1 Reply by Robophiliac

(15 replies, posted in Balancing)

Making a separate post of the combat exploration missions breakdown. Combat exploration missions are teamed with combat missions when investing EP. Here is the official mission names & objectives breakdown.

Types: Ok 4 set mission templates randomized between once again. 3 of the missions require using a geoscanner to locate a mission generated artifact somewhere within a roughly 1.5k radius of the objective point. If you know how to scan down an artifact with/without FOOM Scan tool, these can be done fairly quickly. Like the post above these are listed roughly easy-hard.

The Obvious Trap- This is the oddball that doesn't need an artifact found.
A. Activate switch, mobs will spawn before you quite reach switch so mission updates and switch is optional & not required
B. Scan for clues by locking enemies, locking the squad and starting combat completes this step dropping a blue mission crate
C. Loot mission item(steps C & D can be done in any order and both appear once the mission crate drops)
D. Kill all enemies
E. Deliver mission item to any terminal

Ambushed-
A. Find artifact nearby, mobs will spawn instead of artifact pop when found
B. Kill all enemies

Guardians of the Past-
A. Find artifact nearby, mobs & an artifact container will pop
B. Loot mission item
C. Kill all enemies
D.  Deliver mission item to any terminal

The Secret Den-
A. Scout location, mobs will spawn
B. Lock on enemies to "scan", blue mission crate will drop
C. Loot mission item
D. Kill all enemies
E. Deliver to a specific dropbox, mission will update with a new location a sec later
F. Find artifact nearby, mobs will pop
G. Kill all enemies

Squad size and composition: These are the same squads faced doing Lvl 4 combat missions, 3-4 mobs, lights through mechs & industrial heavies(Riv/Sym), up to T5.

Pay and relation: Once again I have 5 EP in combat specialization which is combat and combat exploration both. I ramped up to 5x for bonuses then wrote how much I made for which mission till I had 2-3 each. Following the above list-
Trap- 400-500k
Ambushed- 700k-1M
Guardians- 800k-1M
Den- 1.2M-1.6M
Relation gain is the same as combat missions at .52 with 5 EP in contract negotiations.

I'll edit my post above later with the correct mission names, objective lists and pay rates. Can someone else with EP in other mission specializations and/or running other mission types note and post up breakdowns for them please?

Go to forum: Balancing

2 Reply by Robophiliac

(110 replies, posted in Bugs)

same
selected toon but it never loads

Go to forum: Bugs

3 Reply by Robophiliac

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

From another thread...

A possible replacement for the Field Rescue idea, if a player loses their last bot instead of the default Arkhe give players a special "default fit T1" light. This is a light of the player's primary faction equipped with a non-alterable, per-configured, standard T1 fit. It should be a bare bones effective option to run level 1 missions, it doesn't even have to have all the slots filled. Making it unable to have its fittings changed shouldn't affect the market for light bots as much.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

4 Topic by Robophiliac

(1 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I believe the Dev's intentions behind thinking up the field rescue idea is valid even if that may not be the right way to go about it. I also think most of the peeps posting in the Field Rescue Discussion Thread are to blinded by the mechanic suggested to properly discuss the underlying issue it is meant to solve, namely that it is easy for newer players to lose everything and/or just not know how to proceed in a world like Perp. I'm starting this thread to focus discussion on ideas and changes that might be made with the goal of easing the new player experience.

1. From comments in Help & General I've seen, some people didn't know you get your first light and assault bots by completing the tutorial. I don't know if this information is made apparent to players immediately when they start when they are suggested to do the tutorial but should be if not. 1 option might be to make completing the tutorial mandatory. Another might be a change to how players enter the world. Tweak the tutorial and incorporate it into character creation so a new player joins the game with the tutorial done, their first 2 bots, a few mods and some nic. I'd also suggest removing the artifacting part of the tutorial cause I've seen players just stuck there. For now just remove it till the artifacting changes proposed are worked out and in play.

2. With the recent npc aggro changes and the plans to replace static spawns with roaming squads, the new mission system is obviously meant to be the default means of supporting oneself. Stress this to new players when they start. Players should be encouraged to spend some EP into whichever mission type suits their playstyle. I've leveled from faction 1-4 on the new system with 5 EP in combat  mission specialization and imo the mission system can work as a replacement to typical npc ratting.

