1 Topic by Celebro (edited by Celebro 2012-03-15 17:26:09)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Topic: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Intrusion has not had the impact I expected, simply because its an alarm clock game mechanic that mostly it's just wait an hour just to defend, the new system improves on the old one but I don't think its what we needed.

With gamma patch getting closer, I would suggest we turn beta into a different kind of defence and conquer system connected to the lure of the game as well as add more of a PVE flavour , whilst removing alarm clocking and scanning.


The stability OP mechanic will remain as is, but what would change is how we can raise or lower stability:

Each faction in beta islands, will only have an opposing faction mobs on the island, that would be the hardest one for that faction (e.g blue beta island-thelodica mobs only). Your aim to raise stability would be to sign up to your chosen OP as a corp and gain stability by killing mobs in the island. Obviously you will gain favour with the island faction and as a result stability mechanic will raise. Each player will gain faction points for killing mobs averaging out all together within a corp and will raise this new standing. Larger corps will need less overall average to gain stability in order to avoid alt corps, not so sure about how it would work out.

Attackers will need to lower standing by either signing up to your outpost ( with a sign up fee) for control and kill mobs or prevent you from killing mobs as stability will slowly degrade with time.

This keeps with the lure of the game opposing factions at war with each other and players helping them out. Players will need to be active on that island instead of showing up only to an intrusion. No more looking for saps, no more scanning, if you want an outpost you gain good relations with that faction.

RIP PERPETUUM
  • ETHOS
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

+1
A quite interesting idea!
Personally I think "alarmclock dependent" activities should be avoided for an as dynamic game world as possible. A change like this, or at least something similar would be great big_smile

  • AIC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Its the waiting around for an hour that is really annoying about the new system, thought it occasionally results in a good battle (but usually starting within a few minutes).

I really like this idea alot Celebro I think it would result in players having a more active prescense on their island and more targets roaming about which could ultimately lead to more PvP. It also fits in with the lore quite well.

You potentially could add the new system on top of the current sap mechanic as a way to increase beta activity also while leaving the sap timer scanning system in place.

+1

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

4 Reply by Celebro (edited by Celebro 2012-03-15 18:33:30)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Sundial wrote:

Its the waiting around for an hour that is really annoying about the new system, thought it occasionally results in a good battle (but usually starting within a few minutes).

I really like this idea alot Celebro I think it would result in players having a more active prescense on their island and more targets roaming about which could ultimately lead to more PvP. It also fits in with the lore quite well.

You potentially could add the new system on top of the current sap mechanic as a way to increase beta activity also while leaving the sap timer scanning system in place.

+1


I hybrid system of intrusions and the PVE stability mechanic could work well together too, ultimately reducing the number of boring intrusion defenses needed. Devs could also add some specially op mission to raise stability.

RIP PERPETUUM
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Couple things.

Opposing faction NPC's don't really mean anything, because corps can and will, simply farm with the appropriate bots.

This trades off "Alarm Clock" intrusions for "Marathon Sessions", the format here rewards extended play - the more bots you can kill in 1 day the faster you'll stabilze.

Once your stabilized, your 'roaming' enemy is going to have to come over to 'farm' the NPC's to lower your stability. Even if there is a bonus of say 50%, if the defenders do an 18 hour marathon session on the weekend, the attackers would have to be in enemy territory, farming npc's for 9 hours to to undo just 1 defeneder session.

There's also a hole in how one would initially win an outpost. Assuming ownerships are reset when something like this were implemented and (2) or more corps signed up for the same outpost, how would that work?

In the 'owned' scenerio, it seems like if the owner killed enough to get to 100%, then each kill by the attacking party would lower that 100% and raise their %?

With both contestants at 0%, what would determine which of the 2 corps signed up would get control?

Or, in many cases there would be no one willing to 'sign up'. So getting to 100% is just a NPC grind with no PVP at all without 'quick attack' incentive like a SAP.

tl-dr: Beta outpost should promote PVP action not PVE. Grinding NPC's for stability is just that, a grind, and highly out balance attack/defense to the defensive, this is especially true for any corp that managed to get even 18 hour time zone coverage.

6 Reply by Sundial (edited by Sundial 2012-03-15 19:12:34)

  • AIC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Arga wrote:

Couple things.

Opposing faction NPC's don't really mean anything, because corps can and will, simply farm with the appropriate bots.

This trades off "Alarm Clock" intrusions for "Marathon Sessions", the format here rewards extended play - the more bots you can kill in 1 day the faster you'll stabilze.

Once your stabilized, your 'roaming' enemy is going to have to come over to 'farm' the NPC's to lower your stability. Even if there is a bonus of say 50%, if the defenders do an 18 hour marathon session on the weekend, the attackers would have to be in enemy territory, farming npc's for 9 hours to to undo just 1 defeneder session.

There's also a hole in how one would initially win an outpost. Assuming ownerships are reset when something like this were implemented and (2) or more corps signed up for the same outpost, how would that work?

In the 'owned' scenerio, it seems like if the owner killed enough to get to 100%, then each kill by the attacking party would lower that 100% and raise their %?

With both contestants at 0%, what would determine which of the 2 corps signed up would get control?

Or, in many cases there would be no one willing to 'sign up'. So getting to 100% is just a NPC grind with no PVP at all without 'quick attack' incentive like a SAP.

tl-dr: Beta outpost should promote PVP action not PVE. Grinding NPC's for stability is just that, a grind, and highly out balance attack/defense to the defensive, this is especially true for any corp that managed to get even 18 hour time zone coverage.

Telling people to just sit at a sap for an hour isn't PvP as much as the proposed new system is.

PvE can promote PvP when you have crews of combat bots roaming around the island killing roaming NPCs every day.

I honestly think a mix of the two systems would improve PvP.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.
  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Sundial wrote:

Telling people to just sit at a sap for an hour isn't PvP as much as the proposed new system is.

PvE can promote PvP when you have crews of combat bots roaming around the island killing roaming NPCs every day.

This. The current system is a snoozer.

And fair idea from the op.  I like any idea that requires some activity from Defenders to build up and keep stability. The current system's auto-stability requires only taking the outpost. Then you can walk away forever and have Domhalarm.

Perhaps stability should decay like walls.

Sparking to other games
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

I see the 'concept', which is trying to put bots on the field for a longer time, which would provide more PVP targets.

However, the concept and how it works in practice are completly different.

Changing mechanics isn't going to generate more outpost based PVP action.

If an outpost is attacked, and defenders don't have enough players to counter it, they won't undock.

Trying to 'force' players out onto beta to 'grind' NPC's, and to be 'gank' targets just isn't going to work either. Again, if corps have enough players to defend their farmers, they will, if not they won't undock.

9 Reply by Sundial (edited by Sundial 2012-03-15 20:29:59)

  • AIC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Arga wrote:

I see the 'concept', which is trying to put bots on the field for a longer time, which would provide more PVP targets.

However, the concept and how it works in practice are completly different.

Changing mechanics isn't going to generate more outpost based PVP action.

If an outpost is attacked, and defenders don't have enough players to counter it, they won't undock.

Trying to 'force' players out onto beta to 'grind' NPC's, and to be 'gank' targets just isn't going to work either. Again, if corps have enough players to defend their farmers, they will, if not they won't undock.

Why would there be farmers running around? In reality, it would be more like a gang of mechs / bots running around the island PvP fit taking down NPC's.

I would like the original idea better if the targets were roaming NPCs not a static spawn you must grind. People used to roam around in a fleet / small gang taking down observers / roaming NPCs before walls. This would just give you motivation to do it every single day or motivate you to bring your fleet to the enemy island where you want to reduce their stability. It would give you something to do while no saps are live or other people are not on as opposed to just docking up and waiting.

tldr: less docking up and waiting; more going out and pew pew

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

10 Reply by Celebro (edited by Celebro 2012-03-15 20:44:03)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Arga wrote:

Couple things.

Opposing faction NPC's don't really mean anything, because corps can and will, simply farm with the appropriate bots.

Yes true, mentioned to give some lure, makes no sense to kill greens on Norhoop for example.

Arga wrote:

This trades off "Alarm Clock" intrusions for "Marathon Sessions", the format here rewards extended play - the more bots you can kill in 1 day the faster you'll stabilize.

Think this gets the players active, also remember the 'average per player' so the more members help the better. I mean a group of 5 members farming in an 100 man corp wouldn't do much though, but smaller corps should have a disadvantage too.

Arga wrote:

Once your stabilized, your 'roaming' enemy is going to have to come over to 'farm' the NPC's to lower your stability. Even if there is a bonus of say 50%, if the defenders do an 18 hour marathon session on the weekend, the attackers would have to be in enemy territory, farming npc's for 9 hours to to undo just 1 defeneder session.

The defender have advantage here, but stability degrades therefore, just preventing them from farming spawns should also lower stability.

Arga wrote:

There's also a hole in how one would initially win an outpost. Assuming ownerships are reset when something like this were implemented and (2) or more corps signed up for the same outpost, how would that work?

