Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Jita wrote:

The reward was a lot better. In beta nobody bothered to live in beta because there was little reward. When that changed so did behavior and now they rolled back all those changes of course its empty again.

WAIT WAIT..... your saying the DEVs changed their minds ... AGAIN? .... im so surprised .... not. roll

True Pros make a Podcast to influence the Devs minds, 
The rest of you guys are Hacks tongue

PS. I got my Highways & stopped playing b4 they came in & have never used them! ...... Irony much ? tongue

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

We don't need SAP 3.0, we need CIR 2.0, one that cares more about the game than their stupid epeen.

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Celebro wrote:

We don't need SAP 3.0, we need CIR 2.0, one that cares more about the game than their stupid epeen.

CIR are exactly the same as STC were when they were king of the hill. If you banned them all you would just have whoever else. It's the attitude of wanting to push people out of the game that needs to change and the mechanics do the exact opposite actually encouraging that kind of all or nothing behaviour.

PvP in archage is just fine with zero losses, zero loot and zero consequences. I'm not advocating that of course but the balance of risk vs reward in this game is precipitous. Can anyone tell me why we need such harsh consequences in PvP? They are worse than eve and that was supposed to be hardcore.

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."

54 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-10 00:14:47)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Jita wrote:
Celebro wrote:

We don't need SAP 3.0, we need CIR 2.0, one that cares more about the game than their stupid epeen.

CIR are exactly the same as STC were when they were king of the hill. If you banned them all you would just have whoever else. It's the attitude of wanting to push people out of the game that needs to change and the mechanics do the exact opposite actually encouraging that kind of all or nothing behaviour.

PvP in archage is just fine with zero losses, zero loot and zero consequences. I'm not advocating that of course but the balance of risk vs reward in this game is precipitous. Can anyone tell me why we need such harsh consequences in PvP? They are worse than eve and that was supposed to be hardcore.


STC wanted to drive their competition out by inactivity, boring them out the game by denying pvp whenever they could.  It disgusted you when it was happening before your feelings got hurt.  I remember the TUX quote where he said  "would rather the game die from inactivity than lose against us"....we offer pvp to anyone who wants it, and the kill boards since April show exactly that.

You could argue we are "killing" the game by activity, playing and providing pvp content whenever (granted no one wants to pvp against us because they are afraid)

Ill have someone dig up that collage of your forum posts where you state exactly what im referring to, since youll no doubt try to deny it.


Either way....you don't pvp you don't get beta or gamma, the hand outs to the pve players who just quit when they get pvp is over.

You want the current system to stay in game because you believe the old STC doctrine of boring people out the game will work like it did back when the game had 15 people in gen chat as a result...but it hasn't and wont work...might want to try actually playing to achieve your goals in game.


In all honesty I don't care what the forum vets who don't log in to play think of my suggestion.  You all live in the past trying to grasp on to past glory (or whatever your problem is) I want to focus on the future of the game.  The future of this game isn't ninja sapping and showing a fleet then running...its actually playing...back before your lot mad a name for themselves people fought huge battles in heavies...since the game became populated by STC and people like beast and jita its been nothing but trying to trick people who don't want pvp into pvp...and they get mad over it.

I wish back the old perp community tbh...they actually played the game...a siege system might bring back a few of these people.

Carry on with your hate towards people who do play actively.  Keep bumping my thread.  The people who want the current sap system are the same people who haven't owned a station of their own against competition....because the only game plan that worked for them was boring enemies out the game.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

55 (edited by Cassius 2014-11-10 00:24:26)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Such a fool Stranger. 90% of what you say is political BS. My accounts, like your use of words in posts, are free and unlimited. As such I can post when I wish.

Now perhaps you wish to address my point of the difference between "blob" and "players available"?
My point with your thread was to show what you proposed cater towards your current strengths while eliminating other playstyles.

Perhaps a constructive comment from you on your own thread? Or just more "wall o' text" making yourself look like a fool? Either way doesn't matter to me.

56 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-10 00:33:28)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Cassius wrote:

Such a fool Stranger. 90% of what you say is political BS. My accounts, like your use of words in posts, are free and unlimited. As such I can post when I wish.

Now perhaps you wish to address my point of the difference between "blob" and "players available"?
My point with your thread was to show what you proposed cater towards your current strengths while eliminating other playstyles.

Perhaps a constructive comment from you on your own thread? Or just more "wall o' text" making yourself look like a fool? Either way doesn't matter to me.


You don't play, you publicly quit.  You are here because you are stuck in the past back when it was STC and the server vs PHM and Chaos, back when Tux's "bore them out the game they'll unsub" worked.

I really don't care about your opinion.  But ill ask you this.  The current system weve proven to hold the game world with little to no effort....my suggestion at a minimum would offer a change in that dominance.

Either way, you log into the forum of a game you no longer play just to say you dislike a suggestion from an active player.  Bravo.


Thanks for the bump buddy.  Best of luck in whatever game you play now.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger Danger wrote:

Keep the current 3 SAP locations.  Change them from being the actual SAP's to loot package drop points.  Same function with time only their sole purpose is to drop a can using the same timer mechanics.  The point of these locations is for small skirmish and loot ninja fun.  The timer goes live and they drop a loot can.  That's it.

Taking a station now involves producing a deployable station hacking device. 

1. You place the hack module within a radius of the station.  The hack module has a shield protecting it for 48 hours.  Hack module will, once the timer runs out, make the stations vulnerable for someone with an active hack module to flip the station.

2. Defenders can put down Encryption Modules which will extend the time the attacking hack module takes, one can be used, 3,6,8,12 hour versions.  This ensures the defenders can manipulate the time they need to defend somewhat.

3.  The hack module the attackers placed will run low on energy hacking the station, the shield drops with 1 hour to go, if destroyed the process must be restarted (defenders win)

4. if the hack module lives, and the station becomes vulnerable, anyone within the corp who dropped the hack module can use an active hack on the station and claim it.

5. Once claimed the station will have 72 hours to charge up its stability meaning people could potentially evacuate the station.

6 After 72 hours the station is owned and can be hacked by others.

*Hack modules become public knowledge when dropped with a time being displayed on the map and intrusion events


The point of this system will be to make it public when someone can hit a station, which hopefully will give players enough time to get friends, family, allies, ect to come defend or attack. 

You want a station?  Drop a station hack, get your friends, bring an army, fight for it!  Cant defend your station?  pull out your wallet buy friends, mercenaries (yes mercenary corps will be a thing now!) hire enemies whatever...


Perhaps this will see station SAPS as being the entire server involved in a fight rather than a ninja&run event or a baby sitting event.

reposting the OP due to a lot of inactive players mucking up the thread.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Everything you post is political bullshite. Can you answer why this game should be so hardcore without feeling the need to shut post in your own thread?

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."

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

remember the day when this section of the forums used to be good?


oh wait .....

True Pros make a Podcast to influence the Devs minds, 
The rest of you guys are Hacks tongue

PS. I got my Highways & stopped playing b4 they came in & have never used them! ...... Irony much ? tongue

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

C'mon Stranger, keep posting, you make yourself look smart and are a shining example for your corp.

Let me simplify it further.

Do you think its a good idea to promote larger scale conflicts at the expense of small scale or solo PvP?
Do you think by forcing PvP to a certain style this will increase PvP?
Do you think you can force people to PvP?
Do you understand the difference between "blob" and "players available"?

4 questions, free of political spin. Care to answer?
Whether I play, or quit, or read forums is irrelevant. I can still want to see this game succeed. And my accounts are lifetime and I can post anytime.

I already told you I thought you may have some decent ideas with this, but you're too busy spinning to even stop and think and discuss. Not that that is a bad thing, it makes for entertaining reading.

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Small scale should always be a factor but also a small factor. Sometimes it can be the deciding factor but the large engagements where assets must be committed should still be the main focus. The risk vs reward will always be something that needs balancing. I have never played or even heard of a game that was close to a point where risk vs reward was balanced permanently. Eveonline just recently reworked a major mechanic that shifted power because the risk vs reward in big fights became skewed.

The devs read these forums, I have no doubt. I just wish the devs played the game at least once or twice a week for a couple hours to get a feel for what they are about to change.

TLDR there will always need to be fixes to balance risk vs reward and how much player interaction is required. More communication and experience is always needed.

62 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-10 19:09:53)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Keep saps and sap loot for small scale fights, make the beta stations a big fight, with a take it all or nothing mechanics.

It will help the active players who have greater numbers organize enough to get more than 5 on at a time, and would see some vets hopefully return for nothing more than to log on and fight their hated enemy.

small scale is fine, however this game is nothing but small scale, lets get some fun big fights going.

There are more vets and more noobs out there than exist in our alliance, the issue as I see it is 50% cowardice 50% lack or organization.

Or lets keep the current system that promotes us taking the game world with little effort...


Oh and the reason I like this system is I watched how well it worked with a small pvp community in darkfall....brought the whole server out to fight, and that game was full loss pvp as well.


And I do understand that the inactive players who live only on the forums will be 100% against anything anyone with this corp tag suggest...even if its something that could change the balance of power.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

63 (edited by Celebro 2014-11-10 19:48:20)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger Danger wrote:

Keep saps and sap loot for small scale fights, make the beta stations a big fight, with a take it all or nothing mechanics.

It will help the active players who have greater numbers organize enough to get more than 5 on at a time, and would see some vets hopefully return for nothing more than to log on and fight their hated enemy.

small scale is fine, however this game is nothing but small scale, lets get some fun big fights going.

There are more vets and more noobs out there than exist in our alliance, the issue as I see it is 50% cowardice 50% lack or organization.

Or lets keep the current system that promotes us taking the game world with little effort...


Oh and the reason I like this system is I watched how well it worked with a small pvp community in darkfall....brought the whole server out to fight, and that game was full loss pvp as well.


And I do understand that the inactive players who live only on the forums will be 100% against anything anyone with this corp tag suggest...even if its something that could change the balance of power.

This has already been done when you didn't even know about the game, players complained about alarm clocking.

RIP PERPETUUM

64 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-10 19:30:09)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Celebro wrote:
Stranger Danger wrote:

Keep saps and sap loot for small scale fights, make the beta stations a big fight, with a take it all or nothing mechanics.

It will help the active players who have greater numbers organize enough to get more than 5 on at a time, and would see some vets hopefully return for nothing more than to log on and fight their hated enemy.

small scale is fine, however this game is nothing but small scale, lets get some fun big fights going.

There are more vets and more noobs out there than exist in our alliance, the issue as I see it is 50% cowardice 50% lack or organization.

Or lets keep the current system that promotes us taking the game world with little effort...


Oh and the reason I like this system is I watched how well it worked with a small pvp community in darkfall....brought the whole server out to fight, and that game was full loss pvp as well.


And I do understand that the inactive players who live only on the forums will be 100% against anything anyone with this corp tag suggest...even if its something that could change the balance of power.

This has already been done when you didn't if know about the game, players complained about alarm clocking.


Read my OP, its discussed there how to prevent that.  Literally the same siege mechanic from darkfall if you've played.

But then, alarm clocking is pretty much how all the saps get hit right now...so not much change there if that is the plan for how people want to siege....at least this system makes it known to all that there is a chance for a big fight...which hopefully would see a lot of inactive vets log on to participate.

anywhoo, I think I fully understand you enjoy the current mechanic far too much, I get you want to be a part of the pvp politics without pvping, and ninja sapping is the way to do that these days I guess, eventhough its proven to be 100% ineffective.

Should I feel sorry for suggesting a mechanic that might change the current power balance?

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

http://steamcharts.com/app/227400
that darkfall?

*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

66 (edited by Stranger Danger 2014-11-10 19:40:04)

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Annihilator wrote:

http://steamcharts.com/app/227400
that darkfall?


Yes.

Finally you post here, now we can have just about every inactive pvper, and pve only player, posting how they dislike a change in the pvp mechanics they avoid like the plague.

and no anni, being in abu then docking with a larger fleet than us rather than fighting....isn't pvping.

perhaps if that was an all or nothing siege for abu, you guys would have pulled the trigger and at a minimum gotten some high value kills, and best case, won....we will never know the outcome had that happened though.


Bottom line: people who are inactive, don't play, or wish to avoid pvp at all costs dislike a system that encourages pvp and enjoy the current system, that encourages inactivity....despite it works to our advantage.

loud and clear on that guys.  thanks for your input.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Stranger Danger wrote:

and no anni, being in abu then docking with a larger fleet than us rather than fighting....isn't pvping.

oh yes.
i don't know where you get your numbers from. show me a screenshot of your "smaller" fleet.

doing "size" comparisons for argumentation fits your way of thinking...

*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

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Annihilator wrote:
Stranger Danger wrote:

and no anni, being in abu then docking with a larger fleet than us rather than fighting....isn't pvping.

oh yes.
i don't know where you get your numbers from. show me a screenshot of your "smaller" fleet.

doing "size" comparisons for argumentation fits your way of thinking...


Try to stay on topic, or create your own trolling thread if you wish to pursue this discussion.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

You attack everybody who doesn't like your idea. Grow up.

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."

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Jita wrote:

You attack everybody who doesn't like your idea. Grow up.


Thanks for the bump jita.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

? pot kettle?


Jita wrote:

You attack everybody who doesn't like your idea. Grow up.

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Maybe im the only one who sees the irony in people who cant be bothered to play or pvp who like the current system that's proven to be a failure.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Siege stones would have been good for this afternoon

Re: SAP 3.0 thoughts

Gwyndor wrote:

Siege stones would have been good for this afternoon


Yeah you had an organized fleet and you weren't afraid to pull the trigger.

might have had a different outcome perhaps


btw was a great fight

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth