101 Reply by Wraithbane

(23 replies, posted in Balancing)

Melia wrote:

1. There are no targets for mech pilots on alpha islands. So whats the goal for typical combat PvE oriented player? Level assault and there is nothing good ahead? Don't you afraid that we will leave soon, because not much to do?

2. Recently introduced "can't destroy trash loot in combat" feature, that only some pvp'ers wanted, while, majority of players was against it, in it's current form, including some devs (according to forums).

3. No plans for something good in next patch announced. No interesting mob encounters, no mechs on alpha islands, no new pve islands with bigger mobs, no advanced bots of light and assault size for PvE.

3a. Since no future tech plans for patches announced, we really dunno, what we should spent EP on. If things like advaced medium sized weapons to fire small ammo faster (like assault missile launchers in EVE) will appear soon, then mech is a good pick. If better small size bots like advanced assaults will appear, then skill set should be really different.

4. Aren't EW bots supposed to be a support? Why they running around beta and killing everything?

x. and so on... :-(

I'm asking becasue PvP side of game getting a lot of discussion and plans, and even fixes & improvements, like extra loot. While PvE future of side looks not so bright.

So what good things should we expect? If it(Perpetuum) become only PvP game, it will die soon, due to luck of population.

<Waits for the Dogs of PvP War to start howling>... ^^

Certain parties will no doubt tell you that this is an open PvP world(if they don't tell you to go back to WoW...^^).  That Alpha isn't meant to be more than a trivial aspect of the game. REAL players rush over to the beta islands, and get ganked by the gate campers, and roaming patrols... Isn't that how the game was intended to be played? ^^ 

I suspect that since the PvP aspect is easier for a small Dev team to work with(less content required, as the players kill each other endlessly).  Thats why the initial focus is on that. I'm hoping that PvE gets developed once they get a sense of the relative numbers of players interested in both, and thus the additional profits to be had.

Go to forum: Balancing

102 Reply by Wraithbane

(100 replies, posted in Balancing)

Krupp wrote:

Yup, slow loading times will kill you

Nah, its not the slow load time that kills you... Its the squads camping the gate that kill you. Just like its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop at the end. ^^

As long as there are choke points, they will be camped. If the Dev's want more people to try the beta Islands, how about a gate that doesn't require a set entry point?  All it requires is level, unobstructed ground. Make it a one shot(one bot) projector type thing. Also make it fairly expensive(NIC and Extension wise),and have the same type of cool down as the normal TP.

Go to forum: Balancing

103 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Savin wrote:
Redline wrote:

That could be interesting. But youre right - the things i posted were just a quick write up - i'll be doing a 2nd draft. Stock is interesting and i already have some ideas going how stock and corps can be connected reflecting their productivity and their political actions.

Another draft would be interesting, but unless you're doing it for the intellectual exercise, I wouldn't bother: seems to me that the devs are aiming to make this a PvP combat game, and nothing more.

I think that something else needs to be considered as well: we may be asking too much of the game and the developers. which may be impractical or even impossible. Moreover, they may have nothing to do with Avatar's vision of the game.

For politics, economics, or a stock market to work, it would be necessary to rework a large portion of the game's systems so that resources, items, and territory have real value. Political and economic power only have meaning if the unlimited resources, free bots, and free money go away.

In other words, those systems require risk, and right now the game has none.

I seem to obviously have missed something here... My impression was that the Dev's ARE the company running Perpetuum.  They have a publisher or some such, who is calling the shots??

Go to forum: General discussion

104 Reply by Wraithbane

(117 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dizi wrote:
Snowstyle wrote:

I expect that at any moment while I am PvEing another player can come and kill me no matter where I am.

I expect 100% opposite. I can play PvE mission solo or with friends and no griefers, PKillers or other harrasers can spoil our fun from the game.

You got all beta islands for PvP. Here we speak about PvE improvements of the game.


Exactly. If I wanted PvP, I'd be over on the betas. Since I'm not, I obviously don't.  If the object of this exercise(and the years worth of hard, detailed work that was involved in making it run, and run in such a stable fashion) is to make money, then running off the majority of ones customers doesn't make good business sense.

Go to forum: General discussion

105 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dont do a weed wrote:
Savin wrote:

I have to say that it's a serious disappointment to me- I think this game has a lot of potential for depth and complexity, but it looks as if it's rushing towards the lowest common denominator.

Eh, as you said, that's life.

Depth and complexity is lost by adding another variable to life on the alpha's?

What?

Depends on the variable. If it means that one has to always be looking over ones shoulder, that does indeed limit ones options. Thats the sad part of this. Instead of building upon what they already have(perhaps adding Reds third mixed zone), way too many are advocating inflicting their play style on others.  The current status qou allows everyone but the gankers to play as they wish. Want PvP? Go to beta. Want to mine, haul PVE? Stay on alpha.

Go to forum: General discussion

106 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Greenleaf wrote:

Whats amazing is,.. the degree to witch some people dont care about the facts.

Put effort into giving the devs an Idea what would make you feel "safe" in a open pvp world. Try to meet the discussion half way. pvp No is not an option,. pvp yes is not an option,. there must be a nice blend of the two so all players can enjoy the game.

preparing the readers for a good bye post is,... Whaaaaaaaah! *sniffle*  waaaah,..!

Pretty much what I'd expect from you Green... As difficult as it may be for some to comprehend, many people simply have NO interest in MMO PvP.  Thats as valid a choice as being pro PvP is. 

One of the initial reasons I avoided Perptuum was because of the perception of it being open PvP.  It wasn't until I ran across a forum post on MMORPG that stated that PvP was limited to the beta islands, that I decided to give it a try.  As much as some may dislike CareBears, our money is still green, and there tend to be a lot more of us in the western markets.

If Perpetuum gives in to the "opportunities" crowd, it will as a consequence limit its appeal to those who have limited or no interest in PVP.  That will naturally limit its profitability as well.  If thats the future that the Dev's want for Perptuum, thats entirely their decision to make.

Go to forum: General discussion

107 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Savin wrote:

I hate to say it guys, because there are some really great ideas here, but I think this is turning into a waste of time:

After reading some in-game chat with GMs, and a few exchanges with devs, it looks like PvP will eventually come to Alpha. I can't say that's official, but that's what the guys in yellow say.

Oh well, thats life then. If that happens, I'll see whats involved, and likely(regretfully) move on. Always having to look over ones shoulder gets tiring rather quickly, I just don't have the interest or the energy for that any more.

Go to forum: General discussion

108 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Red:
That's also where i'd start.

So Wraith, here goes. Feel free to criticize or ask - i hope you can improve this very basic concept i'm gonna start. I making it easy in numbers and transitions to criticize it more easily.

The rather complicated looking rules are pretty easy to understand if visualy integrated and they are very easy to implement in software.

There are 3 Zones:

A(sanctioned/restricted pvp) - the common starting zone (yes, life can be tricky, so make a decision where to go)
B(safezone) - current alphas
C(ffa pvp without sanctioning consequences) current betas

of which A connects to B and C but B and C are not connected.

A)
- is the melting pot of players coming from B and C
- to do direct trades without any fees
- there are instanced player housings or can be built
- guards in form of flying observers are in place
- there is a mediocre mix of ressource grinding/farming and PVE to do here
-some special random spawns to spice up usuall robot day life

B)
- is the center of megacorp commerce and station trading
- its a safezone generally similar to current alphas
- it's the only access to high lvl market terminals

C)
- are the badlands, a warzone with outposts
- similar to the current betas
- the only access to highest lvl production facilities
==============================================================================
Wraith:
Ok, I can see the basic idea(from another perspective) of having three zones, and having them connected in this fashion. Personally, I'd keep it to two zones, but I always default to an attempt to keep things simple.  But from a business model stand point, having new players start in A, rather than B, is just asking to lose them. Not all of them, but in todays market a good number of them.  That reality has to be kept first and foremost in ones mind. This isn't EVE, nor is it the time when EVE started.

Yes, I know that market realities can be a damned PITA, but unless one keeps them in mind during basic development, one is just setting ones self up for long term problems(Or in this case, a short term game, which we don't want).  We want new players to have the most positive attitude and perception of the game possible, in the first few days of their experience. Learning its details can be overwhelming enough, with out adding in the possiblites of getting ganked.  We all know that certain parties get their jollies from ganking newbs, so lets just keep that from happening.

You didn't mention the status of mining in B. I can understand and accept placing the most valuable ores in C, as gank bait, but there needs to be a good supply of the basic and mid range in B(with perhaps higher mid range on A). Nor did you mention the status of PvE activities on B.

Also, if we tilt too far in the direction of PvP focus, then we end up losing many of the PvE types, who  as experience in EVE has shown, well out number the PvP types. Keep in mind that while many players may be CareBears, their money is still green... ^^ On the other hand, if we tilt too far towards PvE, the PvP types will stomp off in disgust, with the usual "Damn CareBears are ruining the game!"... ^^ I do not envy the Dev's in trying to keep this balanced.
==================================================================================

1. Besides the NPC faction standing there will be 2 more standing indicators:

- a personal standing (PS)
- a corp standing (CS)
- available status are green, yellow, red / G, Y, R

- PS and CS status-colors are not visible to anyone but oneself/corp
- whenever a person joins or leaves a corp, the PS is adjusted to the CS standing, unless the PS is lesser then
the CS(cant improve by leaving or joining) and G can only join G or Y corps, Y only Y or R, R only R
- starting color is Y
- PS de/increase by missions, playerkills(something higher then an arkhe2) only
- whereas CS decreases each time you successfully claim an OP in C)

- to decrease from Y to R or G to Y, you need to kill a non-R player in A)
- to increase from R to Y you need missions in A) higher gain or in C) lower gain
- to increase from Y to G, you need missions in B) lower gain or in C) higher gain, kill an R in A) lower gain
- positive changes to the PS translate in a 0.1/member count ratio to the CS, reflecting back again only 0.01/member count to each member
- increase of PS through missions and kills and thereby CS is limited by diminishing returns/timewindow
- decrease of CS through indirect player PS affection is limited by diminishing returns/timewindow

- negative changes on the PS through agressive attacking a target depend on the color-difference
- an R attacks a G results in the largest difference, R on R, Y on Y, G on G in the smallest
- negative changes to the PS translate in a 1/0.01 ratio to the CS, reflecting back again 1/1
- changes to PS and CS are listed in personal/corp menu like transactions

- the PS/CS colors are a modifiers to certain interactions:
- PS comes into play for players without corporation and as a personal modifier
- the lesser color of PS or CS overrides the higher one in means of sanctional effects
- the higher color of PS or CS overrides the lesser one in means of rewarding effects

- rewarding effects:
- they give a bonus to industrie skills where G gives the highest bonus, Y gives a small one and R gives none
- they also modify the defensive values (shield/armor) on either A), B) or C), where G gives a higher bonus then Y and R no bonus(current state)
- they increase the chance against lower value color enemies of not being looted when being killed in A) B) and C)

- sanctional effects:
- the colors define, who and how much someone will be indirectly protected by guards on A)
- R also excludes players from entering B)
- R auto-enables pvp-flag on A) and B)
- R disables protection by guards on A)
- R also nullifying any insurance on A)
- R increase the chances of being fully looted by higher value colored players in A) B) C)
- Y reduces insurances effects in A)
- dying as an R in A) results in stackable temporal-kernel dis-integrity reducing speed
====================================================================================
Wraith:

Ouch...That gives me headaches just thinking about the coding, and the possible grinding, and gaming the system that can no doubt result from such a complex system.  It does appear simple on the surface, but some of the implications spread across the PS and CS and faction ranges, lend themselves to epic levels of gaming the system. I can see the Dev's having to revisit this repeatedly to deal with how real actions impact the G/Y/R system.   Especially as new game content is added, and as old is modified.

But a fundamental question needs to be asked here. What do you hope to achieve with this system?  A more flexible system action/consequence wise?  Given certain realities is that really a wise course to take? To paraphrase an old saying; "Flexibility is all well and good, until someone puts an eye out".  ^^

In practical reality, one would likely end up with the PvE types staying in the safe zone, some gankers in the mixed, and the PvP types free to roam all three zones at will. While that may make the PvP types happy(and the gankers also, since they can't get their jollies in the current system), what keeps the PvE types in the game? Keep in mind that there will likely be more of them, and as I said their money is still green.

Until we deal with these realities, all we are looking at is a seriously self limiting system. Which of course has seriously limited profit potential.  EVE had the advantage of coming in when it did, and  the time and resources to evolve their rule set over time. I doubt that Perpetuum is going to have that luxury.  The gaming populations attitude has changed over the last 6 plus years.  Yes, to some extent we can blame WoW, but that doesn't change the nature of the reality.  I have no doubt that Perpetuum  can find a niche, but we want that to be as wide(and thus as profitable) as possible.

Thats going to have to be it for today, as I'm running out of time/focus/energy. I'll try to address some of the rest over the next few days.
====================================================================================

Go to forum: General discussion

109 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Greenleaf wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

only a server side flag has been shown to prevent ganking/griefing. PvP Yes, or PvP No.  Its the gray areas that shade off into the "possibilities" some are so fond of that are VERY difficult to get even close to right.  Not to mention the continued time commitment required to deal with them.

No matter how clever people consider themselves to be with these systems, it almost always turns out that even more clever people find ways around them. Then the Dev's end up spending time patching that, and the next and the next... There is a clear pattern here.

Meh,. your arguments are boring and hold no weight. you reduce it all to griefing. A player like you should not be buying a game that advertises open pvp. your not the only one thats been around since UO you know..

There is plenty of games out there for you,. you said you played eve for more then a year, it has open pvp, all ways has. but yet you seem to think this pvp yes and pvp no is the only thing that works,.. so why did you play eve for so long then,?

Pk have cut you deep,. we all understand,. We do. But why your playing a game that advertises open pvp is confusing,..

The devs are all ways racing the players, no matter if there is open pvp or not. The industry is full of boring theme park MMO's and pvp yes/pvp no worlds,. Stop crying that devs just want an easy job,. Its a *** Argument.

Green, this game is obviously not just open PvP. Other wise it would have many fewer players than it does. Given the quality of some of your arguments, I'd say you are hardly one to cast stones.  I have in fact played EVE for more than five years. Its the same character name, you are welcome to check it in the data base.  I played EVE because I enjoyed collecting battleships. Its a hobby to me, not an obsession.

The Dev's are the best judge of whats best for the games future.  But everyone has an opinion. The rest of your above doesn't merit a response.

Go to forum: General discussion

110 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Damn Red, thats a LOT of work. Thanks for posting it. I'm hoping in a day or two I'll have the sustained focus I'll need to do it justice.

Go to forum: General discussion

111 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dont do a weed wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

"Constant personal attacks towards individuals"? Thats a rather broad generalization. Is that in some recent posts, or all posts? Are you perhaps refering to my teasing Other about his attempt to provoke me? That was a rather measured response on my part(and clearly indicated to have been made with humor).

Saying Shut the *** up and let the adults talk is calling someone a child implying they are beneath you unless I have misread what you said.

Wraithbane wrote:

As for assumptions, I'm as guilty of those as anyone. Also of using past history as a guide to the future. But that is what we humans tend to do, as we go about our daily lives.

Being guilty stills makes you guilty, you haven’t presented any of this past history but rather imply what happens without backing any of it up also this is not an argument about the behavior of humans.

Wraithbane wrote:

So, all levels of player competition are, or should be equal? The ability to gank miners and haulers, should be allowed, because of competition in the market sector of the game?  Do you really consider the two examples to be equal?

I never said the ability to gank miners and haulers I said the threat of PvP I gave no details leaning one way or the other on implementations of a pvp system on the alphas that goes outside of the current pvp flagging system.
Market competition and on the field competition are both fights for a time investment both can end in small or massive losses depending on how risky your investment to either is.

Wraithbane wrote:

You answered your own question in regards to non consenural attacks. In the market competition, all parties consent to take part(by virtue of being in the market). In the PvP area, unless the player is on the Beta island, they have not consented to take part in PvP.

All players take the risk of fighting on the market due to the interdependency that this game sets up I do not see why it is players that compete against players in the field do not get the same opportunity for competition based upon their time and EP investment.

Non consensual Market and Rescource competition exists on the alphas and betas
Direct Combat competition only exists on the betas and in the consensual pvp flagging system

Wraithbane wrote:

As the rule set stands now, there is something for everyone. If one wants to mine, haul, PvE then stay on the Alpha Islands. If one wants to PvP, then stay on the Beta Islands. Thus everyone gets what they want(except for a small percentage, but then making them happy, makes MANY others unhappy).

Where is the number?
Why does hauling and mining stop completely if the rules change no one here has said that a complete industrial side freeze is the goal.

You might wish to re read that post, as it was Other who used the STFU, not I... My response was the Provoke Failed perhaps you need more EP in that extension?. ^^

Next, that past history I refer to is the experience over years of various designs and their various degrees of failure to prevent ganking and/or griefing.  The other variable is the open ended time commitment on the part of the Dev's that many such systems required. In some cases they just threw up their hands and let nature take its course(not a good course for many games these days).  Over all, only a server side flag has been shown to prevent ganking/griefing. PvP Yes, or PvP No.  Its the gray areas that shade off into the "possibilities" some are so fond of that are VERY difficult to get even close to right.  Not to mention the continued time commitment required to deal with them.

No matter how clever people consider themselves to be with these systems, it almost always turns out that even more clever people find ways around them. Then the Dev's end up spending time patching that, and the next and the next... There is a clear pattern here.

No one said that mining, hauling would stop completely. No doubt some would continue. But at this point in the game, I suspect that many would simply leave. There are many, MANY options for players these days.  Losing players at this point of the game is NOT what we want.  Yes, yes I know that some have already left because they didn't have sufficient "options, challenge, risk"... But do we really want to make matters worse at this point?

Go to forum: General discussion

112 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

Wraith, gotta work again some hours - be back then and give you a ruleset to test on.


I know how that is. I'm just getting over the flu myself.  It usually isn't that bad, but this one knocked me on my *** for the last few days.  Thankfully it seems to be fading out now.

Go to forum: General discussion

113 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

Yes, Wraith didnt even read properly - so he assumes every system being proposed and designed is open to gankers and hides behind the DEV vs. ganker arms race, traders being driven off and because he thinks this logic is evident - he implies everybody here promoting any change is a griefer.

If your accepting Wraith - let's do an experiment - ill post a simple ruleset which gives some more opportunities and you attack it - and tell me where it fails for you - aight?

Red, I judge all of these various ideas on my experience over the years with other games that have tried related policies and designs. I started in UO(a bit after launch, but long before Trammel). Since these games are my hobby, I've played almost all of the majors and many of the minor games(and way, WAY too many Asian grinders). 

Its that combined experience that I apply to these various proposals.  I've seen first hand the *consequences* of these game designs. I'm painfully aware of the impact that ganking/griefing has on a game, its community and its popularity in the market.

I've seen the mass western markets move away from toleration of these types of designs. Games in the modern market that allow(let alone encourage) ganking/griefing seriously niche themselves.  Is that what we want for Perpetuums future?

Yes, I know that not all of you that are advocating these changes want to gank miners and haulers. But can you deny that such is a natural consequence of some of the designs we've discussed? I'd imagine that many of you have the best intentions, but good intentions aren't nearly enough(we've seen that in the political sphere, endlessly).

Not to mention that there is a small number of shall we say ... Goons ... That DO want to be able to gank miners and haulers.  I doubt anyone who has had experience with them could honestly deny that.

We could try your proposal if you wish. But I'm uncertain what it might prove or disprove, as I'm not NEARLY as good at finding loop holes in designs as some of the obsessives in question are.

Go to forum: General discussion

114 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Redline wrote:

Wraith - at some point you should stop implying griefer motives - in this entire thread theres not 1 single post pointing at that direction - its the opposite. people try to find a way to make the game less sterile, give more possibilities to each side and actually give the player possibilities without making it griefer friendly.

Red, its difficult not to see the consequences of some of the rule sets being advocated, when I've seen this many, many times over the years before.  I've never implied that any specific individual here was advocating for ganking/griefing, but that IS a clear consequence of some of these rule sets. They also tend to turn out to be time sinks for the Dev's, as they struggle to deal with the antics of the gankers/griefers.

Remember, Concord and the high sec rule set didn't first appear in their current state.  CCP was dragged kicking and screaming into making each additional change. They are REALLY pro PvP, and so it must be almost physically painful for them to have to take these measures to protect their business model. ^^ But that IS the reality of the current game market.

Making more possibilities available doesn't have to include the ability to gank and grief. But if past history is any judge, that WILL happen, unless the Dev's are VERY careful(and willing to make an open ended time commitment to evolving their response to the gankers/griefers). Wouldn't it be better if they didn't have to make that commitment in the first place? It would likely be much better for the game(profit wise)  if they simply added to both sides of the current game.

Go to forum: General discussion

115 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dont do a weed wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

"Creating"?? The game is *already* two separate games.  You have the miners and haulers, and PvE types on Alpha, and the PvP and ganker types on Beta.  Thats all the "balance" we need in actual fact.  The game can be evolved rather well along those dynamics, and the story line I've out lined would back stop that rather well.   All of this nonsense about "options, and risk, and challenge" is just code for wanting to be able to gank miners and haulers, and ruin other players experience.  I find it difficult in the extreme to believe that some of you aren't aware of this, and its implications.

The game does not exist as two separate games unless your actions include exclusively driving around in light bots with t1 fittings you are competing against someone.
Every action in this game is a competition against another player unless you exclusively use light bots or arkhes with t1 equipment.
This is an assumption also what authority do you have that decides what balance is needed?

Wraithbane wrote:

Attempt at provoke failed... Perhaps you need more EP in that extension? <grin>

Other, lets be realistic here, and look at not only past history, but the dynamics involved, shall we?  What at its most fundamental, is the natural CONSEQUENCE of allowing these changes in the rule set that some of you are advocating? Miners and haulers get ganked, and PvE types have to deal with PvP types, when they clearly do not wish to(other wise they'd be over on Beta).  One doesn't have to look very far (that history thing...) to realize what the very possible motivations involved are.  Now shall we continue this discussion in a more civil fashion, or are you going to waste more EP in that extension? ^^

What is this past history?
Why is it bad that players that engage in all but one form of player competition now must pay attention to the potential all forms of player competition.
If I do not wish to engage in market competition why am I not given the luxury of free robots of my choosing?
Instead if I choose not to interact with players I must run transport missions in a light bot perpetually or roam the alpha islands not shooting at or mining anything because that would deplete a resource and time investment that another player values

Wraithbane wrote:

Ah, the sacred "sand box"... Have you ever seen what happens in the typical "sandbox"?  Not only do the Dev's end up having to protect their business model(think about the evolution of Concord in EVE), but they have to waste valuable time(and believe me they never have enough of that resource) on dealing with the on going antics of the gankers and griefers.

The time investment on the Devs part is not the most efficient one if the game is not being developed into a play model that advocates real world currency exchange for in game goods or services the game is now inherently flawed because it does not use that business model.

Wraithbane wrote:

Why? Because such types make up a SMALL percentage of the player base, and they tend to drive off many other types of players unless checked. Thats NOT good for the companies bottom line. Make no mistake about it, in todays gaming market, the closer a game is to a "sandbox", the more narrowly it niches itself. Thus limiting the profits to be made, and also the expansion possibilities. In a very real sense, such games become self limiting to the extent that they stay "sandboxes".  Is that what we want for Perpetuum?

