26 Reply by Scyylla

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Alexadar wrote:

1) Attacker will get PVP flag when your probe will be destroyed
2) Your cargo will be dropped to a ground as reward for a guy who found your probe
/solved

lame Alex......

So just because I lost my internet connection while making my way around beta I should lose everything in my cargo if a fail probe is killed?

Oh wait-- need to safe log. Family emergency... Oops! My fail probe got killed and I just lost a lithus load of walls and charges that I was using to create wall spam.........

Man up and defend your island or get better allies to help you.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

27 Reply by Scyylla

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

You want to fight log in traps? Control your island.

Novablob knew where and how many 62nd/WAR were logged off when 62nd/WAR were pulling logoffski attacks on Kara and Uria. Intel ffs..... Probes, walls and scouts.. The solution is already there if you control your island.

Log in traps are a viable option for combat.. Ever heard the term ambush???

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

28 Reply by Scyylla

(5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Pool Closed!!!!!!!!
    or
Time for some wall jumping

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

29 Reply by Scyylla

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Nothing to fix..........

It's called a trap for a reason........

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

30 Reply by Scyylla

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Burial wrote:

You dont get it at all Scyylla.
I am not saying anything about loosing what we already have. It would be something completely different. Heck, it even could have some specifically made equipment just to fight in the system. It would fit in the lore perfectly since we already have dematerialization inside terminals and teleporters.
And where does sandbox end and themepark start? If you look at the things in Perpetuum, you could easily see it already has tons of "themepark" features.
You should just think what is fun and what is not and not so much about breaking the sandbox.

I most definitly "get" it.

You are the one that doesn't so I will spell it out for you:

The sandbox itself is the FUN part. You want to BREAK the sandbox........

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

31 Reply by Scyylla

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Syrissa wrote:

personaly i dont care enough about this. but for you ppl to say. just try to think outside of your box instead of just saying this is not sandbox...

Evidently you do care about it.

His idea isn't thinking outside the box.. He wants to change one of the core principles of the game and make it twitch based, something for nothing mentality gaming....

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

32 Reply by Scyylla

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Syrissa wrote:

dont over react to the no loss thing. this idea may need some adjustments, but in the basic this is a nice idea.

well you can put out the no loss thing. why not do this with t1 fittings only? so not much to loose anyway.
have some sort of minigame sonds intresting for a lot of ppl. this might be a good way to show ppl how this game works and maybe will give a lot ppl some fun when other things are unavalible.

give it a thought. you could do a fun thing out of this, if its done the right way.

Goes against the them of sandbox mmos....

Instanced pvp is not what these games are about. Introducing this kind of game play into a sandbox contradicts everything that pvp is about. Sandbox style mmos are about risk vs reward. If someone wants some twitched based no consequences pvp they can fire up the xbox and wait to join a COD match.....

As far as showing people how the game works--- Ummm no it won't. Instanced pvp for no risk (and yes even t1 gear is no risk!) will do nothing to show a new player what they game is about. PVP isn't about sitting and waiting for a match. It is about hunting and killing your prey>

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

33 Reply by Scyylla

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Bad idea is BAD!

Once again we have another "something for nothing" gamer who wants rewards for risking nothing......

Sandbox mmos are not for you.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

34 Reply by Scyylla

(65 replies, posted in General discussion)

This is gonna be hard for me........

No trolling is contained in the text below:

In your own words Lemon- "I had returned to PO in the idea of helping the game grow and getting back to having the challenging fun fights i used to enjoy so much when i first started." and "No this is not a I quite just i I cant do this on my own anymore..."

You say that you want to help the game.
You say that you want to stimulate fun fights.
You say you want help from other corps.

Why should anyone take any of this at face value?

You quit the game during the CIR exodus.
You have shown 0 public interest in the game since you left.
Your past actions (quitting the game) gives the indication that you don't care about the future of PO. You wouldn't have left if you were truley interested in the success of this game.

I have a very hard time thinking anything other then you got bored with Eve/SWTOR and have "settled" for coming back to PO. How long before you leave this time?

Please don't get me wrong- Personally I have ZERO issues with you and it is good to see you back in the game. Anytime someone subs to the game it benefits us all.

Once again--- No trolling from me just some honesty......

Go to forum: General discussion

35 Reply by Scyylla

(26 replies, posted in Q & A)

The have already told you what their stance is Obi..... Read the Eula:


"* It is forbidden to share account details with anyone, trade or sell Perpetuum accounts, in-game items, characters, money, etc in any way outside the game. In this case both the seller's and the buyer's characters and accounts may be terminated by AC."


"* Accounts can only be used by the creator of the account, unless the user required a legal guardian to create it. Account sharing can result in the termination of said account."


I would still like to see a corp level research program though....

Go to forum: Q & A

36 Reply by Scyylla

(25 replies, posted in News and information)

Morkani01 wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:
Morkani01 wrote:

and just refund the amount of time exactly the game was down

The overall sum of downtimes was much less than 3 days.

3 days/1day, whatever YOUR math breaks it down to, please don't feel like you're doing anyone a favor by refunding 3 bleeping days, it's a slap in the face and you know it. you know the game was unplayable for the majority of the 2 or more weeks the ddos attacks were happening.

example: I work for the cable company and last year, during the superbowl at halftime someone cut a fibre optic cable dropping tv service for about 4 hours, we had over 40,000 subscribers miss the last half of the game. do you think my company determined a credit for the cost of the service (about 60$) divided by 30 (2$) divided by 24 hours (.09 cents) times the 4 hours? (.27 cents)?, NO, we gave a flat $20 to each sub and even though it wasn't my company's fault, (someone else cut the cable) we still lost a lot of subscribers, my company credited back 1/3 of a months worth of service for 4 hours of downtime because it was the right thing to do.

you know what you're doing is wrong, and even though i don't blame you for the ddos attacks, it's your responsibility to provide credit for the amount of time we were unable to play the game, i paid for a months worth of service on all my accounts and recieved a little less than 1/2 a months worth of play.

No.. you received the game time plus some for your months sub... It's your fault for not logging in.

Let's see:
I am a US timezone player
I was able to log in more times then not ( I certainly didn't lose 3 days of play time!)
I mined
I manufactured
I farmed NPC
I violenced other's bots

Damn... Sounds like I did everything I normally do.......

Devs-- Don't let this TOOL misrepresent the fact that the majority of the player base appreciates the extra 3 days of game time and the effort that went into solving the ddos issue.

Go to forum: News and information

37 Reply by Scyylla

(5 replies, posted in Balancing)

Dan wrote:

Now npcs love to primary support bots, cool, but could you reverse/add feature so if I attack one npc from the group they will (all of them) will attack the damage dealer? By all I mean even npcs from not the same group (ie. 2 spawns next to each other). Right know I need to shoot all of them to get the agro.

No you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

If your are too slow to kill the spawn before they break your logi bot or you are too lazy to watch your logi bot it deserves to die.

Dan-- Enough QQ and begging for features to put the game on easy mode for you.

Go to forum: Balancing

38 Reply by Scyylla

(78 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Today's patch brought a slow wall decay of 3-5 HP with an 8 hour cycle. This means a wall will die in 17-28 days if unattended (ie. repaired with wall compiler modules).

http://www.perpetuum-online.com/Changelog:2012-02-08

We felt this was necessary to avoid littering up islands too much over time.

Not a bad change however are you working on making it possible to lock and destroy them?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

39 Reply by Scyylla

(78 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Arga wrote:

What is bad, is when the majority of the combat is non-consensual ganking. Remeber, in non-consensual, only 1 side is pleased that it happens.

You consent to getting ganked the minute you jump on beta............

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

40 Reply by Scyylla

(128 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Walls are fine with no decay.

The major issue is you cannot feasibly eliminate them unless u take a hauler around with a cargo full of bombs..

The easiest way to fix it would be to make bombs  much lighter then 10u (say 1u) and much cheaper (say 100k) but I think doing this negates the efforts of the group building the walls and makes the walls themselves totally worthless.

Fix:

You should be able to shoot walls!
Walls need enough HP so they can't be one-shotted by a handful of light bots. It should require the effort of putting together a group or the investment of time to destroy a section of wall.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

41 Reply by Scyylla

(38 replies, posted in General discussion)

Atticus wrote:

Well, Binary loses the crown of worst troll ever on these forums. But my money was on you all along Jasdemi. Hopefully the Devs will realize your conduct, although done on a 3rd party site, is detrimental to the spirit of this game and act accordingly.

Been done once in very recent memory for info posted on a 3rd party site. May as well do it again!

Go to forum: General discussion

42 Reply by Scyylla

(33 replies, posted in General discussion)

Beasty wrote:

You may be correct I haven’t played that game in years but I suggested this because if your Corp is going for high security you may place all but one of your structures in your prime time, so that your main opponent will not be able to take all of your structures in one go unless they have large forces in all the different time zones. Also many Corps want to be able to have control over the vulnerability of their PBS’s so this makes sense I think.

No not really..... Having a PBS open for an hour a day is the identical principle to our previous version of intrusions. The only time you actually had to be present or bother to defend it was when the intrusion went active.. at a prearranged time... This will cause the same issues as before. The only time people will be around is for that hour a day.

PBS mechanics should be even more dependant on an actual presence in your controlled area then our current intrusion mechanics (which has totally encouraged more PVP at random times and a bigger presence on beta). I  think the PBS should have insane HP and be able to be attacked at any time. If your corp has the resources (should be a large requirement for PBS) to build a PBS then you should have a member base that can properly defend it at all times. Don't risk what you can't afford to lose!

Kaldenines-- I agree with you. We need to know what role the Devs have in mind for PBS before we start talking mechanics.

Go to forum: General discussion

43 Reply by Scyylla

(19 replies, posted in General discussion)

Armpit wrote:

Well I won't be wasting anymore of your precious time.
For me it's just too much hassle. Sorry.

Goodbye and good luck.

I really mean that. I hope the game is a success.

Wow.. First person I have seen that says not playing the game is too much hassle.

Oh-- Thank you for not wasting any more of my time!

Go to forum: General discussion

44 Reply by Scyylla

(16 replies, posted in General discussion)

Impatient much Celebro??

Devs already said more stuff would be coming to the token shop when they released it...

As far as having the tourney bots available for tokens- I say no way. These bots are unique prizes for the winners of the tourney. Putting them in the token store totally nulifies them as a reward for being the best in the pvp tourney. Matter of fact putting a bot with the same stats just a different color does the same thing.

It wouldn't surprise me if the plant incubators were available in the token shop but lets allow the Devs to add items like they said they would before we start requesting more.

Go to forum: General discussion

45 Reply by Scyylla

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

fantazmythe wrote:

you make a fair point atticus.

I'd actually like to hear what AC has to say about it.

They have spoken. No subscription=no EP.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

46 Reply by Scyylla

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Anni--

1- So now to mine you have to harvest your way to the field?? 5 minute walk turns into a two hour harvesting and hauling session so you can get to your spot. What happens to the poor guy that only has a combat toon? Is he supposed to jump in a laird and harvest a path to his npc spot?

2- Dynamic ore spawns isn't a bad idea however it is just an idea at this point. These incubators are going to be introduced soon(tm) and will be interacting with the current mechanics in the game not ideas being discussed by the players.

3- Impact to green bots???? Yes it would impact them and let them kill the npc by shooting over the plants. The npc would clear the way eventually and maybe, just maybe that green bot would have to move after a bit. The yellow and blue pilots will not be able to do anything until the plants are destroyed by the npc under the current mechanics.

4- Time and effort.... 5 minute walk. 3 minutes of clicking deploy. 5 minutes walking back to outpost.

5-

Annihilator wrote:

with plants beeing something rather rare, and player seeded spots are probably easy to identify, this system is pro-grief. pro destroy someones hour long effort in a few seconds while he is offline.
Long and expensive building process, short time for destruction

I can do the same thing by undocking my symbiont. No reason I shouldn't be able to shoot them on my combat toon too.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

47 Reply by Scyylla

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Anni-- Having heavily travelled areas not allow plant growth is nice but what does that do for miners and npc farmers?

Miners:

Often strip a distant field every couple weeks. This allows the ore to regen. They don't travel that path often so plants will grow and potentially block access to it.

NPCers:

LOS issues with plants will just kill blue and yellow pilots. It is bad enough that a grain of sand gets in the way. All the extra natural plant growth is going to seriously impact all but green pilots.... Less people killing npc=less NIC and less people researching/selling kernels.

Bombs could be the answer but I certainly won't spend millions of NIC to clear an area to shoot npcs for an hour or to get to a mining spot every couple weeks.

The answer is to simply make it so you can shoot plants without having an alt sit behind one and turning on both toon's pvp flag. Boost player grown plant HP a bit so it takes longer to kill them and make the incubators dirt cheap. 

Will shooting plants have some griefing? It sure will. Will there be a few people who walk up to you when you are harvesting and shoot your plants? Yep. Just remember that they already walk up and harvest the plant you are on, strip the tile that you are mining and come and tag the npcs you are already farming. The mechanics are already there and being used for "griefing".

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

48 Reply by Scyylla

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Takeo Prime wrote:

hmmm,
Guys are quick to say no, and that is how I felt as I was reading the initial post but then I considered this point.

Lets say a guy subbed 6 months ago, played 3 months then un-subbed for another 3.  What he is asking is can he back pay the 3 months he was un-subbed and get that EP back.  Again my first thought is NO FREEKING WAY...but hold up.

By him paying the back 3 months, he is not gaining any additional advantage as he will have payed the same as everyone else that has been subbed.

The game could use any additional income, so having him pay back subs would help the game more than just having him re-sub and continue.

I propose this....have the ability to "back sub" months that you have not payed....at full monthly price per month (not a package discount amount) and get 50% - 75% of that EP back to that player at the time the "back sub" is payed.  One more restriction that seems reasonable is limit it to 4 - 6 months cap.

This generates revenue for our Devs, encourages a guy with a little extra cash to come back, giving us a larger player base, and when all added up, he is still behind those that subbed every month.  I think this helps everyone.

*troll hat off*

Takeo-- Don't be blinded by the fact we have a low population or that this poor numpty had RL issues.

His idea may be beneficial to a handful of people but would be totally abused by the flavor of the month "tweaks" out there. They would be on again off again players at best that wander from new game to new game and come back to perp when they are bored, buy back EP and play till the next shiney "tweak" game comes along.

A sandbox mmo needs a consistent and stable subscriber base. The Incarnage spike showed everyone that. You cannot possibly play this game if half your corpmates only play 1 or 2 months at a time every 6 months. You have to have a consistency within the corporation to meet and maintain your goals. WAR and 62nd have become an effective team. What would happen if half your current active members went away for 3 months at a time and popped back in every so often? Would you be able to compete with the enemy? Would you be able to effectively run the industry in your corp? Would you be able to maintain an outpost on beta if you couldn't count on your corpies to be around? For me the answer is no to all of these. Dedicated players are the key to a sandbox mmo.

Don't let additional revenue for AC be a factor when reading the OP. If you wanted AC to have more resources you would support p2w which buy back of EP is a major step towards.... Is it better for AC to get a couple revenue spikes or to have a consistent balance sheet of stable subscriptions? AC needs to work on growing a stable player base not count on gimmicks and impulse purchases to remain profittable. Having a stable income that you can forecast is key in any business venture.

Bottom line is that the Op's idea encourages the wrong type of gamer for a sandbox and as such the idea should die in a fire.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

49 Reply by Scyylla

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

To address your points:

1-- You should review my other posts. This was constructive CRITICISM. You are the one that is full of piss and vinegar because nobody has agreed with you. A bit lower in this post I will share with you what alot of people want to type but lack the testicular fortitude to actually do.

2-- EP accumulates because you have PAID to STAY subscribed. That's the way it works. AC has absolutely nothing to do with you CHOOSING to stop playing for whatever reason. Why should they reward you for being a "disloyal" customer by allowing you to buy EP?

3-- People can do whatever they want with the EP that has accumulated during their PAID subscription. That is the the way the skilling system is designed.

4-- Your idea rewards the flavor of the month gamer more then anyone else. Play a game for a month or 2 until the new shiney one comes out. Play it till it bores you and come back here, buy back 3 months of EP and be competitive with people who actually give a damn about the game then wander away the next minute something shiney distracts you.. I don't think so....


Now here is the fun part that I purposely avoided in my first post to provide you some CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM:

1-- Your idea is plain idiotic
2-- I don't care when you started playing or what pre-release pack you bought
3-- You stopped playing. Deal with it.
4-- There are no free cheese lines in Perpetuum. Accept the consequences of your actions.
5-- Whatever sob story you have doesn't matter. I don't care why you quit. Fact is that you QUIT!
6-- Quit pretending that your idea helps AC out. It doesn't you numpty. All it does is encourage an unstable player base which is the exact opposite of what a sandbox MMO needs.
7-- Sandbox MMO's are not for you or your kind. This genre of game is not for the flavor of the month gamer and your idiotic idea does nothing but reward them..

Last but not least:

There are plenty of free to play games out there for you. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

50 Reply by Scyylla

(41 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

No
-1

This idea goes against the fundamental basis of the the extension system....... Your character progresses over time based on your choices in allocating accumulated EP not on choosing to leave the game and resubbing 6 months later.

Allowing a buy back of "lost" ep is, in my opinion, an insult to the players that have been here from day one and continue to help build and grow the game. It completely nullifies the effort they have put into shaping their characters and the time they have invested in this game.

Bad things happen to good people. That is a fact of life. It is in those times that people really have to choose what is important to them. Is it playing internet robots? Is it buying one less six pack of beer to fund their gaming. Is it making sure that their family has a roof over their head and food on the table? I know the choice I made when it happened to me years ago and I don't regret losing 8 months of skill training in stEve.

Bottom line is that someone that was forced to leave the game due to RL issues will come back when they can if they truely enjoyed the game regardless of how much EP they could have had but don't.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests