Topic: Production bonuses: Alpha vs Beta
Why are the production bonuses the same on Alpha and Beta terminals when one is in PVP zone?
What's the incentive for doing any production there?
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Why are the production bonuses the same on Alpha and Beta terminals when one is in PVP zone?
What's the incentive for doing any production there?
in an npc owned terminal, none.
In an outpost you get the nic all back.
Beta terminals should have 100 point factory and refinery, and Beta outposts should get a couple of extra upgrades.
hmm... let me see here:
http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … a-station/
http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … facilitys/
It's on my todo to check the facility points of all terminals and make changes if necessary.
Good to hear, can be closed then I guess.
It makes sense right? Beta npc owned terminals have more production % than alpha 2s??
Player owned and lockable beta stations should be vastly superior to alpha 2 and npc beta terminals in terms of production and benefit from owning a station.
First goal of a new corporation getting fat on alpha should be to invest and risk assets to capture their own beta station.
It stimulates the economy and PVP.
Unlocked NPC terminals on Beta should not be anything as good as owning a station (and investing the effort and assets involved in keeping it stable).
Player owned and lockable beta stations should be vastly superior to alpha 2 and npc beta terminals in terms of production and benefit from owning a station.
First goal of a new corporation getting fat on alpha should be to invest and risk assets to capture their own beta station.
It stimulates the economy and PVP.
Unlocked NPC terminals on Beta should not be anything as good as owning a station (and investing the effort and assets involved in keeping it stable).
I agree there should be a sliding scale:
Alpha 1 central station 10% efficiency
Alpha 1 outer stations 15% efficiency
Alpha 2 30% efficiency
Beta 1 beta stations 50% efficiency
Beta 1 outposts 65% efficiency (once owned and fully upgraded) (unlockable)
Beta 2 outposts 90% efficiency (once owned and fully upgraded) (lockable)
Gamma t1 facilities with max t1 upgrades 60% efficiency
Gamma t2 facilities with max t2 upgrades 70% efficiency
Gamma t3 facilities with max t3 upgrades 80% efficiency
Beta 1 outposts should be the same as Beta 2 outposts. Beta 1s are harder to defend, imo.
Beta 1 outposts should be the same as Beta 2 outposts. Beta 1s are harder to defend, imo.
No they should not....
Ville wrote:Beta 1 outposts should be the same as Beta 2 outposts. Beta 1s are harder to defend, imo.
No they should not....
Please provide feedback.
Perpetuum wrote:Ville wrote:Beta 1 outposts should be the same as Beta 2 outposts. Beta 1s are harder to defend, imo.
No they should not....
Please provide feedback.
Perpetuum isn't an ideas man
Ville wrote:Perpetuum wrote:No they should not....
Please provide feedback.
Perpetuum isn't an ideas man
Obviously.
Only the important people listen to my ideas.
This breaks the natural progression of what one would think...is natural.
As you and "other" losers keep pushing for open beta's the "work" of holding a B1 is nothing. Thus, open and less.
With the system we have now, you never "own" a B1 as it is open. Thus less, then B2.
I can go on, but my Lunch is ready.
Only the important people listen to my ideas.
This breaks the natural progression of what one would think...is natural.
As you and "other" losers keep pushing for open beta's the "work" of holding a B1 is nothing. Thus, open and less.
With the system we have now, you never "own" a B1 as it is open. Thus less, then B2.
I can go on, but my Lunch is ready.
That doesn't even make sense in the slightest bit, how is something that is completely open easier to defend then something that is completely closed off?
Perpetuum wrote:Only the important people listen to my ideas.
This breaks the natural progression of what one would think...is natural.
As you and "other" losers keep pushing for open beta's the "work" of holding a B1 is nothing. Thus, open and less.
With the system we have now, you never "own" a B1 as it is open. Thus less, then B2.
I can go on, but my Lunch is ready.
That doesn't even make sense in the slightest bit, how is something that is completely open easier to defend then something that is completely closed off?
Ville, B2 will become more valuable and no one will give a *** about who owns an unlocked OP. Those who live there will live there because they are there actively playing, not AFK playing something else waiting for those darn SAPs.
Ville wrote:Perpetuum wrote:Only the important people listen to my ideas.
This breaks the natural progression of what one would think...is natural.
As you and "other" losers keep pushing for open beta's the "work" of holding a B1 is nothing. Thus, open and less.
With the system we have now, you never "own" a B1 as it is open. Thus less, then B2.
I can go on, but my Lunch is ready.
That doesn't even make sense in the slightest bit, how is something that is completely open easier to defend then something that is completely closed off?
Ville, B2 will become more valuable and no one will give a *** about who owns an unlocked OP. Those who live there will live there because they are there actively playing, not AFK playing something else waiting for those darn SAPs.
Why do you think this is so? lazy players/Alliances who want easy mode, will still not play even with open terminals (just like the open terminals we already have that are not used)
Young one, they are used.
Used as spark locations for "freeish" PVP.
Celebro wrote:Ville wrote:That doesn't even make sense in the slightest bit, how is something that is completely open easier to defend then something that is completely closed off?
Ville, B2 will become more valuable and no one will give a *** about who owns an unlocked OP. Those who live there will live there because they are there actively playing, not AFK playing something else waiting for those darn SAPs.
Why do you think this is so? lazy players/Alliances who want easy mode, will still not play even with open terminals (just like the open terminals we already have that are not used)
The open terminals are not used because they are permacamped. Giving more places to camp reduces the effectiveness of the campers.
This is not rocket science.
Celebro wrote:Ville wrote:That doesn't even make sense in the slightest bit, how is something that is completely open easier to defend then something that is completely closed off?
Ville, B2 will become more valuable and no one will give a *** about who owns an unlocked OP. Those who live there will live there because they are there actively playing, not AFK playing something else waiting for those darn SAPs.
Why do you think this is so? lazy players/Alliances who want easy mode, will still not play even with open terminals (just like the open terminals we already have that are not used)
Nothing new to me, I have defended unlocked outpost long before you started. You are the one who want lazy by defending locked OPs. With the Spark gone it becomes quite appealing to have B1 unlocked. Give more chances for other players to enjoy the new missions instead of having to deal with diplomacy and be someone else pet.
.
Devs free up more content, new players don't need to deal with political ultimatums , from someone butt hurt years ago for being banned for account sharing.
Altera wrote:Celebro wrote:Ville, B2 will become more valuable and no one will give a *** about who owns an unlocked OP. Those who live there will live there because they are there actively playing, not AFK playing something else waiting for those darn SAPs.
Why do you think this is so? lazy players/Alliances who want easy mode, will still not play even with open terminals (just like the open terminals we already have that are not used)
Nothing new to me, I have defended unlocked outpost long before you started. You are the one who want lazy by defending locked OPs. With the Spark gone it becomes quite appealing to have B1 unlocked. Give more chances for other players to enjoy the new missions instead of having to deal with diplomacy and be someone else pet.
.
Devs free up more content, new players don't need to deal with political ultimatums , from someone butt hurt years ago for being banned for account sharing.
Altera how olds your account?
... The open terminals are not used because they are permacamped. ...
^^ Interesting.
Celebro wrote:Altera wrote:Why do you think this is so? lazy players/Alliances who want easy mode, will still not play even with open terminals (just like the open terminals we already have that are not used)
Nothing new to me, I have defended unlocked outpost long before you started. You are the one who want lazy by defending locked OPs. With the Spark gone it becomes quite appealing to have B1 unlocked. Give more chances for other players to enjoy the new missions instead of having to deal with diplomacy and be someone else pet.
.
Devs free up more content, new players don't need to deal with political ultimatums , from someone butt hurt years ago for being banned for account sharing.Altera how olds your account?
2212-02-26
Altera.
Whats your favorite Color?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.042 seconds (87% PHP - 13% DB) with 21 queries