Forums » Suggestions
Currently is is absurdly easy to take a conquerable station with a single Trident. Add more capital ships to the mix and it's a joke.
Access to all stations is currently maintained by a conglomerate of people who own a multitude of capital ships, arguably the largest amount in the game.
On it's face it would seem they rightly deserve such control given their effort. However, the sinister reality is that you must curry their favor in order to get access. The result is that they continue to maintain control, as anyone who opposes them cannot amass enough manpower / capital ships to ever counter them.
One can easily see that this monopolistic control structure over the most sought after end-game content in VO is suppressive to the game overall because it diminishes any potential for balance to emerge (lest the enough of the congolmerate as a whole stops playing VO all together).
I'm not really sure what to suggest to fix it. Seems like a wide array of balances need to be put into effect that open the door for challenges to such dominance, from capital ship counter measures and NPC assistance to alternative manufacturing avenues and hive interference. But this much is clear: If one group controls the ability to make capships via their overwhelming Capital Ship aramada and the only way to take that ability away is to fight them with new capships, then the game is stuck.
Access to all stations is currently maintained by a conglomerate of people who own a multitude of capital ships, arguably the largest amount in the game.
On it's face it would seem they rightly deserve such control given their effort. However, the sinister reality is that you must curry their favor in order to get access. The result is that they continue to maintain control, as anyone who opposes them cannot amass enough manpower / capital ships to ever counter them.
One can easily see that this monopolistic control structure over the most sought after end-game content in VO is suppressive to the game overall because it diminishes any potential for balance to emerge (lest the enough of the congolmerate as a whole stops playing VO all together).
I'm not really sure what to suggest to fix it. Seems like a wide array of balances need to be put into effect that open the door for challenges to such dominance, from capital ship counter measures and NPC assistance to alternative manufacturing avenues and hive interference. But this much is clear: If one group controls the ability to make capships via their overwhelming Capital Ship aramada and the only way to take that ability away is to fight them with new capships, then the game is stuck.
You’re leaving out several key facts. Firstly, stations aren’t particularly hard to take without capships. People have done it single handedly. Secondly, a genuinely powerful entity being able to hold onto the stations seems about right to me. Thirdly, and this is a secret: people who aren’t in ONE drastically outnumber the people in ONE. It isn’t even close. If people wanted to wrest control away, there would literally be nothing we could do about it.
The fact is most people value the consistent access over sticking it to the (current) most-powerful guild. I don’t find that fact problematic or broken in the slightest.
That said, I’m not -1ing this (vague) suggestion. Increasing difficulty of holding the station in the face of PvE threats such as the hive isn’t a bad idea. Grayspace is supposed to be dangerous, and I’m in favor of it being so even without players being present.
The fact is most people value the consistent access over sticking it to the (current) most-powerful guild. I don’t find that fact problematic or broken in the slightest.
That said, I’m not -1ing this (vague) suggestion. Increasing difficulty of holding the station in the face of PvE threats such as the hive isn’t a bad idea. Grayspace is supposed to be dangerous, and I’m in favor of it being so even without players being present.
Stations are WAY easier to take with capships than without, both time wise and asset-wise. This is not about whether or not something can be done solo, it's about the dominance that an ever-present, capship-laden force has over the stations.
I disagree with your contention that people could take it away if they wanted to (there aren't the numbers), but I agree with the contention that most people value consistent access over something "more difficult".
And I do understand there is something intrinsic to the game that allows people who play more and in greater numbers to have increased influence on gameplay. But when one group holds the keys to the end game and demands pay for play it doesn't strike me as a good idea for the game.
I disagree with your contention that people could take it away if they wanted to (there aren't the numbers), but I agree with the contention that most people value consistent access over something "more difficult".
And I do understand there is something intrinsic to the game that allows people who play more and in greater numbers to have increased influence on gameplay. But when one group holds the keys to the end game and demands pay for play it doesn't strike me as a good idea for the game.
There's two aspects that greenwall brings up:
1. Combat difficulty of capturing a station
2. Player monopoly over capship production
I can't speak to #1, but #2 is something I've thought about before. I think an interesting change would be to add a short greyspace or unmapped corridor of one or two systems between Itani and UIT. In that corridor have one conq station that manufactures some middle component, like FFSA, and another conq station that manufactures an end component like a 200MW, and remove the 200MW from original grey. It would probably be under the control of the monopoly most of the time, but would be more vulnerable to attack as well.
Alternatively, you could add unmapped systems off of Itani, Serco, and UIT space, and put a conq station with a unique end component in each one. That way, nationalist & pirate guilds would have a hard time maintaining a monopoly, since access to the stations would require fighting your way through nation space to get there. It could also promote more player trade of capship parts, since access to the stations would require a wider array of diplomacy
1. Combat difficulty of capturing a station
2. Player monopoly over capship production
I can't speak to #1, but #2 is something I've thought about before. I think an interesting change would be to add a short greyspace or unmapped corridor of one or two systems between Itani and UIT. In that corridor have one conq station that manufactures some middle component, like FFSA, and another conq station that manufactures an end component like a 200MW, and remove the 200MW from original grey. It would probably be under the control of the monopoly most of the time, but would be more vulnerable to attack as well.
Alternatively, you could add unmapped systems off of Itani, Serco, and UIT space, and put a conq station with a unique end component in each one. That way, nationalist & pirate guilds would have a hard time maintaining a monopoly, since access to the stations would require fighting your way through nation space to get there. It could also promote more player trade of capship parts, since access to the stations would require a wider array of diplomacy
Other than saying “I disagree” back and forth, you haven’t suggested anything that would mitigate such a “problem”.
Though I will say, ONE’s first dents were built in an era where Itan had essentially uncontested control of the stations while they were on. Plenty of Itan capships are being built *right now*, because ONE isn’t omnipotent and an alt used to set up a kit for an Itan character can do so pretty much unopposed. Seems like everyone has an avenue even if we’re supposedly unstoppable.
Though I will say, ONE’s first dents were built in an era where Itan had essentially uncontested control of the stations while they were on. Plenty of Itan capships are being built *right now*, because ONE isn’t omnipotent and an alt used to set up a kit for an Itan character can do so pretty much unopposed. Seems like everyone has an avenue even if we’re supposedly unstoppable.
There has been a couple threads in the past few years suggesting changes to make defense easier.
Manufacturable Station Guards Mar 28, 2019 by Captain Spry
Add PCB Seekers to Conq stations Jul 27, 2018 by Gust Front
Either of those two would definitely make station defense more effective.
Manufacturable Station Guards Mar 28, 2019 by Captain Spry
Add PCB Seekers to Conq stations Jul 27, 2018 by Gust Front
Either of those two would definitely make station defense more effective.
I removed a post that violated Rule #3
-1
station control is monopolistic due to the strong recruiting and retaining of new player efforts that ONE guild has made and has nothing to do with the balance of how easy or hard it is to take stations with or without capships.
station control is monopolistic due to the strong recruiting and retaining of new player efforts that ONE guild has made and has nothing to do with the balance of how easy or hard it is to take stations with or without capships.
station control is monopolistic due to the strong recruiting and retaining of new player efforts that ONE guild has made and has nothing to do with the balance of how easy or hard it is to take stations with or without capships.
Well, then the Suggestion of increasing defenses should have no impact, right? So why vote against it?
Well, then the Suggestion of increasing defenses should have no impact, right? So why vote against it?
Well, then the Suggestion of increasing defenses should have no impact, right? So why vote against it?
It is counter productive... if taking the station is too hard, why make it harder? There is no logic to this.
It is counter productive... if taking the station is too hard, why make it harder? There is no logic to this.
Well, then the Suggestion of increasing defenses should have no impact, right? So why vote against it?
It is counter productive... if taking the station is too hard, why make it harder? There is no logic to this.
+1
It is counter productive... if taking the station is too hard, why make it harder? There is no logic to this.
+1
There is also the claim that only one guild is powerful enough to take the stations.. but this is untrue. In actuality there are currently multiple guilds with more capships and players than that particular guild. However, they choose to negotiate keys rather than spend their game time trying to take the stations. There is nothing wrong with this, that is basic RP. The OP is not a suggestion, it is a complaint. The complaint is that he cannot muster enough player support to maintain control of the stations.
-1
As IonicPaulTheSecond said, ONE's hold over the stations isn't an unbeatable force. If the station is conquered by someone else, can they bring a fleet of capships to take it back? Yes. But the fact is that if other players were to unite against ONE or even the entire alliance, it is still possible to take and hold stations for a decent amount of time, thus creating instability between the 13GF and the rest.
I, however, have no inclination to conquer stations and go to war when I can pay 200k a week and be done with it. And apparently this feeling is shared by other players. The only attacks I have seen recently are by 1 player, who has only attacked Latos I8 to buy Caprails, and lost it due to not being interested in maintaining a hold. It's more a matter of "don't want to" than "can't" that ONE has maintained its dominance.
As IonicPaulTheSecond said, ONE's hold over the stations isn't an unbeatable force. If the station is conquered by someone else, can they bring a fleet of capships to take it back? Yes. But the fact is that if other players were to unite against ONE or even the entire alliance, it is still possible to take and hold stations for a decent amount of time, thus creating instability between the 13GF and the rest.
I, however, have no inclination to conquer stations and go to war when I can pay 200k a week and be done with it. And apparently this feeling is shared by other players. The only attacks I have seen recently are by 1 player, who has only attacked Latos I8 to buy Caprails, and lost it due to not being interested in maintaining a hold. It's more a matter of "don't want to" than "can't" that ONE has maintained its dominance.
-1 I hear that the Itani Nation has sugar.
@haxmeister -- I'm not speaking of guilds, I'm speaking of groups. The current "group" that holds the stations is compromised of several guilds and un-guilded members that all work in tandem to their combined greater good, which includes charging credits for access to anyone not on their "buddy list" and denying access to anyone on their "kill list". The problem is their "greater good" locks out a significant amount of players (in this case from a nationalist perspective) who have no recourse but to make alts in "friendly" circles to gain access.
This is not a complaint, rather it is a suggestion that something should be done about a concerning imbalance I perceive. And it was my hope to inspire a discussion about it.
@sid
But the fact is that if other players were to unite against ONE or even the entire alliance, it is still possible to take and hold stations for a decent amount of time, thus creating instability between the 13GF and the rest.
It is not inconceivable that over time those in opposition to the current dominant group continue to have their numbers decrease due to lack of activity and opportunity amongst their "kind" (aka itani in this case, which is ~1/3 of the players who join the game). That atrophy will only exacerbate the issue, presuming the current dominant group remains interested in controlling access.
here are some ideas I've thought up since I posted initially:
-introduce NPC support that is acquirable by some means (mission, credits, rank) that allows for temporary dominant protection andn/or assistance in overtaking a station, such that those who might not have the manpower to hold a station long enough to do business can still get somewhat dependable access. This NPC support could have tiers, or be allowed to scale up (for a price) if opposition overcomes the initial support.
-introduce NPC support based on Deneb outcomes (wherein the NPC support mentioned above comes from that nation's victory in Deneb, rather than some mercenary force).
-Introduce an EMP which can totally drain and disable (capital) ships for a significant amount of time with a huge range (10km)
-introduce the Hive incursions I suggested in another thread that apparently have already been thought about by incarnate
This is not a complaint, rather it is a suggestion that something should be done about a concerning imbalance I perceive. And it was my hope to inspire a discussion about it.
@sid
But the fact is that if other players were to unite against ONE or even the entire alliance, it is still possible to take and hold stations for a decent amount of time, thus creating instability between the 13GF and the rest.
It is not inconceivable that over time those in opposition to the current dominant group continue to have their numbers decrease due to lack of activity and opportunity amongst their "kind" (aka itani in this case, which is ~1/3 of the players who join the game). That atrophy will only exacerbate the issue, presuming the current dominant group remains interested in controlling access.
here are some ideas I've thought up since I posted initially:
-introduce NPC support that is acquirable by some means (mission, credits, rank) that allows for temporary dominant protection andn/or assistance in overtaking a station, such that those who might not have the manpower to hold a station long enough to do business can still get somewhat dependable access. This NPC support could have tiers, or be allowed to scale up (for a price) if opposition overcomes the initial support.
-introduce NPC support based on Deneb outcomes (wherein the NPC support mentioned above comes from that nation's victory in Deneb, rather than some mercenary force).
-Introduce an EMP which can totally drain and disable (capital) ships for a significant amount of time with a huge range (10km)
-introduce the Hive incursions I suggested in another thread that apparently have already been thought about by incarnate
This is not a complaint, rather it is a suggestion that something should be done about a concerning imbalance I perceive. And it was my hope to inspire a discussion about it.
The problem is that the basis of this suggestion is in the talent of the players involved rather than a problem with the game itself. This is not something that belongs in the suggestion forum, but rather in the role play forum.
The problem is that the basis of this suggestion is in the talent of the players involved rather than a problem with the game itself. This is not something that belongs in the suggestion forum, but rather in the role play forum.
-introduce NPC support that is acquirable by some means (mission, credits, rank) that allows for temporary dominant protection andn/or assistance in overtaking a station, such that those who might not have the manpower to hold a station long enough to do business can still get somewhat dependable access. This NPC support could have tiers, or be allowed to scale up (for a price) if opposition overcomes the initial support.
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
-introduce NPC support based on Deneb outcomes (wherein the NPC support mentioned above comes from that nation's victory in Deneb, rather than some mercenary force).
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
-introduce the Hive incursions I suggested in another thread that apparently have already been thought about by incarnate
As I've said I actually like this idea, but it would add difficulty to anyone holding the station.
-Introduce an EMP which can totally drain and disable (capital) ships for a significant amount of time with a huge range (10km)
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
Additionally - I don't understand the insistence that the "dominant group" is only holding onto these stations due to capships. There have been fights with equal numbers of capships where we were numerically comparable (sometimes with a couple more pilots, sometimes with a couple fewer) where we still held onto the stations. Unless you mean to say that the whole group is a bunch of hacks who can't stand up in a fight.
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
-introduce NPC support based on Deneb outcomes (wherein the NPC support mentioned above comes from that nation's victory in Deneb, rather than some mercenary force).
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
-introduce the Hive incursions I suggested in another thread that apparently have already been thought about by incarnate
As I've said I actually like this idea, but it would add difficulty to anyone holding the station.
-Introduce an EMP which can totally drain and disable (capital) ships for a significant amount of time with a huge range (10km)
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
Additionally - I don't understand the insistence that the "dominant group" is only holding onto these stations due to capships. There have been fights with equal numbers of capships where we were numerically comparable (sometimes with a couple more pilots, sometimes with a couple fewer) where we still held onto the stations. Unless you mean to say that the whole group is a bunch of hacks who can't stand up in a fight.
@paul
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
Surely the content could be developed in a way to be available / applicable / of interest only to the group who is NOT in control of the station, or who has had minority control for a period of time.
The role the capships play in holding the stations is massive. They make it insanely easy to retake and/or defend a station. I addressed this in the OP. If you are in a battle where both sides have equal amounts of players and equal amounts of capships and equal amounts of time, that that would be considered a fair fight. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about a group the shows up reliably within a half hour of a station being taken with their own fleet ready to retake and confront their enemy, sometimes sooner than that. Most people and groups in this game do not have that kind of capability both from a manpower and time perspective.
I don't think it's healthy for the game for there to be no way around it.
This could be capitalized on by the "dominant group", as well.
Surely the content could be developed in a way to be available / applicable / of interest only to the group who is NOT in control of the station, or who has had minority control for a period of time.
The role the capships play in holding the stations is massive. They make it insanely easy to retake and/or defend a station. I addressed this in the OP. If you are in a battle where both sides have equal amounts of players and equal amounts of capships and equal amounts of time, that that would be considered a fair fight. We aren't talking about that. We are talking about a group the shows up reliably within a half hour of a station being taken with their own fleet ready to retake and confront their enemy, sometimes sooner than that. Most people and groups in this game do not have that kind of capability both from a manpower and time perspective.
I don't think it's healthy for the game for there to be no way around it.
I approve the trails of tears in this message, and if TGFT and Itan didn't want to have their asses handed to them they should maybe have thought about that when they created their carebear alliance back in the early 201x's that led to the creation of RED and the subsequent re-nationalisation of ONE.
Anyway, on to the actual suggestion - the station defences as they stand are completely fine and need no adjustment.
Back before the hp of turrets were nerfed, Station War was less 'king of the hill' in a PvP sense and more 'mindless grind to kill station turrets'. Victory was achieved by attrition of time and not by skill.
Those who favour the Itani find themselves in the same position that I found myself in when I came to Nationalism - a force with more players and more organisation, ripe to be disrupted. If you can't be bothered disrupting, step aside and let the next guy come through, welcome to emergent gameplay.
Anyway, on to the actual suggestion - the station defences as they stand are completely fine and need no adjustment.
Back before the hp of turrets were nerfed, Station War was less 'king of the hill' in a PvP sense and more 'mindless grind to kill station turrets'. Victory was achieved by attrition of time and not by skill.
Those who favour the Itani find themselves in the same position that I found myself in when I came to Nationalism - a force with more players and more organisation, ripe to be disrupted. If you can't be bothered disrupting, step aside and let the next guy come through, welcome to emergent gameplay.
I think you need to have played and used the existing mechanics before expecting to be taken seriously when you chime in, not to mention the forum rules. ;)