You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Any discussion on "action to balance the game", as the topic subject puts it, has to start with Alpha I/II, Beta I/II and Gamma rewards, risks and activities.
Agreed.
I normally talk the smack in game. But Celebro, do not take this the wrong way. Currently CIR and its alliance do not have enough sparks nor energy to keep Gamma away from other players in game. The reality is they can control up to maybe 3 gamma islands with concentrated effort. But the rest are open. I think one of the big issues is corps are trying to go where CIR and company are at(Listening to the CIR threats and propaganda). If you want your own piece of Gamma heaven. Try a isle 3-4 isles away from the CIR concentration.
It would take a immense effort by CIR and the buddies they have to go after another corp on gamma 3-4 isles away(Make it painful and a significant time loss). In fact last night I mined epi much of the time. The reality even if they have 3-4 accounts each. They do not have enough manpower to maintain or hold Gamma Isles long. In fact they have a hard enough time with just the couple they have now.
A note to add: Ignore the threats, and powerplay. Part of the propaganda to keep other corps in place.
*edit: Offensive. - DEV Zoom
Currently you can only place three bases on an island and then it is 'capped out'. All gamma islands now have three bases under CIR & 77's control and according to them this was done in the first hour of gamma going active.
What does this mean?
It means to have a place on gamma you now need to destroy at least one gamma base.
Now currently most of these bases are undefended t1 bases. That means you have to attack an undefended base and kill half its hitpoints. Once you have done this the base has three reinforce cycles meaning you have to attack it again three more times to kill it. A reinforce cycle means the base becomes vulnerable in three days for one hour at a timezone set by the defender.
So your enemy has four occasions to respond to your attack over a period of nine days three of which are in their timezone.
This is before the enemy puts up base defenses - if they bothered to add weaponry to these bases (and some are already weaponised) your facing at least two of those assaults under base guns.
Dont forget that all of these bases can have sparks in them. They don't have to defend the intial assault they just go there in the three days inbetween, set a spark and leave a combat heavy or three.
tl,dr you don't know what your talking about
Ludlow Bursar wrote:Any discussion on "action to balance the game", as the topic subject puts it, has to start with Alpha I/II, Beta I/II and Gamma rewards, risks and activities.
Agreed.
That is something that should've been done 3 years ago, Zoom. This is the MAIN reason for the population decline.
Why hasn't anything proper been done in that direction yet, if you 'agree' with it?
Maidden wrote:I normally talk the smack in game. But Celebro, do not take this the wrong way. Currently CIR and its alliance do not have enough sparks nor energy to keep Gamma away from other players in game. The reality is they can control up to maybe 3 gamma islands with concentrated effort. But the rest are open. I think one of the big issues is corps are trying to go where CIR and company are at(Listening to the CIR threats and propaganda). If you want your own piece of Gamma heaven. Try a isle 3-4 isles away from the CIR concentration.
It would take a immense effort by CIR and the buddies they have to go after another corp on gamma 3-4 isles away(Make it painful and a significant time loss). In fact last night I mined epi much of the time. The reality even if they have 3-4 accounts each. They do not have enough manpower to maintain or hold Gamma Isles long. In fact they have a hard enough time with just the couple they have now.
A note to add: Ignore the threats, and powerplay. Part of the propaganda to keep other corps in place.
Currently you can only place three bases on an island and then it is 'capped out'. All gamma islands now have three bases under CIR & 77's control and according to them this was done in the first hour of gamma going active.
What does this mean?
It means to have a place on gamma you now need to destroy at least one gamma base.
Now currently most of these bases are undefended t1 bases. That means you have to attack an undefended base and kill half its hitpoints. Once you have done this the base has three reinforce cycles meaning you have to attack it again three more times to kill it. A reinforce cycle means the base becomes vulnerable in three days for one hour at a timezone set by the defender.
So your enemy has four occasions to respond to your attack over a period of nine days three of which are in their timezone.
This is before the enemy puts up base defenses - if they bothered to add weaponry to these bases (and some are already weaponised) your facing at least two of those assaults under base guns.
Dont forget that all of these bases can have sparks in them. They don't have to defend the intial assault they just go there in the three days inbetween, set a spark and leave a combat heavy or three.
tl,dr you don't know what your talking about
Sure I do Jita. I mine, I ignore bases.. and or anything related to CIR. But you did point out some things that need to change. The current dynamics for bases. As well as to how they are destroyed or taken out. Zoom should take a look at that.
I do not need a big explanation of how to attack or defend a base. As I only hit a gamma for energy field. Nice to have a stockpile. Besides, let them spark bases on gamma, leave beta open. Which I profit greatly from!
As to the name calling. You are definitely the one who really should not speak of such. As your record commentary shows 1000x more idiotic moments than my record.
Thanks for your input on how base combat operates. It needs to be changed. But other than that. I do not give a damn about it!
Ludlow Bursar wrote:Any discussion on "action to balance the game", as the topic subject puts it, has to start with Alpha I/II, Beta I/II and Gamma rewards, risks and activities.
Agreed.
So it's your view that the rewards for beta and gamma re not enough when compared with alpha and so people just don't want to take a beta or gamma station?
So it's your view that the rewards for beta and gamma re not enough when compared with alpha and so people just don't want to take a beta or gamma station?
I think I even said that somewhere in a similar topic. We just can't do everything at once.
Jita wrote:So it's your view that the rewards for beta and gamma re not enough when compared with alpha and so people just don't want to take a beta or gamma station?
I think I even said that somewhere in a similar topic. We just can't do everything at once.
But that's the opposite of what is actually true so my head is kind of exploding here. For the first time I think I actually AM mad lol.
Zoom the problem isn't people don't want stations although it is true that the rewards for them in relation to alpha need a change. The problem is there are no disincentives to holding everything everywhere which dooms the game to forever be one side only. In order to hold anything you need to defeat whoever is top of the hill at the moment and then because there are no disincentives you hold everything yourself.
That is broken game design.
All of the fixes involve you actually having to spend time to keep hold of what you have. An example might be taking your own saps to maintain stability or making the base itself having a passive energy drain requiring work to keep it from going inactive.
I kinda disagree there a bit, if you have proper incentives then you shouldn't need those "disincentives". You would only need the latter as long as the first is not present, but that would be kinda backwards development (aka. "kneejerk").
I kinda disagree there a bit, if you have proper incentives then you shouldn't need those "disincentives". You would only need the latter as long as the first is not present, but that would be kinda backwards development (aka. "kneejerk").
nvm, dumb question.
Zoom thanks for your posts although I fundamentally disagree. At least now I know things wont get better.
Ludlow Bursar wrote:Any discussion on "action to balance the game", as the topic subject puts it, has to start with Alpha I/II, Beta I/II and Gamma rewards, risks and activities.
Agreed.
If you were doing that right now then yes I would agree, but as you have a schedule to run (other stuff is taking priority), you could at least minimize the power projection issue by nerfing or removing sparks, which only takes time for you guys to make a decision. This is not political reasoning. Both sides have been trying to tell you this since it was introduced, Ville started this, when STC ruled.
The largest group can easily be anywhere at any time with little effort, to defend when needed and gives little chance to other smaller entities. Bare in mind that I know project of power is still there, only it makes it much harder to be everywhere in full force.
My last post and then i'm giving up.
Seriously Devs need to, like, TODAY
1.) implement EMERGENCY DELETE SPARKS FROM GAME or something significant with Sparks (see signature)
2.) Then upgrade the Intrusion system to REQUIRE some type of activity to increase SAP points. I don't care if it's a 2-3 second clickity-click either on the SAP or next to the outpost, otherwise NO POINTS for ~successfully defended SAP~
3.) I don't know what to say about Gamma ...should never have implemented base caps for one... but I don't think that would matter much holding all esle constant.Start with Sparks Devs ...wake up and smell the ***.
Good luck and thanks for all the fish o/
If you were doing that right now then yes I would agree, but as you have a schedule to run (other stuff is taking priority), you could at least minimize the power projection issue by nerfing or removing sparks, which only takes time for you guys to make a decision. This is not political reasoning. Both sides have been trying to tell you this since it was introduced, Ville started this, when STC ruled.
I'm still not convinced that this will help with anything (quite the contrary, I'm expecting even less PvP), but ok.
So how about we disable spark teleports everywhere but Alpha?
DEV Zoom wrote:Ludlow Bursar wrote:Any discussion on "action to balance the game", as the topic subject puts it, has to start with Alpha I/II, Beta I/II and Gamma rewards, risks and activities.
Agreed.
The largest group can easily be anywhere at any time with little effort, to defend when needed and gives little chance to other smaller entities.
Imagine if a corp in EVE were able to do that. Talk about EVE losing player base. There needs to a balance of this. I support lessening or removing the effect of sparks on betas and or gamma.
Celebro wrote:If you were doing that right now then yes I would agree, but as you have a schedule to run (other stuff is taking priority), you could at least minimize the power projection issue by nerfing or removing sparks, which only takes time for you guys to make a decision. This is not political reasoning. Both sides have been trying to tell you this since it was introduced, Ville started this, when STC ruled.
I'm still not convinced that this will help with anything (quite the contrary, I'm expecting even less PvP), but ok.
So how about we disable spark teleports everywhere but Alpha?
That would hurt the people who want to live on Gamma. Allow one spark to any station you own and one to any alpha.
Celebro wrote:If you were doing that right now then yes I would agree, but as you have a schedule to run (other stuff is taking priority), you could at least minimize the power projection issue by nerfing or removing sparks, which only takes time for you guys to make a decision. This is not political reasoning. Both sides have been trying to tell you this since it was introduced, Ville started this, when STC ruled.
I'm still not convinced that this will help with anything (quite the contrary, I'm expecting even less PvP), but ok.
So how about we disable spark teleports everywhere but Alpha?
This will allow small groups to live on beta, once they are settled in there will be more pvp long term . Leaving sparks on alpha is fine, I would do it.
You see the issue here if you know you are going to encounter a larger group anywhere you go, players don't go and wont pvp.
Allow one spark to any station you own and one to any alpha.
How exactly would that be different compared to now? Correct me if I'm wrong but practically this is already the case since you can only spark to a station you own, because the others are mostly closed for you.
edit: oh you mean 2 sparks total.
Celebro wrote:If you were doing that right now then yes I would agree, but as you have a schedule to run (other stuff is taking priority), you could at least minimize the power projection issue by nerfing or removing sparks, which only takes time for you guys to make a decision. This is not political reasoning. Both sides have been trying to tell you this since it was introduced, Ville started this, when STC ruled.
I'm still not convinced that this will help with anything (quite the contrary, I'm expecting even less PvP), but ok.
So how about we disable spark teleports everywhere but Alpha?
+1, do it!
Jita wrote:Allow one spark to any station you own and one to any alpha.
How exactly would that be different compared to now? Correct me if I'm wrong but practically this is already the case since you can only spark to a station you own, because the others are mostly closed for you.
The current spark limit of ten allows you to put a spark in all three alpha 2's and two gamma / beta stations.
Or all three beta 1 islands and one alpha 1
Or three gamma islands and an alpha
Basically doing that would limit you to having a base on alpha and a base on gamma (you would also need your death location to be on of these).
Jita wrote:Allow one spark to any station you own and one to any alpha.
How exactly would that be different compared to now? Correct me if I'm wrong but practically this is already the case since you can only spark to a station you own, because the others are mostly closed for you.
edit: oh you mean 2 sparks total.
This would also cause a change for the extension or removal of it and EP refund, right?
This would also cause a change for the extension or removal of it and EP refund, right?
If you're all for this particular change then of course.
Gremrod wrote:This would also cause a change for the extension or removal of it and EP refund, right?
If you're all for this particular change then of course.
I would put it to some type of survey / poll.
You can use Google docs/forms they do very well for this sort of thing. 
DEV Zoom wrote:Gremrod wrote:This would also cause a change for the extension or removal of it and EP refund, right?
If you're all for this particular change then of course.
I would put it to some type of survey / poll.
You can use Google docs/forms they do very well for this sort of thing.
They have a forum poll on the forums.
DEV Zoom wrote:Gremrod wrote:This would also cause a change for the extension or removal of it and EP refund, right?
If you're all for this particular change then of course.
I would put it to some type of survey / poll.
Trouble is everyone votes with their considerable alts.
Zoom is there any movement on the saps? The change request would be making station holders take a sap to increase stability in the same way an attacked reduces it.
That and the spark change should be enough to shake things up.
DEV Zoom wrote:Gremrod wrote:This would also cause a change for the extension or removal of it and EP refund, right?
If you're all for this particular change then of course.
I would put it to some type of survey / poll.
You can use Google docs/forms they do very well for this sort of thing.
Polls are easily manipulated. Besides the in game powers would have a immediate bias towards a change like this. It would weaken those powers capability of owning everything outside of alpha.
I whole heartily disagree with leaving sparks to Alpha only.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.059 seconds (87% PHP - 13% DB) with 20 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
