• *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Topic: Changing the nature of engagements in Perpetuum

The current situation

- opportunities for PVP are fixed to a limiting, inconvienient (from a gaming standpoint) schedule, both on beta and gamma
- PVP-oriented tasks are time-intensive (i.e. hour long defenses) and dragged out among multiple days - this does not make pvp meaningful, it's just boring
- a lot of content (especially gamma) is available only to a miniscule percentage of players, regardless of the population's size


Possible alternatives

INTRUSIONS 3.0

- true occupancy (being there doing stuff)
- provide quick and random events, short tasks, small rewards
- events are scattered around the island, requiring you to search for them
- accrue events to enable SAP openings
- an alternative would be to build indices (mining, harvesting, killing), but we don't want to look too closely to Steve, now do we?
- keep track of a large varierty of statistics, but also a clear leaderboard


GAMMA 2.0

- player-set timers for vulnerability (don't come back to a destroyed base the following morning) and make it a resource matter (fueled defenses) - sieging (cutting off the supply) could be an interesting mechanic here
- considerable cheaper to terraform/build
- no outrageous bonuses/auras
- slope limitations (limit relative height differences from tile to tile)
- but really, however you want to do it, shift it to something readily available to everyone, and have players sort it out amongst themselves


General comments

- don't overdo it (don't focus too much on PvP itself); maintain and expand capabilities to provide a context (politics, resources, etc.)
- PvP is unfair, harsh and meaningful - serious internet pixels
- do NOT succumb to complaints of carebear-oriented players; their attitudes and resulting style of play are vital to the general atmosphere of a PvP-fostering environement (where in-game 'ethics' and other roleplaying elements come into play, again providing context).
- mind the solo player (they are the type of player currently completely left out, leading to imho *** retention early on - artifacting is the exception to the rule here) --- essentially grab them, provide for them, and have the community tell them they're doing well, but could be doing a lot better being part of a group


Suggestions

- Nia's forces are already split in a threeway engagement; you are a free agent, why not align with them instead of bothering them? Note that this has the potential to enable roleplaying and players aligning themselves politically (yet another context for conflict).

Perpetuum Killboard

2 Reply by Sundial (edited by Sundial 2013-09-02 19:48:42)

  • AIC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Changing the nature of engagements in Perpetuum

Some good ideas here, especially the fueling one. Maybe reactor fuel could be the new epriton of beta islands? At the same time though, I feel like the beta1 islands should be more publicly accessible and beta2 could be more controllable?

Being able to pick your reinforce timer is a must.

"- true occupancy (being there doing stuff)" simply nails it. This is one of the bigger problems of steve.

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

Re: Changing the nature of engagements in Perpetuum

Intrusion 3.0


The old:

The great thing about the original system was massive fights that required people to attend to win.

The bad thing about it was the all or nothing of it. At this point stations were considered fairly meh to own as you couldn't lock people out and it was just based upon station income.

The new:

The great thing about this is you don't have to show up for every sap. Its a gradual process. You also have the ability to lock people out of stations making intrusions more consequential. As people are now recognizing the income from missions this made stations more valuable.

The bad thing about it is it increases the chances for blue balling to epic proportions. With thatr it also reduces the ability to have epic fights.

What I would suggest is mixing the two systems together. Keep station ownership linked to the saps of the current system. Make locking related to the old system. In order to lock a station you would be required to have that station at 100%. This would allow you to see intrusion times for the next 7 days, You would then set a globally advertised locking intrusion that everyone can see with a minimum of 48 hours notice. Upon successful completion of this intrusion your station would lock.

Once a station is locked then no more mini intrusions can take place. It would need to be unlocked. Intrusion times would be advertised and you would need to pick one in the same way as locking to unlock. A succesful unlock would reduce the station back to zero. A successful defence would allow you to block one timer a week to a maximum of two timers a week.

To make it clear:

>Current system to get your station to 100%

>Once at 100% you can choose to lock your station by advertising an intrusion with 48 hours notice

>Successful lock would stop current system intrusions

>To unlock you need to give 48 hours notice to pick an advertised intrusion

>Unlocking reduces a station to zero

>Limit on one lock / unlock intrusion a week

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Changing the nature of engagements in Perpetuum

Tackling the problem from the other side: http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … e-problem/

If you nerf gamma islands, then I don't think betas need any work.

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Changing the nature of engagements in Perpetuum

Not being able to lock an outpost is going to create issues with sp TP; even with a timer.

Defenders will have to watch for troops coming in through TP gates to the SAP, as well as enemies undocking behind them.

To prevent that, the defenders would have to close down the beta Island for all 48 hours to prevent enemies from brining in scarb loads of bots; assuming they were not the previous owner of the outpost, that already had lots of bots still there.