26 Reply by BugSplat

(15 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

The unfortunate issue here is that it's an issue of the have's verses the have not's.

T4 LWF is pretty much a manditory fitting just to move beyond a mind numbing crawl, therein lies a major break in the game.  Older, established players/corps have ready access to such items, where newer players are just stuck out in the cold.
Newer players dare not attempt to approach beta islands because they know they'll be overrun by the first T4 equipped light that sees them, piloted by a 5 month old experienced player they cannot match... not because of the difference in EP, but because the older player has a fat corp supplying them with cheap high tier mods the younger player never even sees on the market much less can afford.

And besides, speed (and chiefly the lack thereof), is the biggest thing that kills enjoyment of this game.  Highways should double a bot's speed, straightoff, and there should be highways between all TPs and buildings... but player corps would have to build/maintain them for their own outposts.

Weight should, as stated, affect the acceleration of a bot not its top speed.  Going uphill should not limit top speed either, just increase the affect weight has on acceleration, inversely going downhill.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

27 Reply by BugSplat

(10 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

DEV Crm wrote:

Alright, we recently changed one behaviour which might cause this problem as a sideeffect, we'll look into that.
Are you guys talking about the situation when the NPCs are walking back home through everything? (buildings, unpassable terrain, plants, etc...)

That's not the issue so much, because when they're 'going home' they get a 'pass through anything' flag.  Unfortunately if you chase them and get within their aggression range they suddenly reverse course and sometimes they maintain that flag, pursuing you through buildings and over impassable terrain.  Sometimes that flag resets and they get stuck inside of buildings, but not impassable terrain which they just jerk back to the edge of.

Just turn that flag off entirely.  If players cannot decide they want to go home and ignore terrain/buildings blocking them then NPCs should be just the same.  If they get stuck, they get stuck, just like we do.
Also, set the NPC pathing flag to be a couple of seconds long rather than microseconds.  Currently when an NPC wants to navigate around something and move one direction the pathing flag abruptly resets and they go the other way (dancing NPCs).  Once the pathing flag sets a course let it remain that way for... say... two seconds so that the NPC can start navigating the path.

Also, look into the issue of NPCs shooting through buildings entirely.  This usually happens with triggered spawns as opposed to static.  I've lost count of the number of times I've dodged behind a large building to avoid an NPC only to have it continue blasting me through the building or hill.  This is rampant with Observers, less so with normal NPCs.

Go to forum: Resolved bugs and features

28 Reply by BugSplat

(36 replies, posted in General discussion)

Aerodrome Engineer wrote:
BugSplat wrote:

Looks like an excellent idea!

Can you incorporate the FOOM Scan Application tool as a layer??  Being able to see passable terrain layers while artifacting would be a HUGE boon!

Hum, looking at this page:

http://www.aengr.com/Scan1App/walkthrough.htm

I don't think it would be too hard, but I havn't put much thought into how to actually code it yet.I'll look into it.

Yes, that, I actually use it exhaustively while exploring.  Unfortunately the topo map layers are terribly vague once you get right down close trying to determine where you want to move to.  Having 'impassable terrain' layers visible determined by the bot you're piloting would help out a lot in narrowing things down.

Go to forum: General discussion

29 Topic by BugSplat

(5 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

I just moved up from a Prometheus to a Baphomet and.... OMFG, ouch!
The movement sound is a cardiac monitor attached to a corpse - just one long, ear piercing drone.  I can't imagine how that was some sort of intentional design.

Now it's forced me to turn off all movement sounds, so I can't hear the trudge of a nearby mech or the grind of a passing sequor.  Please, please fix the corpse tone of the Baphomet...

Or someone, please identify that sound in the resource files so I can rename a silent audio file and insert it to replace the corpse tone.

Go to forum: Resolved bugs and features

30 Reply by BugSplat

(74 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

GP, could you look at the Perp Carto program and look into either working with them to have the Scan App incorporated, or using some of the layer masks with your Scan App?

Having the 'navigable terrain' layer option would make it ever so much easier to know which direction I need to go to get around something or avoid a spawn, ect.  As there are different layers for different bot classes that's of paramount importance.

link to post:  http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … -and-more/

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

31 Reply by BugSplat

(36 replies, posted in General discussion)

Looks like an excellent idea!

Can you incorporate the FOOM Scan Application tool as a layer??  Being able to see passable terrain layers while artifacting would be a HUGE boon!

Go to forum: General discussion

32 Reply by BugSplat

(18 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

I also linked the chart via the FOOM wiki site due to it's simplicity and utility.

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

33 Reply by BugSplat

(5 replies, posted in Localization)

Recognizer wrote:

yes, thats only a localisaton-bug

moving to right forum section


Uhm... okay?
So, what then... *does* it increase weapon accumulator usage, or no?

Go to forum: Localization

34 Reply by BugSplat

(20 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

An industrious fellow made a visibly understandable version, it has been linked in the FOOM wiki under Guides.

http://www.mrfisse.com/Perpetuum/ by SteelResolve.

The only thing missing from all of these charts is the industrial types; their rank hierarchy and general resistances, what types of e-war are put out by each tier of industrial NPC, ect.

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

35 Topic by BugSplat

(5 replies, posted in Localization)

Description states that it drains power passively, increasing recharge time on the accumulator.

There is no listed stat for the % of accumulator recharge time.

Go to forum: Localization

36 Topic by BugSplat

(0 replies, posted in Selling Items)

25% - Yagel, Argano, Arbalest, Baphomet, Termis x2 - 1m/ea
50% - Artemis, Gargoyle  10m/ea
75% - Castel 10m, Lithus, Seth 20m/ea

Msg here or in game, but I'm an alt so expect slow response.

Go to forum: Selling Items

37 Reply by BugSplat

(12 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

CTs are not regular drops, even with Science III sites, which themselves are not popping up left-right-and-center.  And when you pin one down only to get a few moderately useful items and a 25% stack of waste paper it really tends to leave a sour taste behind.

If they started at 45% a highly skilled industrial person/corp could produce them at a reasonable return, a few times, before the CT was scrap.  60% and 75% would just increase their usability.  More usable CT's = more affordable Mk2 bots (though honestly I'm not enamored of more slots but no higher fitting stats or... anything else to make them a 'bit more' than a stock Mk1) = more people using them for their PvP fix beyond massive industrial blobs.

With a 25% CT you could build your bot, recycle it, and still have enough mats to build it again with a 50% CT...  the waste is *that* enormous.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

38 Reply by BugSplat

(48 replies, posted in Balancing)

Agreed.
Mk2's are nothing special.  No additional Grid/CPU to cover the two extra slots.  No faster, no additional cargo, nothing.  You're better off just forgoing the Mk2 line entirely until the Dev's do something to make them better than a couple of extra slots.

Oh, they come in handy, don't get me wrong, but with setup parameters for Mk1 still in place they're pretty gimp.

Go to forum: Balancing

39 Reply by BugSplat

(27 replies, posted in Balancing)

Agreed for the most part.
Lower the number, rewards, and standings adjustment for that L1 loop.  Increase them commensurately for the L2+ rat race, and increase the number of L2+ missions available at outposts.
Right now maxing out at 2.1 doing the loop is as far as any sane person would ever want to get... trying to up standings any more by going on repetitive wild-goose-chases all over creation to do the L2+ missions makes a poor industrial player want to gouge out his eyes and go back to Eve, dead as it is.

Go to forum: Balancing

40 Reply by BugSplat

(24 replies, posted in Balancing)

L2 courier missions are even worse!
You'll have 3 missions, total, per outpost, and they send you all over creation to finish them, for the same rewards and standing gains as doing the L1 mission loop... you can just go a little higher in standings.

For industrial types it's flat out counterproductive to do more than the L1 loop, which is far too easy (and lucrative).  The industrial's time is better spent mining and building and never leaving their home station... they just suffer because making standings is a pointless grind to nowhere.

Go to forum: Balancing

41 Reply by BugSplat

(44 replies, posted in Balancing)

Combat missions are a lot more effective, standings-wise, than hauling by far.
Where hauling nets you 0.01% to 0.03% at best, a single combat mission can bring in 0.05% or better.

Granted, the L1 grind loop is far, FAR too easy, but the L2 grind is absolutely mind numbingly counter-productive.  With the L1 loop you can run seven missions simultaneously, but L2 has 1 mission per outpost to any given location, usually another far flung distant outpost, and the standings gains are exactly the same... 0.03%, with the same crop of ammunition you get with the L1 loop.

Lower the number of missions on the L1 loop, increase the number of outpost transport missions, and let the industrials gain their standing without going absolutely insane.

Go to forum: Balancing

42 Reply by BugSplat

(26 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Tallinu wrote:

I saw a discussion in general chat regarding a bounty system, and responded with an idea I've suggested before in other games. Dev Calvin said it sounded decent and asked that I post it here, so here it is.

To collect bounty from a target, you have to destroy something of value. For example, destroying an Arkhe would net you nothing, since they can be acquired for free.

The payout rate could be at approximately 75 to 80% of the value of what was destroyed, so blowing up a bot worth 1 million piloted by someone with a multi-million bounty on their head could net you 800,000 NIC, which would be subtracted from the total bounty amount. The rest of it would remain uncollected, for future battles.

The reason for the percentage of value is so that they can't destroy their own robots to clear away the bounty without suffering a financial loss in the process. This way a bounty is not a "gift to the offender" like it is in EVE Online, where they can simply kill their pod with an alt to collect the money. This way, there's a disincentive to claiming bounties on yourself, and it won't pay out a bounty that is higher than the value of the target.


I suggested this exact methodology to CCP years ago... '04 or thereabouts.  You can see how they've fixed their problem.  If bounties are to be issued then this is about the best method to make it work.
Also, if a bountied target is killed, their insurance pays the bounty first, with the remainder removed from their bounty.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

43 Reply by BugSplat

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Yup, just what we need here... another killboard.  roll

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

44 Reply by BugSplat

(4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:

did you actually read the dev-blog?


Which one, and no.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

45 Reply by BugSplat

(26 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

That's the thing, they're not selling, from what I've seen of the market.

Oh yes, they're there, priced to not move, and they're not moving because the price point is currently set at the 25%-50% CT level offering those with 75% CTs a handy profit, but with a price point that high no one's buying.
And they're also being built in-house so, again, people won't buy what their corp can produce more cheaply.  Yes, certainly, if someone in the corp finds a juicy CT I might drive one, because it's cheap, but currently why bother driving them as they're no different beyond two fitting points.  They have no flavor, just a little added salt.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

46 Topic by BugSplat

(4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

This is seriously limiting the ability of new players of expanding beyond Alpha-1 territory, much less beta.  Currently anything above class 2 mechs spams so much e-war anything less than an assault is sent scuttling back to the shelter of starter terminals.

It's perfectly expected that players will have tons of e-war in PvP, but you don't go into beta looking for a fight with just 1 or 2 team members.  But NPCs are what people take on when they're learning, or when they're doing their solo thing.  Groups of 3 to 5 or more NPCs should not be able to demob x5, neut x5, what-have-you unless they're bad-nasties and even then it should only be one or two of a five unit spawn.

Lowering the e-war of NPCs will allow younger pilots to expand out, explore, and find their spot in the game without forcing them straightaway into a Mech or Heavy just to survive a few light-bot mobs with more e-war than an entire lance of PvP players.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

47 Topic by BugSplat

(12 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Okay, Devs, look into this...

After talking with a lot of industrial folks I've learned that, once a CT reaches around 40% efficiency it's pretty much producing at a loss just in materials alone versus NPC material costs on the market (much less player seeded materials which are even cheaper) and just gets pulled and trashed.

So, if you would, look into the CT drops from high end artifact results.  No, I'm certainly not asking for 75% CTs like candy, nothing of the sort.  But these 25% drops are pretty much trash to be left behind because even maxxed out builders can't produce them, the cost in waste is just pointless.

How about shifting them to 45%, 60%, and 75% respectively.  That way even the lowest end CTs have a few runs of profitability before they're trash (40% seems to be the cutoff point, as stated, though that is not an exact line).

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

48 Reply by BugSplat

(26 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Alexadar wrote:

They are designed for high-skill drivers, who have enough level of reactor and cpu skills.

Incorrect.
Other than a single racial mech skill, they're designed for anyone.  Low EP pilots can cram extenders in the extra slots (CPU/RF, ect) and all...

But it's the fact that other than those two slots it's 100% the exact same bot as a Mk1 that leaves me looking at them with a huge 'meh'.  As EP values get higher those extra slots have more utility, of course, but it's still just an Mk1 hull with two more modules (being squeezed into the same fitting parameters to boot).

Mostly, I think, it's just the 'aww cool, lookatme!  I got a Mk2!'...

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

49 Topic by BugSplat

(0 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I know Perp has it's own unique look and all... scuttle scuttle...  but how about this:
Drive subassemblies which replace the 'legs' with other methods of locomotion, each with inherent strengths and weaknesses.

Legs: Bipedal, Legs: Multiple, Tracks, Wheels.  Drive assemblies do not change the 'leg' mounting points which are enherent to the mech's chassis.

Wheels offer the greatest speed, but not the greatest load bearing capability or hill navigation due to their very small contact area.  Useful for getting somewhere in a hurry but not so good in the field.  Due to the vibration of high velocity on poor surfaces their sensor acuity suffers.
Speed: +100%.  Load: -50%.  Targeting STR/Range: -30%

Tracks offer marvelous load bearing capacity but are the slowest thing since ... well, a brick and a rope.  They are also far less affected by the weight of mounted hardware.
Speed: -50%.  Load: +50%.  -50% modification to speed for the weight of equipped gear.

Bipedal legs are lousy on hills but less affected by the weight of mounted equipment.
Speed: +/- 0%  Load: -25% mod. by equipment weight

Quad- or more legs are faster, and the best of everything when it comes to hills, but are more affected by the weight of mounted equipment.
Speed: +25%  Load: +20% mod. by equipment weight.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

50 Topic by BugSplat

(26 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

What's the big deal?

An extra head and leg slot... color me underwhelmed.  Yes, their utility is great.

Except that the Mk2 bots have no additional CPU/Reactor, the same accumulator, the same hitpoints...  which makes the extra two slots more of a gimp than a godsend.

Make the Mk2 bots a bit better.  Let's say... 5% more CPU/Reactor, so you can actually squeeze things into those utility slots, or make 'me a bit tougher, a bit smaller, a LOT faster?
You know... more flavor.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests