Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Your usual ad hominem attack only betrays your lack of a counter-argument.

My point remains solid; it only penalizes investing effort to capture a station, and rewards people who just want to scoop the cream off the top.

ICSB, TMB, ASB are 3 stations currently available in game for people who don't feel like investing the effort. Why do they need more stations?


So the reward for you is less pvp? hmm..

The rewards going to be Less PVP either way.

We could give everyone in the game a station they still wouldn't use it, it would just be "The risk to Beta is too high for No reward".

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: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Your usual ad hominem attack only betrays your lack of a counter-argument.

My point remains solid; it only penalizes investing effort to capture a station, and rewards people who just want to scoop the cream off the top.

ICSB, TMB, ASB are 3 stations currently available in game for people who don't feel like investing the effort. Why do they need more stations?


So the reward for you is less pvp? hmm..

The reward is obviously three-fold, (1) station facilities (2) station aura (3) closing off the ability for enemies to undock from my homebase and forcing them to go cross island.

Removing the strategic advantage of having a closed station to reinforce from, removes the reason to capture the station in the first place.

And it certainly wouldn't result in more PVP, that is a logical fallacy. Domhalarn has ICSB, one of the open stations. Where are these roamers just waiting for grrr-unlock-all-the-stations to start providing content? We've lived and AFK mined on Dom for half a year now with no interruptions.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

The risk of even entering beta is always there but there is mission content locked from most players, because you don't want anyone to surprise you at home. You want everything to be predictable keep tabs on everyone with spies, blob when need be to guarantee a win.

You guys sound like null bears whining about AFK cloakers.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:

The risk of even entering beta is always there but there is mission content locked from most players, because you don't want anyone to surprise you at home. You want everything to be predictable keep tabs on everyone with spies, blob when need be to guarantee a win.

You guys sound like null bears whining about AFK cloakers.

There are Missions at the Beta Terminal too... Yet No one does them...

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: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:

The risk of even entering beta is always there but there is mission content locked from most players, because you don't want anyone to surprise you at home. You want everything to be predictable keep tabs on everyone with spies, blob when need be to guarantee a win.

You guys sound like null bears whining about AFK cloakers.

There are Missions at the Beta Terminal too... Yet No one does them...

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: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Ville wrote:
Celebro wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Your usual ad hominem attack only betrays your lack of a counter-argument.

My point remains solid; it only penalizes investing effort to capture a station, and rewards people who just want to scoop the cream off the top.

ICSB, TMB, ASB are 3 stations currently available in game for people who don't feel like investing the effort. Why do they need more stations?


So the reward for you is less pvp? hmm..

The rewards going to be Less PVP either way.

We could give everyone in the game a station they still wouldn't use it, it would just be "The risk to Beta is too high for No reward".


The risk is too high when you and yours fall on top of whoever happens to be there like a wet blanket and smoother all life. This really isn't the dev's fault, or responsibility to fix. The only ones who can fix this problem is the ones perpetrating it. The easiest solution would be to rid the game of people who insist on destroying it. The root problem is there's not enough people playing the game to support your playstyle. The best solution to this would be for your alliance to break up, stc/joke to break up (afaik we've not been allied to stag, we came to help defend them against you). I'm sure if you really tried you could keep things civil between cir and 77, that hasn't been the case with virtually every other corp in the game, but who knows, maybe you can surprise us. You shoot them, they shoot you, we shoot them, they shoot us, there's variety there. You can't expect people to fight the same group over and over, with nearly the same outcome everytime and have that be exciting and fun. There's no amount of trolling, name calling, or *** you can do that'll change that, and infact for a lot of people it makes it worse.

You guys are the problem; yet also the solution.

|
|
|
|
\/

Reset each other yet?

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Syndic wrote:

We've lived and AFK mined on Dom for half a year now with no interruptions.

This ^ you see Devs why it is a broken system, same *** happened on gamma and you removed Epriton.

RIP PERPETUUM

33 (edited by Syndic 2014-09-09 17:01:45)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Celebro wrote:

The risk of even entering beta is always there but there is mission content locked from most players, because you don't want anyone to surprise you at home. You want everything to be predictable keep tabs on everyone with spies, blob when need be to guarantee a win.

You guys sound like null bears whining about AFK cloakers.

