76 Reply by Dazamin

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

Rage Rex wrote:

Old 100% Minus Model
So far it seems all ideas and suggestions still revolve around the concept that practically ALL of Gamma should be subject to Terraforming and Base Building MINUS certain limitations (e.g. terminal caps, minimum distance to terraform around teleports, cpu & grid constraint, etc).

Perhaps Devs should begin at an entirely new starting point.

New Zone Terraforming Concept
Others have mentioned creating designated spots on Gamma where terminals are placed. I believe this idea stems from the issues with terminal caps. But dictating an exact spot for base and terminal placement leaves little room for creativity. Expanding on this concept however, perhaps entire geographical zones can be designated on Gamma where it's essentially free-for-all base building and terraforming. These zones can be 'islands' within the island.

As long as the Island Zones are themselves large enough and spaced away from each other it should allow for Creative Design and ample Defense of the Zone, while still permitting non-resident Pirates and Hostiles to enter the Gamma Island freely and roam for miners and whatever.

Under this Concept Model only ~30% of Gamma would be terraformable, maybe less. But there needs to be plenty of room for aggressors. And even if defenders walled off every zone an aggressor need only dig far enough into one corner to place his own terminal for offense.

No terminal caps necessary. Nor are slope limitations as important. Keep both single tile and beacon terraforming. And forget the CPU/Grid limitations ...if Defender wants 1000 turrets to protect his Island Zone, so be it as long as he cannot effectively Turtle the WHOLE Gamma Island and block Teleports.

Further, Zones should still be on Peninsulas and Shorelines (for better defense) as well as smack in the middle of the island (for refuge and logistics).

If you Devs have your own Vision for what you want Gamma to look like, then design the islands how you want them and then add pockets of sand for us to shovel.

Not sure about all of it, but the general idea is pretty good. The problems with gamma and walls have come from the lack of restrictions in their use. Better to start with possibly too many restrictions and then remove them slowly, than the other way round imo

Go to forum: Testing server

77 Reply by Dazamin

(46 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Xelanthol wrote:

If they sold a "dual package" for a slightly discounted price I would be 100% down for that, as I think THAT is the way perpetuum needs to be played. But steam doesn't allow for multiple accounts currently.

Thats a much more reasonable request, just a discount for buying multiple accounts, since that is basically what you're buying, but you just won't be able to buy the second one through steam (probably). But sure why not have a promotion where you can essentially buy an alt for a reduced price, doesn't require anything to be rewritten, much simpler and a better idea than your original one.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

78 Reply by Dazamin

(46 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

This would make a lot more sense if Perp was still a sub based game, but as it is you can already buy a second character slot for a one off fee, you apparently don't like the way of doing it, but it will work just as well for what you want to do.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

79 Reply by Dazamin

(22 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

So no more tps, not allowed to log off, would you prefer if bots weren't allowed to move once you decided to engage too?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

80 Reply by Dazamin

(16 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Dazamin: you're seeing this too much black&white I think. Obviously hybrid robots will need some balancing too, like not letting people put together heavy mech legs with light robot chassis, but the random system would let us not worry about nerfing each and every possible combination on its own.

And low priority for balancing doesn't mean that we won't change stuff if there are any glaring imbalances, what I meant is that we currently wouldn't want to make any in-depth balancing changes since that usually generates a butterfly effect, possibly making things worse than before. Balancing is a delicate issue and any change needs to be checked from different angles, but I'm sure you know that.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but as you said yourself, the random system would give you some useless combinations and some really powerful ones, I struggle to see how that will be balanced in any way.

I think you will struggle to find an online game, particularly a pvp game in 'early access' that doesn't regularly balance things, its part of the normal process. Even minor issues can grow to be fairly annoying after a period of years without being addressed. This wasn't always the case, things used to be balanced fairly regularly a couple of years back.

I'm sure the butterfly effect would be less noticeable if you didn't take the sledgehammer to an issue (see: armored tps and followbots tbh), but yes sometimes the change wouldn't be great, but that's how balancing works right? its an ongoing process.

I dunno for some people its not a big issue, for other it is. People left the game over various issues but a lot of those issues still exist, gamma is being redone and thats a big deal, but it not the only thing in game.

Go to forum: Balancing

81 Reply by Dazamin

(9 replies, posted in Q & A)

Devs aren't gonna tell you the forums, some can be found here - http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … -formulas/ I think both are in that thread

Go to forum: Q & A

82 Reply by Dazamin

(16 replies, posted in Balancing)

Syndic wrote:

Chill Daz, new players are a priority we need the population.

We can play armchair balancers when theres 1-2k concurrent.

To not be completely negative, new players are a priority, and I know work has been done on the NPE and the mission system, good stuff (I assume, I haven't tried them), hopefully gamma revamp will address some of the serious problems with that system (although I dunno how much that will be for the newbies).

But, "yeah we're working on paint jobs for bots but not any balancing since we see that as low priority "(for two years + so far) and "hey we had these cool bots we wanted to add but couldn't because we couldn't figure out a way to balance them, well GOOD NEWS!! problem solved, we just won't bother balancing them at all, randomly generated pink bots are teh future!!!!!" are pretty depressing things to hear for me at least (I'm sure plenty feel differently).

Go to forum: Balancing

83 Reply by Dazamin

(16 replies, posted in Balancing)

Rage Blackout wrote:

please dont pretend you have been participating in last 2 years

k thx bye

Erm... ok, I haven't and I won't but thanks for the comment I guess...

Here's the weird thing, I haven't really played for 2 years, yet most of the balancing issues are still the same.

Go to forum: Balancing

84 Reply by Dazamin

(16 replies, posted in Balancing)

Syndic wrote:

Chill Daz, new players are a priority we need the population.

We can play armchair balancers when theres 1-2k concurrent.

No need for armchair balancing, we can just have new random hybrid bots that don't need balancing cos they can just randomly generate stats for each one roll

Go to forum: Balancing

85 Topic by Dazamin

(16 replies, posted in Balancing)

So theres the same posts from 3 years ago and Dev Zoom has confirmed that balance is a low priority, aka nothing will get balanced, so why does this exist exactly???

Go to forum: Balancing

86 Reply by Dazamin

(22 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:
Burial wrote:

Any way to break it?

easy.
1. start up a forum campain that its severe issue
2. use the sentence "drives away new player" to put more weight into it
3. make it look like there is no way to counter it, and  gurantees that the user does never lose his robot
4. make a suggestion which new mechanic needs to be added to PvP flags to balance this out.
5. keep bringing up the issue with all your alts and corpmates until its fixed


done.

lol

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

87 Reply by Dazamin

(43 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Anyway, gonna post updated versions on the site fairly regularly, added one earlier, nothing major added Gliders and building /terraforming mods. As always please test.

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

88 Reply by Dazamin

(43 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Doek wrote:

For now, wouldn't that just mean you instantiate the objects using data instead of hardcoded objects? Doesn't seem like that much of a rewrite.

Sure you could do, I'm not sure there would be a massive practical benefit to users though v0v

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

89 Reply by Dazamin

(43 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Squint wrote:
Dazamin wrote:

Pretty close to an initial release, but could really do with a C# bro to look at a couple things, PM me if you can help plsssssssssssssss smile

Well ... I looked at the source code. It is not way I would done things, especially hardcoding all the items. My initial feeling is that I should rewrite the framework, and move the data to csv or xml data files. Let me dig some more over the weekend.

If there are specific issues you want help with PM me for my email address.

Rewriting would almost certainly be the ideal solution, however its simply beyond my abilities as a non programmer. Fixing formulas, etc is my limit smile If someone (or multiple people) is interested on taking on a rewrite, I will assist where I can ofc.

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

90 Reply by Dazamin

(96 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:
Dazamin wrote:
Lemon wrote:

There was a time where armor tanking was effective.

That time has longs since past thanks to a couple balancing patches to 'fix' a few armor fits roll

Well Erps were effective, more than armor in general

well, and because of that they nerfed ERPs, Repair tuner and ERPs a second time.

Ah yeah tunings too I forgot that one, that was aimed at RR right? Fixing a specific problem by nerfing everything related to it, sure I have seen that more than once. smile

Go to forum: Balancing

91 Reply by Dazamin

(96 replies, posted in Balancing)

Lemon wrote:

There was a time where armor tanking was effective.

That time has longs since past thanks to a couple balancing patches to 'fix' a few armor fits roll

Well Erps were effective, more than armor in general

Go to forum: Balancing

92 Reply by Dazamin

(43 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Very early alpha available here - https://profitreloaded.codeplex.com/rel … iew/121276 I am particularly interested in any values that are incorrect so if anything doesn't match what you see in game please let us know through the site, in game on here on the forum.

Known Issues

Shield Absorb Formula
Demob Formula
Sensor Suppressor Tuning Formula
Sensor Booster Formula

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

93 Reply by Dazamin

(96 replies, posted in Balancing)

Burial wrote:

What's exactly so bad with LOS on jamms? Combat already has LOS and so do neuts.

If you want to make the argument that Vagas/Zeniths are squishy then you are wrong. It takes more shots to kill shielded Vaga than it does for double plated and framed Kain.

I still don't like LoS on L-Demobs and wouldn't really want it on anything else. You are right about the Vaga being harder to kill, but thats more an issue of shields vs armor I think, it's just flat out superior for anything that doesn't need to drop shield to use its modules.

Go to forum: Balancing

94 Reply by Dazamin

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

Plug in moar potatoes

Go to forum: General discussion

95 Reply by Dazamin

(179 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Doek wrote:

In the meantime, the statistics are making pretty pictures.

Syndic wrote:

Very often PVP occurs in the middle of *** nowhere


Glad to see all this PvP happening away from TPs and stns, oh wai...

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

96 Reply by Dazamin

(10 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

roll

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

97 Reply by Dazamin

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Static TP layout is apparently fine, so I can't see why you could possibly need this wink

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

98 Reply by Dazamin

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

That web won't come back but the teleport and highway network will be looked at when we get there.

Crushing my dreams sad

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

99 Reply by Dazamin

(189 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Tund Bungler wrote:
Cassius wrote:

I think its time for the Devs to actually play their game and stop making changes based on politically motivated forum campaigns.


They've made it clear they don't like having your get out of jail free card in the game. Why is it hard for you guys to grasp that? Sandboxes don't need warp/teleport in PVP its that simple. Themeparks are still around if you have the need for bubble hearthing.

Except they haven't really, Zoom said that the problem was mostly armored tps and that the 'fix' might be a little much, but it was the easiest way to do it. You've made it clear you don't like tps at all, but thats not the same thing.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

100 Reply by Dazamin

(189 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Jita wrote:

Look I'm sorry your logged off on nova assault and ewar fleet is going to have a harder escape route but that's how balance works. You can't expect to engage and the enemy has to respond anywhere on the island in three minutes. That is not balanced.

Why?

Armored tps may well be op, but please explain why what you describe is unbalanced. You have an undefended Miner / Farmer / w/e on your Island. Your enemy finds them and decides to kill them, explain why they are under an obligation to then hang around and wait for you to form up. They have 'risk free pvp' because you leave targets that can't defend themselves out in the open.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests