Just for posterity, not everyone who plays this game is incapable of respectfully disagreeing with someone.
Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Search options (Page 5 of 15)
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Kaldenines
Posts found: 101 to 125 of 360
101 2014-06-04 16:39:46
Re: First Impression after a couple weeks (20 replies, posted in General discussion)
102 2014-06-03 12:11:26
Topic: Radar colour by standings / NPC radar colour (2 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
I haven't looked at this for a while but last time I checked, if you set a player red they show up the exact same colour as NPCs. Would it be possible to have an option to change the red NPC colour to something else (pink)?
That way you won't confuse players with red standing with NPCs etc
Would also be nice if you could make squad members purple on the radar so that they are a bit easier to see against the background colour.
103 2014-06-01 23:38:39
Re: New movement calculation [as of 2014.06.10] (34 replies, posted in Testing server)
Bots just seem to teleport around randomly and the position on the screen doesn't seem to have much to do with where they are with regard to being in/out of cover
104 2014-05-31 00:19:22
Re: New movement calculation [as of 2014.06.10] (34 replies, posted in Testing server)
oh, after reading the topic title, i almost thought you would start to take terrain slope into consideration for robot speed
this tricked me into thinking the same thing lol
ah well, we can always dream
105 2014-05-30 01:43:40
Re: ECM / EW tuners / Supressors / ECCM (320 replies, posted in Testing server)
Tbh, I don't think there is any combination of ewar strngth/sensor strength values that would suddenly make ECM a fun mechanic. And despite all the accusations and drama I don't think anyone here actually wants it to be nerfed into the ground.
Also, with the current mechanics, inefficient ECM is still gonna be disproportionately more useful to the side that can field more bots. You will still get situations where a bunch of small bots will be able to take down a heavy without any risk of being shot.
Would it be possible to try a bare bones version of an area of effect ECM mechanic (kind of like interference but with a chance to break lock) and let people just play with it on the test server for a bit?
Maybe players will like it, maybe it will be horrible, but if it's not too difficult to code and doesn't put too much stress on the server, just maybe, it's worth giving it a try?
106 2014-05-29 12:48:58
Re: Close (102 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)
Looking for more Euro/African/Russian guys, let us hear your sexy accents.
107 2014-05-29 01:32:42
Re: Detector/EW changes (133 replies, posted in Balancing)
+1 for separate threads
Detection
Sounds like an interesting change, Not sure if the masking penalty is large enough but small steps is always good.
As for extreme cases, with the detector, people have made alt accounts with the singular purpose of having maxed out detectors. These detectors are then used to direct whole gangs so in this case, the extreme is the norm.
Ewar
+1 for no new extensions that give a bonus regardless of what you fit, it's not wow, we don't want to keep raising the level cap. Imho it's better to let players diversify and specialize instead of just becoming generically better.
Can't really tell how ewar will work from just reading that there will be a 2% extension, please give us at least a couple of weeks to try it out on the test server first. Like Ville said, what is the end goal here in terms of how effective you think it should?
Also, I am glad you guys are looking at it but I think the main problem with ewar is the way it works rather than with the exact values used. It seems to me that just tuning ewar strength is a choice between two situations:
1) ewar is so nerfed that people switch to energy warfare instead
2) ewar dominates the gun fight so that shooting becomes an afterthought once one side has managed to lock the other side down.
Usually one side will have a numbers advantage, this is normal for open world pvp. Imo the goal with ewar should be to help people even the odds rather than create helpless targets (and yes I have been on both sides of this).
One idea is to turn ecm into a debuff (like the suppressor) that has some chance of breaking lock every second. This debuff could be limited to one per target.
I would love to see jamming affect an area around a targeted bot or tile. This would make it much more tactical (with appropriate balancing ofc).
108 2014-05-27 12:17:25
Re: Flame Thower (23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
+1
Oh and make plant/wall (even bare ground) tiles shootable with all weapons please!
109 2014-05-26 00:49:55
Re: We need more Betas and Land mass. (68 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
More landmass, would just mean more empty space.. islands are allready very empty. Only/just increasing landmass won't fix anything.
They are not all empty
http://sequer.nl/killboard/?a=heatmap
Just playing devil's advocate here but by that logic we should remove all the betas except Norhoop
The current beta layout is horrible to be honest. It's like the beta islands are dead-ends just tacked on to alpha-2s as an afterthought. I know this is kind of a side-effect of gammas being removed but it would be nice to have more beta islands to roam around anyway, even with gamma in place.
110 2014-05-26 00:34:13
Re: BETA pve (6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
Give people with 1 account a reason to be.
Fixed
+1
111 2014-05-25 20:13:25
Topic: eve devs on balancing (2 replies, posted in Open discussion)
Some of you may find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbS8HRHJ … p;index=32
I think the bits around 20:00 and 40:00 are particularly nice.
112 2014-05-22 22:24:10
Re: Drop the Gamma temporarily (15 replies, posted in General discussion)
I don't think we need any more bots or modules that are just better versions of what we have. It would be nice to have bots or modules that do different things such as a dedicated RR bot that is actually worth playing as your main account in pvp.
A class of larger bots would be cool too, or maybe some small hovering bots.
113 2014-05-21 18:52:56
Re: We need more Betas and Land mass. (68 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
Seems like -more variety of islands- is something that a lot of people agree on.
114 2014-05-21 18:41:13
Re: Detectors and detection (58 replies, posted in Balancing)
Nerf Ewar, Nerf detection, jeez guys, you're too transparent.
So what are "us guys" so transparently trying to do?
115 2014-05-21 18:37:17
Re: Gamma revamp testing (641 replies, posted in Testing server)
Painted zones does sound like a pretty neat solution. Although it could mean very different things depending how big you make them. Maybe the sizes/numbers of painted zone could also vary island by island just for variety's sake
Also, would minerals and plants grow (spawn) inside the painted zones.
As much as I loved my little noralgis garden on Bergers it seems kinda silly that it should be safe behind turrets and choke points.
Another idea, maybe NPCs could stay out of the painted zone. Undocking into an observer spawn was always kinda funny when you have 100s of friendly turrets around you but can't move because a hostile NPC mech is stuck inside your defensive maze.
Things to think about I guess.
116 2014-05-21 11:07:50
Re: Detectors and detection (58 replies, posted in Balancing)
- limit detectors to mech sized bots and above
way to nerf new players! Or to make them run with gimped mechs they can't really run efficiently.
GG
The suggestion is really to make it so that people don't have to run detectors if they don't want to anounce their location to the whole island.
This suggestion makes masked light ewars uncatchable,
It will make them hard to catch, and that is bad becase?
detectors unusable
It would completely change the way detectors would be used. It would be a bold move but I think AC have never shied away from bold moves.
and masking modules a mandatory module.
It would make masking very powerful. I think masking would need some adjusting.
It would also make probes harder to avoid btw.
As far as increasing detection or toning things down, I think making the detection range formula something like
detection range = constant + 1000*strength/masking
could help with some extreme cases like an industrial not seeing a masked ewar until it's on top of it.
117 2014-05-20 23:57:28
Topic: Detectors and detection (58 replies, posted in Balancing)
There is a lot of discussion on this topic in the thread about roaming but I think it really deserves a topic of it's own.
Some of the problems that people have listed are:
- having a detector with your fleet is compulsory unless you want to look stupid
- small, fast detector bots are very hard to chase down or evade once they have seen you
- detectors effectively shrink the available island space because it's so easy to scout most of an island in a few minutes
My suggestions are:
- improve base detection on heavies and industrial bots, imo it doesn't really make much sense that they are so blind by comparison.
- limit detectors to mech sized bots and above
-Add a ping that everyone can see every time the detector cycles.
The idea is that if you want to roll on an island and tell everyone "here we are, come take us on if you dare" you can do that.
118 2014-05-20 22:17:25
Re: We need more Betas and Land mass. (68 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
+1 to more beta islands
119 2014-05-15 12:57:05
Re: New : Fragment Deconstruction Facility (19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
New gamma facility that breaks down fragments
Perfect >> Functional >> Damaged
of course at a cost
Dooo it Devs !!!
Back to the original topic
Why not just rename the bloody things from - perfect - functional - damaged -
to - shiny - pointy - strange - or - complex - regular - simple -
or whatever other combination of three words.
This way people will stop thinking about why the hell you can't turn a functional fragment into a damaged one by hitting it with a hammer.
120 2014-05-11 15:37:47
Topic: More space (8 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
The suggestion is to make more beta islands.
Why?
It is currently not possible to go from beta islands of one colour to beta islands of another colour without interzoning or going via alpha. This seems kind of odd and also make roaming beta less interesting since you have to go through non-pvp zones.
Having more space partly deals with the problem of a single alliance being able to control most islands using spark teleports and does not involve nerfing spark TPs. I am not saying this would resolve all the spark arguments but I think it would make it a bit less of an issue.
Having more entrances from beta to gamma will make it harder for larger alliances to control all gamma access points giving more players the opportunity to try things on gamma.
How?
Well, my crazy idea is to turn the old alpha islands into new beta islands, maybe with a few changes (im thinking of Hershfield in particular), and make new alpha islands.
With recent changes alpha islands have become very tame but their terrain and disconnected highway networks still makes them look like some kind of wilderness. You see people taking some very strange routes that miss all the highways and teleports because they can just use the autopilot.
So why not design new alpha islands that have a regular and logical layout where the obvious routes between teleports are also the ones that have highways.
To save the dev's time and involve the community, there could be a competition in which players design the central (inland) terrain of the island using the available terraforming tools.
The devs could be the ones to pick which islands would be which colour and put strucuters, highways and finishing touches on them.
121 2014-05-06 20:51:39
Re: The official: nerf ewar thread (115 replies, posted in Balancing)
Kaldenines wrote:Gremrod wrote:My views are my own also.
But what if both sides bring ewar? Then it wouldn't be a indefinite stunlock, correct?
Only if you have very similar numbers of ewar on each side. Once one side starts to win it becomes easy to lock down the smaller force.
So lets say ewar is nerfed. But the numbers on both sides of the fight doesn't change. (Meaning one side still out numbers the other side)
Wouldn't we be in the same boat?
When you have a straight gun fight, both sides get the chance to shoot each-other. If one side is completely jammed out after the first few seconds, it's not really a fight.
122 2014-05-06 20:47:37
Re: The official thread: Nerf stacking weapon tunings (37 replies, posted in Balancing)
Troll threads? I think Syndic is making a very valid point there (even if it is intended as a troll).
I think I have officially become the lunatic fringe lol.
Edit: we have to stop meeting like this Martha...
123 2014-05-06 20:37:37
Re: The official: nerf ewar thread (115 replies, posted in Balancing)
Kaldenines wrote:Just for the record, my views are my own, I am not a representative for any corporation.
MoBIoS wrote:In before closed.
It´s a game of rock, paper, scissors, so what´s wrong with the ewar again?
I think the problem with the current ewar mechanic is that its similar to an indefinite stunlock, something that most other MMOs have learned to avoid in this day and age.
My views are my own also.
But what if both sides bring ewar? Then it wouldn't be a indefinite stunlock, correct?
Only if you have very similar numbers of ewar on each side. Once one side starts to win it becomes easy to lock down the smaller force.
124 2014-05-06 20:27:07
Re: The official: nerf ewar thread (115 replies, posted in Balancing)
Just for the record, my views are my own, I am not a representative for any corporation.
In before closed.
It´s a game of rock, paper, scissors, so what´s wrong with the ewar again?
I think the problem with the current ewar mechanic is that its similar to an indefinite stunlock, something that most other MMOs have learned to avoid in this day and age.
125 2014-05-06 00:54:32
Re: The official: nerf ewar thread (115 replies, posted in Balancing)
Kaldenines wrote:EDIT: yes 1<2 will be true but we are talking about the difference between fighting and being unable to lock anything for a few minutes before death. The first involves some kind of input from the player, the latter doesn't involve much at all.
Its official: posting in a stunlock rage thread.
Well, um, yes...
Posts found: 101 to 125 of 360
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Kaldenines
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.091 seconds (88% PHP - 12% DB) with 7 queries