Re: Walls :: first impressions

Someone has to have a pic!

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Jita wrote:

Well first of all fit for the job, not the roam. You can fit for wall breaking, operate close to the teleports and as your shooting at rats never flag. That means your enemy has to hold every external or basically they will lose all walls in running distance to the teleport.

Its an adapt or die situation really. Look at the situation and make it work, dont make excuses.

So you're advocating a tactic that is, when all is said and done, an exploit? Right.

Arga wrote:

There is LESS PVP without going through or TP'ing around walls, but it hasn't reduced it to 0.

This isn't a good thing - this is a game that needs PvP to stimulate the economy and keep miners and builders in business. Otherwise, who are you mining and building for? Ratters shouldn't be losing bots against NPCs, unless they're new and/or stupid, and less PvP means less bots and modules being bought, slowly stalling the economy and driving players away.

As I've said above, I'm all for walls in some form, but uncontrolled wallspam and methods of removal that are uneconomical compared to the cost of building are not a good combination.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

@M

You took the quote out of context of the reset of the thread.

Small gank squad PVP has lessened, not to 0, but combat vs combat PVP around Outposts has increased. Resulting in overall more stuff blowing up. The point of contention is that those players that lived for the run and gun PVP are getting less action, while mechs and heavies are being used more.

Its a long thread, and it's probably run its course.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Arga wrote:
Lupus Aurelius wrote:

The perspectives, they are astonding...

Here is what walls have done.  In order to get any pvp, you have to set up to punch thru walls,

I stopped reading there, because its not true, as your're implying 100% of PVP requires breaking down walls.

There is LESS PVP without going through or TP'ing around walls, but it hasn't reduced it to 0.

Well you stopped reading right there, so all you have is assumptions, and no grounds for comment.

Here's the difference between you and many of us.  Most of us who pvp on beta also do mining, hauling and manufacturing there, as well as pvp and defense ops.  Whereas you only mine, haul, and manufacture.  So it's hard to take any arguement from you concerning the viablity of nonconsensual and random pvp ( and yes, in the context of beta, consensual pvp is a bad thing Arga, because without it there are no risks to justify the rewards) on beta with the current wall mechanics and spamming seriously, because by your own admittance, you don't do it.

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

Re: Walls :: first impressions

By your own admittance, you have a mining alt, but your primary fun is the PVP. So when an Island gets locked down by a roam, you happily log out your miner and do what you really like, fight.

Yea for you.

At least I try to have some regard for both types of players, and understanding of the issues. Your stance simply seems to be that beta living is only for PVP players and industrial only players can just sit back and wait until the true Perpetuum players get done having thier fun.

81 (edited by Lupus Aurelius 2012-02-08 00:14:07)

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Ville wrote:
Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Ville wrote:

I don't think someone appreciated the picture of that rooster on their island sad

eh? post a pic smile


So what your saying is only you should live on Beta because you formed the biggest EU timezone blob?  *News Flash*  We have killed people In walled off areas, outside of walled off areas and between them.  Because you want an Easy roll a EU Blob through the gates and zerg a SAP and then run off then go "We are trying to get a fight." and you can't now.

No.

And btw, I was not refering to any group specifically ( well, maybe one).  Sorry to burst your bubble, you are not the center that Hokk alliance revolves it's guns around.

Edit:  And as far as the pvp since CIR's exit, I actually think it was the healthiest I'd seen in awhile.  No one had a totally overwhelming numbers advantage.  For the most part, things were pretty balanced as far as powerblocs.  And for some, I do think that was an issue.  It's a hard thing to go from nigh unto total domination to being on equal par or weaker the the majority of everyone else.  Instead of rebuilding to a competent force satisfied to at least somewhat hold their own, for some the walls must have seemed a god send, a way of offsetting that loss of firepower.  Others, who have managed to make enemies all around and were having a hard time sustaining against them, the walls must seem a way to save their collective *** from most of the server.  Regardless, personally, I see it as the more insecure you are, the more walls you build.  But that is just my opinion.

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

82 (edited by Arga 2012-02-08 00:45:03)

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Ignoring all the ramifications of the walls, they are just plain fun to build. Thinking stragegically, how will this wall change traffic flow, can a wall here do this or that. Its also fun to have players attack the walls, see where mistakes where made, and correct them. Its really feels like the sandbox world that was promised, or at least a taste of it.


Edit: http://xkcd.com/1013/

83 (edited by zwiss 2012-02-08 17:57:47)

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Arga wrote:

Small gank squad PVP has lessened, not to 0, but combat vs combat PVP around Outposts has increased. Resulting in overall more stuff blowing up. The point of contention is that those players that lived for the run and gun PVP are getting less action, while mechs and heavies are being used more.

This statement is baffling. I see no evidence that this is true, at all. All walls have done is make it harder to get anywhere near outposts. They're a ludicrous brake on PvP, which is the only thing - as M already pointed out - which provides a motor for the player-driven economy the developers have built.

I'm definitely not objecting to player-built structures, but the current implementation of walls is spammy and game-breaky. It's simply not well executed, and definitely hampering all PvP, not just gank skirmish stuff.

I'm all for finding a way to protect miners and so on, but right now people can wall up entire islands. It's too much.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

@zwiss

Check the KB, there's plenty of PVP happening, the good type with Pew-Pew and not Run-Pew.

The thing with walls, and I quote "If 1 wall is good, 2 is better".

Ludicrous is a nice word, but it's an egregious overstatement of the situation.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

zwiss - they either wall up the island, or shoot you down at the teleporter

which one do you prefer? walls can be broken...

*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

86 (edited by Lupus Aurelius 2012-02-08 18:50:59)

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Arga wrote:

@zwiss

Check the KB, there's plenty of PVP happening, the good type with Pew-Pew and not Run-Pew.

The thing with walls, and I quote "If 1 wall is good, 2 is better".

Ludicrous is a nice word, but it's an egregious overstatement of the situation.

You don't pvp, how would you know what is good and what is not?!?!?!?!?!?!  Making such a commentary, that is wat is both ludicrous and egregious.

ps:
New: Defensive walls are now decaying by 3-5 HP every 8 hours and when they reach 0 HP they get destroyed (a fully grown wall has 255 HP).
Change: Weapon damage resistance in walls and plants is now calculated after the sum of all damage types, and not per damage type.

Now they have to be maintained.  Best set up a maintenance schedule, the more walls you have, the harder it will be to keep up.

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

Re: Walls :: first impressions

@lupus

If you can't argue the issue then discredit the author.

I don't have to be a tactical PVP player to understand and elucidate PVP theory.

Ddebunk my statements if you can, if my lack of PVP is such a hinderance, it should be easy for you.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Can you please stop with the WEIRD WORDS! tongue

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Arga wrote:

@lupus

If you can't argue the issue then discredit the author.

I don't have to be a tactical PVP player to understand and elucidate PVP theory.

Ddebunk my statements if you can, if my lack of PVP is such a hinderance, it should be easy for you.

Understand?  Theorists there are plenty of, armchair generals and quarterbacks, art critics, etc.  You may "understand" everything about art and oil painting, but could you paint a Mona Lisa?

If I spoke to a professor of military history about Tobruk, and also with Rommel or Patton, who do you think I would listen to?  And who would I pick to fight a similar battle?  Don't get me wrong, when I first started playing stEVE, I was an EFT warrior, and no one could convince me that one should not normally fit a self rep on a ship, that a buffer tank, preferably a shield one, was the way to go.  After 6 months of fighting that concept, take a wild guess what happened?  And that was due to experience, the realization that what is on paper and what the actuality was are 2 different things.  Experience is the fire in which knowledge is tempered.

And as of yet, I have not seen any objective evidence to substantiate any assertation you have made on this topic.  Otherwise, I would debate the "facts", but as of yet all you have offered is subjective opinion.  At least if there was experience to back up that opinion, it would at least be an informed opinion.

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

Re: Walls :: first impressions

I'm not trying to tell you how to engage in PVP tactially, so using your analogy, I'm not trying to paint the mona lisa, I'm telling you that the Mona Lisa is a Portrait with a landscape background using color perspectives and shadows in the Sfumato style.

I'm also not talking about specific PVP battles.

Assertion: PVP is dead
Factual response: Perp-Kill board
Fail debat response: Arga dosen't PVP

Re: Walls :: first impressions

________________________________________________________________________________________

Patch was terrible for my corp. We bought 1 thing, what became useless and without reimburcement.

To support sandbox, to remove this erection phase from walls i propose next:

1. Remove all walls, charges, modules from players and terrain.
2. Reimburse money for walls and charges and modules.
3. Revert last wall changes to its previous mechanics.
3. Make restriction for walls: you can build walls not closer that 1 km to structures and only in a zone (or in a certain range) where you have your outpost: this will restrict wall spamming at territory what not yours.
4. (optional) You can add condition: you can build a wall near your outpost with stability 50+, to support territorial warfare.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

That could work, unlike Norgalis issue they had, all walls and charges needed to be purchased off the market, so they can reverse those transactions.

I doubt they will do that though, however there better be some kind of bloggy explainations or less tolerent players may be upset.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Also Zoom, please fix the dev Blog which says

Deployable walls

Also as an early herald of PBS, we’ll give you the possibility to build persistent walls for passive defense of your territory.

As this is no longer accurate.

94 (edited by Lupus Aurelius 2012-02-08 20:22:55)

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Lupus Aurelius wrote:

The perspectives, they are astonding...

Here is what walls have done.  In order to get any pvp, you have to set up to punch thru walls, get to and destroy or avoid probes, and make sure everyone has at least a mobile teleport with them.  By the time you actually get to your objective, you have spent at least an hour getting there, and your opponents have had all the time needed to dock up if they cannot engage, or batphone everyone working with them to get to there.

