1

(39 replies, posted in Selling Items)

Will be on holiday until mid-July.

2

(50 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Syndic wrote:

I personally don't artifact scan, but as I understand it artifact scanning is integral to the production of Mk2 mechs which gain a substantial benefit to the force which can field them.

Experienced artifacters have said that the third party tool made by FOOM provided a 100% certainty of finding the artifact sites and was integral to farming them. This third party tool has been hosted on a third party site and advertised here on the official Perpetuum forums since the 25th of June last year. Almost a full year.

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … ning-tool/

Here's what the EULA states however:

* It is forbidden to use any kind of third party application or tool that interfaces with, mimics or interferes with any part of the game system in any way, including the use of macros, control scripts, bots, system time manipulation tools, memory access tools or reverse engineering tools;

The real question is why hasn't this EULA regulation been enforced for a year and why have no measures been taken against the authors?

Would excel be 3rd party software too? It's really just some basic math to find the location...

3

(39 replies, posted in Selling Items)

Ore prices are slowly stabilising, and prices have generally gone a fair bit since release of patch. Further, I have reduced my margins further on all bots.

4

(33 replies, posted in Balancing)

As long as speed reduction isn't so large as to make the amount hauled/h the same, I think that's a good idea.

5

(33 replies, posted in Balancing)

Currently the t4 lwf + shield gen is as much of a no brainer for any alpha hauler, so I'm not really sympathising with that. However, outside alpha hauling these trade-offs will be very important. Anyhow, I'd much prioritise a proper freighter rather than a cargo expander, so on that point we agree.

6

(33 replies, posted in Balancing)

Arga wrote:
Gremrod wrote:

Why not create a module that will increase the cargo space of any bot/mech.

I'd search for my other 30 post explaining why this is a bad idea, but I'm too lazy, but I'll summerize because we share that trait smile

If cargo expander adds weight/slows hauler, then using it becomes highly situational.
If cargo expander doesn't slow hauler, then it becomes must have.

In all the topics discussing this, very few people have called this a 'bad idea' to my knowledge.

The most straightforward approach is probably to make the cargo expander reduce shield efficiency or lower demob resistance.

7

(33 replies, posted in Balancing)

If we need another hauler, it would be a super-freighter that can carry insane amounts, and not yet another small-cargo bot.

8

(75 replies, posted in Balancing)

Even if a few miners are honourable enough to follow this "code", it becomes a big problem as long as many people do not. Also, it's not always selfishness. If someone only has 1h to play, he might not finish to complete field.

Seriously though, I think we need a serious solution to this of some sort.

9

(75 replies, posted in Balancing)

Agree that fragmentation is a serious issue and definitely needs more attention from the DEVs.

Or just make a column in factory which gives the needs of all current jobs? Should be easy enough to compare this with your own storage.

11

(5 replies, posted in General discussion)

Great change DEV - keep the high end bots expensive but let mechs be accessible. I've updated my prices in the shop and on the market accordingly.

Assaults will now go for around 1m on market and combat mechs 3.5m, looks quite balanced to me.

12

(39 replies, posted in Selling Items)

Updated prices with the changes to combat/industrial mechs, enjoy the cheaper prices smile

13

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Lucius Marcellus wrote:

No, but even if a fraction of all NIC was used for this, then no one would have to mine Noralgis for the next few years. But if you honestly believe what you say here, might as well just seed everything! 10 NIC! Doesn't matter, right? As NIC will never be infinite we will never get infinite stuff? Just loads of it and no industry or market, but who cares?

The point I was trying to make is that you still had to invest a real amount into this operation, and it wasn't like players got that ammo and commodities for free now.

Indeed, but as I said, seeding everything at 10NIC/per wouldn't be free either. It's a dangerous line.

14

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

Great solution Zoom!

(Can you confirm you'll try to claw back briochit as well?)

15

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Celebro wrote:

and the NIC you get by other means.

...which isn't infinite.

No, but even if a fraction of all NIC was used for this, then no one would have to mine Noralgis for the next few years. But if you honestly believe what you say here, might as well just seed everything! 10 NIC! Doesn't matter, right? As NIC will never be infinite we will never get infinite stuff? Just loads of it and no industry or market, but who cares?

16

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

Great to hear Zoom, it's great this was dealt with early. If few people are involved it really shouldn't be that hard to claw back the briochit (and return the NIC for the charges).

17

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

For those that seriously think reporting a clear exploit publicly is a bad thing, go talk about it here:

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/foru … dialogues/

18

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Calvin wrote:

Just to be clear, buying items from NPC market orders with the intent or recycling instead of intended use is considered an exploit. We are monitoring this and will take action against offenders.

We are also fixing the issue as we speak.

Thank you for the useful comments and insights!

Awesome! smile

19

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

Arga, once again you're just wildly speculating on noralgis price, there's also very strong reasons why it could increase (i.e. reduced yields and huge demand boost). Hence, all those words mean very little.

20

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

Problem with capping ore prices like that is that you also cap the income for miners. Anyhow, this thread is not really about whether or not to seed raw materials (if you really believe that's a good idea, make a another thread about it). It's about an unintended use of a seeded item, which clearly is is being abused heavily given the market volumes.

21

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

Saramara wrote:

I'm not 100% sure what defines an exploit, but here is the situation: Grinding some nic for 1-2 hours and buying a main terminal for recycling is FAR less work than mining the equivalent amount of raw mats.

Why would anyone in their right mind ever again undock a mining bot?!

Hear, hear!

Also, by not clawing this back, ASAP, you set an extremely bad precedence.

22

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

So we should call it an exploit based on implied prices?

If there is NO trade for the other good, definitely. The price you used for briochit is just total ****.

If there's one trade a year for mesmer mkII at 1 NIC, is the price for mesmer mkII 1 NIC? The mineral prices would dictate it's worth many millions. Now take this further, if I find a game mechanic that allows me to get an infinite supply of mesmer mkII at 10 NIC you would not call that an exploit?

In the end, refining exploits is all about implied prices.

And again, sort this out ASAP, even if you at the moment think it doesn't matter. It does.

23

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

*edit: fixed numbers.

lol, allow me...

Briochit/Hydrobenol is barely traded at all, the average is massively misleading (if we assume the price of epriton is 5 per, then a price of 500 for briochit assumes a price of 5 per for Noralgis under perfect refining).

You should use the implied priced from the raw materials, then the price of briochit is roughly 3600 (assuming noralgis at 65)and hydrobenol 500 (this assumes perfect refining which is not realistic, so in reality implied prices are higher).

Then getting 10 hydrobenol and 10 briochit per 1000 ammo (quite poor refining) leads to (36,000+5,000=) 41,000 NIC. You paid 21,000 NIC for the materials. That's a huge gain (especially since it is in reality higher as I had conservative assumptions). If this is abused with good refining it's like seeding Noralgis at 15-20 per element.

Seriously, GO AFTER THE ACCOUNTS INVOLVED ASAP AND CLAW IT BACK. You're committing a huge mistake if you downplay the importance of this and no one in their right mind could think this is not an exploit.

And as other has pointed out, why can seeded items be refined anyways? Seems like asking for this to happen.

24

(83 replies, posted in General discussion)

This is a really serious issue at the moment, it seems like a game-breaking exploit in my book and the DEVs need to swiftly take care of it (i.e. take off terminals and trace who has used the exploit and revert it). At least 1.6 BN worth of Hydrobenol and Briochit has been exploited, I expect the the DEVs to remove this from the accounts involved.

DEV Zoom wrote:

I think the simple solution would be to only check whether you have enough minerals for the first manufacturing cycle, and for the rest it's up to you whether there will be enough materials at the moment the next cycles begin. Maybe a confirmation, like "Not enough minerals for all the cycles, start anyway?". Of course the process will stop if it can't find enough. This would make your example work because the system takes minerals at the start of every cycle, and also delivers the end product of a cycle at the same time.

Sounds great!