0110011100001111001010001 wrote:

Why don't they just advertise they are selling SSEX?

Would make me basically throw money at the ***** or I mean game.

I'm kinda ok with this idea...not toooo sure about it tho.

+1 for buying Sexx

You should show up for your timers before Christmas imo.

Kim glad we found you smile

Jelan wrote:

Now call me cynical but since you've just moved back to norhoop and you're whining because the fields arent as rich as they were on a beta 2, seriously? man up!

If your not going  to add content to the discussion then scurry off.  WTB Titan back.

DEV Zoom wrote:

To set things straight, I don't think we ever stated that we don't want alliance features. Back in June Gremrod asked me to tell him a topic they could discuss in the podcast, and I said we would be interested what our players would expect from an alliance/conglomerate feature.

The result was that the majority of our players thought that an alliance feature would be premature or even unnecessary at that point.

Link: http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … iscussion/

Has the general consensus changed? Would alliances make a better game right now?

This question rest more to you Dev Zoom, Do you as a Developer want to see more alliances holding Beta Islands or Just enough corps holding the number of active outposts per island?  I.E. Alliance of 2 corps olding a Beta-2 island and an alliance of 3 olding a Beta-1 island.

Arga you still in game any?

Takeo Prime wrote:
Ville wrote:
Takeo Prime wrote:

-1

alliance mechanics are for those that want to hide under the skirts of others.  The "Now they won't mess with my 2 man corp because i am part of X alliance" would be a terrible path to take.  the game is too small for making a super group to dominate the board.

Make friends, run with them, leave them, go another direction or whatever you want to do.  you don't need hand holding mechanics to do that.

If alliance mechanics are the path of least resistance then strong corps will just fill their ranks with cannon fodder for all the <5 man corps and the blob will be the norm.  The game is finally shaping up into some nice pockets of strength and diversity.

Get 500 active members then take another look at it.

Aren't you in an alliance lol?

checking....nope, just a corp, called WAR that has made friends with another corp, that of which neither require any kind of formal friendship mechanics.


Right click, set Blue.  It's a Mechanic.

5,733

(40 replies, posted in Balancing)

Hunter wrote:

There is no problem. Author was noob. Shields not need to nerf. Change - maybe.

Nerf ERPS!

Takeo Prime wrote:

-1

alliance mechanics are for those that want to hide under the skirts of others.  The "Now they won't mess with my 2 man corp because i am part of X alliance" would be a terrible path to take.  the game is too small for making a super group to dominate the board.

Make friends, run with them, leave them, go another direction or whatever you want to do.  you don't need hand holding mechanics to do that.

If alliance mechanics are the path of least resistance then strong corps will just fill their ranks with cannon fodder for all the <5 man corps and the blob will be the norm.  The game is finally shaping up into some nice pockets of strength and diversity.

Get 500 active members then take another look at it.

Aren't you in an alliance lol?

Gremrod wrote:

I would support a PLEX type system in Perp. Let me explain why.

This type of system benefits the players and AC.

Player A (Has a lot of time to play and make the nic needed)

Player B (Has little time and little nic made, but loves the game and has the real life money to do this....)

Player B buys a SSEX (Spark Software extension, or whatever...) to sell on the market for player A to buy.

Player A is rewarded for his hard play and having the nic to buy a SSEX and not spend real life money to play.

Player B is rewarded with the nice boost in his wallet. (Stays playing the game because he has the option to buy game time and sell it to other players so he doesn't have to grind the nic since player doesn't have the time.)

AC is rewarded for putting the SSEX system in place since it helps two different types of players stay playing the game.

Also you have to realize if player B is spending real life money on SSEX for nic then he is also spending real life money on sub(s).

Looks like a win win circle for AC and the game's community to me.

Paying for SSEX

+1

Scyylla wrote:
Inda wrote:

I dont want to attack, Scyylla what do you think what Perpetuum need?

I dont like plex but thats all, if with Perpetuum will succes maybe I will accept.
Btw, what I said dont think plex can solve the main problem, that also just a bit influx to game not more.

The major issue is the population. The main solution would be to advertise the game more to drive subscriptions up. This has been discussed in more then one thread so I won't rehash the subject..

Adding a slippery slope MT/RMT driver such as Plex won't do anything to increase subs. If you put Plex in the game now, I am sure the number of accounts would go up slightly as people add ALT accounts and pay for the subs via NIC (if anyone was willing to spend more RL $$$ to buy gametime and sell it for in game NIC that is). At this moment what does NIC really do for you that you need to make several hundred million by selling game codes? Answer--absolutely nothing! So, adding a Plex system will do nothing to increase the player base of the game.

Back to the ALT accounts:
Increasing the player base by adding alts that are subbed with a plex system is not growth. Those alts will actually hinder the market as players will be less dependant on others. Slowly but surely NIC becomes devalued as minerals sell for almost nothing (too easy to pay for a mining acct or 3 with NIC now). As minerals sell for nothing, mods drop in price.. Etc...Etc... Etc..... Before you know it, those alt accounts don't exist anymore because it is too much of a pain to get the amount of NIC needed to sub them. My favorite part--- it is insanely hard to PVP with 6 accounts so most of the ALTS stimulated will be alpha carebear toons or worse----corp paid for, gate scout accounts that collect EP.........

Inda-- I know it wasn't meant as an attack. You reserve that for Beta!

I know where your coming from man and  i know the backing for it.  I appreciate where your coming from on that.

Last point were I am coming from:  How many fixed incomes out there had to scale back their gaming budgets this year?  How many unemployed/disabled people do you think would continued to play if they could buy Plex in game with nic?

I know personally I would buy more gtcs just for Plex and stimulate the market with the additional nic.

Atticus wrote:
Ville wrote:

The noob who wanted a riveler just paid $10 to AC, and if the vets with plenty of money bought a plex with in game currency the plex had to be purchased somewhere...AC still getting paid...

You are technically correct. So how much additional income does AC receive?

The answer is zero.

So why introduce something with no benefit?

The only way to receive addtional income is if its not tied to subscription time. And if its not then you simply have a Pay to Win microtransaction store. And who wants that, and its not the best idea for a time-based leveling game.

This (IMO) is exactly what occured in EvE. CCP assumed they were receiving additional income and then had to introduce their loyalty store and their $80 monocles .....


...... But one small positive with that forum storm is I heard about this game.


With regards to the OP I think the game needs double the islands and a great and expensive marketing campaign. There are some fantastic PvP fights that are frapped and would look great on any trailer ..... I believe Snowman's theory ( game development not currently depending on subs) is close to correct, I would love to see AC blow a large chunk of their investment on a few full page PC Gamer adds and some wicked multi minute game trailers for YouTube.

Att.. what this helps is  what the OP is talking about lack of inactivity.  It gives players a chance to be active  and get rewarded, so if player A can get large sums of money by buying a Plex think hes going to pvp in  a light bot t1 fit?  He's going to be out there in t4 fitted mechs well he has to buy those somewhere?  Then the producer makes money.  Producers need more minerals ro build, more demand for miners, better ore prices.  More Pvp equals more Beta activity!  All the time AC improves the activity of  the game while sitting back watching the same amount of cash roll in as before.  With more players active higher chance for new player retention.

The perfect scenario is simple, player A purchases a GTC the GTC is converted to an in game code, the player sales to The market and then player b redeems it.  It might not be that loyal vet paying for his account out of his own pocket but that guy who wanted an easy million to buy more bots to pvp in.

The noob who wanted a riveler just paid $10 to AC, and if the vets with plenty of money bought a plex with in game currency the plex had to be purchased somewhere...AC still getting paid...

I support a plex system, it will lead to more  activity and market growth.

0110011100001111001010001 wrote:

Yea....so what now?

+1 to whatever this guy is on.

+1 lol

5,742

(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

Living true to the motto Herp Derp?

5,743

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

Atticus wrote:
Ville wrote:

These are not concerns of the player base.  The majority  of the player base does not care about account sharing.  Only 5 to 10 forum posters who don't care how big of a fool they make of  themselves.

Seriously? Here's something to think about.

Let's say some corp decides to have 20 accounts they share among 50 or 60 players. Every time one of those players want to mine they grab the Riv Mk2 max skilled miner character and mine away for maximum return. Or whenever there is Pvp they grab the max skilled Ictus, Gropho or whatever. And these accounts are used by 3 or 4 people thruout each day. This corp would gain a clear advantage over others not account sharing and would quickly be able to build a stockpile of over 9000 fully T4 fitted mechs, along with unreasonalbe amounts of mineral reserves. They could in theory dominate entire areas of Beta while the single account player corps would have no chance to match. A clear and deliberate exploitation. Even this account sharing ALLIES would benefit from having such a strong friend to assist them. All unfairly. If they didn't share accounts, and were attacked by a small group of pirates and the Ictus pilot wasn't available, the battle may turn out differently.
Understand this?

Also if 60 people share 20 accounts that's 40 unpaid montly subscriptions to AC. That's a lot of lost revenue. Think about it. Finally, its simply a violation of the rules of the game.

Its not a small thing.

Tl;dr

We can always text the ictus pilot.

5,744

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

Sundial wrote:

Every corp in the game has probably done account sharing in one form or another.

The fact is CIR did it for a substantial PvP advantage with early access accounts and that is in my opinion when it becomes an issue.

There are issues in the game like squad management and research that pretty much require account sharing unless you like sliding down a cheese grater naked head first.

The devs should address these issues. Really though pointing fingers is stupid here as game mechanics encourage account sharing in a couple different ways.

What CIR did was unfair but that doesn't mean that every single instance of account sharing is suddenly wrong. Its simply not completely batshit ***.

What your saying here is that its ok to have a corp shared prototyper but pvp sharing accounts is bad?   What about the other corps who have to start from scratch because their Ceo suddenly moved cross  country?  Wouldn' that be an unfair advantage?

5,745

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

I agree Sundial but this holy then thou  complex in some instances but not others is just ***.

5,746

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

Atticus wrote:
Ville wrote:

These are not concerns of the player base.  The majority  of the player base does not care about account sharing.  Only 5 to 10 forum posters who don't care how big of a fool they make of  themselves.

Seriously? Here's something to think about.

Let's say some corp decides to have 20 accounts they share among 50 or 60 players. Every time one of those players want to mine they grab the Riv Mk2 max skilled miner character and mine away for maximum return. Or whenever there is Pvp they grab the max skilled Ictus, Gropho or whatever. And these accounts are used by 3 or 4 people thruout each day. This corp would gain a clear advantage over others not account sharing and would quickly be able to build a stockpile of over 9000 fully T4 fitted mechs, along with unreasonalbe amounts of mineral reserves. They could in theory dominate entire areas of Beta while the single account player corps would have no chance to match. A clear and deliberate exploitation. Even this account sharing ALLIES would benefit from having such a strong friend to assist them. All unfairly. If they didn't share accounts, and were attacked by a small group of pirates and the Ictus pilot wasn't available, the battle may turn out differently.
Understand this?

Also if 60 people share 20 accounts that's 40 unpaid montly subscriptions to AC. That's a lot of lost revenue. Think about it. Finally, its simply a violation of the rules of the game.

Its not a small thing.

Food for thought for you.  Unholyminer got kicked from 62nd because he was on Nicky Santero account driving a Lithus into Moyar and Got killed.  Just saying smile  What was that Pot?  Oh nothing Kettle Just calling you black brosef.

5,747

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

These are not concerns of the player base.  The majority  of the player base does not care about account sharing.  Only 5 to 10 forum posters who don't care how big of a fool they make of  themselves.

5,748

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

Your attempting to troll.  Every post closed was by a forum pvper.  Just like your name which is a troll in itself.  You have not seen the mass exodus of a player base just 5 people being childish because they want to take a stab at one Alliance who worked there hands to blisters in game to see the success of themselves and everyone who got them there.  Forum trolls  such as yourself should be receiving bans.

5,749

(8 replies, posted in General discussion)

Good post mate, made me remember the one account days

5,750

(79 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Just to make it clear: no topics have been closed that made their point intelligently and have not been created purely for trolling or breaking forum rules.

+1

There's a new ticket system DESIGNED for this....