I don't mean it in a bad way But for example Squid enjoy good fights and don't want to own everything, but we have a different play style to 62nd I would say. Maybe defensive and offensive would be better words, but the point still stands, without defenders, what's the point of attackers?

I see your point Arga, but my argument is essentially that there are two kinds of corp in an environment like beta in this game (most are actually a mix of the two but lean one way or the other). You have those that want to build sandcastles, and those that want to knock them down. Both need the other to make the game interesting, but if gameplay ends up favouring one over the other too much, one side will end up leaving, and when they leave, most of the purpose for the other side disappears too.

I would say 62nd lean towards knocking down sandcastles and I understand what they like about this system and don't think it all needs to be junked necessarily,  but I see from the other side that those who want to build their sandcastles feel like they got screwed and the game doesn't regard their playstyle as important, and if the game doesn't want those players, why should they stay? And if they don't stay who do you shoot?

Edit: I don't have any issues with more corps on beta, I would welcome it, but heres the thing, outposts are now easy to attack but hard to hold. You think a small new corp would hold an OP at any decent stability when ppl can get loot from hitting their SAPs?

Aren't we all allowed to have fun in this game however we choose to play? Is it not possible to have good stuff for small gang PvP without making it mind numbingly boring / rage inducing for others?

I see the good points of this patch for the smaller PvP focused corps, but if you guys can't see some of the issues we're talking about, I think you're either a) Deliberately ignoring it or b) Think that your way is the only right way to play the game.

Also where are these Alpha corps who want outposts? I see the same names on them all so far

Tbh its a bad design and you should think about how players actually play your game, not the way you wish they would. "Clockwork Intrusions" are effectively enforced, since low stability Outposts are fairly useless. The likely outcome is one or two corps have high stability and other SAPs are farmed for loot, which means scanning stations and going there at the right time, not living there (Since Alpha 2 facilities are superior to low stability beta outposts)

Having no advantage for defenders is a bad idea because it takes no account of the effort they put in to take and secure an Island in the first place, when with minimal effort, 5 guys in EWars can keep dropping SAPs while you sleep. A territorial warfare system that's based around not fighting is bad. And in case you think it's a population issue, look at Eve, players go to alliances that play in their Time Zone, no one has 24hr coverage unless they're part of a huge coalition, which I would guess you guys don't want since Alliance features aren't implemented despite the fact that 90% of beta dwellers are in alliances.

@ Mara - Controlling one Island is a pain in the *** with SAPs every few hours, also remember timers are closer because they were all started at the same time recently, expect to see more divergence in SAP times within the next week.

I would say in a lot of cases of imbalance, the problem is the way bonuses stack up in certain focused builds. In my opinion, stacking penalties would be something worth looking at. In many cases, nerfing the module is a bad option, because you end up with something that's only worth using if you have 3 of them fitted, or not even worth using at all. Stacking penalties allow for modules to be powerful individually without having to worry so much about fitting multiples being overpowered. There are a lot of games out there that use a stacking penalty / soft cap to deal with exactly these kinds of problems, and in my experience they seem to work reasonably well.

Personally I quite like the idea of constant PvP, but the problem is that constant PvP means lack of opportunity to do Indy / Carebear stuff on Beta, which means those guys won't be on beta, which means your corp is not really living there. If you're not really living there why own an outpost? Especially since you need 60% stability to get the same facilities as an Alpha 2 station. I would say messing with other peoples outposts looks a lot more fun under the new system than holding your own.

The alternative of course is that no one really cares, and SAPs become free loot sources, but I'd argue that's not exactly ideal either.

Very underwhelming patch tbh. Some decent small changes, some not so much, and Intrusion 2.0. I'm aware that devs speak to some "players", but you should really consider talking to those few that actually still play.

Well there are already 4 days for people to get stuff out, etc. Plus there's been plenty of warning this is happening. Also there are plenty of numbers between 5 and 50 that would give something to owning corps without locking anyone out.

Not quite sure about destructible upgrades, but certainly destructible something. NIC sink, conflict driver, etc. All good stuff.

Bumping this thread to say yes pls. And while we're at it why not give us sub squads so we can have different Nexus mods running for different groups in the squad, and a broadcast sytem for targets, reps, etc, and a visual indicator on the squad leader on the terrain display, and generally lots of stuff to make squads less of a pain in the arse.

Exactly my opinion on this