101

(20 replies, posted in General discussion)

Just for posterity, not everyone who plays this game is incapable of respectfully disagreeing with someone.

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.

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

Annihilator wrote:

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

(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

(102 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

Looking for more Euro/African/Russian guys, let us hear your sexy accents.

107

(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

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1

Oh and make plant/wall (even bare ground) tiles shootable with all weapons please!

Shadeless wrote:

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

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Shadeless wrote:

Give people with 1 account a reason to be.

Fixed tongue

+1

111

(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

(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.

Seems like -more variety of islands- is something that a lot of people agree on.

114

(58 replies, posted in Balancing)

Duane Dibbley wrote:

Nerf Ewar, Nerf detection, jeez guys, you're too transparent.

So what are "us guys" so transparently trying to do?

115

(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

(58 replies, posted in Balancing)

Norrdec wrote:

- 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.

Syndic wrote:

This suggestion makes masked light ewars uncatchable,

It will make them hard to catch, and that is bad becase?

Syndic wrote:

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.

Syndic wrote:

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

(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.

+1 to more beta islands

Tux wrote:

New gamma facility that breaks down fragments

Perfect >> Functional >> Damaged

of course at a cost big_smile

Dooo it Devs !!!


Back to the original topic smile

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

(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

(115 replies, posted in Balancing)

Gremrod wrote:
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?

Kaldenines wrote:

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.

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

(115 replies, posted in Balancing)

Gremrod wrote:
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

(115 replies, posted in Balancing)

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.

125

(115 replies, posted in Balancing)

Tund Bungler wrote:
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... smile