Meanwhile, all the mining types are having a field day, literally, mining and hauling with almost no risk of any threat getting to them before they can dock up.  They are still reaping the rewards of beta living, but with no substantial risk to justify those greater gains.

Whereas in the past people actually had to scout out their area of operations, and have a defensive force available to defend assets on the field or SAPs, now all you have to do is wall spam the hell out of an island.  You can't even get in and out to even scan for sap timers, and by the time you punch thru the walls, you're lucky if you can get to a SAP before the intrusion completes.

The only way to counter this is a massive blob with the firepower to punch thru relatively quickly.  One wall takes little time to get thru if you can set up properly around it, but multiple double thickness walls, even a huge gang takes too much time to actually get to the objective.  Due to this, you are seeing alot of outposts sit at 100% stablity, because no one can be bothered to actually take the time and effort, and marshall enough manpower, to actually try and take the SAPS.

Ther was huge crying by the same individuals now advocating walls against the change from being able to jump on an island to having to actually be within 1000 meters of an active SAP to detect it. The arguement used was that "it was too much effort and risk" to be able to scan the SAP times ( yes I am refering to 62nd) and that it would "shut down random pvp due to active SAPs".  It did not, there was actually significant pvp going on after the change. 

The real issue here was that some corps and alliances were starting to get their heads handed to them, and were seeing greater activity targeted against them due to that.  Walls for them came at a perfect time, because it allowed them to make it so difficult that the majority of people actually fighing them can't now be bothered to spend all the time to be able to get a fight, only to find that if the oponent does not have 2 to 1 odds they have docked up and disappeared.

I ask the DEVs to keep in mind that what is good for dynamic gameplay, and what causes a stagnant environment, and not be swayed by personal agendas.  Some defensive structures should be allowed, but not indiscriminate spamming all over an island.  there should be a range and limitation mechanic, like a nanopump hub that has to be energised, or tied to an outpost ownership and the region of that outpost, or some sort of maintenance fee, that limits use of walls to absolutely necessary defensive implacements only, and not just who has the most cash to fill in every available slot in the landscape and turn the beta islands into, effecticely, alpha, with no risk but greater rewards.


Arga, this is what I said ^^^^^^

Show me where I said pvp is dead.

When you decide to factually quote me, I will happily debate the issues, but I will not when you make something up and portray it as something I said.

Now what i did say, condensed - you want to be able to utilize beta island resources without the risk associated.

In the gods we trust, all others bring data!

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Annihilator wrote:

zwiss - they either wall up the island, or shoot you down at the teleporter

which one do you prefer? walls can be broken...

I *wish* people would shoot me at the teleporter. Most of the time they are sat in their outposts...

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Arga wrote:

Also Zoom, please fix the dev Blog which says

Deployable walls

Also as an early herald of PBS, we’ll give you the possibility to build persistent walls for passive defense of your territory.

As this is no longer accurate.

I respectfully disagree. It actually became persistent just now, instead of being eternal.

97 (edited by zwiss 2012-02-08 20:42:32)

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Arga wrote:

@zwiss

Check the KB, there's plenty of PVP happening, the good type with Pew-Pew and not Run-Pew.

It'd be great if the killboard was a totally accurate picture of what is happening, but of course it is not.  I am talking about what actually happens when you take a squad out pvping, which I've done most nights since walls were introduced. Walls have made it less interesting and much slower for PvPers - and that's not a good thing for people who pay their subscription to get an open pvp game.

Walls essentially reduce the risk of getting killed on beta - and where is the fun in that? The entertainment value in this game is *taking risks*. If you want to just grind up money and make stuff, why not stick to alpha?

Re: Walls :: first impressions

per·sist·ent/pərˈsistənt/


1 existing for a long or longer than usual time or continuously: as a: retained beyond the usual period
<a persistent leaf>
b: continuing without change in function or structure.

The items in my inventory and bot are persistant, not just because they survive me logging in and out, but because they require an action on my part (or another player) to cease to exist.

Walls now degrade and disappear, without player intervention. If you apply your disagreement with this defination, then we could also expect out inventories to slowy dissaper too.

Your free to introduce decay as a revamp to the wall structure, but it no longer makes it persistant as it pertains to the rest of the mechanics in Perp.

Re: Walls :: first impressions

Well you conveniently omitted the rest of its meanings. Also, I don't think we ever used the word "persistent" for your inventory, but whatever, it's really not constructive to argue about semantics here...

100 (edited by Arga 2012-02-08 21:29:55)

Re: Walls :: first impressions

It's not.

So, were chatting in IRC.

Why not just make the walls temporary in a manner that doesn't require mind numbing upkeep? Like 100% for 30 days, then they disappear, and not self growing?


Edit: I can't resist smile you also conveintely ignored the definitions that didn't fit tongue