Alexadar wrote:

This game definitely needs extended territorial control. Imagine how many players will join the game if they will able capture and hold their piece of world. +pos system and ...jackpot

It is amazing how motivating a slowly-shifting coloured blob on a map can be. big_smile

Campana wrote:

This would just cripple new players compared to vets. Speed is always going to be the most powerful attribute.

If maxed Nav only gave you an extra 1kph at the most, would it be seen as the "must have" it is now? I doubt it. What if it was a rank 9? Again, probably not. So somewhere between those and the current state is a balance.

And there are a ton of other skills that will give vets a decisive advantage over new players. But for whatever reason, Nav is the only one given the title of "Train Immediately."

If the only choice is toe leave it as is or dump nav, I'll vote to dump nav. But there are a number of possible changes posted here that I would rather see.

I'd like to see speed boost modules that give you a temporary speed boost (on a cool down) that uses accumulator, and is slower/uses more accum when going up slopes but is faster/uses less accumulator when going down slopes. If the engine is capable of calculating this.

I like this. But currently, the game doesn't even consider Z changes as part of the speed. So downhill and uphill are actually both faster than when on flat terrain, but it won't help you outrun anyone and the readout doesn't change.

Annihilator wrote:

but the math regarding speed nexus, lwf and highway bonus would not change with that.

Highway bonus is already a flat 36kph increase. Could always turn nexus and LWF effects into flat bonuses, too. LWF wouldn't need is as much, since it works into the weight maths. So work out a modded base speed from the standard base speed, equipment weight, and LWF. Then add to that the flat increases for Nav, NEXUS, and highways.

On the broader topic, I still think the problem is that Nav is either way too cheap or way too powerful. So either the amount of speed increase needs to be reduced so it's good to have (but not essential), or the EP cost should increase so there are plenty of other extensions more worth training before pushing Nav to 10.


(51 replies, posted in General discussion)

Syndic wrote:

But I digress, the main point I would make is when you have too much destruction in-game it always turns into small clique of l33t PVPrz killing each other and calling each other names. When you have too much creation in-game it always turns into carebears idly dancing around in the rainbow meadows.

Related to this is that too much destruction means everyone is always poor, tending to lose more than they hope to gain. If there isn't enough destruction, everyone gets exponentially richer over time.

The latter is far worse: achievements become meaningless since loss is insignificant, and the relative cost difference between low- and high-tier gear becomes so small it's also insignificant. The new-old gap becomes much wider than extensions alone would account for.

For a meaningful "end game", Perp needs to be progressively more difficult just to maintain equilibrium (see: Red Queen). Then there would always be a need to push even harder to achieve greater things. Idle rich players just get bored and leave, or they get bored and troll your game from the inside (see: EVE).

Annihilator wrote:

light bot top speed would be:  113 kph (speed increase by 13 kph, 13%)
heavy mechs speed would be:  83kph  (speed increase by 23 kph, 38%)

formula used:
200kph * x/(1+x) ; where x=speed factor

Thanks. That's much clearer.

Another option might be that each lvl of Nav adds a flat 2kph or so to the base speed (+20kph at Nav10). Fast bots have a smaller relative increase than slower bots (as in your plan), and the maths are very simple.

Made up numbers:
Lights: 90 base, 110 max (22% increase)
Heavies: 60 base, 80 max (33% increase)

Sinceto wrote:

Mhm, but who brings an Argano on a PvP roam? With very few people alredy on the non-alliance-owned beta islands roaming can be quite dull. Could spice it up abit smile

Nobody brings mining equipment on a PvP roam either. Doesn't mean their holds should gradually fill with ore while they wander around. smile

Bring an argano pilot with you, or stick scanners on a couple of the combat bots. If you think artifacting would spice up a roam, the tools are available.

What if Nav just wasn't quite as powerful as it is now? If it was 1/2 - 1/3 as effective as now, then it might not be as critical.

they should have added something like the resist formula for top speed. where 100% is the maximum speed the server can handle, and bots with already high base speed would benefit less from adding navigation or lwf.

As long as you don't mean that every bot will have the same max speed at Nav10. It's silly to have grophos outrunning chameleons just because the heavy's got Nav10 and the EW doesn't.


(159 replies, posted in General discussion)

Wraithbane wrote:


Niche is the way to go in a saturated market. There is absolutely no shortage of PvE grindfest MMOs. There is a shortage of good PvP MMOs. Would you rather AC risk competing directly with the established WoW and friends? Or would you rather they fill some gaps in an untapped market?

Triglav wrote:

Trolls always continue stupid ***. Seems that a bigger WoT(wall of text) makes it easier for you to believe it. This became offtopic and I've already made my point.

Well... here's the simple version: week-early patch notes will not prevent bad EP spending, and whining during that week will not change the patch contents. hmm

Annihilator wrote:

hmm, this topic shows who is listening to podcast and who does not wink

I've been getting enough crap from people when I tell them to read the blog. Now there's a podcast? Sooner or later I'm gonna sympathize with the lazy crazies. Important announcements/hints/etc. need to end up in the same place at some point, or at least have a list of all the places one might find such info. It's not fair to people to scatter it to the winds and expect us to find all of it. hmm

Not sure continents really fix anything apart from making us walk really far to do things. Personally, I might like to see the sort of change that has us using outposts from outside the building. Sure we can change fittings and do industry stuff, but we'd still be vulnerable while doing it.


(51 replies, posted in General discussion)

Drop the permanent outposts, make the "S" refer to structures.

No permanent, invincible structures. Make buildings easy enough to disable that a response is worthwhile for any enemy gang of at least a dozen bots.

Buildings should be small, and buildings should be fairly easy to build and destroy. I'd like the feel to be similar to an RTS, with a constant ebb and flow of destruction and rebuilding. Many smaller buildings (rather than single, large buildings) means easier entry for small corps, and "variable" damage from invasions: easy to knock out a few small buildings and reduce your enemy's capacity, but much harder to wipe everything out and cripple them completely. It also means giant blobs wouldn't be necessary to accomplish something, in turn meaning that smaller ad hoc defence gangs might stand a chance at repelling invaders.

Just a few thoughts.

To sum up the last few posts: balancing is more complicated than comparing DPS and listing mitigating factors. Let's just see how this plays out in-game.

As an artifacter, I don't want this to compete with me, especially if it needs no extensions or equipment. It needs to be a sideline thing, something more accidental than something worth actively searching for. Anything truly valuable needs to be extremely rare. And I'd also suggest that you need to be very close to notice one, say 20m.

Everything being used equally is not necessarily a sign of balance. Take most RTS games, for example. There are always units with very limited, but also very important roles. They are worthless in most cases, but sometimes they are the only tool for the job. They were well-balanced, but they were also rare.

Mark's got it right. Devs should watch killboards and collect other stats and make balance decisions from that.


(16 replies, posted in Balancing)

It's not so much that there are no concurrent missions. But it does seem uselessly hard now to accept enough assignments to warrant even lvl 5 or 6 in the extension.

Alternately, I guess the devs could give us a good reason to think it will be useful again in the near future.

What is meant by "no safe spots"? Does this mean no outposts?

As far as main characters go, this is probably true. But I do have alts for whom Nav10 is honestly not the wisest EP spending at first, and maybe not ever. As long as it isn't obviously optimal for all players to train nav fully and before anything else (as it was with learning skills), it still makes sense to keep nav around.

Alexander wrote:

Polls and even forums don't show a majority vote unless a majority of ALL subbed players use it.. And they don't...

Forums should be about opinions and login and not brute force.


The last thing we need is for people to think that Perp's design has become democratic, and start yelling and screaming for the devs to make changes according to some recent forum poll.

You seem pretty angry. I guess if I was a troll I should be happy about this. hmm

1) Any player can access: forums, IRC, dev blogs, general chat. Nothing stops them. I honestly thought every MMO gamer took it for granted that they should keep an eye on their game's blog. It's a long-term investment and they should want to know where things are going.
2) "Read between the lines of the topic and OP." This is usually a bad idea. It means you're adding meaning that might not actually be there. But even as I do read the OP again, I don't see where I've gone off topic. Every one of my posts has been about how there is already lots of information out there to help people make decisions about EP, even if that decision is to wait until after an announced patch before spending the EP. That the patch is late should make no difference.
3) No, the point of this topic (and any feature topic) is to give voice to ideas on how to implement a suggested feature, and also to give voice to those who think the feature is harmful or unnecessary. The majority of info on upcoming features is on the blogs. So if it helps you, go ahead and ignore all the other sources I mentioned. Get it all from the blog. It's all on the blog. Seriously, it is. The other things I mentioned? The info there is usually just from people who read the blog.
4) So what if they're late? I said they were estimates. Besides, if a patch is late, it hardly means that it disappeared into the ether and isn't ever coming. So if you're saving EP and are waiting for a patch because it might make important changes, you wait a bit longer if it's late. Don't go and spend it all, thinking the changes won't happen. Finally, considering everything that went into the last patch, and that the last date on the blog I linked to was August 22nd. The whole "Great Revamp" project is only 3-4 days late. That's pretty damn close.

Would the OP really be any less angry if he'd spent all those EP 3 weeks ago? What if he'd spent them 2 months ago? If you give 1 week notice on patches, it will be the people who spend EP 2 weeks before the patch that complain. If you sent notes out a month early, it will be the people who spent their EP a month and a day before the patch that complain.

Looking forward to the next one... big_smile


(5 replies, posted in Bugs)

I haven't seen plant growth dense enough to warrant more than a few minor deviations, so I'd have expected a "rough" path that the AI returns to after dealing with local obstacles. But I've only done some simple scripting; nothing on this scale. And if it's affected by the visibility of plants, I'd be interested to see if longer draw distances get better results.

It's the straight line thing that gets me the most. Try to move NNE and it will go NE until it lines up with the target, then goes directly N, even on an open field. It simply won't follow a straight line unless it lies on one of those 4 axes. That just seems like lazy maths to me. hmm

"But I'm sure it'll get better some day," says my EVE-addled brain. smile

@Devs: Love you guys! Keep fighting the good fight! big_smile


(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

AgY wrote:

1) One Heavy costs 56 times more then a assault of the same color
2) One Heavy isnt able to survive 56 assault at the same time

If you take those numbers then you have to admit that:

Heavys are too expensive/Lights and Assaults are too cheap
Heavys are underpowered/Lights and Assaults are too strong

Either way, Hunter is right and something needs to change.
The balancing issue is logical and obvious.

Why on earth would I "take those numbers"?

If you don't think heavies are worth it, don't buy one. And if it's really as unbalanced as you say, then no one else will buy heavies either. No one's forcing them to. But when a ton of people keep buying and fielding them, it's because they are worth the price and play a role that other bots cannot.

Treat the game as a kind of Beta 2.0 for now. Still some kinks to work out, and a couple major additions scheduled for around new years. Advertising is best applied around that point. But stick around in the meantime so you can be one of the vets all the noobs pester for help. wink


(17 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Nishtara wrote:

A Sequer is 80U cargo, a Lithus is 240U, I don't think hauler tiers in EvE scale 4x?  Even with T2  expanders and rigs ...

Depends how you compare. EFT w/ no-skill Iterons (in m^3).
No mods: I1=3,000 I5=6,000 (about 2x)
Full T2 cargos: I1=4,877 I5=20,216 (about 4x)
T2 cargos + best rigs: I1=8,076 I5=33,478 (about 4x)

Obelisk: 750,000-973,500 depending on skill.


(17 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Lithus is just not big enough to be considered a freighter. Sequer would just be a low tier hauler, Lithus a higher tier. Though given the tanks you can fit to these, I'd be tempted to say they're more like small and large deep space transports.


(5 replies, posted in Bugs)

Yeah, it's definitely a "beta" quality feature atm. If we get these two things I'll be totally happy, though: AP doesn't stop, and AP prefers straight lines at any angle (not just multiples of 45 degrees from North).

Non-sarcastic question: after over a decade's worth of RTS titles, isn't there a lot of published work on pathfinding by now? There should be something relevant to Perp. in there.