• NSE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Topic: Invert beta station stability rules.

Make the corp that owns a Beta station actively participate in every SAP or else they lose station stability, and make the SAP's require more than 1 person in an Argano.   Destruction should be .. you know.. destructive. Active / Passive hacking should require a bit more effort than sitting there. As least put a puzzle up or something.  I suppose that could be addressed separately.

Quite frankly I find it ridiculous that once you own a station you never have to step ..foot?.. on the island again and you can keep it forever.  It's equivalent to a dog peeing on a fire hydrant right now. I peed on it first therefore it's mine. If you want my fire hydrant you have to come pee on it at least 5 - 10 times and then one more time after that.

- This prevents a corp from holding onto a station unless they 'deserve' it.  They should be active players, with proper resources, industrial backbone, and skill to maintain a station.
- It adds more PVE content to the game automatically because you have to do something about it.
- It gives more PVP opportunities automatically because we know *someone* is going to be at those saps.
- It doesn't make it impossible for a mega corp to hold all the stations but it certainly makes that corp work for it. As part of that corp I'm ok with having to work for it.

$0.02

...let the complaining commence..

2 Reply by Supremacy (edited by Supremacy 2014-10-11 07:57:01)

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

....


welcome to the 14,364 thread about this


What do you personally know about the effort needed to take and hold stations?


nothing...

  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Supremacy wrote:

....


welcome to the 14,364 thread about this


What do you personally know about the effort needed to take and hold stations?


nothing...

seems like he got not much told regarding that by his mothercorp.

*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

4 Reply by Burial (edited by Burial 2014-10-11 12:04:42)

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Supremacy wrote:

What do you personally know about the effort needed to take and hold stations?

Yeah, us and you had a really hard time holding all the stations. lol

The default stability increase a station gets without any interaction has to go.

5 Reply by Supremacy (edited by Supremacy 2014-10-11 13:25:15)

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

You were playing alone ...

we are not ..


Burial wrote:
Supremacy wrote:

What do you personally know about the effort needed to take and hold stations?

Yeah, us and you had a really hard time holding all the stations. lol

The default stability increase a station gets without any interaction has to go.


ArcheAge Pic - http://i.gyazo.com/89f937da73190c908fc1137226bfea6d.png

  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Should go back to the old system

Sign up for a station timer, 10M NIC (needs increase to account for inflation)

Show up and duke it out or don't show and forefit the NIC.

None of this risk-averse p*ssy footing around.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Syndic wrote:

Should go back to the old system

Sign up for a station timer, 10M NIC (needs increase to account for inflation)

Show up and duke it out or don't show and forefit the NIC.

None of this risk-averse p*ssy footing around.

I'm sure you'd like that. lol

  • DEV
  • Developer
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

I'm starting to think this is a good idea actually.

Although I wouldn't go as far as losing stability when the owner doesn't do the SAP, since that would be as bad as not being able to defend it (ie. losing it to another corp), and I think we need to make a distinction there.

So I'd say stability simply should stay as it is when the owner doesn't do the SAP, but shouldn't increase on its own.

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

we've been suggesting this 1000x for three years and now you finally decide its not a bad idea ...

......


DEV Zoom wrote:

I'm starting to think this is a good idea actually.

Although I wouldn't go as far as losing stability when the owner doesn't do the SAP, since that would be as bad as not being able to defend it (ie. losing it to another corp), and I think we need to make a distinction there.

So I'd say stability simply should stay as it is when the owner doesn't do the SAP, but shouldn't increase on its own.

  • DEV
  • Developer
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Supremacy wrote:

we've been suggesting this 1000x for three years and now you finally decide its not a bad idea ...

Yeah, maybe we don't get "boo kneejerk!" this way.

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

DEV Zoom wrote:

I'm starting to think this is a good idea actually.

Although I wouldn't go as far as losing stability when the owner doesn't do the SAP, since that would be as bad as not being able to defend it (ie. losing it to another corp), and I think we need to make a distinction there.

So I'd say stability simply should stay as it is when the owner doesn't do the SAP, but shouldn't increase on its own.

Was suggested in some other thread to just add a specific item to the SAP loot container that needs to be delivered to the terminal to get stability increase.

  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

It's a good idea to grief anyone wanting to own a station, please implement tomorrow! big_smile

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Anyone owning a station can either be there or not to increase the stability. If they aren't there then they aren't supposed to hold the station either.

It only affects easy-moders who want to own as much as possible with as little effort as possible while fishing in ArcheAge.

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

DEV Zoom wrote:

I'm starting to think this is a good idea actually.

Although I wouldn't go as far as losing stability when the owner doesn't do the SAP, since that would be as bad as not being able to defend it (ie. losing it to another corp), and I think we need to make a distinction there.

So I'd say stability simply should stay as it is when the owner doesn't do the SAP, but shouldn't increase on its own.

do that and the spark change and yiu have two of the five things needed to make beta interesting again

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

DEV Zoom wrote:

So I'd say stability simply should stay as it is when the owner doesn't do the SAP, but shouldn't increase on its own.

Just need a little click to register defender presence. 'Doing' the SAP then denies any enemy the opportunity. Plus Specimen SAP blow.

Just a clicky, not the SAP itself. Only attacker should have to do that.

Sparking to other games
  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Burial wrote:

Anyone owning a station can either be there or not to increase the stability. If they aren't there then they aren't supposed to hold the station either.

It only affects easy-moders who want to own as much as possible with as little effort as possible while fishing in ArcheAge.

Back to the elephant in the room.  So at what point is the difference between 24 hour coverage of an island and "dude, some people got a job and need sleep"?  I hate to tell you people but if we had a chance to do our own saps then you'd end up having Race Drones being the wealthiest person in game in a month. 

If you use Burials suggestions about a loot item dropping an item to turn into the station now the defender has to actually wait to 0 and hope a ninja arkhe doesn't log in to grief lol the can.  I can see it being abused.

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.
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

We can always remove the locks and remove the problem.

18 Reply by Rex Amelius (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-10-11 17:13:00)

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Ville wrote:
Burial wrote:

Anyone owning a station can either be there or not to increase the stability. If they aren't there then they aren't supposed to hold the station either.

It only affects easy-moders who want to own as much as possible with as little effort as possible while fishing in ArcheAge.

Back to the elephant in the room.  So at what point is the difference between 24 hour coverage of an island and "dude, some people got a job and need sleep"?  I hate to tell you people but if we had a chance to do our own saps then you'd end up having Race Drones being the wealthiest person in game in a month. 

If you use Burials suggestions about a loot item dropping an item to turn into the station now the defender has to actually wait to 0 and hope a ninja arkhe doesn't log in to grief lol the can.  I can see it being abused.

These and 10 other reasons are why Defender 'doing' his own SAP is not the idea. Zoom, please see the distinction. A present defender needs to do 'something' anything. Anything BUT the Damn SAP. That comes with huge basket of problems.

***Just add a clicky like the terminals we interact with on missions.*** Perhaps attach one to each outpost. Undock click I'm here. SAP may still have ~Successful Defense~ in exact same manner as today (no attack). But if defender corp does not click the clicky,, then NO POINTS (or significantly reduced points).

And remove sparks from Beta. There is no need for presence with sparks.

Sparking to other games
  • Cons
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Beta could be like NPC null in eve where no terminal can be "owned" unless you live in it but everyone can dock

The station games would be strong in perp especially with an OP jump clone feature.

  • Cons
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

I like what rex has had to say about everything for beta. Im on the bandwagon.

Just the defender checking in sometime during the 1 hour intrusion would be enough.

  • DEV
  • Developer
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

If we want to have a proper island presence requirement (as it was the initial concept), then 1 click that 1 guy does in a blink of an eye doesn't cut it. That doesn't require any effort.

And yes, the defenders will have the opportunity to do the SAPs fast and forget about it, but that just means that anyone who wants to take the base needs to be there on time and duke it out with the defenders. Fast and simple, isn't that what we want?

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

DEV Zoom wrote:

If we want to have a proper island presence requirement (as it was the initial concept), then 1 click that 1 guy does in a blink of an eye doesn't cut it. That doesn't require any effort.

And yes, the defenders will have the opportunity to do the SAPs fast and forget about it, but that just means that anyone who wants to take the base needs to be there on time and duke it out with the defenders. Fast and simple, isn't that what we want?

It's plenty of effort to track your SAP time and be there. Even if you don't see that as significant effort. It's infinity mote effort than current NO EFFORT system.

A proper island presence requirement is a compete Intrusion Overhaul, which is necessary. But you guys don't have time for that. My suggestion is a temporary measure to address SEVERELY broken Beta.

Two changes
No sparks Beta
Clicky requirement

Whole new game map.

Sparking to other games
  • DEV
  • Developer
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Let's not forget that currently it's only "no effort" because hardly anyone wants those bases, so the defenders can just not care.

24 Reply by Syndic (edited by Syndic 2014-10-11 17:26:35)

  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Same old attempts to solve symptoms instead of attacking the root of the problem.

Why is there no island presence or effort by people who don't own anything to capture something?

Because there is nothing tangible or fun to be had from owning a station. Beta is Epriton, nothing else.

Go make some new content for a change instead of recycling the same old sh*t for 4 years and tweaking 5% here 5% there.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

DEV Zoom wrote:

If we want to have a proper island presence requirement (as it was the initial concept), then 1 click that 1 guy does in a blink of an eye doesn't cut it. That doesn't require any effort.

And yes, the defenders will have the opportunity to do the SAPs fast and forget about it, but that just means that anyone who wants to take the base needs to be there on time and duke it out with the defenders. Fast and simple, isn't that what we want?

yes.

if you did that for now then it would be much better.