(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Calvin wrote:
Atticus wrote:
Ville wrote:

These are not concerns of the player base.  The majority  of the player base does not care about account sharing.  Only 5 to 10 forum posters who don't care how big of a fool they make of  themselves.

Seriously? Here's something to think about.

Let's say some corp decides to have 20 accounts they share among 50 or 60 players. Every time one of those players want to miine the grab the Riv Mk2 max skilled miner character and mine away for maximum return. Or whenever there is Pvp they grab the max skilled Ictus, Gropho or whatever. And these accounts are used by 3 or 4 people thruout each day. This corp would gain a clear advantage over others not account sharing and would quickly be able to build a stockpile of over 9000 fully T4 fitted mechs, along with unreasonalbe amounts of mineral reserves. The could in theory dominate entire areas of Beta while the single account player corps would have no chance to match. A clear and deliberate exploitation. Even this account sharing ALLIES would benefit form having such a strong friend to assist them. All unfairly. If they didn't share accounts, and were attacked by a small group of pirates and the Ictus pilot wasn't available, the battle may turn out differently.
Understand this?

Also if 60 people share 20 accounts that's 40 unpaid montly subscriptions to AC. That's a lot of lost revenue. Think about it. Finally, its simply a violation of the rules of the game.

Its not a small thing.

What you describe is not realistic. Some player would just decide to change the passwords on all accounts and sail off into the sunset. Account sharing is nowhere near this rampant. Accounts constitute a significant value and players are very protective of them.

Just changing the password wouldn´t do it I think. You can easily petition the password change when you are the actual owner of the e-mail adress the account was registered with. So just changing the password and sailing off into sunset wouldn´t cut it...


(29 replies, posted in General discussion)

Sorry to see you go Deon, but I can understand AC:

It was either the whole nova alliance unsubbing (which AC was threatened with by Sauron, and only god knows how many trillion accounts CIR has in spare), or letting the few accounts of real players go who understand what´s going on and can read behind moderated lines...

Wouldn´t this also doom the colourblind people?


(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

After a few days of babysitting stationary structures that can be ninja´d while you need to take a bio-break and reading the comments in this thread here is another one from me:

If the main intention of the whole Intrusion 2.0 system really is to surpress a corp or alliance controlling several outposts/islands, then in gods name activate "setmaximumallowedoutpostspercorp=1" in your sandbox and don´t force me to dedicate two hours per day to build a wall around my sandcastle to protect it from water.

Most players have 2-4 hours of playtime per day, do you really think it´s fun for them to lure around a sap half of their gaming time? Really?


(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

From my point of view, adding more sandbox features like getting to set up your homebase in regards of upgrades is good and welcome.
On the other hand though, the owner currently is forced into a one hour action every 8-16 hours with a stability reward. A single attacker however could get the same stability reward in 1/60 of the needed time it takes the defender. Imho the balance between having to spend an hour and having to spend a few minutes for the same "reward" is off here too.

I said this in General-Troll-Chat earlier:

If it was me making the rules, I wouldn´t allow players into the tournament who joined the participating corp AFTER the ladder was announced.
The way I see it at the moment is, that an alliance has 3 corporations in the tournament, corp A and B of those have to face each other in the first round. B decides to move its players into corp C so its is an automatic win for corp A.

So no, I don´t support this.


(24 replies, posted in Events)

Thank you for organising this Inda and thank you DEVs!
Too bad I couldn´t be there...

Ville wrote:

... honor, respect and integrity ...



(26 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

You guys realise that the last post was 7 months ago?
Gravedigging much?

It was, he just wants your attention to point out that the 3rd price will ruin his empire smile

Karos wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

while there is a relative "small" entry fee, and the relative small playercount you need (minimum 4, maximum 25) it may look promising for even small corps.

but with the no-reimbursement / loot rule, i see it problematic to risk anything above assault.
you could survive the first round with a single bot - then you have to replace the rest of your team until round two.
with 4 rounds to play, you could lose many fully fitted bots even if you win each round.

The only way i see around this is for the devs to reinburse the winning team of each round, or something like that.

TM-UAS won´t participate in this tournament, so don´t worry smile


(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

Exomorph wrote:

First of all :

From artifact scanning you can just get normal level 1-2-3 beacons.
Star beacons you can get JUST FROM specific npc-s, and yeah low chance etc ...

Not quite right, I got a lvl 1 industrial commander beacon from an observer stash lvl 1 near ICS-Alpha...

Patch notes from today say they did it smile

I noticed the same. During my artifact scans the last days I didn´t get any cortex of any size, nada.

Was there something changed? Like replacing them with beacons?


(38 replies, posted in General discussion)

MoBIoS wrote:

I have 3 in my spam folder big_smile

LOL! Unspam it NAO


(38 replies, posted in General discussion)

I didn´t get any Newsletter to any of my E-Mails (account names) yet, why not?
Is there a hungarian law that forbids sending newsletters? Does AC not want to bother their players?

You should really get into this, DEVs, send out regular newsletters about patches, features and stuffs, to subbed and out of sub accounts, this keep players aware...

It´s the easiest form of marketing, why don´t you do it?


(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Making them call for help and spawn reinforcements until it´s dead will make it very exploitable I think.
The idea itself seems good tho!


(1 replies, posted in Buying Items)

At least one T3 industrial Nex is on the market...


(66 replies, posted in General discussion)

Well, tbh, if I was able to actually tank whatever NPC may come around to shoot me as a miner, I would totally agree with you Scyylla.

In that other game you were able to tank your hulk according to the NPCs you would encounter, sacrificing your mining yield, which I did.
In perp you can not do that, almost every NPC eats your miner for breakfast. Maybe possible with a lot of EP, but me and my 160k EP just can´t tank them. So I have to run, which would be no prob if the field capsule stayed open for 700 to 800m like it did before. Some roaming spawns are very slow moving which doesn´t allow me to get back to my container without being blown up as I can´t tank them, my only choice would be to let the container expire.

Is that really intended game mechanic?


(31 replies, posted in News and information)

Am I the only one who finds it funny when people whine about something being implemented which requires hardware that is about 8 years old?

I don´t think there will be a lot of exploitation because most old chars prolly have their extensions well beyond that "threshhold" and it´s also 30 days only...


(39 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Chastener wrote:

In my opinion ... New "experiments": new unsubbing wave.

I guess we will see your changed mind once you got left alone by your dedicated prototyper...


(39 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I would like it to be more plannable and sharable on a corp level.

Maybe something like you have 100 arbiter assault kernels and want to research those. Instead of giving you random knowledge (like atm) you get to choose which kind of equipment you want to research. Lets assume arbiter assault kernels are worth 100 points of research and you only gain those 100 points on the selected field.

The current system is very very unfriendly to new(er) users as there is no way around it.
Maybe something like the possibility to take 10 kernels + a t3 item to "invent" a t4 item (or ct) at a given chance % would make higher tech available to users that didn´t grind 10000 kernels.

This would also be a workaround to the current prototypers belonging to the big corps that dont sell anything of their tech on the open market, which would also mean an increase of high-tech items available on the player driven market.


(54 replies, posted in News and information)

WTB News on the extension adjustment (new reset) system that was supposed to hit in the middle of August... Please!

- being able to manufacture something from a folder in the corp hangars (take mats from there, charge corp account automatically, return mats to there)
- being able to trade items when not in the same station
- being able to sell items when not in the same station (remotely, also gets rid of your problem of players having stuff locked in a beta station once they are locked out of it when intrusion 2.0 hits)