3. A possible replacement for the Field Rescue idea, if a player loses their last bot instead of the default Arkhe give players a special "default fit T1" light. This is a light of the player's primary faction equipped with a non-alterable, per-configured, standard T1 fit. It should be a bare bones effective option to run level 1 missions, it doesn't even have to have all the slots filled. Making it unable to have its fittings changed shouldn't affect the market for light bots as much.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5 Reply by Robophiliac

(15 replies, posted in Balancing)

I'm currently doing lvl 4 combat missions on Shin. I'll explain them and throw out some numbers/stats for peeps. I've only done combat missions. I'd like to see posts from some of you doing other types with similar details so we can compare them.

Types: There are 4 combat mission templates that are randomly chosen from. Combat ranges from 1-3 enemy squads. Missions are listed fastest/easiest > slowest/longest

Hunting the Hunters- This is the fastest and easiest of the 4 and pays out the worst.
A. Scout location, mobs will spawn once in range
B. Kill all enemies
C. Loot blue mission crate that drops off last mob
D. Deliver mission item to any terminal

Intruder Alert-
A. Scout location, mobs will spawn once in range
B. Kill all enemies
C. Scout location, mobs will spawn once in range
D. Kill all enemies

Connection Lost-
A. Go to and activate 1st switch
B. Wait a sec for mobs to pop
C. Kill all enemies
D. Go to and activate 2nd switch
E. Wait a sec for mobs to pop
F. Kill all enemies

Patrol Duty-
A. Scout location, mobs will spawn once in range
B. Kill all enemies
C. Scout location, mobs will spawn once in range
D. Kill all enemies
E. Scout location, mobs will spawn once in range
F. Kill all enemies

Squad size and composition: Level 3 & 4 missions randomly spawn 3-4 npcs per squad. For lvl 3 missions the npcs range up to assualts and possibly a scarab. Lvl 4 missions include up to mechs and heavy industrials. (Note- I believe lvl 5 missions are 4-5 npcs of any size including heavy combat mechs but I'm not up to them yet.) Both lvl 3 & 4 mission npcs are of randomized strength up to and including T5.

Pay and relation: Pay/relation will vary depending on everyone's EP spent obviously. I have 5 points in combat missions and 5 points in contract negotiations. I've leveled from 1 to 4 now in a squad with my alt. The nic pay offered seems to basically double each lvl. At lvl 3 the best I made off a Patrol type mission was just over 500k per toon, at lvl 4 now that same mission is paying a little over 1M per toon. Lvl 3 missions gave .78 relation each and lvl 4 missions are .52 relation each. (Note- All numbers are for max bonus, ie you did 5 missions already so you've incremented up the pay.)
Hunting- 300-400k
Alert- 600-700k
Lost- 600-800k
Patrol- 900k-1.0M


Edit: Changed 2 of the template types to their official mission name & objective lists, will change the other 2 later.

Edit2: Ok all mission names & steps are listed now instead of my shorthand notes. smile  Added in the pay range on level 4 missions as well.

Go to forum: Balancing

6 Reply by Robophiliac

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I understand your point, though a bit exaggerated. How often really is a vet dying to pve on Alphas?

Make it a one time life with 50% loss on cargo & mods over T1. Maybe even limit it to assaults & smaller. If you step into a mech you should have enough game play in to know how to recover from there.

Edit: You can also set a EP cap on it. Once a player reaches a preset total EP value they are no longer offered Syndicate protection. This way it would only help newer players to the game.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

7 Reply by Robophiliac

(15 replies, posted in Balancing)

Overall, I like the new mission system. It is much better than what was in place.

Jita wrote:

After trying out the mission system I do kind of like it however I have some thoughts and questions.

Firstly is travel time - particularly in the low level missions your travel time is 90% of the mission. I would suggest aiming for a travel time closer to 30%, perhaps by making lower level missions spawn closer and higher level further away.

The second point is mission progression. My question is what is it for? The low level missions are essentially a slow, easy stepping stone to higher level missions. They are based on the idea that a new person will come to the game and have that stepping stone before they are ready for higher level missions. Why not remove the restrictions related to standing completely. If the first time you do a mission you do a level 5 mission then great. Each of the mission levels should have a recommended bot type and the reward payout would be based upon your standing. You would still have the progression if new people wanted to do missions from day one but if they did something else, had their first mech and wanted to start they could skip the killing arkhe's and go straight in to something a bit more fun.

The third point is in reward. It would be nice to have a sliding scale on a mission screen as to what you would want your syndicate reward to be. On the one side you could pick pure nic - no cans would drop and you get more money. You might choose pure loot - no mission monetary reward but an increase in the can drops (and so kernals / fragments).


#2- I agree with unlocking mission level access from faction standing. Instead give Syndicate store items faction level requirements to buy with ammo being 0. Anything above ammo(which means it has some sort of minimum faction requirement to buy) can not be sold on the player market, players can only sell tokens or ammo. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with ammo being no sell as well and having a minimum faction requirement to buy.

#3- I also agree with a sliding scale system for missions. 1 adjustable scale for rewarding nic vs. faction standing gain(more nic for less faction relation or reverse), and a separate adjustable scale for pay out rewards vs. drops. So for example I could pick pure relation gain over nic and pay out over drops for an extremely large relation gain but no nic or drops.

Go to forum: Balancing

8 Reply by Robophiliac

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

If the intent of this is to make the game a little easier for newer players, only works on Alpha 1&2 islands and only from PvE deaths, then I think a limited "lives" system could be a good idea.

I would suggest a 2 or 3 step system as follows:
2 Step: 1st death = 33% loss of modules & cargo, 2nd death = 66% loss, 3rd death is total death(robot/cargo/mods)
3 Step: 1st death =25%, 2nd = 50%, 3rd = 75%, 4th = done

Upon dying you revive back at the closest terminal with what remains of your bot/mods/cargo. The bot is flagged as needing repairs and cannot have mods or cargo removed from it till the repairs are done. To repair the bots I would then add the player made repair kits as someone else mentioned. These should be robot size specific & tiered to match the death percentages above. So if I'm driving a Bapho and die once I'll need to buy an assault tier 1 repair kit, which should cost roughly 33% of an assault if using the 2 step system above or 25% if 3 step.

Note: I would specifically make mission cargo immune to the % losses above, though the player would still have to repair the bot to retrieve the cargo and continue with the mission. Also if the above were implemented I'd remove player loot from dropping when killed by a npc. With the new system the Syndicate is already hauling back your remains when you die so there is nothing for a player to go back out and loot themselves and the final tier of death should be complete loss since you now have 2-3 lives. Final bot death would mean an automatic mission fail if any type of cargo hauling was required since the cargo would be destroyed with everything else on the last death.

The biggest reason I think this may be needed to help newer players is the proposed npc rework. With Alpha 2s having only red mobs soon, they are going to be much harder for players to live on comparatively. Industrial players of all types are going to be hit hardest by this. All noncombat missions will suddenly have potential combat requiring dodging reds now. Mining and harvesting will suddenly have risks where there currently are none. I started playing years ago when roaming red caravans & Observers required careful monitoring of your surroundings and running like hell from your mining op from time to time hoping the bots would pass quickly enough to get back to your can before it imploded. I did it before and I'll do it again, no biggy for me or for the game's vets.

I understand the players that say it will cut into bot sales, but quite frankly we need to retain players. You're still not going to sell any extra Kains compared to now if players are not staying and continuing to grind. A slight loss on units sold per person should be more than made up for by having more players stay in game and buying bots in the first place.

Though not specifically part of this thread's topic, some of the other ideas posted here like the production changes are good too. I'm eager to see what the Devs do with Zoom's mention of configurable stat manufacturing and loot drop changes.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

9 Reply by Robophiliac

(56 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ville wrote:
Robophiliac wrote:

I like Ville's idea of ERP onboard as well and it could be turned into a robot bonus. You could make it 2-3% per level of adv. robotics to all damage types. A T4 ERP converts 70/30/15/15 for 130 across all 4. 30% ERP effect verse all damage types would be 120. The specific numbers could be debated. However the bot would not be allowed to equip an ERP module. It trades the always on ability for the better results the others get by equipping damage type specific ERPs.

I think a robot Mech DPS firearms that is PURE Tank with bonuses to ERP would be effective in not only PVE but PVP doing dual duties.

Honestly I think if it just had an ERP bonus effecting the module it might be too good. A Seth with ERP/rep & firearm combo is already very effective. Firearms are also already good DPS, just adding a faction weapon damage bonus would make this bot better than that Seth with the same build. If possible to add, I think the always on approach would be easier to balance for this specific build since you can then cap the phantom ERP's max effectiveness and not effect ERPs on other bots.

For robot bonuses off adv robotics I'm thinking:
1. Firearms faction damage bonus though not as much as the other factions
2. "Phantom ERP"
3. Hit Dispersion reduction
4. Crit chance or accu regen time- crit chance blends well with lower alpha damage & fast cycle times, but if you don't want to step on the Seth's crit bonus advantage then I think accu regen speed would go well with the "Phantom ERP" idea.

Edit: Slots-
Are you wanting MK1 & MK2 like currently. or should these be stand alone? Either works for me and I could see the Devs working MK2 variants into the planned artifact revamp. Maybe not directly but in keeping them Syndicate store only they might require something gathered by doing the missions involving artifacting.
Head- 5 if MK1/2, 6 if stand alone
Torso- 6
Leg- 4 if MK1/2, 5 if stand alone
6/6/5 would make it a slight step between a current Seth MK1 & MK2. The head slots of the MK2 with the legs of the MK1.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

10 Reply by Robophiliac

(56 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

no eve names pls -_-

but otherwise nice post smile

I didn't/don't play eve. I was thinking a mythical creature that flings projectiles from its tail would be a good name. sad


Edit: grammar

Edit again: So Dev Zoom will firearms work on a Gropho chassis? If not for whatever reason my build above is just a combat Symbiont. yarr

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

11 Reply by Robophiliac

(56 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

* Syndicate robots don't necessarily have to have a common faction trait, like either shield or armor affinity (other than the machine gun bonus). Remember that they will be combined from various factions, and although we could simply take and combine those factions bonuses, that's not necessary. And the concept is that efficiency and usability is the Syndicate's main aim when doing these bots, not being tied to any one faction's technology.
* The only thing that's fixed is the number of chassis slots of the used chassis part. We can't add extra slots to it, but if necessary we can take away (but the 3d model will still have it). Head/leg slots can be anything since those are not visible.
* They are planned to be the same color as the Arkhe.
* You can think about industrial Syndicate bots too. (Tried a Lithus on Riveler tracks, doesn't look bad.)...

Come to think of it, we could even make a contest for this, and the winners would actually receive the robots they suggested.

I'll throw in a bid.

Notes-- My combat alt runs a Seth. I just went back to lasers on it from trying firearms for a bit; I've gone back and forth with them before. So I do have some firearms use. My extensions are not "vet" level but mid level.

MANTICORE
Class: Heavy mech specialized in firearms.
Faction: Syndicate

Legs- Symbiont Wheels- This account is my industrial alt & drives Riv/Symbiont. I like the Symbiont's wheels with the pointed fronts. The whole wheel base has a kind of tankish look to them. I'll start my build off with that.

Torso- Gropho Chassis - I'd like to pop a Gropho chassis on next; if 6 turrets can be placed into slots made with missiles in mind. If that isn't possible, unfortunately the 2nd best option is probably the Symbiont again.

Head- Gargoyle Head- Truthfully I'd prefer the Symbiont head, but I'm basing this build off the feet so don't want 2 or even all 3 from the same bot. tongue

Reasonings, thoughts & bonuses: Firearms have already been shown to be effective in specific builds. When adding in a new combat heavy mech focused on firearms, I tried to think what would be useful without just adding damage or getting in the way of the roles the other faction heavies already fill.

I've based this combat heavy off the Symbiont wheels first off for the increased maneuverability. The Manticore would have the same speed and slope capacity as a Symbiont. This would tie it in speed with the Mesmer yet be the only combat heavy with this slope capacity. Firearms have the shortest default range, which is even worse if you try to use the -50% range chemo shells. Like EM guns, firearms needs to be quick/agile to get in range.

