Re: Gamma revamp testing

Tux wrote:

Why is 1 Terminal on an Island a waste?

Your insinuating that:
1. A corporation should need to deploy 3 terminal/networks on an island in order to "start" to secure the island.
2. A group of several Corporations is needed to secure an island 1 Per terminal
3. An island Is large enough to fully support 3 Corporations

1-2. One of the goals of the new system is to disallow shutting down the islands at the teleports.  Why do you still think in the old system? Why do you want to secure the island and not the base? Why does a corporation want an entire island for itself? And if it does, shouldn't it have to make a considerable extra effort to do it, compared to the corporations who only want a base?

3. That really depends on the size of said corporations, doesn't it?

Tux wrote:

From past experience the gamma Islands are Barely capable of fully supporting 2 Corporations of a moderate size let alone 3 or more.

So why is that? Is it possibly because of the building spam?

Tux wrote:

How will you balance the 2 TP 3 TP and 4 TP Islands so the number of terminals does not pre determine what islands are going to be able to be locked off form the outside? << keep in mind that if its possible in any way shape or form players will do it, its just a matter of time.

I would simply add more parallel teleport channels between two islands.

Tux wrote:

If i can TF a slopped "wall" around a teleport and put turrets at the top of the slope. and my enemy cannot Tf the slope to attack me then what have we solved. If i have 3 terminals on an island and 3 teleports i can secure my island, people will not be able to roam at all. the only thing the "locked slope" does is give clean LOS from my turrets to the attacker.
(turret)
          \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
            \
              \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                \
                  \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                    \_________

We'll have to look at that, cause I received another report that it's not possible to terraform up there, while theoretically it should be possible to build incremental ramps.

But another question then: why do you want to terraform that? What would be the goal of it?

If you can't shoot the turret because it's out of range, why don't you take some assaults up there, place some bombs and be done with it? I'm pretty sure the turrets can't track the entirety of a large enough squad. Yeah you're going to have losses, but then again, assaults are cheap.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

turrets should be seen as mech or heavy mechs. I totally understand I will lose them when a fleet is there to defend or not. If the base is put into reinforcement then that is what I get for not being there or losing the battle.

Turrets should be there to protect a base from being rolled by small gangs. If a 50 man squad hits the field then I expect to lose turrets and my stuff to get put into reinforcement.

But I will be ready when they will return. I still want to put new turrets up. But it sounds like the new system will stop my from putting up new turrets for the next battle. Am I reading that correctly?

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: Gamma revamp testing

That reminds me, i forgot to add another suggestion:

Should turrets also have an emergency phase, since their numbers will be limited now? They will go offline if they do, but you wouldn't have the hassle of rebuilding them again and again.

79 (edited by Tux 2014-05-14 23:01:35)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:

One of the goals of the new system is to disallow shutting down the islands at the teleports.  Why do you still think in the old system? Why do you want to secure the island and not the base? Why does a corporation want an entire island for itself? And if it does, shouldn't it have to make a considerable extra effort to do it, compared to the corporations who only want a base?


Zoom I am thinking of how to break your system ... and im telling you how to break it because it will be done. I assure you, please dont make the same mistakes as the old system and think that players will do what you want them to because they wont. Players will do any thing they can to gain an advantage over other players and if that means locking off an entire island it will be done.

DEV Zoom wrote:

3. That really depends on the size of said corporations, doesn't it?

Tux wrote:

From past experience the gamma Islands are Barely capable of fully supporting 2 Corporations of a moderate size let alone 3 or more.

So why is that? Is it possibly because of the building spam?

Because just like the Alpha 2 islands when you get 40+ RIV MK2's out mining fields dry quickly. but i guess that was a little off topic on my part ...

except for that one island should be designed for a corporation not an alliance of many different corporations ... unless you would like to take this time to officially implement the alliance feature smile

Because corporations are the functional group all your systems are based around I think in those terms (corporations). so i ask why does 1 corporation need so many terminals on 1 island ... what is your goal or purpose for allowing so many? the only benefit i see to allowing so many terminals on an island is to strengthen the defenses of the island as a whole, is it not? Why wouldn't a corporation do everything it possibly can to defend as much space as allowed in order to gain as much benefit form the island as possible?

Tux wrote:

If i can TF a slopped "wall" around a teleport and put turrets at the top of the slope. and my enemy cannot Tf the slope to attack me then what have we solved. If i have 3 terminals on an island and 3 teleports i can secure my island, people will not be able to roam at all. the only thing the "locked slope" does is give clean LOS from my turrets to the attacker.
(turret)
          \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
            \
              \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                \
                  \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                    \_________

DEV Zoom wrote:

We'll have to look at that, cause I received another report that it's not possible to terraform up there, while theoretically it should be possible to build incremental ramps.

But another question then: why do you want to terraform that? What would be the goal of it?

If you can't shoot the turret because it's out of range, why don't you take some assaults up there, place some bombs and be done with it? I'm pretty sure the turrets can't track the entirety of a large enough squad. Yeah you're going to have losses, but then again, assaults are cheap.

ummm because its going to be the standard for gate defense ... and base defense. ... trust me ...



DEV Zoom wrote:

That reminds me, i forgot to add another suggestion:

Should turrets also have an emergency phase, since their numbers will be limited now? They will go offline if they do, but you wouldn't have the hassle of rebuilding them again and again.

YES!

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 revamp testing

Tux wrote:

except for that one island should be designed for a corporation not an alliance of many different corporations ... unless you would like to take this time to officially implement the alliance feature smile

Because corporations are the functional group all your systems are based around I think in those terms (corporations). so i ask why does 1 corporation need so many terminals on 1 island ... what is your goal or purpose for allowing so many? the only benefit i see to allowing so many terminals on an island is to strengthen the defenses of the island as a whole, is it not? Why wouldn't a corporation do everything it possibly can to defend as much space as allowed in order to gain as much benefit form the island as possible?

I'm not talking about friendly corporations, not even about alliances smile
Is it really so unthinkable that 3 opposing corporations occupy the same island? Much like beta outposts?

Tux wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

We'll have to look at that, cause I received another report that it's not possible to terraform up there, while theoretically it should be possible to build incremental ramps.

But another question then: why do you want to terraform that? What would be the goal of it?

If you can't shoot the turret because it's out of range, why don't you take some assaults up there, place some bombs and be done with it? I'm pretty sure the turrets can't track the entirety of a large enough squad. Yeah you're going to have losses, but then again, assaults are cheap.

ummm because its going to be the standard for gate defense ... and base defense. ... trust me ...

Ok, I think you misunderstood me smile

My question wasn't about why you want to terraform such a structure, I was asking why do you want to terraform into it (as an attacker) if you can simply go up with assaults?

81 (edited by Obi Wan Kenobi 2014-05-14 23:27:12)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:

3. Gates on the wall. The easiest way would be to do another type of wall tiles that ask for a code like field containers and open up for a set time.

If you agree with any of these I'll include it in the first post.

If you guys cant / wont give us real porper walls & gates then i would settle for this!

+1


Also remove the island cap limit for stations but the min distance between bases needs to be much larger then just 3km

Finally as some one brought up earlier  if some one friendly shoots a structure the rest of the turret network should defend its self.

DEV Zoom wrote:

That reminds me, i forgot to add another suggestion:

Should turrets also have an emergency phase, since their numbers will be limited now? They will go offline if they do, but you wouldn't have the hassle of rebuilding them again and again.


+1

True Pros make a Podcast to influence the Devs minds, 
The rest of you guys are Hacks tongue

PS. I got my Highways & stopped playing b4 they came in & have never used them! ...... Irony much ? tongue

82

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:

My question wasn't about why you want to terraform such a structure, I was asking why do you want to terraform into it (as an attacker) if you can simply go up with assaults?

Assaults will do nothing against a turret .. if in range of a turret the assault will die in 1 or 2 shouts (if the first shot misses).

so then when attacking you need some type of cover to get close enough to shoot the turret or ew the turret or something ... which will all be done by EW Mechs and Heavy Mechs ... you will never see any one run assault class bots against turrets they are too weak.