Mission content is an incentive to capture a station. Capturing stations requires effort and keeping them requires constant investment and sacrifice. For those that don't want to invest the effort, there are L4 missions available on Alpha 2 islands, and missions available in the 3 open Beta stations.

You haven't answered the real question though - there's 3 open stations already, why do the people who only want the cream without making any effort deserve any more?

Celebro wrote:
Syndic wrote:

We've lived and AFK mined on Dom for half a year now with no interruptions.

This ^ you see Devs why it is a broken system, same *** happened on gamma and you removed Epriton.

The system isn't broken. We aren't hiding between thousands of turrets, our gates are open and you're welcome to roam. We will defend our island with our people.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

34 (edited by Celebro 2014-09-09 17:07:59)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

This is not about me , this is about leveling the playing field a little with newer players. And you can't do transport missions from beta terminal to outposts. And players just want to dock not own station, I agree to own it should require more effort but not lock out 50% of outpost from the game.

Edit: The game is far too small and locking should belong in gamma.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.....

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

38 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 17:24:13)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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 a whole lot of empty land and a couple of big alliances each working on one tightly secured island. Locks have to come off.

39 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-09 17:28:14)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

40 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 17:28:27)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.

41 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-09 17:29:38)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

42 (edited by Celebro 2014-09-09 17:30:32)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

50% of the game content is locked up and then the Devs wonder why so few are playing.

RIP PERPETUUM

43 (edited by Gremrod 2014-09-09 17:39:19)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

44 (edited by Burial 2014-09-09 18:07:25)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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 of big 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 the ones that aren't have tighter security than Alcatraz.

Now you think that EVE might not be so bad idea after all..

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

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 of big 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 the ones that aren't have tighter security than Alcatraz.

Now you think that EVE might not be so bad idea after all..

OR the CEO reaches out the station owner and asks if it can be rented, bought or leased, OR OR OR just lived in.  And what terms would need to be hashed out.

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: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Burial wrote:

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 of big 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 the ones that aren't have tighter security than Alcatraz.

Now you think that EVE might not be so bad idea after all..

I don't need to imagine, I was there when 3 islands and 9 outposts were claimed and owned by 3 alliances.

Didn't experience any brick wall with getting to or living on Beta, only brick wall was Styx's and Siddy's roam groups which were by their understanding of the game mechanics leaps and bounds in front of everyone else on the server.

That was a very... finite advantage however.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

48 (edited by SmokeyIndustries 2014-09-09 20:16:28)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Syndic wrote:
Burial wrote:

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 of big 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 the ones that aren't have tighter security than Alcatraz.

Now you think that EVE might not be so bad idea after all..

I don't need to imagine, I was there when 3 islands and 9 outposts were claimed and owned by 3 alliances.

Didn't experience any brick wall with getting to or living on Beta, only brick wall was Styx's and Siddy's roam groups which were by their understanding of the game mechanics leaps and bounds in front of everyone else on the server.

That was a very... finite advantage however.

I wouldn't say leaps and bounds over "everyone" on the server. Maybe over cir and the rest of the then dom alliance, but norhoop, Chaos, HUN, RG and JOKE certainly held our own against them and *gasp* even won a fight or two.

The biggest difference then was that there was an alliance per island, and now there's more islands.... but one alliance controls it all.

*edit* BTW, I don't want you to misconstrue my meaning with all of this. I'm not actually for unlocking all the beta outposts, and honestly I can remember how much of a pain in the *** it was when we lived in Karapyth, always having neutral arkhe pilots undocking to scout, and that was when an arkhe could see 1000m. I merely used this discussion as a tool to hopefully get my point across to certain people that the way they play is NOT okay, and hopefully get them to see their own foolishness and folly in the way I was acting.

A person can dream anyways.

Reset each other yet?

49 (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-09-10 03:37:52)

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

...and dreaming you are.

Even if you can access the stations you won't be able to do much of anything on Beta except hide. The brick wall you speak of is mobile and will surround whatever outpost you decide to work from.

Another thread/post count forum crusade by half dozen dudes who dont like current political climate.

Solution to dominating power projection issue lies elsewhere. Devs just need to listen.

Sparking to other games

Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking

Its the sparks


that is the problem

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