+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Developers Forum (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=183)
+--- Thread: Omega systems layout revision. (/showthread.php?tid=111844)
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Murcielago - 02-12-2014
(02-12-2014, 01:04 PM)Echo 7-7 Wrote:(02-12-2014, 12:39 PM)Murcielago Wrote: Hey
I spent some time in O3.
As pirate I would like to see TL between Freeport1 and Aland longer for 2 or 3 aditional TL gates. Now, we have those two stations just 30k(35k) away.
or
you can move Freeport1 to sector 2,3/C. Better 2C if possible.
Also Cambridge JH would be better in sector 2/B.
An alternative to extending the Trade Lane or moving FP1 would be to move Aland Shipyard "deeper" into that ice field, making it possible to pirate in that area without being in range of the station's guns.
Pending discussion. (Edit: That means I want to be presented with an argument that's going to convince me to make the change.)
Huh what kind of evidence or argument do you need?
Isn't this reworking of Omegas just to make it more atractive for players?
Soo it is kind hard to pirate if you are 15k away from Freep.1 or Aland. That is exactly in middle of that TL.
Add to this 25k scanner range that traders can use with small nerf and 10k NFZ that Zoners have put it up before they hunt me with BSs...soo what more evidence do you wish?
If you add 2 or 3 additional gates..well if ther is no pirates it is just 2 sec more for trader....but you can look it for yourself.
Omegas are mean to be dangerous or ??
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Echo 7-7 - 02-12-2014
(02-12-2014, 02:00 PM)Murcielago Wrote:(02-12-2014, 01:04 PM)Echo 7-7 Wrote:(02-12-2014, 12:39 PM)Murcielago Wrote: Hey
I spent some time in O3.
As pirate I would like to see TL between Freeport1 and Aland longer for 2 or 3 aditional TL gates. Now, we have those two stations just 30k(35k) away.
or
you can move Freeport1 to sector 2,3/C. Better 2C if possible.
Also Cambridge JH would be better in sector 2/B.
An alternative to extending the Trade Lane or moving FP1 would be to move Aland Shipyard "deeper" into that ice field, making it possible to pirate in that area without being in range of the station's guns.
Pending discussion. (Edit: That means I want to be presented with an argument that's going to convince me to make the change.)
Huh what kind of evidence or argument do you need?
Isn't this reworking of Omegas just to make it more atractive for players?
Soo it is kind hard to pirate if you are 15k away from Freep.1 or Aland. That is exactly in middle of that TL.
Add to this 25k scanner range that traders can use with small nerf and 10k NFZ that Zoners have put it up before they hunt me with BSs...soo what more evidence do you wish?
If you add 2 or 3 additional gates..well if ther is no pirates it is just 2 sec more for trader....but you can look it for yourself.
Omegas are mean to be dangerous or ??
In short, I was asking "Why should I make this change? Persuade me."
So, the core issue is that the central Trade Lane is too short to pirate effectively. If Aland were to move a good 10k from the Lane junction, would that not also provide an opportunity to conduct piracy?
Scanner range is not my department, but piracy anywhere is going to be difficult with things as they are, so making huge system changes when the trader can just avoid the pirate without being spotted in return is a waste of effort.
Summary: Omega-3 is potentially a bit too safe right now, but extending TL length may have undesirable effects on lawful trade profits rates (we do want to encourage trade there, as there are bottleneck opportunities). Awaiting further input.
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Murcielago - 02-12-2014
(02-12-2014, 02:23 PM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: In short, I was asking "Why should I make this change? Persuade me."
So, the core issue is that the central Trade Lane is too short to pirate effectively. If Aland were to move a good 10k from the Lane junction, would that not also provide an opportunity to conduct piracy?
Why would this be better than moving Freeport1?
Scanner range is not my department, but piracy anywhere is going to be difficult with things as they are, so making huge system changes when the trader can just avoid the pirate without being spotted in return is a waste of effort.
Don't you developers work together?
Don't you discuss it thogether before you make changes?
Summary: Omega-3 is potentially a bit too safe right now, but extending TL length may have undesirable effects on lawful trade profits rates (we do want to encourage trade there, as there are bottleneck opportunities). Awaiting further input.
I don't see how 2 or 3 sec more at this lane will have undesirable effects on lawful trader profit rates if they are not stoped?
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Echo 7-7 - 02-12-2014
(02-12-2014, 02:35 PM)Murcielago Wrote: Why would this be better than moving Freeport1?
Just because Freeport 1's location is a vanilla placement which I am loathe to change significantly.
(02-12-2014, 02:35 PM)Murcielago Wrote: Don't you developers work together?
Don't you discuss it thogether before you make changes?
This point is tangential because scanner balancing affects every system equally. If I artificially generate an improved piracy location in one system in response to the scanner change, that would effectively be the same as making piracy worse in every other system. Scanners have to be fixed on their own, because the systems have their own pre-existing layout balance.
(02-12-2014, 02:35 PM)Murcielago Wrote: I don't see how 2 or 3 sec more at this lane will have undesirable effects on lawful trader profit rates if they are not stoped?
Reducing profit while improving piracy both make the system less desirable to traverse for traders, which would serve to decrease overall activity.
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Murcielago - 02-12-2014
(02-12-2014, 02:56 PM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: Just because Freeport 1's location is a vanilla placement which I am loathe to change significantly.
I was under impression that you don't have problem to change vanilla things.
I never saw that Rheinland BS in O7 in vanilla?
This point is tangential because scanner balancing affects every system equally. If I artificially generate an improved piracy location in one system in response to the scanner change, that would effectively be the same as making piracy worse in every other system. Scanners have to be fixed on their own, because the systems have their own pre-existing layout balance.
Please make yuor answer more simple.
This were my Qs:
Don't you developers work together?
Don't you discuss it thogether before you make changes?
Reducing profit while improving piracy both make the system less desirable to traverse for traders, which would serve to decrease overall activity.
Soo are you telling me here that it is better for RP if traders pass this system fast and with no troubles?
Or if I stop him as pirate, he don't need to RP becouse he can dock in 15k?
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Jack_Henderson - 02-12-2014
This is awesome news for me, I'll not even try to hide it.
Quote:Omega-9, v1
- Note: All Jump Holes not displayed. See system layout for connections.
- Design Proposal: Unclaimed mining system. Specifics pending discussion.
Curios' and my concept combined could be taken into consideration. Here is the link for your convenience: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=111576
I think both could work out well. If O9 stays in, we might as well make it useful and interesting somehow.
Quote:Omega 3 is too safe
It won't be when Falster is not at the O3-O7 gate any more. The piracy hot spot will be open again (when Admins move Falster to Aland).
If needed, Aland could move a little towards FP1, discouraging piracy at the Freeport, encouraging piracy in the O7 gate lane. 10 k might be enough, easily. No movement is necessary, imo, if Falster is moved (as I requested already).
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Echo 7-7 - 02-12-2014
(02-12-2014, 03:31 PM)Murcielago Wrote: I was under impression that you don't have problem to change vanilla things.
I never saw that Rheinland BS in O7 in vanilla?
Saying that I personally, or we collectively, have no problem changing vanilla things is not true all of the time. I have already stated my opinion on this specific matter.
Battleships have engines with which to move, so it is not an actual comparison to moving a station.
(02-12-2014, 03:31 PM)Murcielago Wrote: Please make yuor answer more simple.
This were my Qs:
Don't you developers work together?
Don't you discuss it thogether before you make changes?
The decision making and development process behind gameplay changes that are not specific to these systems are not relevant to this thread.
(02-12-2014, 03:31 PM)Murcielago Wrote: Soo are you telling me here that it is better for RP if traders pass this system fast and with no troubles?
Or if I stop him as pirate, he don't need to RP becouse he can dock in 15k?
No, I'm suggesting that no matter how long or short the system is, in a suitable location a pirate should be able to successfully intercept a trader, generating player interaction. Whether or not a trader escapes successfully, however, is attributable to travel times. If pirates are given a 100% success rate, that will definitely drive traders away from the system. If the TL length were to be extended, it would need to be demonstrated that there was some chance of success for both parties.
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Jansen - 02-12-2014
Is there any reason for the removal of the Omega 9 hole in Omega 55?
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Tabris - 02-12-2014
(02-12-2014, 01:20 PM)Echo 7-7 Wrote: As to why the RoS received it; all the other local factions already have enough bases (possibly except the Coalition, but hey, it's their choice to be so insular...). This ties in with an upcoming general revision of the faction.
I'm just gonna say for the record we're not insular. We were boxed in by Corsairs IRP on both sides which really prevented us from spreading, O-5 is a IRP battleground so any station construction in that direction wouldn't have lasted long. O-50 had a Corsair Outpost which may have noticed any Coalition construction going on and moved to try to sabotage it.
So we were pretty much hooped. X_X
RE: Omega systems layout revision. - Pancakes - 02-12-2014
moving Aland 10k backwards from the lane junction would cut the trick just fine.
Even the the moving of Falster from O7 gate won't cut it, because the piracy should be at the lanes. There's also the problem with the jumping charge. All in all - it's just not feasible to count on a Jump gate as a chokepoint. Far better off would be a trade lane.
As for the rest of the sytems - why should RoS get a base in O-7? I mean, it makes far more logical that one of local, more powerful and influential, pirate groups would build one.