76 Reply by Lemon

(179 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Before I get on this train, I'm speaking as a SQL/API guy and I don't care how its done as long as its equal.


Cassius wrote:

EVERYONE HAS EQUAL ACCESS TO THE API INFORMATION
otherwise known as not broke.

False:

Zoom explicitly stated above that any use of the API outside of what they 'deem' acceptable use is not permitted. Zoom stated they do not intend for users to privately consume and use the API internally. Doek's site and perp-kill have been given that 'ok'

They have no understanding of how that gathered data is being used behind the scenes and I never expect them to. The question is to either allow equal access or not and if not then how much information is given?



its pretty bad how out of hand these conversations get now a days, this should be pretty cut and dry.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

77 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Liquidus wrote:

I don't mind the not following pvp flagged but the dropping follow because main was locked is a bit much.. Busting by a red spawn moving *** around will be even more annoying.Hanging around Alphas locking every train just to mess with people(ok that does sound funny).. Its not like the travel system in this game is that great to start with..  Many of the active pilots run 2, 3 , 4 accounts for indi , mining and what not and I see this only hurting that.. just my .02$

You mean to tell me if some random dude locks my robot, everyone on approach to me breaks follow?

Some 1 confirm hahaha

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

78 Reply by Lemon

(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Merkle wrote:

Right about now, someone needs to start running around screaming "power projection, power projection".

But wont my erp mesmer beat them all!

Go to forum: Balancing

79 Reply by Lemon

(23 replies, posted in Balancing)

Heliaso wrote:

Maybe we stack tuning modules bceause 90% of others modules are useless.

+1

Go to forum: Balancing

80 Reply by Lemon

(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Grond wrote:
Hunter wrote:

Summary: you will be more effective if you have two additional accounts. Your squad will be definely stronger if everybody will use followbots.

This is not true, a squad with 20 acc where half is followbots vs  a squad of 20 where all is ppl the squad with ppl will win every time. the "followbot" problem only exist now because its 10 ppl thats playing the game

+1

Thread is bias

Go to forum: Balancing

81 Reply by Lemon

(23 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

SpnX wrote:

Why blue?

I honestly enjoy yellow or my Seth mote than a mesmer. However from my experiance in PvP I am even more effect in the mesmer for my day to day play.

A proper fit mesmer is very very flexible with it's speed because the general rule when fitting is if it's faster than you it has a better tank. So add in that a proper fit can run down any non pure speed mechs makes it king

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

82 Reply by Lemon

(23 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Inda wrote:

I started to thinking make a new corporation,
try to help alfa players and try to make a 3rd faction ingame
any advice to me? (seriously)

Yeah totally, you first need to build your foundation to support everything that you want to build.

I need a computer to answer this fully so I will fill in more later.

Edit: To Expand

You need to have your goals set and bench marks for your players so that they have objectives to focus on. On top of this you need to solve the equation of generating the nic, bots, Mods, and ore you need to do these things. This can be done by trading Epi for alpha resources, kernals for mod's but you need to have a system and plan for providing the things you need to achieve your goals.

Build a core-group of people and determine what is the best things you can do to make the most while losing the least. If you plan on being PvP active this is even more of  a factor because for every loss  you take is less 'PvP' time. No PvP time is not a fun time and will drive players away.

Your greatest issues will be politics, spies, Industry, and moochers, I would advise picking players who are very good in each of these to help handle the majority in these sections.Also be sure to keep your players informed and knowing how to acquire gear so that your industrial players are not harassed all day.

For example when I made E-Harm I purposefully set out to recruit equally focused players in each of those aspects. I was able to join with Arga who matched my PvP drive in the Industry aspect as well as a handful of other like minded Indy players. Once I had the ability to gear and feed my PvPers I set out for experienced PvPers who would know how to survive more than they loss. This was to create profits for my industry to continue to grow and feed more.

It is a giant machine and depending on the quality of each part and how they were put together gives you certain results.

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

83 Topic by Lemon

(23 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

GO! (desk job again folks prepare your forums)

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

84 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

But Hunter, that is a extreme case. If I go to PvP as 10 Players in 10 Bots I will never know how many enemies I will ever face, unless I have spy.

That is a large part of the risk of going to PvP. Howevera Little can go a long way.  ;D

Edit: I dont have the original so flavor text included. Context is I camped there for 3 days before 20+ Mechs/HM's finally said hello


@Zoom

I believe you can code 1 rule to fix all of this, take your combat status and code it to disable approach in combat.

*Combat needs to be Applied in a radius around 'combat active' robots*

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

85 Reply by Lemon

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

@Zoom

I have no insight as to how your system is set-up but I do not honestly believe it would be more than a weeks worth of coding to make slight quick changes to beacon terraforming with rules quick.

Assumptions below.

Are the parameters that were coded in to beacon terraforming from y our dev kit not values that can easily be adjusted in the data base? Slope Limit, Height, size ext. Can we not just update these or take the day maybe a week to update the code.

Graphically all you need to do is leave on, terrain showing passable area for ALL bots to see the limits of beacon terraforming.

You do not need to add any restrictions to the plan building system just make the limit coded in and any charges beyond are wasted.

If you seriously do not have the time or man hours then lay out a dev plan and post it up as a project for some of the developer guys here take a shot at it.

Go to forum: Balancing

86 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Hunter wrote:

You talking about large groups PvP. Yes, there wont be a big problem with followbot users. But how about small groups? Is this normal if a whole concept of min-PvP will be shifted to multiaccount players?..

20 Robots on the field 10vs10

10 Players play their 10 robots vs 5-7 playing 10. YOU TELL ME THE ODDS, My team of 10 players will win everytime, hell I would go as far to say my multi-box team will win everytime vs 10 players.

Sheep are sheep wolves are wolves

Their is no denying that a NEW player has a 2-5 months buffer to be able to go and fight Vet's. Mutliboxing has nothing to do with this.

I built a US tz for my next sandbox to play with the EU one I found here. Question is what game that will be

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

87 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Celebro wrote:

So with 1000+ if it's not an issue we can suggest to change it back, nothing is set in stone.

Right now the concern is get to 1000+ on GC. Get that?

Oh I fully understand and get that absolutely nothing is set in stone in this game, not even the EULA.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

88 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Celebro wrote:

I am trying to get to the big picture here, Steam players coming in seeing max out accounts on each specialization and each faction WTFPAWNING with multi accounts,maybe an exaggeration, but that's how MOST of them are going to see it. As a mountain high wall to climb not worth the sub.

Few will spend the dedication of let alone the waiting time until they are skilled enough and subbing 5+ accounts to just remain marginally competitive AT pvp; mining and farming is not competitive. We have 18 classes of combat bots compared 9 indy bots, doesn't take long to see what this game is centered towards.

Totally valid concern and honestly anyone who can understand PO's mechanics during PvP will see this.

The truth is though that if we actually had 1000 'active' players the mutli-account max players would be less than 10% the total population. I legitamently think a proper introduction on how to properly combat, fit and play in PO will resolve fix this issue itself.

ASSUMING a stable server.
The mechanics within the game punish mutli-boxing gravley with anything above a 1000 'active' player count.

Look at interference, you cannot run any fleets larger than 60-70 players vs another equally sized group before you both are blind from interference to each other. If you honestly believe that 100 players going in to combat against another 70 would opt to bring 1-5 accounts each. They would not be able to even ENGAGE the force in front of them.

I literally dont even use follow bots unless its a level 10 Nexus toon or something in a group of 30+. Today I would rather 'gift' all my max accounts to be active and player controlled by 30 for that evening and go back to farming alpha 2's with my accounts the next day.

THE ONLY reason that your statement would be true is if the 10% of multiboxers are so filthy asset rich we could afford to PvP against 90% of the game for the next year with out ever having to stop to farm or gather. (We all are FYI)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** EP, the assets is where it is at. I *** many many groups of larger players by being able to apply this same pressure. This is like having Godzilla respawn instantly every time tokyo kills him.

See what I am getting at?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

89 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Celebro wrote:
Lemon wrote:

You really are off quite a bit on a lot of this, I really think this is the place to go in to mad pvp theory's on balance and effectiveness.

You are wrong if you think this is about pvp balancing, this thread is about balancing multi-accounting by toning it down as much as possible. You see it about a pvp issue because it affects you.

Lemon: You are a smart PVP player, I am sure can find an advantage anyhow without threatening to resort to Isboxer. wink

Meant this is 'not' the place for PvP theory.

I do not see any draw backs to these changes that have a impact on anything but your interactions in PvP situations. All mobs are stack and farmable from stationary positions. Just as miners have hauler/looters so do most high end combat players.

I just aim to point out how trivial any half assed bandaid will be. The devs are resource limited and if this fails then that is less money for them and more angry people from the multiboxers and the singles will be angry.

plus less money for avatar

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

90 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Burial wrote:

Rage, it's tormentous reading your posts where you say constantly how follow bot nerf affects EW mechs the most so I'll bring the cat out of the bag since you seem to not be able to figure it out yourself.

Nerfing follows is bigger nerf to Heavies than it is to EW mechs. What will heavies do when they lose RSA follows? RSA eachother or decrease their range, damage or EW resistance by fitting local amp(s)?

Remote repping and energy transfering can easily be taken over by specialized bots played by seperate players but there's currently no bot that could RSA well more than 2 other bots. EW mechs don't have to worry about reps or remote energy at all.

Actually it is a direct nerf against e-war, I had people running as many as 2-3 e-war mechs in a engagement who would all follow 1 'anchor' who would handle the 'spacial-awareness' aspect of a engagement and remind people who lost link.

This let everyone else just sit there and spam over aggressive e-war application.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

91 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Celebro wrote:

I will define the abuse as locking a target whilst on follow to provide superior range, superior tank and even better DPS as you don't need to sacrifice head slots for Amps.

Other types of multi account usage does not apply as it covers the same roles 2x miners is better than one, same as 2x dps bots is better than one that's fine. The DPS+ support role+ewar roles covering all bases for one player is what is broken, its not so much the issue about advantage only, it also deprives other players of a specialized role,as you already have all of specializations covered.

Industry roles: no matter how many you have is not the means to and end, PVP is, having 5 miners won't make you mine any safer on beta.

You really are off quite a bit on a lot of this, I really think this is the place to go in to mad pvp theory's on balance and effectiveness.

Go look at every fight CIR was involved in of 30+vs30+ I bet you I can name the the 3-4 people who account for 3/4th the damage dealt in the entire fight.

You know why you all hate e-war so much? I learned a long time ago it is far more simple to have your peasants sit in a robot and tell them "Lock everything that comes in range, your job is to focus X,Y,Z 2x Suppress each, Stay 200m out of their firing range" *that screen shot of your fleet we got, let me assign specific targets to people ahead of time*

When our fleets finally hit 'dps' range, mine has yours disabled and my 3-5 cold focused killers know to lock and fire in a special format that has us focus firing without ever relying on calling  a 'primary'.

We are never held by players finding the enemy in landmarks and then acting.

I am not even kidding when I tell you I have a rule of every 1 DPS HM I had 3 e-war Mech's

Now imagine having my 3-5 killers use isBoxer to force multiply their effectiveness and then have all the peasants handle dedicated remote repair  and e-war.

Fun Fact: Every bot below a HM can be 1-2 Shot by a HM when it has 0 Accumulator and is speed fit. How much DPS do you really need?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

92 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Celebro wrote:

It must be coincidence that everyone against these changes, are the ones who abuse the follow command in PVP the most.

I started this game as a ignorent theme park player. By 3 months in I was in 4 corps with officers privlages and full bank access in 3. I also went from 1 to 6 accounts.

I started multiboxing against 62nd during the US tz once I had to few allies to fill my tackle and dps roles.

I learned spying from Styx and mutlinaccounting for PvP off them as well.

I will never forget the two battle I was fighting my self as fc for both forces in one ts and another vent.

you the player are only limited by your imagination and persistence. I stopped spying when Styx was banned

edit: I don't bandwagon I simply adapted to overcome my enemy who equally bent and even broke more rules to win

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

93 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

The fix is disabling follow for PvP flagged robots AND locked targets. And this has nothing to do with normal ewar usage.

Ok sounds like we are making progress.

Now if I am PvP flagged approach becomes disabled.

If I lock my approached target it disables approach.

I would look to add a 3rd rule that has to do with my own flag or my targets flag maybe even combat status to also disableapproach.
This rule prevents nexusbot follow abuse

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

94 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Shadowmine wrote:

I don't see any reason to not remove the approach command to flagged targets, tbh.

That the fix method zoom confirmed?

My normal 3 Account chain goes Lemon>Repairbot>Nexusbot in follow order. This is done intentionally to keep him a good 100m~ away from Lemon. In order to keep doing currently do all I do is rotate to Lemon>Nexusbot>Repairbot as my bot chain. To be fair in fleet engagements 9/10 times the majority of the 'followbots' track 1-3 people, this is for 20+ dudes.

I could go either way on 'multi-boxing' but I am gravely against 3rd party tools. On that note I will give it up entirely to ensure no 3rd party tools.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

95 Reply by Lemon

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Lemon: if your point is that even in my 2nd situation you really would have to watch your timing because you would have a window of just a few seconds to teleport, then you're correct.

I just wanted to put it in the open, because the issue I noticed was the 'victim' would actually change screens and from teleporting sometimes disappearing to the destination. Then a *poof* and the can appears.

Sometimes you could even see them gain the invulnerability buffs before they vanished and still died.

This is super extreme cases but while we are on the subject of teleporter abuse I figured it was worth mentioning

Go to forum: Bugs

96 Reply by Lemon

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Merkle: As far as I understand we need a quick solution here. It's not perfect, but we won't go back to the "you failed loading fast enough, bye" method. That would be just shoveling sh*t from one bucket into another, pardon for the expression.

Just for clarity purposes.

I was able to achieve a fast enough lock that with the proper MS(Ping) to the server I could Lock>Fire>Kill anything without a plate that had a frame Mech and below.

I believe I had a 1.7-1.9 second Lock during this. It was one of the work arounds I tested for when the mechanics were being toyed with to resolve insta gate poping.

Go to forum: Bugs

97 Reply by Lemon

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Shadowmine wrote:

Great, so you are on board with fixing the "mild" version of this, and we will continue our efforts on lessening the multi acct advantage in the future.

No I was onboard and actively testing and helping try and solve this problem the first 5 times it was brought up.

I stopped caring once the EULA was as concrete as wet-paper and this multi-boxing account issue became one of the 'lesser' evils I had to deal with. 

@Zoom

What are you honestly going to do as far as 'mechanic' changes. As far as I have seen nothing more than 5 mins of brain-power is needed with out installing anything else to already break your 'fix'.

Talking about this has probably done more damage than this 'fix'

I am ALL for FIXING the multiaccounts but doing it right.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

98 Topic by Lemon

(7 replies, posted in Q & A)

@Dev's

Zoom I do applaud your activity and attempted transparency with upcoming changes but we have yet to see anything close to the light at the end of the tunnel. (Steam success)

You need be much more aggressive in your interactions with the players on behalf of the dev team, now more than ever. While you may have limited resources to perform the action items at hand, it is now more important than ever  you devs do not make design mistakes. Obviously there is a large disconnect with English being a second language to you guys causing god knows what kind of miscommunication.

When you have design questions/ideas present them to the players in as a proposal and clearly state what kind of feedback you are looking for. This could be anything from balance, Mechanics, Database, Hardware and any other situation your limited staff can handle.

At this point in time any and everyone on these forums is here to support you in some fashion. You NEED to start leveraging us as a resource and not as a angry mob. Posting half thoughts and not setting the narrative is how you end up with 7 threads of sporadic dev responses mixed with confused posts trying to understand what is to come.


~~~

I honestly believe that disabling content that is beyond your proper resource management will be key to your success. I cannot remember the last time that my STARTING SLOGAN is still true about this game. "This game has unlimited potential built on a stable foundation just waiting to grow"

Why have we devolved to a state of previously having 100's if not 1000's of players in a zone to crashing during 500-1000 or so players joining from stEvE, being unable to cross player built islands due to lag.

What FAITH am i to have that if say 500 or more players hit this server it would be stable and supportive for them to even get PAST alpha. I give two *** if my gamma is insta-lock/terraformable/you name it.

All I want is to log in and see a NIA the way it was in my starting few months, teeming with life, stable and functional.

Go to forum: Q & A

99 Reply by Lemon

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

It's possible that something changed that makes you *see* that black terminal, which is basically the "teleport limbo", but the limbo state has been there from the beginning.


I know parts of the teleport mechanic were drastically changed twice and reviewed to be tweaked 3 times. All before gamma.

I just want to make sure that the same reasons the changes were made that gave us the system today. are all taken in to thought when fixing it now.

Go to forum: Bugs

100 Reply by Lemon

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Just to be perfectly clear here, this is not a "feature" that can be turned off. This is a fundamental mechanic, and the only way to "fix" that you can't get stuck in teleport limbo is that your robot would instantly reappear on the other side of the teleport.

And this would be then true not only for the teleport, but deploying from a terminal or logging in to the terrain as well. You can think about how much time all these operations take for you and how long your robot would be exposed while you're looking at a progress bar.

Hence the solution to not even let you through a teleport in a situation where this can be abused.

go chat with crm or Alf as I worked with them on teleport mechanic abuse awhile ago. One of your options is the old method they tried fixing with the current way now broken with PvP jumping

do I need to remind everyone of l how it was back in the day 1 shorting people on gates in load screens

Go to forum: Bugs