51

(9 replies, posted in Bugs)

A bit more messing about and the bug which I reported seems to happen to the equip window of ANY bot which is itself within a container.

HTH

52

(9 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ah. Interesting...

Seems to happen with a Riveler and a Symbiont, not with a Seth.

53

(9 replies, posted in Bugs)

Maybe related.

Equip window open. Drag any item/stack between a storage container/cargo and root storage and CPU/Reactor usage of fitted modules  jumps in equip window.

Not checked but I'm guessing that some or all bonuses stop being applied.

Close and re-open equip window and it resets.

54

(0 replies, posted in Buying Items)

Best option is to mail me in game.
I will be able to get back to you within 24 hours during the week.

55

(2 replies, posted in Bugs)

Category: Production
Level: 5
Name: Damage Control
Location: Shinjalar Main

Second to last objective is produce 10000 Maintenance Units from bits collected in previous objectives.
Final objective - deliver 12 Maintenance Units. Must be a bug, what one earth am I supposed to do with 9988 Maintenance Units?

Reduction in surface hit radius for all light and assault bots required.

57

(75 replies, posted in General discussion)

F2P Alpha I only. One time "Access all areas" fee. A few other tweaks required to make that work but ... it's an idea.

58

(80 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Naismith wrote:

Ludlow, have you tried mining titan recently?

Yes, I do it with 2 Rivelers - one maxed and one with a tuner swapped for nexus.

It was always intense but manageable and since the infamous balancing patch (I presume why you said 'recently') it is more intense but still manageable. If fields had fewer tiles but same ore quantity it would be one way of making it more enjoyable.

This bug (Link) still exists and is the thing which makes maxed out Titan mining really infuriating - timely target switching is key and this bug makes it pointlessly difficult.

59

(80 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Naismith wrote:

My argument is that mining in the game takes too long and should either be:

a) Fully passive - Deployable mining towers that need to be fueled/emptied by player, can be plundered or destroyed by other players
b) Be much faster - instead of taking 4-5 hours to drain a field, it should take ~30 minutes tops to clear a field.

Bottom line being the mining aspect of the game is too slow, takes forever to get anywhere and the game forces you to do it to get anywhere.

Mining shouldn't ever be passive. I like mining but the mechanic in Perpetuum for seeking and extracting is a bit clunky and isn't much fun. There's only so much you can do to make resource gathering fun in any game but it can be done to some extent.

I wonder whether you only feel that the game forces you to do it because there is no-one else to do it for you, put the fruits of their labour on the market so you can then buy it with NIC from more fun activities. Provide incentive for noobs to mine and most of your problem goes away.

60

(8 replies, posted in Balancing)

I like a lot of this idea.

I've always had an issue with infinite supply believing that given a fitted arkhe a player should be able to build everything in the game eventually, no market seeds (titan ore required to make titan mining charges is, frankly, ridiculous if you ask me)

but ... for a few reasons (NPC drops, recycling/mining balance, population etc) seeding is necessary. However, having every market seed in every location (there are exceptions but they are few) does seem to cut a potential profession out of the game.

In addition to Rolafen Azec's idea I would like to see the removal of the word "infinite" and instead have an appropriate quantity of item seeded which ticks down to 0 before being refreshed, maybe after a short delay and maybe consider a small amount of distributed NPC demand for seeded items too.

61

(80 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ludlow Bursar wrote:

How about this for a re-work (from a miner):

  • Fields of the same total ore but with 20 tiles instead of 200.

  • Directional scanning still works as now but resource fields are visible on terrain by tinging it a different colour for each resource type. Not bright pink or anything silly, a subtle tinge.

  • Scanner reveals precise resource remaining per tile. Area charges reveal total across all tiles.

  • All fields are of mixed type resources but each tile has only one resource type.

  • No plants grow on a resource field.

  • New laser type which extracts resources without charges. Existing laser type with charges is rebalanced such that only 3 can be fitted to a Riv (4 if you compromise the fit slightly) but extracts more than 6 of lesser lasers, Riv can fit 6 lasers, not 5.

  • All mining bots receive special cargo area exclusively for resources.

  • Harvesting lasers can have targets queued so they automatically switch. Extension determines queue length.

There's a few ideas to chew on.

The more I think about this, the more I think that point one above should be combined with zone based extraction and resource total bonuses. Something like:

Alpha: Resource Total x1, Extraction Rate x1
Beta: Resource Total x2, Extraction Rate x4
Gamma: Resource Total x3, Extraction Rate x5

Yes, really 4x/5x for Beta/Gamma zones.

Well, don't I feel silly now. How long has that been there?

DEV Zoom wrote:

Whatever you set it to, I don't remember if there is any default setting.

A mouseover option to freeze landmarks would be nice, especially handy when you're already pressing another shortcut key to target, activate, approach or whatever.

Celebro wrote:
Naismith wrote:

Simplicity has its perks - I prefer Perp's landmark system to EVE's system. Perp's can be configured easily, EVE most people rely on overview packs to bypass the tedium of setting it all up.

Having said that, some of the ideas are really good - especially the independent passable terrain indication.

I think you can already have agent-based relation colors and corp-based relation colors.

Yeah, Eve's overview is a PITA. Although keeping it simple and having more options is always good, pity the devs cancelled the UI overhaul.

I have no idea what EVEs system is like but I don't think I'm suggesting anything complicated.

More and more stuff has been added to the terrain, landmarks and radar and most of it is irrelevant most of the time. I want to be able to turn off the irrelevant stuff such as assignment points (switches and the like) that are not part of a "live" assignment, similarly NPCs ... and we need an option to turn off anomalies too.

It's come up before but with even more entities on the terrain  now then ever (and more to come) it's surely time for a major QoL improvement with a bit of love for the terrain, radar and landmarks window options.

Some of what I would like to see:

  • A single window that allows editing of what is displayed in each of the terrain, radar and landmark windows.

  • Saving and sharing of pre-set options (a bit like fitting) with pre-sets easily switched by drop down

  • List of options intelligently grouped - e.g. Assignments, Anomalies, NPCs, Structures, MPC etc

  • EVERY possible entity is listed - makes a long list but gives excellent flexibility - not being able to turn off switches and other assignment thingys is a pita.

  • Options to choose entities based on aggression and "ownership" - especially useful for field cans, TAP NPCs

  • Ability to choose a minimum distance for every entity to show up.

  • Ability to display relation colours based on personal or corporation relations.

  • Passable terrain indication an independent option for radar as well as terrain.

Any more suggestions?

DEV Zoom wrote:
Ludlow Bursar wrote:
  1. Why equal or higher? Would it not be better to just have equal. I'm thinking particularly of trade implications on all sorts of items (not just TAPS) between Beta/Gamma dwellers and Alpha dwellers

1. I didn't want to limit beta/gamma like that but if you really think this would encourage trade then we can do that.

Maybe it wouldn't but it does seem to go against the whole principle which under-pinned the kernal drops from different NPC ranks.

Also, given that there are actually 48 types of beacons currently* and that "Teleport Attractor Ports (TAPs) ... basically hijack whatever is being teleported" as you put it, then it doesn't make sense that  ANY level 1 TAP can be activated at a level 1 anomaly. It should be TAP specific for race, level,light/medium,ordinary/officer. Given how easy you have made it to jump from anomaly to anomaly I don't think this would be an issue.

* I say currently because the existence of TAPs classified as "medium" implies that that type is in the middle of something - where are the large/heavy. Mind you, weapons have been like that since 2010 - still waiting for heavy ones wink

DEV Zoom wrote:

The new distress beacon mechanic is now out on the test server.

  1. A teleport anomaly has to be equal or higher level to the TAP you want to deploy. In practice this means Alpha=L1 TAPs, Beta=L1-2 TAPs, Gamma=L1-3 TAPs.

  2. They are also shown on the world map, but only when you're on the terrain and only for the island you're on.

  3. When you finish all NPC waves coming from a TAP, a "Teleport anomaly echo" will spawn. These differ from normal teleport anomalies: they have only a 5 minute lifespan, and can be used by anyone to teleport to another random (NOT nearest!) teleport anomaly. They are useful if you want to keep doing TAP after TAP and don't want to walk around much. Again, they take you to a random anomaly so this can be potentially dangerous on beta/gamma. You cannot use TAPs on anomaly echoes.

  4. Both types of anomalies can be destroyed.

  1. Why equal or higher? Would it not be better to just have equal. I'm thinking particularly of trade implications on all sorts of items (not just TAPS) between Beta/Gamma dwellers and Alpha dwellers

  2. I thought we were going to have to scan for these things? Is that not the plan now?

  3. Do these echos work like interzone teleports in that once the first jump is made the destination is fixed? Could be a massive PITA to end up with a squad randomly distributed across a zone.

  4. Am I right to assume that by "both types" mean anomolies and echos? How do you you destroy them, is it lock and shoot

Sorry for the Qs. I'm sure I could answer them by actually testing but I've got to work for a few days sad

68

(137 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Zoom wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

And yes I was already thinking about renaming distress beacons but haven't come up with something cool yet. But yeah something along those lines.

So because everyone loves acronyms, they become Teleport Attractor Ports, or TAP for short.

Hmmm. I was sceptical at first but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

A device which creates a port that attracts a stream of deconstructed atoms travelling between two teleports and "taps" into them.

69

(137 replies, posted in News and information)

Ville wrote:

Your over looking one thing though.  Roaming NPC packs.  Making more waves ensures you encounter roaming npcs.

Makes the world more interesting if the coincidence of one or more random events can sometimes create uncomfortable situations, even make you loose a bot. It's an open world why would you want to do the new beacons in a bubble?

70

(137 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Rewards (and the NPCs coming from beacons) can be tweaked when we rework the loot system, which is probably next up.

Rewards do need to be tweaked upwards but I'd rather do it by having more waves of NPCs per anomaly rather than just better drops.

You don't want the effort of getting a team together, travelling to anomaly and hauling back loot to be 90% of the time you spend. People want to spend time blowing things up not doing logistics.

71

(137 replies, posted in News and information)

Good progress on the roadmap, Devs, well done. I really like the look of the syndicate robots interface and the Beta I reworks look nicely balanced. Will the (much welcome) new facility downgrade option be time restricted? Very exploitable otherwise.

Would still like to see:

  • A unique ID to on artefacts to differentiate between those of the same type

  • A new exponential diminishing returns function for industry points.

May I also suggest a change in name for Distress Beacons since that's not really what they are anymore. Maybe something like a Teleport Hijack Device or a Teleport Hacker.

Two months since the roadmap DEV blog and some good community feedback since.

Please can we have an update on progress and/or revisions to roadmap. I think the community would be welcome it.

73

(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

* Makes controlling multiple outposts much harder for one corporation

If you want to make it harder for a single corporation to control multiple outposts then increase the loss in stability for an outpost owner losing a SAP and decrease the gain in stability for a Corp winning a SAP relative to the number of outposts that corp already owns.

These changes need only be applied on the way up from 0-100 when trying to win and on the way down from 100-0 when trying to defend otherwise people will just use alt to reduce a station to 0 at the "normal" rate.

Something like a 50% stability loss per SAP when owning 3 outposts would really change things.

To combat the circumvention of this by alt corps maybe a new "Outpost Control" extension for a particular corp role which requires a significant EP investment or even an active member restriction on taking (not holding, just taking) more than one outpost or even an escalating rent might help alt corp exploits.

74

(78 replies, posted in Balancing)

You know, balancing this becomes a lot easier is you change the underlying diminishing returns formula.

Currently it is purely arithmetic which means that changing the parameters just moves the curve rather than changing its shape.

Currently the curve is too steep at the low end to allow real differences between the 9 or so levels of facilities available* especially when you get to having level 8 relevant extensions.

A short while ago I suggested this exponential function: Recent post.

You should seriously consider it or something like it. It is far more flexible.

* Thinkng Alpha1, Alpha1 outpost, Alpha2, Beta1 Terminal, Beta 1 outpost, Beta2 outpost and Gamma T1, T2,T3

75

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Ludlow Bursar wrote:

Back in the day when terraforming was being conceived a few of us (myself and Arga spring to mind) had a serious discussion about "dirt".

I still like the concept. If you dig a hole you've got to dump the dirt somewhere. I think we ended up concluding that it would be a mistake to allow transport off island but would be fun if you could dump in the sea to create new land.

that actually would be cool. But how do you stop people disposing of it in other ways?

If you don't allow changing zone with dirt on board (I believe that includes docking up as far as server sees it) then the only way I can think of would be to:

  1. leave umpteen bots on terrain with full cargo

  2. destroy bots full of dirt

  3. fill field can, let it expire

All of these situations can be dealt with in the same manner - i.e. auto load dump onto terrain. Conceptually I don't think its that crazy an idea.

Even the interface can be intuitive and simple if beacon terraforming comes back in some form. After all, the original terraforming plans used top tell us how much dirt needed shift to complete the plan. At least some of the programming work must be there already.