Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Are we talking about the best PVP'er on the sever?

We all know who that is, Its me Mario....err um...that's not right...who is it again?

At OP:

As I see it now Intrusions are of little importance atm.  I really REALLY hate to say it, but I do like EVE's "intrusion" system better, yes I really hate to say that.  It at least gives ALL the power to the players, not this random BS that were all dealing with currently.

At Kadenines: Any, yes ANY mechanic the DEV's introduce will just advocate blobbing, its the way of the world, strength in numbers.  There is nothing wrong with that, other then being boring, well sometimes boring.

Adding in PBS will NOT help any of these complications, it will simply just amplify them, to a much greater degree.

I would heavily suggest that the Dev's continue with THERE vision of the game, and keep the consulting of other players to a "this is just advise level" as, even if they come to the Dev's with a plan, its going to have a heavy Bias toward benefiting them as a whole, while leaving others out.

Just Sayin
01000110 01110010 01100101 01100101 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 01110010 01110011
smileneutralsadbig_smileyikeswinkhmmtonguelolmadrollcoolyarr

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

i wonder which game mechanic does NOT advocate blobbing in your eyes.

no matter what it is - its always "advocating blobbing". i think even interference, which has a negative effect on bigger groups of robots was "advocating blobbing" in some argumentations.

could you stop complaining about groups that blob up or fight them with another blob, but deal with it and find tactics and strategies to beat them... without a blob?

*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

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Annihilator wrote:

i wonder which game mechanic does NOT advocate blobbing in your eyes.

no matter what it is - its always "advocating blobbing". i think even interference, which has a negative effect on bigger groups of robots was "advocating blobbing" in some argumentations.

could you stop complaining about groups that blob up or fight them with another blob, but deal with it and find tactics and strategies to beat them... without a blob?

Um, bro...Really...you gotta stop taking everything I say in such a negative way...I do like to blob too...Ill blob with anyone.  roll

Just Sayin
01000110 01110010 01100101 01100101 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 01110010 01110011
smileneutralsadbig_smileyikeswinkhmmtonguelolmadrollcoolyarr

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

"in your eyes" was aimed at anyone bringing up that argument, not exactly you binary... sorry, always forget to make something like that clear at lunchtime-posts wink

*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

205

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

If someone is defending or attacking something important, why would they ever deploy 'less' force then they could. By important, I don't mean game mechanics wise, I mean player morale wise.

As it is, if your outpost is stablizlied, losing any (1) intrusion isn't a big deal from a technical standpoint, but it starts a negative social commentary that's usually more critical.

Meaning, outpost owners are going to deploy to defend a SAP to their fullest, and not neccesiarily for a GF; triggering the 'blob' social commentary by the loser.

This will just be magnified by PBS. Meaning PBS is going to be more critical, both socially and in game mechanic terms, so it will ALWAYS be defended with maximum force; 20 on 1 if needed.

I can't think of any combat situation that can't benefit from more players, if your goal is to win. Not even open field PVP. It could actually require 5 or 6 bots to kill a single tanked enemy, so deploying with less than a blob would mean admiting defeat before even undocking.

Intrusions can't be adequately judged at this time, because there's not enough player base to actually test the system under load.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga wrote:

I can't think of any combat situation that can't benefit from more players, if your goal is to win. Not even open field PVP. It could actually require 5 or 6 bots to kill a single tanked enemy, so deploying with less than a blob would mean admiting defeat before even undocking.

Which is exactly why you should not be advertising where and when the fight is going to be.

+1
-Confucius

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Kaldenines wrote:
Arga wrote:

I can't think of any combat situation that can't benefit from more players, if your goal is to win. Not even open field PVP. It could actually require 5 or 6 bots to kill a single tanked enemy, so deploying with less than a blob would mean admiting defeat before even undocking.

Which is exactly why you should not be advertising where and when the fight is going to be.

I can agree...I would love to see all the power end up in the players hands someday.  Choosing when to attack, and so on and so forth...REALLY hard to devise a system around that tho..,although I can say Eve did a OK job at it. I mean that OK in the worst possible way, far from great, but workable.  I would love it if the DEV's could make up a even better system that works.

Just Sayin
01000110 01110010 01100101 01100101 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 01110010 01110011
smileneutralsadbig_smileyikeswinkhmmtonguelolmadrollcoolyarr

208 (edited by Sundial 2012-02-28 17:26:23)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Feedback:

1. PvP is meant to break out around the saps but the timer is a secret unless you scan (even if you are the defender).
2. Defenders must wait around an hour bored.

Suggestions:

1. Remove scanning mechanics, make intrusion times public (not a secret). Ballance it so that many timers go live at once forcing you to divide your force if you wan't multiple outposts. Then maybe you will have small skirmishes over sap loot from scavengers or fights on a larger scale.
2. Allow defenders to capture SAPs to increase stability. Seriously, waiting around an hour is boring. Once intrusion times are public this will ballance itself out.

Thats about all for now.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

209 (edited by Hunter 2012-02-28 18:15:33)

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Sundial wrote:

2. Allow defenders to capture SAPs to increase stability. Seriously, waiting around an hour is boring. Once intrusion times are public this will ballance itself out.

More simple way: After SAP's capture, intruder should protect it 15-20 mins. While he protects captured SAP, OP defenders should:
- heal destruction SAP;
- rehack active SAP;
- set domination on passive SAP.

specimen SAP does not requires any adjusting.

The theory of mutual interests
Why the crybabies wins?
Где Ханя - там победа (с)
DEV Zoom: No need to speculate...

210

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

I think the intrusion mechanic is fine atm.  I find it enjoyable atm.

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.

211

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

The issues isn't with the SAPs, it's the same old problem, of not enough players active in the game.

This is a global, open world game. Time zones are always going to be an issue. If corps can set thier intrusion times, the server will divide roughly into (3) 8 hour groups; US/EU/Asia. I don't think allowing the server to segregate in this way is desirable.

Undefended SAPs or players just going in to ninja the loot aren't relevant, its certainly a mistake to try to balance the Intrusion system around scenerios where neither side really cares if they keep or get the outpost.

Therefore, the only interesting SAP scenrios are ones where attackers show up to, with the intent of taking the SAP, and there is a force willing and able to defend it.

Intrusion defense is boring for  93 minutes, if no one shows up for it (or they detect they are greatly outnumbered): Login 30 mins prior to defense, stand around for 60 mins, grab loot, dockup and logout.

Intrusion Attacking is boring for about 60 minutes, if no one shows up to defend it: Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, take SAP in 2-12 mins, travel 10 mins back to outpost and log off.

Intrusion defense is boring for 45 mins, if too many attackers show up for it: Login 30 min prior to SAP, assemble and detect, see 4x your force jump in 10 mins after SAP starts, 5 min to dockup and log out.

Intrusion attack is boring for 50 mins, if too many defenders are present:  Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, see outnumbered, travel 10 mins back to outpost and logoff.

When numbers are fairly even, then its exciting. Not allowing the attacker time to manuver, that is reducing the open SAP time, would mean the only way to ever win an intrustion would be to show up in overwhelming force, that allows the attacker blitz in, wipe or push defenders off the SAP and then camp the outpost to stop zerging.

Which leads back to the scenrio where attackers show up with 4 to 5x the numbers, because they have to.

As boring as it is, and I know how boring it is to sit for an hour, the game has to allow attackers time to manuver around, use terrain, and attrition to gain the SAP. And it is most certainly NOT a boring hour when you are in a SAP battle.

212

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga wrote:

The issues isn't with the SAPs, it's the same old problem, of not enough players active in the game.

This is a global, open world game. Time zones are always going to be an issue. If corps can set thier intrusion times, the server will divide roughly into (3) 8 hour groups; US/EU/Asia. I don't think allowing the server to segregate in this way is desirable.

Undefended SAPs or players just going in to ninja the loot aren't relevant, its certainly a mistake to try to balance the Intrusion system around scenerios where neither side really cares if they keep or get the outpost.

Therefore, the only interesting SAP scenrios are ones where attackers show up to, with the intent of taking the SAP, and there is a force willing and able to defend it.

Intrusion defense is boring for  93 minutes, if no one shows up for it (or they detect they are greatly outnumbered): Login 30 mins prior to defense, stand around for 60 mins, grab loot, dockup and logout.

Intrusion Attacking is boring for about 60 minutes, if no one shows up to defend it: Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, take SAP in 2-12 mins, travel 10 mins back to outpost and log off.

Intrusion defense is boring for 45 mins, if too many attackers show up for it: Login 30 min prior to SAP, assemble and detect, see 4x your force jump in 10 mins after SAP starts, 5 min to dockup and log out.

Intrusion attack is boring for 50 mins, if too many defenders are present:  Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, see outnumbered, travel 10 mins back to outpost and logoff.

When numbers are fairly even, then its exciting. Not allowing the attacker time to manuver, that is reducing the open SAP time, would mean the only way to ever win an intrustion would be to show up in overwhelming force, that allows the attacker blitz in, wipe or push defenders off the SAP and then camp the outpost to stop zerging.

Which leads back to the scenrio where attackers show up with 4 to 5x the numbers, because they have to.

As boring as it is, and I know how boring it is to sit for an hour, the game has to allow attackers time to manuver around, use terrain, and attrition to gain the SAP. And it is most certainly NOT a boring hour when you are in a SAP battle.

Arga you are my new Hero!  More Titan for you!  As long as your willing to come half way across the world mahahah!

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: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga wrote:

The issues isn't with the SAPs, it's the same old problem, of not enough players active in the game.

This is a global, open world game. Time zones are always going to be an issue. If corps can set thier intrusion times, the server will divide roughly into (3) 8 hour groups; US/EU/Asia. I don't think allowing the server to segregate in this way is desirable.

Undefended SAPs or players just going in to ninja the loot aren't relevant, its certainly a mistake to try to balance the Intrusion system around scenerios where neither side really cares if they keep or get the outpost.

Therefore, the only interesting SAP scenrios are ones where attackers show up to, with the intent of taking the SAP, and there is a force willing and able to defend it.

Intrusion defense is boring for  93 minutes, if no one shows up for it (or they detect they are greatly outnumbered): Login 30 mins prior to defense, stand around for 60 mins, grab loot, dockup and logout.

Intrusion Attacking is boring for about 60 minutes, if no one shows up to defend it: Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, take SAP in 2-12 mins, travel 10 mins back to outpost and log off.

Intrusion defense is boring for 45 mins, if too many attackers show up for it: Login 30 min prior to SAP, assemble and detect, see 4x your force jump in 10 mins after SAP starts, 5 min to dockup and log out.

Intrusion attack is boring for 50 mins, if too many defenders are present:  Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, see outnumbered, travel 10 mins back to outpost and logoff.

When numbers are fairly even, then its exciting. Not allowing the attacker time to manuver, that is reducing the open SAP time, would mean the only way to ever win an intrustion would be to show up in overwhelming force, that allows the attacker blitz in, wipe or push defenders off the SAP and then camp the outpost to stop zerging.

Which leads back to the scenrio where attackers show up with 4 to 5x the numbers, because they have to.

As boring as it is, and I know how boring it is to sit for an hour, the game has to allow attackers time to manuver around, use terrain, and attrition to gain the SAP. And it is most certainly NOT a boring hour when you are in a SAP battle.

SAP battles 'can' be quite exciting yes, two a day for a week, at random times, not so much.... but

1) If they were that great people would use them to get some PvP. In fact we have done this a few times,  but most ppl seem to just ignore them, in part because......

2) Owning an outpost is not really worth the effort. If someone is willing to attack it for a week its not worth defending, if someone will defend for a week its not worth attacking. The idea of two sides fighting back and forth over SAPs for two weeks or so is frankly comical.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Dazamin wrote:
Arga wrote:

The issues isn't with the SAPs, it's the same old problem, of not enough players active in the game.

This is a global, open world game. Time zones are always going to be an issue. If corps can set thier intrusion times, the server will divide roughly into (3) 8 hour groups; US/EU/Asia. I don't think allowing the server to segregate in this way is desirable.

Undefended SAPs or players just going in to ninja the loot aren't relevant, its certainly a mistake to try to balance the Intrusion system around scenerios where neither side really cares if they keep or get the outpost.

Therefore, the only interesting SAP scenrios are ones where attackers show up to, with the intent of taking the SAP, and there is a force willing and able to defend it.

Intrusion defense is boring for  93 minutes, if no one shows up for it (or they detect they are greatly outnumbered): Login 30 mins prior to defense, stand around for 60 mins, grab loot, dockup and logout.

Intrusion Attacking is boring for about 60 minutes, if no one shows up to defend it: Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, take SAP in 2-12 mins, travel 10 mins back to outpost and log off.

Intrusion defense is boring for 45 mins, if too many attackers show up for it: Login 30 min prior to SAP, assemble and detect, see 4x your force jump in 10 mins after SAP starts, 5 min to dockup and log out.

Intrusion attack is boring for 50 mins, if too many defenders are present:  Login 10 mins before intrusion, wait 15 mins for stragglers and refits, travel 10 mins to SAP island, scout for 5 mins, see outnumbered, travel 10 mins back to outpost and logoff.

When numbers are fairly even, then its exciting. Not allowing the attacker time to manuver, that is reducing the open SAP time, would mean the only way to ever win an intrustion would be to show up in overwhelming force, that allows the attacker blitz in, wipe or push defenders off the SAP and then camp the outpost to stop zerging.

Which leads back to the scenrio where attackers show up with 4 to 5x the numbers, because they have to.

As boring as it is, and I know how boring it is to sit for an hour, the game has to allow attackers time to manuver around, use terrain, and attrition to gain the SAP. And it is most certainly NOT a boring hour when you are in a SAP battle.

SAP battles 'can' be quite exciting yes, two a day for a week, at random times, not so much.... but

1) If they were that great people would use them to get some PvP. In fact we have done this a few times,  but most ppl seem to just ignore them, in part because......

2) Owning an outpost is not really worth the effort. If someone is willing to attack it for a week its not worth defending, if someone will defend for a week its not worth attacking. The idea of two sides fighting back and forth over SAPs for two weeks or so is frankly comical.

Yeah for instance when two entities fight eachother in different timezones it ultimately results in a stalemate. So basically people end up logging in, sitting at a sap for an hour or going to someones sap and not PvPing at all.

I guess this is working as intended though and people can use the weekends to fight in other timezones to try and push them over the edge.

I just dislike the sitting around / waiting aspect of defense as well as the walk somewhere just to stay there 3 minutes to take the sap, quite frankly its extremely boring and I would rather be doing something else.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

I don't see any realistic way of better balancing a system thats based around multiple SAPs per day. The current situation where largely people don't care is about the best you can hope for. If people actually cared it would be much worse, since you'd have to subject your corp / alliance mates to multiple CTAs daily, where basically nothing ever happened, since the inferior force would stand down a lot of the time, as getting owned twice a day every day is not really sustainable.

216

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

"Intrusion" 2.0 should be rebranded as "We didn't want that outpost anyway" 2.0  big_smile

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

Arga wrote:

"Intrusion" 2.0 should be rebranded as "We didn't want that outpost anyway" 2.0  big_smile

QFT.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

218

Re: Intrusion 2.0 issues and feedback

working as intended.

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.