26

(36 replies, posted in Q & A)

Yeah you raise a valid point, some people don't join general chat for valid reasons. For as long as I have been playing people have asked the devs for a simple counter somewhere to show how many are online. Maybe in the bottom right or something, but I think they just always have more important stuff to work on.

27

(26 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:

Disconnects are becoming more prevalent

For us it's been using private storage eg fitting bots etc.. Takes 20 seconds to fit a single module. Need to allow 5 minutes to fit a bot from scratch.  lol

Ville wrote:

That'd cut population numbers into a quarter lol.

Yep it would, but I guess it depends on how you quantify "population" if you mean mains and alts then it sure would cut it down. If you mean just mains then maybe, maybe not so much.. In any case if there was ever a point in the game when you would consider making such a change it would be now while the population is so low would it not ?

Ville wrote:

The end goal is to stop power projection through in game mechanics not everyone sucking them selves off in a circle.

Well we could remove alts (or at least reduce the number)  from the game ?  There, I said it.. Now watch for the howls of protest.

Ville wrote:

The only things left on my soap box complaint chair are:  beta 2 entrances, using existing models in more specialized ways and npc terminal/missions on beta 2s.  And I think that's it.

1. Beta 2 entrances: I agree. Also need to address the issue of entry to the green beta 1, one bot can watch both entrances.
2. using existing models in more specialized ways: Whilst I agree with this we need to be aware of the population problem. With such a small population it can be difficult for a small gang to utilise specialist bots, thus rendering them (for all intents and purposes) useless in the overall scheme of things. If we have sufficient people to be in specialist roles then sure, lets have those options available, but isn't there other things with more priority at this stage?

31

(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I'm happy to try anything, but I think the basis of the problem is the population. I don't  anything you do will make a difference to the 10 or so people playing atm..

32

(26 replies, posted in General discussion)

[root@gateway ~]# traceroute  relay.perpetuum-online.com
traceroute to relay.perpetuum-online.com (109.236.88.139), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1  lns20.bne4.on.ii.net (150.101.180.143)  43.415 ms  45.063 ms  46.234 ms
2  xe-0-2-0.cr1.bne4.on.ii.net (150.101.33.134)  46.189 ms  48.153 ms  50.119 ms
3  ae6.br1.syd7.on.ii.net (150.101.33.76)  112.127 ms  112.092 ms  112.056 ms
4  te0-1-1-3.br2.sjc2.on.ii.net (150.101.33.149)  226.004 ms te0-2-0-3.br2.sjc2.on.ii.net (203.16.213.158)  227.676 ms te0-1-1-3.br2.sjc2.on.ii.net (150.101.33.149)  225.934 ms
5  tge1-3.sjo01-1.us.as5580.net (198.32.176.206)  230.867 ms  232.842 ms  232.808 ms
6  eth1-2.r2.chi1.us.as5580.net (78.152.44.198)  296.799 ms * *
7  eth7-2.edge1.nyc4.us.as5580.net (78.152.63.53)  281.245 ms  281.197 ms  283.128 ms
8  * * *
9  et-00-00-01.core01.lon10.uk.as5580.net (78.152.53.46)  386.261 ms  386.359 ms  386.284 ms
10  et-02-00-00.core02.lon01.uk.as5580.net (78.152.53.45)  386.211 ms  386.165 ms  386.121 ms
11  ae01.core02.ams02.nl.as5580.net (78.152.53.229)  366.031 ms  356.396 ms  359.321 ms
12  * eth2-5.edge1.ams5.nl.as5580.net (78.152.44.133)  420.193 ms *
13  eth2-4.edge1.rtd1.nl.as5580.net (78.152.44.32)  399.041 ms  392.913 ms  398.885 ms
14  78.152.32.175 (78.152.32.175)  627.838 ms * *
15  * * *
16  * * *
17  * * *
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

Here's mine from AU. Not sure if the target address correct tho.. Happy to stand corrected on that. As you can see everything just stops at hop 14. Also notice the jump in response time from hop 13 to hop 14
[edit] Also be aware ICMP packets may be deliberately being dropped after hop 14. Whilst this is generally frowned upon, people do do it.   Ohh dear, I said do do.. tongue

33

(6 replies, posted in Q & A)

I'm still suffering major lag tonight. Cant play, rubber banding everywhere, takes 15 seconds to move stuff around in storage..

34

(54 replies, posted in Bugs)

Agree with ville on this one, it needs fixing. TBH I never understood why we need a dedicated structure to mine it anyway, it's only available on gamma, just drop the requirement for a tower.

35

(3 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Just get rid of specimen, the others only take 10 mins at most, I don't think that's too much effort.

Good luck with the move, hope it all goes well...

37

(47 replies, posted in Balancing)

Ville wrote:

Dude Kraz NPCs are super aggressive.  I think Zoom purposely programmed it that way.  I would like to do Indy on that *** island but as soon as you setup shop, 12398`1273-891237y129-371-28938`1-378`12-89371`23890`176389`1273`01893712-3890`173-98`1273`9108237129837`1-93781`2 NPCs show up in 5 minute intervals, and it's like. egh *** it why bother.

I have to agree with this. During our time over there playing base games the NPC's certainly SEEMED to be more plentiful than other islands.

38

(26 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Crepitus wrote:
Annihilator wrote:
Line wrote:

It should work as any other agressive module.

haven't seen detectors or maskers flagging anyone yet...

Detectors make you easier to see when you use them and don't actively target anyone only passively scan if they can see you based on the formula. Maskers don't target someone else at all.

By your logic any mod should flag someone.

However scanning someone's chassis lets you dock and re-fit to counter exactly that build and it's the only reason to do it on Beta/Gamma and is therefore overtly hostile (as you actively target and fire the chassis scanner at them).

It's being done on alpha, if it was done on beta/gamma the scanner would die. I have been advocating removal of chassis scanners for  a long time. You spend time and effort on developing a unique fit, then you undock and some turd targets and scans you, and there goes the time and effort spent designing it. Everyone may as well just run exactly the same fits. In my opinion if anything should be removed form the game, it should be this.

39

(93 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Aye Pod wrote:

Questions are HARD.

Yes they are, for imbeciles and the uneducated. Which one are you ? lol

Annihilator wrote:

why more gammas?
we still have 3 mostly unused Gamma islands.

even if someone would want to use them, he had to face attacking someones ghost gamma terminal every three days up to 27 days, most likely at times he usually sleeps or works.

it takes ~30 minutes to block a 6km diameter area of a gamma island for almost a month. Miss one attack phase an it starts all over.

Ok so maybe "gamma" is not the correct term for them, seeing as there would be no terraforming or base building on them. I guess they would be more like beta 2's but with the same value artefacts/mobs/dynamic events etc.. Would that make the idea more acceptable ?

PS: ohh and no highways

Line wrote:

Yes yes let's ruin betas!

Just think about it:
At this point, as a beta owner, you can control up to 3 stations and about 1km radius around your bot, nothing more. Probes are mostly "oh look there WAS an enemy". Gatecamping is either "meh boring" or "jump bak to alpha they are too much" SAPs are in general "i'll hit it at day you hit it at night and pray the gods of random help one of us".

Now imagine outposts ain't lockable anymore. It's more than easy to get a hour or two when your enemy isn't online and then bring 100500 bots in his beta station and then just enjoy holding them inside or popping one by one on undock. PvP will turn into endless camping. Beta mining will turn into ninja mining. Do you really need that?

Instead of, it's much better to just add more betas (to give newbies a place to settle in), remove probes at all but instead make all the teleports on beta work like a probes, or even just show some kind of "Ville jumped through Hilmanoc 1 to Heydelhorn 2 at 18:46" message with log and stuff.

I was referring to the idea about adding more gamma's. I myself am still undecided about changing beta's but I like to think I am open minded enough to at least give things a try. Considering that this is probably the best time to try different things due to the small population. If they don't work out they can always be rolled back yes?

I'd also like to think that most of the existing population would be open minded enough to try different things. I understand there are always people who are resistant to change, that's just human nature, but surely we can try different things even if they are initially on new islands ?

Jita wrote:

Now that we seem to have an agreement on at least this point:

Ville wrote:

Beta is a complete zerg fest, you can't do anything there without being in the biggest alliance.

Can we try and find a middle ground on this?

How easy would it be to add three new Gamma islands, prevent base building and terraforming on them and add four or five NPC terminals?

Lebensraum is needed for when the next sale and patch comes around

I quite like the sound of this, add in some dynamic events happening at random as you move around and it would be quite a bit of fun. I also like the idea of not having a home (base) and just roaming around like a nomad. Maybe you find someone, maybe not. In any case it's more sand to play with and that has to be worth at least trying.

And to stay on topic, the Devs stated a while back that beta 2's were to be done after beta 1's. Now maybe that's changed, who knows. Maybe Zoom can give us an update on the beta 2 status?

Ville wrote:

You couldn't without allying up the entire server lol.

ohh comon Ville, you know perfectly well that until recently you guys were the ones that comprised the majority of the server. We could, on rare occasion, muster a dozen pvp'ers against you at best. What's changed is the majority of your alliance has stopped playing, now more times than not we can field even numbers.

Not whining, just pointing out the basic facts.

45

(14 replies, posted in Bugs)

leo davinci wrote:

Anyone else having an issue where this step of a mission doesn't complete when you loot the mission can (light blue)? Only happens when Im in a squad.

You realise that simply taking the loot from the light blue can does not complete the mission?

You need to dock up, put the loot into your private storage, then open the mission window and click deliver to complete the mission. If you are doing that and the mission is still not completing, then yeah it's bugged so ignore this post.

46

(5 replies, posted in General discussion)

Yeah people can spend more money on coffee/fast food in a day.

47

(4 replies, posted in General discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

we dont have 4 tiers, there are more (i think 12) of each item...

they dont "remove" the market, they replace it, and enable something called "item linking" too wink

I think there is 10, T1, T2, T2 proto, T2+ and on to T3 etc. So there is 3 "classes" for each tier except T1, unless I'm missing one which is of course quite possible.

I think Celebro is referring to just the 4 common tiers, T1, T2, T3 and T4.

48

(32 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I don't think they should be allowed under the public NPC beta stations. There should be an exclusion zone around those stations. I have no issues with them under player owned stations and I do think having different types of probes with different lifetimes/timers and cost adds variety and flexibility.

49

(41 replies, posted in Bugs)

Chemist wrote:
Blocker wrote:
Line wrote:

Because there is enough of all that *** IRL. Do we really need to bring it here?

This is Perpetum, dudes. No Obama, Putin, Poroshenko and even Merkel playing it, I guarantee that.

QFT!.. No room in game for this nonsense, leave RL stuff in RL..

That's why I ask to fix a blocking of channel, or to ban this troll.

I agree, blocking should be fixed or ban.

50

(41 replies, posted in Bugs)

Line wrote:

Because there is enough of all that *** IRL. Do we really need to bring it here?

This is Perpetum, dudes. No Obama, Putin, Poroshenko and even Merkel playing it, I guarantee that.

QFT!.. No room in game for this nonsense, leave RL stuff in RL..