226

(17 replies, posted in General discussion)

ZOMG How cool would it be if explosions left craters (size depending on strength). Mech, small dent, main terminal large crater, plasma bomb (artillery someday maybe) small crater.

227

(136 replies, posted in News and information)

Ah I actually thought the blog was talking about new types of modules not yet another tire of the same modules to grind kernels for...

To the devs: guys come on, girls just wanna have fun, enough of the grind already. Look at the killboard for today (http://perp-kill.net/), loads of things died... on Hershfield... cause people are bored out of their skulls sad

228

(136 replies, posted in News and information)

These changes are steps in the right direction.

There are a few concerns that don't seem to be directly addressed though:

A few people mentioned that the cost of modules is prohibitive for any kind of frequent pvp.  This is also linked to things like artifact scanning drops, kernel drop rates and off course the minerals required for production.  I am not convinced that the noralgis changes alone are gonna make a big difference.

The second is that if corps living on gamma are able to wall themselves in completely (and sooner rather than later they will) we are all gonna be very very bored while we sit there mining and harvesting.

These are the two fundamental issues that I was really hoping would be addressed.

One thing that I remember really struck me when I started playing (and the tutorial has been updated since then) was the dev's hostility to any kind of solo play.  Everything seemed to be built around the idea that things should be a logistical nightmare.  When anyone mentioned this, the standard response was "this is not a solo game".  I take it that the noble goal was to encourage cooperation but imo the real effect was to make casual and single account play somewhat unrewarding.

230

(116 replies, posted in News and information)

Syndic wrote:

*sigh*

You're mixing apples and oranges fellas.

The underlying sentiment from the meeting is that Gamma needs to be more secure and the defenders have to have all the advantages, everything should go into reinforcement because it's a big blow for corporations to lose so much assets... Hello? Why should Gamma suddenly be made safer then Alpha or Beta without any player/asset investment?

Cassius I think underlined the main issue in Perpetuum; we've all had loads of fun playing chess with each other. One side thinks of one thing, other side comes up with something else and the circle goes around. Then the developers stepped in with a rushed idea to make it easier and everything went down the toilet.

Gamma CAN be made as safe as Alpha. But at the moment it requires a lot of NIC investment, a lot of time, a lot of player activity and most importantly a lot of manpower. It requires the defender to put a lot of assets on the line. And that is perfectly fine.

The attacker has the advantages of picking the time and place, the defender has the advantage of home ground, terraforming and over-saturating area with turrets if he wants. TP beacons come into play because the defender has to walk all around the island, the attacker can swap sides relatively easily.

NOTHING should be made cheaper or easier. Even the construction blocks should have been left as they are. Content shouldn't be nerfed so everyone can do it and get welfare epics. Gamma was a long-term goal that is hard to achieve, requiring a lot of political, economical and military planning & execution.

Now a lot of people are lobbying for Gamma to be made safer without them having to risk anything too much. Instead of going towards a healthy direction we're moving to the other extreme. And it's worth noting that the people lobbying have no clue or experience how Gamma works on the live server.

[Oranges]
I agree that at this stage players lack experience of how all the defences work.  With such a small active player-base, people are not queuing up to throw their assets into defending or attacking gamma.  It will take a long time to work out exactly how to defend or attack properly.

[Apples]
In the meanwhile the main power-blocks fortify their gamma islands to the point of being completely safe for hauling, mining/harvesting and producing.  This will not help generate regular pvp or (public) market activity.  At the moment, if living on gamma full time becomes practical (like it should be), beta becomes irrelevant since a mobile tp is easily used to skip over an entire beta island.  I would argue that it should be possible to access the main bulk of a gamma island without having to terraform your way through a wall while being shot buy turrets.

[The problem for the long term]
Imho with the population being the way it is, the primary concern for balancing should be to make the game fun for new and relatively casual (compared to many of us here) players.  Making gamma islands into personal playgrounds for two-three alliances is not helping that goal.

231

(81 replies, posted in General discussion)

And what do you propose would be the source of income in this model? Gold ammo? Monocles?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think its impossible in principle but how can it be made free to play without becoming pay to win or pay to be competitive?  Another thing you have to consider is the degree to which what you can do is limited by the number of characters and EP available to you.  If this game becomes free to play the first thing I would do is make 10+ new accounts to start gathering EP.  Hell I would make my own corp just out of my alts so they could all share storage.  I think that's just scratching the surface of the problem.

On the other hand maybe some kind of extended trial with alpha only access would be an option? (not sure what problems that would throw up though)

232

(116 replies, posted in News and information)

I probably won't be able to get off work early enough to make anything before 18:00 and would prefer anything closer to 20:00

233

(116 replies, posted in News and information)

Just because the map looks like its designed to support three power blocks doesn't mean that there are exactly three at the moment.  Perhaps the devs need to take their cue from beta outpost ownership rather than from forum politics and trolling.  After all, beta outpost ownership reflects activity on each island doesn't it?

Perhaps we could have one representative per beta island? (unless i missed a case where the residents are actually hostile to eachother, not sure what the deal with Domhalarn is right now)

(Note to self: batphone devs to fix this)

I haven't had a lot of time to think about this so I'm sure you will shoot me down in flames but here goes:

At the moment we can build relatively permanent, high value structures on gamma.  A corp has to either go all in and build a massive fortified base or not bother with gamma at all.  What if there was a terminal structure that could be assembled and disassembled relatively cheaply.  It would have some kind of reinforcement mechanic to prevent it from being instantly wiped out by a blob but would have limited storage space and would not support any buildings in the way a proper terminal does.

The idea is to give small groups of people a chance to be productive on beta without having to join one of the large power blocks.

Discuss

It makes sense *picks up his batphone*

236

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Raises some valid concerns.  I also have been feeling uneasy with the degree of leverage I have over the devs but you know what we say: if you can't beat them, patch them.

I think we need to make a distinction between intentional and unintentional changes here.  It is my understanding that these days AC uses a test server to let players test new game changing mechanics.  It seems they have learned from past errors at least to some degree there.  When it comes to unexpected bugs, these just happen sometimes no matter how undesirable.  Off course there are quality control procedures but I have no experience in that area so will refrain from commenting.  Seems to me that reimbursing losses inflicted by bots which should have been dead may be about as close to fair as we can get at this point.

238

(33 replies, posted in Balancing)

The barrier to becoming an effective producer is too high imo.  As an earlier post pointed out, many corps gave kernels to a few people who are now inactive.  For the producers that are left there's no incentive to bother supplying the market...

239

(24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

From what I remember, the start for new players too slow.  I would in favour one off EP rewards for completing training missions and accelerated EP gain in the first two weeks.  The accelerated gain could start only after subscription (further encouraging people to sub).

Remember when a person just finds the game they are keen to try it out.  If after the first few hours they realise that they have to wait a few weeks before they are of much use at all they may take a break from the game and not come back (its what I did at the start but I came back).

Limiting things by corporation and CEO EP is just annoying and not fun.  If it actually becomes important enough to have more than X of the limited item, people will use alts for the CEO character and make lots of alt corporations with blue standing.  This goes for both probes and PBS.  The only reason I have not done it for probes yet is that we don't even max out on our normal probe allowance.

241

(7 replies, posted in General discussion)

I’m thinking of making a post on the forums every time I am bored and shooting a wall on an enemy island. Consider it an artistic expression of how boring the game has become.

On a side note even if you don't consider the cost and space requirements of bombs (which are still to high) the fact that you need to use two, makes the process unnecessarily slow.

Perhaps both the cost of walls and bombs needs to be decreased making it just a time sink rather than a NIC sink as well.

Also we saw an interesting bug today where a section of walls would appear and be impassable for one character but would be absent for another character running from the same computer.

p.s. It may be technically difficult to make them shootable but from a game play perspective, is it really acceptable to have a player built structure that can't be locked and shot?

242

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Why are so many people convinced that it can't be fixed? There are many relatively simple solutions to this problem.

Just to name a few:

> Bots leaving a temporary trace (like the intrusion scanning charge) on the ground after logging off.
> *A kind of molecular instability for 2 min after logging in which makes the bot invulnerable, unable to attack or move but able to log back off.
> Random + 0 to 120 second delay when logging back in after being offline for more than 15min.
> Ability to scan down logged off bots using an artifact scanning-like mechanic.
> Some indicator of the number of logged off bots in an area (e.g. using a scanning charge or a counter on the landmarks)
> *A vortex animation with a 1 min delay indicating that something is logging in on the terrain.
> ...

*To deal with DCs there could a 5min grace period to log back in during which the mechanic does not apply.

Any number of variants and combinations of the above could be used to link logging in to intended game mechanics.  It would just take some careful thinking and balancing.

Off-course some people are just far too awesome to get caught by a logon trap while others think that login traps are an elite pvp manuver.

+1 to lots of space.
It would also be nice if there were rare, scarce, distributed resources out there to be discovered.

244

(33 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Make another account so you can keep the can active you noob!

or +1

You must leave! leave now while you still can yikes

Edit: you are not related to a certain Mongolia Jones are you?

246

(114 replies, posted in Q & A)

Wall this thread off!
Edit: Make it triple and don't leave any corners.

247

(114 replies, posted in Q & A)

Good gawd, im so bored and drunk, get *** on, or wait il take this to the killboard...

Tamas, maybe I didn't make it clear in my original post but this would be a cosmetic change only.  You wouldn't be able to stand inside a wall tile any more than you can now.

Also octagons would look nicer.  + is just an easier concept to grasp imo.

Ok, I'm no expert on 3d modelling but is it really that hard to turn a rectangle into an octagon?  Can't you just re-use the same textures on a different shape?

As for line of sight, you can already shoot through the diagonal, I'm not sure what you are trying to say about that.

Currently bots are able to walk between diagonally adjacent wall tiles.  This looks ridiculous as the robot appears to pass through a solid wall.  Also, rectangular wall blocks are not the most aesthetically pleasing features on the landscape.  Both of these issues could be addressed by simply changing to wall model to be shaped like a plus "+" sign.

Example 1: horrizontally adjacent tiles, impassible wall


+++++++++++++   

(you have to imagine that the plus signs are touching eachother

Example 2: diagonally adjacent tiles, passible wall

               +++++
++++++

(again you have to imagine the pluses being closer together, draw it out on some grid paper if you can't see it)

Octagons could work as well and may actually look better (but its easier to explain with pluses).

Note this would not affect movement in any way other than making diagonal passages a little easier to spot on the landscape (but not the radar).