In addition to having the worst range, firearms have the worst hit dispersion. With a hit dispersion of 12, they only have a 83% chance of hitting another combat heavy mech like a Seth. I do have lvl 10 precision firing, which gives me the max possible dispersion reduction before modules are added, and that only drops it to 8.4. My short range med lasers have a dispersion of 5.6 before modules and even EM guns would be around 7 something. Neither of those would need to equip a weapon stab to reliably hit mechs, emechs & heavies. Firearms need weapon stabs, which means they get hit by the demob penalty for equipping them. Imo the wheel base seems like it would make for a more stable firing platform. This made me think of the Manticore's new robot bonus. The current heavies all have faction weapon bonuses & a pure damage bonuses. This bot has the faction bonus for Firearms but instead of the pure damage bonus it gets 1.5%-3% hit dispersion per level adv. robotics. That would give it a 15%-30% hit dispersion reduction at lvl 10 which is the same as 1-2 T4 stabs which are 15% each.

I like Ville's idea of ERP onboard as well and it could be turned into a robot bonus. You could make it 2-3% per level of adv. robotics to all damage types. A T4 ERP converts 70/30/15/15 for 130 across all 4. 30% ERP effect verse all damage types would be 120. The specific numbers could be debated. However the bot would not be allowed to equip an ERP module. It trades the always on ability for the better results the others get by equipping damage type specific ERPs.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

12 Reply by Robophiliac

(56 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I'd really like to hear from Dev Zoom what is possible and that isn't for them in robot parts mix & match?  What are our limits here using whats already in game?

I'd posted some ideas on freeing up slot choices & bonuses in a different thread. But I just had another thought, how hard would it be to create blank configurable robots for players? My Riveler has 4 head, 6 torso & 5 leg slots; can I instead buy a blank Riv body with 15 slots to distribute between head/torso/leg? Or 14 since it is not as efficient? Can I pick/change/modify the bonuses currently assigned different bodies? Change mining bonuses to armor repair and accu regen or maybe shield? Increasing customization/personalization options would be awesome. What are the Dev's limitations on how much they can do?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

13 Topic by Robophiliac

(3 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Below are some thoughts and ideas hopefully to fuel discussion. I debated where to post what and decided to throw everything together in this forum section since it does include thoughts to new features.

1. The NPC aggro change is huge. For a person out pve'ing it up for whatever reason(modules/plasma/kernels) pulling 1 mob and knowing 1 or more was going to come linked is normal. The majority of the spawns points are 2 of a specific set of randomized 2+ linked mobs. Now every spawn is instead 1 big pull. Basically all pull sizes have been doubled. They really may as well spawn as 1 linked mob set now then perhaps the Devs can look at making changes to the resulting npc squads total numbers & composition. I know it only makes sense that the npc's should "aid" each other. But suddenly aggro'ing 4-6+ mobs everywhere when you use to be able to sometimes maybe only barely handle the 2-3 you got before greatly reduces the over all pve solo & duo/bot farming options.

2. This next point however may render the above meaningless anyway, I've seen posts make mention of removing static spawns entirely? Is this Dev quote from somewhere? This factors into a lot of different aspects of game play. Even if pve static farming is harder now than before due to #1, that is completely different from removing it as an option all together. Indy oriented, casuals, pve'rs, newer/low EP players will be hugely affected by static spawn removal. Pve farming is a major if not primary source for players to acquire modules for use or sell, plasma for pure nic potential, kernels for what are already large research point investment requirements and also the fragments & decoders needed for manufacturing. I believe I've read someone say this would leave artifacting, roaming mobs, beacons and missions. I ran through the new mission system from a previous faction standing of 1.0 up to my current 3.0 on Daoden doing just combat missions and am eager to see the upcoming Alpha 2 map & mission system changes added. Phasing out the need for static spawns may actually be possible but not until the new mission system is fully out on all islands. Then changes to mission rewards, drops per mob, number of mobs spawned per mission, maybe research point requirements or amount of research gained from each type of kernel things like this can be adjusted to replace needing static spawns.

The next 2 topics are the reason for posting in this forum section. They both fall under the general idea of more customization options for players. As I understand it the Devs don't currently have an artist for graphic model changes & new additions like robots & modules things like that yes? Keeping that in mind the following ideas would affect each other but individually are potentially worth adding and discussing.

3. Slot changes: I'm breaking this up into 2 parts/possible ideas.

A. Torso specific- How many robots have torso slots that for some reason can not be changed? Be it graphic issues like clipping or something else. What if torso slots had no Turret/Indy/Misc/Missle restrictions...they were just torso slots like head/feet? Or if players could at least change some?

B. Overall slot change- Slot substitutions- Imagine if you will 1 or more "phantom" head and feet slots on the equip UI. These slots can only have modules equipped if another slot(head/feet or torso) is right clicked on and disabled meaning nothing can be equipped there. The phantom slots would not be available for use on the torso cause that would require graphic artist work to add external hardpoints.

4. Robot bonus changes: Every bot has I believe 3-5(more?) robot bonuses governed by basic/advanced robotics. I would suggest allowing players to pick their own bonuses for 1 or more of these instead, with a minimum restriction of at least 1 permanent and unalterable bonus from the current robot specializations. Allow 1 or more of these bonuses on your activated robot to be replaced & selected from a drop-down menu on the equip or info UIs that includes all the different possible current basic/advanced bonuses available & maybe we can add some more as well. They would still be governed by basic/advanced robotics & would retain the same values(though I could see an argument that maybe they would be slightly less than current faction specific traits to balance the resulting ability to more finely tune our robots).

3 & 4 above could maybe/hopefully/possibly be just added to the game to increase a player's options when it comes to their robots. They could also possibly be balanced by requiring EP investments in current or even new skills. Imo more options are better and I wanted to see what others thought of these.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

14 Reply by Robophiliac

(5 replies, posted in Q & A)

Thanks Syndic. I'll play around with maxing Thel & Adv robotics control in the planner & see what that leaves me with.

A couple of other questions:

Can a person be affected by more than 1 remote sensor amp? I thought a person could only be amp'd from 1 but noticed I have 2 equipped on my support Riveler for some reason. What about equipping a sensor amp & being remote amp'd, does that stack?

Is there any limit to how many remote armor reps or energy transfer modules a player can be targeted with at once?

I'm sure I'll have plenty more questions later once I have some spare time to start actually playing again. big_smile

Go to forum: Q & A

15 Topic by Robophiliac

(5 replies, posted in Q & A)

Hi all,
Logged in last night for the first time in about 2.5 yrs. Thinking I'm gonna casually play again for awhile. I'm reading patch notes & the help guide to remember how everything works & what all is changed, there has been a bit.

I've got 2 accounts(1 combat, 1 industrial). Each has roughly 140k EP spent in their respective roles and is sitting on another roughly 140k of available EP. This account, the industrial alt, is going to take quite some time to figure how I'm speccing it. The research and mining changes since last I played are big.

My combat alt is currently sitting in a Seth(pew pew lasers ftw), and has most of the basics(I think?) covered extension wise. I grabbed the latest version of Perpetuum Planner and while not 100% current, it is still helpful for trying to decide where to put my available EP. Here are my current extensions & what I was thinking for dumping points in. Let me know if anything seems horribly off.  tongue  I'm mostly a solo PvE player atm.

Extension -- Current level -- New level

ELECTRONICS:
Accel target lock -- 5 -- 10
Data processing -- 7 -- 10
Demob -- 1
Jamming electronics -- 5
Long distance EW -- 2
Long range target -- 5 -- 10
Sensor connection -- 1
Sensor suppress -- 1
Targeting -- 3 -- 5

ENGINEERING:
Accel armor rep -- 5
Accel reload -- 3 -- 5
Accu expansion -- 5 -- 8
Complex mechanics -- 5 -- 9
Econ armor use -- 5
Econ weapon use -- 5
Efficient energy transfer -- 3
Energy manage -- 5 -- 8
Improve armor rep -- 2
Mechanics -- 5
Optimized armor use -- 5
Optimized engineering -- 1
Optimized shield -- 1
Optimized weapon -- 5
Reactor expansion -- 7 -- 10

WEAPON USAGE:
Adv kinematics -- 5
Adv optics -- 5
Basic ballistics -- 1
Basic kinematics -- 5
Basic optics -- 5
Critical hit -- 5
General firing -- 5
Improved falloff -- 1
Missile launch -- 1
Precision firing -- 9
Rapid-firing -- 5
Sharpshooting -- 5 -- 9
Target analysis -- 5

NEXUS:
Basic squad -- 1

ROBOT CONTROL:
Adv robotics -- 5
Basic robotics -- 5
Combat robotics -- 1 -- 5
Industrial robot -- 4
Thelodica -- 8

Go to forum: Q & A

16 Reply by Robophiliac

(39 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1 to any of the above mentioned ideas to allow me to direct how my research is learned.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

17 Reply by Robophiliac

(15 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Radix Salvilines wrote:

If Perpetuum will grow imagine a clash of two gangs - 10 people each and every bot having a different mix of parts. You would be unable to quickly *** the strength of the other side its weaknesses and advantages. No calling primaries, no strategy - just shoot at the nearest one and hope you were lucky.  It would be a total lottery and each fight would be a quite mindless like a japanese/korean f2p mmo.


Annihilator already answered this...its called chassis scanners.  Also you would still be able to tell certain aspects at a glance even with a more modular type bot building.  Weapons are already easy to tell, as are other torso slot equips.  If you see for example a mech coming at you with only 1-2 or even 0 weapons then you pretty much know its some type of ewar.


Radix Salvilines wrote:

HOWEVER what I am suggesting in the initial post is to create more options and more tactical scenarios for players. I prefer a good strategy rather than a quick fight and that is why I am focusing on evolution of tactics - not the robots themselves. As I wrote before - if you like you may thing of the robots I proposed as separate parts that can be combined for uniqe funcionalities - but then it has to be balanced so that the other side potentialy has more time to come up with a counter-strategy to defend themselves.
Whether a robot is to be modular or not is a topic for another discussion smile


I am all about more options, don't get me wrong there.  I would not mind some of the additions you suggest in the OP, but I personally would like to see it in a way that lets players "build" their own bot how they want, not just jump from 1 bot to another to another like switching classes.

Yes I also know that that creates all kinds of balance issues.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

18 Reply by Robophiliac

(37 replies, posted in General discussion)

Agree with most here, number 3 seems to make the most sense as they are all directly related anyway.


Edit: And YIPPY for dev created discussion threads.  smile

Go to forum: General discussion

19 Reply by Robophiliac

(128 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

As I believe was mentioned above by someone else, I would love to see an "Official Topic for Discussion" thread started by the devs on a maybe bi-weekly basis.

First off this would allow the devs to inform us players about ideas they are considering.  However as it is a discussion thread and not a "this is in the works" thread it would help to avoid the whole "Well Dev so and so promised this or that" problem.  It would also limit the amount of wild speculation that always occurs when we hear just brief bits of information outta context and without knowing any related specifics.

Snowman did have a good point in that opening ideas for discussion amongst the players can help to highlight problems or concerns that the devs may not have thought of before a patch is deployed and problems discovered the hard way.

While we know the devs are working hard in the background and want the game to succeed as much or more than us players do, lack of information from them for any lengthy period of time gives the impression that they either don't care or are not doing anything. 

While Arga is right that rants are usually an ineffective and maybe even detrimental method of communicating one's feelings, it should also be understood that those same rants show that the player has some deep feelings for this game.  If they are willing to rant about something it shows they care.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

20 Reply by Robophiliac

(69 replies, posted in Balancing)

Caravans are indeed no problem at all to get outta the way of.  They slowly creep along and give plenty of time to escape before entering aggro range.  I would not have a problem with them if they aggro'd anything that let them get close enough.

I would still like to see field container timers increased first especially because the caravans are SO slow.

Arga is right about the SO on Tellesis.  Not only is it everywhere, there are at least 2 of them and possibly a GO that roam separately.  I've seen both SOs walk by me at the same time going opposite directions.  Buffed up like they are right now, even spotting it at max range I really do not wanna bet my Riveler that I can get away from it in time.

Go to forum: Balancing

21 Reply by Robophiliac

(69 replies, posted in Balancing)

Scyylla wrote:
Robophiliac wrote:

As a mostly mining toon atm I very much against the ideas of more aggro toward miners/harvesters from Observers and Mobile NPC Spawns(MNS).

First off field containers would need to have their timers doubled.  MNS are slow as hell.  Yes that makes them very easy to run from if one is paying attention to their landmarks but you are going to lose you container waiting for them to move through an area so you can get back to it.

Next off be ready for ore prices to probably double if you increase aggro on miners.  If miners are getting blown up more you can be sure they are gonna charge more so they can keep replacing their bots/gear.  Plus a large number of players will simply opt to stay at the few spots per island that have no aggro moving through/near it.  These "safe" spots will remain even more perma drained than they are now and even less ore will be coming into the market because of it.

Requiring miners to have protection with them on alpha islands is not realistic.  Who wants to sit and watch a miner for hours on end so that 1-2 an hour they can pop a npc then go back to watching the pretty mining laser lights.  And with only 1 weapon slot it is not realistic to expect miners to be able to defend themselves.

I must disagree with you.

A PVE toon risks his bot and fittings every time he engages a spawn. The same should be expected of an indy toon. There should be risk associated with mining and harvesting just like there is risk in every profession in the game. Even straight manufacturing toons risk starting a production run and having someone else stock the market with the same item before the build is done.

We all have to take risks and I fully endorse aggro from wandering spawns and observers.

Scylla
Indy Toon


A PvE fit bot is ready and able to defend itself, that is the purpose of its fit. 

A producer can either under bid its competition or leave their products up at a slightly higher price till they sell.

My Riveler can not decide to fit 2 or 3 guns in place of mining lasers to be able to defend itself should it get aggro.  IF they add industrial slot weapons like was mentioned in a previous Dev Blog then maybe that would be an option.  But right now it is not and all it can do is run and pray aggro is lost and moves on in time to get back to the field container before all its work goes puff.

Go to forum: Balancing

22 Reply by Robophiliac

(69 replies, posted in Balancing)

As a mostly mining toon atm I very much against the ideas of more aggro toward miners/harvesters from Observers and Mobile NPC Spawns(MNS).

First off field containers would need to have their timers doubled.  MNS are slow as hell.  Yes that makes them very easy to run from if one is paying attention to their landmarks but you are going to lose you container waiting for them to move through an area so you can get back to it.

Next off be ready for ore prices to probably double if you increase aggro on miners.  If miners are getting blown up more you can be sure they are gonna charge more so they can keep replacing their bots/gear.  Plus a large number of players will simply opt to stay at the few spots per island that have no aggro moving through/near it.  These "safe" spots will remain even more perma drained than they are now and even less ore will be coming into the market because of it.

Requiring miners to have protection with them on alpha islands is not realistic.  Who wants to sit and watch a miner for hours on end so that 1-2 an hour they can pop a npc then go back to watching the pretty mining laser lights.  And with only 1 weapon slot it is not realistic to expect miners to be able to defend themselves.

Go to forum: Balancing

23 Reply by Robophiliac

(6 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

I don't know what a Moneybooker is sorry.

I used my credit card through your store like I have done for the past few months.  Just this time it took quite some time for the email to arrive when in the past it was almost instant.

Go to forum: Resolved bugs and features

24 Reply by Robophiliac

(6 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

I have now received the codes.  They did take quite some time to arrive though.  Just a heads up that something may be delaying the store's automatic sending of game codes when ordered.  It took about an hour and a half or so to get the email.

Go to forum: Resolved bugs and features

25 Topic by Robophiliac

(6 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

I just ordered 2 one month game codes to renew my 2 accounts for another month.  They were ordered using this email address.  However I have not received the email with the codes.  I waited a half hour to be sure it wasn't just delayed before deciding to write to support. 

I did get the confirmation page stating my order was successful when I ordered, and I checked my bank activity and it does show the charge.  I have also checked my spam box in case they somehow got filtered there this time.  I don't know if they never sent or what, but I don't have any emails from Perpetuum.

Both accounts run out in 3 days and I have no idea how long support will take to reply to my email so I'm posting this here as well so it can hopefully be noticed before my subs run out.

Go to forum: Resolved bugs and features