1 Reply by Tux

(15 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Many of you are missing the point of this post, it is to encourage new players and new corps to the game by making the crafting system logical. I can understand if you do not like this proposition because you are a player that has been here from day one and anything that doesn’t make any new player have to spend that same amount of time that you did to do things is in some way wrong, but there needs to be some fundamental changes to the way this game works or it isn’t population is not going to grow at any noticeable pace.  The trend now is for new corps to be pressured into merging into already established corps. this does nothing for game diversity or market competition. 

I know many beta players might think this making the game to easy but I think that new players really have no chance in competing with already established corps for at least 4 to 6 months while they gather all of the EP and tech necessary to fill 30+ factory slots to make T4 lines. Not that there is much T4 on the market as it is, but when market price reflects pricing that says “ I don’t care if I sell this I just want to *** others for their NIC” instead of “I should set this at a price that it higher but still in line with its sub tiered version” Something is wrong.
Yes I agree that T4 should take time and effort .. that’s why you have to grind for months to get the tech. Also if you read my first post I am a builder I make T4 I don’t need to buy it. What I am saying is that there is a lot of people like me out there making T4 who are not selling it because of how much time it takes to make, when no one is selling T4 at a “reasonable” price the market dies. The T4 that is on the market is drastically over priced and I am sorry for those who do fall victim and buy it.

You have a problem with build times? Increase the tiered build times accordingly to reflect current build times under my proposition IDK. What I have a problem with is this silly make all of these sub widgets to make one T4 widget.
Example:
T1 widget: 4 Hrs
T2 widget: 8 Hrs
T3 widget: 12 hrs
T4 widget: 16 Hrs

Could you imagine if they made you make the legs torso and head of a Robot before you could actually make the Robot? How mind numbing would that be. Needing to use sub components only make sense if you are customizing something, not if you are making one item that has no variance.

This will not change the cost of Items  made it will just simplify the building process. It will allow builders to build more a variety of items ,So downgrading fits is nonsense. Cheers to you if you spend 5-10 hours a day mining I hope that's really enjoyable for you.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2 Topic by Tux

(15 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I have been looking at many people’s suggestions in order to help fix the market so here is my suggestion, it will take a bit of work on the DEVS part to implement (rewriting lots of code).
From my prospective the reason everyone is arguing that the market is broken / nonexistent is because they cannot find what they want when they want for a reasonable price.  Why ? because builders must spend too much time and energy making Items that people actually want.
Example : I want to sell T4 Widgets to all, first I need to make prototypes of not one item but 4 items, then make a run of each dependent tiered item in order to make the item that I want to sell. This is crazy and a waste of time. Each Item Tier has its own benefit :

T1: cheap , basic module
T2: lighter than T1 but still a low cost solution
T3: Higher Quality over T1/2 and pack more bang for the buck
T4: Superior Quality, high cost, cream of the crop better than T1/2/3 in effectiveness

Instead of making builders make sub tiered items just add the mineral cost of the previous item to the new item.
For example if the T1 Widget is 100 titanium make then the T2 Widget cost 200 titanium and the T3 300 titanium and T4 400 titanium. Allow builders to make a prototype for the T4 widget and just build one item not 3 sub items for that one item. I think this will allow builders to fill market demand. I say this because for me I will not sell on the open market any item T4 that I have to spend 3 to 4 days making for as little as 1.2 mill.
If I could make my T3 or T4 prototype and just build the item I want to sell and not waste all the time on the sub items I would sell it on the market.

Q: what is everyone going to do with all of the T1/2/3 stiff that drops off NPC’s that goes into the production lines now?
A: recycle it for the minerals to build the tiered item you want.

Q: wont this just make the market fill with only T4 modules ?
A: No people like me will sell you all the T2/3 you want, so long as we don’t have to make all of the sub items.

I think this will greatly improve the supply problem with our current market system. as of right now the only items I sell on market are robots, because they do not take sub components to make, I keep all the MK2 to my self because its to time consuming to make them for selling, 2 weeks for MK2 Mech line ??? really ??? there's no way I would sell MK2 Mechs (EW) for less than 40 to 50 mill each and even then no one will buy at that price. Ide rather stock pile these things in anticipation of MK3 Robots.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

3 Reply by Tux

(14 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

IMO the 45 day account reset was fine with me it gives new players a chance to correct their mistakes. beyond that, account and skill resetting is just for flavor of the month fits. I say live with your decisions everyone. Most every fit will get the nerf bat once or twice ... it just sux when its your fit.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

4 Reply by Tux

(2 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Thank You

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5 Topic by Tux

(2 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Devs Please update the website robopedia, as new players come to the game and are looking at what bots they may want to skill towards it will help them to have correct information before they enter the game world (after character creation).

this is not just a irritation of mine but it makes the game look "unpolished" when official website source differs from the actual game. There have been many changes to bots so please update them.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

6 Reply by Tux

(20 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I play sandbox games for a reason and its not for dungeons and instances, please do not add instances to this game. If you are seeking some sort of challenging NPC to kill go hunt Observers. or just try to live hunting npc's on beta.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

7 Reply by Tux

(10 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

makes sense to me +1

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

8 Reply by Tux

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Cobalt wrote:

Oh ok and why not change everything in the game to fit the "superior idea" of messing all the slot type balances for every type of bots/mechs, btw your telling me that, despite the fact ive nearly maxxed all ecm related skills, i would (well i know that will never happen but heh i just feel like to give my pov) in that case be able to fit only 2 of them.... ahah really guys sometimes i wonder...  you gladly ask to change everything in the fitting world so you can fit a demob and have all your head slots?  Clearly its something asked by light/assault pilots that are annoyed to have so few headslots, so they dont have to lose one on demob.  Just try to get some perspective about the fact everyone play the game differently.

This is being asked for by EW / Spec ops pilot. I rarely pilot lights or assaults. it just makes for a good game when you can add tuners for all types of items. ill let the DEV's figure out where they want to fit modules so it works with their plans. I just want to be able to boost my EW skills with tuners because skills only go so far, just as is the case with weapon damage and mining yield. 

They can leave everything as is and make the ew tuners fit in to turret or mics slots IDC. but EW pilots dont have the same boosting capabilities as pure dps pilots which is in a way unbalanced.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

9 Topic by Tux

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

This post is a request to add tuners for more module types to the game. Currently we have industrial tuners, missile tuners, magnetic gun tuners, laser gun tuners, and assault cannon tuners. I think we could use tuners to give bonuses to:

ECM cycle time | strength
Sensor Suppressor  cycle time | strength
Energy Drain cycle time | amount 
Demobilization cycle time | strength
Neutralization cycle time | amount 

These are some examples but the general idea is to allow for more focused specialization for players who want play in specific roles.

I do not think this would un balance the current system because there are currently tuners already in game and that does not cause an unbalance in current play.

….. more to come

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

10 Reply by Tux

(18 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I have read many of the comments that were made about my post, some constructive some not. I would like to say that in my first post that this module would only be used by Spec. ops class robots so there are a total of 6 bots in game that would be able to use them 3 light and 3 Mech class bots.

Any bot can fit a masker and try to hide, that is not what I want out of this topic. I want the Developers to introduce modules that are class based, to make specialization “special”. The other way to go about this is to give masking | cloaking bonus to Spec. ops robots but I think using the module and making it only useable by the Spec. ops class robots will add more depth and functionality to the class. 

Examples of scouts sitting on gates and stations is understandable but if the module works as I described you will have to be sitting in a light ewar (~1.2 mill ish bot) or a mech ewar (~5 – 6 mill ish bot) these are not cheap bots and would be wastefull to use them as gate bait scouts “IMO”. But im sure people will do whatever they please.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arga 2011-08-12 19:02:10

This seems like the same mechanic as signal masking, except without a counter. How would this be countered, and if your vision is that it can't be, how would that be balanced?


To this I say we can use interference modules to scramble the cloaking bots sensors making them reappear. This may need some adjusting from the current useless state of the interference modules but you could jump to a Teleport fire off one of these rounds and anything with in 500 to 1Km will be un cloaked.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AeonThePiglet wrote:

EVE cloaks drop you to 10% of your speed, gobble fitting and won't let you warp or activate modules while you have them active (unless it's a covops cloak on a covops ship, in which case you get to ninja around on ships with all the tank of butter except for uuuuungh the Pilgrim).

I don’t intend to fight comparisons of Petpetuum to EVE, I played EVE for years and got board of the game. This is not a specific request for cloaking, it is a request to make the Spec ops class of robots unique to other robots and give them modules that benifit them so far there are no tuners in game that benefit Spec. ops robots. You can sub cloaking module for module that gives decreased ewar cycle time and increased effectiveness if you want.

There are 3 light 3 assault 3 mech and 3 H mech combat class robots that use standard robot control skills, these six compared to those 12 should have modules that only they can or benefit by using. The industrial class robots all have modules that really only benefit them by using IE harvesters,  miners, industrial tuners etc. IF the Spec. ops class had an Ewar tuner then I may not be making
this post but they don’t.

Train skills ? yes but you can do that for any class.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
Maskers could accomplish the same thing if they were limited to Spec. ops and given a small boost, my base complaint here is that we need to do more to increase the diversity of the robots in game. Im waiting patiently for the new planned assaults I hope I hope there going to be useful.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

11 Topic by Tux

(18 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Spec. Ops Stealth / Cloaking Module
First I want to say that maskers in the game are less than effective when smart people run signal detectors.

The current Special Operations robots in the game are more support / logistics bots rather than truly special operations. I like the concept of Spec. Ops robots that have capabilities reserved for only them, the current robot bonuses does help this but I suggest making modules that only the Spec. Ops class of robots can use. For example why is the Castel the best choice for a scout / detector? This role should be at its best in a Spec. Ops robot.  Sure every bot should be able to boost their detection strength, but the Spec. Ops robots should be well versed in the scouting / intelligence field so they should have added bonuses.

Here is an Idea for creating a Spec. Ops “only” module that makes Spec. Ops more of a Spec. Ops role than a support role in fleet battles.

Stealth Module
“this module encapsulates the robot in a field that creates an illusion of invisibility at long range, however powering this field inhibits all other weapon systems for the fields duration. Target locking, signal detection and robot speed are all effected in the duration of this field.”

Only one of these modules can be equipped. Only Spec. Ops robots can equip this module.

[[[ EXAMPLE ]]]

Standard Stealth Module
Parameters
Engine
CPU use                    75 TF
Reactor use                25 RP

Slots
Type                        Active
Slot                        Head

General
Mass                        50.0 KG
Packed volume            0.10 U

Specific
Accumulator consumption    50.00 AP
Cycle time                    10.00 sec
Speed reduction                25 %
Signal detection reduction     10 %
Deactivation distance        200m

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[T2] Stealth Module
Parameters
Engine
CPU use                    75 TF
Reactor use            25 RP

Slots
Type                        Active
Slot                        Head

General
Mass                        50.0 KG
Packed volume            0.10 U

Specific
Accumulator consumption    50.00 AP
Cycle time                    10.00 sec
Speed reduction                20 %
Signal detection reduction     7.5 %
Deactivation distance        175m

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[T3] Stealth Module
Parameters
Engine
CPU use                    75 TF
Reactor use            25 RP

Slots
Type                        Active
Slot                        Head

General
Mass                        50.0 KG
Packed volume            0.10 U

Specific
Accumulator consumption    50.00 AP
Cycle time                    10.00 sec
Speed reduction                15 %
Signal detection reduction     5 %
Deactivation distance        150m

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[T4] Stealth Module
Parameters
Engine
CPU use                    75 TF
Reactor use            25 RP

Slots
Type                        Active
Slot                        Head

General
Mass                        50.0 KG
Packed volume            0.10 U

Specific
Accumulator consumption    50.00 AP
Cycle time                    10.00 sec
Speed reduction                10 %
Signal detection reduction     2.5 %
Deactivation distance        125m

*The deactivation distance is how far the equipped robot can come to another robot before the field becomes ineffective at creating the illusion of invisibility. This applies to all NPC, and robots not in the equipped robots current squad.

I think this module can be implemented with little challenges to coding, and would make Spec. Ops robots fit the role of Spec. Ops better than they do now.More Spec. Ops suggestions to come

this may come down to some thing as simple as why do Spec. Ops bots not have the highest detection and masking values ?? Is a troiar not more adept at electronics than a castel:|? this system makes little sense to me when mechs and lights are used as detector and forward scouts over Spec. Ops bots. lights fill a simple role as small fast ships with light damage. mechs fill another role as the damage dealing core of an attack force. Spec. Ops should fill the role of recon / scout and specialized warfare support that IMO is the nature of the classes

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests