[Official Event] Operation Cathedral [Outcast Victory]

[Karlotta]

Helios was approximately where the Basilica was during the event, as a base of operations not too far from T31 gate.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[Unseelie]

I'd like to do this without the PoB-grinding.

But I'm not sure there's as good a way to say "get guys here at all times for big fights" without having that asset that needs defending.

If I were to simply say "count all the deaths in the system, winner is those with more kills" You'd have a much harder time getting ships to stay online and be targets.

The outcast swarm of bombers wouln't log if we weren't sitting around the base. The nemps were baited out because we had a location and a cluster of high value players.

I could be wrong, but.

suppose we ran a similar event without pob-seiges, but the fate of game assets hanging in the balance. We'd be able to get people together for an initial event, I'm sure. Another one, 3 hours later? Dedicated time-killers through the night? Two, three days of constant whirring activity?

I'm very curious about what we can do to make any event half as strong on the time spent in game front, on the constant, recurring battles front.

---

[Thyrzul]

PoB-grinding is completely optional if repair rates are nerfed like this. Sure it is more effective, you wouldn't progress in your siege with less frequent or shorter attacks near as much as through grinding, but you still would, with fewer ships required than before. It seems that's something many in this thread either forgot, ignored, or just didn't understand.

---

[Karlotta]

PoB-grinding is completely optional if repair rates are nerfed like this. Sure it is more effective, you wouldn't progress in your siege with less frequent or shorter attacks near as much as through grinding, but you still would, with fewer ships required than before. It seems that's something many in this thread either forgot, ignored, or just didn't understand.

And you seem to have forgotten, ignored, or just didn't understand that there was a race to destroy the other base so you could keep your own.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[Thyrzul]

PoB-grinding is completely optional if repair rates are nerfed like this. Sure it is more effective, you wouldn't progress in your siege with less frequent or shorter attacks near as much as through grinding, but you still would, with fewer ships required than before. It seems that's something many in this thread either forgot, ignored, or just didn't understand.

And you seem to have forgotten, ignored, or just didn't understand that there was a race to destroy the other base so you could keep your own.

Which was more of a feature of this event specifically, not of the new PoB balance. Perhaps it hasn't been clarified yet, but this rebalance direction wasn't planned for siege races, PvP Death Penalty reduction to 30 minutes, or anything specific to this event. It was meant to improve the mechanics of any regular siege.

---

[Karlotta]

I'd like to do this without the PoB-grinding.

But I'm not sure there's as good a way to say "get guys here at all times for big fights" without having that asset that needs defending.

If I were to simply say "count all the deaths in the system, winner is those with more kills" You'd have a much harder time getting ships to stay online and be targets.

The outcast swarm of bombers wouln't log if we weren't sitting around the base. The nemps were baited out because we had a location and a cluster of high value players.

I could be wrong, but.

suppose we ran a similar event without pob-seiges, but the fate of game assets hanging in the balance. We'd be able to get people together for an initial event, I'm sure. Another one, 3 hours later? Dedicated time-killers through the night? Two, three days of constant whirring activity?

I'm very curious about what we can do to make any event half as strong on the time spent in game front, on the constant, recurring battles front.

There are lots of ways that you can attract people to be ingame without them having to wait for someone else to be there.

In events: Mining, trading, PvE kill counts, PvE loot drops, hell you could even make mission repping events.

Outside of events: pretty much the same

There was absolutely non need for a POB grind.

There was no need to make it "winner takes it all, loser loses it all".

There was no need to make it so blatantly unfair.

There was no need to smear the losing faction saying they're losing because "the community" doesn't like them.

All of these were choices people intentionally made, with a rather clear pattern.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[Karlotta]

PoB-grinding is completely optional if repair rates are nerfed like this. Sure it is more effective, you wouldn't progress in your siege with less frequent or shorter attacks near as much as through grinding, but you still would, with fewer ships required than before. It seems that's something many in this thread either forgot, ignored, or just didn't understand.

And you seem to have forgotten, ignored, or just didn't understand that there was a race to destroy the other base so you could keep your own.

Which was more of a feature of this event specifically, not of the new PoB balance. Perhaps it hasn't been clarified yet, but this rebalance direction wasn't planned for siege races, PvP Death Penalty reduction to 30 minutes, or anything specific to this event. It was meant to improve the mechanics of any regular siege.

Surprise, a pivot away from the subject people were posting around.

But if you prefer to talk about non event sieges too... those will also become worse, not better:

With lower repair rates and higher hp, it will not only make sieges longer, it also opens the possibility to log in when no defenders are on, log off as soon as defenders come online, and log back on when defenders left. Of course you'll say you'll magically tune the numbers so everything is perfect, without giving numbers because those are only "for the important people", and we'll only see after another "test" that will be just as disastrous as this one.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[Thyrzul]

Surprise, a pivot away from the subject people were posting around.

But if you prefer to talk about non event sieges too... those will also become worse, not better:

With lower repair rates and higher hp, it will not only make sieges longer, it also opens the possibility to log in when no defenders are on, log off as soon as defenders come online, and log back on when defenders left. Of course you'll say you'll magically tune the numbers so everything is perfect, without giving numbers because those are only "for the important people", and we'll only see after another "test" that will be just as disastrous as this one.

Why are you so keen on telling me what I'll say, as if you'd know? Your constant sh!ttalking usually becomes annoying fast, but I may have some patience left for one more response. Not for you though, but for anyone else reading this thread and willing to listen to reason.

Regarding PoB balance itself, the test wasn't disastrous, it yielded the expected results. Even as a race between these two playerbases the siege took over two days. The event goals were identical for each side, the amount of involved factions was equal, PoB regen rates and hull points were equal. If this event was a failure, it was because of the chosen factions, the difference in popularity, attitudes, morale, or that the event was around losing one of two already existing assets instead of new ones. All those factors, however, were outside of the scope of PoB balance, and thus outside of the scope of the balance test.

I don't magically tune the numbers. All I've done on my own was proposing the direction of rebalance and a spreadsheet* with several tabs to demonstrate the effects of it at various extents. Devs decided which numbers to apply, devs decided to test them this way, if you have a complaint to make about it, you know who to turn to. Your concerns are noted, however, and I'll keep looking for further means to further improve gameplay mechanics.

*I also remember sharing that spreadsheet with the public a good few times throughout the past years until it finally caught the attention of the Dev Team, I can't help that you missed those occasions.

---

[Its Raisu]

There was absolutely non need for a POB grind.

Agreed, but this will likely lead to some discussion of where the change succeeded in its intentions and where it failed. I've already voiced my opinions on a few things and willing to discuss it further / come up with ideas for the full rework.

There was no need to make it "winner takes it all, loser loses it all".

Agreed here as well, having already posted that with this being a test of some relatively significant changes, it maybe shouldn't have had the consequences it had.

There was no need to make it so blatantly unfair.

It wasn't "blatantly unfair" at all. Yes the OC had an advantage, and had players more capable of fielding more sieging power and defending their position. The CR lacked that capacity despite all the huge efforts made by a number of people. But it wasn't unfair.

There was no need to smear the losing faction saying they're losing because "the community" doesn't like them.

All of these were choices people intentionally made, with a rather clear pattern.

Who is smearing the losing faction? How is it being smeared? What pattern?

PS: Even I knew about Thyr's spreadsheet. I'll tell you right now I am in no way someone you'd label an "important person" like those you're looking to call out in that comment.

[HassLHoFF™]

Nice to see a pleasant success for anyone involved.
Did anyone record the last battle?

---

Information and Feedback - Recruitment

Information - Feedback