Topic: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Gamma.  In short.  Gamma's need to change.

The problems with gamma are large.  Zero Access for a hostile force.  Completely safe mining environment.  Limited movement of forces through the general map.

What I would suggest will mostlikly be hated, and mocked.  I digress.  What needs to happen is the same with walls, a massive change to undo the damage of what was done.  First, Tell the player base that all the gamma will be pulled down and returned to there said parties.  Second, put in place rules for new gammas to be build.

1. No Base within 3k of a tele.
2. Base defenses can not sprawl more then a 3k radius.
3. Three bases Per Gamma.
4. Two Bases no closer then 2.5 Radius.
5. Buff Defensive reinforce timers. (Double Them)
6. Require Fuel for all Reactors. (No new minerals just existing ones.)
7. Re-balance turrets, possibly buff them.

As far as getting to this point.  The Dev Team needs to go in, ask the gamma holders (Mostly STC, Nebs, Rem, TOG, Dream, Doy, and others.)  Ask then where they want there stuff moved to, any terminal in the game they wish.  Wipe there bases, and re balance.

As it stands now there is no eb and flow of gammas, some will say this will change when more players come into the game, I think the problem will just get far worse.  We need the ability to get roams ON islands, so that hostile forces can agrees and create conflict. 

This is how I see it, I do NOT speak for STC and its allies.  This is my personal Opinion.  One that I do not think will be popular.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

2 (edited by Burial 2013-09-02 22:04:50)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

A lot of people understand that gammas are broken and game-killing right now, but trying to reimbuse the work that has been put on the islands is hard. Could argue that reimbusing only structures and terminals is enough and call terraforming even with all the profit people have made on the islands.

Gammas can work but there needs to be restrictions in place.

Additionally to what you said, I would also add interference to turrets.

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Definitely some valid points.

One thing I might add is obviously those base restrictions won't do much if teraforming is not included in them as far as deploying forces to islands goes. But you also have to be careful with that. If you overnerf teraforming we could potentially lose a big part of its emergent game play element during sieges as well as the ability to literally construct a city.

There should be a balance between complete safety and risk to being attacked even on gammas. We can't go too far in either direction or there will be no mining/industry or there will  be no PvP (when there will be a population).

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Terraforming right now is interesting feature but already it's:

- Expensive & time consuming
- Only available on Gamma islands

That means it's already not accessible to a lot of players. Getting game balanced is a lot more important than trying to preserve one fun feature.

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Agree with Merkle tbh.


Two things I would add:

the 3km limit needs to apply to terraforming also, with the intention of having 3km islands of a base rather than a whole island of terraforming. Open teleports, mining spots that need to be defended etc.

Once a terminal goes down it cannot be picked up again, terminal costs need to increase X 5 and dropping a terminal removes all mining spots within 3km

6 (edited by Sundial 2013-09-02 23:02:50)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

AFAIK 3000m would preserve emergent game play (especially with 3 bases close enough together turrets could support the middle) such as beacon pits, norgalis farms, etc. Sometimes you would get ore on the inside but most of the time it would be on the outside. Same with plants unless you intentionally seed them in large quantities.

There also has to be some risk to outposts too, and that would be going outside your walls to mine, rat, etc. Now before you say ratting isn't all that great on gamma outside of beacons I am sure something could be done to make it more desirable to roam around the island looking for special spawns that dropped shiny loot / kernels and buckets of plasma. This needs to be balanced with mining as well in terms of danger from roaming spawns. But really, there needs to be an option for profitable solo ratting on a gamma island to get combat people outside the walls doing things.


The last part would come down to the ebb and flow between the attackers and the defenders in terms of roaming. The defender should always be able to know when the attacker is coming if he uses scouts like already in the game (The balance of these can be debated at a later time). If the defender gets lazy, the attacker should get a kill. However, it can't be too easy to be 100% safe or we will have the current situation.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

7 (edited by Elderic 2013-09-02 23:30:58)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

I don't know what you can do at this point, Changes should have been made months ago if any, that doesn't mean some changes can't be made. There is allot of TIME, that went into the gamma base, not just NIC. I can't see how this reimbursement would work effectively, without causing even more drama with the people that spent so much time to build them.

Things that would have made a difference from the begining;

Limit connected structures to a network, you can even go as far as how many specific type of structures with these limitations. Limit the range of structures in which a structure can be connected to the network, based on how far it is from the terminal.

ammo and fuel are good suggestions but should have been in the original design.

Only thing I can think of would be to turn the gamma island into non-pvp and treat them as play housing islands. Also give outpost owns the ability to allow or deny people from entering there outpost area of influence, so people can plant there crops unmolested. This will also encourage people to make trade hubs and drive the market. Then come up with something along those lines to make it work and create new Delta islands to address the pvp and conflict issue. Then I can see the reimbursement of the useless teleport outposts.

then you can even take out a couple non inhabited gamma islands island to shrink the footprint.

text was modified as I thought about it more.

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

i have to agree.

yes i like and love the big base structures and the terraforming.

BUT:
like most ppl ahve pointed out that its killing pvp there quite well.
yes it costs tons but turtle up games (we all have been playing and improving) that we have done in more the a year is not good for the game and not good for pvp.

we need heavy restrictions on that. a perfect solution would be hard, but some drastic changes have to be made.
i cant go in every thought in detail but here is some of it:

Terraforming:
ppl will always take it to the extreme. as long as they can. doent matter how expensive you make it.

Slopes:
first and oldest thought here is limit slopes. yes that is good also for the looks, but it will still not preven ppl from doing stupid things. besides this might be a pain to code.

Restrictions:
yes i love to terraform nice things. not like most ppl do. smoth terrain and giant obilisks...
but ppl can do stupid things and they always will  do so, so we need heavy restrictions.
- costline not terraformable
yes i was against it, but i think it will be nessessary. not just because of walls but it will always look stupid when a wall hits the beach. this dont has to be much. 5 tiles wide should be plenty enough.
- no terraforming 2500m around tps.
- terraforming will be only possible to some degree. max difference to base level 100m. with a 500m wide section where you slowly increase the ability to terraform from the non terrafomable areas.

MPC:
we need some limitations here as well. yes i love building big, but building spam is not good for lag and for the game world. much less for the game fun.

give a terminal a max number of "control points". with them you can link a certain number of buildings to it. after max is reached you can no longer increase you network.
we dont want to punish industrial bases so either some structures dont cost controll points or some structures could even increase controll points.
for example facilities could increase control points with that a expensive industrial base can field more turrets to defend.

of cource i have no worked out numbers and this has to be ballanced right. but it could provide a good system and force ppl to build in quality instead of quantity. ppl will think how they can get more out of their bases insted of just increasing numbers.

defense bulidings have to get buffed of cource...

no buildings 2000m off tp is ok. BUt i would add: no turrets 3500m around teleports

of couce we might want to rethinnk the number of terminals on a island.

maybe put some more thought in a wall system for defense. (remebering the good old c&c laser fence)


this will lead to:
- ppl can no longer fortify teleports
- ppl have do pick their base locations with more caution because terraforming will be limited.
- force pps to make defended bases insted of defended teleports.
- will open islands for pvp

9 (edited by Celebro 2013-09-02 23:37:28)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

-1 This is not Beta islands which were intended free to roam, the wall argument has no merit. Gamma islands were intended to make large fortresses so your assets can be relatively secure and mine in relative safety, something that was very hard to do in beta without walls. No one attacks gamma because there is nothing other gamma islands can't offer, aside from the fact that there are not a large enough force to take down a player defended gamma atm.

We have only scratched the surface with gamma, these would be knee jerk change without any proof if gamma works as it is, with 10 times the player base.

So roaming beta, sandcastles gamma, working as intended. Just make it worthwhile steam rolling a gamma other than epeen.

RIP PERPETUUM

10

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

First I do not think there needs to be a wipe of gamma islands.

Second a reworked system will benefit some while not others thats just how its going to go ... now and in the future. if you dont have a force capable of attacking gammas now any changes would not improve that situation unless turrets & boosters a hardcore nerf to the point where they are use less as a probe.

Interference can be over come with spreading out turrets not to hard to adjust for

Limits for TF / building near gates can be adjusted for ... we already went through this once ... the rings just got bigger.

changes to gamma are not needed ...

What is needed are siege bots ... larger weapons and bots will be the solution to gamma fortresses, that currently exist. Gamma's were ment to be attacked with the bots that are not even in the game yet ... changes to gamma mechanics will just let the devs off the hook for not delivering siege bots that were the slated as a part of the gamma frontier ...

Currently if there is a force with enough determination to assault a gamma they will most definitely find they way inside.

there is no need to dumb down gamma to the point where 3 or 4 guys can roam on a hostile gamma shooting structures.

I agree something needs to be done to increase pvp ... more content would provide more pvp for a longer time than reworking current mechanics.

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

while siege bots would be nice they require art work and 3d moddling and per doesn't have the devs for that right now. I think Merkle's plan is a good stepping stone - especially as Gamma doesn't need to be end game but just the first step to Epsilon islands perhaps which are closer to our current mechanics.

12 (edited by Celebro 2013-09-02 23:59:59)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Let's define the problem with gamma first, all I see is an empty world with unlimited resources, no same faction gamma is any different from the rest and stealthy instant travel. No wonder it's so safe.

I'm not saying it not in need of some tweaks, but I'm not falling for for Merkle's suggested problems or changes and perhaps I see the Devs cringing at thought of history repeating itself.

+1 Tux

RIP PERPETUUM

13 (edited by Sundial 2013-09-02 23:54:29)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Tux: Should gamma only be all out siege warfare? It seems right now its very "all or nothing". You either go full siege or you don't do anything at all. I don't think siege bots would change that.

Should gamma simply be 100% safe carebearing outside the possibility of siege?

If it is, that's fine but  the high rewards of gamma turn into just "ok" rewards as they become a commdity since acquiring them is so safe. Risk vs Reward naturally works itself out when the risk is low regardless of how high the reward is via inflation / market flood.

If gamma is working as intended then we need some sort of conflict driver bringing people out of their fortresses to take risks.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

You can do whatever you want in 100% safety on gamma. That cant be working as intended.

15 (edited by Celebro 2013-09-03 00:11:12)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Number 3 wrote:

You can do whatever you want in 100% safety on gamma. That cant be working as intended.

Those who want gamma get one for free so why fight? So where is the 'gamma problem' again?


edit: We are free to choose what to do, no game mechanic is going to change this and certainly not this knee jerk change.

RIP PERPETUUM

16

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Sundial wrote:

Tux: Should gamma only be all out siege warfare? It seems right now its very "all or nothing". You either go full siege or you don't do anything at all. I don't think siege bots would change that.

If gamma is working as intended then we need some sort of conflict driver bringing people out of their fortresses to take risks.

STC is active on Alpha , Beta  and Gamma.

There needs to be new content added to the game to spur more activity.

This could be one of the hundreds of ideas that people from all sides have mentioned, from delta islands with new NPC's that drop components for t3 mechs  TO making cortex's drop only from beta terminal SAP's to drive pvp on thoes islands.

I personally thing the next stage of content needs risk/reward in the form of new islands that have no terminals and cannot be colonized with MPC. This should have happened with gamma release IMO ... there needs to be "hunting grounds" that supply needed items for industry and pvp'ers

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

17

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Number 3 wrote:

You can do whatever you want in 100% safety on gamma. That cant be working as intended.

tell me how long you think it takes for some one to make gamma 100% secure ? I would really like to know.

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

18

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

@ Sundial, also if theres a force constantly assaulting or trying to assault a gamme thoes residents are in no way 100% safe

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

19 (edited by Sundial 2013-09-03 00:25:14)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Tux wrote:

@ Sundial, also if theres a force constantly assaulting or trying to assault a gamme thoes residents are in no way 100% safe

True, but that goes back to the reasons behind the assault which currently includes "epeen". To actually endanger your gamma you must intentionally go out of your way to create conflict in some way currently. I do see your point though and I personally like the "Delta" island idea far more than fully opening gamma to roaming PvP. That way you can please both types of players by both giving them an endgame that caters to their respective playstyles to the fullest.

EDIT:

Though regardless, something needs to be added or gamma needs to be changed for the game to be fully functional to both PvPers and industrialists. Preferably add to the game.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

How I would like gamma to operate is having a safe "zone" (3k in this instance), and then allowing fluid game play.

The safe area is great for mining and doing whatever is needed.  The outside would allow people to mine there, and have a bit of PVP as well.

What we have now is just nuts, sure we have TIME, MASSIVE amounts of time invested.  STC has SHOWN all gammas can be killed, and breached.  I would just personally like a more fluid experience.  As well, I think this will benefit  the game. 

As far as KNOWING what it takes to defend, build, and overall MAKE a gamma, TUX knows.  He might be the most well versed in the game on this issue.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

This is awesome, best troll I ever seen from Merkle.

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: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

I would also like to add in a few more suggestions.

We need a system that balances out turret load, and turrets spam.  Whats the easiest solution?
Well you make it so turrets (and other defensive structures) take a set amount of the "power grid".  This grid amount is set by the Terminal tier that you set down.  Thus T3 more stuff. 

This will nerf down the terminal sprawl that would occur.  With this tho, a buff of turrets should be considered.  As well as a buff to the reinforce timers as well.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

I would like to state also, What I think is wrong with this game IS gamma itself.  It was far to rushed, not thought out to even ends.  It was just too much for the base to get involved in, it was rolled out to appeal to the base that we had, then after it was released we all said cool.  Then stopped playing.  Now dont get me wrong here I love gamma.  The concept is cool.  Its just not the right TIME for it atm.  It needs to be rethinked.

Dev Team, do not think that your player base will revolt, and cry if you change gamma's, just do it in fair and open way and we will continue to love you. 

Personally I would of rather seen more development into PVE, Missions, REDUCING LAG, then seeing gamma introduced.  Now I LOVE the new land.  Its more the structures, and the power of terraforming that needs rebalanced and re-thought.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

24 (edited by Shadowmine 2013-09-03 03:44:13)

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

While there may be gamma mechanics that need to be tweaked, I don't see that a wipe or major overhaul is needed, personally.

The biggest problem atm is that there are more gamma islands than there are corps that want them. Until the population is high enough that gamma islands themselves become a valuable enough resource worth fighting for. There will be the ability to take over and wall of gamma islands. So if one so chooses you have as much time as needed to wall one off and secure it. The problem with this now is that with new terraforming mechanic changes and the way current gamma mechanics are currently. There isn't any good way to wall off an island. Any halfway serious group of attackers can find a way in to any gamma base.

The idea of this, is that at a higher population, corps wont have any interest in trying to put the effort in to defend an entire island, knowing that at any time you could have it breached and sieged. I think this will lead to smaller tighter defended outposts becoming the norm. Small, almost expandable little outposts. Where if it gets sieged, you don't lose everything you own in Perpetuum.

I think at some point gammas will look like current beta islands only with terraforming. A few small outposts of allied corps spread across islands with small turret defences scattered around. Back to the days of proximity probe and gate guard mining.

At some point Corporations have to stop making the same mistakes. Having all your corp assets sitting in one gamma station whether defended or not, isn't a good idea. It takes 24hr protection to try and secure a gamma island. A task in itself that lends towards cooperation between several factions...

I just don't know that the Nic and time cost to terraform an island will be as worth it after mission get fixed and the population rises a bit. With the losses that corps have taken, whether loot deleted or captured by the enemy, I don't see why you would risk it in an all or nothing manner anymore.

Those of you lucky enough to have your lives, take them with you. However, leave the mods you've lost. They belong to me now.

Scarab Kill Count:2

Re: Gamma Suggestion. The Problem.

Shadow what you stated is the direction of which I to think it will start to go in.  I would rather start to get things fixed now, rather then later.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13