101

(69 replies, posted in General discussion)

June is here but my new computer isn't.
Apparently July is coming.

Safety in numbers = working for it.

Numbers rule the game.

103

(113 replies, posted in Testing server)

The proposed detector changes are fine. It was a little OP before. This still makes it viable but allows masking to be more effective.

Using maskers on lights is a great idea, but the cost is obviously decreased vision range. This is a fair trade off IMO. With the added bonus that a masked light is hunted by masked ewars since the light Ewar has at least +200 range to see masked light before light sees him.

No change to masking. There's enough risk already. Things don't have to be more difficult. PvP needs a variety of styles from the hit and run, small gang roam, and blob v blob. Anything that makes PvP easier tends to streamline it to blob v blob.

104

(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

Stupid iPhone.

105

(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

Detection change allows a masked Cam to avoid detector.

+1

Without the hard numbers should change a -40 m window of visibility detector sees cam, to about a +150 m cam sees detector buffer. Cam doesn't have to outrun when he can hide.

I'll figure it out when I get home or someone else can.

106

(8 replies, posted in Q & A)

Sadly, most types of Indy Mk2 CTs drop frequently, and combined with the fact that they are not destroyed as often as Combats, means you cannot get much for that CT. I would hold on to it.

107

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

So Zoom, can you summarize exactly what direction you intend to take Gamma, at this point?

I want to post suggestions but I dont see a point until the Devs give some idea of their thoughts now after 10 pages of feedback and ideas.

108

(39 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:
Cassius wrote:
Ville wrote:

I don't care if you live on Alpha, for as long as I am active in this game.

Well Ville, for as long as you've played the game I have lived where I wanted to. And you haven't. I don't expect things to change, either.

As far as what is currently on the test server, you will not be able to have defendable production facilities. Or you will not be able to have the production facilities in one place, leaving you extremely vulnerable with the logistics between bases. Good luck regardless. How Gamma 2.0 mechanics actually work will decide whether STC returns to Gamma, not yet more hollow and empty promises from players who had the opportunity but never could follow thru in the past.

Love living on Shinjalar huh?

I loved living on Bergers.

109

(39 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:
Tux wrote:
Ville wrote:

It's not like he is going to be living there regardless..


No one will be living on gamma with the current BS that is on the TEST SERVER ...

I understand your anger with us ... I really do but if you want even a glimpse of a chance at revenge you should be advocating for gamma to be worth something that is sustainable, rewarding and worth the time. other wise you will just toil away in rage. The only Group of people taking that away from you is the devs because as the ONLY Corp that Survived Gamma from start to finish STC is a Gamma Corporation we have been from Gammas inception.


But as I will keep saying no one will take the time and effort to live on a gamma that is not worth living on.

Think about it.

I don't care if you live on Alpha, for as long as I am active in this game.

Well Ville, for as long as you've played the game I have lived where I wanted to. And you haven't. I don't expect things to change, either.

As far as what is currently on the test server, you will not be able to have defendable production facilities. Or you will not be able to have the production facilities in one place, leaving you extremely vulnerable with the logistics between bases. Good luck regardless. How Gamma 2.0 mechanics actually work will decide whether STC returns to Gamma, not yet more hollow and empty promises from players who had the opportunity but never could follow thru in the past.

Jita wrote:

Leaving epi just on beta guarantees that whoever is the most powerful at the time will control the epi flow.

This breaks emergent gameplay - beta should be training wheels for gamma.

You mean, Beta is worth something?
Working as intended. Leave Epri Beta only. Forces people to either ninja mine it or actually work together to either get it or protect it.

I see nothing wrong at all.

With the topic, if Gamma comes soonish, is there a need for extra Betas? Only the Devs have the rough timeline on this.

111

(39 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:
Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Merkle wrote:

No reason to do anything BUT ninja mining when you dont need it in mass qualities anyway.
So A semi +1 to what your driving at on the "no need for much of it anyway".

Not every one will want to do that. If you wish to not commit to Gamma then so be it.

It's not like he is going to be living there regardless..

June is coming.

112

(39 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:

Moveable mining terminal,place 4 walls around you mine.

I was referring to what was proposed here, Tux suggested no structures.
Besides, wouldn't it be easier to simply dock in your mining terminal than drop a tele and get out?

113

(39 replies, posted in General discussion)

Pretty sure you need to be close enough to a terminal to do this. Soo not sure how your gonna build them on gamma.

Just going to wait and see with Gamma. Not too encouraged so far, but I only speak for myself.

114

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

It's also my point.

What I am suggesting negates the terraforming itself as the primary defense and shifts the emphasis on base location and construction and composition. The way it should be. Having Gamma rely on one mechanic was wrong, and easily exploitable. Having the base construction affected by 4 different core rules means assembling, and attacking, each individual base requires different tactics. Much like bots, which are limited by Accumulator, Slots, CPU, and Reactor, Islands with limits to totals in terraforming, structures, fuel, and degrees of terraforming means how you build it leaves it vulnerable to a counter. Much like an armour tanked bot has gimped DPS.

115

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

So, Gamma 2.0 in 7 years?

The one suggestion alone that says allow structures placed on other structures requires an entire coding rewrite.
Gates, shield walls, enlongated wall units, don't forget corner wall units as well.

Years of new development.

Zoom you are throwing the baby out with the bath water by handicapping yourself with the insistance of no vertical walls of any kind or height. Having all terraforming tied to the base tile severely limits the actual effect of terraforming itself as the de facto defense mechanism. You had a great system that allowed creativity. The direction you are heading with slope limitations is the wrong fix.

Don't worry that's the last word I will post about the vertical walls.
All game politics aside it's my intention to return to Gamma immediately and build a base and live there again. It was one of the best game experiences for me. All players gave the Devs a free pass with this wipe because we really didn't complain about losing our work, because we all know it had to be rebalanced.

But your comment about making a base simply to test "parameters" and bandwidth, rather than functionality and viability is simply more of the same. I guess you can always wipe it again, huh?

Am I bitter? Not at all. Just concerned the direction this is heading.

116

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

I will build a base, but only to test network configurations against bandwidth limits. I obviously do not have the years of experience that you guys have to bring up a well defended colony.

The problem then becomes you will be setting the rules by which we have to play without truly understanding their cause and effect. If you the Devs cannot build a functioning and sustainable base by your own rules how do you expect us to?

Islands poll: what exactly would be the poll about? This is a discussion, a poll like "Do you want us to redo some of the gamma islands?" wouldn't bring us forward in any way. Neither do "not like x and not like y" statements.

The poll I meant would be "do you have a problem terraforming vertical walls if they were limited in height?"

I'll try to put up the old island maps somewhere.

117

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

People max things all the time. I have the best armor tanked bot in the game.

You have a counter. The game rolls on. If you push something to the extreme in one area, you will gimp it in another. Thats the point of my proposed ceilings. You need to figure out a balance that works for your skills.
Everyones is different.

Most of what is currently suggested imposes such limitations so that only one type of base will be optimal, and every player will build that base.

118

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

What is wrong with terraforming walls, but adding or installing a gate structure? Terraforming already allows neat straight walls if the player puts the effort in. Why is this bad?

Also, you can put structures on top of terraformed walls. if you introduce multi tile wall structures, are you going to allow structures on top of them? This will only force an entire new set of code to put a structure on another structure. Why, when a system already exists?

119

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Norrdec wrote:

"To total terraforming charges spent in relationship to the base tile. ---(island development)"
do you mean a island-wide total? If so, I am against this step as it could be abused. If not island-wide, "To Terraforming +/- from the base tile" is enough.


Yes I do mean island wide.

And to clarify, it should be a limit on how much tiles are changed from their original base. This means you couldn't simply raise every tile to its max + value, for example.

The reason I suggest an island limit is to prevent infinte terraforming over the entre island. The limit forces you to concentrate most of your terraforming in the areas you plan on living or defending. And prevents you from spending all terraforming in a bid to wall the island off .... which wouldnt be possible anyways.

Abuse would be, max this and "lock" terraforming to prevent offensive operations. Solution would be to allow a different rapidly eroding terraform charge that would allow attackers to breach walls, and then allow them to "de-terraform" locked areas to assault other base areas.

So to expand on this ... 2 types of charges ... base building that is capped per island to prevent inifnte urban sprawl, and combat charges, which are used against bases and dont count against island caps.  The sole purpose of the combat charges are to prevent impregnagable bases. The cost of the combat charges should be higher, making them cost efficient to breach a base but not feasible to level or terraform a base. Once a base is breached  then regular charges could be used to de-terraform the rest of it, if the successful attacker so chose.

Norrdec I just thought of the 2 charges as a possible solution to your abuse concern. Because you raise a good point

120

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Dont make this too complicated or limiting, otherwiise you will kill player creativity.
You allowed us to go to the extremes in Gamma 1.0

Instead of the micro detail "3km from here" etc, make Island wide ceiling limits

To Bandwidth ----------------------------------------------------------------(total structures)
To Geothermal Extraction --------------------------------------------------(total fuel)
To Terraforming +/- from the base tile. ----------------------------------(heights)
To total terraforming charges spent in relationship to the base tile. ---(island development)

The ceilings should be based on what a large corporations main home base would require for moderate defenses and all production facilities, highways, and mining.

These ceilings prevent undue server load, infinte base sprawl, infinte terraforming, max terraforimng heights.
They allow the largest corps to effectively build and develop that one island as their main base.
They allow the small corp to build their smaller base with more defenses.
They allow random corps the ability to build medium bases, mining bases, fortifications, whatever the player thinks of.

The ceilings FORCE the player to "spend" wisely

Build 10 terminals?, sure but you dont have any bandwidth to build facilities or defenses
Build 10 highways to everywhere? sure but you dont have the fuel to run your turrets
Terraform exhaustively around the teleports to make chokepoints? sure but you dont have enough terraform charges to use to do it to both teles or god forbid, 3
Spam 100 turrets, sure but ..... you get the idea.