Once again if the bottom line is the primary focus a cash for ingame goods or services system should be implemented

Wraithbane wrote:

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

What are these obvious motivations?
Your playstyle is already inflicted on players that engage in all forms of player interaction due to the influence of the market

Wraithbane wrote:

First in the market sense, you are not out NIC, because you still have what ever it is you wished to sell.  If you can't compete with that item, then try something else.  If its time you are worried about wasting, you are in the wrong hobby. MMO's are infamous for costing a LOT of time to take part in. ^^

You are out NIC because of the transaction fee.
How can you tell me that if I cannot compete with a player I should do something else when the threat of further player competition on equal fields will apparently ruin the game?
We both make time investments we both participate in the market but participation in direct nonconsensual combat is a no?

Wraithbane wrote:

Adding the ability to attack people farming a given spawn, would have no doubt interesting consequences... Such as larger and larger numbers of people at the spawn site(ganking anyone who comes near). That may sound like "heaven" to certain types, but believe me, it gets OLD fast. Not to mention the spill over to miners and haulers. Making it possible to ruin others play experience, doesn't make good business sense, nor is it necessary.

No one said anything about spawn sites being free for alls against players who enter them, even so what is the difference between shooting npc’s over and over again as opposed to shooting players over and over again. Would these both not get old fast?
Being undercut or over bid on the market ruins others play experience but this is ok?
Once again business sense comes down to making the game into a $ for perpetuum goods and or services system.

Wraithbane wrote:

This is not flying off the handle?
Other:
"You suspect my motivations?  I suspect your motivations.  I think you just want a futuristic version of WoW.  Maybe you're a Chinese NIC farmer building up your reserves so that you can sell it through third party websites full of malicious software.
Try to make an intelligent argument instead of casting aspersions or STFU and let the adults talk.
kthxbye"
It certainly has all of the ear marks of such... Including the final kthxbye, and STFU...<face palm> ^^
Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

You accuse people of assumptions and talk of intelligent arguments but you are making constant personal attacks towards individuals.

"Constant personal attacks towards individuals"? Thats a rather broad generalization. Is that in some recent posts, or all posts? Are you perhaps refering to my teasing Other about his attempt to provoke me? That was a rather measured response on my part(and clearly indicated to have been made with humor).

As for assumptions, I'm as guilty of those as anyone. Also of using past history as a guide to the future. But that is what we humans tend to do, as we go about our daily lives.

Turning to some of the other(I really dislike this editor system).

So, all levels of player competition are, or should be equal? The ability to gank miners and haulers, should be allowed, because of competition in the market sector of the game?  Do you really consider the two examples to be equal?

You answered your own question in regards to non consenural attacks. In the market competition, all parties consent to take part(by virtue of being in the market). In the PvP area, unless the player is on the Beta island, they have not consented to take part in PvP.

As the rule set stands now, there is something for everyone. If one wants to mine, haul, PvE then stay on the Alpha Islands. If one wants to PvP, then stay on the Beta Islands. Thus everyone gets what they want(except for a small percentage, but then making them happy, makes MANY others unhappy).

Go to forum: General discussion

116 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:
Heckle wrote:

Thanks.
So the threats you face in this game to your bot collection are disconnects and N/A pings, as per your response.
Once your bot collection is complete, it remains to be seen what else you will be able to use the accumulated NIC for, again in your words.
How long do you think this accumulation for no identified purpose will retain your interest? (sort of a rhetorical question, really).

Well... I did the same thing in EVE(only there I collected battleships) and I was there for more than five years... ^^ I only left when they started forcing a given play style on the high sec players in Incursions.

wut...

so the highsec pvp wasn't forcing a playstyle on you?

Problem solved, no Incursions.

In five plus years I've only been attacked once in EVE. Some idiot in a frig attacked one of my Rokh's in a 0.8 system.  But then I tend to be paranoid, and careful about such things. To most PvE types, thats an alien mindset, and not worth the effort. They will simply find another game.

Also note, that EVE didn't start out with its current rule set.(it was MUCH worse in the first year or two), but thats before my time.  Perpetuum has already established the difference between Alpha and Beta.

Go to forum: General discussion

117 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

/sigh

One more time and I'm done with you.

You're saying that I should have said that "I suspect that those that don't want pvp in Alpha areas just want their macro miners to be safe from getting ganked."  would not have been directed at you?

You sound like a politician...

Don't assign ulterior motives to others.  Just try intelligent debate.  You're simply building up a straw man and knocking it down to avoid any substantive debate on the subject.  I find it transparent and ridiculous.

Not agreeing with you doesn't make everybody else disingenuous liars.

"Politician"? Now lets not get personal, Other... ^^

You actually believe that people advocating a certain course of action, with predictable consequences shouldn't have their motivations questioned?  And you call ME a politician?? ^^
I've been making very substantive points, and I've yet to see any one refute them, with a clear understanding of the consequences involved.  In many cases, disagreeing with me simply means a difference of opinion. But again, the actions/policies one advocates have consequences. One may well be well intentioned(the path to hell is paved with good intentions...), but that doesn't change the reality of the consequences.

Go to forum: General discussion

118 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Heckle wrote:

Thanks.
So the threats you face in this game to your bot collection are disconnects and N/A pings, as per your response.
Once your bot collection is complete, it remains to be seen what else you will be able to use the accumulated NIC for, again in your words.
How long do you think this accumulation for no identified purpose will retain your interest? (sort of a rhetorical question, really).

Well... I did the same thing in EVE(only there I collected battleships) and I was there for more than five years... ^^ I only left when they started forcing a given play style on the high sec players in Incursions.

Go to forum: General discussion

119 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Heckle wrote:

An innocent question here Wraith ... what do you actually use the NIC for, if you aren't losing any bots, modules etc?


Innocent?  <raised eye brow>. I use NIC to purchase bots or mechs I currently do not have. I have an AB of all types, and a Ty mech.  Once I complete my collection, it remains to be seen what else it will be used for. Perhaps wait for new additions.  So far, I've managed not to lose any bots(but no doubt thats just a matter of time), given the discons and NA problems.

Go to forum: General discussion

120 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

I wasn't flying off the handle.  I was turning your own reasoning around and using it against you by assigning ulterior motives to your arguments.

As I said before, I am an industrialist.  I build things.  I want more things to blow up so that I can build more.  I hate combat pve and dont have any interest in combat pvp for my own reasons.  I really truly believe that some form of pvp in Alpha areas will add depth to player interaction and give meaning to the market.

I think I was absolutely clear in explaining my motivations.  If you actually read what I'm saying without suspecting some kind of evil plot to ruin your game then we can have a reasonable conversation.  By acting like a child you're not helping your side of the debate.


This is not flying off the handle?

Other:
"You suspect my motivations?  I suspect your motivations.  I think you just want a futuristic version of WoW.  Maybe you're a Chinese NIC farmer building up your reserves so that you can sell it through third party websites full of malicious software.

Try to make an intelligent argument instead of casting aspersions or STFU and let the adults talk.

kthxbye"

It certainly has all of the ear marks of such... Including the final kthxbye, and STFU...<face palm> ^^
Notice my remarks have always been general(not directed at anyone in particular), and include "suspect" or some such. You took yours personal. Notice the difference?

Go to forum: General discussion

121 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dont do a weed wrote:

Where are you getting this age number for people who's definition of fun is to ruin the game?

Why is it that only direct combat pvp ruins the game but spawn and market competition does not ruin the game for someone?

I try to sell/buy something at a certain cost but some one outbids me past my break even point I lose time and money, the exact same thing that happens if I engage in combat and lose.

Adding pvp risks to camping of alpha spawns does make it worthless because then players have to factor in the now increased chance of financial loss if they lose their ship by staying in a popular high traffic area be it for kernels or resources.

You are trying to force players to be complacent with the way you want them to play.

With that playstyle being engaging in non-consensual Market and Spawn PvP on the alphas and non-consensual combat only on the Betas

First in the market sense, you are not out NIC, because you still have what ever it is you wished to sell.  If you can't compete with that item, then try something else.  If its time you are worried about wasting, you are in the wrong hobby. MMO's are infamous for costing a LOT of time to take part in. ^^

Adding the ability to attack people farming a given spawn, would have no doubt interesting consequences... Such as larger and larger numbers of people at the spawn site(ganking anyone who comes near). That may sound like "heaven" to certain types, but believe me, it gets OLD fast. Not to mention the spill over to miners and haulers. Making it possible to ruin others play experience, doesn't make good business sense, nor is it necessary.

Go to forum: General discussion

122 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Savin wrote:
Greenleaf wrote:

I dont think you will like my Answer,. but its force. I think a corp/group of this fasion should be killed to extinction, this type of item farming is like a wild fire that needs to be stomped out religiously. Merc takes this role,. hero's take this role,. Vigilanty suicide ganks,. and sadly,..  griefers,...

No. There is no way that adding PvP to Alpha will stop the problem of players camping low-level spawns. The only way to get them to stop is to make it worthless for them to do so.

But even then, let's face it: there's a large portion of the 15-25 year-old crowd whose definition of fun is to ruin the game for others, so even if it costs them, they'll continue to do it. There will always be more gankers than vigilantes.

Force is not an answer, at least not in the way you describe it. The problem is not combat-related, so adding more combat is not a solution.

Ultimately, you are not asking for "force" to stop an abuse; you are asking for the ability to force other players to play the way you want them to play. This has nothing to do with the issue.

Exactly. We are not asking to inflict our play style on the PvP types I might note(they are more than welcome to Beta). To the contrary, they are the ones advocating inflicting their play style on us. Not to mention that some fly off the handle when one mentions the obvious motivations of some. ^^

Go to forum: General discussion

123 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:
Savin wrote:

...stuff...

As a result, there is a one-sided dependence: combat specialists do not depend on industrial characters, but industrialists must depend on combat specialists: industrial players are completely unnecessary to the game dynamic.

The other issue is that several people have said that the solution to the "problem" is to allow PvP on the alpha islands. This is simply incorrect, because a) the "problem" has nothing to do with the "risks" or "challenges" that industrial characters face, and b) it is a solution that forces combat on non-combat oriented players, which effectively puts them at an even greater disadvantage.

... Stuff ...
Adding PvP to the Alphas is a combat-oriented "solution" to a non-combat problem.

... Stuff...

I don't think that anybody has suggested that allowing pvp on Alpha has anything to do with a game balance problem between pvp and pve income levels and skill specialization.  By not mixing the two you are suggesting that there can't be a balance and they should be two separate games. 

What I am suggesting is that the PVE side will have no meaningful player interaction, and no meaningful market without a large amount of equipment destruction, both combat pve and industrial pve equipment.

PVE will be nothing but gear grind and a race to see who can collect the most NIC.

Sounds more like World of Warcraft than a sandbox.

Ah, the sacred "sand box"... Have you ever seen what happens in the typical "sandbox"?  Not only do the Dev's end up having to protect their business model(think about the evolution of Concord in EVE), but they have to waste valuable time(and believe me they never have enough of that resource) on dealing with the on going antics of the gankers and griefers.

Why? Because such types make up a SMALL percentage of the player base, and they tend to drive off many other types of players unless checked. Thats NOT good for the companies bottom line. Make no mistake about it, in todays gaming market, the closer a game is to a "sandbox", the more narrowly it niches itself. Thus limiting the profits to be made, and also the expansion possibilities. In a very real sense, such games become self limiting to the extent that they stay "sandboxes".  Is that what we want for Perpetuum?

Go to forum: General discussion

124 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Once again, I suspect the motivations of those who keep attempting to drag this dynamic into the Alpha game.

You suspect my motivations?  I suspect your motivations.  I think you just want a futuristic version of WoW.  Maybe you're a Chinese NIC farmer building up your reserves so that you can sell it through third party websites full of malicious software.

Try to make an intelligent argument instead of casting aspersions or STFU and let the adults talk.

kthxbye

Attempt at provoke failed... Perhaps you need more EP in that extension? <grin>

Other, lets be realistic here, and look at not only past history, but the dynamics involved, shall we?  What at its most fundamental, is the natural CONSEQUENCE of allowing these changes in the rule set that some of you are advocating? Miners and haulers get ganked, and PvE types have to deal with PvP types, when they clearly do not wish to(other wise they'd be over on Beta).  One doesn't have to look very far (that history thing...) to realize what the very possible motivations involved are.  Now shall we continue this discussion in a more civil fashion, or are you going to waste more EP in that extension? ^^

Go to forum: General discussion

125 Reply by Wraithbane

(229 replies, posted in General discussion)

Other wrote:

Basically your mining bot needs to die at some point to make mining worthwhile.  it's an endless cycle that's necessary in keeping the market central to the game.  Unlike real life things here do't wear out, get lost, become obsolete, get stolen, go out of style, etc.  They have to disappear to have a reason to create another.

If it doesn't die then it's a never ending NIC faucet.  PvP will make you more cautious which will slow your mining down and on top of that a portion of your resources may need to be dedicated to replacing your equipment.

Additionally, PvPers are at a huge disadvatage in the market because the vast majority of their resources go to replace equipment.  The majority run second accounts to just make enough to continue the part of the game they like.  Which means they are forced to pve when they dont want to (or forced into botting or RMT).  Why shouldn't you be forced to pvp when you dont want to?  You are wanting to profit off of them having to farm npcs (which is pve) because Alpha island players will rarely need your ore.

Balance is the answer, not creating two separate games.

"Creating"?? The game is *already* two separate games.  You have the miners and haulers, and PvE types on Alpha, and the PvP and ganker types on Beta.  Thats all the "balance" we need in actual fact.  The game can be evolved rather well along those dynamics, and the story line I've out lined would back stop that rather well.   All of this nonsense about "options, and risk, and challenge" is just code for wanting to be able to gank miners and haulers, and ruin other players experience.  I find it difficult in the extreme to believe that some of you aren't aware of this, and its implications.

Go to forum: General discussion