201 Reply by Blocker

(15 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Yes that is one of the main reasons for the new GUI.

and openGL ?? hehe

Go to forum: General discussion

202 Reply by Blocker

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

saw the op tonight without corp flag...
whats up? raising into the ranks of CIR or not villing to play AA?

Pretty sure there is a bug that can cause no corp tag to show.. I see it quite often, is that what you are referring to maybe ?

Go to forum: General discussion

203 Reply by Blocker

(155 replies, posted in General discussion)

Back in my day *waves walking stick menacingly* if you put your name on a station, you lived there.

Whilst some may agree or disagree on the current intrusion mechanics, there's no reason why we can't try and make improvements. As far as sparks go, I don't think many of us in OTHERS really care what happens in that regard. But if we were to make a choice I think we would vote to either remove them altogether or severely limit them.

Go to forum: General discussion

204 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ville wrote:

Most teleports are 1000M away which is like 12 seconds now.

ahh yes fair enough, I keep forgetting about the speed boost.

Wait a minute, most SAPS are more than 1000m away from a station, I think you'll find most teleports are at least 2000m away from a station. However, given the speed boost it still takes less time to get from teleport to station. IS there a proposed teleport network revamp planned ? I thought I read about one somewhere, maybe that will shift them further away from stations on beta at least.

Go to forum: Bugs

205 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ville wrote:

I said TP back to a station.

I'm confused, how do you TP back to a station ? To the best of my knowledge you can only TP to a teleport near a station. You then have to walk to said station. Is there something going on I'm not aware of ?

Go to forum: Bugs

206 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ville wrote:

So I come in to shoot all your nora plants.  I drop a beacon, shoot ALL of your plants and always have a get out of Jail free card?  You fine with that Blocker?

Well I'll either be there or not. If I'm there I can engage you regardless of flag status(on beta) and you can either a) Drop an armoured, tank me and jump or b) Engage and either win or lose
If I'm not there then what difference does your flag status make ?

Granted that before the change you needed someone else on the other side of the plant to shoot at, and this flagged you. I thought that you could still jump internally even flagged anyway ? I'm not sure on this because I've never dropped a tele to "get away" I'll fight and either win or lose..

If you can apply the flag rule only on beta I'm ok with flagging by shooting plants.

Go to forum: Bugs

207 Reply by Blocker

(12 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ville wrote:

If you shoot a plant you should flag.  Shooting a destruction should flag you, and active hacking should flag you, and sitting in a passive sap should flag you.

Shooting plants, wtf ? no!
Shooting destruction sap, yes.
Active hacking a sap, yes.
sitting in passive sap, yes.

Go to forum: Bugs

208 Reply by Blocker

(16 replies, posted in Bugs)

Ville wrote:

Because of balance.  On a light Bot cam,intact and trioar the masker is intended on these small bots.  If it pulsed like a signal detector and you applied 1 ewar application you would be out of AP, making you 1. Useless and 2. Punishment for those who don't immediately cut off their masker right before you engage.

Thanks for explanation, I have a better idea what you mean now. I still don't see why it needs to be different, if you switch it off mid cycle it still uses the AP until the cycle is finished. But that's ok, at least I know the reasoning behind it now, whether I think it's implemented correctly or not is another issue.

Go to forum: Bugs

209 Reply by Blocker

(16 replies, posted in Bugs)

Norrdec wrote:

Why make maskers do this? I understand that AP use is linked to bot hit size, but that is a known factor whether the masker is on or off. Why not just have the masker consume the calculated AP at the start of the cycle and be done with it ?

Because of balance. You don't ask what was the balance about, we only know it was a balance change. No other modules does this.

Not my fault your potato needs me to explain everything.

But you explain nothing, just saying it's because of balance is not an explanation.  But never mind, it's not that much an issue, I was curious and asked. Seems a sensible answer is not possible on these forums.. Ignore my post..

Go to forum: Bugs

210 Reply by Blocker

(16 replies, posted in Bugs)

Norrdec wrote:

Because of balance.

So did you actually read my post, or did you just see the word potato and get all excited ?

Go to forum: Bugs

211 Reply by Blocker

(16 replies, posted in Bugs)

Annihilator wrote:

your right, the information there is not completely correct either...

it will consume every 2 seconds the full ap*hitsize.

that was intended when they got released, and written down somewhere.

Necro thread:

I was looking at this the other day, so after reading this thread I have this question: Does any other module use AP throughout the duration of it's cycle ?

