Would be very nice if npc on gamma built up NPBS the same as PBS, very fast like in one night, and if you dont wipe them they continue to build strong defenses. The more the npc fortress stay and develop, the bigger the loot. They could also if nobody attack them, launch big attacks on PBS of certain size...

I already tough of this some times ago:

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/post/51640/#p51640

Or even better, more complicated rules than simply allow/deny docking.

Like:

-ability to confiscate private storages, or timer for private storage over wich content is put into owner corp storage.
-allowing/denying only one or more types of robots: only haulers, only miners etc...
-allowing/denying docking for robot that have certain types of item in cargo (ammos, bombs etc..)

There could be a very complete set of rules that would permit to finely tune allowance to OP and therefore create specific tasks for outposts:  trading hubs, fortresses, diplomatic buildings.

More generally, id prefer a complete ruleset for buildings and various modifiable characteristics ( like maximum U storage capacity, structure hp, energy output or whatever they think of) than preset buildings.

Give bases for the building types, and let player create their own types of buildings in a "sandboxy" way. So that everyone dont have the exact same PBS based on min/maxxing.

Example:

*Corp/Alliance A has no ennemies except some weak pirates, they are a trading empire, based on market to build their power. They need many storage capacity but not much defense for their trading hubs but they need a real stronghold to keep the precious stuff (i am supposing PBS can be destroyed and their stock can be pillaged. If it was me i would suppress NICS entirely and would only put common plasmas as main currency, that would be real sandboxeness for everyone, but back on topic), fearing another strong alliance would putsh them and steal all their assets.

*Corp/Alliance B like to fight and get (or lose) new grounds often.  They prefer to have their ressources homogeneously split for each fortress they have. But they need big production plants for all the stuff they blow up.

Now how do i see it:

Each structure has a fixed amount of empty "slots", and can be "fitted" like a bot (blueprint style, need to be arranged BEFORE building it, and once its build it cant be changed.

For example:

*Outpost:                                                 5 slots
*Fortress:                                                10 slots
*Headquarters, homebase or whatever: 20 slots

Each structure has a different base cost.

Now the "modules":

*Storage capacity
*Repair facility
*Refinery
*Production facility
*Market (could limit type/number of buy/sell orders...  or not)
*RE facility
*Power plant (OR if they decide to make separate building power plants connected to PBS, then forget this one.)
*Plating
*Shield capacitor
*All you can think of that would be internal to big PBS. No turrets etc...

Now the result:

Corp/alliance A would make lets say for trading hubs, Fortresses, with maybe one or more market (depending on the gamedesign for those ones), and many storage slots. But the HQ would have many plating and shield and some facilities.

Corp/alliance B would make many outposts, with only some storage, some plating and good shield defense for timezone holes defense.  Their HQ would have many facilities and medium/good defense.

A mining hub could be created with storage, refinery and some plating.

Each building "modules" would have a level with exponential cost and more slots usages.

Refinery I  : low cost and 1 slot use
Refinery IV: very high cost and 5 slots use

A modular approach for buildings and a complex ruleset for interaction could make a great sandbox combo for PBS imo

All number are just for the example nothing well tough out.  But id far prefer a system where each building is unique, and things have to be tough out before building, than a system like a rts game base development. But i may be asking a bit too much...

I had never made any mission since release. I made up my UASD standings to 6.1 for the last combat spark in one rush (several days).  IMO its just a poorly designed time sink grind. Money/standing reward for same level missions are inconsistent to say the least... Example: missions lvl 5 on karapyth for UASD.  One of them asks you to destroy 5 arbiter mechs/ewar mechs and recover data consoles. Reward 0.05  ; then you have another one that asks you to kill 16 elite rams, 8 supreme tarantulas, 8 supreme coyotes. Reward 0.03 .....  it take around 4 more time (with good fitting/extension and ammos..) to do the later, and reward is inferior? Who the hell did design this?  Every level of green combat missions its the same.

And i dont even talk about walls and locked beta islands...  So you gamedesigner decided one player could be denied access to maximum standing if not in good alliance/corp??  All that is a bit too much, i made this expecting combat standing will have some use in the future but certainly not for a minor bonus in dmg and crit..

So give use to combat standings please  thx

With this idea the gropho and mesmer would have 7 autocannons

So YOU can argue about 2 "key mistakes" that the devs made while implementing walls. YOU can say some of their ideas are 'just stupid", but I need to go make a game if i know better (or differently said STFU). Get down of your high horse Anni please....

The funniest thing is you essentially say mostly the same thing as i said just 6 posts after mine, while having contradicted it just 2 posts after mine. Show some consistency when you want to roleplay the "almighty spirit of gamedesign on the forum" type of guy.

But hey, seems we agree about the walls so... /thread for me.

If i was to make that kind of low level non constructive criticism on forum, i could have made it for monthes.

Funny that for once and as soon as  the less blood thirsty part of the community start to defend its point of view, it become arrogant and selfish.

Look at the forum. Its always been the other way around man. YOU are incredibly arrogant to judge your fellow player camarade about his feeling of the game.

Yeah but as i already said, some dont want the "age of empires" to replace "age of barbarians". They simply dont consider the game is more than mine>kill, cant get their head out of the full loot ffa pvp "deathmacth" type of gameplay, only with some grind for sustaining it.   I know for sure some other so called "sandboxes" who catered too much for the "free kill" crowd, now its a no mans land.

Dont get me wrong, ffa full loot im all for it. But with some "meaning" beyond that. Not just mindless roams, i kill your riveler, you kill my symbiont...   How could some play as "pirates" or "outlaws", if there is not a beginning of "civilized land"?

Dazamin you imply that Arga only wants to mine in peace? Im 100% sure you are wrong.  Imo, Arga just wants to play a level higher than the roaming tribes we got now. Cause your so loved pvp style began to steam, even before any wall was constructed.

What i think would help balance wall (that has already been suggested):

-No auto building up. Each wall has to be built entirely. So you add a time sink to the money sink. Only that would help greatly not spamming.

-Walls are easier to destroy, but the wall tile stay as long as the owner (with a new "area owning system linked to OP") dont want to destroy it, with a new window to handle all that (Devs at one point or another you'll have to create some UI to support PBS, heres a good chance to begin). The tile itself is costy(and also very long to deploy... again time sink good for lowering spam). The "building up" is more of a time sink, but not much money involved.

-When a wall is attacked, the owners are alerted (but not wich one is attacked, only the area where its attacked) The bigger your wall network, the harder to find the attacking point (without a good probe network to back it up).

-For the love of all gods, you should have introduced GATES at the very moment you introduced walls. With a system of ally/neutral/ennemies filtering. Walls without gates?? Does it ever existed in human civilization?

-TARGETABLE WALLS!!!  Why not?? Everything mobile or static should be targeted and shooted at. If a single castel wants to go to some beta island, lock a wall , then shoot it for 3 hours until it is destroyed, it should be possible.

I dont see any good reason not to do it. THAT would balance the "spam like a beast" kind of behaviors with walls. Bombs are just... unadapted. Cause you have to make them big and costy to balance them (prevent other "ab"uses). But that render them unpratical in roams, even big ones.

One more time Arga you manage to explain it clearly. Not gamebreaking, game changers.  But all the fuss with whiner is tha they dont want the game to change. They like the good ol' light ewar roaming. That is getting a bit boring for everyone. I like walls, they are game changing, and the game needs change.

Devs are trying to get us out of the dark ages, where tribes and pirates control the world. We want empires. We want the Wall Of China. To stop the mongols.  So shut up upset mongols. The wall is there

What i would like to see is a new class of items, structure components. Each PBS would then need a certain sum of each new components to be created. More simply, actually we have Raw materials>Commodities>Product.

For player build structures, add a layer in crafting:  Raw materials>Commodities>Modular architectural parts>building.

In essence, the exact same idea as Line (wich it seems to be the way the majority of us want to see the PBS introduced), but with the construction modules, you dont use charges or just accu, you use in fact manufactured building parts.

So you need to produce the parts, haul them (very big volume), its better than simply commodities, could add a level of strategy, and certainly could be a new space in market where indies could make their life.  So add building parts, tradable and needed for PBS.  Then each PBS could need different quantities of say ten more item types.

Youve chosen your side then. The other side shall post here http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … -the-devs/

They are in difficulty, no need to have invented wheel to see that. Do they have support?  Yes they have, and support that will endure the ddos as long as it needs (soon).

Makes me laugh peoples that "threaten" to stop subbing. Honestly man, do whatever you want, some see the light at the end of the tunnel. You just mingled it with some artificial neon tube.

And one more

Yeah good speach Lupus.  Clear and mature. Resubbing too.