76

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

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.

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Jita wrote:

Fully agree that you should make all of the weapon tiers used BEFORE adding anything new. The same with Bots and Mechs. Make the tiers situationally relevant and not iteratively better.

You Sir have hit the nail on the head.

Squarely and very hard I think.

78

(80 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

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.

Disappointed that this hasn't had much discussion.

I think it's a real opportunity to introduce something new and interesting to the game if done correctly.

Ville wrote:

I've thought about this for a while.  Why don't you just make this "Really Simple"  Then scale the rewards?  from Alpha to Beta to Gamma?

I think we have to guard against over simplification otherwise artifacting will could become a grind. At least at the moment it's engaging and challenging. Also you want something which is going to keep a player out on the terrain for a while, especially on Beta/Gamma.

I thought about a "live" scanner (new module maybe) which works exactly the same as the current mechanic but gives a readout of distance to artifacts updated as the player moves. A good balance, I think, between ease of grasping the concept and still challenging enough to stop it being boring.

81

(9 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Trailers. Works on the same mechanic as follow bots.

Aye Pod wrote:

Instead of random stats for t5 how about stats that can be customized at the time of manufacture. For example if I want lasers that have 40% range over t4 I have to sacrifice DPS and Rate of Fire. Items can customized at the ct level and once a build is chosen then we get a custom ct with a specific material requirements.

DEV Zoom wrote:

Aye Pod: we have plans for something similar too, independently from T5.

Now that's an idea with potential. Fixed points to distribute across key module stats at the CT or Build stage. Distributable points can be increased by an extension.

Random stats on T5 is a poor idea in principle ... in fact, it's worse than poor ... it's about as terrible as terrible can be. The random aspect of research used to drive people up the wall, please don't introduce another one.

Rewards from assignments - tokens mainly - end up in the field terminal where you accepted an assignment. Thats a reason to want to go to the same terminal again and again.

In a way the above is a disincentive to run to the nearest field terminal to where you completed you last assignment because you end up having to run around to many terminals picking up the rewards when "you're done with missioning for the day, or end a session" as Zoom put it.

May I suggest that, instead, you are able to choose a destination terminal (on same island) to which to send rewards? And that choice is remembered from assignment to assignment and log in session to log in session.

84

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I can't help but think that somewhere in this re-balance there is room to introduce a new profession/role/module/extension of salvaging for industrialists whereby they gain an advantage of quantity of fragments/kernals and chances of modules/decoders ... maybe more than advantage, maybe the actually ability to get anything other than plasma out of a destroyed bot.

But ... I can't quite work out the details without upsetting solo ratting too much and making fitting said module a necessity.

Could tie in nicely with the Alpha death by NPC Field Rescue proposal too.

85

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

After some thought I like this idea for Alpha NPC losses only.

A nice detail would be if robot wreck stays on terrain, is visible on landmarks and anyone can salvage it after a certain time of being unclaimed by its owner.

The "lives left" and time until "free for all" should be visible also using a scanner.

The proposed changes here could be as infuriating as you believe the old system to be.

I fear that requiring exact tile - or even within one or two - whilst the mechanic "always [has] a certain amount of inaccuracy, to not make it too easy" will make artifacting like trying to find a small amount of Titan with a Syntec scanner.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system personally. If the game had a tool similar to the FOOM tool or Doek's tool on sequer.nl and artifacts displayed unique identifiers to distinguish between signals from artifacts of the same type it would be fine.

I definitely think that balancing artifacts is a good way to make real differences from Alpha I through to Gamma. Why have only three tiers? Why not five?

My initial thoughts are that this is a good way to bring content exclusive to Beta to the game.

To create more PvP opportunities may I suggest the two following tweaks:

1. The time of the SSD is within a range not a specific time, lets say instead, a twenty minute window.
2. Instead of dropping syndicate store items the drop would be redeemable package, the twist being that it can only be redeemed at a Beta terminal on a different faction's island. The volume of the SSD must need at least a Sequer to move.

Number 2 would prevent the SSD becoming the new SAP loot.

It would also be nice if the SSD's arrival on terrain was less boring than an icon appearing in Landmarks and was perhaps accompanied by a fiery decent from the heavens observable from across the island (rather like stray missiles used to be back in the day)

88

(24 replies, posted in News and information)

Good stuff. I like particularly the introduction of some faction standing based content and hope there is more to come.

I also expect a 2756 post topic on the removal of spark teleports. I really don't think we've covered that one properly on the forums.

Looking forward to seeing what the "over 30" changes were you discussed at your internal.

89

(44 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

... and the code was already ingame for resist calculation wink

1- (1/((Points/100)+1)) = armour resist %

You mean this one?

90

(44 replies, posted in Balancing)

Following on from my last post I have a suggested new formula format that would allow more flexibility to provide incentives. There is also an image of a spreadsheet to copy should you like to tweak it and find what you think suits:

w = base value: the value below which efficiency cannot fall.
x = multiplier: determines the efficiency level at industry points zero when added to w.
y = diminish rate: one minus the % drop in efficiency for each increase in set number of industry points (z)
z = point threshold: see y
p = points

w + (x* (y^ (p/z) ) )

For something like Anni suggested how about w = 0.9, x = 1.1, y = 0.5, z=200

With these numbers materials required at 0 points are 2*base and hit 1.5*base at about 150 points (scope here to make a real difference between alpha/beta and factions). Current max achievable efficiency at Beta is achieved at around 400-450 points and current max achievable efficiency at a whizz-bang gamma facility at about 550-600 points. 100% efficiency comes at 700 points but if you push it to 900 points and beyond you can get 105% and beyond.

The beauty of using exponentials is that the shape of the curve is really easily tweakable. I have no idea why Avatar didn't use exponentials in the first place.

Spreadsheet Formula Image

91

(44 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

i would do it slightly different:

  1. Faction equip has highest production efficiency on the corresponding island.
    Oppositte faction tech has negative bonus, multiplied by the tier.

  2. Alpha Terminals are best for T1

  3. Alpha Outposts are best for T1 and T2

  4. Beta Terminals and Outposts are best for T3

  5. Beta Outposts can be tuned to be best for T4 (stability points)

  6. Gamma Facilities Tier defines what they are best for. Booster buildings seperated into faction booster.

the differences should be noticeable, but you CAN produce everything everywhere.
Building a T4 Gauss in a Green Alpha station would be the worst efficiency.

thats more radical, with a bit more flexibility then Ludlows' suggestion.

Yep, some good variations suggested there. Production bonuses/penalties for different tech levels on factory lines is a neat way of doing it but as you say the differences must be really noticeable.

Unfortunately with the abundance of raw materials and shape of the production efficiency curve (too steep for the first couple of hundred industry points imo*) means that once you get your relevant extensions up to 8 industry point bonuses impact are limited. That's something else that needs balancing.

* EDIT and too shallow at the high end. I've always thought that. (Really old post). Curve shape doesn't leave enough scope to provide incentives to fight for industry points.

92

(44 replies, posted in Balancing)

I think we need to be more radical in our thinking to balance this one.

Something along the lines of introducing different factory lines for different tech levels would help balance more than just industry.

Alpha's only have T1 and T2 factory lines.
NPC Betas have T1, T2 and T3
Player owned Betas have T3 and T4 only (no T1 and T2)
No T4 on Gamma until Advanced Factory.

I'm also think we should think about not having infinite factory lines and introduce some sort of queuing system for a limited number of public factory lines* and have a separate set of factory lines for a Corp. to rent for 30 days at a time.

* similar to a space based MMO I've heard about. That MMO has many many more facilities game-wide, though, so not exactly the same.

93

(64 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ville wrote:

Which reminds me:  Zoom how are players supposed to attack sensor boasted turrets?  Considering EM turrets are locking and shooting at 1000 M, and the base range optimal for the Longest bot in the game is 1050 w/ 120 falloff?

Not been playing on gamma since 2.0 but is it not possible to suppress turrets anymore?

94

(9 replies, posted in Balancing)

Each factory line should act like a folder.

You load a CT and deposit resources in the  factory line. When you extract a CT  the remaining resources are also extracted.

95

(171 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Not sure why you failed the mission though. Did it expire? Or did you just abort it?

Didn't expire and didn't abort. Haven't managed to recreate the error though.

96

(171 replies, posted in Testing server)

I take a combat assignment from TMA lvl0 (I have 0.1 relation)

1st Objective: Scout area A
2nd Objective: Kill stuff
3rd Objective: Submit item from blue container at any terminal.

Go to a new field terminal and my current assignment is not available to select from assignment list so I can deliver item. Back to TMA forgetting that I'd left the 'item' in the field terminal storage so undock and go get it. On docking back up at TMA I discover I've failed the mission.

Am I supposed to be able to submit assignment items at field terminals?

97

(48 replies, posted in Balancing)

Increase explosion damage.
Introduce explosion resistance.
Many options created for players and NPCs alike.

98

(22 replies, posted in News and information)

Good to know that things are progressing.

Still interested to see exactly what the different templates are. I'm slightly concerned that despite their randomness assignments might still end up a little repetitive if the objectives only vary between, for example, number of NPCs and locations you have to go to kill them. Please tell me the templates are more varied than this.

I like the idea of rewards varying according to what random objectives pop up but equally it would be nice if one did not know what to expect on every assignment. Even if not all objectives are revealed on accepting the assignment one might hazard a guess based on the reward offered. 

The element of surprise, heading into an unknown situation and real possibility of losing your bot are all a lot of fun in their own way.

99

(33 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Yes there was an idea way back in beta to limit the range you see markets to a certain distance (probably tied to an extension), but that would be just contraproductive for the economy.

With the game world size we currently have I tend to agree.*

The game world doesn't have to be much larger though I think before restricting visibility or remote buy/sell (be that on a factional or distance basis) can actually be helpful to the whole economy buy creating smaller economic regions within the whole.

I hope the idea hasn't been completely abandoned.

*[EDIT]Terrible and confusing grammar. Originally read: "In such a game world the size we have I tend to agree.[/EDIT]

100

(33 replies, posted in News and information)

Patch Notes wrote:
  • Change: "Markets in range" tab has been renamed to "Remote markets"

This was always a confusing description. Small but good change.*

Personally I'd prefer one Market tab with a tick/checkbox option for "Show Remote Markets". Maybe even extend that to two further tick/checkboxes for "Show own Orders" and "Show Corp Orders".


* Incidentally, Zoom, the phrase "Markets in Range" implies that there was once planned to be remote buy/sell over extension determined ranges or even factional island ranges. If that is so what happened to the idea? Is it dead or still on the "to-do" list?