+1000 obi, gobsmackingly beautiful mechanic.

I guess even botters get tired of botting. big_smile

What did I do about NPCs again?

Zoom doesnt listen to me and I doubt he ever will.

As a CEO I want there to be reasons for my friends to log in on a daily basis and enjoy the game instead of playing other games and only logging in for EP or jabber pings.

AFK empires only exist if the rest of the game is AFK and not engaging in content, in which case nobody is doing missions anyway.

SAP mechanics exist and function flawlessly in creating a need for sustained effort to capture a station and maintain it, especially after the latest change to stability growth.

Alpha economy should revolve around NIC and trading more then around actual ores locally mined.

Make it so

Zoom could you share the Devs thoughts on two questions;

- Assuming youre a corp leader, why would you want to capture a Beta outpost?
- Assuming youre a corp leader and Beta stations get unlocked, why would you want to make the extra effort to capture a Beta outpost?

I'm honestly curious.

When my guys have something to do in-game, they will get a ping about it. smile

359

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Lets pretend we wont be listening to your TS and read your corp chat. big_smile

Burial wrote:

@Ville: Doesn't make it easier to defend an outpost and it doesn't lessen the risk of getting your assets locked off in 2 days whenever a group of vets become bored, you go to holidays or say something very-very upsetting and disagreeable in public.

The bottom line is, that's not how sandboxes should behave. Sandbox MMO's should give players more freedom and choices than any other game. The only choices in Perpetuum is either live on Alpha or join an alliance.

Locking an outpost doesnt remove or delete the assets inside of it. CIR for example, has a modest stockpile of equipment and robots in every Beta station in the game.

It would appear the root of the unlocking argument is the inconvenience of the consequences for barking loudly. Zoom, if it will help you save some Dev resources we will let Joke have an outpost.

Better now? big_smile

Evidently corps need reason to contest the Beta outposts, otherwise in 6 months there wouldn't have been tumbleweeds rolling around the 10 outposts we gave up to the community.

Also evidently, corps need reasons to recruit newbies into their organizations. It's a lot easier for a new player to integrate into a well oiled existing organization, then to hold our collective breath and hope 30 of them manage to bump into each other and make a new corporation.

With sparks gone, power projection will finally be solved. With field terminals Beta will be more accessible.

The key questions Zoom are;

- If you're a corp leader, why would you want to capture a Beta outpost? What does it give you?
- If you're a corp leader, why would you want to work with someone else's corporation?

Put yourself in our position and look at the problematic through our eyes.

Corp-leaders keep 99% of their corporations playing other games simply because there is nothing for them to do in-game, and it's been like that for a long time.

Like I said before, we've been progressively restricting the game back towards what it was on release over the past 3 years, it's proven that it doesn't work. Let's go the other way! Expand the game in all directions, add more reasons to play and fight.

Otherwise it'll be the same 20 dudes, except they'll be blueballing in untoucheable terminals until they can run out to huzzah an argano somewhere.

If 5-15 doesn't cut it, join an alliance or merge into another corp or recruit.

The game needs expanding and growing subculture communities, not bittervet autist cliques forming up for a few losses every 3 months before buggering off to EVE.

What % of people quits the game because the vet corps have no reason whatsoever to risk recruiting anyone?

363

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Bending the facts?

Do you or do you not have 6 JOKE members + Annihilator, in a meeting of 10 people?

Where is the community being represented by whom, Sunny and Obi? Or Race Drones who despite being a HERO, doesn't speak English?

What a... joke. lol

364

(24 replies, posted in News and information)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Correct.

Well if we take that a level 6 mission gives you roughly 300 tokens after the inflation, with a 250k price tag that results in about ~800 completed missions for a black robot.

Do you think that's reasonable considering the intended scarcity of these robots?

Honestly I think it's time to put the black bots off the table as a trump-card for new content.

Make a yellow arbalest, call it a Lemonlest, change it's robot bonuses to be something else, put it on the syndicate store as a "faction ship" for some XYZ faction requiring X relation.

Black bots were tournament rewards, there was supposed to be only 10 of them in existence (omitting the 1 granted for some steam-posting and god knows who else got some).

365

(16 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

jim elliot wrote:
SunnyJester wrote:

Talk to any of the NSE delegates online, Rovoc in particular atm would be the bestas my internet is *** where I am at for a while.

Sunny
NSE CEO

I sent Rovoc a mail.  He hasnt got back with me. I guess I'll harass random NSE players until they either accept me or go insane. smile

Thanks again guys

You can always talk to a random PHM player and tell them daddy sent you.

Then we can talk about being an upstanding contributing member of society and occasionally murdering everything as available.

366

(10 replies, posted in Testing server)

Perhaps there could be a baseline reward, somewhere around 40M/hr for someone ninja-missioning on Beta (still better then farming on Alpha), but doubled by a station aura (to stimulate owning a station and promoting active gameplay).

Any new corporation can be out on Beta in a week, tops.

Most don't have the knowledge, many more get dragged into alliances and thrown against people they're not ready to fight.

DEV Zoom wrote:

Both sides have valid arguments. I'll get out the roadmap blog, and we'll see how you think about this matter after that.

Surely you have some questions?

There's nothing wrong with having an active dialogue here between Devs and the community as a whole.

Some of the best improvements to the game happened because of Dev-held roundtables and listening to the entire community, not a few individuals.

Ofcourse I disagree with it, narrowing the gap between Alpha and Beta got us to this point where we are now. Countless corps and players vanished off the face of the earth when they got out to Beta and discovered they were better off staying on Alpha and farming spawns forever.

The game cannot move forward by any means if the Devs have to make it revolve around a 5-10 man corp being self-sufficient and relevant in the game.

Not all content should be accessible to solo players. Not all content should be accessible to 5-10 man corps that don't want to work together with anyone else.

Narrowing the gap between Alpha and Beta has been the guideline since 2011, there is a proven track record that if there is nothing for players to strive towards, they'll just get bored and go play something more fun.

It doesn't have to be exclusively vertical.

Space cannot be a problem because there is no competition for 10/15 outposts! Where are the wars for control of Norhoop? Why aren't we making joking remarks in C/D about Kentasomalia? Because nobody cares about stations that are more hassle managing SAPs every 10-16 hours then actual reward, on islands that are only better then Alpha by the fact there's Epriton there.

Go the other way. Make the gap between Alpha and Beta drastical. Make the gap between Beta and Gamma drastical too.

Give players something to fight over.

Unlocked outposts and reinventing the wheel from 2011 isn't "something to fight over".

Jita wrote:
Jita wrote:

When you talk about boosting beta but making the mechanics the same what you are actually doing is nerfing alpha as in relative terms they will be worse off.

Your nerfing alpha to such an extend that your essentially saying to the games player base that to play perpetuum at a reasonable level you must be willing to conduct 5am sap ops in gangs big enough to compete with whoever happens to rule the server.

This may be OK for some people but your just limiting your potential player base and the more dead the game becomes the more acute that limitation is as the folks who are left have to be 24 hours and care less. Its self diminishing defeatism.

Now if that's the game Zoom wants then fine, I'll shut the *** up and either wait for enough die hards to make the game successful or perpetuum to die. I honestly don't think it is like that though, I think broadening the appeal of beta to a wider player base is a good thing and that's why I'm talking about it.

It's easy for you to make it about people but for me it's just about the game catering to a play style that is not only popular but fits what I want to play.

Ville and Syndic, you guys disagree with this?

370

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Burial wrote:
Naismith wrote:

You can be butthurt about it as much as you want, but you got 3 random people into a room with 7 of your corpmates, made a nice list of what the majority agreed on and presented it as some "Beta roundtable".

That's obvious and blatant politicking to push your agenda.

Firstly, we can call it however we want, and it doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. We tried to reach the developers not you. Secondly, the main people talking were Jita, Obi and Sunny. Two of them are in your alliance. Just because you weren't there is no reason to start poking holes to the intention.

You can call it what you want and pretend youre representing the community, I dont mind explaining to Zoom youre having a corp meeting with a few guests.

An actual Beta roundtable would consist of representatives from CIR, 77, PHM, Cons, OTHERS, ETHOS, NSE, and maybe a few token invites for Alpha based corps.

Zoom you and the Devs should be more involved in this discussion, ask some questions etc.

Or if you've made up your minds lock the topic and lets move on.

Illiathos wrote:

What is this M2S reinventing the wheel you are speaking of?

4 years ago there were no sparks and stations weren't lockable, you could own it and live in it but there was nothing stopping corp X from all coming into your home station and hellcamping your corp there so your only option was to log out or log onto another account and play somewhere else on Alpha.

The metagame back then favored this type of griefing and it was heavily used, along with many other tactics and tricks.

373

(64 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ville: sorry but I still don't get what you want. As far as I can see the only suggestion you had so far is that you wish to use other bots or weapons too to shoot turrets without them being able to return fire.

He's trying to say that in order to attempt tanking X number of turrets, a heavy has to be fit correctly. However, you cannot fit enough range extenders and any sort of a tank (even with maxxed extensions) to allow you enough maneuvering room so that you can walk into range, take a few hits, and back out.

Without range extenders, most robots would be evaporated by turrets as they attempted to close to their native 300-500 ranges (since boosted turrets open fire at 1km+).

The culprit being that a number of modules (not only range extenders!) don't have an appropriate extension in-game that reduces their CPU/Reactor cost. For example, the range extender has nothing that reduces the reactor fitting cost.

Either a new extension (like Economical engineering) or adding unaffected modules to existing extensions would probably solve most of the problems, at the very least it would bring us one step closer to a balanced Gamma experience.

374

(45 replies, posted in Balancing)

Celebro wrote:
Naismith wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

Although I could not attend, I was able to listen somewhat on and off through Mancs' stream. I'd only like to say that the devblog (hopefully tomorrow) will address a lot of the mentioned issues, so let's see after that.

Anyway, happy to see players getting together and doing this, so kudos!

7/10 people in that list are JOKE members or affiliates like Anni.

You listened to an Alpha based corp chorus together in tune to the script.

Whatever it was, it wasnt a Beta "roundtable".


Firstly Syndic, we have all been at one stage living on Beta and Gamma so your argument is moot.

On a final note I really don't know why you care so much, you can go get a Beta 2 and gather your pets, but my guess is you like to control the whole server, but these changes will make it much harder which on it self justifies the changes proposed.

You can be butthurt about it as much as you want, but you got 3 random people into a room with 7 of your corpmates, made a nice list of what the majority agreed on and presented it as some "Beta roundtable".

That's obvious and blatant politicking to push your agenda.

Jita wrote:
Naismith wrote:

POE willingly relinquished control of 4/6 betas for the general population to fight over

When was this? I dont think anyone was actually aware.

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … x-and-you/

So, from the 30th of November to today... There has been little to no competition for control of 10 Beta outposts, and it would appear nobody is interested in living out of the 3 NPC terminals available in the game.

That is more then half a year of the general population actively choosing not to capture an outpost, instead choosing to live on Alpha and venture out to Beta for PVP only at their leisure, typically weekends.

Jita wrote:

Also Syndic I don';t think ANYONE is saying that the current Beta rewards are enough to make moving there worthwhile. That's a given, improving reward is absolutely needed.

The question is, if reward was improved and beta became worth it does it provide the needed environment to be populated or does it promote ninja missioning and mining, hordrop and withdraw to alpha pvp and whoever is the biggest dog in the yard having total control of stations they don't intend on actually using.

That question is a logical fallacy, Beta should NEVER be designed so that someone who doesn't invest and risk the assets can get all the reward of living on Beta.

The outposts should be worth owning, worth enough to warrant the risk involved. Corporations must "need" to own an outpost, it should be the overriding logical choice forward. Then they have an option, build a Gamma with the risks involved and the rewards, or capture a Beta, or both. Player choice.

If the outposts aren't worth it, we won't see any change in the circumstances - the Devs will merely acknowledge that the outposts are useless and further shrink the game back in time to old tactics and then the general population can pat itself on the back for reinventing the wheel that us and M2S invented a long time ago.

DEV Zoom, here's a simple question: In your opinion, as a corp-leader, why should you capture a Beta outpost?