Reading through the intrusion blogs again, I really don't think defenders are expected to win every intrusion.
Dev Blog wrote:To make another example on the big picture, if you own an outpost with 100 stability, you have to lose about 7-8 intrusions in a row (7*15=105, depends on SAP types of course) to lose that outpost. This means around 3-5 days of minimum buffer time, depending on how much the gods of randomness favor you (ie. the 8-16 hour intervals).
There are (4) types of possible intrusions, and by far the speciman highly favors the outpost owner, and it provide 2x the stability of a passive SAP.
Defense without attackers is boring. It doesn't matter what game your playing, sitting around waiting to be attacked really does suck. This is why roaming become so popular in the first place.
Ville wrote:I have seen this for two days now. Defenders engage the main attackers kill them all, the attackers gather more people and refit to counter the defenders who have left a respectable smaller defense group on the sap and while the main group engages the attackers a Single Trioar MK2 comes in sits on the Sap tanks 2 heavy mechs various assaults and two other trioar mk2s draining it. Then takes the sap.
this sounds like PVP ...
When intrusions were every 3 days and people had to sign up, very little PVP happened. It was all roaming.
Outpost owners now have to actually come out to defend daily, which by all accounts have triggered a very large amount of PVP battles, which is exactly what everyone wanted. The exact opposite of boring.
There's only a 1-4 chance the SAP will be passive and vulnerable to the ninja ewars, and you lose 10%. If the attacking force is larger and ready to take any of the SAPs, or continues to attack for the whole hour, than that's PVP brough to your doorstep!
Its just my opinion, but I dont think a corp with 50 active players should hold an outpost. They CAN do it, but they'll have to play everyday, 3-4 hours a day to do it. A corp with 600 players should be able to easily stabilize an outpost, although they may lose a SAP now and then anyway.
The fact that we don't have the server population to support corps of that size, in and of it self, doesn't mean that the mechanics should change so 50 man corps can have outposts at 100%.
Not to get too far off topic, but our population is HIGHLY fractured. Player are holding onto corporate identities, which is great, but its making the game very hard to play. If alliance tools will allow 10 corps of 30 players each to have and hold an outpost, then maybe that's what's needed, not SAP changes.
except for Destruction, where doubling the armor and having it start at 1/2 is just too good of an idea to ignore, because it doesn't give the defender an automatic bonus, they have to actually go out and actively heal it up. Other suggestions like that, which makes the SAP's more interesting and not just easier to defend, make the game better.