5,751 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Gharl Incognito wrote:

Once my subs run out I don't see a reason to renew them; people cheat, continue to cheat and are not dealt with as other cheats have been in the past.  Now folks are getting bans for being angry about this... what's going on?

I'm sorry? There is some serious misinformation going on here. Who has been banned for getting angry about someone cheating and not getting banned?

Serious misinformation and serious propaganda in order to blackmail the Devs imo and harassment to fellow players.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,752 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in General discussion)

Gharl Incognito wrote:
Joph wrote:
Deon wrote:

Avatar Creations you are breaking your game in my eyes for a few reasons.
1.  You are trying to dictate how the players should play in a "sandbox" mmo.  In a sandbox the players decide how they would like to play the game, and gameplay decisions should not be made by DEVs or GMs.

2. You allow cheating to occur in your game and don't appear to care about it, and then showing favoritism to the cheaters.  Everyone should be treated the same, regardless of which corp has the most devs in it.
(flame away)

3. You don't seem to care about getting new players into the game. Throw up some adds work with Internet gaming sites. Ten ton, massively, etc... Bring in more players and everyone wins.

For these reasons I feel I can not support AC with my money any longer. I will not renew my accounts.

To my enemies, good fights.
To my friends, you will be missed.
To the DEVs, think before you act.

-Deon.

This is a very common feeling right now, the Dev team has lost the confidence of a lot of long term players.

QFE

Once my subs run out I don't see a reason to renew them; people cheat, continue to cheat and are not dealt with as other cheats have been in the past.  Now folks are getting bans for being angry about this... what's going on?

You don't have to wait for your subs to run out to stop QQing on the forums.  In fact you don't have to wait till your subs run  out in order stop playing the game.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,753 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in General discussion)

o/

Go to forum: General discussion

5,754 Reply by Ville

(9 replies, posted in Q & A)

I have said this time and time again, want advertising?  Sub all your accounts for a year.  Want more content?  Invest in the Devs.  The more money they make on the backend the less time  standing in the soup kitchen line. Also, don't buy the long term accounts the 30 days profit them the most, assuming the account merchant processing doesn't charge per item.

Go to forum: Q & A

5,755 Reply by Ville

(24 replies, posted in General discussion)

LOLOLOLOL!!!! @ Post

Go to forum: General discussion

5,756 Reply by Ville

(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

He'll be back....they all come back.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,757 Reply by Ville

(51 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Lucius we use tax as a leverage point to our new members to encourage them selling less then market ores and cheaper goods but ultimately it is their choice where they sell it.  Personally, I would like to see market tax go down some but honestly I don't care.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,758 Reply by Ville

(31 replies, posted in General discussion)

poKK wrote:

+1, naab tactic anyway... Because even they blob they are still bad

poKK I want to remind you of this:  http://perp-kill.net/?m=related&id=11215

*editted to remind you that we are pretty good as a blob smile

Go to forum: General discussion

5,759 Reply by Ville

(51 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Lucius Marcellus wrote:
Ville wrote:

No taxes promote corp involvement

No market taxes would promote market involvement, which is a good thing too, so I take it you're fine with removing taxes completely then?

Ville wrote:

I would prefer the ore I mine not be shot back at me.

You can still do that as the internal market will still be there. Your ore will only be shot back at you if you are currently selling to corp purely for tax reasons, and therefore will stop selling after this proposed change (even so, you should then be indifferent).

Prior to internal markets our corp just sit on items.  Produced -> Folder ->Updated bulletin -> Officer was contacted -> Money traded between officer and buyer for goods  -> money deposited in corp wallet. 

The entire reason for an internal market is for a corp to be self sufficient and provide cheaper goods for their players.  without the nessecary amount of people online to funnel items through.  Even today our members trade a member with tax evasion (hehe) level 10 to sell their plasma to get more Nic.  They use lvl 10 recyclers and refiners for their goods.  The internal market is designed to assist the corp keep costs of their goods low to inspire members to lose more stuff to buy more off the corp. 

The ONLY people that taxes are hurting is the independant producer.  Which this problem could be solved by *wait for it* a bigger population!! 

This game is designed for communism.  It's hard to be capitalist in this game, there are a lot of things to produce to keep a functional corp up and running unless you want a 2nd job.  The independant producers main role atm is to assist up and coming corps( no research) get access to T4 gear via Nic and to seed the external market for newer players not in a corp.

TL;DR:  Even if you removed taxes altogether or made them the same corps will trade directly with its members to avoid taxes and keeping goods cheap.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,760 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Scyylla wrote:
Cool Britainya wrote:

For a patch that was meant to revolutionise pvp... it has... its killed it...
30% of the beta population has gone.
And thats only within a month.

Not so much.....

Beta has been MORE active with the new system. The killboards have been overflowing since the new system went live..

The only people that have left beta were some of the squidies that would rather rage because they have to actually BE on beta for more then a fight they could take days to prep for.....

TLDR----- QQ elsewhere or Hello Kitty Online -->

Devs: Hello Kitty Mech Paint job ETA?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,761 Reply by Ville

(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Scyylla wrote:

fuuu

Eng Daniel wrote:

This is just an idea that catch me.

Is about mixing SAP and football. There are many questions about the easy of conquer the SAP.

Maybe add some fun by placing the ball (SAP) and a fixed goal. The players have to shoot the ball to drive it to the goal, the ball roll over the oposite side of shoot.

Can be more or less complex, like, there is infinite time and the ball have a shield, like the bots, and after depleted the shield the ball is destroyed. The ammount of shield can be calculated with damage taken before.



Close topic... Lack of content....:lol:

+1

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,762 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Which personally I don't  understand tbh.  How hard is it to roam in some assaults popping saps all day?  I been having a blast!

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,763 Reply by Ville

(51 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Internal market is fine.  No taxes promote corp involvement, I would prefer the ore I mine not be shot back at me.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,764 Reply by Ville

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

Takeo Prime wrote:

BTW why do all these posts get cluttered with game play commentary (here is what I did to you haha) instead of helpful game mechanic possibilities?  Isn't GC ingame enough space to run our mouths? hmm

Because Mara Kaid Exists.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,765 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I am thinking on a small corp scale.  These Saps are not set in place to support "Smaller" Corps.  These Saps are setup for the Zerg.  Who can funnel in the most bots and the most tanks during which timezones.  Tux you tanked this squad for a solid 2 mins: http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=11032.  This is not a "pesky" ewar, this is an inbalance issue.  That needs to be resolved, IMMEDIATELY.  I Very distinctively remember before the ERP nerf someone saying " I don't want to have to ALWAYS bring an Ictus to fight this fit."  We don't want to ALWAYs have to build our defense squad around a bot that costs less then 10 Mill to fully fit.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,766 Reply by Ville

(12 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I bet it will be called a Scarab.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,767 Reply by Ville

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

You had launchers, tongue. I looted them.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,768 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Also I have attacked three outposts so far with a small group and all three have been specimens sad so we waited for forty five so a ahhh man ***.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,769 Reply by Ville

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

The problem with passive saps is anything with a shield and any type of shield skills can survive sustainable damage for 2.5 mins.  The 62nd Ictus is a prime example.  Say group A who is composed of assaults/lights goes out to defend their passive sap.  Passive sap goes live and out of the blue a SINGLE trioar mk2 shows up.  He shows up at 1k group a moves to engage.  Let's say that group A has a demobing and engages the trioar mk2 at let's say 300m.  The Trioar MK2 has enough time at 30kph to roll to the Sap and sit there 2.5 mins and  tank the damage and complete the Sap within the hour allocated time.  10 mins gives the defender time to "counter" the attacker. 

I have seen this for two days now.   Defenders engage the main attackers kill them all, the attackers gather more people and refit to counter the defenders who have left a respectable smaller defense group on  the sap and while the main group engages the attackers a Single Trioar MK2 comes in sits on the Sap tanks 2 heavy mechs various assaults and two other trioar mk2s draining it.  Then takes the sap.

At 10 mins this gives the Fc nail bitting time to get an ictus half way across the map.  Because at 150 secs its less then 5% of the total intrusion time that leaves very low margin for the defender to screw up.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,770 Topic by Ville

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Short and simple:

Passive Sap: time frame needs to be  increased to 10 mins.

Specimen Sap:  Needs to either be eliminated or be scaled down drastically.

Active Sap:  Could use a bump in time but currently fine

Destruction Sap:  Need more Armor,

Possible creation of new saps include spawning a large elite mob squad and when they destroyed the Sap is taken.  You could also put an item you have to interact with behind all those mobs.  Nic sink Sap, costs 5-10 million to destabilize.  There's a whole host of ideas in the discussion forum.

These ideas have been suggested else were but I figured I would combine the thoughts here minus corp dialogues.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

5,771 Reply by Ville

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

Gharl when you equip a signal detector, you have to left click it to activate it.  Also turn your sound on when your other account is minimized. also signal detectors on ewar isn't effective.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,772 Reply by Ville

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

Kazzanka wrote:

Ok, lets talk about it.

First off, and most importantly: it's way too soon to be calling it a failure or a success.  Honestly.

My impressions so far are pretty positive, I think it's been quite fun--with some exceptions I think are key, key changes that need to be made:

1.  Being able to scan SAP timers so exact.  At any given time our corp usually knows the EXACT(sounds like I'm exaggerating but it's accurate within like 5 minutes every time) time a good 50% of the outposts in the game will have a SAP active.  Preferably the whole scanning of timers will be removed completely, honestly it just makes alarm clocking more prevalent and bite sized--and constant.  Removing SAP scanning will only work if we make a couple more much needed changes too though...

2.  Such as how simple it is to complete a SAP.  Passive SAPs are way too easy to cap, 2 and a half minutes out of a one hour window is way too short.  Active hacking SAPs I don't have an opinion on yet, but if it's in line with the other SAPs so far it probably needs to be tweaked.  Destructive SAPs can be ninja'd by a light EWAR and an assault in almost no time at all, they need more hit points.  Specimen SAPs are just terrible to begin with, they throw the entire flow of the game out the window, and under certain circumstances will be impossible to take.  I'd be all for just removing specimen SAPs all together, I think they are terrible(what do the rest of you think about specimens in particular?).

3.  Letting defending corporations complete their own SAP.  I'm not so sure this is a good idea, but if we drastically raise the required effort to take a SAP it could be a prety good way to go.  Really it comes down to my second point, specimen aside--the other SAPs are way too easy to take in the time that they are open.  With a significantly reduced gap in SAP completion time to the window they are open perhaps letting the defender actively shut their own SAP off could be strong way to go.


I see the frustrations people are having with the whole "my alliance is having a hard time doing this."  But honestly,  why should it be so easy to hold so much land.  It wasn't easy for the British, it wasn't easy for the Romans, and it sure as hell shouldn't be simple in this game--it would break it.  Here's the thing, you don't have to defend every single SAP that comes up, and you're not expected to in this new system.  However, if you put any effort at all into it you should be able to maintain 70+(85+ I dont think is out of the question either) points pretty easily and strike out against your opponents SAPs.

Right now it's really hard to gauge how the system is working because it's so fresh and we have people either marathoning the game to ensure 100% SAP defense up time so they can bring their SAPs from 05 to 100 points.  Give it a week or two and once some of the fatigue of compulsively needing to maintain every single SAP timer that pops up kicks in perhaps we'll see things settle down a little as some of the community sees it less like "AMAGAWD I need to be awake and at a force of 1000 men to defend every timer or this system is a failure!"  Relax guys, there's some problems with it now but with some tweaking I think we are looking at a pretty fun and rewarding territorial warfare system.  Let the DEVs see it in practice and get some troll-less feedback.

On a side note:  We've been getting some pretty fun fights out of the system, even if we are being sucked into the whole "crank the SAP awareness to 11" type of thinking.  We were fighting SovNov forces for hours last night--good stuff.

Keep the stupid Corporation Dialogues crap in Corporation Dialogues please.

+1  Kazzanka's ideas.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,773 Reply by Ville

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

The funny thing of this whole thread is 62nd are THE ONLY ones defending the new intrusion.

Can we keep comments on topic?

This is simply not true. Others from corps are figuring out the pros and cons. In fact we've posted some cons.

What you mean to say, is when it's easier for you to hold 8 stations again just logging in once a week, that people will cry blob. Of course, when your large alliance can own 8 stations easily, and then just focus on one target, what would you expect? You have only one real force on the server fighting you.

But that's not going to happen, you're going to have to pay the price now, of holding 5 stations - 6 stations by being logged in and active enough to do that. You don't want to do that though. You want to log in for a bit, then log off. You now take a station on the enemy side, the enemy can just harass the new one, or the others you own.

The system should reward active players, prevent alliances from dominating the whole map, and encourage smaller groups to enter. It certainly wont by making it easier for larger alliances to do so. Friedrich pointed this out in his radio comment. Mechanics that allow larger alliances to do easier work will just make the server two sided.

Dan posted some good points.


Lol, the only price we are having to pay is for teleport beacons to jump the lithuses in to collect all this T2 and T3 loot from you losing 40+ bots on a consistent basis.  48h in and already three separate come help me server posts. Lololoololol

Go to forum: General discussion

5,774 Reply by Ville

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

One huge issue I can see in the near future is passive saps.  With these extreme shield fits that we seen in the tournament whats stopping a 4 man tyrannos group to just sit there on it and keep a smaller corp who can't field the large number to break shield tanks?  The answer is nothing.

http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=10966

Is a prime example of this.  He nearly took the passive sap, and tanked these guys for 2~3 minutes.

Go to forum: General discussion

5,775 Reply by Ville

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

Mara Kaid Pirate of Nia wrote:

Oh, we're also not failing. You've lost norhoop(which you're trying to retake), and we've managed to take saps and outpost from you on domhalarm. I count that as a push on my book, and you're complaining about having to defend "multiple" islands, which is the way it should be.

True Story:  Having to post threads on the forums claiming your not failing, really means you are failing.  Real winners can remain silent while their actions speak for themselves.

Go to forum: General discussion