(184 replies, posted in General discussion)

Wanna make Perp great again?

Get a no non-sense millionaire/thousandaire to buy the franchise (how much can Perp get on the market?) and drain the swamp. 

The Swamp being the current owners/coders.

Otherwise this will remain a part time gig for a couple Hungarians and a few dozen fanbois.


(149 replies, posted in Balancing)

Lastly, do something about the trees.  There are too many and too densely packed where it is killing:
1) the long range and
2) the rapid-over island running fights


(149 replies, posted in Balancing)

Burial wrote:

Fix Beta reward and improve PVE.

I disagree, for those that are filthy rich (like -77-), beta has little value.  For relatively new players (1 year or less) beta is wildly valuable.  NSE even gave me stats on the NIC they make mining EPI vs any other mineral.  For them it's VERY valuable.

Other things that are valuable are SAP loot and mission standings (and the tokens that come with it).

I guess once you have stacks of EPI, faction ammo, and cortexes the value drops for you, it only makes sense.


(149 replies, posted in Balancing)

Increase mass of all plates by +50%
Decrease mass of protos from regular versions by -25% (instead of -50% as they are now)

Don't make any other changes until this goes live.

About tuning stacking:
This was never an issue before the patch, it only showed itself now because you can get 120+ kph Arbalests that are full of buffer tank and undemobable.  No need for other mods with that kind of build. 

Again, we have had 4+ years of this game in existence and tuning stacking only became a "problem" now.  It is only a symptom not the actual issue.


(3 replies, posted in Balancing)

The new skill "Combat robot specialist" on all 3 assault bot factions (Arbalest, etc.) should be altered as follows:

Optimal range ->to-> Weapon optimal range


(62 replies, posted in Balancing)

I'm going to have to agree with Burial and DEV Zoom.  I actually like the changes BUT I do think some tweaks will need to be made.

One problem I see is that the Castel, when fitted in a combat role (i.e. missile launchers) my speed drops into the 90's.

Combat lights should NEVER be slower than heavies.  I'm not sure of the speed of combat yagels and proms but they all should be more than 110 kph fully combat fitted.

As far as the demob-resistant Arbalests, I actually welcome the change, but there may need to be small tweaks to speeds made at some point.

Overall, I've enjoyed the changes, especially since I like to see what I can exploit personally and additionally to come up with counters against what new stuff the enemy throws at us.

Thumbs up to a slightly flawed, yet VERY enjoyable patch


Nerfing stacking (ala EVE) leads to less fitting options.

BAAAD idea.


(94 replies, posted in General discussion)

This is why chassis scanners are in game, something EvE did not have (at least when I played).


(65 replies, posted in Balancing)

Jita wrote:

Well there's a theme here isn't there. Nobody was very happy with all yellow spawns on alpha change either.

Here's an idea:


try that.

Clarified in yellow big_smile


(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Jita wrote:

Actually us shutting down the ability to get these crazy amounts of stuff hurts us more than any of you because we haven't done it and corps like 77 CIR and STC have abused the hell out of it. Thus gives us a stuff disadvantage.

PRIMARILY because we were c*ck blocked from taking initia from noobs so that we couldn't benefit from the beacon thingy and SECONDARILY, its the right thing for the game so I couldn't care less.

Updated your post for accuracy big_smile

And based on your posting frequncy it seems you care a whole lot more than you are admitting to...

Burial wrote:

PVP needs exits.

1) The losers must be able to fight back or flee in some way.
2) The losers must be able to inflict some degree of losses on the winners if they choose to fight.
3) The losers must have some hope of escape or mitigating their own losses if they choose to flee.

This game fails big time on all 3 fronts.

I agree with that too.

Yes I can see you agree with that too.

Anyway Burial, it seems you found a good PVP exit that works for you, a fast Cam that is sometimes masked and you run as soon as you think your side will get wiped (even though you may have not gotten wiped if you stayed).

Voila, PVP exit.


(7 replies, posted in General discussion)

DeathPaw wrote:

T4 ecm base strength now 35.
Wasn't it 50 b4?

I think its always been 35.


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

I would change the formula of ECM success...

Chance of ecm success = ( ECM of attacker / (ECCM of defender + ECM of attacker) )

1. The above formula NEVER allows for 100% success of ECM.
2. I would tweak the ECM & ECCM values of mechs and modules for balance.


(22 replies, posted in General discussion)


Maybe it is a hidden ingame feature that he figured out, like passing fit bots between characters.  Thanks to you now I know it was a favor from the devs.


(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

I liked the old one better.

Anyway, was the change free or is all you have to do is ask, as I know some other people who want to do it


(30 replies, posted in General discussion)

Syndic wrote:

The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion terraforming is too strong of a mechanic to put in the hands of the players, regardless of the imposed limitations. It's always a ticking timebomb until some smart player figures out how to abuse it to create perfect safety/perfect beaconpit/perfect xyz.

I've said this before walls and I've said this before terraforming mechanic introduced.

Any severe obstacle to movement/roaming (i.e. anti-pvp) on a large scale will kill interest in the game.

It's happened before, it can happen again.


(37 replies, posted in Balancing)

I vote NO to any nerfing of module stacking. 

Fully stacked head slots with the same module usually only performs in a nitch roll and is easily countered as there are many weaknesses to exploit.

NO to stacking nerf, keep variety.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Shadowmine wrote:

Just fyi, STC is the only corporation to wipe a proper (undefended) gamma island. And we have done it twice.

Fixed the above quote (in yellow) in an effort to maintain accuracy  big_smile


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)


What Beastmode said is spot on.  You win only 2 fights (on Jan 20 and 23 was it?), and make no improvements in territorial control.

Winning 2 fights -> "lucky".

Winning 12 or 15 fights in a row and taking 10+ beta stations and wiping gammas -> a "roll".

That's a proper definition of the word.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Cassius wrote:

Merkle shows up in January.

We roll you.

Maybe your definition of "roll you" is different than everyone elses.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Sorry, I mean't to add the Rex, and yes, I agree with your assessment of him


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Cassius wrote:

You had the numbers, we didn't when you started, and the results were predicted, and expected, by us.

Cassius, you guys had more numbers than us in many fights (especially in the beginning).  Actually on one day in November your alliance fielded 14 heavies and we only had 6.  We showed up anyway to fight and half our fleet was wiped.

The truth of the matter is, is that your side lost almost (90%) every fleet fight.  In one week DoY lost 3 full fleets in an even fight -> and after that they evac-ed Dom.

If you guys truly predicted that you were gonna lose Dom your side would never have shown up.  Burial tried his best but despite his best efforts, he couldn't hold on.

Anyway Cassius you were there for what, 3 or 4 fights, Merkle there for 1 maybe 2, and I was there for 15 fights, I think I know what I'm talking about.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Rage Rex wrote:

Sorry Mongolia but...

Merkle wrote:

We are allowing you do control them, there is a big difference.

Sorry Rage but, STC would never "allow" us control of any outpost.  Rage you weren't here but STC fought tooth and nail in November to hold the outposts.  There were fights everyday.  The truth is we took control of all outposts despite all attempts by STC.

Anyway, what does Merkle know, he wasn't here in November and most of December.  He's just spinning.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Merkle wrote:

Right about now, someone needs to start running around screaming "power projection, power projection".

True story, back in October when the spark-power projection debate started (and very few people believed in it), I told Balfizar that if we take one station that all the rest would fall pretty readily.

Balf did not really believe me, (besides all he wanted was to get Dom back), but Balf decided to humor me and we decided to run an experiment and see if we could take all of NIA once we took Dom.

What we found (to my surprise) is that after Heydelhorn and Moyar fell, the rest of STC & allied outposts went much quicker than we ever expected.

The spark fueled power projection was so absolute that we decided to hit your gammas (again with astounding success).

This experiment showed that using sparks to power project was not a theory but reality.  Now you may have noticed that recently our side has not been complaining as vigorously about sparks as we are the new "Kings of the Hill".  Even so, I still think 10 sparks per player is bad for the game, but if Zoom wants to take his good ol time, who am I to complain.  The view is pretty nice from up here. big_smile


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Additionally, what about the single account guy that has to split EP between pvp and indy?  No fair, we need to nerf players that focus EP to give the single pvp/indy guy a fighting chance.

Zoom, if we don't implement this before steam release, my crystal ball tells me that 10's of thousands of single account players will quit in the first month alone.

Perp Dev Team 2014 motto: "Have Whiners, Will Nerf"