Guards are a force multiplier outnumbered defenders can use to their advantage so the piercer fights don't become an easy calculation of "more people = win". Removing them doesn't solve the fundamental problem of cosmpiercer design. The problem is this:
Cosmpiercers already are drifting into the OOC
scheduling arena precisely because you need an overwhelming force in
order to be successful in taking cosmpiercers. This is due to the fact
that you are required to deal with both player defenders as well as NPC
guards.
Even without guards it's still an OOC scheduling arena because cosmpiercer raids are organized when your peeps are awake while the other faction's peeps are asleep/at work/school. This is not good game design.
Big pvp events need to be scheduled in advance so that all interested parties know when they happen and can show up. Not just a gentleman's agreement this time, it needs to be part of game mechanics: "cosmpiercer X becomes available for conquest at time Y, you have 2 days to do it and afterwards the conquest fails" or whatnot. Otherwise it's just a sneaky back and forth of "they asleep, we raid".
This moving your own cosmpiercer guards thing is going to end CP conflict until further notice. If your team gets knocked off the CP for whatever reason at this point, it's a trivial matter for defenders to move the guards to the docks, which isn't something you have any way of combating if you're disembarking from a ship. You'd have to have someone on the cosmpiercer already that you can wormhole to. Failing that, it's definitively over. I'm not saying that cosmpiercers shouldn't have a definite 'endgame', but this stuff right here sure doesn't feel like it.
(To clarify, my disembark was an attempt to use the ever-popular separator movement to 'ship disembark\ship board fugue'. It did not work, but that's also not the issue here.)
Edit: To preempt any sage advice about that being the cost of not clearing all guards before defenders arrive: It's really not possible on a higher ranked CP if you have even a single defender on when it happens, unless you have an absolutely massive group of MIL 75 people. Never mind that it's beyond unenjoyable to have to clear literally every single room of a cosmpiercer of guards to be able to access a handful of unconnected ones.
This moving your own cosmpiercer guards thing is going to end CP conflict until further notice.
"We can't steamroll piercers effortlessly while all enemy combatants are asleep anymore, please nerf."
BTW I bugged movable guards being a potential problem months ago, so if they get changed only now because a Song player complained about it? I'll be fucking cross. Don't think they should be changed though, instead cosmpiercers need rehauling or just outright replacing with a scheduled pvp system. What we have now is a game of "everyone's asleep, let's raid". That's not fun.
Or you can have a naval blockade. It is not like you lacked the number of ships.
I am still puzzled why leaving a watcher is neglected at such scenarios.
"Hey! You guys wanna go participate in some good ol' fashioned group endgame content together? Cosmpiercers! There's generators to kill together, guards to kill together, terminals to hack together, and maybe even some bad guys to fight off together! And if we succeed, we'll even claim a little bit of the sector for our faction. Should be fun and engaging for everyone!"
"Great, your job is to not do any of that, sit in your ship outside, and spam beacon. Someone might show up to move guards around. We'll go do all the group stuff."
"Oh"
Good tactic. Counter-intuitive to the activity though. That doesn't even stop the problem, just -might- prevent others from abusing it. Leaving watchers is not a solution, just a dollar-store band-aid to an unrelated problem. Defenders getting to a piercer to defend is not a problem, its awesome. This particular manner of defense is the problem, because its not even defense. Its re-organizing.
Guards are the non-captaincy, non-hacking part of the equation check when determining difficulty of a piercer. A max of X guards are spawned per room for a rank 3 piercer, and Y guards are likewise spawned for a rank 6 piercer. Advantage to the attackers for choosing the battleground: If they want to fight on a rank 5 piercer, then that's the limit/difficulty of guards they bid for, defending faction not factored.
Guards don't patrol. Probably for more than one reason, but most likely to to keep each room proportionate to the max number of guards allowed per room for that rank of piercer.
So when a rank 3 piercer suddenly has a room stacked with enough guards (at the docks even, or a control point, or a choke point) that turn the piercer rank up from 3 to 7+ it stops being a "clever tactic" and turns into "well, its clearly not intended but its also not fixed so I'm gonna keep doing it". If the presence of defending players increases the difficulty of assaulting a piercer to a point where the attackers cant succeed that's one thing, but its got to be the players doing the defending not the guards.
"We can't steamroll piercers effortlessly while all enemy combatants are asleep anymore, please nerf."
BTW I bugged movable guards being a potential problem months ago, so if they get changed only now because a Song player complained about it? I'll be fucking cross. Don't think they should be changed though, instead cosmpiercers need rehauling or just outright replacing with a scheduled pvp system. What we have now is a game of "everyone's asleep, let's raid". That's not fun.
Defending is even more effortless. You even get a notification telling you exactly where to go, so you don't have to look around. Just fly there, move some guards around, use outburst/pull/etc to disrupt, if you need to. You don't even need to pvp to defend a pvp objective if you get a big enough stack of guards in the right place. And I'm sorry the powers-that-be seemingly didn't act on your bug from months ago, but more voices equals more awareness historically. Shouldn't matter what faction those voices come from since we're all players here and its only by pure happenstance and incredibly good fortune that we are in different ones.
I've had RL these last couple weeks so I haven't experienced this guard tactic. Shall we just agree to not use it, hm?
An EVE-ish way to control the time window for Cosmpiercers would be desirable. All defenses in the recent back-and-forth have taken place at 3am-7am my time ... would love to participate, but that's just not possible.
First of all, I am sure all the attackers chose the proper timezone for a balanced fight...but...oh...they did not right? They actually do not care about a fun battle but an easy conquest. So let us stop there pretending that the attack was intended to have fun "together" It was a clear shot to grab a cosmpiercer or two. Clearly it is not fun for our part when waking up to lost cosmpiercers.
Nice satire though I give you that. But it does not change the fact that Ship PvP is part of the game. With your all prettily bolded "together" words you assume that all activities should be done together.
No. Certain roles should be shared. In no side of this activity it is said that you should do all those activities together in succession. This is not a three-stage attack but a three-layer attack. You have to consider pros and cons of all those layers connected to each other. While the tactic in question might be controversial, that does not change the fact that the attacking team deliberately ignored prevention of the landing party.
Besides, making a tactical mistake and not watching out for incoming parties do not make a particular tactic imbalanced necessarily when both sides can utilize it. Defenders are always in smaller numbers due to choice of timezones and not all classes can manage to move guards around regardless.
Now I am not saying there should not be an upper guard limit for rooms, but then also we should try to come up with tactics and do battle planning a bit. It is extremely easy to come here and ask for nerfs after a loss when there could be ingame solutions to be explored.
And for the record I find cosmpiercers quite fun in any case, whether I lose or win. Even if my party role could be just to watch sometimes.
Whenever a fight breaks out over a cosmpiercer in which both attackers and defenders wish to participate, we'd like the system to feel fair and engaging for both parties involved. Currently we feel like there are indeed issues which we need to address in order to respect this vision. As such, we're working on implementing some tweaks and changes to the dynamics of the fight.
I really want to dispel this notion that we stalk QWHO until the very wee hours of the night (we're all in different timezones in our org at least). The only consideration we ever give before leaving is: do we have enough people to be able to reasonably handle the guards/terminals. We generally hope that defenders show up so that we can get a fight, except the current system doesn't really allow for fights. It's a race to clear PvE objectives before defenders get there to use those PvE objectives not just to mitigate their losses or turn the tide of battle, but to completely stomp any kind of resistance.
And for me, personally, I couldn't care less about 'winning'. Winning in this system means that you get COSMPIERCER SURVEY and you get a trickle of marks per RL day. The former is good for defense and gathering, and the latter honestly doesn't mean anything to me. The entire reason I do cosmpiercers right now is because it's something to do, and it's something to do together. When no defenders show up, we still have generators, guards, and terminals to clear. When they do show up, we're able to give people a taste of PvP, in theory. Unfortunately the reality is that if anyone shows up, we're probably in for a bad time unless we're able to keep them from separator disembarking and walking to a room with guards that they can push us into or push into us. The naval blockade idea would be great, if spamming beacon in an unowned cosmpiercer zone were enough to keep people from skipping to the cosmpiercer and docking (or blowing up your ship if theirs happens to be bigger and armed to the teeth).
