As it stands, conquerable station gameplay feels like a job. Attacking consists of monotonous bombing runs and defending consists of monotonous repairing runs. The only really fun part of the conquering process is the 2 minutes after the turrets are taken down and before someone docks. Most of the time a battle over control of a station erupts, however, the winner usually comes down to whoever frustrates the other team enough to make them give up.

I think that the wrong approach was taken. Two things should happen differently:

1) The gameplay should stick to what makes VO pvp so great and, instead of focussing on bombing runs, it should focus on furballs and area control (meaning removal of the turrets, which I will elaborate on in a second).

2) Partly as a side effect of having to stick to the above principle, station control should be more dynamic. Control of the station would belong to whatever group is dominating the area through pure combat supremacy at that time. This would also largely remove the pressure of being available to defend the station 24/7.

Here's how I would imagine this happening: Firstly, remove the turrets. Secondly, make it so that if two or more people are inside the dock during the period when the station is up for grabs, then no one will be able to dock until there is only one person in the docking area (this is to keep it from becoming an activate-mashing contest and it should be implemented anyways). Thirdly, make the objective for the attacking team to "hack the station's IFF" by keeping a ship in the dock for a specific period of time. I'll elaborate on how I think that third item should work:

-When the IFF hacking progress reaches 100%, as indicated by the same HUD item that is used for Border and Hive Skirmish reinforcement counts, the station will enter the 2 minute period before it goes up for grabs.

-While nobody is inside the docking area, the hacking progress will be reduced by 1% every 6 seconds until the total progress reaches the minimum of 0%.

-While a keyed pilot is inside the docking area, the hacking progress will be reduced by 1% every 1 second until the total progress reaches the minimum of 0%. This rate would not stack with multiple keyed pilots in the dock at once.

-While an un-keyed pilot is inside the docking area, the hacking progress will be increased by 1% every 3 seconds until the total progress reaches 100%. This rate would not stack with multiple un-keyed pilots in the dock at once.

-If both an un-keyed and a keyed pilot are in the dock at once, then the percentage of progress will not change.

-The current key management mechanics and warning systems will remain.

The idea of all this is that the attacking party needs to defend their hacker (whose role would best be played by a heavily armored ship such as a Prometheus or Rag 3) while the defending party attempts to drive them out and reverse their progress.

Feedback. Go.

-1000 for lame.

So, no bonus for multiple players working together to take a station and protecting it would be as easy as spamming the shit out of the docking bay with a rocket rag?

attacking and defending started out as a boring task when stations were new but lately it has evolved into a pk fest

Bombing reppers, chasing down bombers

Griefing the defenders

I find it rather fun.

-1
This suggestion, frankly takes all the bad elements of takeover and amplifies them. Not to mention that bombing isn't all that monotone while being hunted by an X-1's and greyhounds.

-1
I see ConqStations as a collective, long term effort, better suited for Guilds than for a lone ninja. Existing system, despite having faillures, achieves that much better than the OP.

+1 to OP, but leave the turrets. This will make hacking more fun

i think you should lose the station once all the turrets are destroyed. It's stupid that you can be a shit defender but still keep the station if you manage to dock first.

there should be a moduale on the station with a lot of HP and once that is destroyed everyone with a station key is warped out of the sector.

"So, no bonus for multiple players working together to take a station"

Only one player at a time could hack, but the rest would be busy trying to defend the hacker. So yeah, there would be plenty of bonus for working together.

This idea might make it too easy to solo a station in the dead of night though. Leaving the turrets would help counter that, and would give the defenders an advantage (which is as it should be). And with this method, you wouldn't have to actually destroy the turrets to conquer the station, so it wouldn't necessarily be a bombing fight. One dude would hack while the rest distract the turrets and fight any defenders. When a turret kills him, one of the other dudes would take his place while he returns. Killing the turrets would make things easier, but would not be essential unless the number of attackers is small.

I definitely like the idea of having it require staying in the docking bay for a period of time rather than just being there at the critical moment, which is in my opinion the most annoying part of the current system. At the least, I think that part should be incorporated into the current model.

This would be a good idea, if VO had vastly different flight and combat mechanics.

This would be a good idea, if VO had vastly different flight and combat mechanics.

Elaborate

This idea might make it too easy to solo a station in the dead of night though.

