Board Index | Search | Profile |
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 14 posts ] |
Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Author | Message |
---|---|
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Blizzara Level: 6660 Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:25 pm Posts: 1974 Location: Finland |
I know new team skills are supposed to be coming at some point. But still...
I think it's quite unfair and ridiculous that Traders and Eminence Front can have something like 8 or more outposts. |
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:57 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Operator Main: Rendghast Level: 3504 Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 12:47 am Posts: 512 |
Antilzah wrote: I know new team skills are supposed to be coming at some point. But still... I think it's quite unfair and ridiculous that Traders and Eminence Front can have something like 8 or more outposts. I would like to counter propose buffing team XP and allowing a team skill reset button. DSF made some....interesting choices in its early years, and as we hopefully get more players we are going to get more teams who will not enjoy playing catchup. I would actually prefer if there was a way to auction off existing unused teams, IE teams that no one has logged into in years but have decent skill points. but i suppose that is asking to much. _________________ |
Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:43 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Blizzara Level: 6660 Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:25 pm Posts: 1974 Location: Finland |
Ehh so you want to balance an overpowered feature with giving it to all teams. The way I see it, sick amount of outpost slots hurts team conflicts. EF and SRX was able to cut Traders space in half but because they have so many outpost slots, Traders simply outposted all gals cut off from HQ. To me this doesn't feel like intended mechanic.
|
Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:36 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Maxathron Level: 4065 Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:16 am Posts: 5804 |
Even if you limit it to 4 outposts, Traders still have Dark Traders team in reserve. They'll just move all characters in the outpost region to DT and no problem for outposts since all those gals would be HQ connected.
Blueberry Pancakes and Torchwood send their regard too. |
Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:47 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Blizzara Level: 6660 Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:25 pm Posts: 1974 Location: Finland |
It was 2 outpost slots originally.
|
Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:49 am |
|
Main: Doran!
Level: 7005 Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:00 pm Posts: 37 |
Antilzah wrote: To me this doesn't feel like intended mechanic. This. My opinion is that you should not be able to outpost a galaxy adjacent to a galaxy which you already own. |
Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:59 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: Horacio Level: 5653 Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:58 pm Posts: 64 Location: England |
Traders used their outposts for defensive means which in turn means giving EF a significant system tactical advantage.
Fair enough if you think it shouldn't work this way but I'm trying to figure out what is exactly "unfair" and "ridiculous" here. _________________ Old Player, formally known as Nathaniel Lightning You're free to call me Nath if you wish Janussi/Horacio/Jenkins/Hutchinson/Quillan |
Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:49 am |
|
Member
Team:
Rank: Main: DefQon1 Level: 5100 Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:28 am Posts: 2642 |
Yes.
_________________ Original 666kane666. |
Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:05 am |
|
Contributor
Team:
Rank: Soldier Main: Hober Mallow Level: 4886 Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:08 pm Posts: 3191 |
Outposts should be exactly for what they describe, outposting a galaxy. Not emergency linking galaxies that have been strategically cut off. The reduction of them to sensible numbers will make territory conflicts and decisions about which galaxies to cede or reinforce more meaningful. I've said this for 2+ years, and everytime there is a war I'm even more convinced that legacy teams having access to large amounts of outpost slots is not a good idea.
Personally, I don't think there's a need for anything more than 2 Outpost slots. _________________ http://www.starsonata.com/suggestions |
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:06 am |
|
over 9000!
Main: enkelin
Level: 5600 Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:28 pm Posts: 11109 |
The number and purpose of outposts will be considered for the upcoming revamp to galaxy assault. In fact, the purpose and mechanism of galaxy ownership itself will be considered. Until this latter item is established with clarity, it's not possible to make a sensible statement about outposts.
_________________ Hi, I'm Anil, a long-time player turned developer. I am Star Sonata's lead content developer, which means that I run weekly dev meetings and make sure that any proposed changes to the game receive proper review before going live. http://www.starsonata.com/features |
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:36 am |
|
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Maxathron Level: 4065 Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:16 am Posts: 5804 |
If you limit a team to two outposts or prevent outposts from being adjacent to each other, all you're going to do is find a new "allied" team in the place of those outposts.
For Traders, if they can't do what they're doing now, you're going to find that those galaxies are going to change hands to "Dark Traders", which is a team fully capable of accepting eight galaxies (they should be able to accept thirty by now). All it would take is 10 f2p accounts on Dark Traders to quickly accept new members from old Traders to Dark Traders. Those galaxies will go unowned for exactly 10 minutes, and then they'll be owned by Dark Traders. Each individual galaxy is still an enemy to all teams present in this war and as such you would need unteamed alts READY to drop bases and ALREADY IN those galaxies to prevent them from being re-owned. The worst part is that each galaxy can be owned at different random times which would force the allied teams to be watching the map like a hawk for weeks upon end to spot the time when a galaxy goes unowned and have a full scale attack force to get kits down to prevent the galaxy from being reowned. Do this to SRX, EF, or DM and a similar thing will happen. We'll see "Singles" for SRX, "Eminence Back" for EF, and "Torchwood" for DM making a reappearance if someone manages to cut enough of their space off to force their hand. You won't be able to say "No you guys that own these eight outposted galaxies cannot rejoin the war against SRX/EF/DM even if they war and bvb you." or "You guys who own these galaxies cannot form your own team." |
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:50 am |
|
over 9000!
Main: enkelin
Level: 5600 Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:28 pm Posts: 11109 |
Max235 wrote: If you limit a team to two outposts or prevent outposts from being adjacent to each other, all you're going to do is find a new "allied" team in the place of those outposts. For Traders, if they can't do what they're doing now, you're going to find that those galaxies are going to change hands to "Dark Traders", which is a team fully capable of accepting eight galaxies (they should be able to accept thirty by now). All it would take is 10 f2p accounts on Dark Traders to quickly accept new members from old Traders to Dark Traders. Those galaxies will go unowned for exactly 10 minutes, and then they'll be owned by Dark Traders. Each individual galaxy is still an enemy to all teams present in this war and as such you would need unteamed alts READY to drop bases and ALREADY IN those galaxies to prevent them from being re-owned. The worst part is that each galaxy can be owned at different random times which would force the allied teams to be watching the map like a hawk for weeks upon end to spot the time when a galaxy goes unowned and have a full scale attack force to get kits down to prevent the galaxy from being reowned. Do this to SRX, EF, or DM and a similar thing will happen. We'll see "Singles" for SRX, "Eminence Back" for EF, and "Torchwood" for DM making a reappearance if someone manages to cut enough of their space off to force their hand. You won't be able to say "No you guys that own these eight outposted galaxies cannot rejoin the war against SRX/EF/DM even if they war and bvb you." or "You guys who own these galaxies cannot form your own team." This is a pretty good illustration of how the problem goes a lot deeper than outpost slots. We are thinking about these and other issues for the upcoming revamp to galaxy assault. _________________ Hi, I'm Anil, a long-time player turned developer. I am Star Sonata's lead content developer, which means that I run weekly dev meetings and make sure that any proposed changes to the game receive proper review before going live. http://www.starsonata.com/features |
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:59 am |
|
Member
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: topbuzzz Level: 8015 Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:31 pm Posts: 4347 |
kane always has to ruin it for ebry1
|
Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:22 pm |
|
Team:
Rank: Officer Main: Blizzara Level: 6660 Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:25 pm Posts: 1974 Location: Finland |
NattoKilla wrote: Traders used their outposts for defensive means which in turn means giving EF a significant system tactical advantage. Fair enough if you think it shouldn't work this way but I'm trying to figure out what is exactly "unfair" and "ridiculous" here. Eminence Front currently has outpost 8 skill so we are able to use 9 outposts. We also may or may not have enough team skill points for another outpost slot. New teams start with outpost 0 level and are able to use one outpost. Eminence Front's outpost slots require 720 team skill points. As an example, for a team with current Traders' team score (416), it would take 1150 days to achieve the amount of outpost slots EF has right now. That is over 3 years. Good luck new teams. |
Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:37 pm |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
[ 14 posts ] |
All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |