You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Search options (Page 2 of 23)
DEV Zoom wrote:I could be proven wrong but to my knowledge we don't have such a mechanic. Actually one of the points of emergency phases is that it gives you the time to get the hell out of there with your buildings if you think you don't stand a chance.
Just checking in to lol
Celebro wrote:Have you guys ever thought they might be trying to build a solid base for future balancing, new bots or t5?
I don't believe for a minute there is a plan, just waking up and pissing in the wind.
Annihilator wrote:Rex Amelius wrote:Some will be nerfed while others buffed indirectly
hey, thats the answer to the topic title 
gz
Yeah, but I doubt the Devs have any clue which will go what way.
DEV Zoom wrote:Remember the big bad wolf called "EP gap"? Look for the answer there.
OMFG ...you are changing the extensions from 5% to 3% to 'close' the EP gap!? Since when is that an issue for you guys? You have always stood behind your EP structure. Now suddenly, hey this is the answer?
If every robot had the exact same bonus there might be something to the argument, but as each has a different bonus they will each be affected differently. Some will be nerfed while others buffed indirectly
Again and again you guys find sledge hammer solutions without truly defining the problem. I would prefer you just wipe the damn server for EP gap than this *** change.
I have no more hope for this game. Whatever happens happens. If one day I'm pleasantly surprised, great, but I doubt it.
Burial wrote:Supremacy wrote:Just a reminder for next next patch
"EW mechs’ main role is to disrupt from the distance, this means an EW module optimal range bonus for them."
DEV Zoom wrote:We have revised that idea based on a flood of tears from Burial and they will get a factional weapon cycle time bonus instead 
This
Yeah, we all know who generates the tears that influence the Devs. Plus fixed the post.
DEV Zoom wrote:Supremacy wrote:Just a reminder for next next patch
"EW mechs’ main role is to disrupt from the distance, this means an EW module optimal range bonus for them."
We have revised that idea based on feedback and they will get a factional weapon cycle time bonus instead
Cool, so now I can finally solo that Kain 
Can't say whether it's better or worse as its both. You did not need to mess with loot. You did not need to involve the SAP itself. It will at least be interesting how this plays out. Only thing for sure is that cortex prices going up.
Inside the mind of incoherent rubbish. OP is pointless.
Burial wrote:Jita wrote:I do think ewar range seems a bit crazy really - it's already over 700m for ECM and close to a thousand for supressors with no range extenders. I see a lot of farlock nexus and detector zenith mk2s coming.
I'd add a fall-off to EW modules. That way they could be used over longer distance but with weaker effectiveness.
Because you're still thinking of current mechanics. Everything is changing. And with eventual stacking change who knows what that will do to range.
DEV Zoom wrote:Annihilator wrote:2. overall module stacking will be changed (zoom yesterday in GC)
Don't mix that into this patch, as it requires a larger mechanic overhaul.
Given stacking mechanics change could significantly affect bots and fits it seems premature to re balance all bots without addressing it. Won't you just have to re balance again?
Burial wrote:Supremacy wrote:That one worked out your way didnt it.
Burial wrote:Even more range to EW mechs? Seriously?
I like most of the changes and improvements and think they will work out great and provide some interesting fittings and fights, but I don't understand why EW mechs need even further buffs.
- They are faster than combat mechs and heavies.
- Don't need line of sight.
- Superior range with 29% EW range nexus.
- Sturdier than LWF+plate mech.
- Natural RSA with eachother.
And developers think more range is needed.
I'm surprised by this as well, but ONLY, and I mean ONLY because the forum has been long graffiti'd with YOUR suggestion to nerf it.
Frankly I do not know if it is good or bad, but keep in mind that it comes with re-balance to all bots and classes. So chill out homie.
DEV Zoom wrote:We've actually pondered a similar concept a while ago, which would be about different robot states, like traveling mode (fast speed but practically no combat capabilities), combat mode (like it is currently), slow/stealth mode (lower speed, masking/accuracy increase), some sort of recovery mode (complete stop, but vastly increased masking and repair/recharge).
Sounds interesting. Too bad there are so many other things need a coding. Perhaps we'll see something like that ~someday~ with new bots, new mods, new robot classes (siege/destroyer) and the eventual colixium-based manufacturing requirements.
Meanwhile how bout PVE Revamp and dem Sparks on Beta ...remove.
Celebro wrote:On an other note, we were promised a monthly blog, just a reminder
Yeah
Smokeyii wrote:Gwyndor wrote:You're right, excluding people was.
We tried to talk to you about spies, and ya'll didn't want to listen... and there were only like 2 ops you weren't invited on. Every other time we invited you, you showed up late, in the wrong bots, and there were 20,000 "Where are we going?" questions even though we plainly stated where and when to be somewhere, you couldnt manage to get even a couple guys in position ahead of time.
Sounds like real leadership. I hear its also effective to tell your corpies and allies how much they suck and how all YOUR failures are their fault.
Supremacy wrote:I like how people who dont put lots of time in attacking or defending saps and taking timers 24/7 think they have the experience to decide what is a lot of work or effort .....
I've complained about the auto defense point accumulation from Day One of Intrusion 2.0.
I've not made the full time job of taking SAP times others have but I know far well enough about it. And there are only 3 reasons to get SAP times.
1.) You want to attack a SAP (pvp)
2.) You want to get the loot
3.) You want to defend the SAP & you anticipate an attack (typically only lower points)(pvp)
Otherwise Outpost owners can care less about half measure attempts and ninja looters because Defender can take a nap for 24 - 48 hours and it's back to 100. But if owner had to ALSO get SAP time EVERY single time someone ninja'd the SAP otherwise watch points whittle away, you would see far less of current monopoly.
This change does not slow down an attacker, it helps the attacker for those missed attack opportunities that attackers lose ground on. This really only affects those outposts you can't care less about anyway
Combined with spark Beta nerf you would not see Dominating Power monopoly unless they really really wanted it.
Point is to make it harder to own multiple outpost, not impossible.
Supremacy wrote:The check is opponents hitting it .....
Gwyndor wrote:DEV Zoom wrote:If we want to have a proper island presence requirement (as it was the initial concept), then 1 click that 1 guy does in a blink of an eye doesn't cut it. That doesn't require any effort.
And yes, the defenders will have the opportunity to do the SAPs fast and forget about it, but that just means that anyone who wants to take the base needs to be there on time and duke it out with the defenders. Fast and simple, isn't that what we want?
I think what is being asked for is some sort of check in by the defenders to say they actively use it. They would still need to defend it for the whole hour to get the defense.points and loot but if no one shows up at all th3n there shouldn't be any loot or change in stability.
1.) Why would opponents hit it to give there enemy points?
2.) It should only be accessible by corp that owns outpost.
Let me break down how simple this change is I'm suggesting...
Current System
Anyone takes SAP, corp owner loses points
No one takes SAP, hour runs down, corp owner gains points
Clicky Presence System
Anyone takes SAP, corp owner loses points
No one takes SAP, corp owner gains points ONLY if corp member clicks the clicky during the one hour SAP window.
No change to loot drops.
Syndic wrote:The current problem is there is nobody playing this game & interested enough in a station to capture one.
How did ND get a station? They cared more about getting it then we cared about keeping it.
Beta Incentives Issue is nothing new. Nor should it be ignored forever.
Significant reason people don't come to Beta is that they will be stomped in minutes with Sparks. Once station is captured owner can walk away.
Limit sparks and add small activity to SAP defense AUTO POINT ACCUMULATION. It won't change Beta overnight but a month of dealing with SAP timers and NINJA SAP offensive will bore a Dominating Power into a Region it wants, rather than the whole Damn map.
I don't necessarily think it will increase PvP in short run. But more likely than now others will venture to Beta for to be roamed. If it does not work how much harm could it do?
What will be hurt?
Jasmoba wrote:It should be Faction Base if you really wanna stop the current problem
1) 1 spark in alpha, beta, and gamma. Faction base you can only choose 1 path. This should stop having all alpha 2 because from alpha 2 is very simple to reach a beta
2) Each spark will only unlock if you have certain relation. Relation 2 for first spark Relation 4 for second spark and 6 for third spark
3) In order to unlock all 3 sparks you have to level your relation with that faction.
4) You can only have one path at the time. IF you already level all factions to 6 you can only choose 3 sparks same faction no mixing.
5) Spark extension to be remove and EP refunded. No more point base spark system just 3 ports and done
I don't see anything fixing this problem 100%. I have 4 accounts combat capable so if sparks get nerf i can still park an agent in different places. Many of us have more than just 4 accounts regardless of your political stand.
By using relations at least will make ppl 1) use mission system 2) got something to do
Of course because my corp tag nothing mentioned above works for the game
Absent mind numbing relation grinding I think RACE restricted sparks is an acceptable compromise to Power Projection. Only have access to 1/3 of the map at a time. And if you want your alts fielding the other races so be it, don't access your main Gamma resources and outposts.
DEV Zoom wrote:Let's not forget that currently it's only "no effort" because hardly anyone wants those bases, so the defenders can just not care.
Beta Incentive is huge issue but players still want outposts
Intrusion System needs full revamp but we can't just ignore Beta until then
I agree that 5% here and 5% there is not always the best approach to every problem. But the real core issue is substantial lack of developer resources.
Prioritize the big revamps and fill in the cracks in the meantime.
PVE and missions is most important revamp issue given it direct tie to population and retention.
Intrusion System can be patched for now
DEV Zoom wrote:If we want to have a proper island presence requirement (as it was the initial concept), then 1 click that 1 guy does in a blink of an eye doesn't cut it. That doesn't require any effort.
And yes, the defenders will have the opportunity to do the SAPs fast and forget about it, but that just means that anyone who wants to take the base needs to be there on time and duke it out with the defenders. Fast and simple, isn't that what we want?
It's plenty of effort to track your SAP time and be there. Even if you don't see that as significant effort. It's infinity mote effort than current NO EFFORT system.
A proper island presence requirement is a compete Intrusion Overhaul, which is necessary. But you guys don't have time for that. My suggestion is a temporary measure to address SEVERELY broken Beta.
Two changes
No sparks Beta
Clicky requirement
Whole new game map.
Ville wrote:Burial wrote:Anyone owning a station can either be there or not to increase the stability. If they aren't there then they aren't supposed to hold the station either.
It only affects easy-moders who want to own as much as possible with as little effort as possible while fishing in ArcheAge.
Back to the elephant in the room. So at what point is the difference between 24 hour coverage of an island and "dude, some people got a job and need sleep"? I hate to tell you people but if we had a chance to do our own saps then you'd end up having Race Drones being the wealthiest person in game in a month.
If you use Burials suggestions about a loot item dropping an item to turn into the station now the defender has to actually wait to 0 and hope a ninja arkhe doesn't log in to grief lol the can. I can see it being abused.
These and 10 other reasons are why Defender 'doing' his own SAP is not the idea. Zoom, please see the distinction. A present defender needs to do 'something' anything. Anything BUT the Damn SAP. That comes with huge basket of problems.
***Just add a clicky like the terminals we interact with on missions.*** Perhaps attach one to each outpost. Undock click I'm here. SAP may still have ~Successful Defense~ in exact same manner as today (no attack). But if defender corp does not click the clicky,, then NO POINTS (or significantly reduced points).
And remove sparks from Beta. There is no need for presence with sparks.
DEV Zoom wrote:So I'd say stability simply should stay as it is when the owner doesn't do the SAP, but shouldn't increase on its own.
Just need a little click to register defender presence. 'Doing' the SAP then denies any enemy the opportunity. Plus Specimen SAP blow.
Just a clicky, not the SAP itself. Only attacker should have to do that.
Supremacy wrote:play it for the tears of my opponents
and there is a lot of tears
When the tears run out in one character just create an alt and pretend to be an enemy insider whistleblower.
Perpetuum can blow my whistle.
Perpetuum wrote:Rex on topic my man! Its ok to not push just your ideas, and let others shine with in your own circle of influence.
I understand your hate for sparks and the entire system itself. Sadly I am not as bold, nor am I in the "In" group that is aloud to make these statements.
Dont make me vomit. "In" crowd? I guess that's why you never see me on TS, because I only go to the "in" channel
Perpetuum wrote:Were on the same team.
I don't team up with cowards.
Perpetuum wrote:This is why I have to use a alt to post here, as I would probably get kicked out.
We already own everything, because of sparks.
No need to throw them out, just make them less useful.
We?
Get kicked out for being against nerfing sparks?
Guess that evil CIR77 demands it's minions follow lockstep and you're proof, eh?
NO propaganda alt here. Oh no. Keep posting.
Posts found: 26 to 50 of 567
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.199 seconds (44% PHP - 56% DB) with 6 queries
