Forums » Suggestions
So recently I've been thinking about the conquerable stations a lot more. And I've noticed how silly it has been. People make alliances that make no sense over them and they change hands when no one is around to defend them in the off hours heh. It's pretty exhaustingly chaotic, which is typically why I don't fool with them often (unless I'm trying to stir up combat).
My proposal was that perhaps we implement a period of time after a group conquers the station that it cannot be conquered again until that time is up. I was thinking a mere 24 hours. The reason is that it takes what, 20 -30 minutes to take it back? All three stations can be taken pretty quickly in the off hours with just three pilots even. While I think taking them for a week would be cool, perhaps 24 hours would be better to test out and then the code would be in place later to make any kind of time adjustments.
There are a few reasons I suggest this:
1. Adding this would make it less chaotic (they can only be conquered when the time is up, thus removing the likelihood of a single pilot taking all stations in the off hours)
2. It would create conflict: people will gravitate towards their interests (the stations, manufacturing) when the time approaches and battle will ensue. While this might make the battle chaotic and the rest of the 24 hours not, it might be an interesting trade off.
3. There won't be as many weird alliances needed or wanted anymore: Itani and Serco will want the stations for themselves even more now. More vendettas that are objective based = more fun. When SCAR was annexing helios back in the day it attracted a lot of attention from vpr and others and it was fun, because they were trying to clear us out and we them.
I realize it doesn't make much sense to have a "magic anti-conquering barrier for set amount of time" but the problem is that the playerbase isn't large enough to support the stations. The same 5-8 players that take the stations also have a life and can't sit around all day defending them and stay up all night doing the same. So for now I think perhaps some way to manage it would be far more interesting and less insomniac.
What would likely happen is there would be a battle for the station at the end of the 24 hour period, the defenders and their allies vs the assailants, throw in some crazy people trying to ninja the station. Although you could "ninja" the station, it would work only once, as next time you're going to be kos for everybody and no one is going to help you defend your station without some form of bribery. The strongest group would try to hold the station every 24 hour period and this would encourage people to get better at "taking" stations and thinking of new strategies as opposed to "I'll wait until no one is on." and then that group goes to sleep and then someone else repeats. This may form more stricter access to stations as well, if a serco military group takes the station they can enforce standing more realistically for access to the station.
Discuss.
My proposal was that perhaps we implement a period of time after a group conquers the station that it cannot be conquered again until that time is up. I was thinking a mere 24 hours. The reason is that it takes what, 20 -30 minutes to take it back? All three stations can be taken pretty quickly in the off hours with just three pilots even. While I think taking them for a week would be cool, perhaps 24 hours would be better to test out and then the code would be in place later to make any kind of time adjustments.
There are a few reasons I suggest this:
1. Adding this would make it less chaotic (they can only be conquered when the time is up, thus removing the likelihood of a single pilot taking all stations in the off hours)
2. It would create conflict: people will gravitate towards their interests (the stations, manufacturing) when the time approaches and battle will ensue. While this might make the battle chaotic and the rest of the 24 hours not, it might be an interesting trade off.
3. There won't be as many weird alliances needed or wanted anymore: Itani and Serco will want the stations for themselves even more now. More vendettas that are objective based = more fun. When SCAR was annexing helios back in the day it attracted a lot of attention from vpr and others and it was fun, because they were trying to clear us out and we them.
I realize it doesn't make much sense to have a "magic anti-conquering barrier for set amount of time" but the problem is that the playerbase isn't large enough to support the stations. The same 5-8 players that take the stations also have a life and can't sit around all day defending them and stay up all night doing the same. So for now I think perhaps some way to manage it would be far more interesting and less insomniac.
What would likely happen is there would be a battle for the station at the end of the 24 hour period, the defenders and their allies vs the assailants, throw in some crazy people trying to ninja the station. Although you could "ninja" the station, it would work only once, as next time you're going to be kos for everybody and no one is going to help you defend your station without some form of bribery. The strongest group would try to hold the station every 24 hour period and this would encourage people to get better at "taking" stations and thinking of new strategies as opposed to "I'll wait until no one is on." and then that group goes to sleep and then someone else repeats. This may form more stricter access to stations as well, if a serco military group takes the station they can enforce standing more realistically for access to the station.
Discuss.
The strongest group would try to hold the station every 24 hour period and this would encourage people to get better at "taking" stations and thinking of new strategies as opposed to "I'll wait until no one is on."
The only correct part of your post is the first clause, and the only thing your suggestion would change is the amount of time that the present 'unholy alliance' could hold the station unchallenged. The strongest group for purposes of station conquest is, and will always be (absent changes not suggested by you) the one with the most people; QED, all else being equal, everyone will group up and ally to take and hold stations just as they do now.
Until faction standing starts dictating who can share ownership of stations, nothing will change. The idea that someone with POS Serco and someone else with POS Itani are sharing ownership of Latos I8 is recockulous and should be fixed. Similarly, I (POS Corvus) should not be co-owning a station with someone with POS UIT.
Otherwise the Devs should abandon their poorly developed Serco/Itani conflict and push on in the direction of 'everyone groups up to manufacture stuff in space and gets free repairs/reloads too!'
The only correct part of your post is the first clause, and the only thing your suggestion would change is the amount of time that the present 'unholy alliance' could hold the station unchallenged. The strongest group for purposes of station conquest is, and will always be (absent changes not suggested by you) the one with the most people; QED, all else being equal, everyone will group up and ally to take and hold stations just as they do now.
Until faction standing starts dictating who can share ownership of stations, nothing will change. The idea that someone with POS Serco and someone else with POS Itani are sharing ownership of Latos I8 is recockulous and should be fixed. Similarly, I (POS Corvus) should not be co-owning a station with someone with POS UIT.
Otherwise the Devs should abandon their poorly developed Serco/Itani conflict and push on in the direction of 'everyone groups up to manufacture stuff in space and gets free repairs/reloads too!'
-1
While the suggestion has some merits, 24 hours is way too long of a period of time to be guaranteed ownership. Plus a 24 hour limit would give people in certain timezones an advantage, as the station would likely just end up getting reconquered again and again at the same time every day.
I'd be in support of a feature that gave the defenders an advantage for the first hour after conquering a station (say like extra shields to the turrets or extra station guards during that window only). Not 24 hours though, that's just too long.
While the suggestion has some merits, 24 hours is way too long of a period of time to be guaranteed ownership. Plus a 24 hour limit would give people in certain timezones an advantage, as the station would likely just end up getting reconquered again and again at the same time every day.
I'd be in support of a feature that gave the defenders an advantage for the first hour after conquering a station (say like extra shields to the turrets or extra station guards during that window only). Not 24 hours though, that's just too long.
What about putting some randomness into it.
Also, not 'unconquerable', but extra shields or whatever, like meridian's suggestion.
So, for 1-12 (?) hours the station has improved defenses or something that makes it easier to hold.
Also, not 'unconquerable', but extra shields or whatever, like meridian's suggestion.
So, for 1-12 (?) hours the station has improved defenses or something that makes it easier to hold.
Point #3, that "There won't be as many weird alliances needed or wanted anymore", is mostly incorrect. This would make captures/losses more significant, but would do nothing to discourage sharing. The best solution to that, IMO, is scarcity.
Also, I too agree with meridian. Have a boosted level of defense that gradually decreases. This would need to be balanced by also requiring the conquerors to foot the bill to repair their conquered station, to avoid people using alts to attack their own station so that they can perpetuate a boosted state of defense.
Also, I too agree with meridian. Have a boosted level of defense that gradually decreases. This would need to be balanced by also requiring the conquerors to foot the bill to repair their conquered station, to avoid people using alts to attack their own station so that they can perpetuate a boosted state of defense.
+1 to the time limit.
It should start a countdown at the station conquest xx:xx until station can change ownership. It would promote larger station battles, and secure the station for a small window so conquerors can get some use out of it.
The only drawback is the same group re-assaulting it during off-hours to prevent capture....so there would have to be some sort of limitation put in place to protect from abuse.
It should start a countdown at the station conquest xx:xx until station can change ownership. It would promote larger station battles, and secure the station for a small window so conquerors can get some use out of it.
The only drawback is the same group re-assaulting it during off-hours to prevent capture....so there would have to be some sort of limitation put in place to protect from abuse.
Meridians point about timezones is the most persuasive reason why I wont support a time limit. Rins idea about scarcity is the best solution in my view.
You need players to be able to get on and any point and say "let's go conquer this", but still have to form a proper strategy regardless of the presence of defenders.
You need players to be able to get on and any point and say "let's go conquer this", but still have to form a proper strategy regardless of the presence of defenders.
Boosting defenses for 1 hour won't do much, because for the most part people "steal" the stations in off hours.
I understand the timezone issue, but there isn't a lot that can be done about it, GS is based in the US and there are only enough resources and playerbase for one server that we all share.
The scarcity suggestion isn't a bad idea either.
As for the same group conquering it over and over. Faction should definitely play a role in this, and i think that suggestion would break up the weird alliances.
Keep Discussing.
I understand the timezone issue, but there isn't a lot that can be done about it, GS is based in the US and there are only enough resources and playerbase for one server that we all share.
The scarcity suggestion isn't a bad idea either.
As for the same group conquering it over and over. Faction should definitely play a role in this, and i think that suggestion would break up the weird alliances.
Keep Discussing.
Making the faction standings of owners meaningful to conquerable stations is the best suggestion for change in this thread, in my opinion.
I agree with slime for once.
Actually, I usually agree with slime, he's usually just too busy berating me about my inferred lack of "game developer knowledge" to notice.
I am usually too busy fantasizing about his sister anyway, so I guess it's partially my fault :/
Actually, I usually agree with slime, he's usually just too busy berating me about my inferred lack of "game developer knowledge" to notice.
I am usually too busy fantasizing about his sister anyway, so I guess it's partially my fault :/
I would prefer that Guilds could also own ConqSt, adding its name to station. Become a home to that Guild. This I expect to break the 'weird alliances' better. And make those stations "public", i.e., appears on maps with current owner.
I also dislike the scarcity and Faction relation, this is grayspace, and demand/production rate changes a lot, so cannot be balanced easily.
On the other hand, stations should produce credits and goods at steady rate. Except when conquered, then its production stop until the owner recompose services, by paying a large "fix tax" and waiting a TPG NPC Voy arrive at station to replenish stores. Then production restarts and turrets/guards are replenished.
Initial "Fix Tax" pays itself after 48h, when credit flow to owner decreases to a small but steady flow.
Example: Fix Tax = 1Mc, station produces 21,000c per hour on next 48h, then reduces to 1,000c/hour.
Now you have reasons to conquer and keep station, and why avoid change hands frequently. With those in place we need: Attrition War. (was proposed before by someone else)
Station only have limited defenses: X turrets and N guards. They are spawned at most 8 turrets and 2 guards at once. Each destroyed is replenished from existing resources. Only owner(s) can replenish defenses, either monetary tax and way a convoy arrive (can be intercepted) or bring the resouces themselves, from nearest regular station.
Conquer dynamics changes to exaust station defenses faster thatn it is replenished. Keeping stations also should offer monetary risks...
Then you have a scenario for guild wars, long term attrition, resources ownership, war costs...
I also dislike the scarcity and Faction relation, this is grayspace, and demand/production rate changes a lot, so cannot be balanced easily.
On the other hand, stations should produce credits and goods at steady rate. Except when conquered, then its production stop until the owner recompose services, by paying a large "fix tax" and waiting a TPG NPC Voy arrive at station to replenish stores. Then production restarts and turrets/guards are replenished.
Initial "Fix Tax" pays itself after 48h, when credit flow to owner decreases to a small but steady flow.
Example: Fix Tax = 1Mc, station produces 21,000c per hour on next 48h, then reduces to 1,000c/hour.
Now you have reasons to conquer and keep station, and why avoid change hands frequently. With those in place we need: Attrition War. (was proposed before by someone else)
Station only have limited defenses: X turrets and N guards. They are spawned at most 8 turrets and 2 guards at once. Each destroyed is replenished from existing resources. Only owner(s) can replenish defenses, either monetary tax and way a convoy arrive (can be intercepted) or bring the resouces themselves, from nearest regular station.
Conquer dynamics changes to exaust station defenses faster thatn it is replenished. Keeping stations also should offer monetary risks...
Then you have a scenario for guild wars, long term attrition, resources ownership, war costs...
STFU with your guild-specific content suggestions, Alloh. And the attrition suggestion you're boosting was mine from last week: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/26175#319267
The rest of you are welcome for the only useful suggestion in the thread.
Now...Closets, Monsters, Crates, Candies.
I win.
The rest of you are welcome for the only useful suggestion in the thread.
Now...Closets, Monsters, Crates, Candies.
I win.
Alloh+dr. Lector = lulz
Guild EXCLUSIVE content is not exactly the same as Guilds ALSO be able to own stuff...
so, go back to your basement closet to suck your monsters' candles, lelector...
so, go back to your basement closet to suck your monsters' candles, lelector...
Please learn to spell, Alloh. I don't want to have to change the AVP to include candles. TYIA.
Why not just create a mission for building defense turrets, then up the number of them? No artificial limits. You want to keep it; build and reinforce the defenses.
Keller:
Because eventually the station simply could not be captured, it doesn't create much gameplay if stations can't be contested.
It's not really as if players can stop other players from taking down turrets, they can just try to make the exercise cost more, in terms of repairs and lost ships.
The only point in which the contest gets any benefit from numbers on one side or the other is after the turrets are down.
I personally think capture is pretty uninteresting because of the ease of bombing, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Because eventually the station simply could not be captured, it doesn't create much gameplay if stations can't be contested.
It's not really as if players can stop other players from taking down turrets, they can just try to make the exercise cost more, in terms of repairs and lost ships.
The only point in which the contest gets any benefit from numbers on one side or the other is after the turrets are down.
I personally think capture is pretty uninteresting because of the ease of bombing, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
I touched on this idea briefly in another thread, but I'll summarize here. How about something like this:
-Destroying all the turrets triggers an event timer, let's say 24 hours, from the moment the last turret is destroyed. The timer serves to give defenders notice that they are under attack, so it's harder to just take stations when people aren't logged in.
-When the timer expires, an event similar to border skirmish is triggered. Attacking fleet jumps in and engages a defending fleet that has arrived to hold the station. The winning FACTION gains control of the station.
-I say faction because, like some others have mentioned, factions need to start being more like true teams. No more cooperation between Itani and Serco to hold a station. This might even inspire a sense of competition at a level greater than individuals vs. individuals, all doing their own thing on a whim. Your team will actually matter.
-After the battle is over, the event cannot be triggered again for 2-3 days.
-(Optional) To expand on this, the defenders could purchase upgrades for their station defenses. They could buy a stronger defending fleet or more powerful turrets, etc. Attacking fleets could be dependant upon other factors. Just spitballing here but, maybe the strength of the attacking fleet is dependant on how much CtC cargo was delivered the previous week. A way to make CtC relevant again? Maybe.
-Destroying all the turrets triggers an event timer, let's say 24 hours, from the moment the last turret is destroyed. The timer serves to give defenders notice that they are under attack, so it's harder to just take stations when people aren't logged in.
-When the timer expires, an event similar to border skirmish is triggered. Attacking fleet jumps in and engages a defending fleet that has arrived to hold the station. The winning FACTION gains control of the station.
-I say faction because, like some others have mentioned, factions need to start being more like true teams. No more cooperation between Itani and Serco to hold a station. This might even inspire a sense of competition at a level greater than individuals vs. individuals, all doing their own thing on a whim. Your team will actually matter.
-After the battle is over, the event cannot be triggered again for 2-3 days.
-(Optional) To expand on this, the defenders could purchase upgrades for their station defenses. They could buy a stronger defending fleet or more powerful turrets, etc. Attacking fleets could be dependant upon other factors. Just spitballing here but, maybe the strength of the attacking fleet is dependant on how much CtC cargo was delivered the previous week. A way to make CtC relevant again? Maybe.
The basic complaint is the weird alliances - these will dissolve once VO's population increases to the point that a single guild grows large enough to gaurd the stations 24/7. There is also the fact that the three stations are only the first stations. There will be many more in due time.
PaKettle:
I really think we need to stop designing gameplay around having a lot of people.
I mean, it may happen, but gameplay should be designed such that it scales to the player base.
Anyway, Capturing stations right now is far from interesting gameplay, half an hour spent grinding turrets (Jump in, turbo, loose missiles when in range, jump out again), just for 2 minutes of excitement.
Those 2 minutes are great, but they're not worth the rest.
I really think we need to stop designing gameplay around having a lot of people.
I mean, it may happen, but gameplay should be designed such that it scales to the player base.
Anyway, Capturing stations right now is far from interesting gameplay, half an hour spent grinding turrets (Jump in, turbo, loose missiles when in range, jump out again), just for 2 minutes of excitement.
Those 2 minutes are great, but they're not worth the rest.