301 Reply by Kaldenines

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

The way I see it there are at least two separate problems with the current arkhe scout mechanic

(1) Its what Annihilator said about pay to win which also blindly favours corps with more members.

2) Its the fact that they are impossible to clear off an inter-island gate as they can keep jumping between the teleports indefinately.  This is a more general problem which has been addressed for intra-island TPs.  Perhaps it could be addressed by reducing the protection timer if someone performs more than 3-4 jumps in a row.

Once (2) is addressed (1) is not as big of an issue.

Also i like the idea of being able to capture the eyes on a TP, no reason to make it hard either imo

Morkani01 wrote:

what about having persistant, owned by no one, probes 1 at each teleport, 1 at each outpost & terminal....these probes need to be "hacked" to belong to someone or corp), but at any time (not at 8 hour intervals) can be rehacked by a different corp to gain ownership. (this could require 10 minutes of hacking, 30 minutes, whatever i don't know how to balance that) but the end-goal here is to have something else to "fight" over. that way anyone can utilize the probes.

kind of a "capture the flag" game with the probes?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

302 Reply by Kaldenines

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I think what he is saying is that looking for probes which you can only see 40m to 170m away is like combing the desert smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

303 Reply by Kaldenines

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Is the server coping with the load ok?  What if the population was of active people was 800 or even just 500?
Is this mechanic even technically viable?

p.s. please refund the costs of the probes when you remove them, the m2s corp wallet is now broke tongue

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

304 Reply by Kaldenines

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa sigh
hahahahahahahahahaha lololo111oneelven
sigh

ok ok calm down breathe

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

305 Reply by Kaldenines

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I dont mean to highjack the thread btw, im just saying diminishing returns should be a priority imo

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

306 Reply by Kaldenines

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Introducing "diminishing returns" for modules like tunings, range exteners and such will just kill fitting variery and freedom, because the best choice will always be "fit one of each". So -1 and sorry for offtopic.

^
That could be the case if the diminishing returns were to be set too high.  However, you could make a similar  argument for when there are no diminishing returns though.  e.g. "Its always best to have as many of X tuning as you can get so that you get an awesome tank / more range than anything else / an insane alpha strike amount / maximum RR bonus."

So many balance problems in this game so far could have been avoided in the first place if diminishing returns were present (or if increasing returns were absent).  E.g. Armour tanking with ERP could be made viable without being imba.  Shield tanking could be viable without being only killable by an ictus.  I suspect even things like the ability to perform insurance fraud and the whole recycling nerf could have been avoided this way.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

307 Reply by Kaldenines

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

1) Please give individual bot pilots reasons to risk their pvp capable mechs out on beta.
    e.g. rare roaming npcs that take a while to find but don't require 5 people to kill (use your imagination).

Before all the carebears start crying about this remember two things:
a) nobody will be forced to do it
b) if people start losing their bots there will actually be a market for gear

2) Introduce diminishing returns / stacking penalties for fitting multiple modules of the same type.  Then balance the module bonuses so that fits with both single and multiple modules of the same type are viable without making unbreakable tanks / instakill alpha striking. (lightweight frames and erp should stay unique items though)

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

308 Reply by Kaldenines

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

No i mean it would create a ripple like a ping (but with a different colour and sound) on the radar.  It would reveal nothing about who is doing the detecting, just that someone is detecting from that location.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

309 Reply by Kaldenines

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I think an interesting change to the detection system would be if every time a detector modules cycles, it creates a ping/ripple effect on the radar which everyone can see.

Also something needs to be done to discourage arkhe scouting while not reintroducing gate camping.  Yeah its not an easy one but lets try and think of something smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

310 Reply by Kaldenines

(16 replies, posted in Balancing)

Inda wrote:

Hi guys!
Here my idea for solution:

Make a special thing for specimen SAP what has 80 U space and you can bring it just in a Sequer there can be 10 variation of these and the SAP need 1 at once. So you always need to go ther check what need and bring a sequer. That is accaptable in 30-40 mintue like other SAP -s.

So if you want to do this for sure need 10 sequer or 3 LIthus and 1 sequer or 1 Scarab big_smile and 1 sequer.

What about that idea?

A creative and probably workable solution.  Perhaps you would need to add some kind of 'feeding the SAP' time so that it can't be completed instantly.

Removing it all together should work too.

An even simpler solution would be to publish the list of items and quantitates required.  I suppose players would eventually compile one of these themselves anyway.

The specimen processing sap really stands apart from the others in the sense that doing it requires some serious advanced planning and preparation.  I see it as a significant advantage to have one of those on your outpost.  Whether thats intended or not is up to the devs i guess.

p.s. Can we have some (self) moderation here please?  Half the posts in this topic are simply spam.  I mean come on, your are not even trolling, my cat trolls better than that sad

Go to forum: Balancing

311 Reply by Kaldenines

(14 replies, posted in General discussion)

acidraid wrote:

T4 loot from AIDs have a very low cost so producers that try to make the same stuff will always be unable to compete against it on the open market.
By continuing this “feature” for so long the economy shift from being a player driven economy to a loot driven economy.
It is a little weird that the devs out of the blue do something like this, they have for over a year worked on improving the player driven economy, something we have seen in numerous patches e.g. the 2011-08-09 patch that improved the low tier CTs.

It will be interesting to see what it really is that the devs want with the Perpetuum economy, I don't plan on leaving the game anytime soon so I am sure I will be around to see it, but one thing is sure I did not plan on being a part of a loot driven economy so I canceled my 97 sell orders yesterday.

The first statement is an entirely valid argument.  AIDs are just a bit of holiday fun and should not be a permanent feature.  I assume they are going to be removed soon.

So you canceled your sell orders thinking that T4 gear prices are currently being driven down by AIDs drops and that you can sell for more later?

Personally, I find the external market woefully under-stocked and overpriced.  Have any more regular users of the external market noticed a change following the introduction of AIDs?

Go to forum: General discussion

312 Reply by Kaldenines

(37 replies, posted in General discussion)

I second what Rex said.  Word for word.  I know we sound harsh at times but were are here because we love the game and don't want it to die.

Go to forum: General discussion

313 Topic by Kaldenines

(12 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

What new islands?  I am assuming there will be new islands added to the game.

It would be nice if large parts of these new islands would have v few NPCs.  Preferably the same parts where pvp activity would be likely to occur.  Its sad when NPCs turn out to be a bigger nuisance than enemy players.  Also there are parts of beta which currently feel like some kind of robot-zombie-apocalypse.
http://zombiesandtoys.blogspot.com/2010 … -only.html

While I think it would be a good idea to reduce the number of spawns on the current beta islands its not worth doing due to the risk of erosion by streams of carebear tears, so I wouldn't ask for that.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

314 Reply by Kaldenines

(12 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Takeo Prime wrote:

The only thing you NEED from beta is Epi.  If you don't want to put the time or politics into owning a Beta outpost, or you can't find a current owner that wants you as a friend, then go to the 6 Alpha islands set aside for your security and enjoy the game there.

I like the idea stated above and don't see how that line of thought is in any way a negative as you are trying to slant it.

Buy your Epi, stop whining or make some friends.  Last time I checked an MMO stood for mult-player which means going solo is only going to take you so far.  It is getting old hearing players talk like they should be handed the only portion of the game that needs to be earned.  Go big, get friends, or stay on Alpha!

That's exactly my point.  There is never any economic incentive to take risks.  Even on beta you have to be v unlucky or *** to get ganked while mining.  Read what the OP wrote FFS.  He is asking for rewards in exchange for risk.  All the game is offering is things that can be done safely in a big group and are logistically unfeasible in smaller groups. 

Nevermind, lets all be friends and not fight eachother.  Lets sit in our outposts and move shiny boxes around.  Lets haul eachother's ores and loot from every can every day.  Lets gather around our saps for our twice daily singing of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPrAHCOsNBQ
(its v good that one).

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

315 Reply by Kaldenines

(73 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

booo kill-mail-whores! boo

*goes back to attaching the t2 prototype small laser to his stripped down camelion*

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

316 Reply by Kaldenines

(19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

317 Reply by Kaldenines

(12 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Nightclaws wrote:

if we're trying to get beta more populated, why are we reducing the reasons for people to go to beta, i mean yes, i know there's a reason to goto beta for SAP's, but if you aren't that interested in pvp, but want to reap the benefits of beta (even though there's a risk of pvp) the incentives for going beta are, in their current condition, limited.

another idea i had for incentivising people to goto beta, would be (with the above idea of allowing limited access to outposts) to allow a corp to "sell" their buff for the island for an hour/2/4 whatever. the corp wins by more income, it incentivizes people to travel to beta, win-win

--side note, one of my favorite mmorpg games of all time was Ultima Online which had a similar setup with trammel (non-pvp) and felucia (pvp), when mining in felucia you got double the ore, there were powerscrolls, housing was cheaper, & many other reasons to lure non-pvp players into the pvp zones. and even though i didn't really participate much in the pvp, i always enjoyed the thrill of either "getting away" with my phat lewt's, & even when i was killed, the thrill of trying to get away was payment enough. at the moment there are a few reasons to go to beta as a non-pvp player, plants give 100 charges instead of 50, ninja-ing sap's, and missions in the main terminal. but once you finish the missions in the main terminal, if you aren't granted access or can't negotiate access with the owner, that reason goes away. plants are a good reason to enter, & epi is the only mining incentive. i'd love to see more incentives for non-pvp players to enter beta (this will give more prey for the pvper's as well so don't think i'm not thinking of you guys either lol)

plz let me know how lame i am for asking these,

smile

thanks again for your time.

What you propose makes too much sense to be an acceptable direction for this game...

Unfortunately the forum is full of trolls and the devs hate the idea of giving individuals or small groups incentive to go out on beta.  For as long as I have played this game their attitude has effectively been this:

"You are having trouble getting something done? Well it's your fault for not being in a big enough blob.  This is not a solo game, go get a clan (or 3 more accounts) noob!"

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

318 Reply by Kaldenines

(12 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:

beta=
100% risk for intruder,
200% reward for outpost dweller,
0% consequences for killing anyone (friend or foe or neutral)

but you know, npc faction standing with consequences on alpha would be something very bad, i have been told.

Could somebody please translate this into English?  Google translate has failed me...

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

319 Topic by Kaldenines

(14 replies, posted in General discussion)

Please keep the present drops in the game as a temporary boost to the economy (out of corp market).  Its quite a nice little feature smile

Go to forum: General discussion

320 Reply by Kaldenines

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

But honestly I see some old mindsets applied to the new system, which won't work. If you are not able to show up every 2-4 hours at one of your SAPs, chances are you own more outposts than you can handle. This works as intended and it pretty much regulates itself. Yes, the current low population means that the majority of the corporations will only be able to hold one outpost. If you are able to see this objectively, there is nothing wrong with it.
.

There is nothing wrong with logging into a game every 2 to 4 hours in every 24 hour period? 

Even if you mean 'on average twice at random points in every 24 hour period' that is still nothing short of insulting to the community.  Why the fetish for alarm clocking?  If you are going to say that statistically the times when you can and can't be there will cancel out, why discriminate against people who actually have a job/are in education?  Why not remove scanning for intrusion times altogether?  You could always balance attacker/defender advantages using intrusion frequency, stability gain/loss per intrusion, and the difficulty of taking a SAP.  There are endless possibilities.

btw does anyone actually think the specimen processing mechanic is appropriate for the current system?

TLDR: Remove scanning for intrusion times and re-balance the system around that.  Stop expecting players to dedicate their entire existence to the game.

Go to forum: General discussion

321 Reply by Kaldenines

(112 replies, posted in Balancing)

Mongolia, I suspect people who drive green have already worked out which skills are needed for this. 

Prior to the troiar nerf I made a tackling troiar alt which is still v useful today.  It uses the humble little troiar Mk1.  I may soon use the same account to make a tackling/neuting tyranos alt (again MK1).  The next thing on the list will be the gropho (these will come back in fashion once there are enough people playing the game).

For those defending the current shield mechanic, you are either trolls or just too lazy to think about it.

If you are not convinced just ask yourself how would you go about countering a shield tanked, neutralising tyranos.  If the answer is:
A) a massive blob (it would be interesting to work out exactly how big)
B) a dedicated, shield tanked vagabond
or
C) a shield tanked, neutralising tyranos

then you know its not well balanced.

if the answer is:
D) a cool new fit/combo

please share it with us...

Go to forum: Balancing

322 Reply by Kaldenines

(61 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

With the death of our beloved leader, Kim Jong-il, profound sorrow has stung the hearts of many.

Now that his guidance is lost, we must transition to a capitalist system of exchanging goods.  May the invisible hand deliver great pleasure to all it touches!

In honor of the glorious father of the People's Republic of Hokkogoros, we will, in the near future, be sacrificing many bots on the beta islands of our planet.  You too may join us in mourning the Shining Star of Paektu Mountain and following his immortal guiding rays.

Go to forum: Recruitment forum

323 Reply by Kaldenines

(54 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

Ladies and gentlemen, kindly redirect your gaze to our shiny new recruitment thread!

*Please lock this one*

Go to forum: Recruitment forum

324 Reply by Kaldenines

(37 replies, posted in General discussion)

Maybe someone should post on the steam forums, its a long shot but hell maybe it'l get their attention.  I just tried but its saying that my account is in a 'moderation queue' (i *** hate steam, i remember the days when it used to be much worse though).

Go to forum: General discussion

325 Reply by Kaldenines

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

William Wallace wrote:

well who is going to move to beta?? there are hardly any new players in this game! no new corp to try to give it a go.

So are you looking for a corp or just unhappy with the low population?

I suspect the game still has a reasonable number of subscribers.  There is just not that much to do.

You can mine, farm, scan for artifacts or waste your NIC on pvp in which you can't actually win anything.  This leads to people either staying on alpha or joining the blob because everything they can do in a small group is easier and less risky and most importantly no less profitable as a blob.

Devs I do appreciate that you need to make changes in small incremental steps.  I am all for that.  However, I would ask you to please think outside the box.  What is important now is not the specific game mechanics you use but what kind of game play they encourage.

If only care-bear (alpha or beta) activities are profitable there will be a lack of pvp.  Some of you may think 'well that's fine, I only want to pvp every now and then' but remember this: if players don't get blown up there is no demand for bots or modules and market dries up.

Go to forum: General discussion