1 Reply by WilliamH Bonney

(4 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

hehe, aye, google docs can be useful, but trying to make a more organized and functional utility.

Hoping soon that all folks will have to do is enter their bonus numbers, select what they want to build and the number of cycles they have planned (mk2 and t1-4 selectoins), then just hit enter and see all of the commodities, fragments, cortexes, and the values of them all, in one easy to use utility.

I've made a few for other games, so trying to use those as a sort of guideline.  The next phase of it is almost done.

Go to forum: Guides and Resources

2 Reply by WilliamH Bonney

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Mara Kaid wrote:

lol what about terraforming, that'd be more attractivbe then an alliance feature. come on. Want to join a game that has the same sandbox stuff, or a new feature like terraform? I know which one I'd choose.

And do a ton of industry and ask me then how fun it is refining

As I've said, Terraforming will be for those corps that have the support on the "Gamma" islands.  Anyone in a small corp will miss out on this feature completely.  Sure, they can help out a larger Corp to build that station, but I bet if you don't "own" the outpost as a Corp, you won't be able to do terraforming around it at all.  So yes, it will make the game more interesting, for the Bigger corps.


As for industry, working on it, my industry toon just finally got to 75% ME for mass production, so it's now worth making Robots for my corp.  Made 5 of each light ewar, assault bot, and mech for each faction as well as industry.   So yeah, work in progress.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

3 Reply by WilliamH Bonney

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Mara Kaid wrote:

Dude there's so many basic corp features that need to be implemented before alliance features are in.

Um, I don't care what happens "first" to be honest.  Yeah, corp controls need looked at too, no one is arguing against that.  This is just something else I'd like to see them giving a thought to.

Mostly because as many are saying, it's already happening, NAPing, Blues, Greens, Yellows and Reds...  Corps are forming into their own communities.  It's the progression of a sandbox.

Can't think of a successfull sandbox that did not have an Alliance feature to be honest.

I personally do hope something like this does happen before the Terraforming islands come into play, Gammas or whatever people are talking about lately on forums.

It will be an entire game mechanic that any Small corp of 10-20 working alone will miss out on.  Heck, even if they do have an Alliance in how things work currently, will be rough for them.  Not saying I can see the future or I'm omnipotent, but I personally would regret my corp missing out on the fun.  If it's only controlled by the handful of larger Corporations out there, well, what's the point of that?

And if ya'll don't see that the new features for Intrusions and what they are talking about for Corporation-controlled Terraforming only promotes the "1 Big Corp" thing, well, dunno what to tell ya's.

CIR, 62nd, F-Navy, Chaos  TOG, M2S, ABT, Hydra/Morte...  Yeah, those corps will be able to play just fine with Corp-Controlled Terraforming features.  Probably NEX too at the time it comes into play.   Everyone else, well, sorry folks, but we're getting left out of the big picture.

Already the game is "Get big or go home" mentality, of not just the players, but the development it seems as well.  They keep saying "we don't want the blob,"  but they keep throwing stuff out there to promote a Blob, not prevent one.

In summation, what do we want this game to be?  This population size forever?  Me personally, not at all.  I want it to grow and develop over the years.  Lot of folks in here seem to want to take the "Massively" out of MMO.  I do enjoy small scale PvP fights, fun roams with 5-6 others.  But I would also like to see "large scale" battles at some point, in which "Armies" use true tactics rather then play the numbers game.

What I foresee:

Blues are grouped together and used as fast striking shock troops with mobility (Light Horsmen using  Speed, EWAR, and Nuet type Nexuses)
Yellows out on the front lines soaking in lots damage (Heavy Footmen/Infantry using Armor Tank and Damage type Nexuses).
Industrial Bots sitting 150m behind the Yellows and Greens, healing any damage taken. ("Medic" bots keeping friends alive with Remote Repping, Energy Transfer type Nexuses).
Greens sitting back and bringing down a rain of missiles (Archers with Crit, Assault and other Damage type Nexuses).

This alone would be a 60-80 man army.  Since Squads only get the benefit of 3 Nexuses, would be 4 different Squads under a different Commander.

So how do we get to this point?  Well, not gonna happen as a single corp Entity.  Has to be a group of Corps working together, on both sides, to create a battles such as these.  Truly Massive.  Not this piddling around where a 10 man gang is considered a "Blob".  That's getting tiring already.

So "the other side" is saying CIR/Syndic is "ruining the game."  I like Syndic, he's the sole reason I wanted to join up with SovNov.  Same with others of my corp.  We went out on roams, and he and his friends were the only ones out there that, though EP was very skewed, at least tried to give us a "fair fight" so we could learn how PvP truly works in this game.  And unless you're friends with M2S, he attempts to get his ilk to aide others in growing and developing.

Hell, have folks even thought to ask for a "ceasefire" or something for a week or two, so that bots could be built/replaced.  Your corp's could be strengthened and the fights more fun?  Not saying he'd go for it, but from what I can tell about the guy, he wants fun fights.  Hell, it's what I want, to play and enjoy the game.  I hate politics, more then anything that gets into Sandboxes, Politics to me ruins the game.

Well, enough of me rambling, and apologies for this Wall of Text, but eh, I'm in that mood today it seems. 

Have fun all, and remember, we are playing a Video Game...it's really not life or death.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

4 Reply by WilliamH Bonney

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Snowman wrote:

I agree that there needs to be something in place for intrusion 2.0, but, specifically for that mechanic!

I dont agree that we need alliances features with such an ever shrinking player base.

Kudos to the OP for a well thought out system.  Maybe Dev's could book mark it for a future time when/if the PCU is above 1000.

Nope, not once did I mention a Conglomerate could attack an Outpost and receive credit for said Outpost.

Alliances may "defend" Outposts that it has already had control given over to by the Corp that took it.  I intentionally left out attacking because that to me does promote the large thing, and not the smaller corps.  Defending, yes.  Attacking, no.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5 Reply by WilliamH Bonney

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

The new mechanics mean that you need 24/7 online "support" within corporation to defend your outposts.

How many Corps have players in strong numbers (20-30) in every prime time zone?

Answer, none.  However, there is ONE alliance that does have decent numbers in all time zones, well, enough to "defend" as you all are saying.  And yes, I am in that Alliance.

So, who comes to compete?  No one.  Sure folks try in the EU "off time" because there are fewer higher skilled folks during that time, however, if someone actually tried to attack an Outpost, there would be plenty online to stop them.

This idea is truthfully to promote more "small corps" to group up and take/defend one of these Outposts.  The "big alliance" or SovNov or whatever, doesn't really need it, we do it fine in it's current state.  Though, with the incursion patch will make things more troublesome, sure.

And I keep hearing "this game isn't ready" as even I said up top, well, question, how long do you think it takes to code, test, and implement new features?

As a fellow programmer of games, will tell ya's it's a 3-8 month deal (depending mostly on how much artwork, and some on debugging, has to be done).

So, throwing these "ideas" on the forums like this, really is "for the future" of the game, not for the now...

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

6 Reply by WilliamH Bonney

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Sundial wrote:

This seems a bit one size fits all in the voting system. This game needs more stuff for small corps. Big corps are not suffering. This will only encourage mega power blocks / blobbing.

IMO you can already set standing, or even hold others outpost for you. Before stuff like this is added, smaller corps needs need to be looked at.

While I don't disagree that this would be useful, I think this is not immediately needed. Its a good idea William, but I don't think the game is ready for it.

Eh, my idea stems from wanting to see more folks out on Beta islands, period.
From what I can tell, the stuff about to be implemented, doesn't really promote that.  Is mostly just more help for the "big powerhouses" to secure what they have already, easier.

Something like this however, will allow smaller corps an easier time grouping together, and controlling space out on the Betas.  It's simply safety in numbers, but allowing those numbers to play the way they want (seperate corps) instead of everyone under 1 corp tag.

From my experience, mmo'ers (myself included) do not like that.  We like playing "our own way" rather then in huge massive Corps/Guilds.

This will allow those smaller corps, to work better with other smaller corps, to attain the ultimate goal of living on Beta's.  And with terraforming coming in the near future, even more game content opened up for them.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

7 Topic by WilliamH Bonney

(92 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Using in game terminology, any "Alliance" features in which a group of player corporations come together to work toward the same goals, would be considered a "Player Conglomerate."

Why the need for such a feature? Mainly, there's way too many chiefs that play sandboxes, and not enough injuns. We all want to run our seperate corporations differently, those of us who enjoy being Guild/Corp leaders. It's quite a bit of work just with 10 members, even more so once you get to the 25+ numbers. Having Player Corporations in the 100s and 1000s is really tough. Of course it has been done before, but Perpetuum isn't really big enough for that.

The basics of the "Player Conglomerate":

Control over player held Outposts could be transferred over to the Conglomerate. This would be a voluntary control mechanism of the Corp CEO currently holding said Outpost. That Corp must first be apart of a Player Conglomerate.

Now, defense of said Outpost can be conducted by all player sub-corporations to strengthen the control of that Outpost, and all sub-corporations receive the same benefits from the Outpost Facilities (refinery, factory etc...)


Creation of a Player Conglomerate

I had originally thought about a new Extension for this, but not sure that would work. So far this is what I've come up with:

Any Corp CEO can create a Player Conglomerate. It is not considered a True Conglomerate until a certain number of Corporations has signed up for it. I was thinking three, however two might suffice.

Once a Player Conglomerate has the sufficient number of Corporations within it, a "Board of Directors" is established. That "Board" consists of all Sub-Corporation CEOs. The CEO who originally created the Conglomerate, would be the First "Head of the Board." Read further for more.


Board of Directors:

The Board of Directors would bring in a new feature. That feature being a voting system. Now, this voting system could be simple, as in just CEOs able to vote in an equal part, or more complex. So far this is what I've come up with:

1. All Votes by the Board are a majority system. The Board Head has the ability to "vote twice" if there is any tie.

2. The Board votes on the adding or removal of other Player Corporations into the Conglomerate.

3. The Board votes on the "Board Head."

4. A lot of other features could be added here, as in, Declarations of War, Intrusion Participations, and other Conglomerate Features, I'm open to suggestions.


The Head of the Board:

People change over time, folks leave games to go try new ones. Any sort of "Alliance Leader" never stays the same over the course of any MMO. With that in mind:

Every 3 months the Congomerate Board of Directors votes for the "Board Head."

The powers of the Board Head are really only three things.

First is veto powers over any vote except for "Board Head" elections.
That means, if the Board Head at the time, decides anything the rest of the Board decides on to be bad for the Conglomerate, that person will be able to Veto that decision. For example: If the board decides to remove a Corporation, and the Head decides that is not a good idea, the Head can veto that decision to keep that Corporation a part of the Conglomerate.

Second, in the case a Vote from the entire Board comes out as a tie, then the Head gets a 2nd vote in order to be the Tie-Breaker.

Finally, bring up different topics to vote on.


Votes and Elections:

Any time the Board Head brings up a new topic to Vote on, the Board of Directors have 48 hours to vote on that topic. If they have not voted within the 48 hours time period, they are considered "Abstained" and have no vote.

Board Head Elections take place on a 3 month Schedule. Every three months a new Election takes place. This could either be purely a Board of Directors vote, or we could suggest allowing all Players in the separate Corporations within the Conglomerate to Vote on this. Elections would be a 72 hour voting window. Anyone who doesn't Vote during that time would be considered Abstained.


Any feedback or further suggestions from the rest of the community is highly appreciated.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests