes everything, and those 'relevant' today may be 'irrelevant' tomorrow.

Naismith wrote:

The patch by itself cannot change one fundamental thing: If I have 200 people and the enemy has 20, I can put 50 people at 4 different locations, pursuing different strategic objectives. Manpower and strategy always trumps tactics and opportunism.

This is precisely where the focus should be: change this 'fundamental thing'

Some people like to build empires and/or influence and manage lots of people and/or control large swaths of land and/or have long-term goals to work toward ...fine. Play your game and have the tools to build your empires. Have your alliances for all I care.

Some people like to chill with small groups and/or focus on skills and/or tactics and/or short term goals. Give them the tools to find advantages for that play style.

If one playstyle can dominate every aspect of a game, the game is BROKEN. Blob "I win" button blows for the second group, and trust me Mr. Empire Builders, you want the independents around to keep you from your goals or else you'll reach them easily and get bored.

After many many years of life in general, and MMOs specifically ...Devs, you will have $$$MAD MONEY$$$ if you can succeed at giving both these groups (lots of groups, really) tools to be successful in their own playstyle.

Good Luck

back to mechanics....

Give me some NPC feedback bitgiz

Sparking to other games

154

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Syndic u little ho you don't have 9k mechs in store, I have chat logs of CIR players whining about missing fittings, keep spouting your propoganda, you've killed the game for your pvpers, just a shame they were too dumb to realise what happened.  Your last 50+ man squad had exactly 11 CIR people in it all of them multiboxing shared accounts, I know I was one of them lol.  Keep going brosef wink

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Putting aside the incredibly trollesque, lying and for some reason bitter post by Jelan, the thing about intrusions is that its a game mechanic introduced by the developers and tuned by the developers as they see fiit rather than self regulating. GIGO.

Player built stations, fueled shields and similar, and less of this artificial themeparkesque stuff.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

I'll skip the middle steps of me posting screenshots of corp storage, you claiming its photoshopped, and just come up with the universal reply:

roll

157 (edited by Celebro 2011-12-10 02:45:56)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Naismith wrote:

I'll skip the middle steps of me posting screenshots of corp storage, you claiming its photoshopped, and just come up with the universal reply:

roll

I want to see it anyways I'll certify photo shop free inspection smile

RIP PERPETUUM

158 (edited by Lupus Aurelius 2011-12-10 03:49:48)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Naismith wrote:

... For example, Hokk alliance hasn't attacked Novastrov's outposts since we settled the old scores, so we put aside our differences and agreed to leave each others outposts alone. ...

:::debates if to troll, decides logic and reason will prevail instead:::

I must have missed something, because I do not recall any such agreement.  All I recall was one conversation where I, and later Saramara, stated that we have no intention of taking control of any outposts other than on Hokk.  If we are roaming and find a fight, we'll fight if we can, if we see an active sap, well hell, if we feel like it we'll screw with it, or hang out to ninja a can, or screw around with a solo guy like we did on Koykilli the other night.  But we have no intention of taking any outpost for ourselves outside Hokk Island.

That being said, the new intrusion mechanics have both good and bad.  It still has the capablity to be an alarm clock megablod the way it is currently handled.  Most of the arguements have already been stated, so instead of repeating them, I will merely state some possible corrections, either individually or as a total group. Remember, the idea here was to :
-Make it so a corp had to be active at that location to take and keep the outpost
-To reduce gang/corp size (da blob) from being the major deciding factor
-Create some benefit to actually owning an oupost ( upgrades and auras)
-To leave opportunity for a determined and dedicated group to have an impact on the above.

--Get rid of the on island timers:  Really, you can jump on an island and see instantly if any sap is active on that island?  Too damn easy button mode.  Make it so that a squad or individual actually has to be near the sap to tell if it is active.
--Get rid of the probes: The idea is to make it so a corp has to be active on that island and outpost to take it or keep it.  That should mean that they have to actually OBSERVE when the sap is active.  Under either situation, if your group is active at that location, they will see it, if not active there, they will not. Really, once or twice a day, go to outpost and drop a half mil probe and bingo, instant horn of gondor, absolute knowledge when and where and who, and the alarm clocks get set...
--Give a benefit to the owning corp for timers:  The owning corp should be able to know beforehand when the sap becomes active after achieving control of over a certain level.  Security of 20, or 25, no more than 50, gives the "owner" a timer that shows them when it is next active.
-Give the defender the opportunity to close the sap, or reduce the active time from 1 hour to 30 mins, or increase the time for an attacker to actually take the sap, instead of a defender having to stand there for an hour, whereas an attacker or someone screwing with security level can do it in 2.5 minutes with a 3 man light ewar gang evasive module and shield fit. It's not balanced currently.  Really, 1 hr vs 2.5 minutes....

It's a change, and some of it is pretty good, some of it not.  I like that a small determined group of ppl can have an impact.  And frankly, all the qq about omg we have to do a sap every 2 hours, well was said earlier by someone else, maybe you have too many outposts.  In that respect, I think the changes are excellent, promote smaller footprints, and limit control for a corp of outposts regardless of it's size.  Newer entities then would have opportunity to actually be able to get out on beta, or at least have an inpact on there.

Right now it is too easy, but that does not mean the framework is necessarily bad for the game, it just needs some balancing out so that no one gets an "easy button".  Good grades for effort devs, but not for the implementation.  Effort/risk vs reward, after all...

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Addendum instead of editing my post again...

As far as the final point, the 1 hr vs. 2.5 minute thing, forgot to mention that in many cases, if you have to rebot for the situation, 2.5 minutes is not enough time for someone or a gang to get back to an outpost. change bots, undock, and kill what needs to be killed. Depends on the outpost and terrain, but i would defy most to achieve that in that period of time.  At the same time, it should not be so long that a massive blob gets to come over and instapop you off of it. 

As far as closing the sap, or reducing the intrusion time, I was not clear in my suggestion. 

There should be some activity or action a corp has to perform in order to achieve that, and that action should also give enough time that some can counter it.  It also should not be a 2.5 minute, boom, closed activity, otherwise it too becomes an "easy button"

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

160 (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-12-10 06:45:55)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Lupus Aurelius wrote:
Naismith wrote:

... For example, Hokk alliance hasn't attacked Novastrov's outposts since we settled the old scores, so we put aside our differences and agreed to leave each others outposts alone. ...

:::debates if to troll, decides logic and reason will prevail instead:::

I must have missed something, because I do not recall any such agreement.  All I recall was one conversation where I, and later Saramara, stated that we have no intention of taking control of any outposts other than on Hokk.  If we are roaming and find a fight, we'll fight if we can, if we see an active sap, well hell, if we feel like it we'll screw with it, or hang out to ninja a can, or screw around with a solo guy like we did on Koykilli the other night.  But we have no intention of taking any outpost for ourselves outside Hokk Island.

That being said, the new intrusion mechanics have both good and bad.  It still has the capablity to be an alarm clock megablod the way it is currently handled.  Most of the arguements have already been stated, so instead of repeating them, I will merely state some possible corrections, either individually or as a total group. Remember, the idea here was to :
-Make it so a corp had to be active at that location to take and keep the outpost
-To reduce gang/corp size (da blob) from being the major deciding factor
-Create some benefit to actually owning an oupost ( upgrades and auras)
-To leave opportunity for a determined and dedicated group to have an impact on the above.

--Get rid of the on island timers:  Really, you can jump on an island and see instantly if any sap is active on that island?  Too damn easy button mode.  Make it so that a squad or individual actually has to be near the sap to tell if it is active.
--Get rid of the probes: The idea is to make it so a corp has to be active on that island and outpost to take it or keep it.  That should mean that they have to actually OBSERVE when the sap is active.  Under either situation, if your group is active at that location, they will see it, if not active there, they will not. Really, once or twice a day, go to outpost and drop a half mil probe and bingo, instant horn of gondor, absolute knowledge when and where and who, and the alarm clocks get set...
--Give a benefit to the owning corp for timers:  The owning corp should be able to know beforehand when the sap becomes active after achieving control of over a certain level.  Security of 20, or 25, no more than 50, gives the "owner" a timer that shows them when it is next active.
-Give the defender the opportunity to close the sap, or reduce the active time from 1 hour to 30 mins, or increase the time for an attacker to actually take the sap, instead of a defender having to stand there for an hour, whereas an attacker or someone screwing with security level can do it in 2.5 minutes with a 3 man light ewar gang evasive module and shield fit. It's not balanced currently.  Really, 1 hr vs 2.5 minutes....

It's a change, and some of it is pretty good, some of it not.  I like that a small determined group of ppl can have an impact.  And frankly, all the qq about omg we have to do a sap every 2 hours, well was said earlier by someone else, maybe you have too many outposts.  In that respect, I think the changes are excellent, promote smaller footprints, and limit control for a corp of outposts regardless of it's size.  Newer entities then would have opportunity to actually be able to get out on beta, or at least have an inpact on there.

Right now it is too easy, but that does not mean the framework is necessarily bad for the game, it just needs some balancing out so that no one gets an "easy button".  Good grades for effort devs, but not for the implementation.  Effort/risk vs reward, after all...

The probes serve the purpose of allowing a small determined corp to make a difference. And allowing the owning corps not to have to probe does nothing to help prove that the owners of the outpost need to be dominant on the island... if it's going to tell them it's gonna happen what's the difference between this and the probes?

You seem to have muddled opinions on mechanics and have succeeded in contradicting yourself.

Back on subject, i think the approach of making small tweaks to the system now that we've got a blueprint set out is a good idea. I'd like to see this 1 hour wait for defense move into something more active... as it's very boring and is anti-fun. Maybe the defending corp has to wait 15 minutes after go live to take it themselves or something?

161

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

BandwagonX9000 wrote:

Putting aside the incredibly trollesque, lying and for some reason bitter post by Jelan, the thing about intrusions is that its a game mechanic introduced by the developers and tuned by the developers as they see fiit rather than self regulating. GIGO.

Player built stations, fueled shields and similar, and less of this artificial themeparkesque stuff.

Please share which bit of my post is a lie, I'm all ears wink

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Jelan wrote:

Syndic u little ho you don't have 9k mechs in store, I have chat logs of CIR players whining about missing fittings, keep spouting your propoganda, you've killed the game for your pvpers, just a shame they were too dumb to realise what happened.  Your last 50+ man squad had exactly 11 CIR people in it all of them multiboxing shared accounts, I know I was one of them lol.  Keep going brosef wink

Jelan, my little bro, we do have over 9000 mechs.

Check your sources.

You seem upset, and very hurt, why the sad faces brosefina?


Love,
GLiMPSE

163 (edited by Mark Zima 2011-12-10 15:36:43)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Dear devs, thank you very much for killing my game(play) and goals.
The only thing on my mind now when I log in is how *** the new system is.
It only took 7 intrusion events to bring my respect to you from 100 to 0. Working as intended.

164 (edited by Gharl Incognito 2011-12-10 15:49:11)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

"Maybe the defending corp has to wait 15 minutes after go live to take it themselves or something?"

not a bad idea... maybe make it a little longer though.

Sociorum, inimicos, omnes

-:does speak for NSA on the forums:-

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Jelan wrote:
BandwagonX9000 wrote:

Putting aside the incredibly trollesque, lying and for some reason bitter post by Jelan, the thing about intrusions is that its a game mechanic introduced by the developers and tuned by the developers as they see fiit rather than self regulating. GIGO.

Player built stations, fueled shields and similar, and less of this artificial themeparkesque stuff.

Please share which bit of my post is a lie, I'm all ears wink


Jelan can you please explain why so many have jumped ship to 62nd, and you have not done the same?

Not a troll, I personally would love to know, well I already know why, but I want the rest of the community to know why, and to come from a "credible" source.

Thanks Buddy

On a side note, this is just the start.  What will happen is players will get burned out on the grind, and either move to alpha, or just quit playing.

Just Sayin
01000110 01110010 01100101 01100101 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 01110010 01110011
smileneutralsadbig_smileyikeswinkhmmtonguelolmadrollcoolyarr

166

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

GLiMPSE wrote:
Jelan wrote:

Syndic u little ho you don't have 9k mechs in store, I have chat logs of CIR players whining about missing fittings, keep spouting your propoganda, you've killed the game for your pvpers, just a shame they were too dumb to realise what happened.  Your last 50+ man squad had exactly 11 CIR people in it all of them multiboxing shared accounts, I know I was one of them lol.  Keep going brosef wink

Jelan, my little bro, we do have over 9000 mechs.

Check your sources.

You seem upset, and very hurt, why the sad faces brosefina?


Love,
GLiMPSE

We all know what CIR has over 9000 of wink

167 (edited by Mark Zima 2011-12-10 17:11:54)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Before ragequitting I'll put a list of steps necessary to fix the [s]completely broken[/s] incorrectly balanced system within the current framework:

1) Remove outpost lockdown completely, like it never existed. It will also automatically solve alliance problem (at least the largest part of it).
2) SAP attack time and SAP defence time should be equal, forces necessary for capture and defence should also be equal. This will move stability balance to 50 and allow to maintain facility levels (at least) comparable to the previous system.
3) The whole intrusion event should not consume more than 30 minutes of game time per day. One 20-30-min event daily would be reasonable and will reduce burnout.
4) Optionally (and the only benefit for defender): allow outpost owners to move the next event +-1 hr relative to the scanned time. This should reduce alarm clocking, but will disadvantage the attacker.

168 (edited by Celebro 2011-12-10 17:52:04)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mark Zima wrote:

3) The whole intrusion event should not consume more than 30 minutes of game time per day. One 20-30-min event daily would be reasonable and will reduce burnout.


30min of game time per day only? Should consume most of your game time and get rewarded for it. Or does not corp get rewards from outposts? This is end game get used to it.

This is a problem with corporation structures/incentives, they have to suit the game mechanics and start rewarding individuals not the other way round.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mark Zima wrote:

Before ragequitting I'll put a list of steps necessary to fix the [s]completely broken[/s] incorrectly balanced system within the current framework:

1) Remove outpost lockdown completely, like it never existed. It will also automatically solve alliance problem (at least the largest part of it).
2) SAP attack time and SAP defence time should be equal, forces necessary for capture and defence should also be equal. This will move stability balance to 50 and allow to maintain facility levels (at least) comparable to the previous system.
3) The whole intrusion event should not consume more than 30 minutes of game time per day. One 20-30-min event daily would be reasonable and will reduce burnout.
4) Optionally (and the only benefit for defender): allow outpost owners to move the next event +-1 hr relative to the scanned time. This should reduce alarm clocking, but will disadvantage the attacker.

I2.0 consumes 0 time per day for those that don't want to earn Beta territory, it is called Alpha.  Rage quite or move to Alpha.  I2.0 is doing great things by separating those that want to work for the territory and those that are carebears in wolves clothing.

Small tweeks, baby steps, bright future! wink

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mark Zima wrote:

1) Remove outpost lockdown completely, like it never existed. It will also automatically solve alliance problem (at least the largest part of it).

um? what problem within alliances does exist there?

*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: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mark Zima wrote:


3) The whole intrusion event should not consume more than 30 minutes of game time per day. One 20-30-min event daily would be reasonable and will reduce burnout.

Disagree, one hour for any single event. It's one of the backbones that will keep people logging in if they wish to own many stations. Sorry Mark, I wish you could see the foresight in that timer decision.

Anyhow let's see how it works.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

Disagree, one hour for any single event. It's one of the backbones that will keep people logging in if they wish to own many stations. Sorry Mark, I wish you could see the foresight in that timer decision.

Anyhow let's see how it works.

Yes, let us wait.

Meanwhile I'll put my money somewhere else until the direction of the game and the dev agenda shifts gears.

173

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

2) SAP attack time and SAP defence time should be equal, forces necessary for capture and defence should also be equal. This will move stability balance to 50 and allow to maintain facility levels (at least) comparable to the previous system.

I couldn't disagree more. Outpost ownership should be dynamically unstable;that is need continual input to maintain stability.

Long before 2.0 I kept throwing out that outpost ownership was a broken king of the hill model, meaning all the benefits of owning an outpost made it almost impossible for any non-outpost owner to unthrone them.

Balancing the intrusion system around 50% stability would create the same type of broken model.

I would also ask "Why" outpost balance should favor the defender?

The Defender gets all the perks of owning the outpost. The attacker gets nothing for winning the SAP, although they may get the loot, they get no benefit other then denying the defender bonuses.

The shorter the SAP is active the more it favors the defender. Of course defenders want to close their own SAPs, because it gives attackers a smaller window of opportunity; and why we keep seeing requests for shorter SAP activation times.

Where the issue lies, and its been said 34 times so far in various threads, is the burden of continual input has to be spread across a suffciently large number of players to prevent burn-out. But making it too easy to keep an outpost leads to bordom, which is just as bad; actually it may be worse, because action entices new players to replace the burned out ones.

Its better to approach the balance between burn-out and bordom from the burn-out side, that is error on the side of Action, and tweak it down. The fact that outposts aren't lost if eveyone takes a day off already means alot of the burn-out is player created hype and not from the game mechanics.

174

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

BandwagonX9000 wrote:

Meanwhile I'll put my money somewhere else until the direction of the game and the dev agenda shifts gears.

Shifts to what, back to the status quo?

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga, you could disagree all you want since you have no idea of what you are talking about.
I'm sick of theorycrafters arguing with experience. Go put your assets in a lockable outpost and defend a few 1 hr intrusions. For a few days straight. For very small benefits of actually owning the outpost**. THEN shine with your infinite wisdom.

**The only real benefit of being on beta is epriton access. And you don't need to own an outpost for it.