26

(107 replies, posted in General discussion)

Biffa Buttocks wrote:

at the moment their choices are either join the big boys or become future cannon fodder

Nonsense. You pick your targets, you learn, you make friends. Fail in this and you will fail no matter how many EPs. You can go to a corner to sell drugs but if you don't know how the game is played it doesn't matter how big your missile launcher is because you are going to end up in a ditch.

27

(16 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Kaldenines wrote:

Overheating would be cool,

Overheating made eve ***.

28

(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Tux wrote:

Ictus energy warfare is limited by line of sight   
Long range demobs are limited by line of sight / short range demobs have a base range of ~ 200m with good skills.

And?

You are comparing two forms of EW that directly affect survibability, with two that can be safely cancelled by easily walking away and breaking lock? Not to mention the ictus bonus?

This has gone full Zortag. I'm done with this thread until people recover their senses and stop proposing stupid stuff after stupid stuff because this is going nowhere.

29

(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

1. Just as expected. Lol
2. ECMs? When everyone and their mother knows it's suppressors the ones being OP? Lol.
3. "New" EW player utility vs 1 no skill required ECCM? Lol.
4. Not being able to shoot due to EW Bad? Not being able to shoot due to accu raping good? Lol.
5. Accu based mechs being able to mostly ignore accu drain instead? Lol.
6. Not being able to shoot bad. Not being able to move good? Lol.
7. Zenith+ECM+Tuner >> Vaga, unaddressed, unmentioned, and instead get changes in response to whining? Lol.
8. EW Mech+Boosted ECCM? Lol.
9. Proposals of moving ECM (ofc, not supressors) to 10s to 15s? Lol.
10. The idea that fitting an ECCM should make a max skilled EW platform a mere nuisance, idea apparently shared by the devs? Lol.

Whatever. Between this and the RMT thing it is clear you have no idea how the game works or are in the Spacebar FTW Club no matter the consequences down the line. It's also clear that whoever did the balancing previously was not you.

30

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

My question wasn't about why you want to terraform such a structure, I was asking why do you want to terraform into it (as an attacker) if you can simply go up with assaults?

I see we still haven't reached ancient Roman times over here. The sieges of Masada, Alesia and Numantia totally forgotten.

Let's cut the bullshit. You want players to have basically the same mechanics as in saps. How about then gamma consists in some slope limited terraforming, players place their sap structures, and an outpost placement slot activates depending on the location of the three saps. No turrets, no reinforcing, no nothing. Happy now?

31

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

I'm not talking about friendly corporations, not even about alliances smile
Is it really so unthinkable that 3 opposing corporations occupy the same island? Much like beta outposts?

...

Repeat with me:

Keeeeeeeeer. Neeeeeeeeel. Keeeeeeeeeeeer. Neeeeeeeeeeeeel. Keeeeeeeer. Neeeeeeeel.

33

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Malsier Dabian wrote:

Not all corps are the same size and not all corps have the same firepower, the ability to place as many structures as you like with no limits, makes up for the lack of a huge force.

I'm here to play perp  not to play tower defense against a single player.

Malsier Dabian wrote:

it is not fair to make the smaller corps bow and roll over to the larger more experienced ones.

What's next? arenas? What do you think is going to happen to a 2 man corp when a larger corp decides they want to establish themselves on that island, and the 2 man corp decides to tell them to "*** off I'm not bowing to you and rolling over"? Do you seriously think the outcome would be different no matter how many terminals or turrets you have? Perhaps they, since have abundant resources and manpower, may decide to terraform you inside your own base and surround you with infinite turrets like you propose to have. What then? OMG I'm being griefed!?

34

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

If I were particularly mean, with the degradation stuff I'd suggest changing the number of terminals per island to (number of teleports - 1). Yes, even with the proposed slope restrictions.

35

(13 replies, posted in Bugs)

Yes, its like they build this block functionality and then decide "hey i want to create more headaches for everyone instead rather than tell them to use what we already built to deal with it"

36

(13 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

And you can't do it because...?

People can press the block button too but you feel compelled to babysit some of them.

37

(10 replies, posted in Agents seeking corporations)

This guy is someone's alt. You've been warned, and I plan on mocking you when he takes your corp assets big_smile

38

(102 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

Maybe when your terminal fills up of people you'll decide to undo... oh wait.

39

(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I fully agree.

I would like to know when they plan on enforcing the EULA equally on everyone.

40

(9 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

We'll call it the skyscrapper bot.

41

(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

How about they give us an api so we can build what we want instead of these half *** things?

42

(7 replies, posted in Balancing)

Jelan wrote:

online e-honour (note the correct spelling, none of this fake American English, pfft!) is srs bsns

Fair enough. I hope nobody felt offended enough to open a ticket and get me banned.

43

(26 replies, posted in Balancing)

Ioci wrote:

Beta is already under the control of a single player faction, PvP dynamics might be a bigger issue

Yes, those damn STC outlasters winning the game... The more betas an enemy has, the more STC wins, right?

44

(2 replies, posted in Testing server)

Gamma should be secondary to new player retention initiatives.

45

(35 replies, posted in Bugs)

oaisdj98asd wrote:

stop sayin your "just sayes". it is win server 2003 and it supported by its manufacturer by now! i dont need your whining! when you have nothing helpful to say just pass by

you surely whine a lot for someone demanding help in a very ungrateful manner.
just sayin.

46

(2 replies, posted in Bugs)

Indy wrote:

If deploy a Field container capsule it open a Window for input a Secure Key.

But the input field not focused, it require a needless klick in the input field for start type the Secure Key.

Is this a Bug or a Feature?


greeting

It is feature. They changed it because Cassius got his efeelings hurt when I opened his can. Just another ticket crusader favored by the hand of the devs.

47

(8 replies, posted in Selling Items)

Burial wrote:
Ville wrote:

For 50 Nic?  You smoking crack?

Got a crystal ball.

Plug it in.

48

(5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Hunter wrote:

he want some pictures to get some glimpse about perpetuum.

Iiiii'm not that sure about this being a good idea... someone might rage quit again big_smile

49

(35 replies, posted in Bugs)

Squint wrote:

Best solution = new OS.

Slightly newer OS.

50

(18 replies, posted in Balancing)

Why gropho? Because rage milking. That's why.