1

(38 replies, posted in General discussion)

Rovoc wrote:

  PvE i already have 4 black bots

*Edit found my answer*

2

(75 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

You all know that when you reduce the price permanently you can't ever go back, so it's not that simple.

Tell that U.S. Cable provider companies neutral, *** follow their own rules.

3

(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

do you only pay your rent when the flat-owner already knocked several times on your door?

No, I pay it on the planned day set once a year monthly.

If I miss anything then a fun trickle system of follow-up goes off.

Emphasis on the annually set due date, done(paid) on my available schedule, until I am late. Then a 30 day response begin, again giving me time to respond.

I have a hard enough time managing a planned life, let alone more RNG

4

(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

DarkTerror wrote:
Naismith wrote:

The proposed system places defenders in a position of perpetually grinding their own SAPs regardless if there is opposition or not.

The proposed system encourages people to actually play regularly. not just when when they have to to keep the station.

If you're too lazy to log in, get one of your minions to do it.

How does this encourage regular play?  What is my reward, not being punished for owning the outpost?

Jita wrote:

Look how well that view is working out for you. You've had to attempt to fix the same issue four times before removing it from the game completely. In doing so you have removed the point of PVE with static spawns on Beta. Is that fixing the root issue?

Meanwhile assets are flooding in to the game to the point now where your economy is a joke, your balance is none existent and people don't even have to PVE.

It's very easy to formulate what is not allowed, you said it in this thread. If you've gained serious advantages using a mechanic that’s not intended you’re at best abusing mechanics and at worse taking advantage of an exploit.

It’s very easy to track when this is happening – it’s a simple database pull of items created per day from missions / beacons / mining spawns / any other source. Add that to a data pull of where these assets are going by corp / station / player and look for spikes.
It doesn’t take a genius to know if hundreds of blue 1 star mech beacons are getting used  in a week there is a reason why.


Select distinct count(*) from Assets
Where salt is not null and quantity >9000

lol


They are doing everything possible while balancing what is feasible and the most impactful with success.

Jita wrote:

You turned up with a mesmer and follow rr, of course it changed the fight dynamic. They had waspish and arbalasts before that!

and 62nd reacted properly, Kited as it was still possible, and prevented loss to finally snag a few more kills.

You may not remember this one but this was a great fight, despite the invisible walls from messed up slope calculations resulting in many losses for both sides.

Less numbers, got the SAP, mitigated losses, moral victory.

Jita wrote:

ANother idiotic tale of Lemon thinking he is good.

Did you even watch those video's? I'd invite you to watch them again with an abacus.

The outcome of both fights was decided before they turned up, large amounts of stupidity / popcorning fleets aside.

You can think your imaginary skill was what swung the fight if you want Lemon but the rest of us can breath through our nose AND our mouth.

Thank you for this insightful and contributing post to balance Jita.

I said nothing of my 'skill swinging fights', I mentioned, how once I was on the field in the 62nd video above. We stopped taking needless losses and gained composure as a fleet forcing the enemy to react.

WE/I STILL LOST, my point is in the movement and play of the players and the intent behind it play a huge role in PvP.

Nice rebuttal, it should be in CD

I would like to begin doing useful things with kill data given the availability.

What needs to be done?

Jita wrote:

Please post more videos of you shooting brand new players, its so inspiring.

Sorry, none of new players, just Joke and all your old allies

Balance Discussion

I want to spark some discussion in regards to balance in its current iteration. I think we can agree it has seen far better days.

The current FOTM trend is horribly painful to partake in as the dynamics involved in combat have reduced(Due to balance), the perceived focus on superior numbers has increased and we have lost any vision of what PvP used to involve.

If we look at the statics, we can see a rapid increase in the use of yellow bots, especially heavies with the most recent change in balance.

I would like to generate reports from battles, given proper access to the tabled information. These reports will  detail out top used bots over time, top damaging bots in a engagement grouped by type and size. This would then be reported back as far as possible to map balance change patches and give us a view at exactly how players reacted and evolved from these.

I have my own infrastructure I can pull all of this down to I just require access to either the old information or current data set

How much do numbers and specifically players impact battles? Review the below footage for yourself and observe your own findings. All of these videos are pre-current balance.

Videos wrote:

6 62nd vs ~8+ RG/CIR/MORTE - Note the disorganized play pre-Lemon appearing on the field. The organization of the red fleet changes with Lemon appearing and disapearing. *FC organization play a HUGE role in PvP

~15 CIR vs ~30 M2S+Friends  Out position and out numbered, notice how the lesser overcome superior odds.

The following two fights detail roughly even numbers with drastically different play from passive-passive to Attacker-Defender and their results.

Fight 1

Fight 2

In closing, the majority suck at this game and with out being coddled or hand held die horribly. The current balance doesn't help and the fights are stale.

Fully tank the Seth, stack repair bots behind, push until everything is dead.

What do?

EDIT: PS my guess once given  data is the same 3-5 people doing 40-60% of the total damage in EVERY engagement despite a battle sizing from 5-60 players.

Jita wrote:

The only reason your able to dominate when you bother to log in is numbers. Some of us want mechanics that stop numbers from always winning. You of course oppose that as its not your idea.

As for the ewar / heavies thing, thats just your usual idiocy. Regardless of if ewar is overpowered of green or whatever people had different opinions and nobody asked for the current meta.

Grow up.

Again not to side track but, Time and time again myself and many others have proven numbers do not directly relate to winning pre-current balance.

I would argue to say the current balance and meta support superior numbers as a advantage more so than before.

I will be happy to open a proper thread and debate this with video footage if anyone cares to challenge this until then. continue on but number were not and have not always been the end all be all but rather just another excuse.

Wish I had API access to player information.

Be very easy to quickly paint a picture of how many players are active enough to fit this activity level you all are detailing here.

I for example have no standings and for what I have been exposed to, most players don't either.

Forcing me to do PvE and mundane tasks to reach PvP is silly, I will very quickly, as most will as well, drift to what is easiest for PvP.

13

(78 replies, posted in Balancing)

Celebro wrote:
Jita wrote:

I think the numbers are about right. People still won't do industry in the stations though.


Yeah, for the simple reason of the risks getting your stuff locked in.

Side conversation but this requires inactivity on the station owners part, locking is a  3+ day process.

14

(7 replies, posted in Events)

Wtf is this high-school click stuff?


Ill be in Europe for 5 weeks come September next year with a group. Weedy among other CIR and Euro gamers I know will be joining us for certain parts of the trip.

Start in Amsterdam - > Germany and move on from there.

15

(9 replies, posted in Q & A)

What steps need to be taken to open dialogue for API access?

I would like to replicate all of the KB stats into my own SQL for BI mapping.

16

(24 replies, posted in Balancing)

Burial wrote:

You blame the balance change on us? You're a ***.

6 pages of how to make the balancing patch better, but how much actually got done.. ?

Honestly, the best possible changes right now are to go over the robot class speeds, implement the stacking pentalties and remove some neut slots from heavies. The damage output between what a heavy with all tuners brings versys a heavy with a more balanced fit is way too distinct.

......

Naismith wrote:

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/post/101828/#p101828

There's you sperging, there's me telling you this was going to happen even before Green got nerfed.


There is 13 pages and a lot of mostly non-constructive, un-tested, un-proven opinions and theory's from your side.


Most of the ex-members from your side did provide constructive theories and arguments with numbers and testing to back it up, however there are still a few shiny gems who didn't.

17

(74 replies, posted in Balancing)

Celebro wrote:

Don't like the idea of Gamma becoming a botting paradise, although it's still is a pvp area so the idea of botting is kind of moot, as players could take care of that easily, I would assume. I would worry more about alphas though.

I really don't know how bad the NPC situation is atm, I have been able to get away quite easily at 70km/h solo. If gamma is centered around group play, as I think it should be, is dealing with NPCs that much of an issue?

Can we get a clear definition of all these easily bottable tasks and the value added from it?

I understand the botting and mutli-boxing side of this game pretty in combat PvE and Pvp but not the industry sector, so my question is what is so detrimental here?

18

(74 replies, posted in Balancing)

Jita wrote:

I don’t understand your argument, to summerise what you guys are saying:
Adding red spawns on Alpha stops botting.
Removing red spawns from Gamma (which is what turrets for all intents and purposes will do) is not going to cause botting because…
a)    All Gamma people are too nice
b)    Botting isn’t really worth it on Gamma even though it is on Alpha
c)    You don’t live on Gamma so nerr nerr

It is ok to take breaks from posting Jita, when you lose your logic we see these kinds of posts.

Ville is not asking for the removal of bots but proper tuning, we all know you can read and comprehend.

Tuning to be done through a number of methods for example.

A) Enable turrets attacking NPC's
        -Many have already stated the range issue on Turrets currently both for players and NPC's
B) Scale the NPC population in relation to the player population

Why you are doom and glooming this thread is.... up to you...

Zortarg wrote:

Zortag Post
win win.

I tried to follow this as best I could Zort, can you confirm if my summary points are correct below.



You want to see the games mechanics simplified in a easier format while also re-balancing the current extremes and left out modules.

You believe diminishing returns are a bad mechanic to use here and that a proper review of current equations and simplifying them for users and developers alike to use to achieve the "ideal" balance.


I have been getting myself brought up to speed with the current meta and fits within the new balance and will have more to add after i get more hands on but want to confirm if i am following your logic.



Some of my notes are that I am currently seeing a longer duration fights, a lack of variety in fittings and even less color disparity in groups or top bots used.

20

(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Now that this is among our plans, have a bump.

What to discuss:
* Pair up intrusion times, so selected outposts/SAPs will always open at the same time
* Makes controlling multiple outposts much harder for one corporation
* Possibly make intrusion times public for everyone, remove intrusion scanning - feedback needed


And another idea to ponder that I thought of already after the blog was out:

* Activate all 3 SAPs of an outpost at the same time when an intrusion starts
* Each of them still have a 1 hour timer, but all of them can be completed by anyone
* The final stability change will be calculated from the 3 SAP results
* Just examples:
Owner completes it: +5 stability
Enemy completes it: -5 stability
Timeout: -1 stability

For example if owner can complete 1 SAP (+5), enemy takes another (-5), and noone bothers with the 3rd one (-1), stability will change by -1. If the owner can complete all 3, stability will change by +15.


a Few quick notes off the top of my head with out fulling thinking this out .

Specimen saps = PITA especially if up every-time as a owner.

With no need to scan, maybe review the idea of forcing anonymous sign-ups to intrusions. This would give the player access to complete the SAP and then take loot or access the expired loot.

Unsure if just the owner should know the event time is being engaged by a enemy or if it should show as pending siege for all.

I would not trigger 3 saps and 3 sap rewards on globally published timers and give free loot.

Force a little anonymous skin in the game.

Jita wrote:

So long as your industry can get locked out of a station, nobody is going to move industry there. Fact.

Naismith wrote:

Furthermore, it forces POE to haul out our massive stockpiles out of Domhalarn, as we've been actively living there and doing industry on Beta there for a very long time, and we like our station income from our industry.

/yawn

The only bonus before beta missions to be on beta is the income back from industry from station ownership.

No farming because beacons
No full mining because alpha and gamma are safer

The list goes on

Jita wrote:

From the multiple posts by lemon explaining with enthusiasm how he stopped people playing through grief play to your continual politically motivated bullshit post's from an imagination land where the game suddenly gets popular by catering to 1% of its possible appeal.base.

It would be funny if it wasn't hamstringing progress.

Enthusiasm?


That was not my intent with my post and you know it, I am a great story teller and could have gone into great detail.
I do have a little folder full of recordings, screenshots, and chat logs from these notable events and what lead up to them as the fuel for the fire.

What you may have failed to take away from my previous post is that, a player, when properly motivated and playing properly can achieve what they want. (Unlocking Danachrov from a corporation 30+ while solo, because they locked you out of your assets and stockpile)

The fact of the matter is that the average player, or group of average players, do not have the motivation, desire, or understanding, hell anything to walk the talk they bark.

This includes you, on a number of occasions.

Sorry if pointing this out gets your jimmies in a Russel.

So, Yes, I do not agree that simply opening a door(beta 1) and creating more ways for my 'abusive' play will be beneficial. I want to focus on this 'abuse' or 'exploit' as you like to call them and put mechanics or support in place to prevent what has happened time and time again.

Jita wrote:
Lemon wrote:

Also,

I forgot that I have also chased corps to alpha and then intentionally sat with my bots on the top farming pots with the best locking times in the game to tag mobs and prevent alpha side farming.

I believe some of you have experienced this, but this is the type of thing that can and will ruin peoples taste for a game.

As far as i'm concerned that's textbook ingame harassment and should be dealt with by banning you and not balancing the game.

No, This is 'farming' in reality if I setup this fit I can be out damaged by a dmg build bot.

Something along the lines of loot being tied to majority dmg and not first tagging. (Similar to losing the loot if someone else does more dmg)

Burial wrote:

Lemon, the problem is there's 20 people in GC, the population isn't growing and the new corporations nowadays are a lot more behind than years ago.

Roughly how much time does an average, run-of-the-mill new corporation starting from scratch need before they're ready to claim and defend a Beta outpost?

Is it currently even worth the work vs fun, or should they play something else?

I honestly cannot comment on the industrial side of time needed. I was trying to illustrate that when the players move to Beta they need to be nic/module positive in income or they will flop.

Realistically If I recall correctly a new player account can rush into being effective in a Mech or assault within 2 months quite rapidly, if not run T2 with L5's Day one.

If  a corporation has the ability to setup this structure I honestly am confident with the new missions I would/could move out there with a group of 20 or so new players and be effective and viable.

To do this they will need to have a industrial foundation to equip from (took eHarm 2 weeks to flesh ours out and probably another two to get it running full speed) Mind you during this time we burning stocks, after this 4 week time we were increasing stocks wile at the same loss level.

I am sure some recalls me not recruiting anyone until our industrial foundation was in place.

There is a lot of knowledge and organization that is required on-top of diplomacy, to not become a hot target, and live on Beta. Further more you want to limit your beta exposure as a target to not become a festering bed for anyone trying to get a kill-board pop-up.

I also think we need to clarify for everyone that buffing beta is not a direct nerf to alpha income. I think the rewards need to scale but players need to be capable of achieving a industrial foundation of support for bots/ modules. (I hope some industrials can comment on the time or requirements for this, I have always had channels for obtaining CT's via diplomacy, at times from enemies and have no perspective of the hurdles faced here)

To live and survive on beta requires a foundation for asset replacement.

Either via market or internal corp industry you need to provide the gear necessary to play and continue growing with out incurring greater loss.

Having players like kokomut, Arga or other industrial power houses has been a foundation for all successful corps. and the key has always been to supply, protect, and empower them.

Edit:

When I was originally starting I was in CS and Arga was a key piece there, in CIR we have had a team to manage it but when in doubt Syndic always did the lifting himself if he needed.

When I setup eHarm I had Arga again as a foundation and with out players like these I would not have gotten where I am or been able to do what I did.

Here is a glimpse into what the 15~ active players in eHarm where working and achieving to be PvP active.

Production