All that said, I'm not going to bother doing these anymore in their current state because all the other issues aside, it's now been proven that if your party wipes once, the defending team (which can consist of a single person) can lock you out via a method that isn't at all an intended part of the mechanic but is nevertheless a thing that can be done within its parameters. That, coupled with the fact that you lose everything you brought on a ship to deal with generators and potential defenders, really makes not engaging the system at all the best strategy.
Naval blockade can fail or succeed depending on several parameters which take number differences, ship types brought, reaction time of people etc. into consideration.
But nonetheless glad to hear certain aspects of the system will be tweaked.
Just my hope is that we do not get a lossless system in the future in the name of making it player-friendly. Losses especially work into economy and is an integral part of the world. Some people have to lose their resources so they are motivated to get them again. If they risk taking less resources to a battle, then they risk running out of them if a battle is prolonged. Makes it part of the battle plan after all.
We generally hope that defenders show up so that we can get a fight, except the current system doesn't really allow for fights.
Yeah, sure. Which is why when celestine and song were expanding about
two months ago and both ran out of npc cosmpiercers, you went for
celestine ones, hoping for a fair fight.
Oh wait, no, you
didn't. You went for the scatterhome ones, knowing well most of scatter
pvpers left the game and they'd be easy pickings.
And you know what? That's fine.
This is a game, you are allowed to do that, even tho I suspect losing
most of their piercers was another nail in scatters' inactivity (it's
hard not to get discouraged if you see most of your faction income and
influence stripped away and can't do anything about it). But at the same
time don't act like you're some kind of paragon of fair play who only
wants to create a healthy community where everyone has fun together. The
cosmpiercer system was broken for a long time, and it didn't bother you
when you took all of scatter's piercers or when you raided celestine
with no defenders around, only now that you're getting your shit kicked
in. You don't want a system that allows for fights, you want a system
that allows fights you can easily win.
Just my hope is that we do not get a lossless system in the future in the name of making it player-friendly. Losses especially work into economy and is an integral part of the world. Some people have to lose their resources so they are motivated to get them again. If they risk taking less resources to a battle, then they risk running out of them if a battle is prolonged. Makes it part of the battle plan after all.
What's wrong with a lossless system? Dunno if you noticed but this is a game. It doesn't have to be zero-sum. Pvp games where penalties for losing are less harsh tend to be much more popular for a reason: compare Hearthstone where you don't even lose rank if it's low enough, with Magic the Gathering online where you can lose rank with 60% wins, or even sometimes 80% because they weren't good enough. Folks don't play games to get punished for losing, they play games to have fun. Losing is already enough punishment in itself, no need to rub salt in the wound.
Really this attitude of "I can't get my pvp stiffy unless I know someone else suffers for my fun, and nobody gets motivated to try better unless they lose something" is frankly toxic and you should change it. I'm worried for the faction whose leader believes that.
Will you stop with the personal attacks? You continually spreading misinformation and acting like we are paying so much attention to what is going on and what times work so well for others is annoying but pop off, whatever. But you need to seriously cool it with personally attacking people like you get paid per insult, it is getting old.
Character: Vega Faction: Song Dominion Class: Engineer
note: I am always up for RP, antagonistic or friendly. If she's being a bitch, it's because you're from Scatterhome or she's trying to meet a deadline and has nothing to do with whether I want to RP with you or not. Thanks in advance for the RP!
I'm fed up with the whole "if we're on top then all's a-ok but if we're getting our collective ass kicked then the system is unfun and needs changing" attitude that permeates this whole thread. No, let me fix that: it permeates every cosmpiercer discussion we had on the forums. IC tribalism should be kept IC instead of leaking into out of character discussion.
If me calling people out on this is personal attacks then I don't know what to tell you.
I dunno what to tell you; we (Song players with certain exceptions) have been against the PVE aspect of cosmpiercers since the time of Sythiorn when we had 0 cosmpiercers.
This isn't a matter of "if we're on top then all's a-ok but if we're getting our collective ass kicked then the system is unfun and needs changing", it's more of "this system is so terrible that our stance hasn't changed whether we're on top or at the bottom".
edit/ This whole thread is a receipt. It was started in January by Syhtiorn/BeepBop himself, back when we had all of the cosmpiercers (IIRC). Then we lost them to Scatterhome, and we were still against the PVE-centric theme of cosmpiercers. And even after we took over the Scatterhome cosmpiercers with CA, we're still against PVE. And now, with the cosmpiercer conflict revolving around CA vs Song, we're still (consistently) against the PVE feature.
Mereas Eyrlock "They're excited, but poor." - Ilyos (August 2019)
I'm fed up with the whole "if we're on top then all's a-ok but if we're getting our collective ass kicked then the system is unfun and needs changing" attitude that permeates this whole thread. No, let me fix that: it permeates every cosmpiercer discussion we had on the forums. IC tribalism should be kept IC instead of leaking into out of character discussion.
If me calling people out on this is personal attacks then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm fed up with the whole "if we're on top then all's a-ok but if we're getting our collective ass kicked then the system is unfun and needs changing" attitude that permeates this whole thread. No, let me fix that: it permeates every cosmpiercer discussion we had on the forums. IC tribalism should be kept IC instead of leaking into out of character discussion.
If me calling people out on this is personal attacks then I don't know what to tell you.
If you honestly consider you oocly claiming tribalism when you basically are the one who has habitually brought it up in every thread that anyone from Song has decided to contribute to and or be involved with, then I don't know what to tell you.
We have from start to finish on the forums and on discord been against the way Cosmpiercers have operated, and it can be seen in almost every thread about it. So I'm not sure why you are intentionally trying to spin a fictional narrative, but perhaps you should keep that in character rather than letting it leak into out of character discussion.
I try not to go out of my way to fight with people over stupid shit, but you have literally gone out of your way to do this every single thread, you need to chill.
Character: Vega Faction: Song Dominion Class: Engineer
note: I am always up for RP, antagonistic or friendly. If she's being a bitch, it's because you're from Scatterhome or she's trying to meet a deadline and has nothing to do with whether I want to RP with you or not. Thanks in advance for the RP!
I dunno what to tell you; we (Song players with certain exceptions) have been against the PVE aspect of cosmpiercers since the time of Sythiorn when we had 0 cosmpiercers.
This isn't a matter of "if we're on top then all's a-ok but if we're getting our collective ass kicked then the system is unfun and needs changing", it's more of "this system is so terrible that our stance hasn't changed whether we're on top or at the bottom".
edit/ This whole thread is a receipt. It was started in January by Syhtiorn/BeepBop himself, back when we had all of the cosmpiercers (IIRC). Then we lost them to Scatterhome, and we were still against the PVE-centric theme of cosmpiercers. And even after we took over the Scatterhome cosmpiercers with CA, we're still against PVE. And now, with the cosmpiercer conflict revolving around CA vs Song, we're still (consistently) against the PVE feature.
Yeah sure, only it's funny how when song has most piercers the criticism focuses on how hard it's to defend them and how they should give more rewards in general, and when song is trying to take over more piercers then suddenly it all flips into piercers being too annoying and costly to attack. Also criticism of zerging as a piercer strategy was floating around only when scatterhome was the one with most active players. Now that the tables have turned suddenly no one criticizes zerging anymore.
But sure, no tribalism going on. Me being unable to call it out without being dogpiled and memed on by a bunch of song players is definitely proof of that.
This is a game, you are allowed to do that, even tho I suspect losing
most of their piercers was another nail in scatters' inactivity (it's
hard not to get discouraged if you see most of your faction income and
influence stripped away and can't do anything about it).
This particular line I especially take issue with for a few reasons. The 'another nail' comment shows a really defeatist attitude which isn't good for player morale. It's also, I think, inaccurate for... just so many reasons. Cosmpiercers don't generate a ton of marks, we made way more with that one raffle. There's also the fact that Scatterhome not being heavy into PvP scene doesn't mean that we're generally inactive. Some of the most active recent PvPers are/were Scatterhome - one hasn't been active because their computer went down, the other left Scatterhome because of IC actions and consequences. As for tribalism, I dunno. I'm pretty much with Vega despite our characters having, at best, a business relationship. So I dunno if it's still dogpiling when I say, as one of the most active members of Scatterhome, that it'd be nice if you'd be less antagonistic generally.
Or you can have a naval blockade. It is not like you lacked the number of ships.
I am still puzzled why leaving a watcher is neglected at such scenarios.
