The maximum increase in performance with a particular stat will be in moving from:
minimal extensions, T1 main mod, no boost mods
to:
max extensions, T4 main mod, max number of T4 boost mods

For example, using the same bot and gun class, considering DPS alone, how does:
player with only the extensions required to fit the equipment, and T1 guns only
compare to:
player with maxed DPS extensions, T4 guns and a full rack of T4 tuners?

I suggest AO should set specific goals for how widely a given stat can differ between these two extremes. The numbers Alexander posted on demobs show a 108% increase without even maxing out on the tech level. Decide whether that's acceptable or whether you'd rather it be closer to a (e.g.) 50% maximum possible increase. This will help put boundaries on extremely focused fits and help ensure that a variety of mixed-focus fits are reasonable options.

Caveat: It's only for bots of similar class and specialty. Obviously EW bots should have meaningful EW advantages over mining bots. And this would help most in balancing specific stats against themselves, which isn't the whole of balancing. But I do think it would still go a long way in preventing other balance points from getting too out of hand.

Earth and Beyond had quality, too. The game wasn't 6 months old before people simply would not buy anything but max-quality gear, thus rendering the stat useless apart from making people work on their crafting for ages before they could actually sell anything.

If that's avoided, though, I could actually be in favour of this. Market interface would need to be overhauled to be practical, or everything would need to be done through a (currently nonexistent) contract system.

28

(52 replies, posted in General discussion)

Looking at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: … /Perpetuum
I get the impression that reviews from magazines aren't enough to establish notability. What might be needed are articles that focus on Perp in a discussion of a more general topic, like game design ("Perpetuum is a perfect example of _____ design principle") or game development in countries not famous for their game production ("Perpetuum illustrates just how well the emerging Eastern European tech sector is blah blah blah...")

Stuff like externally verified subscription numbers would probably help, too.

JaxterMan wrote:

What I want is more targets. It is one thing for an aura to be put on, but there needs to be some way to get them removed as well.

If the auras "scale with your ability to demonstrate stability" then they can be attacked in one sense. Start hitting the SAPs and the bonus will drop. At least that's my guess at the blog's meaning.

JaxterMan wrote:

Outpost aura's are going to happen. What I want is more targets. ... We need the activities in the game to grow. More things to build, more targets, the more things to do the more people we will get in the game.

I agree. I'd like (eventually) to see outposts disappear and for everything that an outpost provides to be turned into its own building or building enhancement. Player outposts would then just be a collection of structures that can be disabled and destroyed, repaired and rebuilt.

From the dev blog:

Possibilities on the horizon include Aura-type bonuses for Outpost ownership which also scale with your ability to demonstrate stability.

Looks like you might be getting some of your wishes, since it's hard to imagine what good the "auras" would be if they didn't act a lot like nexus stuff.

As an intermediate step below outright destruction, maybe smaller forces could disable outpost expansions in interesting ways. Maybe they can jam the hatch on cargo dumps (preventing their use) or disable/sabotage towers (disabling them or reducing their effectiveness). Might also be nice if at least some of it could happen without the owner corp knowing, then there would be a role for blackops teams: weaken the enemy defence prior to an assault.

So in your words a player of this game needs to be on the lookout on: dev blogs, dev posts, player posts and corp chat + all the rest of the high quality rubbish you posted.

First, "needs to be on the lookout" are your words. Second, the point of my words was that there are many different ways to find out, not that you need all of them.

A simple developer news item saying "we expect a patch to be deploayed at the end of the month"...."....next week" etc could suffice.

It would be really handy if these announced new dev blogs, which frequently contain release date estimates: http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/posts/ … ig-revamp/

You seem to care a lot about patch notes and release dates. Perhaps you should subscribe to the newsletter. wink

Do you even know what the thread is about?

I feel I've stayed on topic fairly well, questioning the need for "Patch note released SOONER please". (SWIDT?)

"Melee Weapons"
Super hard for me not to think of this garbage:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_b_LLegHgbsI/T … ttlerV.jpg
http://www.cosplayisland.com/files/cost … d_mmpr.jpg

"AoE Weapons"
Can hit some pretty solid practical walls trying to get these into MMO PvP in high volume, especially in a game with no player collision. Would also need a new interface for indirect targeting. No, locking the ground wouldn't be good enough. tongue

"Close range megadeath"
The most promising. Could seriously overpower death explosions, though: face-hugger DPS + AoE death = top-notch suicide bomber. But close-range fights are intense and dramatic (70-100m or so).

33

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Seems really odd for T0 to be totally worthless. Make those the common drop and rename them "Basic" ("Flawed" is a total branding fail). Then indies are only competing directly with rare drops and artifacts. T1 rises in price a bit; T0 fills the new cheapo gap. Maybe have NPC buy/sells for T0, at least until the market fills out.

Edit: if the devs really want worthless stuff in-game (understandable for depth reasons), maybe add a handful of "wrecked equipment" items that are only useful when recycled.

34

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

community elected representatives who can advise Devs on in-game balance situations

Inevitably (if not immediately) turns into just another layer of worthless politicking. (see also: EVE)

Good ideas are good ideas. This one's an obvious and elegant solution to a major shortcoming of the current trade system. And the existing interface could be used pretty much as is.

Triglav wrote:

We knew *** all until 1 day prior to patch day. Where did you get intel? If you don't see it just reread the thread. I thing or 2 might hit you in the head.

Intel from: dev blogs, dev posts, player posts and corp chat ("yay! patch due this month!" gradually became "wasn't there a patch due this month?"). Some intel I got from people who also hang out in IRC and/or gen chat. Via "The Great Revamp" alone, announcements were made about: dynamic and elite spawns, low-tier manufacture and relation changes, major assignment changes (specifically the end of the triangle). These even had pretty specific dates attached to them. AC's behind schedule, but not by much. Devs also had notably been paying special attention to certain feature and balance threads in the forum. Lo and behold, most of the remaining changes were related to these topics. (shock)

Protip: A few already-announced, major changes have not appeared yet. At least one is expected quite soon (and is maybe even overdue), others have phrases like "end of the year" printed in their vicinity. Can you guess in what form these changes will appear? (hint: it rhymes with "PATCH")

37

(3 replies, posted in Q & A)

If you buy on different outpost, the tax will depend on the distances and relationships with corporations.

The "tax" should be a market-affected fee paid to players for transporting the goods. Then the cost of transport will naturally be affected by everything that goes into transport: route safety, destination, volume, cargo value, distance, etc. It will also create new economic and gameplay options.

Actually, you could do player couriers now. But it's difficult (not impossible) to discourage the courier from just running off with the stuff or your money, and can be hard to arrange a trade meeting to finalize. (PO really needs an asynchronous private trade system)

Annihilator wrote:

IMHO, if they remove the attributes and revamp the extension costs, the extensions should absolutely NOT be reseted, but all agents extensionlevels recalculated with the new costs and their EP pool adjusted accordingly.

Arilou wrote:

Just figure out the difference between what the player has already spent vs. what it would cost for the same skill set under the new system, and give them a surplus or deficit according to the result.

Great minds... wink

As far as being for or against a simplified attribute system: I kind of wonder why you wouldn't just do away with attributes entirely. Start everyone on equal potential and don't constrain them with arbitrary categories. There should be more freedom to mix and match without needing to "optimize" via same-account alts. You'll still get traditionally focused characters, but you might also get some novel combinations (sandboxy!).

This is a mmorpg

Really dangerous I think to overdefine a genre. Sure, it needs to be "massively multiplayer" and "online" (like FPSes need a certain camera view and guns), but so long as people are "playing roles" it's an RPG. You don't need levels and attributes and classes though, that's just the convention so far (plenty of exceptions exist).

Alexander wrote:

Attributes are nice but rather lock you into a role before you even know how to play.
They're one of the few things that also keep this game very similar to that other game and aren't needed.

Totally agreed. Seems a lot of people on the forums really want to be able to jump around to whatever roles they feel like that day. I don't see any reason to deny them this, so long as it doesn't needlessly involve any silly extension reassignments or regularly-scheduled-remap nonsense. At the most complex, just make extensions something impermanent that you buy and plug in (higher level, higher cost or something).

DEV Alf wrote:

...will definitely call for a free character reset for everyone IF we decide to go this way.

Don't really need free resets, either, assuming you keep the same extensions in the game. Just figure out the difference between what the player has already spent vs. what it would cost for the same skill set under the new system, and give them a surplus or deficit according to the result. Assuming people are currently extending according to their spark, we'll all be in roughly the same boat.

Triglav wrote:

If devs are not interested about using that week for checking player input and player reactions to changes, then they simply dont have to.

If and/or when they want advance player input, it will be in the design stage, not when they've already finished the patch.

The same thing can be achieved if semi-accurate patch date was announced 1 week in advance, without patch notes.

We all knew a patch was coming. Don't see why getting a reminder 1 week before it actually drops should make much difference. Dump the minmax mindset and you'll care much less about this sort of thing.

Purgatory wrote:

How about your bot/faction is completely changed in a patch and you wish you never chose that setup anymore? No option to respec, you're screwed.

If this happens---I mean that you honestly believe without hyperbole that an entire faction or tier of bots has become next to worthless---then, my friend, it's time to lose faith in the devs and ragequit.

Light robots aren't really wallet hurters. It would be handy if we could get an arkhe regardless of how many non-arkhes we had at the terminal (until the spark tele thing drops). Would be roughly equivalent to pods/nubships then.

Bottlenecks and forced routes usually become stronger defence positions for those who live in the area. This may be good in the short term (more fights), but things will have to open up again later if small gang viability is to be maintained.

Cutting Alpha1 off from Betas is probably a good way to go, though.

Arga wrote:

Things

Well said! Manipulating supply and demand of the environments themselves will be as effective as any specific incentives. But crowding Alpha will take either more players (read: time) or removing some existing Alphas (simply not going to happen, I think). Hard to say whether there's anything effective that could be done in the mean time.

Jack Jombardo wrote:

And a point ALL of them miss is: 50% of the Alpha carebares are Alt Chars from Beta players!

If true, what this points to is that for many people it's still more lucrative to be on Alpha. You have people who are fine with the idea of losing bots regularly, but have decided they aren't seeing any advantage to supporting themselves on Beta alone.

There is no need to add risk at all for someone who DO NOT LIKE IT.

Yes there is. You benefit without opposition, while others face harsh opposition. I'm not saying you should be forced to fight, but you should have some kind of significant difficulty, something that slows you down as much as having to fight for your territory would.

Get off of my Alpha and move your ... to your damn Beta!
This will fix YOUR Beta problem (which is no problem at all).

You see risk as something to avoid at all costs, and thus a reason to stay out of Beta. People on Beta tend to just want to optimize their results. So if mixing Alpha and Beta activity leaves them richer and more powerful than a pure-Beta life, that's exactly what they'll do. It's annoying that, though Beta is theoretically self-sufficient, it isn't practically self-sufficient.

Hugh Ruka wrote:

New Alphas should be accessible only via beta routes. I.e a cluster of 2-3 alpha islands with a ring of betas around them, then another cluster of alphas and again betas etc.

If Alpha remains readily accessible at all times, then Beta will always be at the fringes rather than becoming the dominant environment. Rather than 2-3 Alphas with a ring of Betas, it should be a single Alpha with 2 layers of Beta totalling 8-12 islands (thinking very long-term here). Ideal Alpha:Beta ratio for me is about 1:10.

From the PO Manifesto:

When it comes to character progression, we employ a very strict level playing field policy. This means that each and every character in the game progresses with their skills at the same rate, no exceptions. This way older characters will enjoy a unique versatility of playstyles as they fully learn certain skills, but in no way means that newer characters won’t be able to catch up to them in areas of their choice. The level playing field concept guarantees that older character means more versatile character.

NIC for EP changes would, in practise, amount to NIC-for-faster-training. Since extra NIC can be turned into greater versatility than would naturally be available to a character of your age. This would benefit rich and old players far more than the poor and young players who would benefit most from moving EP. Also, large corps would be able to fund "specialization tuning" prior to a big military push, to make sure their agents are at maximum efficiency during a campaign.

Segreto wrote:

Do a mission system like Anarchy had.  Use a terminal to view missions and reward types.  It would all scale together.  Hell, driving my bot through an Anarchy Online mission would be great.  All you need to do (besides programming, debugging, testing, creating, and the artwork, oh, and the writing) is add a mission terminal in the terminals and a few dungeon spawn spots in the wilderness.

How would other players be able to affect you while inside this dungeon? If two other players are each in a different instance of the same location, would there be a menu to choose which you go into? How is it good for people to be able to completely disconnect from each other and the game world when the goal of PO is explicitly the opposite of that?

While on Beta, I'll keep a few missions open so I have little rabbit holes to jump into if I'm being hunted. Metaphysical dislocation tank is best tank.

48

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Some dont understand what electronic warfare does mean it seems...  Ictus is specialized in draining/neuting, wich is NOT EW, even if its a EW mech.  Look closer at ingame help, drainer/neutralizer are engineering. Ictus has bonus to it, but in no way it uses EW on chassis.
Your asking me for more imagination, but you seems to have difficulties admitting an EW mech has mostly Engineering bonuses...

hmm Well, if we're being pedantic... "Class: Advanced mech specialized in electronic warfare." That's the in-game Ictus description, even though it only has bonuses in neuts, drainers and shields. 2 options: these are EW bonuses or you can't trust the game descriptions. Your conclusion is false or your logic invalid.

Arga gets at an important problem. You can find ways to boost all EW (or "engineering" roll) bots equally. But that boosts them relative to everything else.

If EW tuning works like weapon tuning, then EW w/o tuning should be worse than now, with tuning it could be a little better than now. I.e. choose focused effectiveness or versatility. Alternatively, EW tunings could be like scripts in EVE: use them to trade some of one ability for a boost in another. With made up numbers: 2xSS = 20% lock time, 40% range damp; 1xSS+1xTuner = 10% lock time, 50% range damp, 2x acc. drain for the SS.

That last bit is also, IMO, the only real way for the conflict between head-slot tuners and head-slot EW make any sense.

Past this point, we're into theory geek number crunching. Not worth the effort for a "someday maybe" feature. smile

An island chat that never showed numbers, and never showed a member list might work. All you'd ever know from someone posting is that they were there at a particular time, but never who they were with, when they arrived, or whether/when they left.

With "vicinity" chat, you could maybe set your own broadcast range (like a volume knob). Your message goes to everyone in that range. Reasonable limits on range, ofc. And keep it outdoors-only to limit godawful terminal game smack.

Line wrote:

This proposal - is just one of the ways to change current situation, which seems doesn't satisfy ppl enough. Im not positioning that as "must have" feature, it's just a thing that can be useful in some ways or useless in other. However, discussion may be interesting.

It's really good of you to be putting ideas out like this. Who knows where someone might take them. The trick with this one is just that slapping a toll or tax on anything always acts as a disincentive. It would probably work to tax teles into places that people strongly want to be, so the tax is worthwhile to them. Or when certain islands start getting really crowded (congestion tax). Or teles that exist only to help you avoid something negative.

In general, I think taxed teles would have to be special cases only. I played Axis & Allies for a while which has neutral countries that you could occupy, but only if you paid for it. They were easy to ignore, and invading them wasn't necessary to play the game. But sometimes the tactical advantage was well worth the extra cost.