Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Campana wrote:

You're saying "99% of the pvp in this game are roams. Therefore roams should use mechs."

It ought to be "99% of the pvp in this game are roams. More different kinds of pvp should be introduced that favour mechs."

Perfect summation.

The OP is wrong in that this is not an 'equipment' or 'level' progression game, its a wealth and power progression game. Trying to measure your advancement by the bot you drive is doomed to failure.

Additionally, this is not a single player game. Not that solo players can't find a niche and have some fun, but the development and content is going to be aimed at corporation base play.

I think the game launched too early though. If things like player owned structures were in the game from the start corps would have had much clearer long term goals other then 'get and hold an outpost'. It will be much harder to get the people that left back, then it would have been to keep them.

52 (edited by Container 2011-02-11 18:58:24)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I am sure DEVs are aware that Norhoop players tend to be the mass of average MMO gamers with average MMO player concerns.  Your cheerful working adult/family person who wants a good MMO to play in his/her spare time.  What drives us is fun.  Are we enjoying this MMO?  If not, why not?  We want to love this MMO and play it long-term, so make it a worthy MMO.

Whereas Infestation's main concern 24-7 seems to be how do we dominate the server and grief and troll others, never mind overall balance.  Drown out dissenting views with trolling and distraction tactics, cries of L2P, relating any thread to unrelated incidents to control the forums.
Post count of Infestation posters >5 a day on average of junk post after junk post and disrespect towards the hardworking moderators.

Griefer-trolls or average MMO player.  Guess which demographic is much larger than the other.  Guess which demographic is the growing main body of game population?
Guess which perspective DEVs should listen to if they want to grow the game?

Bring back mechs to be central to this mech game.  Make sure they are worth the EP.
Make sure they are very flexible and usable in roaming PVP, intrusions, PVE, everything.
The center of any mech game is MECHS.
You lose identity as a mech game if you don't remember this.

53 (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-02-11 19:00:07)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

I am sure DEVs are aware that Norhoop players tend to be the mass of average MMO gamers with average MMO player concerns.  Your cheerful working adult/family person who wants a good MMO to play in his/her spare time.  What drives us is fun.  Are we enjoying this MMO?  If not, why not?  We want to love this MMO and play it long-term, so make it a worthy MMO.

Whereas Infestation's main concern 24-7 seems to be how do we dominate the server and grief and troll others, never mind overall balance.  Drown out dissenting views with trolling and distraction tactics, cries of L2P, relating any thread to unrelated incidents to control the forums.
Post count of Infestation posters >5 a day on average of junk post after junk post and disrespect towards the hardworking moderators.

Griefer-trolls or average MMO player.  Guess which demographic is much larger than the other.  Guess which demographic is the growing main body of game population?
Guess whose perspective is worth listening to?

Bring back mechs to be central to this mech game.  Make sure they are worth the EP.
Make sure they are usable in daily use in PVP, PVE everything everywhere.
The center of any mech game is MECHS.
You lose identity as a mech game if you don't remember this.

Good job.

So the center of Star War's games is Jedi's. When you start off as a Jedi... and everyones a Jedi... it means less to be a Jedi.

Mech's should take a few months to get.. after all... a few months ISN'T a long time.

Mechs are balanced -- they just aren't the best at fast, light, roaming.

Campana made a great point, the problem isn't the bot's and their balance but the scenarios in which PvP happens. If PvP were to happen in situations more often when defenses mattered and holding your ground was important then your mechs have a significant edge to any light bot (range, most lights will be dead before they can fire a shot)

All along, in all of these posts, I understand your frustration... I just think your resolution is misguided and ill thought out.

And I am far more of an average MMO'er then you... I am married with 2 1/2 children and live in a small suberb of a major city in the United States. If anything, I'd say your demographic is below average.

So DEV's, would you rather have a bunch of Average Glimpses's running around or a bunch of below average container's that are filled with false truths and self serving forum posts?

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Campana is right but Container has a point also. With more objectives mechs could become viable - but open pvp is and will be king. There should be no domitaing role in that - and if there should be one - of course not the cheapest bots. Thats common sense.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

lol  agree with glimpse on a few things that will keep new players away as well bring the game down quicker.

"Campana made a great point, the problem isn't the bot's and their balance but the scenarios in which PvP happens. If PvP were to happen in situations more often when defenses mattered and holding your ground was important then your mechs have a significant edge to any light bot (range, most lights will be dead before they can fire a shot)" by glimpse +1

":And I am far more of an average MMO'er then you... I am married with 2 1/2 children and live in a small suberb of a major city in the United States. If anything, I'd say your demographic is below average.

So DEV's, would you rather have a bunch of Average Glimpses's running around or a bunch of below average container's that are filled with false truths and self serving forum posts?
" -1....this doesnt exactly help the new players and the community either lol. Staying on topic and actually helping out with constructive posts I think work better than an off topic post every other reply big_smile.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Mechs/heavy mechs are already great at defense, to say they have no role is just false.  Pop out some mechs when someone is near your outpost or miners and a roaming ewar group is not going to do much at all if it doesn't have it's own.  I thought we established this over a month ago.

Make mechs better at offensive roaming by buffing their speed by all means, you won't hear me complaining but it's not going to change the pvp balance since we'll just run mechs then(even though we already do off and on).

57 (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-02-11 19:11:12)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Tiggus wrote:

Mechs/heavy mechs are already great at defense, to say they have no role is just false.  Pop out some mechs when someone is near your outpost or miners and a roaming ewar group is not going to do much at all if it doesn't have it's own.  I thought we established this over a month ago.

Make mechs better at offensive roaming by buffing their speed by all means, you won't hear me complaining but it's not going to change the pvp balance since we'll just run mechs then(even though we already do off and on).

Tiggus, it shouldn't be about what we want. Or else the tinfoil hats will come out... in fact, i am arguing AGAINST what would suit us as we have the best geared people per capita of any alliance in this game.

The facts are that if you make mechs fast (only way to make them viable for roam) then there is no point to lighter bots and you make new players have little to no worth in the game. You'll have people that will sign up for an account, find out their sub par, let their account sit for a couple of months and MAYBE return if they haven't found something else to play and hopefully keep their account subbed for a great deal longer.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Problem about trolling, eh?  You treat others with disrespect. Then suddenly you expect others to suddenly respect what you think.  The people you slander to magically listen to you with an open mind.  Sorry.  Choose to troll and thereafter no one listens to you seriously ever again.  Cause and effect.  Enjoy the irrelevance you brought upon yourself.

Anyway, yes, Tiggus, I think mechs should be viable for use in offensive roaming via a speed boost.  The fear that they will obsolete other classes is unfounded.  EWAR lights has good stealth and the tackle role as they will still be faster than mechs.  Lights and assaults should be cheap PVP bots not up to par of the others as befits their price.  Nothing wrong with that.  They still do damage and can kill tacklers.

Perhaps heavy mechs should have the ability to transform to a movement mode they can use no mods or weapons but can travel 20% faster but are more vulnerable.  And take 1 minute to transform back to standard combat mode.  Well, at least it would bring back some cool factor to a class that very sorely needs it.

59 (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-02-11 19:41:41)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

Problem about trolling, eh?  You treat others with disrespect. Then suddenly you expect others to suddenly respect what you think.  The people you slander to magically listen to you with an open mind.  Sorry.  Choose to troll and thereafter no one listens to you seriously ever again.  Cause and effect.  Enjoy the irrelevance you brought upon yourself.

Anyway, yes, Tiggus, I think mechs should be viable for use in offensive roaming via a speed boost.  The fear that they will obsolete other classes is unfounded.  EWAR lights has good stealth and the tackle role as they will still be faster than mechs.  Lights and assaults should be cheap PVP bots not up to par of the others as befits their price.  Nothing wrong with that.  They still do damage and can kill tacklers.

Perhaps heavy mechs should have the ability to transform to a movement mode they can use no mods or weapons but can travel 20% faster but are more vulnerable.  And take 1 minute to transform back to standard combat mode.  Well, at least it would bring back some cool factor to a class that very sorely needs it.

Congratulations, you have hurt my internet feelings. I will now slip away into irrelevance in this game.


On to the topic with which you seem to want to keep going.

If ewar are faster than mechs.. people will still roam with ewar....and be more effective then mechs.... nothing will change... All you're doing at this point is making the logistics of moving around the world easier and making the already small landmass... smaller...

You're consistently proving to be ignorant to the big picture and PvP in this game.

60 (edited by Arga 2011-02-11 19:45:45)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I think learn-2-play is actually a major component of the problem.

Taking your mech out to farm NPC's is not the same as using them in a PVP situation.

It has been agreed that Mech's are designed for specific uses in PVP, which are fairly rare.

Mechs bots are not too expensive, but fully PVP equiped mechs are too expensive for most corporate stooges to just practice with. An officer or ranked member may not get 'talked' to for destroying 10 or so mechs on the learning curve, but joe member isn't going to be allowed to do so. While insurance covered the cost of the bot (while it was active) it didn't do anything for the millions of NIC's worth of equipment; even standard equipment.

Yes, corps will give members mechs during intrusions, but they are too few and far between for players to acutally learn how to use them.


We need more incentive to 'train' players on mechs to make them more useful.

61 (edited by Campana 2011-02-11 20:06:39)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

I am sure DEVs are aware that Norhoop players tend to be the mass of average MMO gamers with average MMO player concerns.  Your cheerful working adult/family person who wants a good MMO to play in his/her spare time.  What drives us is fun.

On this point...do you think that roams should be the "end game" pvp for casual players? Aren't these players choosing to play Perpetuum rather than, for example, e-sports like Counterstrike, or theme parks like Wow precisely because the pvp here has a deeper meaning to it? The rivalries that spring up between guilds, the opportunities for conquest and control...all these provide a framework that casual players can appreciate just as much as hardcore min/maxers.

And surely the point of alliances like Norhoop is to provide a vehicle for the casual player to engage in this kind of activity, without having to adopt the "srs bsnss" attitude demonstrated by Infestation?

Edit: not trying to drag this thread off-topic to a discussion about alliances, just trying to make the point that territory control is, and should be, a large part of the pvp for all players, and currently the game mechanics around this are limited.

"...playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles."
Bernard Suits, 1978

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

internet robots are... as you say srs bsnss...

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

srsly

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Heavy mechs aren't bad, neither are mechs.

But they are tool to the end, not the end itself.

Bots are tools, ends are you to decide.

Also, go whine on eve online forums how 3 interceptors will kill your battleship, see how people care about your troubles there... lol

This is your usual "bigger is better" syndrome whiners. Eve had them, now they found they way in here. EVE devs did not cave to them, and i sure hope our devs will not either.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Something is getting lost in all the 'mechs can't roam' noise.

The majority of PVP at the moment are roams, so its understandable why players are trying to jam mechs into role.

If there were more non-roaming opportunities for PVP we wouldn't be discussing how to make a mech viable for roaming.

POS may change that, or may not. Is there going to be some incentive for actually attacking the POS other than just denying the POS (destroying it) to the owner?

Denying resources to your enemies is a good tactic, but if it doesn't have a direct effect on any strategic outcome, you again have to fall back to a motivation base on 'do it because we're supposed to destroy things'.

For instance if there was a POS that mines ore. Destroying it would stop your opponent from getting those ores, but why? If they can just buy the ore on the market you havn't weakened them at all. And further, why are you even trying to weaken them?

Currently the PVP intrusion events are not won or lost by game resources, but by numbers of players that can be fielded during the event.

Give corporations an objective that actually means something when it is denied to them; but not something they have to try to protect 24/7 (at least not while server pop is so low).

66 (edited by Container 2011-02-11 21:08:47)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

We should not expect mechs and heavy mechs to be able to roam effectively?
Go watch the trailer again. http://www.perpetuum-online.com/Media:Videos
What do you see roaming?  That is right.  Mechs. Heavy Mechs.
So you think my asking for these to be able to roam is unreasonable?
Why? It was what was advertised in the first place.

Having metal spiders be the most-used mechs in the game instead of MECHs is like selling people a car race game and then making it so that cars are not as good as motorbikes in the game.  So everyone ends up racing motorbikes in the game.  You see the disconnect between expectations and actuality?  This leads to disappointment.

Just watch the trailer again with all the Open PVP between mechs.
And tell me you don't want to play THAT game instead of whatever skewed version we currently have.

Next time you want to champion how light bots and assaults and EWAR lights are so great, realize that they are sidetracks away that weaken tremendously the main appeal of the genre, the mech.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I think there needs to be a big disconnect in the belief that mech and heavy mechs are better simply because they cost more and take longer to train.

As said multiple times the different classes of bots are intended for different purposes.  I honestly believe a solo heavy mech should get eaten alive by light bots.

Probably the only way this issue could have been prevented is if the light bots and mech bots were two seperate paths in the skill trees.  But the devs didn't go that way so we have what we have.

More importantly the real issue, lack of incentives to play for all play styles, is true. We are in a game that let's be honest is very early in its development cycle and very limited in its current scope.  Hopefully, we can get the developers to present their long term programming goals for the game.  Seriously we *** and complain and we have no idea what the ultimate goals are.  I remember the beginning of stEVE damn the hybrid ammo all had the same effective range so you'd only ever use anti-matter ammo, but we knew what was coming down the pipe so kept playing even with those glaring bugs. Let's push for a DEV update on their overall vision for the game.  It may take a year or two but from what I've seen so far it has great promise.

Until then give us more land mass to fight over, make it a true investment in time and material to hold territory, give small corps incentive and chances to hold their piece of the pie, and make PVE fun and challenging not another "gathering" profession.  You fix these and you are well on your way to making an award winning game.

68 (edited by Redline 2011-02-11 21:18:08)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

The last 5 or so posts brought nothing new. We kinda agree that each mech has its role - thats fine.

We also agree that objectives for mechs are rather rare compared to EWs - but that this will likely change.

But how about not assigning roles as in: roamings or static defenses to bot types, but try to give each type a meaning in any scenario?

How about a simple change - a MK2 variant of each type having a focus on the opposite abilities they have now: an armored light/EW variant - and faster but lighter mechs as in less armor etc. or some kind of implants with can have those effects on your mech.

Those inverse mk2 variant would have higher reqs - again nothing would be taken away, but just  possibilities added. To create those MK2 variants is also rather easy.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

You CAN roam with mechs, I saw a group doing so last night. The issue is getting someone to actually engage you with said mech group.

What I think you keep envisioning is SOLO roam in a mech. Solo roam are only to try and gank some miner or catch another solo npc farmer, which you can do with a light bot.

The trouble with group mech roams is, no one is going to stick around to fight you, and why should they. Most players will try to get away from any roam, regardless of composition, if they don't think they can win.

70 (edited by Annihilator 2011-02-11 21:23:25)

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

don fall back to the trailer of the game...

its showing mechs fighting each others - the mechs your complaining about - and i bet none of those had a lwf fitted for that movie.
Nothing about the equipment/power has changed since the trailer vid was recorded.

and if your insisting on your definition of "what peaple expect of mechas" - then where is my sword, and where is my big-breasted avatar? the term "mecha" comes from japanese mecha-animes/mangas and was adapted into anything that has to do with human controlled mechanical units.

and if speed is your only concern - Kains are damn fast!

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Redline... agreed.

I'm going to wait for this dev blog post that is supposed to be coming soon. Because we are just spinning around and rehashing but getting nowhere productive.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

We should not expect mechs and heavy mechs to be able to roam effectively?
Go watch the trailer again. http://www.perpetuum-online.com/Media:Videos
What do you see roaming?  That is right.  Mechs. Heavy Mechs.
So you think my asking for these to be able to roam is unreasonable?
Why? It was what was advertised in the first place.

Having metal spiders be the most-used mechs in the game instead of MECHs is like selling people a car race game and then making it so that cars are not as good as motorbikes in the game.  So everyone ends up racing motorbikes in the game.  You see the disconnect between expectations and actuality?  This leads to disappointment.

Just watch the trailer again with all the Open PVP between mechs.
And tell me you don't want to play THAT game instead of whatever skewed version we currently have.

Next time you want to champion how light bots and assaults and EWAR lights are so great, realize that they are sidetracks away that weaken tremendously the main appeal of the genre, the mech.

No one is stopping you from roaming with mechs... you'll win every fight with those ewar squads that are on your island....

The problem that you have is, ewars are faster and will always be faster than mechs (unless a poor design decision is made)... So the only solution is to make Mechs the same speed as ewar, or else roams that have the sole purpose of picking off targets of opportunity, will always be able to dictate when/where they fight the statistical favorite for winning being the mechs..

Can we agree on this Container?

If so, then we can assume that the problem isn't the balance but how your mechs are being used... I am going to give you a hint here... You guys can win any engagement or defend any area against light ewar if you hold ground in your mechs... it's when you want to try and chase down the lighter, more agile, less powerful, and faster (rightfully so) bots that you begin playing their game and not your own.

Is this all coming up because we're killing your indy characters and you guys can't stomp us down in your mechs... ? Be honest please... this will allow the readers of this back and forth to view this with the appropriate subtext

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I find it hilarious that you would rather bring assaults then mechs.
You also bring your RR in the form of Argano's, right?

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Actually, all it would take to fix the usefulness of mechs/heavy mechs would be:
a) Increase mech speed by 10kph.
b) Give heavy mechs the ability to switch to vehicle mode (1 min to convert) to move faster but be defenceless during vehicle mode.
c) Reduce weapon size by 10-20 percent for all medium weapons.
Done.

No, light bots are not going to be irrelevant, the gap in usefulness between lights and mechs/heavy mechs will just be not so large.
There is too much fear of rendering small bots useless.
They won't be useless and they should not be in the main spotlight anyway.
Mechs should the central class in the mech genre.

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Has nothing to do with that Glimpse - i find i solely poor design and boring to have to run around in ugly spider bots.