Star Sonata
http://forum.starsonata.com/

For the record
http://forum.starsonata.com/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=50553		 Page 2 of 5
Author:  LethalLoki [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
rand4505 wrote:
Easy mode is for Offline play, Communists and Progressives.


Forgive me, my last post was made in somewhat of a state of delirium after having not slept for a couple days. I didnt clearly state what I intended to.

Everyone plays this game at their own rate, and I believe thats one of the things that makes this game great. I work and go to school so, I might not be able to get as much done as you (hypothetical) but I can still set realistic goals to accomplish. Its not going to be a system of colonies that rakes me in 15b-20b a day, but I do what I can. If my hardwork was to be destroyed, or stolen I would be hard pressed to be able to re-establish everything because of my time constraints.

I agree with you about potential loss and competition, but in its current form it lacks depth. The potential loss is either inconsequential or devastating, tactics hardly matter anymore... its just who can pay the most for the biggest guns and shields.

Which brings me to the point that we need a better structured environment that allows for a range of freedoms and risk reward.

Nothing is ever so black and white when people are involved aside from the color of their skin. Im not asking for the playing field between noobs and veterans to be leveled. Just asking to allow for people who have different amounts of time to invest in the game, because this is a factor in how the people perceive their bases, and a revamp to the systems current state.

Im not so great at explaining things sometimes =P just seems to be one of those times.
Author:  JeffL [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
I think there would be a ton of downside and very little upside if it were easier to cap bases. I'm on the fence right now about taking it out altogether, but since it's currently fairly difficult, I'm not feeling any impetus to act on it at this time.
Author:  erman [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
JeffL wrote:
I think there would be a ton of downside and very little upside if it were easier to cap bases. I'm on the fence right now about taking it out altogether, but since it's currently fairly difficult, I'm not feeling any impetus to act on it at this time.


What about the mechanic currently at the center of this firestorm where all the bases go unowned the moment you own a destroyed gal (which is 10 minutes after it dies)?

-ERMAN
Author:  JeffL [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
As was stated in the other thread, that has been changed for the next patch.
Author:  erman [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
JeffL wrote:
As was stated in the other thread, that has been changed for the next patch.


Ah, hard to keep up with all the comments when stuff gets locked then people make more posts about the same thing...

And I take it this is not going to be considered a bug and its use be reversed?

-ERMAN
Author:  rand4505 [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
Removing BvB would be a mistake Jeff, that is what makes this game unique.

I think of BvB as the ultimate form of Tower Defense. A real time, Tower Defense with Player Support for both sides. No other game has this. Beyond Protocol did but is now defunct. Star Sonata is it.
Author:  anilv [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
rand4505 wrote:
Removing BvB would be a mistake Jeff, that is what makes this game unique.

I think of BvB as the ultimate form of Tower Defense. A real time, Tower Defense with Player Support for both sides. No other game has this. Beyond Protocol did but is now defunct. Star Sonata is it.


I think Jeff was referring to capping bases, not BvB in general.
Author:  rand4505 [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
That effectively would be the same thing. There is no point in BvBing if you can not cap bases.

Like real war, it is economic expansion through other means.

If the ability to cap bases was limited to wars that were mutually declared, that would be a built in check to prevent a nastier possibility.
Author:  thebattler35 [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
JeffL wrote:
I think there would be a ton of downside and very little upside if it were easier to cap bases. I'm on the fence right now about taking it out altogether, but since it's currently fairly difficult, I'm not feeling any impetus to act on it at this time.


This game would be ridiculous if this happened. The amount of money you can earn from PvP has already been raped with the removal of GG since parts are worthless.

By removing the outpost mechanic you will just see people radding weaker teams bases since its insanely difficult to rad even a single ada kit.

It'd be nice if we modelled our PvP/B experience on EVE Online instead of Carebear Online...
Author:  thijs12b [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
Wait there's a CareBear online :D!?!
Author:  Species 8472 [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
OMG .. Don't take out BvB people will quit!


OMG .. Don't keep this capping feature people will quit!



I'm sure more people would quit because of the second feature. BvB is still possible, extending the window to 24 hours would be cool though. And as for the GG system ~ I'm sure that's being revised.
Author:  biggee531 [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
What's the point for attackers to attack anything if they are inherently outnumbered and cannot gain anything from dropping kits into hostile territory? Not to mention they can just have the kits tractored out and murdered because you have to drop unattached kits. If BvB gets dropped, you will see a nice portion of SBP just straight up leave, I can guarantee it.
Author:  Chaosking3 [ Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
There are plenty of reasons to BvB without capping in mind. Heck, any real base simply CANNOT be capped. You will never get enough Rad DPS to cap it. BvB is for territorial expansion and wars. If the next gal over has a 4xFrozen Blob planet then that is the reward for taking the gal. If a gal 8j in has the same thing it might not be worth it but hey, BvB is also incredibly enjoyable so certain folks would still make a go for it.

I am not saying remove capping, keep it in, saying capping is the only reason to BvB is just silly though.
Author:  biggee531 [ Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
Chaosking3 wrote:
There are plenty of reasons to BvB without capping in mind. Heck, any real base simply CANNOT be capped. You will never get enough Rad DPS to cap it. BvB is for territorial expansion and wars. If the next gal over has a 4xFrozen Blob planet then that is the reward for taking the gal. If a gal 8j in has the same thing it might not be worth it but hey, BvB is also incredibly enjoyable so certain folks would still make a go for it.

I am not saying remove capping, keep it in, saying capping is the only reason to BvB is just silly though.


With the universe as big as it is, there is rarely a need for BvB to expand borders, seeing as most teams have much more space than they can even use effectively.

You can BvB a team all you want without hindering their threat towards you at all; they will still retain most of their gear, and the only real way to eliminate a threat is to take the gear from them. With the current system, it's a matter of just trading blows, where the only cost is repairing your kits.
Author:  syberian [ Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: For the record
What teams so far used this tactic?
Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/