Need to sign up for a fee. eg The first one to sign up gets it and starts farming, lets say they get 20% the other corp signs up and gets -20% to start off. No reset necessary stability would remain as before.

Arga wrote:

In the 'owned' scenerio, it seems like if the owner killed enough to get to 100%, then each kill by the attacking party would lower that 100% and raise their %?

If you have 100% stability would require 100% just to set it at 0% from an opposing force without degradation.

Arga wrote:

With both contestants at 0%, what would determine which of the 2 corps signed up would get control?

The one who signed up first and started farming mobs.

Arga wrote:

Or, in many cases there would be no one willing to 'sign up'. So getting to 100% is just a NPC grind with no PVP at all without 'quick attack' incentive like a SAP.

I that case kernal research is also a grind, but at least u can grind plasma,kernal etc and help your OP stability.

RIP PERPETUUM

11 Reply by Celebro (edited by Celebro 2012-03-15 21:16:32)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

On another note and following Arga's thorough analysis. I would go into much simpler terms for OP control.

Forget defenders or attackers. Multiple corps can take and own the same outpost, you loyalty to the faction is what matters. The rest is up to the players to create conflict and prevent their presence on 'your' island. Could this work?


Edit: Therefore; players don't take OP from other players you can only prevent them from doing so by indirect means. What better way to prove your presence and domination of the area?

RIP PERPETUUM
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

wait, you want to give npc faction standing a meaning? how bold of you fuuu

*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
  • STC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Sweet Jesus!!!!

All these carebear ideas need to stop.....

Beta is about pvp. It isn't about who can farm npcs the longest... The more you involve pve into a pvp mechanic the more you kill pvp.

What's next?? You must mine more epi then the attcker or lose control of your outpost?????

WTF



Sundial-- Do you agree with the idea or do you, like the rest of us pvp folk, just want more people on beta to pew pew with? Don't fool yourself into thinking adding a pve feature into intrusions will improve the numbers on beta. Only one thing can do that--- ADVERTISE THE HELL OUTTA THIS GAME!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!

Inappropriate signature.
  • GL
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Intrusions will work well if
1. SAPs will be removed
2. Outposts will have basic PBS functionality
3. If you wanna capture outpost: kill defenses and drop HP of OP to 0.
4. Some other stuff to prevent exploiting etc.


Celebro, -1

15 Reply by Sundial (edited by Sundial 2012-03-15 23:56:17)

  • AIC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Scyylla wrote:

Sweet Jesus!!!!

All these carebear ideas need to stop.....

Beta is about pvp. It isn't about who can farm npcs the longest... The more you involve pve into a pvp mechanic the more you kill pvp.

What's next?? You must mine more epi then the attcker or lose control of your outpost?????

WTF



Sundial-- Do you agree with the idea or do you, like the rest of us pvp folk, just want more people on beta to pew pew with? Don't fool yourself into thinking adding a pve feature into intrusions will improve the numbers on beta. Only one thing can do that--- ADVERTISE THE HELL OUTTA THIS GAME!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess what I am trying to say here Scylla is the current intrusion system has its flaws (you spend most of the time docked up / waiting doing nothing). The whole waiting for an hour mechanic to put it frankly is ***.

I would like to see some active approach stuff that affects stability added.

Currently we don't have PvP intrusions or even PvE, we have PvT (player vs timer / player vs insanity)

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

After noticing the 100% stability of OPs being the norm, I would have to admit intrusion 2.0 is a failure. Don't give me that we need more players excuse, because it work both ways for defenders and attackers.

Just put it this way, pop up message for a successful defense on an empty island, come on ! What defense?

@Scyylla: It's not a PvP mechanic it's OP control mechanic. PvP will happen, just depends on the player motivation to do it. Hugging a sap near your OP for an hour does nothing to promote pvp.

RIP PERPETUUM

17 Reply by Annihilator (edited by Annihilator 2012-03-16 01:01:12)

  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

after Int 2.0 i saw a slight increase of pvp... and a few weeks later it fell down again, since most of the player who prefer MASS PVP got literally kicked into their *** with this change.

Celebro: 100% is the norm, because noone dares to take the stability down of any outpost - it could push the owning corp out of beta and then they would not grant pvp targets on the field.

Skylla - how would advertising bring more player to pvp - if the game could not even hold 900 player that have been used to eve mechanics already when they have tried this game out?

If Beta is only for pvp... then why do we need to mine epriton there... are those epriton deposits player accounts ?

*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
  • RPz
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Annihilator wrote:

most of the player who prefer MASS PVP got literally kicked into their *** with this change.

So true. It was the thing i liked the most in this game, with somehow epic battles happening. But the Devs catered to a portion of playerbase who prefered small roaming and miner ganking.  Now theres nothing left.

I hoped for PBS to be an incentive to mass pvp, but i wonder how and when this could happen again.

  • AIC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Also as I recall, most people rage quit before intrusion 2.0 even came out claiming it would kill their mass PvP and did not even give it a chance.

The old system was flawed because you didn't have to actively play the game / play on beta to contribute to holding an outpost. It was whoever had more forces who could login for that one intrusion event.

The new system has its flaws too and I think they could have catered to the mass PvPer a bit more by adding "major saps" that go live once a week and could be scanned and count for like 30% stability or something. That way you could give your force who never even plays the game at all a week notice in advance to come blob up for mass PvP. As *** as that sounds to me if it kept more people playing the game that would have been nice.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.
  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

I like I 2.0 personally.  But as an attacker you want to set your goals out front and understand the consequences.  1 are you just there for pvp?  Then alarm clock a couple days and bring stability to 70% to get the owners attention.  Then give the outpost a rest during off timezone.  2. Are you there to grief?  possibility targets leave beta.  3.  Are you attacking a home station or a  weekend retreat?   These are questions every pvp should ask themselves are we here to pvp or grief?

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.
  • CNEX
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Rex Amelius wrote:
Sundial wrote:

Telling people to just sit at a sap for an hour isn't PvP as much as the proposed new system is.

PvE can promote PvP when you have crews of combat bots roaming around the island killing roaming NPCs every day.

This. The current system is a snoozer.

And fair idea from the op.  I like any idea that requires some activity from Defenders to build up and keep stability. The current system's auto-stability requires only taking the outpost. Then you can walk away forever and have Domhalarm.

Perhaps stability should decay like walls.


+ 1

  • RAD
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

OP proposes two broken mechanics that should never be implemented:
* limiting mob types by island;
* "corp averaging" of individual member scores (whatever these scores are).

Although killing mobs for better stability may not be a bad idea per se.

The Legend | Perpetuum Planner | MoBIoS TV
  • CNEX
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Scyylla wrote:

Sweet Jesus!!!!

All these carebear ideas need to stop.....

Carebear ideas? Who are you m8? How you are making money? Automaticly when you go making money you are carebear! So stop with Bull***t words!

Beta is about pvp. It isn't about who can farm npcs the longest... The more you involve pve into a pvp mechanic the more you kill pvp.

Again, how you are making your money??? If you are such pvp maniac, then u dont need npc at all, YOU NEED BF of WOT...


Sundial-- Do you agree with the idea or do you, like the rest of us pvp folk, just want more people on beta to pew pew with? Don't fool yourself into thinking adding a pve feature into intrusions will improve the numbers on beta. Only one thing can do that--- ADVERTISE THE HELL OUTTA THIS GAME!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the most disccusting,ugliest and the most hypocrisy thing i ever heard!
Why?
Because you are here pretending like pvp player who is only interested in pvp gameplay, and you dont even exist on perp kill killboard!
So, maybee you are here logged in as industrial/mining char??? AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So stop lie to us!

On this forum every single player who is speaking of PVP,and stands for this up, DIDNT AT ALL give us argumentative claims for their constataions!

Your only argument is :
-THIS IS SANDBOX
-GET THE HELL OUTTA THIS GAME you carebears!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!
-BETA is for PVP (i agree, but then remove all NPC from islands) -> quetion: Why you are not standing against npcs on beta?
--most of your time you are ratting anywhere
-ALL CAREBEARS MUST BE REMOVED


I ASK YOU ALL WHY?
Give us good reason why you think that perp dont need carebears???

If u watch closely then you see that thisa type of players are life and soul of game!!!
Without them all is dead ,from market/production and pvp!
And this is not bf3!!!

I wrote on some post why i am think that are carebears good! But if you want i will amake large topic about why yes for carebears!

  • CNEX
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

Ville wrote:

I like I 2.0 personally.  But as an attacker you want to set your goals out front and understand the consequences.  1 are you just there for pvp?  Then alarm clock a couple days and bring stability to 70% to get the owners attention.  Then give the outpost a rest during off timezone.  2. Are you there to grief?  possibility targets leave beta.  3.  Are you attacking a home station or a  weekend retreat?   These are questions every pvp should ask themselves are we here to pvp or grief?


THIS VILLE,

BUT "they" will not give you write answer!

When i say "them" i think of players who are raging on carebears  and etc!

  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: An idea to scrap Intrusions

He sounds mad.  Bro.

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.