1 Reply by Vehacan

(156 replies, posted in General discussion)

Why not start a character/account trading market on the forum? smile This way high EP accounts can be transfered to new players that want an EP advantage, only the name of the character cannot be changed. I think this will be the best option. Personally for me paying cash to boost EP is a no no.

Go to forum: General discussion

2 Reply by Vehacan

(165 replies, posted in General discussion)

My proposal to differentiate between argano, termis and riveler would be:
- speed (difference of at least 10kmph between bots; at least 20kmph between lowest and highest)
- slope (difference of at least 2 degrees in slope; so at least 4 degrees between lowest and highest)
- slots (difference of 2-3 slots, with 1 or 2 special slot for extra yield for a particular ore; for example termis 1 special slot exclusive for a module that enhances 1 type of ore yield, riveler has 2 )
- cargohold (termis with larger cargohold than riveler)
- detection (argano with better detection)
- yield (riveler with better chances to get ore variants)

Go to forum: General discussion

3 Reply by Vehacan

(49 replies, posted in News and information)

Great, well done. smile Best patches are the ones that take the longest. big_smile

Go to forum: News and information

4 Reply by Vehacan

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Best approach to help new players is to sell basic T1 stuff on the alpha 1's and 2's. Dividing the market and start manufacturing to provide new players with stuff until some basic stuff is seeded again or changes are made.
Already manufactured and sold different items on the market, started with 40 slowly building up, no huge profits but that's not my aim here. If more people help out we help the game forward in this department.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5 Reply by Vehacan

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I do not recommend T1 but T0 seeded stuff, otherwise the carefully build T1 market will collapse.

Also the resource distribution does not work well with 2 common resources missing on alpha islands, it is too much hassle to create something simple, 1 common resource missing might work not 2.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

6 Reply by Vehacan

(14 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Sounds good.
Another nice idea would be that players can hire some mercenary NPC's temporarily to accompany you to fight and roam or that mercenaries can be placed in a base or outpost to guard and protect. Everything for a price of course. smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

7 Reply by Vehacan

(44 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Zortarg Calltar wrote:

yes defenders can use this. but attackers can use this in the same way and charge away while the defender is charging them. just to keep the distance. in the end i dont see that much difference. i only see a lot of problems. and even if you try to ballance this then you will run into a lot of problems. and that work will surly not be worth the gain. if it can be ballanced with the current mechanics at all.

i think the devs have made it clear some time ago. speed is a essential factor in this game. if someone uses this modules then everybody will have to use them. and then we are basicy at the same spot as we are now. and i think i remember that they made it clear that some kind of afterburner or mircrowarpdrive will not been seen in perpetuum.

now we have the diverity between lwf and plated fittings. yes for roams its always framed. but i use plated fittings often enough as well. and i think its ok.

A pity that it is so difficult to balance, I have given it a shot with this variant, hopefully a good solution will be found.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

8 Reply by Vehacan

(44 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Zortarg Calltar wrote:
Vehacan wrote:

I would favor to replace the lwf with a module that uses accumulator too to increase speed and not reduce mass, the trade off would be more balanced I think.

one of the problems that have not been brought to light here is that a accu based module will heavyly favor smaller bots because they can regenerate their accumulator faster. even worse green bots have accu recharge bonus. so using that would greatly favor the green bots once again.

imagine a heavy with empty accu after "running" 500m... very usefull. and gets jumped by a tyrannos who can charge from large distance cause of accu regeneration. a castel may even be able to run it capstable if fitted right...

i dont think that is a good idea.

Well it's more realistic. Defenders have always used this as an advantage. The charging enemy when out of breath is useless, it has been a valid tactic since ancient times. The plus here is that defenders get more of an advantage during sieges, which is realistic. And the smaller bots will be generally more useful when they have a better accumulator / recharge ratio then bigger bots.
However it seems that the green bots are somewhat unbalanced in this, the missile bots that have a better speed overall will always have the upper hand. Missile bots that can outrun an enemy in battle continuously will always win.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

9 Reply by Vehacan

(44 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I would favor to replace the lwf with a module that uses accumulator too to increase speed and not reduce mass, the trade off would be more balanced I think.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

10 Reply by Vehacan

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:

you know, AoE weapons are in the works since... god i have forgotten when.... i can dig up the picture of a Symbiont with two of them equipped !

and it doesnt make sense to implement a "lighter bot" with less module slots, due to the fact, that you can simply leavy slots empty to gain speed (like noone fitting the missile slots on blue or yellow bots, or the weapon slots on EWAR mechs/bots)

due to the speed-formulas hungarian math, the "faster" bot needs a higher base mass = heavier wink

Yes true, but it can be balanced. The trade off should be so that you get more speed on the light bots (= tier 1) than leaving slots on the heavier bots empty (= tier 2). (This would also partially tackle the lwf problem.)

This would be more logical for you have created 1 bot (=tier 2) that has extra equipment and mass to give more slots. The base speed should be slower than the one without those slot options.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

11 Reply by Vehacan

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Kaldenines wrote:

So what you are saying is that the view distance should be constant and based only on the bot doing the detecting, not on the bot being detected?

Because at the moment it works like this:
http://www.perpetuum-online.com/Help:Si … nd_masking

Imo detector modules are far too powerful as they are.  It's possible to scout a whole island in a short period of time with a single light detector.  It's also another (practically) compulsory module for any gang to have as without it you are at a huge disadvantage.

What I mean is that all bots get a different visibility range from the start before any detecting or masking module is used. And if you do give them a detecting or masking module it is less effective for some bots then before.

You refer to the explanation of the signal detector feature, the formula uses a 1000m range and is fixed for every bot. This  range should be variable for different sized bots at the start before rF value. To allow for specialization and a proper scout bot.

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

In general, like you may have noticed most ideas were already there in one way or other. I advice you to use the related topics to explain it further and for your ideas to be found more easily.

lwf discussion is a perpetuum mobile *yawn*- if you want to discuss your idea further please use one of the existing topics (recent one) for it and explain it in detail

Sure.

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

aoe attacks/weapons have been asked for a long time now, but somehow I loled at the glue part imagining a puddle of slime being thrown *shudder*; an aoe laser is a completely nogo for me if u think of a simultanious attack on a broader area - laser is highly bundled light, being spread it may only blind you

Aoe weaponry are really needed. The shotgun laser is not about if it can be done in this world's physics, but if it would be useful on Nia so every faction would have an aoe weapon. I agree the name for the weapon is not so good. smile

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

what do you mean with the new mantlet? a new outfit for your bot or to be able to switch on field the light frame versus a plated one?

A real mantlet module (like a shield on wheels) or just a deflection plate that can be put in front of the robot (not attached) to deflect attacks.

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

scout bot: is a light bot (not light ewar) with a detection module not enough or do you want to take their main current purpose?

At the moment there is no specialized robot to be used as a scout bot. I am looking at scanner bonuses and base visibility relatively better to all other bots when no modules are added.

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

salvage bot already asked for recently here and here

Ok I think that would be a good thing.

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

module for liquids? no, we have only three liquids and already separate ammos for them, to introduce a completely new module just for some new optics is an overkill

Overkill indeed, this is just for looks and fun.

Arjha Shanoo wrote:

base speed for bots is differs already for class; for mkII - they are normally lighter and thus a bit faster, but can equip more, have more hp/cpu/reactor/cargo and have at least one bot bonus more than mkI, do you want to exchange one of the attributes mentionend before for a lighter frame (=faster)?

What I mean is take the mk2 bot (=tier 2) and make a lighter variant of it (=tier 1) which has 1 or 2 less slots and has a higher base speed. This way both bots will always be used and one is not better than the other but has a different role / function. The trade off here is slots (=tier 2) versus speed (=tier 1).

Annihilator wrote:

i agree that the current detection/masking mechanics are  *insert less harsh word for "fail" *
they seemed to be good when they got implemented, but after a few weeks it was already obvious that it doesn't work.

before implementation, visual range was 1km for everything. implementation of options to see someone at higher ranges was a nice idea, but then overbalancing the viewing ranges and "hiding" parameters just made it worse then before.

about the shotgun laser...
would it really matter? i mean ingame the only real difference between lasers and projectile weapons, is the GFX.

The shotgun laser would matter, first as an faction aoe weapon and second for looks and fun. Both are an important factor in my opinion.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

12 Reply by Vehacan

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Kaldenines wrote:

You know you can change the size of the white circle right?

Yes I know.

Kaldenines wrote:

What do you mean by "base view"?  Currently the distance at which you see bots depends on the ratio of your signal detection to their signal masking.

So are you suggesting that detector modules should be removed?

On the contrary, all bots have the same base distance view to see other bots. To give scout bots a unique and more specialized trait they see the furthest that is 1000m base view while all other bots have less. I even recommend mechs to have even lower distance views 600-700m or so to give the smaller bots an edge and get generally more useful. So no signal detector or masking modules have been used yet. That is:

- scout bots 1000m
- all other bots 900-800m
- mech / heavy mech bots 700-600m

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

13 Reply by Vehacan

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Well the more fun the better. big_smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

14 Topic by Vehacan

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Some ideas to make combat and bots more interesting:

General
- change base view distance for all bots to 800m (white circle on radar)


Weaponry
- artillery (circle shaped area attack)
- firethrowers (cone shaped area attack - close range)
- gel or glue thrown on the ground to reduce speed temporarily (cone shaped area attack)
- shotgun lasers / shotgun magnetic weapon (cone shaped area attack - close range)


Modules
- replace the LWF module with an accumulator and CPU based speed module
- introduce smoke grenades
- new mantlet or plate module to use as cover by bots (can be moved or carried with them)
- directional scanner for bots

Specialized bots:

scout bot
- set the base view distance at 1000m
- scanner bonuses

salvage bot
- introduce new salvage module (like harvesting different color?)
- existing industrial bot with bonus on salvaging

miner bot
- introduce new module to mine liquids (pipe-like?)

siege bot
- new bot that drills through walls and terraforming

Tier 1 bots
- higher base speed - one/two slots less than tier 2

Tier 2 bots
- lower base speed - one/two slots more than tier 1

P.S. Not sure if these have been introduced elsewhere, but it's nice to share them. smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

15 Reply by Vehacan

(34 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1 Very good analysis. This will certainly help.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

16 Reply by Vehacan

(75 replies, posted in Balancing)

Yakapao Doherato wrote:
Vehacan wrote:

What we need is to see is the size of the field on the scanner, if that's possible to implement. In that case we know beforehand how large the field is and if it's worthwhile going for.


The problem is, a geoscanner with directional charges doesnt search for "fields", it doesnt even know what a field is. It simply tracks the nearest tile, regardles of the ore amount in it or surrounding it. Further, I can hardly imagine, how scanning could be a real profession, as you can never be sure, that you are the only person paying (or knowing) for/of scan results you buy. Even if you were, it can be so fastpaced, that after a hour the field could look completely different and your accuired scan results are inaccurate. On the other site, if you cant sell your scan data immediately, in a couple of hours its just worthless. At least with current mechanics.

I still pledge for a field size variable with the geoscanner, one that can be passed on to a scan result. If the field has been emptied after a while, the dynamic variable will be updated (just like the markets) and when it reaches zero the scan result cannot be used or sold and will be deleted.

Perhaps scan results should be sold on the markets only so that only one person can get it and when the field sizes reaches zero it will be deleted and cannot be sold anymore. smile

Go to forum: Balancing

17 Reply by Vehacan

(75 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:
Vehacan wrote:

What we need is to see is the size of the field on the scanner, if that's possible to implement. In that case we know beforehand how large the field is and if it's worthwhile going for.

which would make you only run into the biggest ore deposits all the time, and then the fragmentation logically becomes even worse, when you ignore the smaller spawns or leftovers from someone else, always going for the biggest one.

Let's assume the biggest field has a size of 2000 which needs 10 hours to mine by a single miner. If fields of say 200 are found this will be enough for the 1 hour solo miner. So not necessarily every miner is going for the largest field.

What I do think is that the total amount and the number of fields spawns is too small on alpha islands.

P.S. if scanning is going to be a profession then the accuracy of a field size should be an extension to work with perhaps.

Go to forum: Balancing

18 Reply by Vehacan

(75 replies, posted in Balancing)

What we need is to see is the size of the field on the scanner, if that's possible to implement. In that case we know beforehand how large the field is and if it's worthwhile going for.

Go to forum: Balancing

19 Reply by Vehacan

(14 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

We're also thinking in land rental fees but so far we couldn't come up with a feasible system for the whole thing. (How do you take over land from another player, etc.)

Sales, the amount of sales
Production, the amount of production
Research, the amount of research

All 3 areas in a terminal determine part of a percentage of ownership (this can be combined with rental fees). It's a way to boost the Perpetuum market and it is all about prestige. Fairly unique but you can see it as trade wars (pvp-ing in pve land via markets), these are cutthroat and very competitive markets. smilebig_smile

Go to forum: General discussion

20 Reply by Vehacan

(31 replies, posted in General discussion)

Perhaps this will help, perhaps not.

Go to:
Control panel - device management - network cards - pick your network card - (right click) properties - energy management - uncheck computer may disable this device to save energy

Go to forum: General discussion

21 Reply by Vehacan

(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

A freighter with some guns to fend off small bots would also be nice or better yet a freighter with drone bots to attack small scout bots or other small harassments. smile

Go to forum: General discussion

22 Reply by Vehacan

(109 replies, posted in News and information)

All changes sound very nice. Throw in a few new somewhat fast mini scarabs to pick up stuff (between 50-100 U) quickly for the small mining patches and all will be well. smile

Go to forum: News and information

23 Reply by Vehacan

(50 replies, posted in News and information)

Very very nice blog, looking forward to the results. smile

One little concern would be the G1 bottleneck, this island could be heavily blocked; I would like to see 2 options when coming from B1 or B2, the rest is looking good.

Go to forum: News and information

24 Reply by Vehacan

(31 replies, posted in General discussion)

My 2 cents for making perpetuum more interesting.

Risk - Reward - Chance

What I would like to see is the normal risk versus reward balance, but also more chance. A chance that something unexpected is occuring while on your travels on Nia.
- ambushes -> a dynamically randomized spot that spawns NPC bots or whatever danger when you travel over it
- occurences -> plants or rocks falling down when you travel over a certain spot
- creatures -> creatures living in herds that roam the island over large distances
- growth -> plants that attack bots or grow very fast and try to entangle bots when you are in a certain area or spot
- water -> use water as a specific environment that hinders certain bots and favours others that are equipped with special gear; also great to diversify assigments

All things above would bring more life to Nia and more life or diversity is what we need. smile

Go to forum: General discussion

25 Reply by Vehacan

(23 replies, posted in General discussion)

Three things that would make pve more interesting:
- to hunt some moving (herds of) creatures, that roam on Nia
- assigments in buildings or caves with single or multiple levels to explore
- assigments in water in which you need diving equipment of some sort

Go to forum: General discussion