If no then
Why make maskers do this? I understand that AP use is linked to bot hit size, but that is a known factor whether the masker is on or off. Why not just have the masker consume the calculated AP at the start of the cycle and be done with it ?
else
because of "potato" ?

Go to forum: Bugs

212 Reply by Blocker

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Ville wrote:
Rex Amelius wrote:
Jita wrote:

It would be east to spot people using Alt accounts tbh and they would get reported unless you were very careful.

Yeah, report those evil multi-account abusers ..ruining the game ...RUINING MY GAME

I guess to be 'careful' I will have to change my two miners names to Rex and Notrex to avoid suspicion when mining together.

Oh and my hauler Whosrex.

I had to login just to laugh at that.  Well done Rex, Well done LMAO

How embarrassing.. hmm

Go to forum: Balancing

213 Reply by Blocker

(60 replies, posted in General discussion)

Well not everyone likes or wants to pvp, so winning or losing is not really relevant to them. I think these sort of players leave simply because there is not a lot here for them to do after the initial discovery period wears off.
I myself personally don't care if I win or lose, and in fact some of my most enjoyable encounters have been on the losing side. Upon reflection this last comment about the losing side is not really relevant, due to the fact most of my encounters are on the losing side big_smile

Go to forum: General discussion

214 Reply by Blocker

(54 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:

Has it been 2 weeks already???  Another this game needs more pve thread.

hmmm, wait lemme check.. nope.. thread still says "The game is slowly going to die"
Guess you'd be mistaken there Ville

Go to forum: General discussion

215 Reply by Blocker

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Celebro wrote:

I would turn this around and allow us to control more bots per account in real time. I am not sure if that's even possible to implement though, but it seems pretty popular, so why not go with the flow on what most players want; self sufficiency, world domination etc.

Trouble with this is, (as far as pvp is concerned anyway) you run the risk of an "arms race" mentality. Player A has one account, player B has 4 accounts, player A goes to fight player B and obviously cant compete so player A must make a choice, get another 3 accounts and try and level the playing field, or not engage at all. This is, in effect, forcing a play style on players. Not sure that's a good thing in a sandbox MMO.

Go to forum: Balancing

216 Reply by Blocker

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

<snip>

Jita wrote:

Some benefits for the players:

Less steep gap in between new and old players (as how do you compete with a guy who has ten accounts when your new)

Not sure modifying account mechanics is going to have any noticeable impact on the EP mechanics. A new player is always going to have a hard time against even a single high EP vet account.

Jita wrote:

Greater end game content - less specialisation gives you a reason to want high ep accounts

Wouldn't less specialisation mean you actually need more EP, because you would need to spread it out over more skills ?
In any case I think this is an EP mechanics issue rather than a multi account issue.

Jita wrote:

More balanced PvP - your no longer competing against fully specialised players who mine with other accounts or against multiple boxers or vs ten scout alts

Whilst there may some benefit in changing account mechanics in regards to pvp, how you would implement those changes would be a nightmare.

Jita wrote:

Cheaper for new players to come and join in - no 'two accounts are mandatory' mentality

Trouble is it has been shown in many games that players like to be self sufficient, mining & hauling are first to mind. Given the current state of the game, having at least one other account is necessary for self sufficiency.

Jita wrote:

Some benefits for the Devs:

More money from account ep resets not just for the accounts that move hands but for single account people who would reshuffle ep more often

You could charge one ice to change accounts

Easier to balance

More longevity of content

We have content ? (pve)

Go to forum: Balancing

217 Reply by Blocker

(78 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:

We showed up outnumbered about oh 5 times and they were some of the greatest battles we fought.  But then again, 1 77 light = 1 Joke heavy, amirite?


Wow, a whole 5 times! pfftt, amateurs, we fight outnumbered ALL the time . We take it now as a compliment that the enemy has to bring so many more, to fight so few.. The outcome is always the same, but hey, no point building bots if you don't blow them up. It's all good.. big_smile

Go to forum: General discussion

218 Reply by Blocker

(49 replies, posted in General discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

the concept of the beacons already exists in other games.
in firefall its called "Thumper" wink

A beacon can teleport you somewhere, thumpers don't.

Go to forum: General discussion

219 Reply by Blocker

(49 replies, posted in General discussion)

The one thing this game has that I have not seen in any other games is the concept of beacons. The DEVS should make more use of them, you could have combat mission beacons, Indy mission beacons, storyline beacons. They could be solo and group and range in difficulty. You could get them from drops, buy them on the market etc etc.. The possibilities are endless. Could possibly solve the traveling issue as well, drop the beacon and it takes you to an instance (?) or whatever for set amount of time then transports you back..

Lots of things are possible..

Go to forum: General discussion

220 Reply by Blocker

(9 replies, posted in General discussion)

Syndic wrote:

Making voodoo dolls of Ville and me doesn't make someone an artist

lol.. This made me laugh.. lol

Go to forum: General discussion

221 Reply by Blocker

(16 replies, posted in General discussion)

KUSTOMROD wrote:

I remember my first Argano sneaky trips into what was then M2S held hostile territory (Hokk) to mine Epriton.  Scary as hell!

I too did this, but for me it was Alsbale.. Got away with the first 2 trips, got caught on the third and boom!   lol

Go to forum: General discussion

222 Reply by Blocker

(151 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ville wrote:
Blocker wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

I rest my case smile

Hmmm, I'm now starting to understand why we can't have nice things..

Some of us are PVPers not PVEers.

And the majority of ppl that come from steam will be pve'ers. This is a discussion about NPC's, least it was last I looked, what's your point about pvp ?

I find it amusing that you consider pulling mobs onto players doing pve as "pvp", I consider that griefing, but meh each to his own I guess..

Go to forum: General discussion

223 Reply by Blocker

(151 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Ville wrote:

btw, we still can pull mobs on people.  Very Easily too.

I rest my case smile

Hmmm, I'm now starting to understand why we can't have nice things..

Go to forum: General discussion

224 Reply by Blocker

(5 replies, posted in Bugs)

ahh ok.. It's not Perpetuum.log on my system it's just called Perpetuum

Not sure how much of the end you want me to paste so I'll just pick an arbituary amount.. You can tell me if it's not enough..

I did restart the client after the incident and played for another hour or two.. Dunno if that makes any difference to the log...


--------------------------------------
[20:52:58] Authenticating with zone...
[20:53:04] [weather] Setting weather type 0 set to: curr: 0.196452 next: 0.341176 delay: 2364238
[20:53:04] [weather] Weather variable new, adding
[20:53:04] [weather] new values: 0.196452 (0.196452) 0.341176 11902876 14267114
[20:53:04] Authentication successful!
[20:56:14] Zone socket connected...
[20:56:20] Authenticating with zone...
[20:56:25] [weather] Setting weather type 0 set to: curr: 0.208818 next: 0.341176 delay: 2162236
[20:56:25] [weather] Weather variable new, adding
[20:56:25] [weather] new values: 0.208818 (0.208818) 0.341176 12104273 14266509
[20:56:25] Authentication successful!
[21:03:46] ERROR (unStackAmount) 380: error_UnstackNotPossibleUseRelocate
[21:06:09] Zone socket connected...
[21:06:16] Authenticating with zone...
[21:06:20] [weather] Setting weather type 0 set to: curr: 0.245279 next: 0.341176 delay: 1566604
[21:06:20] [weather] Weather variable new, adding
[21:06:20] [weather] new values: 0.245279 (0.245279) 0.341176 12699370 14265974
[21:06:20] Authentication successful!
[21:20:35] ERROR (dock) 365: error_CantDockThisState
[21:41:35] Zone socket connected...
[21:41:41] Authenticating with zone...
[21:41:46] [weather] Setting weather type 0 set to: curr: 0.423934 next: 0.792157 delay: 2486214
[21:41:46] [weather] Weather variable new, adding
[21:41:46] [weather] new values: 0.423934 (0.423934) 0.792157 14824775 17310989
[21:41:46] Authentication successful!
[22:26:35] Zone socket connected...
[22:26:41] Authenticating with zone...
[22:26:46] [weather] Setting weather type 0 set to: curr: 0.804774 next: 1.000000 delay: 3305461
[22:26:46] [weather] Weather variable new, adding
[22:26:46] [weather] new values: 0.804774 (0.804774) 1.000000 17525027 20830488
[22:26:46] Authentication successful!
[22:49:06] Disconnecting (reconnect: false)...
[22:49:06] [sock] Socket error 10035 - (A non-blocking socket operation could not be completed immediately.)

Go to forum: Bugs

225 Reply by Blocker

(5 replies, posted in Bugs)

Sure.. Where would I find that ? A search of entire drive for Perpetuum.log returns no results

Go to forum: Bugs