The fact that we are still reading and responding to the forums shows the love and impact this game has had on us.

Most of us have many, many years of gaming under our belt and have played tons of different games and this is indeed one of the most memorable and interesting of all of them.

Thank you for making it and putting your hearts and souls into such a great game.


(184 replies, posted in General discussion)

Is this just some last ditch effort/dream or is this a realistic thing that Inda has been discussing with the Dev team (since he is a neighbor of theirs)? 0.o

If so, I hope he (or someone else) has a realistic plan for taking over this game.  It has great potential, but it takes more then just the money from a dozen fans to make a good idea turn into reality. You need someone with a business head, someone with project management skills and someone with SW development experience to assess this.  Setting up a kickstarter project would be a good way for you to get 1. your plan communicated to potential funders, 2. goals set and tracked for this endeavor 3. visibility beyond the 10 (am I generous) players still afk mining in game and a bunch of us forum trolls. 

This game was created over many years and with the tireless efforts of a dedicated group of devs. Even their love of this project could not get this game to where it should be.  I can guarantee those guys at one point, eat, slept, lived and $h!t this game, so I do not think a few guys throwing money and maybe spending some spare time to 'code' stuff is going to get anything of value done.

I want something good to happen to, but right now we sound like a bunch of kids dreaming of when we become adults.

this is a steam issue, not a perp issue.

Steam doesn't allow multiple accounts on the same computer or multiple games on the same account. 

Don't buy perp on steam more then once (or less if you can manage it).

Annihilator wrote:
Mroq wrote:

Speaking about weapons tho I have more thougths.

   TL:DR - Give a rebalance to base weapon AP consumption to even the weapon tunings out again.

   We got different AP consumption penalties for tuners becouse of the base AP weapon consumption. In that state you can't have it same for it will favor firearms and missiles a great deal. In current state firearms can still pack a few tuners without much significance on accumulator while magnetic weapons suffer greatly after putting even a single one on (go ahead and try firing all 6 EM guns on mesmer constantly after getting a single tuning on - without ridiculous ammount of Accumulator rechargers).
   Now someone will probably think that the weapons need to be that way becouse of realism. I would beg to differ tho. We are using up ammunition - bullets have explosive powder, slugs look like they have a sort of bobbin, missiles must have fuel in them and energy cells are essentialy a battery.

i miss the times when it was near impossible to have any t4 medium weapon "to fire constantly", and injector ammo was 1/10th of its current size (f*** jita!)

Chemist wrote:

If we talking about tuners, then Shield Hardeners and Enwar tuners must be rebalance too... Because today one HM with 5 tunings can drain into 0AP 4 HM(!) in 1 minute(!). Discuss.

well, that was my first point when it was announced.
Range extender and shield tuner are not having ANY penalty aside of their slot requirement.
ok, i remember the time when each range extender put a penalty on accumulator recharge,
and shield tuners had been active modules

both had their "penalties" removed, because "wasting a slot is penalty enough" (for the RE), and
shield hardeners made no sense to be active modules at that time.
and to top that, on missile bots, the penalty had no significant impact.

enwar tunings are ok... if zoom would ever fix their bug, and adjust the penalty to what he has implemented for other tunings wink

Don't get mad bro. it was just a few bot you lost

Chemist wrote:

And where I can find you?

You can find us on yellow, green and blue islands.  We are also found at the top of the killboards with the most kills.

I don't think this is a bad idea, but I recall previous posts about making 'small' terrain changes on an existing island not very easy for the Devs to do as one would think.  Similar request have been made to make a tournament type island or an infestation island, so if you search back on those topics you might find some answers.

It might allow for more small roams which this game hasn't seen in years, but I doubt it would make new/small corps move to PVP.  Right now, any corp can just NAP up with the majority of corps that are already NAP'd together or wait until some of the islands get flipped then try to NAP with the other side.  Diplomacy seems to work well in this game (especially for new corps).
If a guy or group cant keep away from a mech/HM in assaults/lights now on beta, they wont be able to survive in an all assault/light island any better.

Annihilator wrote:

with the free slots, you could anything that you would require if the game wouldn't be 100% carebearing.

The game is NOT 100% carebear, NSE is still playing. tongue  Maybe that is why NSE put in the effort to figure out this new patch and everyone else is sitting in their old NAP builds.

Annihilator wrote:
Inda wrote:


I cant PVE as efficeintly as before
I cant make Harvesting missions as effective as before (dont even talk about Noralgis farming.)

I need to change and test all my fittings on our PVP machines, and that is because of no real good changes just for the greens.

Inda... you f*** kidding me there.

pre patch, you had to cycle only a few times to get the yield for a lvl6 mission, in a 5-tuner fit symbiont.
now, a SINGLE tuning increases your yield as much as FOUR AND A HALF t4's prepatch.

in other words, a laird mk2 with with two t4 tunings is now more effective running harvest missions on alpha, then a symbiont with five pre-patch.
for beta, i heard the new mining/harvesting Assault bot is the thing, due to its higher driving speed.

correct me if i am wrong, but how can you now be LESS effective then before?
are you talking about a 5-tuner fit symbiont mk2 after patch, with a factor of 7.5 yield, is not as effective as a factor 1.6 yield pre-patch??

I am glad someone besides NSE pointed this out to him.  I was wondering how much you guys really play this game.  Now I know the truth based upon forum tears and lack of understanding on the new patch.

Rovoc wrote:

The problem is no one uses green anymore

hello?  Been running green through this whole green nerf period (and taking crap for it wink )!

BeastmodeGuNs wrote:

Ohmergawd I feel so tricked. I've been played like a damn fiddle man!

So you knew he was trolling you and your answer was to impress us all with your wealth of historical knowledge of the game of Perpetuum.   You Da man!

BeastmodeGuNs wrote:
Rovoc wrote:

Who's STC?...

They are from before your time, but they have left as much of a mark in this game as some of your allies who no longer play this game have. Depending on how you looked at things they were basically the lesser of two evils.

Ironically it is dead now as the rebranding into ETHOS ended its actively growing legacy but the words were true all the same, and STC at one point was one of the few entities in the game to lead an alliance to control all 15 beta outposts and held the longest standing gamma fortress up until the gamma wipe and revamp and was probably one of the only entities ingame to successfully run a gamma war for a long period of time. They are up there with CIR.

He was trolling you.

Line wrote:
Altera wrote:

Wow, just wow.

If the DEVs follow up with the bad idea, then they better also move all equipment and bots from all players and corporations that don't have access to those terminals to a terminal that they do have access to.  I don't think you can do one without the other.  It wouldn't be fair to move players while some or all of his stuff is now inaccessible.

No need, actually. Noone forced you to leave that stuff there, so noone to blame it got locked.

All we need to do, is to slightly change Spark Teleport mechanics. Once OP owner press "kick" button, you should automatically spark to either closest open terminal, or closest Alpha, or even your starter terminal.

Once you are outside, you are free to prepare an army and retake ownership so you can then kick your enemies aswell.

Only thing - it should check offline players too. kicking those will be more or less similar to destroy a gamma base while someone is logged inside. Except in case of beta kick your assets remain safe.

But if I am in a terminal, I should get to choose to take my assets or not.  You are forcing me to leave all my assets because you want to kick everyone from the terminal once it becomes locked.  I should get to choose when I leave the terminal and what assets I can haul out safely at the time of my choosing.

Wow, just wow.

If the DEVs follow up with the bad idea, then they better also move all equipment and bots from all players and corporations that don't have access to those terminals to a terminal that they do have access to.  I don't think you can do one without the other.  It wouldn't be fair to move players while some or all of his stuff is now inaccessible.

NSE is still actively playing the game and looking for new folks.  Find us in game!

We have a better chance of getting a porn star to come over and give us a lap dance every time we kill an NPC then seeing these changes.

I applaud everyone's ideas, but this topic gets talked about once every year (for several years now).  We have suggested new content, gofundme, new items, new robots. We have begged for pink bots and racing stripes.  We have pleaded for QoL changes, alliance fixes. We have had wet dreams about artillery and super carriers. 
Yet.. here we all are... waiting.

All we can do is keep on keeping on big_smile big_smile big_smile


(4 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

He's just trolling.

Move along, nothing to see here:D


(6 replies, posted in Balancing)

Inda wrote:

Missioning still better alone, why we cant change that? You guys even can change and if its not working you can set back. In my opinion that is the singlest change you can make the game better.


Because if you incentifies to make missions together, you will be play the game together, then you will be able to go to PVP and so on! WIN - WIN!

More rewards when you make missions in teams (squads) like more NIC , and everyone gets tokens and such a things.

It will still need to be balanced.  If you just make mission incentives better in squads, you will go back to the old way of a single player with multiple accounts reaping big benefits for the same small missions.

A first step could be to allow players to select solo mission while still in a squad or a squad mission.  Then the balance of the squad missions needs to be worked.

But hey, think of the enjoyment we all have gotten from laughing at the guy who forgets to drop squad and starts to mission.. only to have to decline the mission and drop squad

Faullen wrote:

Advice to new players, all corps seem to want PVP players. You can play the game without being in a corp, but if you want to be in one you will need to be up for PVP.

I don't think all corps want PVP players only.  I know most corps take in miners/harvesters folks.  Though, if you join a corp, you will have access to folks who will give you the opportunity to do what you want and maybe even give you a taste for other areas of the game you didn't know you would enjoy.

Look Up NSE if you want to mine/harvest.

Bump for NSE recruitment.  We are back and playing again.  Come join us for some good 'ol fun.  We play all aspects of this game and we have lots of fun

- TeamSpeak 3 REQUIRED for all PvP or Group combat activities, no exceptions.


(18 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Rovoc wrote:

speaking of which what does gen chat look like? i uninstalled the game

you suck!

320 in GC today.  wait, I got the decimal point off one place.  32:lol:

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:

At the very least you could release the new bots in batches every month or 2 so you spread it out over 4-5 months.... lights 1 month assaults 4-6 weeks later... also that lets you do some balancing & tweaking of a smaller group of bots at a time. which lets be honest the DEVs wont really do if they release lots of bots at the same time.

This is a smart idea.  Stretch out the "new content" somewhat.  With the limited DEV labor hours, this will keep teasing us with new stuff for a few months.  Just don't let this staged release idea stretch into long delays between class releases

I have lost many bots to auto path and reds. But, still -1 to this. You need to play the game or suffer the consequences.

Jita wrote:

You cant effectively live out of a beta terminal because its too easy to scout and you just get ganked. This problem would exist in any open terminal, your right. The balance to that is you would have to do it to 4 terminals on three beta islands. The best you could do is target an individual station or two.

The advantages on the other hand are:

Beta industry is possible for smaller / underpowered corps. Without the risk of station locking you can move CT’s and your mineral stocks

This would require removing the bonus a station can get from the owning corp.  If not, an owning corp could just remove the bonus and any producers would be left high and dry. So you would need to remove even more content

Jita wrote:

Under siege corps can pick their fights (more vulnerable to gank / less vulnerable to eviction)

If a corp is under siege, this will just make it easier for them to get camped.  this makes no sense in what you are trying to say

Jita wrote:

You don’t need to either bend the knee or join the winning coalition to have a station – you just need to be able to control the territory. This encourages emergent gameplay, the breaking of coalitions and multi faction warfare

You live for the moment don't you.  You just want instant gratification without having to work for station ownership.  Control the territory just means irregular blob sessions.  That's not how you grow a game, that is how you get spotty content which wil rive players away

Jita wrote:

Visitors have a place to dock and operate from without the need to ‘own’ somewhere

Just like the current unused open beta terminals?? TMB, ICB,ABT. this has been proven wrong already.

Jita wrote:

There is a clear progression of ownership – Beta 2 becomes important if corps want station locking

All stations become important – the need to defend and then lock causes a lot of empty stations that nobody uses – and sometimes whole empty islands

Your argument is to reduce the number of terminals by unlocking beta1s.  This doesn't make sense, it will just cause less people to care about beta ownership. 

-1 this horrible idea. (still)

Why all of the sudden posts to remove content in this game.  Shouldn't devs be adding stuff, not removing it?


(37 replies, posted in General discussion)

This removes any kind of 'progression' between the islands.