76 Reply by Blocker

(37 replies, posted in Testing server)

Just took 20 mins off work to have a bit of a play with it and I agree with Ville, great job!! It's how it should have been all along, but better late than never. Keep up the good work!

Go to forum: Testing server

77 Reply by Blocker

(70 replies, posted in General discussion)

Kayin Prime wrote:

1000x this.  Players are very quick to spot imbalance and even quicker to rage quit because of it.  The only people who stick around in unbalanced games are those who have the advantage.   

Who's sticking around? Come on... you know the answer...

-K


Well we have stuck around, what's our advantage again ?

Go to forum: General discussion

78 Reply by Blocker

(73 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Now that this is among our plans, have a bump.

And another idea to ponder that I thought of already after the blog was out:

* Activate all 3 SAPs of an outpost at the same time when an intrusion starts
* Each of them still have a 1 hour timer, but all of them can be completed by anyone
* The final stability change will be calculated from the 3 SAP results
* Just examples:
Owner completes it: +5 stability
Enemy completes it: -5 stability
Timeout: -1 stability

For example if owner can complete 1 SAP (+5), enemy takes another (-5), and noone bothers with the 3rd one (-1), stability will change by -1. If the owner can complete all 3, stability will change by +15.

I'll see beasts necro and raise him one.

I think this is the best idea tbh, but I agree with Jita that the specimen needs to go completely.  If all 3 saps come up you only need to do 2 to get a 5 point increase. So if the station is at 100 (or whatever max is) then only completing 2 will be sufficient, and that's fine. But if a specimen is involved then who is going to do that ? Just do the other two and leave the specimen. If if the enemy take it, it's still a 5 point increase if you take the other two and that will make the specimen sort of redundant anyway..

Go to forum: Balancing

79 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

I mean now that we established that this isn't caused by simply docking and undocking, the question is what needs to happen to the modules to get bugged like that.

Meh, it's fixed now and it's not important enough to justify dev time on it, focus your energies into something else.  If it happens again I'll let you know, you can close this thread.

Go to forum: Bugs

80 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ok. So now the question is how would one f* up his modules like that smile

I don't understand, what's that supposed to mean ? Are you taking the piss ??

Go to forum: Bugs

81 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ok I did some testing and taking all the guns off and putting them back on has seemed to fix it.

Go to forum: Bugs

82 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Is there a surefire way to reproduce this? I have no luck.

Not sure what you mean but if I undock, reload, dock, undock again without doing anything, it happens.. Every time.

I'll try later on with another bot, maybe I need to take the guns off and put them back on.. I'll try that too and get back to you.

Go to forum: Bugs

83 Topic by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

Zoom, just noticed something strange. When doing a mission at completion I reload and dock up. Before I dock all guns have 110 ammo loaded. If I undock the 5th gun has 97 ammo and all the others have 110. I I reload all guns with chemo ammo then dock all guns have 110 chemo ammo. Undock again, without doing anything, and the 5th gun again has 97 ammo but it has now switch to thermal ammo. So I have 5 guns with 110 chemo and 1 gun with 97 thermo.

Not a game breaker by any means, but it may have other unintended consequences at some point.

Go to forum: Bugs

84 Reply by Blocker

(110 replies, posted in Bugs)

We have seen a big improvement since the restart, but lets see how things go after it's been running for a week or two.

Go to forum: Bugs

85 Reply by Blocker

(13 replies, posted in General discussion)

Bit out of reach financially from our part of the world, but I wish you all the best for it!

Go to forum: General discussion

86 Reply by Blocker

(78 replies, posted in Balancing)

The points should be like a pool that can be applied to any facility as needed but on a cool down timer, so changing from refining to proto should require a 24 hour cool down.

My understanding is that atm you can only have 3 maxed out, and that's fine but if you want to do something other than those 3 you have to actually take the station down and bring it back up again. At least that's my understanding anyway. Which seems a bit silly tbh.

Go to forum: Balancing

87 Reply by Blocker

(110 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

This was intentional because even I couldn't log in anymore. Restarting the server now, let's see if it does anything.

ahh ok. no worries..

Go to forum: Bugs

88 Reply by Blocker

(110 replies, posted in Bugs)

Server crash again.. Everyone disconnected at same time...

Go to forum: Bugs

89 Reply by Blocker

(9 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

ADFormer wrote:

well then you would have to go to the gamma island to make the design what if your killed by another player while making it.

gamma islands enable pvp.

Take some friends with you.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

90 Reply by Blocker

(110 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Yeah we're having the longest ever extreme heat alert here, temperature records getting broken everywhere close to 40°C.

/off

40C ? pffftt amateurs.... tongue

Go to forum: Bugs

91 Topic by Blocker

(110 replies, posted in Bugs)

Zoom, not sure if you are aware but lag spikes have increased greatly over last 2 days. During our wanderings over 2 beta islands it was common to get spikes up to 30K ms or N/A for up to 20 seconds, then it all comes good in one big rush and is ok for another maybe 2 - 3 mins

Thank god there was no PVP cause it would have been unplayable. As it was it was so bad we decided to go play something else, it was just unplayable. It was affecting other people from all over as well including Russia and New Zealand.

PS: Was also happening on Alpha..

Go to forum: Bugs

92 Reply by Blocker

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Well if this would be Alpha/NPCkill only then loot isn't that much of an issue. When you die on Alpha it's only you who can pick up your loot anyway, there are no PvP concerns.

So here we would have two choices:
1. Just simply don't drop the equipped items on Alpha, keep everything on your destroyed robot and include the module prices in the repair fee.
2. Destroy half of the equipped items, and return the damaged half-stripped robot for repairs.

Ok thanks. In the case of it being just an Alpha thing I would go for number 2 because it still provides for industry and also a nic sink in repairs..  I guess it could also be something that could be tweaked/tuned in response to population changes, like a lever to stimulate industry or put a brake on industry type thing?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

93 Reply by Blocker

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Blocker wrote:

Zoom, is this something that could be implemented as a trial maybe ? or is the underlying changes too complex for that ?

Well maybe it could work as a PvE-only feature, meaning only if you are destroyed by an NPC.

edit: or simply limited to alpha islands.

This would probably be closer to the lore as well. The Syndicate only reimburses losses made by the pesky aliens, not by enraged humans smile

But HOW might this work, I still am unsure what will happen, I understand that the bot would not be destroyed, but would the modules drop as loot ? All my comments above are based on the assumption that modules will still be destroyed or dropped, therefore the market will still need to exist to replace modules for those that don't want to make them, and people will still get loot drops as they do now.

Or am I completely misunderstanding how this is supposed to work ?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

94 Reply by Blocker

(15 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Celebro wrote:

Would need to see it in action but I like the change, however, what I would like to search artifacts is less on mathematical and numbers and more on visual cues on the field.

How about a charge that sends like a ripple outward (like the ripple in a pond) and the general direction of the artifact is shown by a colored quadrant in the expanding outward circle, like a cone. ?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

95 Reply by Blocker

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ok, thanks..

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

96 Reply by Blocker

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Burial wrote:

I would also like if the Beta Observers or whatever you will have running there had a very rare chance of dropping something nice, like a Cortex or an MK2 CT.

Ohh yes.. Agree with this completely.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

97 Reply by Blocker

(15 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I don't really do artifacting so all I'm going to suggest is that the current system seems to be really hard for new  players to come to grips with, so any simplification on the process would be welcome.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

98 Reply by Blocker

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

The poll is a great idea for feedback. How long will it stay up? The only reason I ask is because the blog has only just come out, I'd like to think a bit on some things, talk with my corp mates, other players etc. Then maybe take the poll.. Maybe we should just step back for a little bit and take a deep breath while it all sinks in..  Just a suggestion..

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

99 Reply by Blocker

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Celebro wrote:
Blocker wrote:
Celebro wrote:

This change destroys the market, the risk in PVP and the whole process and reason to go out to mine and make stuff that it's player made and provide content, this would be a huge change in direction.

Once again as I said to Syndic, if the market is dead now, how can this have any sort of negative impact ?

The market is dead because there are few players and the value of NIC has kept falling. There is no reason to keep hold of NIC if you are building everything yourself.

That's true, but you could also say we build everything ourselves BECAUSE the market is dead. Just depends on which way you want to look at it. From my point of view it's a population problem. I mean, most of the corps playing are vet corps, and vet corps usually have good stockpiles anyway, plus they have built these stockpiles for themselves over the years.

I don't know that we can just assume that this would kill the market because the idea may seem, at first, unpalatable. I mean Jita wants to apply station unlocking as a trial basis. why not carry that same perspective to other suggestions put forward ? Rather than just say "fail", because we may not like it ourselves.

[edit] Also Celebro you didn't actually answer my question, if the market is dead or non-existent how can this change, or any change for that matter, have a negative impact ?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

100 Reply by Blocker

(103 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Blocker wrote:

Zoom, is this something that could be implemented as a trial maybe ? or is the underlying changes too complex for that ?

Well maybe it could work as a PvE-only feature, meaning only if you are destroyed by an NPC.

edit: or simply limited to alpha islands.

This would probably be closer to the lore as well. The Syndicate only reimburses losses made by the pesky aliens, not by enraged humans smile

It may work well in PVE. Maybe that would be an acceptable compromise for you guy's ? Jita, Syndic your thoughts?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests