526

(3 replies, posted in General discussion)

Stranger Danger wrote:

Ive noticed corps dont seem to be actively recruiting...at all...to anyone

I know this not to be true for at least 2 corps.

527

(117 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Gargaj wrote:

It keeps oscillating between 1% and 3% depending on... not sure what, exactly, it changes on every F5 smile

Now you know how we feel sometimes tongue

528

(56 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

...we made the mistake of balancing this flawed system to be slower instead of fixing the root issue. So yes, we have some ideas and we intend to change this.

A points system could work well for research, in the way it works well for industry, because it could remove the mystery from the process and introduce a common "currency" for research. I am also a fan of more extensions because it means that players have to choose to invest EP and thereby creates distinct professions.

  • Create research extensions for parts of the tree (Armour/Shield, Engineering, Electronics, Industry, Weapons, NEXUS, MPC) where each extension reduces the number of points required to complete a node on the tree.

  • Attribute a points value to each type of kernal

  • Display full tree in Agent profile (including items where research has not begun) and provide additional information:

    • Points required to complete item

    • Research pre-requisites

    • Kernal types which will add points

  • Stop "roll of dice" landing on completed items which could be balanced by increasing points on higher tier items

Kernals of all sizes can still overlap items, as they do now, the process would still be to some extent random and the speed of research roughly the same but at least we'd know what was going on AND we'd know how many kernals we needed. Also would avoid fundementally changing the system which would generate a lake full of tears.

A gamma research facility would also be nice. One where people could share their fully researched items, whether in corp or not. It would work exactly the same as a prototype facility points wise but the number of researched items that could be installed and the number of "runs" possible from each installed item would be determined by the tech level of the facility.

529

(56 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Nian cat wrote:

I haven't seen anyone point it out on the forums in a while so i thought i would remind the devs that the current research system using kernels sucks.

I wouldn't go as far as "it sucks" but can we please as a start have visibility of the tree or at the very least a message which says "There is no available reasearch for these kernals yet" and then they are not consumed.

I have just swallowed 6 observer lights, 2 observer mechs and 4 observer heavy mechs and received NO RESULTS! I'm quite a long way down the Thelodica research tree but I still get research from Elite/Supreme kernals of all sizes. This observer no result mystery is not the first time either.

I know there is a tree - for example you won't start researching a T4 detector until you finish the T3 masker (there are other examples I could point to as well).

Please let me see it so I don't waste hard earned observer kernals.

530

(117 replies, posted in News and information)

Well, I logged on this morning to find a new member in corp who decided to try out after seeing it on GreenLight and I tried to recruit another new player this morning who is here for the same reason.

Seems to be working, now just need to get them involved in stuff.

531

(1 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1

Would also be nice if the left-click drag on radar didn't revert to centering on your bot when released. A button on top left to do this instead. Very useful for some squad functions and scouting ahead for passable terrain in fine detail.

A similar mechanic as for proximity probes would work nicely.

List of terminals and ability to give visibility to ANY player or corporation on the server for each terminal.


[EDIT] added the bit about corporation [/EDIT]

533

(18 replies, posted in General discussion)

I'm in the UK and whilst I've heard loud grumblings from the corps US contingent I've been consistently at the usual 47ms.

534

(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dredi wrote:
Ludlow Bursar wrote:

I love the little message that pops up when you reach 500. Made me chuckle, anyways

What! There was no message at 500! Goddamn fool tricked me.

I knew someone would fall for it. lol

535

(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

I love the little message that pops up when you reach 500. Made me chuckle, anyways

536

(49 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Zoom wrote:

* adds new random NPC spawns to Alpha 2 islands

Orange? Red? Static? Roaming? Indy? Combat?

537

(26 replies, posted in General discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

you cannot divide by 36 islands, since not even all of them are open yet.

You can now.

538

(165 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ok, a bit late to the party on this one (been busy) but my question would be why do miners have to defend themselves from or tank static spawns at all?

If all static spawns were orange (yes, on Beta too), including spawns defending assignment points then all that would need to change is that a player accepting an assignment would be flagged for the NPCs defending that assignment.

Add orange roaming spawns to alpha1 and keep alpha2/beta/gamma roamers as red and then mining is still not an afk activity (of which I heartily approve) but also not completely impossible.

That seems like the simplest solution ... or have I missed something?

539

(21 replies, posted in General discussion)

Further to Mech Ferox's comments about new player experience and players ending up in Help channel due to confusion another top priority for DEVs has to be to sort out the Help Information.

It is woefully out of date and just adds to new player confusion. For example, field cans still listed as lasting 15 minutes, Industry 2.0 is not included at all and Help Info still talks of level I, II and III facilities, scanning for resources doesn't mention directional charges.

Time once was when a new recruit asked question after question after question I just used to say, "Go read Help, its all in there". Not any more. We have to explain a lot of fundemental stuff.

540

(21 replies, posted in General discussion)

Mechannibal Ferox wrote:

Stuff about the new player experience with PvE

+1 for a well written post, all the more pertinent for being by a player who has just been through the "new player experience". I hope the DEVs read and fix the simple things first whilst revamping the PvE.

I've been in the game over a year and this is pretty much how I felt on every point except the broken Titan mining assignment (this, btw, has to be an immediate priority for reasons stated by Mech Ferox).

How is the PvE revamp coming along, DEVs? Any chance of a blog about your plans?

I'd like to see a new stage to robot construction.

I'd like to see them made from components and commodities. For example, weapon mountings, drive motors, circuit boards, resistance plating (factional commodities can come in here), hydraulic joints etc.

The thinking here is that newer players would have more market opportunities and, since components would effectively compress materials, building bots on Beta and Gamma would not require quite so many scarabs full of ore to be shipped to the higher point facilities.

542

(56 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I think the system is fine as it is BUT I would like to see more information.

I'd like to see the tree - I'd like to know that I'm not going to start T4 detectors until I've finished T3 maskers and I'd like to know what kernal types I need to swallow to advance a particular branch.

543

(136 replies, posted in News and information)

Ville wrote:

I think thats in the ~ 2 week category that will take... let me calculate the hungarian statistic analaysis and multiple by the integral rate of .982364 and divide by 27 and multiple in the amount of complaints on the forums divided by a factor of division of 4 for soviet allied corps and multiply by 7.2 for everyone else which in turn means we should see it in 5 weeks.   Depending on forum complaints.

You forgot to take away the number you first thought of. yikes

Syndic wrote:

I'm curious, and I'm sure a lot of other people are too. Why shouldn't I know? What's the big deal?

No big deal, it was a genuine question.

At current levels of population, though, I think it will probably be detrimental to the game to display logged in characters. Firstly, the low number could put-off some new players before they give the game a fair stab. Second, to know how many players are on, players currently have to get out there in Nia and do stuff (roam etc) rather than log in, see the number and just think 'Nah! won't bother".

I am, however, also curious.

Syndic wrote:

Accurate information on how many accounts/people are playing the game for everyone, so no guesstimates have to be made off General Chat population which is frequently in the 20-30's these days.

But why would you want to know?

546

(6 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

Norrdec wrote:

Just happened to me. A npc from a beacon (alchemist  excavator something something, basicly a lithus) didnt drop a can after killing it.

Ouch! There's T4+ and 80 gold kernals in those.

Happens to me too, by the way.

547

(136 replies, posted in News and information)

Cassius wrote:

... using the islands natural landscape to somewhat mitigate the costs of base construction, and choose a location carefully. How can this be bad?  And I suggested reducing Base terraforming, vs regular terraforming, as an incentive to make the players concentrate on Base building, not island isolation.

This.

Great Wall builders have been complaining that their 2bn NIC wall is too easy to terraform through and we should make it either cheaper to build or harder to knock down but maybe, just maybe, a 2bn NIC/100 man hour defence that can be breached with 500k NIC and 10 man minutes is the wrong defence.

Tip: run around gamma in a masked light ewar and look for a place to build a base whilst pretending that teraforming doesn't exist.

Keep terraforming expensive please.

548

(136 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Suggestion:
Remove infinite NPC-seeds for construction blocks, not just building foundations. Let the players set their own price and build their own market.

We can’t remove the NPC-seeds for construction blocks, because they require colixum to build, so new corporations setting foot on gamma wouldn’t be able to build a mining outpost.

Remove Colixum requirements from blocks, maybe? Still seems utterly absurd that you need to have a mining outpost on gamma before you can build a building on Gamma. You wouldn't have a T4 armour plate as one of the components of a T4 armour plate would you? (slightly different , I know but you get the point)

Beta should be a stepping stone to gamma for corporations so if you insist on Colixum being a construction block component how about colixum/construction blocks dropping as SAP loot or popping up in Gamma artefacts?

or ... and I might have mentioned this before ... remove colixum as a construction block component.

549

(136 replies, posted in News and information)

Cassius wrote:

Ok, one change I read that I think will have the opposite of what you desire ...

Terraforming charges to be 1/5th of their current cost?

If you have stated that you envision players on Gamma defending Bases and not islands, the drastic reduction in terraforming cost will make it far simpler to wall off all island teleports, and reduce player interaction.  If you had lowered base terraforming costs while keeping the rest high(er), this would encourage base development.  Such a low cost means that terraforming will be quite widespread ... theres no need to think where to terraform and when to invest the nic required.

I think its a terrible change imo.  I hope I misread it and you are reducing the cost by a fifth, not to a fifth, of their current cost.

You didn't misread, Cassius, terraforming proposed to be 20% of current cost. I agree - this would be a disaster. Terraforming needs to be really expensive or PvP will just die at the huge dirt walls people build 2000km from a teleport. Cost of terraforming is fine as is. No need to change.

550

(136 replies, posted in News and information)

The Blog wrote:

Remove infinite NPC-seeds for building foundations, so players can set their own price.

This is the best part of the whole proposed changes. Not that the others are bad in any way, just that this one is really good.