You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Search options (Page 5 of 62)
Burial wrote:Gremrod wrote:Burial wrote:If something as simple as removing station locks adds boatload of content to corporations of all sizes, then it's worth it and shouldn't be considered as content removal. Wouldn't be the first time content gets removed to make the game suck less.
I just don't see it adding a boat load of content when the terminals are open and they are not producing boatloads of content right now either.
Imagine you're a leader of a new aspiring corporation that finally feels to be ready to try some of that juicy Beta content. Now imagine driving a bus 80mph hitting a brick wall. That's the brick wall you as a CEO are going to hit trying to take your corporation to the Betas if stations are locked and claimed by just a couple big of alliances.
You think "Fair enough, we can get the PVP kick from just roaming the islan.. " and you hit another brick wall! Since only a handful of alliances control Betas, most of the islands will be empty and locked and the ones that aren't have tighter security than Alcatraz.
Now you think that EVE might not be so bad idea after all..
They can use the NPC terminals that are not locked.
They will find PvP.
Celebro wrote:50% of the game content is locked up.
Is it? I don't see the outposts being content. I see them as tools that people can use. In this case the tools can be restricted and currently are due to the intrusion system and player entity choice.
I would like to add that player choice is a big part of sandboxes.
Burial wrote:If something as simple as removing station locks adds boatload of content to corporations of all sizes, then it's worth it and shouldn't be considered as content removal. Wouldn't be the first time content gets removed to make the game suck less.
I just don't see it adding a boat load of content when the terminals are open and they are not producing boatloads of content right now either.
Burial wrote:If one entity can't capture all of the outposts then a couple can. Instead of having dozens of smaller sides with their own agendas we end up with couple of big alliances each working on one tightly secures island and a whole lot of empty land.
The you keep scaling the game up. Not scaling it down by removing mechanics that have existed in game for a long time. Add things don't remove things.....
EVE (different setting) but started with a very large universe. And once it got filled with lots of empty space inbetween they added wormhole space.
So if the land gets taken add more until you have a good balance of entities fighting to hold or fighting to take stuff back etc.
SmokeyIndustries wrote:Forgive my ignorance on the issue, but wouldn't it be possible to limit the amount of instances being run at the same time? I don't care if they have 100 accounts, you're only able to play 1 at a time per computer? Would there be a way to limit it so that people with multiple computers can't just bypass it that way?
Yes
Celebro wrote:Gremrod wrote:The game world needs to be bigger. If the issue is with one entity controling all the islands. Add more beta islands beyond the ability for a single entity to control all of them.
The game world is too small. I think it would be better to increase the world size rather then change outpost mechanics. Add more islands and outposts.....
We all know that is not going to happen any time soon. So quickest way is to unlock them until there IS a bigger world.
I disagree. It would not take long for them to spin up more beta 2 islands that have two outposts and no assignments.
The game world needs to be bigger. If the issue is with one entity controling all the islands. Add more beta islands beyond the ability for a single entity to control all of them.
The game world is too small. I think it would be better to increase the world size rather then change outpost mechanics. Add more islands and outposts.....
Burial wrote:I can't overstate it enough how unlocking stations would add massive amounts of dynamic content to more players than could ever be reached with locked stations.
There are 6 beta islands. Three of them have unlocked NPC terminals for everyone to use. Yet we are to see the massive amounts of dynamic content coming from them let alone even a small amount of dynamic content.....
How about this for a solution. Add more beta islands. Making the world bigger and no way for a single alliance to hold all of them.
The game world is too small..............
Real question
What is the reason to have the beta outpost locking feature removed? I think I lost the reason since there are 9000 threads on this now.
Jita wrote:Syndic wrote:There is no benefit in removing station locks because all it does is penalize the people who go through the effort to capture and maintain station stability, and reward the people who want the rewards without investing effort and resources into capturing a station in the first place.
It should be noted there is already ASB, ICSB, TMB - 3 stations that are completely unlocked and available for use for those people who want the reward without making any effort.
And this is the crux of all your complaints about many subjects. Nothing to do with how it would help the game, all about how it would hurt you.
You guys are asking for the outposts to have the locking mechanic removed. So in turn it turns them into the same thing as a NPC beta terminal and there are three of them in game that everyone can use. So it appears that no one is denied access to using beta islands. Issue has been resolved by the DEVS long ago. 
SmokeyIndustries wrote:Syndic wrote:Smokey wrote: Mmmm I wonder how many baphomets I could lose at koykili if stations get unlocked. I think I still have 50 or 60 fitted ones in the Nonconformity's storage. That's what I originally made them for, but danachov instead. Enough to make sure you'e in that station 24/7 with someone cause if not, I might disrupt your nora farming, or epi mining or group circle jerks or whatever you guys do there anyways.
That kinda sounds like fun. Let's do it! I wouldn't even have to quit playing Diablo 3 to do it either. Can we please please please do it Dev Zoom?!
Although your idea of what would grief us is quite funny. 
You'd be crying to dev zoom inside a week to have it changed back, betcha.
So that is why you guys want it changed, to only grief people with the change?
Syndic wrote:http://killboard.sequer.nl/?a=kill-rela … l_id=45928
Breached a probed island without the element of surprise and had a good fight.
We had great fun and we have probes to thank for that. If we didn't blow them up we might have killed a termis or two then waited for half an hour for them to form up.
Hmm. Okay fair enough.
I say if they make it so beta outposts can't be locked. Take out intrusions and put in my beta 3 islands that get taxes from the beta 2 islands.
http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … 3-islands/
This would be pretty simple for them to do since everything is pretty much in game except the hacking siege module.
Annihilator wrote:beta outpost just need an activity that only those who "life" there can do.
this activity needs to be seperated from the capture mechanic.
IMHO its fail to have only one mechanic for rasing and lowering an outposts "stability" - and that one mechanic is predictable and carefully timed to not happen on multiple places at the same time.
btw, what would happen if the outpost stability would only raise if the outpost owner loots the SAP ?
I think your hitting on something there...
Jita wrote:Some benefits for the Devs:
More money from account ep resets not just for the accounts that move hands but for single account people who would reshuffle ep more often
Since it will be more money for the devs they can make it so the game is free on steam no B2P! Most people don't want to buy the game. They want to jump into f2p game and find out if they want to throw money at it or not.
Could raise the game pop a bit!
Annihilator wrote:Gremrod wrote:Are there any games that restrict the player to one account?
Free2play games used to do that in the beginning.
sophisticated browser games still do it.
I started with f2p and I never saw one restrict you to only one account. Not saying there weren't any but I never saw it. 
.
Rex Amelius wrote:I'm not sure they are a problem but I don't like the arbitrary corp cap.
I think the game was better without them TBH.
Burial wrote:Well, that all boils down to how easy something is to implement. Tweaking old mechanics is usually easier than making something completely new. How does Darkfall siege system work?
You have to bring a siege stone and plant there. Once 8 or 10 hours is up the stone can be destroyed for two hours making the attacking having to defend the stone before they can attack.
http://www.eu1.darkfallonline.com/help/ … quest.html
Remove probes from the game.
Burial wrote:Gremrod wrote:Jita wrote:Well I believe the existing ideas floating around that require you to do your own saps to maintain stability are simpler IMO but even with that unless you change sparks it would make no difference anyway.
Just throw away the intrusion system..... It stinks anyway.
I have nothing against outpost ownership in general. SAPs are a nice additional CTF mini-game, just the ability to lock stations down has to go.
Why not make outposts generate tax for their owning corporation from facilities and market?
That way we don't miss out on potential lighter content. It's still beneficial to fight over them while nothing overly big at stake(like Gamma).
I say rip it out and make it a siege system like darkfall.
But really, I think the owner should have the choice on who can use the outpost.
Are there any games that restrict the player to one account?
Jita wrote:Well I believe the existing ideas floating around that require you to do your own saps to maintain stability are simpler IMO but even with that unless you change sparks it would make no difference anyway.
Just throw away the intrusion system..... It stinks anyway.
Jelan wrote:When Gamma comes back I would suggest that beta terminals on each island cannot be locked down or owned, it works well in EvE with low sec space, it would enable pvp corps and casual corps to have a beta presence without fear of losing their hard earned stuff
Yes I agree.
Remove the intrusion system. No more SAP loot. All outposts are open to everyone.
I believe the intrusion system was only put in because they could not get gamma in before release.
Zoom said something about it being less of a network change and more of a highway addition. If I recall correctly.....
Posts found: 101 to 125 of 1,534
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 1.087 seconds (26% PHP - 74% DB) with 6 queries