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.

83 (edited by Malsier Dabian 2014-05-14 23:28:40)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:
Malsier Dabian wrote:

I am against nurfing the turrets, because some corps could roll up with a 100 man team and simply roll over them anyway (especially with the current placement restrictions and terminal bandwith restrictions and range from terminal restrictions)), even with their current bonuses and ranges.

I don't really understand your reasoning here. Turrets were never meant to be a means for perfect base defense, you HAVE to be there to make sure you did everything you can to defend it. (I don't blame you though, lots of corporations made the same mistake of thinking their base was invincible on its own.)

There is no way to balance this if you want to defend your base purely using turrets. If we let you build enough of them to defend against 50 people, they will bring 100. Then we increase the limit and they bring 200 people. Soon the whole island is full with turrets and we're back to square one, and you still lose your base.

Because if your base can't be destroyed in any way, then the system is broken.

Furthermore, the new system rather helps smaller corporations compared to the old one. And this is exactly because of the limitations. Pumping more and more money into your network to build more buildings like in the old system will not work. The limit will be the same for big and small corps alike, so a successful construction will now much more depend on the way you put the pieces together, and less on the amount of NIC you throw at it.

Not really, zoom. I've only actually seen a 100 man push once. The rest of the time its always been 30-50. (I was using an exaggeration as an example)

But my point with the exaggeration there was simply to say that a smaller corp should have a chance to defend against the larger beasts corps, rather then simply getting steamrolled by them.

While this system makes it almost impossible for any 30-50 man corp to go to Gamma at all, Nurfing the turrets means only corps with 150+ members (able to field those 30-50 man squads) can even consider living on Gamma.

Since the only "real" defense with all the other limitations you're imposing will be Bodies in Bots. Meaning Gammas will simply be for "The large corps" alienating the smaller ones, who will have no chance to own and keep anything on gamma, even if they fight for it tooth and nail.

At least with the Turrets current setup (+ the other 2 defensive suggestions you posted), the smaller corps will have a "Chance" to push the enemy back.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

If assaults die too easily to turrets we can tweak the turrets' hit dispersion/explosion size.

85

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:
Tux wrote:

except for that one island should be designed for a corporation not an alliance of many different corporations ... unless you would like to take this time to officially implement the alliance feature smile

Because corporations are the functional group all your systems are based around I think in those terms (corporations). so i ask why does 1 corporation need so many terminals on 1 island ... what is your goal or purpose for allowing so many? the only benefit i see to allowing so many terminals on an island is to strengthen the defenses of the island as a whole, is it not? Why wouldn't a corporation do everything it possibly can to defend as much space as allowed in order to gain as much benefit form the island as possible?

I'm not talking about friendly corporations, not even about alliances smile
Is it really so unthinkable that 3 opposing corporations occupy the same island? Much like beta outposts?

Yes,  its really unthinkable that 3 opposing corporations occupy the same island. This will never happen it goes against everything that players want in / on a Gamma island... players fight to keep others AWAY.

There is no reason that 2 or more opposing corporations would control terminals on the same island unless one was in the process of taking control of the rest of the terminals. In the end it will be a single corporation owning all of the terminals or ... there will be several owned by an "alliance" of corporations.

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 revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:
Cassius wrote:

I wish terraforming was tied to the original land elevation, and allowing terraforming either +50 or -50 from that tile. Can you comment on this, I've suggested it before.

That wouldn't be any different from the current system. The problem is not 1km high vertical walls, the problem is vertical walls, however high. Terraforming was not meant for that, walls are meant for that.

Seriously, exactly what would be wrong about a 100 m wall?
I thought the problem with Gamma was that players took things to the extreme. 100 m walls allow LOS defense, allow neat fortifications to be built, and most of all allow defenders a much easier time to burrow thru them. Having the terraforming tied to a value +- of the original tile allows for some measure of offensive terraforming.

Please stop and think why this would be bad. Having it tied to the original tile means not every area could be terraformed and also means the existing landscape would be hugely tactical.

Make bandwidth capped per island. This makes the players able to have variety and different combinations of structures and highways built.  IT ALLOWS CREATIVITY.

Bandwidth tied to terminals, and terraforming tied to slope means everyone will be building a pyramid and the same base with the same structures once the optimum is worked out.

Please seriously consider these.  Do what I'm suggesting and you can have one island with a mega base, another with just scattered but plentiful mining bases and outposts, or an island with 2 or main bases of different corps, the only limit to the combinations is the players mind.

87

Re: Gamma revamp testing

some how i see going down this path ending up really badly.

I dont think turrets are a problem right now. they kill what they should ...

Why should an assault be able to come close to a turret ?? even if it could scale a hill and get with in firing range of a turret you will need it to be able to "tank" the turret for long enough to drop several plasma bombs .. because its not going to do enough damage to kill or reinforce the turret before the turret kills it.

DEV Zoom wrote:

If assaults die too easily to turrets we can tweak the turrets' hit dispersion/explosion size.

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 revamp testing

What you don't understand Malsier is that there is no way to make a mechanic exclusively available to a smaller corporation and forbid a large alliance from using it to create more problems.

At this point you and a couple of others seriously need to step back and stop trying to manipulate the gamma revamp to suit your own agendas, or this whole thing will collapse 2-6-12 months after its released and then they'll have to wipe again.

I'm sitting on 50+ hitech terminals and still laughing at the 1-terminal-per-island joke.

*edit: Easy there. -DEV Zoom

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:

If assaults die too easily to turrets we can tweak the turrets' hit dispersion/explosion size.

have you ever looked at what those EWAR turrets do?

*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: Gamma revamp testing

Tux wrote:

some how i see going down this path ending up really badly.

I dont think turrets are a problem right now. they kill what they should ...

Why should an assault be able to come close to a turret ?? even if it could scale a hill and get with in firing range of a turret you will need it to be able to "tank" the turret for long enough to drop several plasma bombs .. because its not going to do enough damage to kill or reinforce the turret before the turret kills it.

DEV Zoom wrote:

If assaults die too easily to turrets we can tweak the turrets' hit dispersion/explosion size.

The bomb suggestion was just an example. (Though people managed to do the same to destruction SAPs in a matter of seconds, so I don't think this would be too different.)

My point is that assaults should be a viable strategy to (surprise!) assault gamma bases. They can enter the inside of any base quickly and use LOS among the buildings to hide and disrupt things, even if their DPS only allows this to be done slowly. (Then again, that slowness only depends on their numbers.)

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Syndic wrote:

What you don't understand Malsier is that there is no way to make a mechanic exclusively available to a smaller corporation and forbid a large alliance from using it to create more problems.

At this point you and a couple of others seriously need to step back and stop trying to manipulate the gamma revamp to suit your own agendas, or this whole thing will collapse 2-6-12 months after its released and then they'll have to wipe again.

I'm sitting on 50+ hitech terminals and still laughing at the 1-terminal-per-island joke.

*edit: Easy there. -DEV Zoom

Petty agenda? So what if larger corps can have the same defense, They are already going to own the *** anyway.... The point is to allow the smaller corps the same opportunity.

Which with your corps "Petty agenda", I can understand how you would not want smaller corps to be able to mount a defense capable of killing your blob attack squad.... Just saying.

My Agenda is equal opportunity, Yours is oppression.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Idea: Turret could also have a minimum range. If you're inside, say, 200m the turret can't hit you at all. ofc the counter is to have a turret or two 250m away but an attacker can get some cover from the turret they're shooting.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Zoom..  Turrets can two shot an assault and it takes 15-20 plasma bombs to kill a turret, ASSUMING that you fixed the bug that actually allows plasma bombs to damage structures...

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 revamp testing

Malsier Dabian wrote:
Syndic wrote:

What you don't understand Malsier is that there is no way to make a mechanic exclusively available to a smaller corporation and forbid a large alliance from using it to create more problems.

At this point you and a couple of others seriously need to step back and stop trying to manipulate the gamma revamp to suit your own agendas, or this whole thing will collapse 2-6-12 months after its released and then they'll have to wipe again.

I'm sitting on 50+ hitech terminals and still laughing at the 1-terminal-per-island joke.

*edit: Easy there. -DEV Zoom

Petty agenda? So what if larger corps can have the same defense, They are already going to own the *** anyway.... The point is to allow the smaller corps the same opportunity.

Which with your corps "Petty agenda", I can understand how you would not want smaller corps to be able to mount a defense capable of killing your blob attack squad.... Just saying.

My Agenda is equal opportunity, Yours is oppression.

There is no free cheese in a sandbox....... Gamma islands are not meant to be cheap and easy. The old saying "It takes a village to raise a child" can be applied to Gamma islands. A small corp is in no way, shape or form able to create and MAINTAIN a Gamma Fortress for any long period of time in a MMO with any kind of population. It takes a village of people within a large corporation to devote the resources and time to "raise" their Gamma base......

Wanting unlimited turrets will lead to exactly what was just wiped.... The only difference is that it will be all LARGE corps and unofficial alliances that rush every gamma so you don't have a chance to place a single structure. Then the complaint will be that 2 member corps didn't have a chance to even place a terminal.

As it stands with limited structures and terminals a small corp has the chance to place a gamma base and defend it against mid size adversaries. It will all come down to whether a small corp has the testicular fortitude to squat on an island that has a 300 member corp living on it or does that same small corp squat on an island that doesn't have a sizeable corp/alliance presence on it and build defenses that will afford protection from said inhabitants? Maybe, just maybe, small corps use some people skills and negotiate with their piers and take an island together...... If not, there is always Beta.

wtf is the world coming to when I agree with Syndic???????? lol

Inappropriate signature.

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Yes to the idea that everything should go into hardened mode and shut down instead of directly destroyed.

Why? Global game with time zone coverage issues, which is why hardening was put in on terminals.

Also, it does make more sense from a game standpoint to NOT allow every facility to be built on a single terminal. As little as I like hauling, it creates opportunity for PVP and for potentially smaller scale PVP. This means that yes, you need to allow more than 1 terminal, 3K is a good distance because it will also promote highway building between terminals.

Let me add the caveat, that it's all going to depend on the 'reward' of using Gamma which Zoom is not talking about. And some change to mining where it actually becomes 'important' to save resources and not just produce on Beta (since you're going to have to haul EPI for sure).

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:
Tux wrote:

Please limit this to 1 >> If more than 1 terminal per island is allowed players will naturally place them near gates for defending the Island << This is not theory craft it was done in the past it will be done again. We need to make the gammas roam-able … even @ 1 km away from the terminal I can place turrets
(Turret ~~~~1KM~~~~Terminal~~~~1KM~~~~Turret)
to cut off some Islands form roamers If Im allowed to place 3 terminals. Please start with 1 Terminal and balance from there more can always be added later if you feel the need.

If that's the concern then I would rather add more teleports than to "waste" an entire island on one terminal.

I feel more teleports, and a min of three stations. Also one corp can not own more then one terminal per island. This will allow islands to become allaince centers. Which in turn will allow more large scale pvp battles to occur to take down a terminal, and allow smaller roams as well, since you will have many entry and exit points to the gamma island, from other gamma islands and beta as well.

Also this helps small corps as well, since the main allainces will be needed to stay close to their gamma island. Therefore opening other islands to those corps.

[16:03:43] <Mara Gossep> syndic.....and get your *** spy out of our corp

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Zoom please stop with this assaults attacking a gamma base rubbish. It's never going to happen without hopelessly hamstringing base defence. It should never happen either. Fixed slopes are an awful idea as they are far too easy to exploit.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Make Turrets go incap.

Suggestion.

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

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Gamma revamp testing

DEV Zoom wrote:

If assaults die too easily to turrets we can tweak the turrets' hit dispersion/explosion size.


If, there is No If.  There is Is.

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

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Gamma revamp testing

Also, I suggest you take the time to optimize your structure code, when you open the colony management it would always be quite laggy and such.

Suggestion.

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

Scarab Kill Count - 13