sup

77

(31 replies, posted in General discussion)

poKK wrote:

Nobody live 100% in Beta, it's gone since Norhoop. But Novastrom seems to be the more active now in beta, it wasn't the case 2 weeks ago

Yep, sorry, I am back now, all is well.

How long ago did battlefield 3 release? hmm the timelines.. they are... hmmm...

78

(31 replies, posted in General discussion)

Jetblack wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Yes Mauro, French Navy withdrew from the tournament. Thank you for reminding us. lol

Nobody cares Pokk... When you come back whenever some "miracle" patch happens that you believe will let you win by logging off and playing on Alpha alts, we'll be right here waiting. And week by week, our stockpile will only increase now that we're actually at full war production again. smile

you seem to forget... prior to intrusion 2.0... squid didn't just survive the constant onslaught.. it grew and prospered.
It took 1 station from the bloc and even better it successfully defended it...
This was handled mainly through only having to suffer a weekly intrusion, this was manageable through ppl either taking the occassional holiday or simply carrying on through their day with lack of sleep. This is something not workable with the new intrusion2.0. Instead of weekly intrusions its now 24/7 twice daily intrusions...
Despite plea's from the concerned players prior to implementation... this was pushed through.
Don't get me wrong i applaud the work done by the dev's and it will encourage pvp... however the results will be far reaching... and the amount of ppl on beta's will drop rather than increase... as it is now far far harder for a corp let alone an alliance to inhabit an outpost. The only exception to this is prolly sovnov who had the neccessary resources in place and the manpower to make an attempt at holding outposts.
Mighty though sovnov is... don't pat yourself on the back too hard... what u did not or could not achieve.. the new intrusion system has done it for you.

Once again, we should be thanking the DEV's for all of our success? amirite?

79

(102 replies, posted in General discussion)

Kanogi wrote:
GLiMPSE wrote:
Kanogi wrote:

So i guess MORTE have learned the mighty ECORP maneuver from us then cause i saw them dock up in koykil when we decided to do a friendly visit early today. And when they grew the balls to come over to kent they decided to walk 1000m of the teleport before finding out that they didn't want to fight. Even when they didn't meet any resistance at the tp.

yarr


The botang informed them it was a tarp.


Its spelled trap fuuu

o rly?

80

(102 replies, posted in General discussion)

Kanogi wrote:

So i guess MORTE have learned the mighty ECORP maneuver from us then cause i saw them dock up in koykil when we decided to do a friendly visit early today. And when they grew the balls to come over to kent they decided to walk 1000m of the teleport before finding out that they didn't want to fight. Even when they didn't meet any resistance at the tp.

yarr


The botang informed them it was a tarp.

81

(65 replies, posted in Balancing)

Alexander wrote:

The fact is you need a larger group to take down shields. Cost of 8 Grophos vs 4 Tyrannos.

And you would need a larger group to take down 3 tank fit artemis's w/ rr support... what's your point?

The difference between these two scenario's is the artemis's can return fire easily..... lol..

To kill tanked setups... you typically need more bots then they have... hence the point of tanking?!

82

(65 replies, posted in Balancing)

Alexander wrote:

I like how this comes from RG whom are part of the alliance who utilised shields the most.
Both before this event and during it.

Shields are impressive when used correctly but in large fights can be over-powered. The issue is that for each 2 people using shields you need about a 4 man team to take them down. Meaning 25 people with this shield setup is basically unstoppable. I hope the issue with micro-managing shields can be resolved to make them good tanks but not the best.

This is incorrect, 25 people shield tanked would just need enough people on the other side to burn one of them down quickly and that isn't very hard to do after the shield hardener nerf. The reason the tyranno's were so effective was because of their recharge and the inability to field enough dps to break that recharge and alpha quick enough.

8 gropho's would 2 volley that tyrannos, 4 mesmers would likely 1 1/2 volley them.

Doesn't matter if you have 25 of them, 30 or 50 you can kite and pop all day without issue once you have the dps to break them. This setup would be worthless in most large scale fights as it's too slow and has very small range.

83

(102 replies, posted in General discussion)

Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

Hope you guys come back, was fun to be defeated by nova with you.

Fixed.

Allow people to play for free, but no ep gain... simple... instant population.

85

(114 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Scanned and all looks well.

http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/rep … 1313421086

Or they could just make their own format that they like for Nian currency, do it that way, and we all get used to it. But i agree some form of seperation needs to be made between all these zero's.

87

(41 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ioci wrote:
Hugh Jasol wrote:

Since when is soloability a crime?

far as i know, new games cater to these type of players.

Have any sandbox ones you know of? I'm not invested here enough to call it loyalty yet and I refuse to blob up for PvE content that needs the repeat grind level kernals here require.

Finding a friend =/= blobbing up.

88

(8 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I'd love to have something like this, but I don't think theres anyway to balance this as it's so powerful for gaining a position advantage...if it takes a lot of accumulator, you can place yourself atop a hill in defense of an intrusion sap and for the enemies to reach you they'll have to run themselves dry.

Again though, I'd love to see something like this, but I just don't see a good way to balance it.

Terrain is too powerful.

Arga wrote:

Were spitballing ideas but,

Its a sandbox game yeah, so a meta-alliance could form up to do anything. The design idea should put enough pressure on the siutation though, so that Meta-Gaming of things are dynamically unstable. If you give too many tools, then you make it too easy to maintain, too few and you can't come together when needed.

The environment should always be pushing. It doesn't have to shove, but if it keeps up constant pressure, then it will eventually topple meta-gaming without constant adjustment.

I guess I just don't see where anything would be gained... if i want to not trade *** to the market and remain relatively self sufficient i'll expand via my alliance to consume the necessary islands to get the resources I need without having to go through the extra capitalist hardships of the open market.

I don't see how this does anything but encourage people that want to live this way to group up and make bigger conglomerates/alliances for closed market trading...

I don't think this is good for the game. You can't force people to trade to the market by game mechanics... When enough capitalists get their feet planted onto beta the market will come alive.

Is it really necessary to artificially force trade between corporations?

Doesn't this just encourage self sufficient mega alliances?

k

92

(21 replies, posted in General discussion)

Not the target demographic?

93

(31 replies, posted in General discussion)

I really like these changes.

Will make owning an outpost mean you've been able to defend it and you are actively inhabiting the area... great change.

This also creates the opportunities for ad-hoc small scale objective based pvp engagements with meaning.


Digging it... Great job Devs.

94

(32 replies, posted in Balancing)

Daimonea wrote:

I don t get your point.
It snot about give time to the one who gone blow to run away avoiding friendly fire or causing damage by his blow but to give time to the other bot to get there *** of the range of blow.

I would never intentionally get out of the range of a blow.

95

(19 replies, posted in General discussion)

Alexander wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

Sorry there was indeed an error, but the actual relation necessary is 3.5.
Assignment levels do not necessarily determine the required relation (yeah we need to display that somewhere already...).

This is not correct.
I am able to do the new assignments with less than 3.00 standing so I believe you mean 2.5
Stop saying things that aren't correct or are effect by bugs. Because anyone over 2.5 has access to these new assignments it seems which would make perfect sense as 2.5 = between level 3 and level 4 assignments. (Level 3.5 in effect)

Classy.

Snowman wrote:

why not?

Whats the difference between an account thats paid for using stolen credit card details to an account that has not made a payment?

Is this a serious question?