Re: Gamma Balancing

Trolling Asisde Tux, you KNEW this was coming.  When someone like Merkle, has to say, "Hey this is pretty OP, we REALLY need to get rid of it."  It's OP seriously.  It breaks the Game.

Steam achievement Unlocked:  Being a Badass
http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/239407
Dev Zoom: I think its time to confess, Ville is my alt
Dev Zoom: Ville can be sometimes so sane it's scary.

Re: Gamma Balancing

Jita wrote:

with regards to the terraforming charges I realise it looks like your making folks rich but actually thats not the case. The people who have gammas up will get the terraforming charges needed to make them again and the rest will still have to sell them on the market so its not creating any nic but just redistributing it over what will turn out to be a long period of time.

Considering the billions people have spent its needed.

I agree this would probably be the cleanest solution, but we really have to see whether this is possible at all. Ignoring the fact for now that this requires massive database/log digging, we don't even keep these kind of logs for more than a year.

Ville wrote:

Are the replacement for sky high walls going to be the wall units like Beta?

For starters yes.

Jita wrote:

make terraforming and contruction only able to be done 3km from a terminal

Chicken/egg problem - how do you terraform a suitable place for the terminal itself?

Tux wrote:

You guys need to communicate things like this a lot more to the players. If you knew you were going to make these changes you should have been honest with he player base and told us " guys don't put too much time into gamma because were thinking about wiping it"

*snip*

Just like the reversal of Epriton back to beta only, now that this is known you need to make it happen soon Zoom ,.... you only worsen the impact of dragging it out 6+ months .. people need to get on with their re designs and colonizations.

I guess you answered that for yourself. I only made our plans public now because it should happen soon, before Steam.

Re: Gamma Balancing

Celebro wrote:
Jita wrote:

People will just place smaller footprints - I dont think anyone in game now would build the same base again

Jita: When gamma was released no one wanted to start a gamma base, they complained there was not enough rewards or things to do, they even convinced the Devs reduce terraforming charges prices and increase speed of terraforming.
Nobody really expected the big fortresses we have now.

Check the Dev-player conference: http://content.perpetuum-online.com/aud … -07-05.mp3

Because people in the heart are soft ocks and so do everything they can to stop losses. This is why limiting distance of terraforming and construction and limiting the amount of stuff that can be linked to a station is important.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Gamma Balancing

Diamond wrote:

You should adapt and overcome.

Its not about politics or the current situation.
I already have an easy and simply counter to what you are doing and it would take me all of a day or 2 to make the walls "unbreakable" again.

But whats the point if the rules are fluid?

At this current point in game, at least your side has some investment in Gamma. Not just us. The rules, and changes, affect all.

30 (edited by Cassius 2014-01-19 20:49:08)

Re: Gamma Balancing

Jita wrote:
Celebro wrote:
Jita wrote:

People will just place smaller footprints - I dont think anyone in game now would build the same base again

Jita: When gamma was released no one wanted to start a gamma base, they complained there was not enough rewards or things to do, they even convinced the Devs reduce terraforming charges prices and increase speed of terraforming.
Nobody really expected the big fortresses we have now.

Check the Dev-player conference: http://content.perpetuum-online.com/aud … -07-05.mp3

Because people in the heart are soft ocks and so do everything they can to stop losses. This is why limiting distance of terraforming and construction and limiting the amount of stuff that can be linked to a station is important.


+1

Also for the record, I thought CIR got screwed over with the turret around tele design change, and I was against making terraforming cheaper and easier.

31 (edited by Rage Blackout 2014-01-19 20:51:11)

Re: Gamma Balancing

Because you just dropped the biggest bomb in the last two years in the middle of some random Gamma discussion.

You should have posted your own announcement thread.

Everyone deserves to know and everyone isnt reading this thread.

That is why and you should know better.



http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … ars-sorry/



DEV Zoom wrote:

Why create another topic for the same thing?

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

Re: Gamma Balancing

DEV Zoom wrote:

This should have been a blog (or still will be), but yes, the sensible time to do anything about gamma is before Steam.

We do have plans for two changes:

1. Limit terraforming to slopes that you can still pass. This can be made more interesting by making the limit so that at max slope possible lights/assaults can pass but mechs/heavies can't (just barely, so still no vertical walls). Obviously this would make lights/assaults useful for gamma base infiltration, if someone still uses terrain to defend it in light of this change. Our goal is to make you NOT use terrain for defense, but wall units instead, or anything that would make sense to develop after terrain defense is not useful anymore (shield fence, etc).

2. Limit the number of buildings you can connect to a terminal. This could be done by introducing a resource that the main terminal provides and all the buildings connected to it tap on that resource (basically what is CPU or reactor when equipping robots).


I will first respond here by saying, WTF - REALLY!??  More changes?  Have I seriously been paying for a Beta class game all along?  If you *** do this *** Zoom, seriously... you need to consider an EP reset as well. 

Response to #1: you will still be able to use terrain terraforming for defenses on some level.  This is a flawed ideal first if you continue to allow terrain to block LOS damage / neuts, second because of the hit box area vs the weapon LOS box on the turret is different.  IE - turrets can shoot over "terraforming walls" (and other walls), but Bots cannot.  At times this appears to be different, but may be related to terrain relativity rather than hit/targeting boxes.  In any case the point here is that terraforming can be used to give a turret an advantage, along with any defending force thereby providing a use of terraforming for defense.  So this goal: "Our goal is to make you NOT use terrain for defense, but wall units instead" is incapable of being realized in the current game rule set or in the imagined one where you make things light / assault bot capable only.  All we need is a lip of terrain and we can maintain fire on an opposing force and they have no way to engage us with DPS.

Response to #2:  If you implement this, while it does seem plausible, you will need to allow some serious scalability so that if you want to make your terminal a neutral mining base with some facilities they can be done with incredibly high efficiency while maintaining a low footprint, while at the same time allowing a full T3 facility gamma be able to maintain a considerable defensive grid / array.  Another additional scenario would be to increase the amount of terminals and island can have on it to allot for a more diverse infrastructure pool - this would have the additional effect of making it less attractive to "base cap" an island as a defensive tactic.


Regarding the terraforming reimbursement:  Can we also be reimbursed all of our time and effort in doing something that should have been just kept on a test server for a while?

Some people play checkers, some play chess...  Once in a while you can find a guy playing GO.  The former is prey, the secondary is a teacher, and the latter is a general.

Re: Gamma Balancing

OptiKhan wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

This should have been a blog (or still will be), but yes, the sensible time to do anything about gamma is before Steam.

We do have plans for two changes:

1. Limit terraforming to slopes that you can still pass. This can be made more interesting by making the limit so that at max slope possible lights/assaults can pass but mechs/heavies can't (just barely, so still no vertical walls). Obviously this would make lights/assaults useful for gamma base infiltration, if someone still uses terrain to defend it in light of this change. Our goal is to make you NOT use terrain for defense, but wall units instead, or anything that would make sense to develop after terrain defense is not useful anymore (shield fence, etc).

2. Limit the number of buildings you can connect to a terminal. This could be done by introducing a resource that the main terminal provides and all the buildings connected to it tap on that resource (basically what is CPU or reactor when equipping robots).


I will first respond here by saying, WTF - REALLY!??  More changes?  Have I seriously been paying for a Beta class game all along?  If you *** do this *** Zoom, seriously... you need to consider an EP reset as well. 

Response to #1: you will still be able to use terrain terraforming for defenses on some level.

This is a flawed ideal first if you continue to allow terrain to block LOS damage / neuts, second because of the hit box area vs the weapon LOS box on the turret is different.  IE - turrets can shoot over "terraforming walls" (and other walls), but Bots cannot.

At times this appears to be different, but may be related to terrain relativity rather than hit/targeting boxes.  In any case the point here is that terraforming can be used to give a turret an advantage, along with any defending force thereby providing a use of terraforming for defense.

So this goal: "Our goal is to make you NOT use terrain for defense, but wall units instead" is incapable of being realized in the current game rule set or in the imagined one where you make things light / assault bot capable only.  All we need is a lip of terrain and we can maintain fire on an opposing force and they have no way to engage us with DPS.

Response to #2:  If you implement this, while it does seem plausible, you will need to allow some serious scalability so that if you want to make your terminal a neutral mining base with some facilities they can be done with incredibly high efficiency while maintaining a low footprint, while at the same time allowing a full T3 facility gamma be able to maintain a considerable defensive grid / array.

Another additional scenario would be to increase the amount of terminals and island can have on it to allot for a more diverse infrastructure pool - this would have the additional effect of making it less attractive to "base cap" an island as a defensive tactic.


Regarding the terraforming reimbursement:  Can we also be reimbursed all of our time and effort in doing something that should have been just kept on a test server for a while?

ftfy

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Gamma Balancing

Rage Blackout wrote:

You should have posted your own announcement thread.

I will post an announcement, once we discussed what exactly will happen and when. So far this is only a discussion about our possibilities. But I think everyone agrees that we have to do it sooner than later, that's why this topic has been created too.

Re: Gamma Balancing

Thank You!!

DEV Zoom wrote:
Rage Blackout wrote:

You should have posted your own announcement thread.

I will post an announcement, once we discussed what exactly will happen and when. So far this is only a discussion about our possibilities. But I think everyone agrees that we have to do it sooner than later, that's why this topic has been created too.

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

36 (edited by Rage Blackout 2014-01-19 20:59:46)

Re: Gamma Balancing

meh

DEV Zoom - "If you mean the NPC aggro, that's been like that for months already."

Re: Gamma Balancing

Dealing with the past:

1) All terraforming charges ever bought would be respawned to the character that bought them

2) All gamma structures linked to a corp would be server deconned and placed in the corp hanger of said corp

3) All corp assets would be placed in the same hanger

4)all personal assets would be placed in peoples alpha hanger

The future:

1) Maintain current terraform mechanics but:

2) Limit the number of structures per base

3) make terraforming and contruction only able to be done 3km from a terminal

4) make bases be placed 5km from each other and from the teleports

5) Limit the number of bases to 3 per island

This would force people to create small contained bases but still have some of the awesome beautiful terraforming you see around the game now. Changing terraforming inh the way you describe will make gamma bland and miss out on some really cool design.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

38 (edited by Inda 2014-01-19 21:14:54)

Re: Gamma Balancing

I show a forumpost.

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … e-problem/


3-4 k radius from Terminals you can use beacon terrafroming 4-5 terminal on the island allowed

all of the island you can use just "analoge one"

cant be deploy a terminal near teleports


AFK miner towers can be deployed on the island (need to defend when attacked and such, Scarab mk2 with 2 small miner module AFK capacity /2 the gained resources)

Energy to Earth!

18.01.2014. [12:57:58] <BeastmodeGuNs> after that i remembered all those warning about 1v1 you lol, and i found out why xD

Re: Gamma Balancing

Inda wrote:

I show a forumpost.

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … e-problem/


3-4 k radius from Terminals you can use beacon terrafroming 4-5 terminal on the island allowed

all of the island you can use just "analoge one"

cant be deploy a terminal near teleports


AFK miner towers can be deployed on the island (need to defend when attacked and such, Scarab mk2 with 2 small miner module AFK capacity /2 the gained resources)

+1

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

40 (edited by Cassius 2014-01-19 21:21:58)

Re: Gamma Balancing

Jita wrote:

Dealing with the past:

1) All terraforming charges ever bought would be respawned to the character that bought them

2) All gamma structures linked to a corp would be server deconned and placed in the corp hanger of said corp

3) All corp assets would be placed in the same hanger

4)all personal assets would be placed in peoples alpha hanger

The future:

1) Maintain current terraform mechanics but:

2) Limit the number of structures per base

3) make terraforming and contruction only able to be done 3km from a terminal

4) make bases be placed 5km from each other and from the teleports

5) Limit the number of bases to 3 per island

This would force people to create small contained bases but still have some of the awesome beautiful terraforming you see around the game now. Changing terraforming in the way you describe will make gamma bland and miss out on some really cool design.

I agree with almost all of this, with some slight changes in the numbers ... ie, I think an island can support 4-6 terminals, I would have deployment restrictions on how close to teleports and the exterior coastline a base can be built, but not to each other.

Also the terraforming mechanics do allow for some nice looking structures, I agree if its reduced this will be bland.
But the actual parameters of any changes are of course subject to thought, just sayin I agree with Jita on the desired results.

Also I guess on ideas, different terminal types, i.e outposts, mining, standards, etc ... to allow for different bases to be built.

And for god sakes, maybe allow one or 2 permanent (destroyable, of course) player built island telepoint structures to be built and controlled by relations ...
ie, 2 per island, players can deploy mobiles on island to jump to their bases' telepoint ...

Re: Gamma Balancing

Merkle and Jita practically say the same thing, but those changes only would still allow those stupid cubicle bases with mile-high walls and one tiny hole to enter into turret hell.

Re: Gamma Balancing

I also meant to include that I think a base point for reimbursement be ANNOUNCED!!!  I want to understand what my risk / reward is for these "intended changes".  IE... are you going to roll back a gamma base reimbursement, when is the save game start date?  IS it even worth playing this game for the next 6 months?  Etc.  Please be CLEAR and SPECIFIC with your data here, and then PLEASE hold true to your word.  We havn't got much else left to rely on atm.

/peace

Some people play checkers, some play chess...  Once in a while you can find a guy playing GO.  The former is prey, the secondary is a teacher, and the latter is a general.

Re: Gamma Balancing

DEV Zoom wrote:

Merkle and Jita practically say the same thing, but those changes only would still allow those stupid cubicle bases with mile-high walls and one tiny hole to enter into turret hell.


I think this is solvable. But what much wrong with it?

Anybody can go into island and find some miners and some noralgis farmels who dont fill the 3 k radius this is the idea I like. And who cares too much about walled terminals, if will worth it will DIE.

Energy to Earth!

18.01.2014. [12:57:58] <BeastmodeGuNs> after that i remembered all those warning about 1v1 you lol, and i found out why xD

44 (edited by Celebro 2014-01-19 21:24:51)

Re: Gamma Balancing

DEV Zoom wrote:

Merkle and Jita practically say the same thing, but those changes only would still allow those stupid cubicle bases with mile-high walls and one tiny hole to enter into turret hell.


I have to agree, better take a heavy hand on this than be wrong and have to wipe again.

Also as far as walled of gammas, could it be possible to just allow lights climb terraformed walls, and bypass impassible terrain just on gamma?

RIP PERPETUUM

Re: Gamma Balancing

DEV Zoom wrote:

Merkle and Jita practically say the same thing, but those changes only would still allow those stupid cubicle bases with mile-high walls and one tiny hole to enter into turret hell.

hey, stop dissing my design!

But thats a terrible design now and only worked when you couldn't terraform when a structure was part of a wall. now thats not possible only *** would build them .. and you know what happens to ***.

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Re: Gamma Balancing

Fundamentals ...

Bases need to be tanky, but not indestructible
Gammas need to be roamable
Gammas need to be profitable, and livable, and really where the endgame is.

Betas need a reason, I think Epi does that there, even if you could no longer mine it in complete safety on Gamma, I would still keep it at Beta only resource.

Re: Gamma Balancing

once these changes are made you can move epi back to gamma - people will then mine it there outside of base guns and vulnerable which reminds me to another change:

Dropping a base automatically removes all mining spots 1km from the base

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

48 (edited by Inda 2014-01-19 21:35:20)

Re: Gamma Balancing

IF WE REWAMP should be the LAST REWAMP of GAMMA so

think 3rd time what you ACT, and WAIT and THINKING!



No need HURRY IMO, because STEAM players will play 1-2 month after some huge impact on Gamma-s and the actual playerbase came back beacuse of Gamma. Not everthing about the vets but...

Energy to Earth!

18.01.2014. [12:57:58] <BeastmodeGuNs> after that i remembered all those warning about 1v1 you lol, and i found out why xD

Re: Gamma Balancing

Jita/Celebro: We all know if something is allowed by mechanics then it will be done, even if it's stupid.

I admit one of my reasons against those vertical terrain walls is that they look really bad. I know many of you don't care about that, but there are screenshots and publicity and potential newbies looking at it.

The other thing is that it messes with our LOS mechanics, sometimes the walls are so thin that you think they block shots, when they actually don't.

Again, our intended purpose of terraforming is mainly to terraform a suitable place for your base, and maybe some decorative purposes. But definitely not the main line of defense. I think pretty things can be done with the proposed change too, but think more like pyramids (with deployable walls on top of them), instead of sharp ridges and cubicles.

50 (edited by Celebro 2014-01-19 21:44:06)

Re: Gamma Balancing

Cassius wrote:

Betas need a reason, I think Epi does that there, even if you could no longer mine it in complete safety on Gamma, I would still keep it at Beta only resource.


-1 No, Epriton will need to go back on gamma, there should be content for both beta and gamma players.

RIP PERPETUUM