You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Dazamin
Shadowmine wrote:Only allow comments from accounts involved in the engagement.
Define involved.
Well its pretty obvious, as theres no other way to do it, names that appear on a killmail, either doing the dying or doing the killing.
Shadowmine wrote:Rage Rex wrote:Tick tock
Lol, that broken *** clock has been ticking for 2 years now... Someone should have that thing looked at..
You guys have stopped trying to pvp for a while now.
You seem uninterested in beta terminals.
You guys are not publically recruiting.
Seems RAD is more relevant right now than STC unfortunately. We all would love for STC to grow a pair and start...defending their saps, attacking ours, coming with a fleet...growing...being a good enemy corporation that makes the game fun.
It seems to me you guys desperately want perpetuum as it was a few months ago...no players...no competition...endless beastmode kills to pad the kill mails.
post that youtube video of you guys taking down empty PHM/Chaos bases......that stuff...the pve...that's what you guys want...not the battles where you might lose.
the tick tock is over man, you guys appear to have given up now that you have a populated and competent enemy alliance to deal with rather than a small upstart and a dying game to deal with.
Problem is, with the game now free to all of us...there isn't not much chance of everyone else leaving so you can bask in the good ole days...all it takes is a ping to draw up people from other games ect. Denying pvp isn't going to save you guys via everyone leaving this time....
Thanks for another *** post, just what this thread needed
I've been receiving reports about this issue probably since more than a year, from all sides. And if something is this prevalent then it surely has some truth to it too. However, I admit the change might be a bit overcompensating because the problem was mostly with armored teles as many of you posted here, but currently this was the fastest way to do it.
This is the general process, get reports about something being broken for a year, do nothing, moaning intensifies, make massive change that doesn't really address the problem or affects a bunch of other things that were never problems.
I don't really know what the answer is, I'd like to say listen to the player base, but in all honesty they've given you terrible advice over the years and most seem to have a massive problem about looking at issues beyond a 'what's best for my group' PoV (I'm looking at you people who though Fortress Gamma Islands were a great thing).
But honestly there are a massive list of things that need balancing and haven't been touched for years, are these things going to end up with the same treatment? As an alternative, how about a commitment to regular small scale balancing. It would really help, you'd be dealing with small targeted tweaks which have much less potential to completely change the game, fixes can be added in a more timely fashion and you get data to see whether bigger changes are needed. If it turns out to be a terrible change you just reverse it or change it again, it has to be better than the current swing from one extreme to another that never really finds a balanced point anyway?
I mean the threads are always good entertainment, but its getting a little old I think 
Editing my double post to change my opinion...
I've thought about it more and I am liking this change less (still happier than before). Mobile TPs are useful for more than just escape. Even the pursuing player uses mobile TPs to quickly chase down targets when possible.
The problem here is and has been Armored TPs.
But again you Devs do a lousy job at isolating Problems before implementing Solutions. So to fix the Armored TP Escape Problem you rework the Flag mechanic on ALL Mobile TP Usage. It's like you Devs close your eyes and fire a shotgun at all your balancing problems. You never hit the mark, or only hit part of it while wrecking all the good stuff around it.
Yes, this is ONLY HALF A FIX because you still leave the incentive for opponents to NOT flag. Thus they can still sit on their Armored TP and escape before committing. Meanwhile Flagged players hoping to engage across the map can't play. The result will likely be even less PvP.
Better solution is to eliminate the Armored TP and leave Flag Mechanic out of the equation.
Hey, an actual good post on the forums.
I always hated the static tps more than mobiles in PvP, TP games sucked. So you expanded their use and then got rid of mobiles in PvP which actually required some strategy. I've never really used Armored TPs, but it does sound like they had a balance issue, being overly hard to kill, which I guess removed strategy from their use. but that isn't a tp problem as much as an armored tp problem, and from what I can see, this whole thing is about armored tps.
DEV Gargaj wrote:Jita wrote:Is there a way comments can be tagged automatically by ip so that you can view a commentors history. This would show those anonymous hero's who multi post.
It should also be considered if a certain number of down votes would then ban that ip
Mmmm, how about an OAuth2 API for the actual Perpetuum accounts? I've been planning to do some API revamping anyway, and having OAuth2 endpoints would mean we could have person-specific data routed through the API without having to worry about unauthorized access.
So long as you have to comment using a name that stats with you I'm game. I don't want to force away anonymous commentors but I would like to know the history of that anonymous guys comments.
yeah wouldn't want to miss out on all those awesome and hilarious anonymous comments...
C-c-c-c-Combo breaker.
Jk
+1
This game NEEDs its vet population now, it doesn't need to *** on them and watch them all leave.
Don't agree with the idea, but 90% of vets are literally the worst thing to happen to Perpetuum , so... 
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
If you want my personal and honest opinion, it saddens me a bit that the community is still not at that point where they would just start organizing guardian squads to protect the miners or the busy transport routes. That would be a true sandbox trait, but maybe I'm just a dreamer.
You're a funny guy
Tbh the API should show who is 'gifting' accounts too!
Its a cool idea to make a separate class for each extention.
I didn't make the initial program and have no intention of remaking the whole thing, so it is what it is. If the coding offends you, feel free to not use it 
Perpetuum fitting tool. 'Profit' is being resurrected, fixed and updated.
If you can code, come and join the project, if not just send me nic as encouragement to work harder or something 
https://profitreloaded.codeplex.com
Profit Reloaded 0.9.0.5 Alpha - Added 20/05/14
Download at
https://profitreloaded.codeplex.com/rel … iew/122460
How to import your extensions
https://profitreloaded.codeplex.com/documentation
Please report any that do not import.
Fixes
Fitting Skills are applied to Miner Modules properly (NEW)
Local Nexus Bonuses are now more accurate
All skills are now imported from extension history correctly
Fixes to a number of bot and mod stats
Issues
When fitting a Shield Gen and Evasive to a bot, please fit the Evasive first. If you remove the Evasive, also remove the Shield Gen and then re add it.
IF YOU ARE A BRO WHO KNOWS C# PLS PM ME TO SAVE ME HAVING TO ACTUALLY LEARN THINGS
I'm sure I've posted this in many other threads, but hey here one more.
The problems that get posted about are essentially the same ones as were being posted about two years ago. Storing up all these things is not a great idea. Regular incremental balancing is the key to success. Having no changes at all is not great. Huge balance patches are fun for a while but they tend to cause as many imbalances as they solve. Some regular small balance tweaks would be very welcome IMO.
So, I've started messing with this, updating stats, adding things like plates adding to surface area. The problem is I have no idea what I'm doing, have no idea how to use C# so I'm gonna be super limited on what I can do. Does anyone who actually knows things feel like getting involved to make this work???
Dazamin wrote:Sundial wrote:Its for the best for the player we hope to get many more of.
Its not for the best for the veterans with many accounts who are used to fairly mobile multiboxing.
I am willing to make that trade in hopes of getting more players and maybe even one day have enough players to have dedicated logi/support pilots.
I have some bad news, people still multibox in Eve, and will still multibox here
But not as easily as follow bots made it. Unless you mean with cloakies, I am obviously talking about multiple combat / logistics accounts.
Well yes and no, I mean they're just as easy in that you can approach or orbit in exactly the same way, but in Eve they are perhaps a bit more vulnerable if in close on top of the main combat pilot and easier to tackle and kill if the guy tries to bail. But that is more of a bot balance issue than a problem with follow, in that they're tough enough and capable enough to not need any real management, just 'set and forget'. I mean I get why people wanted follow nerfed, since balancing is apparently not a thing any more, but I'm not sure an ease of use function like the follow command is the real problem there.
Its for the best for the player we hope to get many more of.
Its not for the best for the veterans with many accounts who are used to fairly mobile multiboxing.
I am willing to make that trade in hopes of getting more players and maybe even one day have enough players to have dedicated logi/support pilots.
I have some bad news, people still multibox in Eve, and will still multibox here
How soon will it be before we can expect new equipment and game play expansion? Please tell me that's on its way even if its just in the "talk" stage...
April Fools has already gone, sry...
There seems to be a major disconnect to what you think is happening, to what is actually happening.
Maybe its changed idk, but the kb doesn't suggest that. People made the same argument you made ever since the system was changed, the problem is, (and I'm sure there's an old thread around somewhere with some stats) that kills and activity went down once the new system was implemented, so its pretty hard to argue it was an improvement in any way.
Well people complain there is no solo activity in this game. Ninjaing Sap loot or even taking the sap can be a highly profitable activity for even the solo new player. And seriously if you intend to own an outpost, some level of defense is required. I think most reminiscing about old battles forget what made them memorable was the number of people involved, not the mechanics that brought them together. Any intrusion system would suck when the population in this game is less than 100 logged in.
The old mechanics encouraged larger fights more than the current mechanics do. The problem is precisely what you say. Ninjaing SAPs is a solo activity that involves no interaction with other players, which seems pretty bad for a 'PvP' territory control mechanic.
Also there were a lot more active players back when we had the old system.
The thing I don't like about the new system is how easy it is to keep an outpost away from 100% (full bonus) stability without ever threatening to take it.
Lets cut the devs some slack though, its hard to design a sov system that does everything you want it to do. CCP is still struggling with it. Having said that, I still think they are intentionally trolling us with the specimen processing sap
There were more players, but don't forget some left specifically over this change.
And yeah thats my major problem with it, that it promotes ninja SAP taking, etc where the whole point is not to actually fight.
I would like to cut them some slack, but its one of a number of things that have needed adjusting but haven't been. It seems like there has been next to no balancing of anything combat related for 2yrs or so, and that makes me 
Smokey am Happy someone is actually remembering it as it was...
There are still big fights, at around when the station is about to flip, or if the players really want the OPs in the first place.
The big alliances will hate this system, the small guys will love it. As your stations increase your work load goes way up as well. I dont see this changing anytime soon, when you look at in objectively.
I remember it fine, probably the most fun I've had in Perp was defending Brightstone from SovNov under the old Intrusion system.
I'm not sure what you imagine this changes for the 'small' guys (except SAP loot), but I don't see it. I guess it gives some opportunities for harassment, but not actual PvP, just messing with SAPs which is pretty boring for both sides.
I think a lot of *rose colored glasses* are going on here. The old intrusion system was dumb. I know you remember M2S signing up to every intrusion for weeks and weeks and never even showing up. It might not be great the way it is now, but IMO it's better then the old system. And people *** about the old system a lot which is why they changed it anyways. Having the fate of your station on the hook every 3 days for a 1 time shot when the enemy outnumbers you doesn't sound like much fun to me.
I wouldn't pretend that there weren't problems with the old system and it needed changes, I think everyone agreed with that at the time, but the new system basically got rid of any chance of decent fights and didn't add anything remotely useful or interesting.
Syndic wrote:The way SAP's are structured is pretty damn *** to be honest.
The outpost should become "locked" at 100 and require attackers to sign up to an intrusion old school style to knock the station into the current mode when saps pop up every 10-16 hours. While at a 100, deposit all current "sap income" into corp hangars.
GG
Signed for justice.
Old intrusions were awesome. New are OK but need the big set piece battles.
Old intrusions had their problems (5am fights) but were so much better than the new system
Its almost like nothing has changed in the past two years 
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Dazamin
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.096 seconds (86% PHP - 14% DB) with 7 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
