151 Reply by Altera

(22 replies, posted in Balancing)

JonasML wrote:

....lots of words....


so much hate.  I thought you OTHERS were mellow dudes.

point 1. Almost everyone on this post agrees with the point that opening beta stations will not get some ppl to beta. period, ever, done.  Thanks for agreeing with that point then going on to talk smack.
point 2. Yes, a group of players who are organized, committed to the effort and have the desire can pretty much take over all the betas.  I am not sorry that we are currently the group with those 3 qualities and you are not.  Maybe if the BH alliance stop being butt hurt so often and formed a plan on anything and then executed on it, you might be the powerhouse.
point 4. I think the only guy complaining about this is some new CONS dude, so I am not sure he has years of history on mechanics and manipulation.
point 5. We all agree the true issue is risk v reward for A, B, G islands.  and it is a much larger issue then this topic
point 6. making a limit on how many stations 1 corp can own would do zero.  (you guys need to think out things before you put them into written word).  All that would do is create a ton of alt corps and you unorganized guys would still be S.O.L.
point 7. more islands.  I guess that would make it so unorganized and lazy players could get a free station without needing to work for it.  I agree more islands just makes the work for those of us willing to do it harder.  Maybe you could win then, but this is generally a bad idea and doesn't help the game
point 8. I never said NSE ninja mines (we *** epi fields tbh).  I don't think anyone is ninja mining at this time.  Ppl are free to go to all of these dead islands and mine till it comes out their ears.  opening or closing terminals isn't really effecting the dead island issue.

Go to forum: Balancing

152 Reply by Altera

(22 replies, posted in Balancing)

The only players who are trapped on Alpha are players who do not want to PvP.  Opening up Beta stations and showing gamma bases will not change that fact one bit.

Proof:
1. The faction (beta 1) terminals are open to all and they are never used either. 
2. Epi market is in the tank, ppl aren't ninja mining, they are strip mining the hell outta beta.


Beta needs to be fixed with Risk-v-Reward as tons of previous posts have stated.

Most PvP is centered around owning and controlling the SAPs (not really terminals, that's just a side bonus).  If you open terminals, you will get less PvP and more station games.

Go to forum: Balancing

153 Reply by Altera

(35 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

modules being active stop molecular instability when teleporting, so they should provide a small amount of non-stealtyness. 


if moving at max bot speed, no stealth; if moving at partial speeds, some stealth; if sitting still but running modules, very good stealth; if sitting doing noting, max stealth.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

154 Reply by Altera

(17 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ambedrake wrote:

+1 with more hashing out of the idea.

While I do agree a trial period would do the game wonders there are some concerns.

First not allowing them to fully be a part of the Nia main islands (Virtual island is cool here), to do this they need a semi full featured demo island to be a part of.

Second I believe that 6 hours is not quite enough to get through the tutorial and really fully understand the basics. Some things like artifacting, and fitting balances can take a few hours each in themselves for the thickest of skulls. Maybe say a 48hr trial?

Third, while I understand the need for people interacting, this community can be toxic. Whether or not to allow them to interact with the main games chat or have them completely separated off on their own is one that should be considered, especially as general chat can get rather dismal at times.

Fourth, the tutorials are crap. To be honest it would be best to have video tutorials instead for each section as text does not convey enough information in the small amount of asset space it has. Even if its as simple as a 'mission' breif video for each with audio voice over on each step similar to some other games, this would be seen as a nice feature and give more clarity to the more complex things such as artifacting.

Fifth, while I understand most will not, some very well may chose to make trial accounts just to lock out names. This can be remedied in the most part by having the character creation step moved to actual deployment to Nia instead locking the name selection to full accounts.

Lastly, a tutorial on the game is nice, but more essentially a tutorial on the settings should be added as well. There are many useful options in the settings that are not fully explained until you meet other players, and some players require setting changes in order to keep a connection to the server stable. By getting this out of the way early you may very well keep many players that would drop early on due to technical difficulties.

These are the things I believe would need to be done or happen in order for a trial period to actually work.

Cheers,
Ambe

So, bottom line; if the DEVs drop everything they are working on and focus on this, they might get this released in 2 years. You sure your sticking with a +1 wink

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

155 Reply by Altera

(17 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

-1.

A six hour trial in this game is more frustration then pleasure.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

156 Reply by Altera

(18 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

sorry corpies.

-1 to epi on gamma.  Mining behind gamma bases will limit PVP (is this done in this game anymore) even more then it is now.

Mine epi on beta, take the risk, protect your  miners, haul that purple goo to your turtle gamma base!
ppl get off your *** and roam those dead islands and hunt down undefended epi miners and lone scarab drivers  (http://www.perp-kill.net/kill/264359)

And don't anyone bother to troll and say 'nobody roams beta or pvps on beta', 2 wrongs don't make a right, they  make a boring game.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

157 Reply by Altera

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

sounds like the problem is some people just go off halfcocked and want to build a gamma base without
1. planning and preparing for everything,
2. testing and verifying that it works as you assume it will.

If you are going to put in the time, NIC, resources and effort to build a gamma base, test it out after you have it up.  I would have cost you nothing to run a few non-corp, non-alliance accounts against it to see where the holes are.

You know what they say about assuming things.;)

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

158 Reply by Altera

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Zortarg wrote:

and how do i get it to shoot friendly?

sorry makes no sense for me...

why would you want to attack friendlies, what are you guys doing out there to each other? wink

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

159 Reply by Altera

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

160 Reply by Altera

(109 replies, posted in News and information)

Burial wrote:

I don't see the fuss about plasma. The amounts are not nearly big enough to remove gameplay elements cold turkey that'll have unpredictable after-effects throughout the game and players enjoy.

Imagine if Blizzard or any other successful MMO publisher started an arm's race against cheaters by removing gameplay elements that are easier to cheat instead of doing occasional ban sweeps. They'd remove an element and cheaters would find a new one et al. Just takes one cheater to create a bot and distribute it however he likes.

It's way less effort and less destructive to the game to just ban the offenders. Anyway, for the anti-cheat, just add roaming red NPCs back to Alphas and it's golden.

+1

Go to forum: News and information

161 Reply by Altera

(109 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Annihilator wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

Yes. But also honest miners who took some minutes to browse cat gifs between changing tiles (I don't blame them),...

You basicly admit that the resource gathering part is so boring that you can understand that someone would do something else on his computer while the mining process runs as a background task.

Yes, I didn't think that was a secret.

I am sad that the DEVs find a large portion of their game boring sad

You may find mining boring, but it is a large and important part of a MMO like this.  By allowing players to bypass this portion of the game, you are cutting off a large portion of your potential playerbase ($$).

Go to forum: News and information

162 Reply by Altera

(109 replies, posted in News and information)

Chemist wrote:

Too complicated. I propose a ban violators. Works 100%. And bugusers too. After the first ban, the rest ponder on this. Yes, you lose 1-3-5-10 customers, but will raise the confidence of the new players. And maybe banned people will buy game again. smile

I would agree with this, but this would require an engaged DEV team.  If it takes 6 months and several tickets for the DEV team to realize reds are not spwaning on gamma (or epi is spawning on gamma), how do you think they will be able to detect, verify and deal with violators of anything.  We need to be realistic here and not ask things form the devs that they can not provide.

Chemist wrote:

upd: AFK-miners? It is a perversion. I in half an hour to dig out as much ore as AFK-scarab in 10 hours.

Agree, but many, many, many players afk mine.

Chemist wrote:

Do not pay attention to them.

I do not have an automated means to mine in a riv.  I will fill up my rivs in about 6 min and have to unload into a can.

Go to forum: News and information

163 Reply by Altera

(109 replies, posted in News and information)

We can argue (and will cont) about who is botting and who isn't, but the bottom line is afk mining and afk/semi-afk farming (botting) is bad for this game. 

No Risk Alpha effect:
1. Boring PVE
2. Excessive afk play
3. biased risk-vs-reward toward alpha
3. Lower prices on markets (due to #2)
4. Less reason to goto beta/gamma -> less PVP
5. No need for new players to help corps (due to #2), therfore no new player engagement in game, hence low new player retention
6. Massive amounts of hording by current players


We can boost betas/gammas, but it does not solve the problem of collecting massive stuff while you are afk.  Just as now, anyone can go mine and get material wayyyyy faster then afk mining in scarabs.  Why do they still do it?  Becasue botting and afk mining takes zero time and can be done 24/7.  You cant get over that fact with a beta/gamma boost, ever!

Red NPCs on alpha should be reinstated, period.  DEVs fix the aggro tables so the person who intially aggros the NPCs keep aggro properly (they shouldnt randomly switch to someone if that 2nd player doesnt aggro the NPCs).  Players need to take some responsability too, if they see someone dragging NPCs toward them, then they should move before that player can dock up or drop a TP (assuming they are not afk).  If you need to afk, log the F off or take the risk.  If you need to watch cats or porn while mining, then keep one hand free to switch back to the game you are supposedly playing every once and a while.

If we want to keep a 100% safe zone (alpha 1s), then make these players work hard for that free safety.  Reduce mineral field size significantly, so that its not even worth bringing an afk team out there. make the spawns not worth the effort to any but the newest players.

Go to forum: News and information

164 Reply by Altera

(20 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Quelaag wrote:

Again no. From tree years of this game i want see NEW content (this mean new modules, new robots, with brand new models and images). Not recycled content.


Perpetuum logic lesson:
All or Nothing = nothing;

I am sure everyone wants new bots with new images and new animation and new sound and new smell, but with the limit DEV team and the slow development cycles. be happy with a compromise. Lets recycle some apsects to gain new partial content.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

165 Reply by Altera

(93 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Can we get a corp managment option: turrets target NPCS enable/disable

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

166 Reply by Altera

(19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:

also, with your logic,

adding ammo consumption to:
1. remote sensor amps
2. energy transfer modules
3. energy drainer
4. energy neutralizerse
5. any EWAR module


would create additional content, nic sinks and give noobs something to build!

And according to your logic, there would be no ammo at all, no new players with less EP then you and you and your buds could be free to bot 24/7.
Super fun times.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

167 Reply by Altera

(19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:

1. a new producer can help out... nothing. last time i have bought something from a "new producer" was... never, since i always had similar or better production skills, and crafting my own mining ammo was more or less a chore then a feature.
2. same as 1., the economy is dead with or without miner charges on the market
3. its a nic sink and obstacle for new miner more then for vets. vets only have the few NIC it costs to run the factory, and if they own the factory... they get it back 100%.

I am not sure how much interaction you have with new players lately.  But, it is pretty standard to give a new producer the job of making charges/ammo in the corp. It allows them to play the game while they are waiting on the EP/research to be able to make the higher cost items.  The same goes for non-corp members, they can make and sell on the public market (becasue as you said, most vets wont waste their lines for selling ammo and charges, cause its more of a chore).  I guess just telling them to F off until they have super vet skills is another way to do it, that will certainly get more ppl to play this game

Annihilator wrote:

the DEV time spent on making this possible is not wasted, because its actually necessary for new content that exceeds your creativity limit

I am not sure what your point here is.  I am not sure how you are equating my creativy limit with the necessity of this requested change.


Annihilator wrote:

you are a terrible lair if your telling your' not botting in this game... fuuu

I guess I am the only one not botting in this game, but thanks for the personal attack smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

168 Reply by Altera

(19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

-1 due to this being a remove content request

1. new producers can help out by building ammo/charges, this removes that
2. players can buy and sell charges which helps the almost dead economy, this removes that
3. NIC sink (however ubsurdly minor it is), this removes that

-1 due to this would use DEV time which could be spent with higher priority QoL issues

-1 due to it would require all you botters to remove some logic from your botting programs to make botting even easier

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

169 Reply by Altera

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:

(i just don't want to imagine how big the layers.gbf will grow in a future with 100 islands...)

Will every player get his own 5 personal islands?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

170 Reply by Altera

(36 replies, posted in General discussion)

Rockettes wrote:

I really don't like to say this but I think its already dead.

Just keep swimming there, NEMO.

Go to forum: General discussion

171 Reply by Altera

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Zortarg wrote:

Nora is a quite expensive thing and the most annoying resource to get by far...

this realy could be made quite a bit more user friendly. also putting down 200 incubators always have been a pain for itself. speciialy because you have no visual indicator for a fresh droped incubator.
yes i know harvesting modules that stop before they kill the plant was suggested before... so im not going that way.

why not have the incubator not giving the resource itself and will be just a object.
the incubator could spawn noralgis "tumors" in a cerain radius around it. they will only "grow" or increase in numbers if the incubator is around. so "killing" the tumors will make no difference. if you kill the incubaror (guns). then its over.
that way it will be way more convinient to harvest it. no worries about killing your expensive nora anymore...

i would give the incubators more room and more yield then the current ones have. so for a theoretical example one incubator can spawn up to 20 tumors in a 5 field radius
price and drop chances can be adjusted easily...

win


Botting for the win.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

172 Reply by Altera

(203 replies, posted in News and information)

Tonnik wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

We're entering internal testing&balancing phase in a few days so public testing is still a week or two out unfortunately.

Zoom is like one of those Japanese soldiers who hides in the forest for years still fighting a war everyone else knew is over

We have been begging the Devs to provide communication on their progress for weeks.  They finally do and the 2nd post is someone bashing their status.

Any we wonder why they don't communicate with us.  Nice job ***.

Go to forum: News and information

173 Reply by Altera

(41 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Gwyndor wrote:

Congrats, hope to have my own soon. Be sure to keep this thread updated with tips haha

I have a spare kid or 2; if you need one wink

Congratz Ville.  Make sure to finish baby-prrofing, it's not long before they get mobile.

Go to forum: Open discussion

174 Reply by Altera

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Cassius wrote:

*** no to the decay mechanics. I earned the crap I have in storage and it shouldn't matter if it ever sees the light of day again. Like the real world if I mothball the crap for years and pull it out I shouldn't expect my vintage '73 AMC Pacer, which I mass produced, to keep up with a '15 Camaro. Hell, it shouldn't be able to keep up with a '15 Safeway shopping cart.

I agree with your other points but this decay suggestion is horrible.

I am not sure if I understand your analogy; but if you mothball a car in '73, you will have to pay 42 years of storage fees to keep that car and that should cost more then storing a model car or a pircture of a car.  In this game the storage fees are the same whether you are storing the car in mothballs or storing a picture of the car in your wallet (its a size thing) which is dumb and promotes hording. 
In truth it would be too hard for the devs to make a decay mechanism.  Maybe a tax based on U should be used.  As previously posted by someone in a different post, storage fees based on U might help this.  Of course what happens when you dont have NIC to pay?  Do they repo your stuff, yup.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

175 Reply by Altera

(392 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

We have probably found the issue with plant-related lags. In theory, when a plant is damaged or is destroyed, the server would send you an update only for the affected tile (about plant presence, plant health, and blocks).

Well it looks like this is not the case, as it sends you a package about the whole 64x64 tile sector where it happened. That's a lot of unnecessary traffic (about 10kb per update event).

We're working on a fix.

This is very good news!  Even for the folks that siad plants didn't lag and was a figment of our imagination wink

Go to forum: Bugs