"Hey! You guys wanna go participate in some good ol' fashioned group endgame content together? Cosmpiercers! There's generators to kill together, guards to kill together, terminals to hack together, and maybe even some bad guys to fight off together! And if we succeed, we'll even claim a little bit of the sector for our faction. Should be fun and engaging for everyone!"
"Great, your job is to not do any of that, sit in your ship outside, and spam beacon. Someone might show up to move guards around. We'll go do all the group stuff."
First of all, I am sure all the attackers chose the proper timezone for a balanced fight...but...oh...they did not right? They actually do not care about a fun battle but an easy conquest. So let us stop there pretending that the attack was intended to have fun "together" It was a clear shot to grab a cosmpiercer or two. Clearly it is not fun for our part when waking up to lost cosmpiercers.
Nice satire though I give you that. But it does not change the fact that Ship PvP is part of the game. With your all prettily bolded "together" words you assume that all activities should be done together.
No. Certain roles should be shared. In no side of this activity it is said that you should do all those activities together in succession. This is not a three-stage attack but a three-layer attack. You have to consider pros and cons of all those layers connected to each other. While the tactic in question might be controversial, that does not change the fact that the attacking team deliberately ignored prevention of the landing party.
Deltron you forgot the part of *except you two engineers. you get to sit either in a room or on a ship and make wormholes* like Zhulkarn said, not every part of the raid is a group activity. When i am not making wormholes for a raid i am playing APC which involves long stretches of waiting for the assaulters to die so i can ferry people back in with minimal risk to the factions ships. ti's a group activity but it isn't the kind of group activity where everyone involved does everything together.
Or you can have a naval blockade. It is not like you lacked the number of ships.
I am still puzzled why leaving a watcher is neglected at such scenarios.
Deltron you forgot the part of *except you two engineers. you get to sit either in a room or on a ship and make wormholes* like Zhulkarn said, not every part of the raid is a group activity. When i am not making wormholes for a raid i am playing APC which involves long stretches of waiting for the assaulters to die so i can ferry people back in with minimal risk to the factions ships. ti's a group activity but it isn't the kind of group activity where everyone involved does everything together.
The point was that that its boring and counter-intuitive, and Zhulkarn was seemingly confused why people didn't do it so I tried to point it out. The bolded words distracted him though so he breezed right past the exploiting part, so I'll have to cut that back in the future. Is leaving a watcher a legit strat? Absolutely, and apparently effective. If people want to do it, who am I to stop them? Just like what you're doing. THAT isn't game-breaking.. If thats how you want or like to contribute to piercers then great, more power to ya , and its still part of the teamwork! I've always said that logistics and support is crucial, but I would never force someone unwilling into doing something not fun. I actually do like to see different tactics and approaches to various situations besides the ones we do (or do not) come up with!
I'm excited to see what the dev team comes up with for the future!
I dunno what to tell you; we (Song players with certain exceptions) have been against the PVE aspect of cosmpiercers since the time of Sythiorn when we had 0 cosmpiercers.
This isn't a matter of "if we're on top then all's a-ok but if we're getting our collective ass kicked then the system is unfun and needs changing", it's more of "this system is so terrible that our stance hasn't changed whether we're on top or at the bottom".
edit/ This whole thread is a receipt. It was started in January by Syhtiorn/BeepBop himself, back when we had all of the cosmpiercers (IIRC). Then we lost them to Scatterhome, and we were still against the PVE-centric theme of cosmpiercers. And even after we took over the Scatterhome cosmpiercers with CA, we're still against PVE. And now, with the cosmpiercer conflict revolving around CA vs Song, we're still (consistently) against the PVE feature.
Yeah sure, only it's funny how when song has most piercers the criticism focuses on how hard it's to defend them and how they should give more rewards in general, and when song is trying to take over more piercers then suddenly it all flips into piercers being too annoying and costly to attack. Also criticism of zerging as a piercer strategy was floating around only when scatterhome was the one with most active players. Now that the tables have turned suddenly no one criticizes zerging anymore.
But sure, no tribalism going on. Me being unable to call it out without being dogpiled and memed on by a bunch of song players is definitely proof of that.
You're being very aggressive. I hope you don't see my affiliation and immediately sort me into the biased folder, but I don't think Song behaves in such a way that warrants this kind vitriol.
1. Comparing Starmourn to Hearthstone would be comparing apples to oranges. Though I can follow from that vein with a counter-example which is Eve Online where losing can be harsh to a degree and that is a popular game. It is a spaceship game even, closer to the nature of Starmourn then your examples. Those who play/played Eve Online are gluttons for punishment? I doubt it.
2. My preferences and words on forums have nothing to do with my IC leaderships, toxicity or enjoying the losses of others but rather having economical and balance concerns. So do not try to link unrelated things, it is unnecessary.
I am neither confused nor skipped the part about the exploitation and if you read the thread carefully you would see that I am actually in favor of the adjustments against that particular tactic. But I duly ask you to cut the satire because it is not endearing.
Though your approach fails in essence. For one moment let us consider this is a group PvP ground fight purely and will you not coordinate your people for the upcoming challenge? Or will you let them spam the random attacks to their heart's content? Someone might not find it fun to play interrupt-drone against crashing players or feed the Shatter stacks for an instant kill. Some people might want to use vacuumspheres and other AoEs which are fun but potentially could be bad for the group. Similarly ignoring Ship PvP and enemy landing parties can be bad for the group as well.
Furthermore no one is forcing no one to do a particular thing in this game. In Celestine Ascendancy we have divisions for everyone to do things they enjoy the most. We incentivize certain activities and ask people to come on their own volution since corporate RP allows such approaches. Yet one thing you should remember is this, have something in bold from me too: Something unfun for you can be fun for another. And vice versa.
The point was that that its boring and counter-intuitive, and Zhulkarn was seemingly confused why people didn't do it so I tried to point it out. The bolded words distracted him though so he breezed right past the exploiting part, so I'll have to cut that back in the future. Is leaving a watcher a legit strat? Absolutely, and apparently effective. If people want to do it, who am I to stop them? Just like what you're doing. THAT isn't game-breaking.. If thats how you want or like to contribute to piercers then great, more power to ya , and its still part of the teamwork! I've always said that logistics and support is crucial, but I would never force someone unwilling into doing something not fun. I actually do like to see different tactics and approaches to various situations besides the ones we do (or do not) come up with!
I'm excited to see what the dev team comes up with for the future!
It could be said that leaving someone or a couple of someone's outside of the piercer to prevent defense parties from landing is part of support and logistics, and probably effective at stopping defenders from even being a thing.
The point was that that its boring and counter-intuitive, and Zhulkarn was seemingly confused why people didn't do it so I tried to point it out. The bolded words distracted him though so he breezed right past the exploiting part, so I'll have to cut that back in the future. Is leaving a watcher a legit strat? Absolutely, and apparently effective. If people want to do it, who am I to stop them? Just like what you're doing. THAT isn't game-breaking.. If thats how you want or like to contribute to piercers then great, more power to ya , and its still part of the teamwork! I've always said that logistics and support is crucial, but I would never force someone unwilling into doing something not fun. I actually do like to see different tactics and approaches to various situations besides the ones we do (or do not) come up with!
I'm excited to see what the dev team comes up with for the future!
It could be said that leaving someone or a couple of someone's outside of the piercer to prevent defense parties from landing is part of support and logistics, and probably effective at stopping defenders from even being a thing.
The moment that happens we can be instantly IED'd out of the room with no method of counter-play due to the way the rooms register players entering and exiting, especially in comparison to guards. They register and deal their damage before you are actually in the room.
If that were the case, I don't think we'd even be half as annoyed. Just as a note, since I know we haven't done that to you, so you may not have known. (And no that isn't shade, we just legit don't have Scoundrels for that)
Character: Vega Faction: Song Dominion Class: Engineer
note: I am always up for RP, antagonistic or friendly. If she's being a bitch, it's because you're from Scatterhome or she's trying to meet a deadline and has nothing to do with whether I want to RP with you or not. Thanks in advance for the RP!
And for IED I offered in the second page it should have a prep-time like outburst and be interruptible.
Yup, you did! I was just pointing out to Kitrana, why the keeping watch does not actually work. Because they can just SHIP DISEMBARK > IED which goes off before we can register that it has been started.
Character: Vega Faction: Song Dominion Class: Engineer
note: I am always up for RP, antagonistic or friendly. If she's being a bitch, it's because you're from Scatterhome or she's trying to meet a deadline and has nothing to do with whether I want to RP with you or not. Thanks in advance for the RP!
@Vega No, she means if they cannot dock they cannot do any of the ground tactic stuff. The watcher is outside of the cosmpiercer. I wanted to clarify because there seems to be a misunderstanding.
@Vega No, she means if they cannot dock they cannot do any of the ground tactic stuff. The watcher is outside of the cosmpiercer. I wanted to clarify because there seems to be a misunderstanding.
Ah, I see, thank you for clarifying.
Character: Vega Faction: Song Dominion Class: Engineer
note: I am always up for RP, antagonistic or friendly. If she's being a bitch, it's because you're from Scatterhome or she's trying to meet a deadline and has nothing to do with whether I want to RP with you or not. Thanks in advance for the RP!
Comments
- Ilyos (August 2019)
https://pastebin.com/CAMRSHvt
(To clarify, my disembark was an attempt to use the ever-popular separator movement to 'ship disembark\ship board fugue'. It did not work, but that's also not the issue here.)
Edit: To preempt any sage advice about that being the cost of not clearing all guards before defenders arrive: It's really not possible on a higher ranked CP if you have even a single defender on when it happens, unless you have an absolutely massive group of MIL 75 people. Never mind that it's beyond unenjoyable to have to clear literally every single room of a cosmpiercer of guards to be able to access a handful of unconnected ones.
I am still puzzled why leaving a watcher is neglected at such scenarios.
First of all, I am sure all the attackers chose the proper timezone for a balanced fight...but...oh...they did not right? They actually do not care about a fun battle but an easy conquest. So let us stop there pretending that the attack was intended to have fun "together" It was a clear shot to grab a cosmpiercer or two. Clearly it is not fun for our part when waking up to lost cosmpiercers.
Nice satire though I give you that. But it does not change the fact that Ship PvP is part of the game. With your all prettily bolded "together" words you assume that all activities should be done together.
No. Certain roles should be shared. In no side of this activity it is said that you should do all those activities together in succession. This is not a three-stage attack but a three-layer attack. You have to consider pros and cons of all those layers connected to each other. While the tactic in question might be controversial, that does not change the fact that the attacking team deliberately ignored prevention of the landing party.
Besides, making a tactical mistake and not watching out for incoming parties do not make a particular tactic imbalanced necessarily when both sides can utilize it. Defenders are always in smaller numbers due to choice of timezones and not all classes can manage to move guards around regardless.
Now I am not saying there should not be an upper guard limit for rooms, but then also we should try to come up with tactics and do battle planning a bit. It is extremely easy to come here and ask for nerfs after a loss when there could be ingame solutions to be explored.
And for the record I find cosmpiercers quite fun in any case, whether I lose or win. Even if my party role could be just to watch sometimes.
And for me, personally, I couldn't care less about 'winning'. Winning in this system means that you get COSMPIERCER SURVEY and you get a trickle of marks per RL day. The former is good for defense and gathering, and the latter honestly doesn't mean anything to me. The entire reason I do cosmpiercers right now is because it's something to do, and it's something to do together. When no defenders show up, we still have generators, guards, and terminals to clear. When they do show up, we're able to give people a taste of PvP, in theory. Unfortunately the reality is that if anyone shows up, we're probably in for a bad time unless we're able to keep them from separator disembarking and walking to a room with guards that they can push us into or push into us. The naval blockade idea would be great, if spamming beacon in an unowned cosmpiercer zone were enough to keep people from skipping to the cosmpiercer and docking (or blowing up your ship if theirs happens to be bigger and armed to the teeth).
All that said, I'm not going to bother doing these anymore in their current state because all the other issues aside, it's now been proven that if your party wipes once, the defending team (which can consist of a single person) can lock you out via a method that isn't at all an intended part of the mechanic but is nevertheless a thing that can be done within its parameters. That, coupled with the fact that you lose everything you brought on a ship to deal with generators and potential defenders, really makes not engaging the system at all the best strategy.
But nonetheless glad to hear certain aspects of the system will be tweaked.
Just my hope is that we do not get a lossless system in the future in the name of making it player-friendly. Losses especially work into economy and is an integral part of the world. Some people have to lose their resources so they are motivated to get them again. If they risk taking less resources to a battle, then they risk running out of them if a battle is prolonged. Makes it part of the battle plan after all.
Faction: Song Dominion
Class: Engineer
This isn't a matter of "if we're on top then all's a-ok but if we're getting our collective ass kicked then the system is unfun and needs changing", it's more of "this system is so terrible that our stance hasn't changed whether we're on top or at the bottom".
edit/ This whole thread is a receipt. It was started in January by Syhtiorn/BeepBop himself, back when we had all of the cosmpiercers (IIRC). Then we lost them to Scatterhome, and we were still against the PVE-centric theme of cosmpiercers. And even after we took over the Scatterhome cosmpiercers with CA, we're still against PVE. And now, with the cosmpiercer conflict revolving around CA vs Song, we're still (consistently) against the PVE feature.
- Ilyos (August 2019)
We have from start to finish on the forums and on discord been against the way Cosmpiercers have operated, and it can be seen in almost every thread about it. So I'm not sure why you are intentionally trying to spin a fictional narrative, but perhaps you should keep that in character rather than letting it leak into out of character discussion.
I try not to go out of my way to fight with people over stupid shit, but you have literally gone out of your way to do this every single thread, you need to chill.
Faction: Song Dominion
Class: Engineer
As for tribalism, I dunno. I'm pretty much with Vega despite our characters having, at best, a business relationship. So I dunno if it's still dogpiling when I say, as one of the most active members of Scatterhome, that it'd be nice if you'd be less antagonistic generally.
The point was that that its boring and counter-intuitive, and Zhulkarn was seemingly confused why people didn't do it so I tried to point it out. The bolded words distracted him though so he breezed right past the exploiting part, so I'll have to cut that back in the future. Is leaving a watcher a legit strat? Absolutely, and apparently effective. If people want to do it, who am I to stop them? Just like what you're doing. THAT isn't game-breaking.. If thats how you want or like to contribute to piercers then great, more power to ya
I'm excited to see what the dev team comes up with for the future!
1. Comparing Starmourn to Hearthstone would be comparing apples to oranges. Though I can follow from that vein with a counter-example which is Eve Online where losing can be harsh to a degree and that is a popular game. It is a spaceship game even, closer to the nature of Starmourn then your examples. Those who play/played Eve Online are gluttons for punishment? I doubt it.
2. My preferences and words on forums have nothing to do with my IC leaderships, toxicity or enjoying the losses of others but rather having economical and balance concerns. So do not try to link unrelated things, it is unnecessary.
@Deltrion
I am neither confused nor skipped the part about the exploitation and if you read the thread carefully you would see that I am actually in favor of the adjustments against that particular tactic. But I duly ask you to cut the satire because it is not endearing.
Though your approach fails in essence. For one moment let us consider this is a group PvP ground fight purely and will you not coordinate your people for the upcoming challenge? Or will you let them spam the random attacks to their heart's content? Someone might not find it fun to play interrupt-drone against crashing players or feed the Shatter stacks for an instant kill. Some people might want to use vacuumspheres and other AoEs which are fun but potentially could be bad for the group. Similarly ignoring Ship PvP and enemy landing parties can be bad for the group as well.
Furthermore no one is forcing no one to do a particular thing in this game. In Celestine Ascendancy we have divisions for everyone to do things they enjoy the most. We incentivize certain activities and ask people to come on their own volution since corporate RP allows such approaches. Yet one thing you should remember is this, have something in bold from me too: Something unfun for you can be fun for another. And vice versa.
The moment that happens we can be instantly IED'd out of the room with no method of counter-play due to the way the rooms register players entering and exiting, especially in comparison to guards. They register and deal their damage before you are actually in the room.
If that were the case, I don't think we'd even be half as annoyed. Just as a note, since I know we haven't done that to you, so you may not have known. (And no that isn't shade, we just legit don't have Scoundrels for that)
Faction: Song Dominion
Class: Engineer
Though @Kitrana means that you destroy them on space they cannot even IED you out.
Faction: Song Dominion
Class: Engineer
Faction: Song Dominion
Class: Engineer