DEV Zoom wrote:

The Devs are just trying to keep focus to be honest, otherwise we'll never get back gammas.

I understand your point of view, you want to keep the freedom to do what ever players want, where and how they want it.

Your inexperience to recognize harassment will cost you a few accounts, but hey, if that will keep the CIR and 77 veterans happy, its all good, right ?

because i don't exploit game mechancis that it 100% risk free to mine there?

beeing able to monitor all those teleports 24/7 with audiovisual warning, placing login-trap alt agents in strategic good positions is in your eyes less game breaking then using isboxer seth to farm beacons on alpha?

Annihilator wrote:

the only serious issue i see is the lack of red alpha roams... alpha observers RIP

Another game breaking problem created by 77 and CIR abuse of existing mechanics

Ignoring whatever jobberish hunter attempted to google translate into English...I think the general jist of this frame of mind is one that infests most player.

I think everyone assumed that the game would be super fair.  That both sides would know for a fact the exact numbers and fleet composition of enemies and come with exact equals...that some corporations and alliances would kick friends to the curb to lower numbers and strength to create a partnership of equals among all players. 

It will never work this way.  Its a sandbox.  I know many people have had hurt feelings over the fact that some refuse to throw fights, let others win not based on tactics/intel/skill but on keeping everyone happy.

We have seen time and time again, people who don't dominate in pvp leave the game or go into the shadows posting and chatting only, usually to berate those who are doing well, and to lay blame for whatever issue is at hand.

A game like this needs winners and losers in fights to keep the economy going.  Ore is infinite, most of which can be acquired with ZERO risk.  Losing bots shouldn't be an issue.  Replenishing lost bots keeps the wheels of the game moving...and when people decide to not risk loss...be it to prevent others from getting pvp, or winning, or to prevent asset loss...the rest of the game suffers.  It hurts alpha pve players most.

Anyway.  Im sorry the game didn't turn out into a soccer style tournament tie where everyone wins and all is happy.

We did try to do what was best for the game, without completely faking it by letting people who failed to use all the game has to offer, and to use coordination and tactics, win consistently.

Mutual interests is that the game succeeds.  However, no one is going to play bad on purpose indefinitely so that others who will quit the second they stop winning can stay.

Nothing can be done to resolve this.  Resetting all accounts will leave those with superior coordination and tactics just as strong.  Causing the current batch of strong player to leave will just allow others to rise up in their spot and dominate. 

I know ive well surpassed the attention span of most people here, and most wont even bother to read this. 

There is nothing you can do in a game like this to keep players in game who will quit the second the game doesn't go their way.  All you can do is just play the game as it was meant to be played and enjoy it.  Even if that means you don't win all the time.

People give up way too fast.  People barely try and when it doesn't work out blame others and quit.  Problem is in the players, not the winners who everyone cast blame upon but the losers who seek to find fault in everything but their own attitudes.  Sad thing is most of these people are long time EVE players...so the concept of not being #1 all the time should be baked in and not an issue.  Why is this an issue in perpetuum then?

Promoted more features into the first post:

• ■ Because of the terraform limitations we need to modify mineral spawning, since there will be locations that you won't be able to reach in any way. Currently the idea is to make minerals despawn after a set time and let them respawn according to the current rules.

• ■ Turret balance / damage reduction.

• ■ Deployable walls could be destroyed by normal weapons, but the damage would be propagated along the wall to multiple neighboring wall tiles. This would make it harder to just simply cut a hole into a wall. Of course this would affect beta islands too.

• ■ Gates on the wall. The current idea is to have a 3x3 tile deployable object that has a simple open/close switch. The gate object would need to be harder to destroy than a wall tile. Access control would be relation-based.

• ■ If a friendly attacks a building, all the turrets in the same network need to turn on him.

• ■ No degradation of concrete and wall tiles within areas claimed by buildings. They still take damage as normally.

• ■ More variation in the topology of gamma islands: archipelago type zones, less symmetrical layout, etc.

• ■ Make single-tile terraforming more user-friendly. Height display for tiles for comparison purposes to allow for precise structures.

I think this is now pretty close to what we'd like to achieve for now, regarding basic mechanics.

Also, removed highway nodes as it has now its own topic, and it's not a must for the reopening of gammas.

Well AC has to make money some how.  Quick Dev Alf go Nerf something else so the entire playerbase buys credits to respec into something else!

So your reducing detectors range, are you intandeum reducing masking?