You have to think. The landscape of each island becomes important.

Bases should be harder to kill but not impossible. You cannot say 100 people can kill 1 person, because this is an extreme example. You have to base the sustainability of the base on the median amount in a corp. You will always have corps larger and smaller than the median.

The basic idea here instead of micromanaging and new rules and slope limits which will only allow ONE type of base to efficiently be built ... is to create a sandbox gamma with better limits than Gamma 1.0, but still allow player creativity. having limits around the box, rather than inside the box. allows all differnent types and sizes of corporations to play in the same areas.

Ideas like terraforming erosion and no go limits around teles should be incorporated somehow.
I want roamable islands with sustainable bases.


@ Zoom ... you need to get off the "terraforming any vertical walls is bad" bullshit. 1000m monoliths, yes, bad and ugly. 100m neat fortifications, not so much. Do a poll with players, you may be surprised with the results.
Why try and introduce wall structures or enlongated wall structures when you already have the mechanics to do it.
And you guys need to build a demo base. A full demo base. You the Devs need to see for yourself exactly how sustainable what you are proposing. Before we waste our lives again on something with a faulty foundation.

The best part about Gamma was the ability to build our own Castles, and knock someone elses down. The worst part was it was taken to extremes.

121

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Zoom. maybe you and the other Devs could build a base on the test server? Just to demonstrate what you are trying to achieve.

Makes sense?

122

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Cassius wrote:

I wish terraforming was tied to the original land elevation, and allowing terraforming either +50 or -50 from that tile. Can you comment on this, I've suggested it before.

That wouldn't be any different from the current system. The problem is not 1km high vertical walls, the problem is vertical walls, however high. Terraforming was not meant for that, walls are meant for that.

Seriously, exactly what would be wrong about a 100 m wall?
I thought the problem with Gamma was that players took things to the extreme. 100 m walls allow LOS defense, allow neat fortifications to be built, and most of all allow defenders a much easier time to burrow thru them. Having the terraforming tied to a value +- of the original tile allows for some measure of offensive terraforming.

Please stop and think why this would be bad. Having it tied to the original tile means not every area could be terraformed and also means the existing landscape would be hugely tactical.

Make bandwidth capped per island. This makes the players able to have variety and different combinations of structures and highways built.  IT ALLOWS CREATIVITY.

Bandwidth tied to terminals, and terraforming tied to slope means everyone will be building a pyramid and the same base with the same structures once the optimum is worked out.

Please seriously consider these.  Do what I'm suggesting and you can have one island with a mega base, another with just scattered but plentiful mining bases and outposts, or an island with 2 or main bases of different corps, the only limit to the combinations is the players mind.

123

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Finally, it was pointed out that the current bandwidth values in the terminal did not allow for a complete base. Ie you could not have defenses and production facilities, In fact I don't think you can hook all facilities only with. Posters to one terminal. This is a problem in itself. Being forced to use multiple terminals several km apart, to run all aspects of production wi only make general Gamma living unsustainable.

124

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Zoom, what? How does this help smaller corps? Nerfing turret defenses make bases harder to kill?
Nothing I've seen proposed indicates more difficulty in killing a Gamma settlement. Everything geared towards making it easier with the possible exception of not being able to make offensive cover.

The rest, not seeing it.

That said, bases do need to be destroyable, but if its too easy it won't be worth the investment. 1 guy should not be able to hold off 100, either.  I don't think a small corp 10+ should be able to hold off an alliance with 50 active PVPrs either.  If gamma is not sustainable then no one will live there. Many people learned the hard way in Gamma 1.0.

Anni's idea about available geothermal (fuel) on island and my idea about island wide bandwidth cap (structures) should be all the rules you need to nerf bases to a manageable server load while still allowing many different configurations. Ville's suggestion to test how OP bases can be is good as well. I don't like your suggested terraforming limits tied to slope, it essentially encourages one base style only, and that's a base on top of a pyramid, I wish terraforming was tied to the original land elevation, and allowing terraforming either +50 or -50 from that tile. Can you comment on this, I've suggested it before.

125

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

One terminal per island cap? I think its a bad idea. Find the best natural hard point on an island, drop terminal, attach defensive structures up the wazoo and presto, power projection and island denial for very little effort. Apparently this happened in Gamma 1.0, and wasn't well recieved by the forum posters. I think terminal limits should be determined by proximity and sustainability, perhaps a 4 km limit and an average resource available cap that allows 4 small bases to run is best. Or 2 medium and one small, or one mega. And perhaps as someone mentioned, structures that increase bandwidth to allow existing base expansion but then limit terminal placement.

One step further, how about an island bandwidth cap? This would allow all sorts of different base types and configurations but ultimately limit the overall number of structures and systems that could be substained on an island. Effectively limiting building sprawl and server load.