101

(19 replies, posted in General discussion)

dAll dead sea scrolls proved is that certain texts (OT, not NT) were unchanged since they were written which doesn't really prove anything.

Anyways, merry christmanahakwanzakadan or whatever lolreligions you believe.

102

(28 replies, posted in Open discussion)

TECHNOLOGY = MIGHT

Waterson big_smile

Merkle wrote:

Right now for small scale PVP as well as larger scale PVP I like where the locking ranges are currently at.

HOWEVER, for PVB (B = Base) it gets a bit hard sometimes.  Not necessary saying this is a problem.

As later new bots should help solve this problem.

It may be off topic but I think subscripts for SA's would fix my complaints.

Back on topic big_smile

104

(7 replies, posted in Balancing)

Big +1 here Merkle.

I think the ballance needs to be closer to "PvP only" ammo instead of the current "special occasions only PvP" ammo.

Now, you may say that you are able to acquire enough to PvP with but lets face it, with current game pop you are fighting much less then you would be otherwise.

It should be expensive enough it can't be used for farming but affordable enough to be used most of the time in PvP.

I agree with what was said earlier in this thread, solution to multibox PvP is more players.

That said, I think locking ranges / other things need to be examined when running without a support bot.

106

(4 replies, posted in General discussion)

I think this is a great idea.

107

(24 replies, posted in Q & A)

DEV Zoom wrote:

As we'd like to reach optimal impact with the Steam release, we still have to tune up the tutorials and the new player experience, so that will take some time. Target is currently early 2013.

I promised a dev blog about the current development, and I'd like to have that one out before the end of the year. This will be of the proposal kind, when we offer you some ideas and you tell us what could be wrong with it. But we still have to settle a few things for this before it can be published.

However, just so you have something to look forward (and theorycraft about), here are some bulletpoints:
* Instances (first for the tutorials, later on for certain other mechanics)
* Completely revamped research and knowledgebase (keywords: point-based, selectable goals)
* Revamped assignment system (keyword: random)

Good stuff smile

AnniXa wrote:
Ville wrote:

What your suggesting is not feasible under one premise the developers can't make money for their game this way.  People have been trading currency/items/teamspeak cybering sessions since I started playing.  This just bumps the economy and promotes end game players reason to pay for his or her subs securely and helps new or old players supplement income for possible things  like gamma and more pvp.

Um i dont know it for sure, but is not the montly fee here so that the devs earn money for theyr work?
So what is then the real reason for thread, impementing methods for making extra money next to the montly fee (wich will ever feel like Pay2win) or try to bridge the gap between veterans and newbies a bit?

The devs should rly make alot money with this game since its a great game, but it should be fair and not end up with a pay2win like solution...

I don't think you understand ICE/PleX.

"but is not the montly fee here so that the devs earn money for theyr work"

With an ICE solution the same number of subs (and maybe even more) are bought from the devs. They receive the same amount of money. Its just some of them are sold on the market to endgame players who would rather grind to pay for their sub. But someone is always buying the sub, they do not come out of thin air.

If no one wants to buy a sub, you can't make money from ICE.

Anyways, I only have one account subbed at the moment and If we had an ICE system I would likely sub at least one-two more (at no cost to me yet bringing the Devs more money)

The player selling the subscription in return gets the NIC the endgame person grinded. This helps out new players / players that don't want to grind / players that need an initial lump sum to do things with the market etc. Its good for the economy and good for the game. Really there are no losers when it comes to Plex.

109

(20 replies, posted in Balancing)

Kaldenines wrote:

'there should be diminishing returns trumpet'.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Did I mention yes?

Not having diminishing returns currently is one of the biggest reason for the "spammy" fitting we are forced to do.

As for how I would fit it different, I would fit it exactly the same except with T4. Why bother fitting T4 when their explosion will take you out or you will finish them with yours? Either way you are very likely to die.

I don't think explosion damage is beyond saving, however it needs to be toned down especially in the sense of mech/heavy explosions damaging lights / assaults who have far less range. Horizontal progression and all. All of Annihilators suggestions are good, common sense measures to bring some sense back to it.

110

(73 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Sundial wrote:

I have a dream that one day this planet will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all robots are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Daoden, the sons of former Ewar and the sons of former Ewar pilots will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the island of Hokkagaros, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little robot children will one day live on a planet where they will not be judged by the ewar of their robot but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!

- William Berger King Jr.

111

(20 replies, posted in Balancing)

As a long time Perpetuum player I will tell you the best part of having extremely high AoE explosion damage is it completely limits brawler fits to T1 throwaway mechs.

Its totally awesome not being able to do any expensive brawler fits without guaranteed death from someones explosion.

Who would want more diversity in fitting anyway? All we should ever have to fit is LWF + range extenders!

Explosion damage limits the game in more ways than you can think. Ever wonder why we have no close range small weapons? Look no further than explosion damage...

Terrible, terrible mechanic. Interference already requires you to trim the fat in a squad and limits spamming logistics alts.

As for the plates increasing hit size, I completely agree with you. Shields should increase hitsize, armor plates already have enough disadvantages without that as one.

112

(20 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Here is $10 towards a good cause. I believe it is a good cause considering the circumstances and the modest goal.

113

(49 replies, posted in News and information)

Hmm, that is an interesting change to missiles. It is probably for the best though, missiles looked like snails in the air before...

Ludlow Bursar wrote:

I love the little message that pops up when you reach 500. Made me chuckle, anyways

Seek professional help my friend.

115

(165 replies, posted in General discussion)

Tux wrote:

Hares a suggestion instead of continuing to modify the stats of the current mining robots, why not just add in new robots with skills based towards low security mining? Give it less miners, but more mined amount bonus so it some what keeps up with the riv’s but it has more slots capability and bonuses geared towards tanking spawns on mineral fields.
A good way to do this might be to give it:
mined amount bonus
shield absorption bonus (or armor repair / resist bonus) one or the other.
CPU / Reactor reduction for equipped industrial modules / harvesters / miners
Don’t allow it to equip misc. slots … allow it to equip about 4 miners and 2 turret / missile slots slots

This bots bonuses should be geared toward long endurance mining operations so it need a large accumulation for shield tanking and a adequate recharge time ..
This robot should not be able to equip RSA’s RR’s or RET’s it needs to be a pure miner so as not to be over powered in pvp.

Won't matter if you are being neuted / ECMd into oblivion by every NPC and its mother.

116

(3 replies, posted in General discussion)

What do you suggest we do about the buildings on hersh that you are able to walk through?

Annihilator wrote:

Can we have it back and giving it a meaning?

My Idea would be the following robot parameters:

Robot Max speed =
Robot Mass =
Robot Laden weight =

From Empty robot up to laden weight the robot would always run his max speed. The only way to exceed it, would be speed nexus and highway buff.

if you Robot Mass + Equipment Mass > Laden weight, your slowed down
LWF loweres your Robots Empty Mass so you can fit more mass before reaching laden weight.

Laden weight of every robot is based on a a standard combat fit, with all slots filled. Since T3 and T4 modules have more mass then T1, it would slow you down.

Define a standard combat fit. Would that include plates / hardeners / medium reppers for armor mechs?

118

(165 replies, posted in General discussion)

Inda wrote:

Some aspects in PVP was a bit better, now a bit better to "minecrafters"/ carebears i think.

Yep... We need to find a balance between the two.

119

(45 replies, posted in Q & A)

DEV Zoom wrote:

We're discussing how could we make light bots more interesting, you'll know when we got something smile

Awesome big_smile

This is great news.

120

(45 replies, posted in Q & A)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Valid points, but their detection potential isn't affected by equipped guns.

Defensive detection potential does not diminish as much, but offensive detecting potential factors in both travel time and detection strength. Travel time is directly correlated to the amount of weight you add on to your bot.

Zoom, here is a scenario of why even defensive detection with guns equipped is bad.

M2S and friends came to Nova, it was my job to get eyes on their main fleet. I was all the way north and got eyes on them in the northeast most teleport.

They must have seen me too, because MoBIoS in a Troiar Mk2 and a castel Mk2 detector were dispatched to tackle and kill me. Had I been fit with guns, I surely would have died. But luckily I was not and I was able to outrun them. They gave up and I continued to apply my detector to their group.

I really have to disagree with your statement that fitting guns does not affect their detection potential. While this is true on paper only looking at your signal strength, in practice this falls flat on its face. I would know, I have a dedicated detector account with over 500K EP spent on being the ultimate scout bot.

121

(45 replies, posted in Q & A)

DEV Zoom wrote:

A combat scout? Unheard of smile

Fitting for combat gimps scouting potential, fitting for scouting gimps combat potential.

Currently you can have one or the other, but the result is certainly not a "combat scout" when done efficiently. Why do you think you never see anyone using light bots besides with no guns and a detector?  When fit for combat, there is not a single bot in the game they outclass at any particular task. Also, they are just barely faster than their equivalent assault bot when fit with guns.

122

(4 replies, posted in Balancing)

Celebro wrote:
Sundial wrote:

It would essentially make it so that you could mine an unlimited amount of any ore on gamma.



Constructive criticism is welcome.


AFAIK not any ore. Factional ore/plants are still needed if you base yourself on 1 island. Unlimited it is, same as with static ore fields, before, you just needed to wait for regeneration, now you have to search and maybe terraform your way to get the ores.

IMO no matter what you change atm, no conflict will be created we just need more players to fill those gamma 'gaps'.

Yes but you can get all that stuff on alpha...

This change would not affect players now because there are not enough to hit the regeneration. This would simply bring the high end ore resources in line with the other high end resources in terms of limitations.

Gremrod wrote:

+9000

I was under the impression that what the OP is suggesting is exactly what industry 2.0 was supposed to do...

+9001

124

(45 replies, posted in Q & A)

Any dev care to comment? Or is the reason for no comment the fact that light bots are not designed at all?

125

(4 replies, posted in Balancing)

"Completely new tier of modules using colixum."

Back when the gamma patch was still being discussed heavily on the forums and in beta, I couldn't help but see an issue the dynamic ore spawns would present. It would essentially make it so that you could mine an unlimited amount of any ore on gamma.

While this may be fine for certain fundamental building blocks of bots, I don't think this is ok for high ends like epriton or colixum. Currently there is no real reason to have more than one gamma / beta island besides the ability to stage out of it. Once you have your gamma, you have essentially unlimited epriton / colixum.

While I understand this may be "working as intended" It is not going to do anything to drive conflict of resources. I propose that we give epriton and colixum a set rate of regeneration instead of instant. This way when population scales up in the game, you will need multiple beta/gamma islands to meet demand of the market and your corp.

In addition to that, I think there should be some kind of strategic recourse that encourages you to deploy assets on multiple islands. By having people deploy smaller bases built for harvesting this resources, you can have fights / things to shoot without assaulting someones main PBS. Once depleted, these recources would not regenerate in the same place / island unless you got really lucky. They would work like dynamic ore spawns except across ALL of perpetuum and would be automatically harvested by structures. For the sake of the lore, lets call this "Energy Harvesting". This would give small groups a reason to deploy a small PBS (we need these too) on an island. This would also make it to where big corps couldn't just build one PBS and have nothing left to do.

Constructive criticism is welcome.