(93 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

plz use alarm clock.

Whichever station the mats are, bang it on the market if the stack has not been touched for over 6 months, you could have a fail safe way of monitoring for activity where if the stacks have been moved to a folder and back again to keep serial hoarders happy, price=50% of lowest market.

Ville wrote:

It's quite silly to point fingers and say this person exploited this and that and etc...  Because even with infinite assets you still have to field those assets.  Regardless how much Nic you have robots etc...  It doesn't mean *** unless there's players in the bots.

I totally agree Ville, it just annoys me when certain people throw mud around and ignore the huge elephants in the room because it suits them.

Because of that mud we now have broken NPC farming on Beta etc, mainly jealousy and spitefulness causing that.

Jita wrote:

Since you made it exploiting mission and beacon mechanics are we supposed to care?

We know which Corp the serial beacon abusers were members of, they spent years abusing those mechanics and own more materials and resources than every other player put together in game and they were not and never have been members of 77' nor cir.


(56 replies, posted in Balancing)

Mr Dude wrote:

Or you can add heavier bots.

Heavier modules are a far better solution, then you have choices.

I can't believe that this sh*tfest of a balance patch is still here, so many players just gave up after that.

Annihilator wrote:

sure you do, because that means almost everything can then simply run away from them, or keep save distance.

Which is bad how?

Burial wrote:

That's some gossipmag slander, I'd never do such a thing. big_smile

To be honest Burial, if dying by NPC were included in the kill/death ratio, yours would make even Beastmodes look superb.

Blocker wrote:

It may work well in PVE. Maybe that would be an acceptable compromise for you guy's ? Jita, Syndic your thoughts?

could be exploitable, how many people run into NPCs to die already/


(12 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Burial wrote:
Nooodlzs wrote:

PTW business model.

Haven't looked much into it. Is it that bad?

Although they haven't explained their business model as yet, it smells too much of archeage type PTW, the Devs mentioned in one interview that Path of Exiles cosmetic only microtransaction model was too erratic which doesn't bode well.


(12 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

yet another medieval setting... boring.

Agreed, twitch based melee MMO with a PTW business model.

Burial wrote:

Pre-patch Castels/Troiars and 800m short-demob Zenith were IMBA AF imo.

Castel would be the only one I can agree with but then again they could be easily countered, even so, reverting the patch and living with that is far preferable to this crock of s**te we have atm, small tweaks could be made over time.

Annihilator wrote:

there was a request from me to change balance, and to change ewar.

none of the requested things have been put in place, so blaming any player for what has been put in place is just your personal agenda

facepalm gif.

Burial wrote:

What changes do you think the game needs?

Balance patch reverted, that would at least make PvP interesting and fun once again, see what happens to player numbers after that.

STC whined for months about Ewar being too powerful, it was correctly argued that nerfing Ewar would make Ictus King and nerfing Ictus would turn the game into heavies online, Burial was one of the biggest Ewar whiners.

Green combat bots getting screwed as well was a basic moneygrab which didn't work, just decimated active player numbers instead.

With Green bots being useless, Seth Mk2 became king, undemobable arbelests, screwed tackling.

I will repeat what Inda said a while back

I want back:

Zenith mk2 long range

arguing that unlocking stations will help population is counter productive when a full 33% of the available combat bots are hardly used because they are a liability on the field and that there are only a limited amount of fittings for about 5% of combat bots to make a squad effective with no counters.

Jita wrote:
Nooodlzs wrote:

Could argue the reason we have 10 players online is because of the poor Beta ownership mechanics. I know we'd play more if more sides could co-exist on Betas and I know many from your side would log in more if the game had more PVP.

You keep telling yourself the same thing in that little echo chamber you all live in but it doesn't make it true. Some people wanted to rebalance Ewar (its still broken). The balance patch removed racial bonus' created undemobable arbalast mk2 and because of the racial bonus change made the Seth mk2 best at everything. Thats nothing to do with an ewar change.

Demonising individuals to make yourself feel better doesn't change the facts. The facts are nobody is playing. The facts are a significant portion of the playerbase would have played if this change would have happened (Joke alone went to 12 people in a week when it looked like Zoom was going to do it). The fact is the game is more dead after three months than it was.

Another six months will bring the same result - without room to grow and play the game will always be a single entity stranglehold. Whoever that entity is doesn't matter, its the mechanics that are the problem and the lack of emergent gameplay. Worrying about station games when there is nobody living in them and nobody fighting is insanity.

If you are going to accuse me, at least quote me correctly!

The balance patch screwed any chance the game had to grow, Syndic predicted this, Burial and the cold dregs of STC whined for months for these changes.

Revert the patch now, then lets see what happens to GC.

Burial wrote:

Could argue the reason we have 10 players online is because of the poor Beta ownership mechanics. I know we'd play more if more sides could co-exist on Betas and I know many from your side would log in more if the game had more PVP.

The playing population started dissapearing after the atrocious balance patch that you for one, whined and whined for, I admit that there were not a great amount of people playing before but that patch made GC drop from 100+ to what you have now, reap what you sow.

I for one haven't really logged in since, what's the point, Seth Mk2 online is boring, maybe if you and your ilk fessed up and admitted that your whining was misplaced, petitioned for a rollback on the balance patch and that Syndic was correct with his prognosis all along, we would have a far better balanced game with more people willing to put the effort in.

The only reason you want station unlocking is for station games, which alongside gate games is your only playstyle, for which Seth Mk2s are ideally suited, especially with no counters.

One word against Station unlocking, FOOM, I was there and it was broken as hell.


(1,455 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:
Burial wrote:

You're delusional. Look at the killboards.


With a game of a dozen active players looks about right.

Of course you would know that if you actually logged in and did more than hauling with scarabs and did more pvp.

I see no Ictus in either killed or used, wonder what's up with them? lol


(1,455 replies, posted in General discussion)

Jita wrote:

Its a fact that nobody in the game can beat the fifty odd people POE can pull together. Even if the planets aligned and someone managed to pull together enough to do it then POE couldn't beat that and the game is in the same position.

Beta has been owned by STC and after that CIR for years and none of those alliances lived there. The sole reason for holding it was to prevent others from doing so.

That's just bad gameplay and bad mechanics and needs fixing.

I have always lived on Beta, I farm on Beta, I would do missions on Beta but what's the point when Alpha missions pay 400-500% more for time spent.

As to Station Unlock, one word.... FOOM, I was there for that as a member of Foom, it was fun but it was stupid and that is the the only reason you want the stations unlocked, especially with your gazillions of accounts.


(22 replies, posted in Balancing)

Unlocking stations will make it MORE dangerous for risk averse players, at least now they know where the players that they want to avoid actually have their PvP assets.

Actually scr*w that, even if you gave those same risk averse players free bots and no consequence PvP, they STILL would not venture to beta or gamma.

Reduce rewards on Alpha, increase rewards for beta then maybe you would see more people venturing to beta.

Just look at the mission system ( yes I know it is being overhauled but by that time probably 6 months will have passed) it is about 400% more profitable to do level 5s on Alpha than it is on Beta.


(7 replies, posted in Bugs)

Annihilator wrote:

lol, how 'bout playing the game to see what the difference between those bots is.

Yes I know the difference but really, is the game that perfect that this oddity needs fixing before other things?

+1 to the green bots dropping machine guns / autocannons.


(7 replies, posted in Bugs)

Annihilator wrote:

minor bug, just wanted to write it down somewhere,
even though i said that before the patch last year that it will happen:

they still drop missile launchers, actually plenty of them.

So do Arbelests, Kains and Artemis, what's your point?

Annihilator wrote:

corpmates don'T have a relation settings... they are "corp members"... just like for proxy probes or landmark filter.

Well as someone who doesn't want my outpost to shoot me or my corpmates, I have never tested it, so I will take your word for it, saying that corp members are classed as friendly/green so setting your turrets to attack friendlies, should, by default kill you and your corpmates, remember in probe interface you have a corp checkbox and on landmark filters they are classed as friendly / show as green.

But all of other Deathpaws concerns are covered by the interface alongside the relationship screen, I still can't see why the interface is a problem or why it is wrong though, it is pretty foolproof.

DeathPaw wrote:

Ok, if u insist in a reason to shoot friendlies...  Let's say u have corp mate(s) that u just  discovered is a thief and is attempting to get stuff off of gamma.  Move the slider and he/they are...DEAD.  Or maybe u just want to screw with a friendly!  Or maybe u are just testing the turrets.  Or maybe...  Get the point?  And yes, I know there are other ways of accomplishing the preceding.  It does not matter WHY.  What matters is it's wrong!

Kick the offender from corp, solved.

Undock and kill him yourself, solved.

By your method, how do you set the Outpost to be totally open so that anybody, regardless of relationship can use it?

You can't.

With the situation as it is now, you can do everything except killing corpmates INCLUDING yourself, could you imagine the QQ if you accidently forgot to reset the outpost settings and undocked, getting killed in the process and NONE of your corpmates or yourself could approach and dock to reset them.

Or that same corpmate that was stealing set them to kill everything.

Which method would you then say was WRONG?

DeathPaw wrote:

if u set turret relations to friendly, they shoot good and below.

That is correct then, the slider is a filter.

If you could shoot friendlies, that means it would shoot you and your corpmates when you undocked, which is stupid.

I know what you are trying to say but ATM the settings give you the lesser of 2 evils, the way you are describing means that you could shoot yourself and your corpmates and also could not run a totally open outpost where anyone could dock, regardless of relationship to the owner.

The way it is now is good, you just use your corp relationships to police it.

What is the point of setting it up to shoot friendlies, if you want to do that use the relation system, set them blue and put slider up to friendly.

As far as I can see, they work perfectly.