Arga wrote:

A reason to PVP other than intrusions, and here it is. Transitioning from alpha to beta allows for more opportunity of an encounter than simply moving between outposts on a Beta Island.

That isn't a reason to PvP, it's an opportunity. A reason to PvP would be for economical, tactical or strategic gain to name but a few. You could argue that what the Lithus drops would be economical gain however from your post I deduced that you were referencing the general feeling that we need POS/Territory Control/Terra forming as reasons to PvP. This Lithus example isn't something that we don't already have a reasonable amount of.

Bawdrick wrote:

PVP should be easier to get to and last longer.
The patch makes PVP easier to get to but PVP will still be far too short with little time for anything but tactical running away when you can't win.

I disagree PvP needs to last longer as there have been many fights both small and large that have lasted for over an hour, it's simply dependant upon the situation. I personally like the fact that PvP can be over quite quick as it lends itself to a more skill full activity, you have less time in which to make good decisions, bad decisions are amplified over a shorter length of time as opposed to a long length of time where you would be able to correct them and negate the effect.

What PvP needs to be is meaningful and less optional however that's a completely separate topic.

28

(45 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I'm putting it out there, I'd be happy with a full EP reset once per year.

I'm not buying the FOTM BS, that argument is flawed from the word "Month" onwards. The reset would be once per year so congrats, you got into the best bot of a particular month now you can "suck" the rest of the 11 months in the eye's of those that use this argument (I think the entire argument is *** for a variety of reasons although not entirely relevant right now).

Perpetuum is catering to a niche however it still needs to be different from other sandboxes. Keeping EP dynamic and fluid when all other related games keep you tied down for your accounts entirety would be good in my opinion.

Annihilator wrote:

like the interference implementation had only a small effect on bigger pvp battles, (until recently i heard), will this one not affect gameplay pretty much..

I'd go so far to say that interference hasn't changed the outcome of an engagement in comparison to if it wasn't there.

I've nothing against an implants system as long as it doesn't effect your EP in any way shape or form.

Arga wrote:

M2S is berrating 62'nd for joining with another beta alliance for intrusions, but the reality is that alpha based corps are at such a disadvantage that they can not directly threaten beta corps (they can and do some damage, but nothing that would actually threaten continued beta operations).

We're not berating 62'nd or any other Alpha corporations for being with a beta alliance. What we are doing is berating the ones who proclaim to be neutral entities not affiliated with the beta alliances but then go and do exactly the opposite, the whole duration claiming they aren't. As I've said before I could care less what people do in this game, just don't try and convince people you're doing A and not B then go and go B whilst still proclaiming not to be.

Mara Kaid wrote:

This isn't meant as an insult styx, but when you wake up in the morning do you have a cup of rage and just tear a new *** into people's arguments?

It seems you don't understand the pre-tense to Anni's suggestion hence the misguided interpretation of my response, let me enlighten you. I highly suspect Anni has a personal vendetta against M2S, he bears quite a lot of animosity towards us at any rate. This leads to his disillusioned ideas aimed at inhibiting the game for M2S and those of a high level. Had Anni produced a well thought out idea that served a needed purpose in the game I'd quite happily pass his posts by however the idea isn't well though out in any sense of the word nor does it serve a needed purpose. When you think about it, the idea really is quite stupid in it's current state yet Anni continues to promote it.

Annihilator wrote:
Styx wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

Higher level NIC sinks could be volume based corp storage fees (50k for unlimited space is a bit low, don't you think?)

Stop with that stupid volume based tax idea, seriously. Apart from the fact it's a completely stupid idea it has so many holes you could make a jpeg out of it and Siddy would enjoy it.

i wonder how you would put a hole into that, if its not only for corp storages....
placing your goods on countless alt-account private storages? good luck in distributing everything around the globe on 100eds of agents

Anni has very little assets and not much to his name thus wants to hurt anyone who is doing well in the game whose put in the effort in an attempt to bring more people down to his level. Yeah, great balancing there. Idiot.

GLiMPSE wrote:

I think it's a great idea despite what Styx says. It will work to punish the unorganized blob and increase the whining about the DEV's catering to M2S's needs.

Despite what I say? My statement is correct in regards to the post it was referring to. Should all things stay the same adding new NIC sinks wouldn't encourage people to buy from the market but the opposite. However if you added new low-level resource sinks for new features aimed at beta dwellers then yes, the market would be simulated providing the demand of the additional resources was great enough to not be outweighed by what the beta dwellers could already mine.

Kalsius Dakalsai wrote:

Add higher level NIC sinks so the alliances and large corps NEED to buy stuff from the Market

How does adding higher level NIC sinks encourage alliances to buy from the market, if anything it will reduce the amount they purchase in order to save NIC for those higher level sinks.

Annihilator wrote:

Higher level NIC sinks could be volume based corp storage fees (50k for unlimited space is a bit low, don't you think?)

Stop with that stupid volume based tax idea, seriously. Apart from the fact it's a completely stupid idea it has so many holes you could make a jpeg out of it and Siddy would enjoy it.

FYI I don't appreciate whoever it was from IBS proclaiming that we have an alliance policy where by we force our members to PvP. We've never had such a policy and we still don't. So please STFU unless you've got your facts right.

Annihilator wrote:

and there are you wrong - thats not the intention of the interference system. Your missing an important part of it.

The main factors at play are that we don’t have robot collisions or friendly fire, and these two factors allow for large numbers of players to move as a single, small unit and one-shot-kill anyone they see. Fixing this issue is quite a tough challenge

From the developer blog. Insert another coin and try again.

Annihilator wrote:

so, definition is - anything that acts as group with more members as the present m2s group is a blob. big_smile

It seems you've completely failed to either read or understand my post since I explicitly stated that there is no single definition of a blob.

Annihilator wrote:

the intereference system doesn't affect anyone, because when it takes place, its on both partys (negating the effect in total). Its one of the reasons i was against a debuff.

This is not why the interference system doesn't work. The interference system is designed to project negative effects onto those who form up with significant numbers of people in a confined space. The current effects exerted when these circumstances are met are not sufficient enough for the people being effected to change their group composition meaning that the overwhelming large group of people so close together that you cannot engage them in any form other than suicide will stay just that, interference or not.

Arachnix wrote:

So styx, do you mean a blob: as is a squad moving Together or is it an large amount of unorganiced people moving together? ... And what if there is a large Organiced squad moving together?  Iv herd a blob is a big amount of people moving toghether in thesame "squad" ( pack ) and having thesame goal, no diffrence what the outcome of orders is. i can say to my guys, act stupid and that makes it a blob? or a bunch of organiced people acting stupid ? :>

Where you're failing is by trying to have a single definition of a "Blob". Whether or not something is or isn't a blob depends on a variety of factors. I was simply stating one of those factors in my opinion.

Jita wrote:

Then I would say remove the cap on interference but splash damage from bot deaths is dumb.

Something we agree on. Interference should have the cap removed and it should effect the most important factors in combat such as locking range significantly more. The idea of splash damage on robot death sounds nice however it will harm those who are organised that keep their groups tight and coordinated versus what I would define as a "Blob" who are largely un-organised and spread out as a result. The only reason the "Blob" is as effective as we've seen is because their cumulative attributes such as HP and accumulator are greater along with the ability for someone taking damage to be absorbed by the group whilst continuing to push the smaller group away. Unless the smaller group can kill those in the larger group in their initial volley they are powerless.

Jita wrote:

well if an alliance could put a hundred man group together the interference would be mentally bad. I dont doubt they'd do two groups of fifty.

That's sort of my point. Even though people reach the maximum interference levels quite frequently nobody cares about it enough to split up their group. Interference as it stands is a joke.

Jita wrote:

thats because theres no group at the moment who can put a gang together big enough to need it. I suppose the question is does the game want fifty man gangs or does it want them smaller.

Big enough to need what?

Jita wrote:

tbh i think the current blob mechanics are fine really. Nothing wrong with gangs in the fifties but its when they get in the hundreds that things get dumb. The current mechanics prevent that.

Current Mechanics? Interference needs to effect range significantly more or speed, otherwise it's a joke. As has been proved time and time again when no one pays any attention to it when creating your squad composition.

Annihilator wrote:

:Stuff:

We're getting into semantics here but if you think the attacking force of 19 versus 46 in that very short snippet of a long fight was the "Blob" then you need your head checking. The M2S squad there was relatively small and extremely organised. We weren't in such a confined space because that's where the ECM or RR guy was, the squad was there because I told them to be. That's one of the defining characteristics I have for a blob, whether or not they can execute complex commands in an orderly and timely fashion, if you can't then you're probably part of a blob.

Your statement regarding blobs is also rather contradictory, you said that in the picture we were the blob however we were 19 versus 46.

Annihilator wrote:

It's hard to find a real definition of "blob", but someone once told me, its a term for a bigger number of player moving together in a relative small area.

However you are right in one sense Anni, in that very specific situation we would've had the most to lose should we have had AoE used against us.

Arachnix wrote:

Totaly agree with Styx on this one, Think about mabe you have a 7 vs 20 situation. happends very often now days. that gives the 7 peple the small help with Area of effect damage that Explotions and fireing gives to the "blob".

I'm not sure what you're agreeing with since I was only making a statement. I actually disagree with what you're saying. Unless AoE kills absolutely everyone on field when used it'll be just another tool that those with more people can use against those with less.

The only way you can kill a group bigger than yours is to whittle them down whilst not losing any of your own squad. No game mechanics will solve this however presenting people with more options will allow for more interesting and complex tactics and strategy. This added complexity is how small squads kill large ones, because the small squads can utilise the added level of complexity better than the large squad can. AoE damage isn't complex, it's really rather simple hence will benefit the larger squads that can utilise simpler mechanics more against smaller entities.

Annihilator wrote:

i would ask both what they think of the planned "robot explosion splash damage" or AoE weapons.

one as representative of the attacking mech blob, and one as representative of the defending mech-blob.

You're wrongly assuming that they're both blobs.

48

(190 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

Fourfingers Frankie wrote:

:fail propaganda attempt:

The lack of activity is an issue everyone in the game has had to deal with. Others such as Norhoop have overcome this by simply absorbing more people to replace those who left. Infestation has stuck to our quality of quantity principles meaning we only recruit corporations who we deem are of sufficient quality to be part of our alliance, incidentally this number has been zero.

As for M2S, we cleaned out those who were in-active. I could say the same about RG losing 1/3rd of its members in the last week along with how you've dropped from 800 people when you were in "No Hope" to the 115~ you are now - but we all know that's bullshit and I'm not going to try and shove it down anyone's throat unlike yourself.

Regarding the rest of your terrible attempt at a propaganda post. The statistics, reasoning and evidence for everything that has happened in-game thus far is well documented. Those with intelligent minds are more than capable of seeking out said information and forming their own conclusions. As hard as you may try Jita you really are quite bad at propaganda posts, thankfully the people whose opinions M2S and Infestation care about can see through it.

49

(48 replies, posted in Balancing)

Purgatory wrote:

This is a tyrannos Mk2 we're talking about, not a tyrannos. I think the Mk2 should be able to do something better than the Mk1, otherwise what's the point in having an Mk2? There may be some low cost fits that can make use of the extra slots on the Mk2 but those are few.

It's still a Tyrannos which is quite a a few weeks below the Gropho when computing the EP requirements for a good pilot in both. Even though it may be a MK2 I don't see why you seem to think it should be able to do something just because the Gropho can.

50

(48 replies, posted in Balancing)

Purgatory wrote:

The moment i lose a slot to fit a head slot cpu booster my fit fails, the gropho doesn't suffer this problem. T2 gropho would though. My fit achieves 730+ range when paired with another mech of the same fitting, the gropho can do it but the MK2 does not have enough cpu to use the misc slots.

What makes you think a Tyrannos should be able to do something just because it's big brother the Gopho can.