Forums » Suggestions
Quick Multi-Player Conq Station Fixes:
1. Switch conquerable station turrets from single-player mode to multi-player mode by putting the turrets back to the strength they had two years ago.
2. Make turret health persistent between sector rests. If the owners don't want to maintain their station they should lose it. This is a multi-player game. No magic turret health resets.
1. Switch conquerable station turrets from single-player mode to multi-player mode by putting the turrets back to the strength they had two years ago.
2. Make turret health persistent between sector rests. If the owners don't want to maintain their station they should lose it. This is a multi-player game. No magic turret health resets.
No comment on point 1; I don't participate in conq-stations enough to care.
Regarding point 2, that misbehavior is caused by a bug.
Regarding point 2, that misbehavior is caused by a bug.
What does #1 supposedly fix?
So you're sick to death of solo SKV pilots taking over conq stations all by themselves?
If this is the case, you're channeling your focus in the wrong direction. The problem isn't conq stations or their turrets, but that you're in a STATE of WAR.
If this is the case, you're channeling your focus in the wrong direction. The problem isn't conq stations or their turrets, but that you're in a STATE of WAR.
joyless, conq stations here are a joke for a mmo
greenwall, #1 makes it a team effort OR a real PIA chore for a single player. It also gives defenders more to rep when they get there.
joyless, conq stations here are a joke for a mmo
In this mmo, how many players do we have playing concurrently? The average count of concurrent players was the reason the turrets' health got nerfed. Simple math. Do you need to re-enroll into your old kindergarten to review the basic math lessons needed to comprehend the math behind this reasoning?
In this mmo, how many players do we have playing concurrently? The average count of concurrent players was the reason the turrets' health got nerfed. Simple math. Do you need to re-enroll into your old kindergarten to review the basic math lessons needed to comprehend the math behind this reasoning?
What does #1 supposedly fix?
It'll fix the fact that a team of 3-4 players can trivially mow down a station defense before the keyholders have a chance to respond to the attack.
The average count of concurrent players was the reason the turrets' health got nerfed.
No, it was just a well timed bad suggestion.
Anyway, I totally disagree with #2. It makes sense for the turrets to repair after some idle time. This forces the attackers to be vigilant and follow through. If you can't finish the job don't start it.
It'll fix the fact that a team of 3-4 players can trivially mow down a station defense before the keyholders have a chance to respond to the attack.
The average count of concurrent players was the reason the turrets' health got nerfed.
No, it was just a well timed bad suggestion.
Anyway, I totally disagree with #2. It makes sense for the turrets to repair after some idle time. This forces the attackers to be vigilant and follow through. If you can't finish the job don't start it.
It really doesn't matter how strong the turrets are if the defenders and attackers are well matched. Even if the station is taken fairly quickly it can't be used well if the previous occupants counter-attack.
Since the real problem is that 2v2 is a big station battle these days (since it's mostly TGFT v SKV) increasing the turret strength won't change much except that a lone attacker with no defenders will have a longer time of it.
Since the real problem is that 2v2 is a big station battle these days (since it's mostly TGFT v SKV) increasing the turret strength won't change much except that a lone attacker with no defenders will have a longer time of it.
good points harpo. Though, being a person who doesnt like long drawn out fights, i quite like the low armor of the turrets. Matched teams are more likely motivated to fight in an on going manner because the possibility of taking the stations doesnt seem like a huge challenge. If you increase the turret strength again, people will be less inclined to attempt a take unless they have more people in place.
Leave the armor low, the battle at the end is what matters when there is actual player vs player contention
SKV would actually hold the stations longer in a higher health situation because they are ruthless in the art of greyhound pursuit so your suggestion would actually backfire on your intent.
So would ONE, FAMY and probably anyone else you(OP) don't like because they are better at killing.
SKV would actually hold the stations longer in a higher health situation because they are ruthless in the art of greyhound pursuit so your suggestion would actually backfire on your intent.
So would ONE, FAMY and probably anyone else you(OP) don't like because they are better at killing.
"they are better at killing."... LOL
Well, with the armor so low, it's not worth it. I've been enjoying collecting the pks.
Well, with the armor so low, it's not worth it. I've been enjoying collecting the pks.
Correct, It's not worth repairing them when a rag with a full magazine can easily kill one in a single pass. Station defense right now basically consists of: chase easy PKs in a greyhound until the dock battle then try to win the dock battle.
If there was 200 players, 1000 players, 10,000.. There would still be 8 turrets. It's not scalable, therefore not sustainable. And if the main purpose of the conq stations is to build tridents, they switch hands every few minutes, no manufacturing gets done. Not that I need more tridents, but it's still broke.
I propose to make those three conq stations to be standard Corvus stations, and move trident manufacturing to nation space. If you didn't fight over conq stations, you'd still find reasons to fight. Annnnd.. just think about all the noob dents you'll get to kill.
I propose to make those three conq stations to be standard Corvus stations, and move trident manufacturing to nation space. If you didn't fight over conq stations, you'd still find reasons to fight. Annnnd.. just think about all the noob dents you'll get to kill.
Spence understands the full ramifications of changes to the conquerable stations, he's seen the most iterations of station conquering and he's probably clocked up the most hours in station conquering.
I'd listen to him if I were you kyle bireta.
I'd listen to him if I were you kyle bireta.
Let's make a magical lightning storm that drains HP once the turrets are down and colors everyone's ship orange or purple and get rid of keys. Once taken, only orange or purple ships can dock, depending on who captured it.
Honestly, I think the best thing we can do to improve station battles at this point is to bring the countdown timer back up to 5 minutes. It was more fun that way.
Arf, increasing the countdown timer would be another improvement. But, having something to rep after a rag leaves the conq station sector would be nice as well.
after the stations turrets are destroyed a fighter skirmish should immediately spawn deneb style where the local faction tries to re cap the sector and the players must fight them off, once the fighter skirm is defeated a dock battle can begin
</left field>
</left field>
"local faction"? You mean fighting for the current owners?
Either way, -1 to more NPCs to fight, the current owners already get two. Recruit more players.
Either way, -1 to more NPCs to fight, the current owners already get two. Recruit more players.