• NSE
  • 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.

That's kind of the point. It should be increasingly difficult for a group of a few people living in roughly the same time zone to hold multiple bases in the game.  Not impossible - just difficult.

There'd be more strategy in planning which terminals I want to live in based on their relative SAP times. It encourages you to recruit people across time zones with different schedules. Etc..   Maybe that's an unreasonable strategic expectation?

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

DEV Zoom wrote:

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

Beta Incentive is huge issue but players still want outposts
Intrusion System needs full revamp but we can't just ignore Beta until then

I agree that 5% here and 5% there is not always the best approach to every problem. But the real core issue is substantial lack of developer resources.

Prioritize the big revamps and fill in the cracks in the meantime.

PVE and missions is most important revamp issue given it direct tie to population and retention.
Intrusion System can be patched for now

Sparking to other games
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Rex Amelius wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

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

Beta Incentive is huge issue but players still want outposts
Intrusion System needs full revamp but we can't just ignore Beta until then

I agree that 5% here and 5% there is not always the best approach to every problem. But the real core issue is substantial lack of developer resources.

Prioritize the big revamps and fill in the cracks in the meantime.

PVE and missions is most important revamp issue given it direct tie to population and retention.
Intrusion System can be patched for now

PVE is massive and important in retention but the real test will be what brings people back. I think the bot and weapon rebalance COULD do that if its done right. We need to bang these common sense changes out now and focus on what that rebalance looks like if we want it to be exciting and interesting because the more its talked about (and on the test server) the better the chance of that success will be.

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."
  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

DEV Zoom wrote:

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

I agree with the Hungarian.

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.
  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Kayin Prime wrote:
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.

That's kind of the point. It should be increasingly difficult for a group of a few people living in roughly the same time zone to hold multiple bases in the game.  Not impossible - just difficult.

There'd be more strategy in planning which terminals I want to live in based on their relative SAP times. It encourages you to recruit people across time zones with different schedules. Etc..   Maybe that's an unreasonable strategic expectation?

Look at our group.  We hold presence in 3 time zones. In EU time zone we have presence, in US we have a group and we even have AU coverage.

The systematic problem is players/content.  We really enjoy pvp.  So how do you get pvp?  By continually pushing the attack button.  So tell me what happens when there's not people to attack?  We turn our interests into stations...  What happens when there's no more stations?  Go play Archeage.

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.
  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Jita wrote:
Rex Amelius wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

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

Beta Incentive is huge issue but players still want outposts
Intrusion System needs full revamp but we can't just ignore Beta until then

I agree that 5% here and 5% there is not always the best approach to every problem. But the real core issue is substantial lack of developer resources.

Prioritize the big revamps and fill in the cracks in the meantime.

PVE and missions is most important revamp issue given it direct tie to population and retention.
Intrusion System can be patched for now

PVE is massive and important in retention but the real test will be what brings people back. I think the bot and weapon rebalance COULD do that if its done right. We need to bang these common sense changes out now and focus on what that rebalance looks like if we want it to be exciting and interesting because the more its talked about (and on the test server) the better the chance of that success will be.

Yep, just gimme Dem T5s and a few bots.

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.
  • BKK
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

yay, revive the same discussion we had right after the intrusion 2.0 announcement blog.

DEV Zoom wrote:

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

oh, wow,
in which corp do you have your gaming alt to get THAT information?

and welcome back zoom, already wanted to make a MIA topic.

*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
  • Cons
  • 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?

I think what is being asked for is some sort of check in by the defenders to say they actively use it. They would still need to defend it for the whole hour to get the defense.points and loot but if no one shows up at all th3n there shouldn't be any loot or change in stability.

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

The check is opponents hitting it .....



Gwyndor wrote:
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?

I think what is being asked for is some sort of check in by the defenders to say they actively use it. They would still need to defend it for the whole hour to get the defense.points and loot but if no one shows up at all th3n there shouldn't be any loot or change in stability.

35 Reply by Rex Amelius (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-10-12 03:34:45)

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Supremacy wrote:

The check is opponents hitting it .....



Gwyndor wrote:
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?

I think what is being asked for is some sort of check in by the defenders to say they actively use it. They would still need to defend it for the whole hour to get the defense.points and loot but if no one shows up at all th3n there shouldn't be any loot or change in stability.

1.) Why would opponents hit it to give there enemy points?
2.) It should only be accessible by corp that owns outpost.

Let me break down how simple this change is I'm suggesting...

Current System
Anyone takes SAP, corp owner loses points
No one takes SAP, hour runs down, corp owner gains points

Clicky Presence System
Anyone takes SAP, corp owner loses points
No one takes SAP, corp owner gains points ONLY if corp member clicks the clicky during the one hour SAP window.

No change to loot drops.

Sparking to other games
  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

I like how people who dont put lots of time in attacking or defending saps and taking timers 24/7 think they have the experience to decide what is a lot of work or effort .....



....

  • Cons
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Rex Amelius wrote:
Supremacy wrote:

The check is opponents hitting it .....



Gwyndor wrote:

I think what is being asked for is some sort of check in by the defenders to say they actively use it. They would still need to defend it for the whole hour to get the defense.points and loot but if no one shows up at all th3n there shouldn't be any loot or change in stability.

1.) Why would opponents hit it to give there enemy points?
2.) It should only be accessible by corp that owns outpost.

Let me break down how simple this change is I'm suggesting...

Current System
Anyone takes SAP, corp owner loses points
No one takes SAP, hour runs down, corp owner gains points

Clicky Presence System
Anyone takes SAP, corp owner loses points
No one takes SAP, corp owner gains points ONLY if corp member clicks the clicky during the one hour SAP window.

No change to loot drops.

Thanks for clarifying for me. Drunk posting is the best :

  • Cons
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Supremacy wrote:

I like how people who dont put lots of time in attacking or defending saps and taking timers 24/7 think they have the experience to decide what is a lot of work or effort .....



....

I'm currently unemployed and not going to school. I have all the time in the world and I still don't think I have enough time to tryand make all the saps for a terminal. I don't think defenders should lose points if they miss a sap but they sure !s hell shouldnt get poin5s for nothing

39 Reply by Supremacy (edited by Supremacy 2014-10-12 04:08:14)

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

MEH

40 Reply by Rex Amelius (edited by Rex Amelius 2014-10-12 04:24:03)

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Supremacy wrote:

I like how people who dont put lots of time in attacking or defending saps and taking timers 24/7 think they have the experience to decide what is a lot of work or effort .....

I've complained about the auto defense point accumulation from Day One of Intrusion 2.0.

I've not made the full time job of taking SAP times others have but I know far well enough about it. And there are only 3 reasons to get SAP times.
1.) You want to attack a SAP (pvp)
2.) You want to get the loot
3.) You want to defend the SAP & you anticipate an attack (typically only lower points)(pvp)

Otherwise Outpost owners can care less about half measure attempts and ninja looters because Defender can take a nap for 24 - 48 hours and it's back to 100. But if owner had to ALSO get SAP time EVERY  single time someone ninja'd the SAP otherwise watch points whittle away, you would see far less of current monopoly.

This change does not slow down an attacker, it helps the attacker for those missed attack opportunities that attackers lose ground on. This really only affects those outposts you can't care less about anyway

Combined with spark Beta nerf you would not see Dominating Power monopoly unless they really really wanted it.

Point is to make it harder to own multiple outpost, not impossible.

Sparking to other games
  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

I think the owner should be able to click to gain stability only AFTER the hour, not during.

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."
  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

You know how many times we show up the SAPs at 55 Mins remaining, we wait for 10 to 15 mins, no one shows up and we move along not waiting for it to finish and Pakaw shows up and does the SAP?

Waiting SUCKS.  We should have the ability to do our own SAP and if you want to fight over the station you show up 15 minutes early and we battle it out, Kentagura style.  GG.

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.
  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Ville wrote:

...Waiting SUCKS...

Keep it simple, stupid.
  • Cons
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

You don't have to wait. Drop a prox probe on the active sap. A group as large as your should be able to know what is going on near your outpost. If you only had one or two terminals it wouldn't be such a big deal. Trying to wait on 12 terminals is what you don't like. Sorry honey, that's what you signed up for.

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Ville wrote:

Waiting SUCKS.

What you still doing here then? big_smile

  • -77-
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

I like waiting.

  • PHM
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Burial wrote:
Ville wrote:

Waiting SUCKS.

What you still doing here then? big_smile

for sure, not waiting for enemys left the game.

Keep it simple, stupid.
  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Make attacker pay 10M NIC to try attacking the SAP, or let the defender complete the SAP.

Nobody likes waiting around for an hour.

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

49 Reply by Kayin Prime (edited by Kayin Prime 2014-10-12 19:57:13)

  • NSE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

I like this idea in that you want to force players to 100% commit.

I'm not sure NIC is the tool to force that commitment though.  10M nic is a lot to a guy like me. It's nothing to a guy who's been mining epriton the last 2 years.  It basically lets someone with more money bully people out of playing, like in poker.

It shouldn't be about loot and levels.

  • JOKE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Invert beta station stability rules.

Ville wrote:

You know how many times we show up the SAPs at 55 Mins remaining, we wait for 10 to 15 mins, no one shows up and we move along not waiting for it to finish and Pakaw shows up and does the SAP?

Waiting SUCKS.  We should have the ability to do our own SAP and if you want to fight over the station you show up 15 minutes early and we battle it out, Kentagura style.  GG.

I agree with this but people were talking about a 1 second clicky. Having that before the hour is up will invite ninjas.

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."