(18 replies, posted in Balancing)

Line wrote:

Well, actually, Velo Nexus almost became "must have" so there is some point in his words. I mean, look - every single tackler has it - ok fine. Every hauler fits it - well, why, ok. Now there were combat mechs with it - but hey, wouldn't that be better to have a specialized bot for that? Maybe those brand new Ewar Sindybots - why don't you make them specialized in Nexuses? Like, extended range, reduced fitting requirements, less power consumption, or even reduce overall nexus efficiency while giving Ewar Sindybots some role bonus for them.


Good to see someone else see it.

I really wish OTHERS would stop taking stuff so personally, and look out for the betterment of the game.


(18 replies, posted in Balancing)

Drive By Merkle Post.
Remove these from the game, as you did navigation.

Will get flamed, don't care.

Drive By Merkle Post Over.


(28 replies, posted in Balancing)

Illiathos wrote:
Merkle wrote:

I would tend to agree with Line.  The way of balancing is not to add in a diceroll, or RNG element to EnWar, but rather to take a second look and do some tweaking where is needed.

Then we dont need crit chance whatsoever. Not even on weapons.

Then you have missed what I am attempting to convey.

This would need to be fixed first, EI removal.  Then re-balance EnWar, with the idea of critial's in mind.

Currently all weapons are balanced around the same principal.  As with what Anni stated.  This is within what the Dev's have designed, however the current crits with "other mods" are not suppose to be happening.

Now speaking on game mechanics particular.  The addition of crits to certain mods can really throw the game out of balance quite fast.  Reason being, specifically, with higher numbers (1500 on neuts) begot higher crits (2000 crits).


(80 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Make Mining and Harvesting AOE?


(5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I was running around as well, having no idea what is what anymore and thought about a simple idea.

You click where you want to go, anywhere in the world. 

Set a waypoint, or another term.

The game client shows you the correct teleports that you need to take by highlighting them in a different color.

This would be great for average players, and group play.


(28 replies, posted in Balancing)

I would tend to agree with Line.  The way of balancing is not to add in a diceroll, or RNG element to EnWar, but rather to take a second look and do some tweaking where is needed.


(15 replies, posted in Balancing)

The difference I feel, is that the lower levels in EVE go quite fast, and the others move slower.

In Perp, its a slow and steady push.  It doesn't feel terribly engaging, or rewarding at all.   I feel as you can out pace your EP, before you hit more challenging missions.

The ease of getting standings, agreed, as we are both Vets, and lower missions are basically nothing for us to do.


(15 replies, posted in Balancing)

Yes, I fully understand how the current systems works. 

I would hope that a quick look could be taken at this, to make it a little less of a grind, and more of a obtainable goal.


(15 replies, posted in Balancing)

Right now, I think the relation gain is just too small.

We need a bit more progression.  I am doing around 75 missions, to get to the next level.  This is with all relation skills at lvl 7.  Newer players do not have that luxry.  So they would be around 100 at least.

I would like to see newer players move up the ladder at around 50 missions, with boost and mission bonus's, but with out skills.


(9 replies, posted in Q & A)

Personally, I hope this is possible.

Zortarg wrote:

one major problem are the 3 stats on weapon tunings. and all 3 increase the dps. influencing each other and in combination by the way its calculated it increases dps eponentially.

so the solution besides changeing the formula would be to change it to one stat:
- firearms: + ROF (autocannos are all about getting more bullets on the target)
- em guns: +DMG (EM is all about more dmg. boosting the magnetic field for more power also sounds resonable)
- laser: +Crit (yellows are all about crit...)
- missile: + ROF (a missile warhead dont does more dmg... but boosting ROF on a missile launcher sounds resonable) (wanted to go with range, but that would be just another range extender...)

make all weapons T1 with no Bonuses! no +%dmg ...
can give bonuses with increasing tech lvl.

These solutions would give out more specific roles for each bot color, yet simplify on the PVP.

One concern, the bonus need to be high enough to incentivize users to use the tuners in the first place, yet not need a full rack of them.

I think this is on the correct direction of balance, and simplification.

One major draw back, then entire system would have to be reworked in-order to make this viable.

If the prices go up, I will become extremely rich, instantly.

I am indifferent on this issue.  As most will adapt, after sparks are removed.

This anomaly idea has TONS of potential. 

You can go many directions, in PVE, and PVP with this simple idea.


(16 replies, posted in Q & A)

Awesome, does this mean its a Go?

Or Test Server First?


(16 replies, posted in Q & A)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

whats the difference between static field terminals, and player beeing within predefined regions?

If you mean that you would get the mission from the nearest field terminal using its location as starting point, then nothing.

This is something I think would work well.  It would either choose, A - The Closest Terminal, or B - The Closest Infield Terminal.

On beta's, have a toggelable warning, saying you may not be-able to access the terminal due to lockout restrictions.

Have a "ok" button, with a check-mark of "do not show again".

Thoughts, concerns?


(56 replies, posted in Balancing)

How this could be fixed, would be to speed everything else, Up.

Reasoning behind this would be to keep the flow of the game alive and faster pace, rather then a return to slower paced battles.

Or a slight nerf, and a slight buff might be the good middle ground.

Zoom, is it possible to let us mix and match uppers and lowers on the test server so we can get a idea of the looks of the possibility?

Or could you do it for us and post some pictures?


(16 replies, posted in Q & A)

Is there a logical, or back-end reason that we cannot ask for a "new" mission in the field without Mission Terminals, or hubs?

What I am asking is for a way of doing things differently.

All of us run out, and run missions then return, why can we not just ask for a new mission right after we complete a mission, sort of a continuation of the mission.

Do we not have the technology of Wi-Fi?

Or is their a more specific reason the back-end, or a balancing aspect I am not looking at?

To the List You Go!

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Lucian Cain wrote:

Exploit, Exploit!  HAHA!  QQ! Exploit!   no its called playing the game even when its messed up.  QQ! Exploit!

Double posting is the sign of a very bad poster mate.

Confirming Gunner is Terrible Poster.


(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

How the *** isn't this fixed yet.

Waiting TWO DAYS, doesn't do ***.  Roll it back for fix the dam thing.

The silence thing isn't going to help your case either.


(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

Told them about it.  Said *** it and patched it anyway!

Good Work Devs. roll

I cannot get it to load it just hangs at connecting.

4 MB, Mid US. 

Saw both fleets client dropped.

Logged in couldn't move for the rest of the time.

Your calculation is introducing huge amounts of error.  Or De Sync.