• JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Topic: Sap mechanics

I'd like to see a change to current sap mechanics.

You would be required to take every sap to maintain your stability. If you miss a sap and own the station the stability would fall. No more waiting an hour to defend. You would be actively required to risk assets twice a day.

This would make owning everything very time consuming. It would also benefit station owners defending. It would create PvP requiring you to commit assets to maintain stability.

There's a lot wrong with the intrusion system but since an overall isn't on the cards low hanging fruit would help for now. Let's promote emergent gameplay.

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."
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

I agree as long as the specimen takes items from the local area (plasma/plants/kernels) or has a mission involved like a cargo mission or kill 20 light bots over here and bring us the mission things from them current specimen is pain in the @ss

Anonymous: lobo is the only hero left in this god foresaken game / :also, Lobo is god among men
http://killboard.sequer.nl/?a=agent-his … mp;month=7 Best month 104 to 1 k/d
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Lobo wrote:

I agree as long as the specimen takes items from the local area (plasma/plants/kernels) or has a mission involved like a cargo mission or kill 20 light bots over here and bring us the mission things from them current specimen is pain in the @ss

It would be nice. Specimens are predictable though so if you live there they ain't that bad.

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."
  • CHAOS
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Lobo wrote:

I agree as long as the specimen takes items from the local area (plasma/plants/kernels) or has a mission involved like a cargo mission or kill 20 light bots over here and bring us the mission things from them current specimen is pain in the @ss

y. "...Bring 378 injector charges..." omfg...

  • STC
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

I think taking SAPs just to maintain stability is a bit much with the current population but it would make sense if stability did not go up by itself. So if nobody takes a SAP it just stays the same.

I think making it mandatory to take the specimen SAP just to maintain stability is a bit over the top but this would not be so much of a problem if not taking it didn't cause you to lose stability on your own outpost.

Defending a specimen by taking it would also just be a matter of keeping a bunch of everything in that outpost.  Some corps can afford to do that with ease but for others it would be a major PITA.  My suggestion would be to make the specimen sap spawn a container with a largeish item near one of the teleports on the island.  The goal would then be to get that item into the specimen SAP.
This would create a more level playing field for corps that have a lot of resources stockpiled and those that don't.

Having to take your own SAPs would also address the problem of defenders having to sit formed up on a SAP for one hour without getting a fight because they know that attackers will move in only if they leave.

+1
-Confucius
  • S.I
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Jita wrote:

I'd like to see a change to current sap mechanics.

You would be required to take every sap to maintain your stability. If you miss a sap and own the station the stability would fall. No more waiting an hour to defend. You would be actively required to risk assets twice a day.

This would make owning everything very time consuming. It would also benefit station owners defending. It would create PvP requiring you to commit assets to maintain stability.

There's a lot wrong with the intrusion system but since an overall isn't on the cards low hanging fruit would help for now. Let's promote emergent gameplay.

make it once a day, and increase the ammount a station can lose with that 1 sap.. Also defenders choise of when the sap is opening.

Some things never change lol lol lol lol lol lol : http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … alliances/
  • RAD
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Shadeless wrote:

make it once a day, and increase the ammount a station can lose with that 1 sap.. Also defenders choise of when the sap is opening.

Defenders choice of when a SAP opens makes some timezones unable to attack your outposts.
+1 for only one SAP a day that lowers, the other should just make the stability stay on the same level, not rise or fall, so a corporation that's active in only one part of the day still doesnt have to risk falling stability, as long as they do the other SAP.

  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

and then, when that one SAP is open, the whole *** army will come with mk2 heavies and ewars and rip you apart in one battle and take your Station because you couldn't defend it for the whole hour necessary.


erm, what exactly does this achieve?

*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
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

The point is to make it difficult for one entity to own all of beta. It's bad for the game. None of the other changes suggested make that difficult and some make it easier.

  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Keep the system as is, instead add a monetary incentive to hold stations that only kicks in at 100 stability.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

11 Reply by Burial (edited by Burial 2014-06-14 18:26:05)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Lobo wrote:

I agree as long as the specimen takes items from the local area (plasma/plants/kernels) or has a mission involved like a cargo mission or kill 20 light bots over here and bring us the mission things from them current specimen is pain in the @ss

Yes, specimen SAP needs some work. Other than that it's pretty decent suggestion.

Syndic wrote:

Keep the system as is, instead add a monetary incentive to hold stations that only kicks in at 100 stability.

Right. roll

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Syndic wrote:

Keep the system as is, instead add a monetary incentive to hold stations that only kicks in at 100 stability.

This one. Outposts need to have a monetary upkeep.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Gremrod wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Keep the system as is, instead add a monetary incentive to hold stations that only kicks in at 100 stability.

This one. Outposts need to have a monetary upkeep.

i like what you did there wink

Storage fee should be based on volume.

*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
  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Annihilator wrote:
Gremrod wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Keep the system as is, instead add a monetary incentive to hold stations that only kicks in at 100 stability.

This one. Outposts need to have a monetary upkeep.

i like what you did there wink

Storage fee should be based on volume.

Volume? No, because a corp could take an outpost and have no corp storage there at all. So there would be no fee because of zero volume. Or they could just have members store it in private storage.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Upkeep is not an incentive.

An incentive gives a clear monetary reason for every organization capable of it to invest resources to capture an outpost. If the incentive isn't there, we end up with that we have - 2 corps holding the world, and 20 corps dicking in alpha playing world of tanks trying to ~outlast~.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

16 Reply by Gremrod (edited by Gremrod 2014-06-14 18:44:01)

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Hmmm. I misread the post. The incentive needs to be the other way around.

The idea.

When a corp holds a beta outpost and is at 100 stability they get the taxes paid on the corresponding alpha island outpost. If the island outpost are owned by more than one corp and they have the stability is 100 then the taxes from the corresponding alpha would get divided between all corps.

So when I speak of taxes I mean all the money players spend on alpha for industry fees i.e. Factory line fees, prototype fees, market tax fees etc are the taxes that would go to the controlling beta outposts.

This will make corps want to hold and defend outposts. This can change the political landscape and bring something very much needed to the games beta island control and intrusion system.

Example again:

Corps own an outpost on Beta 1 island Norhoop.

  • Alpha 1 outposts taxes flow to

    • Beta 1 outpost owners

Corps own an outpost on Beta 2 island Asbale.

  • Alpha 2 outposts taxes flow to

    • Beta 2 outpost owners

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

17 Reply by Gremrod (edited by Gremrod 2014-06-14 18:48:33)

  • CIR
  • Sportscaster
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Gremrod wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Keep the system as is, instead add a monetary incentive to hold stations that only kicks in at 100 stability.

This one. Outposts need to have a monetary upkeep.

Yeah I skipped over incentive and then headed into my idea for upkeep on beta 3 islands and gamma. roll

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23
  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Try playing.

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Making the already dreadfully boring and unfun saps more labor intensive wont help anything but burn out players faster.

Can we flip beta bases with pvp combat rather than dragging a sequer out full of *** and or standing and watching for an hour?

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

20 Reply by Rex Amelius (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-06-14 23:25:06)

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

I have always been opposed to the passive nature of SAP defense. Defense should require more active mechanics.

There are 3 distinct issues that each get muddled up when discussing Beta etc.

1) incentives / objectives / reason to even bother living on Beta or coming to Beta
2) Intrusion mechanics and Base ownership
3) Power Projection (eg Sparks, multi accounts, IZ, small world)

Each has connections to the other but imo, these should each be addressed independently or at least distinguished if any proposal or argument can make sense. Answering a discussion about intrusion mechanics with "there are no incentives to live on Beta" is not respecting the discussion about Intrusion MECHANICS. However there is nothing wrong with talking about a proposal that addresses each.

Please continue. Good suggestions in this thread.

Sparking to other games

21 Reply by Burial (edited by Burial 2014-06-15 01:42:54)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Syndic wrote:

Upkeep is not an incentive.

An incentive gives a clear monetary reason for every organization capable of it to invest resources to capture an outpost. If the incentive isn't there, we end up with that we have - 2 corps holding the world, and 20 corps dicking in alpha playing world of tanks trying to ~outlast~.

Incentive should actually come from people utilizing the island not just capturing outposts like it's some sort of sandbox capture the flag game.

Rex Amelius wrote:

I have always been opposed to the passive nature of SAP defense. Defense should require more active mechanics.

There are 3 distinct issues that each get muddled up when discussing Beta etc.

1) incentives / objectives / reason to even bother living on Beta or coming to Beta
2) Intrusion mechanics and Base ownership
3) Power Projection (eg Sparks, multi accounts, IZ, small world)

Each has connections to the other but imo, these should each be addressed independently or at least distinguished if any proposal or argument can make sense. Answering a discussion about intrusion mechanics with "there are no incentives to live on Beta" is not respecting the discussion about Intrusion MECHANICS. However there is nothing wrong with talking about a proposal that addresses each.

Please continue. Good suggestions in this thread.

Good post and I agree with a great deal of it. I think fixing Betas should come in following order: 1) Power projection 2) Incentives to live on Beta 3) SAP mechanics. Attempting to fix SAP mechanics with points 1 and 2 still broken will not build a clear picture. Will they actually be broken then?

The game is in bad shape. A lot of us feel it. Game needs developers to start acknowledging and fixing the problems before it's too late. Instead of introducing a new set of broken islands, fix the old ones. Ditch Gammas and fix Betas!

22 Reply by Syndic (edited by Syndic 2014-06-15 03:19:47)

  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

I often read these repeated requests for the Devs to do what the players should be doing themselves. Contest the outposts.

Obviously nobody wants an outpost that bad, otherwise they'd mobilize their organizations and invest some good ol' fashioned time & effort.

Meaning, there is no incentive to own an outpost - or the current incentives are insufficient. Otherwise there wouldn't be 10-20 vet corps with good stockpiles diddling on Alpha.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

23 Reply by Stranger Danger (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-06-15 03:26:31)

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Syndic wrote:

I often read these repeated requests for the Devs to do what the players should be doing themselves. Contest the outposts.

Obviously nobody wants an outpost that bad, otherwise they'd mobilize their organizations and invest some good ol' fashioned time & effort.

Meaning, there is no incentive to own an outpost - or the current incentives are insufficient. Otherwise there wouldn't be 10-20 vet corps with good stockpiles diddling on Alpha.

Perhaps there are better ways to entice people to come play the game rather than posting on the forums that others who are playing are killing the game.  I think that actually playing and defending is the right step for these guys.

I think the sap mechanics involve far too much busy work and no "lets fight" mechanics.  Perhaps a public siege time indicator would at the very least bring 3rd parties into the equation who are willing to fight.  Sitting and waiting for an hour to see if anyone shows is not fun.  Having a set time for losing the station would (I hope) at least bring people to a fight.

I agree.  The sap issue wouldn't be an issue if people actually  defended.  Some do but its usually one fight then they give up...forever...which is sad.

Everyone cant be winners in pvp, and losing is what is suppose to dive this games economy.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth
  • Cons
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

I wouldn't mind the intrusion window showing a 15-30 minute countdown for impending saps on all islands. The point of having saps random is so you can't plan a week out and you need a large active group to hold them. If you can probe them 12 hours aheac that is great but to give a very short warning that a sap is going live would definitely convince me to go contest any of then while I'm online.

Don't change mechanics in favor of small groups holding everything. It is fine the way it is to drive conflict and require groups to actively defend their objectives instead of who has bigger and more equipped bots. The point of allowing ninja sapping is to split an enemy fleet to guard their objectives and hopefully make it a little easier for the attackers to hit the split force. As it is now it requires an active player base to hold a single outpost and guard from ninjas. If that same group expands to take more terminals they may start getting burned out having to guard from the smaller groups.

Tldr the mechanics are good at forcing larger groups to consolidate or risk getting burned out. Isn't that how its supposed to be?

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Sap mechanics

Gwyndor wrote:

I wouldn't mind the intrusion window showing a 15-30 minute countdown for impending saps on all islands. The point of having saps random is so you can't plan a week out and you need a large active group to hold them. If you can probe them 12 hours aheac that is great but to give a very short warning that a sap is going live would definitely convince me to go contest any of then while I'm online.

Don't change mechanics in favor of small groups holding everything. It is fine the way it is to drive conflict and require groups to actively defend their objectives instead of who has bigger and more equipped bots. The point of allowing ninja sapping is to split an enemy fleet to guard their objectives and hopefully make it a little easier for the attackers to hit the split force. As it is now it requires an active player base to hold a single outpost and guard from ninjas. If that same group expands to take more terminals they may start getting burned out having to guard from the smaller groups.

Tldr the mechanics are good at forcing larger groups to consolidate or risk getting burned out. Isn't that how its supposed to be?

When Intrusion 2.0 first came out the intrusion display indicating if there was SAP active was island - wide. People thought that was too much info as did I at the time, so Devs reduced it to the immediate proximity to the actual SAP. Now with the thinking Intrusions should be more public, I think Devs may have had that mechanic right the first time.

Sparking to other games