Yeah, that's a side effect that I did mention in the OP. Preserving furball-like combat at the cost of station control shifting much more easily than it had before. I don't think the turrets should be kept around for the reason that I just mentioned, but maybe a large fighter-only strike force presence including WTDs (triggered, periodically, by hacking progress) would be more fun in this scenario considering how easily they could maneuver around to the front of dock and spam neuts at the poor soul that would be bumping around and trying to get out. Not to mention, they'd be much more fun to defend against.

Requiring a player to actually be inside the docking bay for two minutes is a good idea....

-1 to the rest of it.

Not to mention, they'd be much more fun to defend against.

Ayeah, I'd like to test it.

1) Conquerable stations should release "strike forces" against attackers just as the regular stations do. Bombing runs are far too easy and with experience there is really no reason to die while performing them. Right now, a bomber doesn't need a fighter cover to succeed in its mission and somehow that just doesn't seem right. Perhaps balance the use of "station strike forces" with easier-to-kill turrets. Also, this would ease the necessity of 24/7 station monitoring.
2) The time concept has potential, but two minutes? Seriously? I don't see it taking much to destroy anyone just sitting in a docking bay, no matter how many defenders there are.

Overall on this idea -- strongly ambivalent.

You seem to have misread my suggestion, it would actually take an uninterrupted hacker 5 minutes to hack the station (plus the two minute period before the station is up for grabs, so really 7 minutes).

This conquerable station concept relies on a few properties of group vs. group furballs. Usually, whoever is winning the furball will get an occasional breather where they're the only ones in the sector. In this case, the winning side would take this time to either reverse or advance the hacking progress. Add strike force waves, and it would actually be pretty risky to keep the hacker in the dock throughout the entire attack. And with the removal of turrets, maintaining a rocket rag for dock defense would require just as much team coordination as it would in a regular furball... not to mention that the hacker could just step out until the rockets stop.

Also, forgot one thing: key holders would not be able to dock unless the hacking progress is below 10%

Anyways, the point of this suggestion is largely to make the conquest, itself, more fun and to make conquerable stations a viable pvp outlet instead of a monotonous bombing job.

I do think Shank's suggestion has some merit. We have enough shit to bomb between queens, levi's & caps.

I'm not sure that this idea as is really leaves defenders enough time to get to the station in sufficient numbers to mount a defense. So, an untenanted station would be excessively easy to take by a small force. Then everyone will be bitching about that. The benefit of the current system is that defenders do have a reasonable amount of time to drop what they are doing and come defend.

I would perhaps either reduce the number of turrets or drop their armor a bit, but leave them unless a better alternative presents itself.

Also, it should be harder to take a station than it is to defend, as is the case now.

I'm not sure that this idea as is really leaves defenders enough time to get to the station in sufficient numbers to mount a defense.

Yeah, my thinking was that it would be just as easy to take the station back if the force is too small. I could think up some alternative capture/revert rates to make it a longer grind/furball if that's the general consensus. What would be reasonable for that? 15 minutes uninterrupted? (again, if you do the math the current rate adds up to 5 minutes uninterrupted) Keep in mind that the revert rate is double the capture rate, so if the defending force arrives and wipes out the attackers on their first run they could very easily reverse their progress.

I would perhaps either reduce the number of turrets or drop their armor a bit, but leave them unless a better alternative presents itself.

Given that the objective requires a player to sit still in a confined space, a larger strike force presence (plus gat/flare spam WTDs and minus aernas) would probably be more effective than it would be now and provide a much more entertaining challenge for defenders. Meanwhile, removal of turrets would allow for smooth skirmishing.

Also, it should be harder to take a station than it is to defend, as is the case now.

Again, hacking reverts faster than it progresses. The defenders would also get the advantage of a strike force.

Dunno when the last time you've sat around killing strike force from within a station docking bay, but it's a piece of cake. The ONLY real nasty threat you have to worry about is the Aerna Seekers...

Even the WTDs dont pose that big of a threat if you're hiding in a tiny crevice. Often they'll end up hitting themselves with their own flares.

On that note, having conquerable stations launch strike forces to shoot down bombers defeats the purpose of the defending party actually having to be present to defend something.

Again, hacking reverts faster than it progresses. The defenders would also get the advantage of a strike force.

+1, and the conquest won't be so boring.