Celebro wrote:

Can you all just mine something and get along. We asked the Devs for much needed PVE content and a new player experience , theirs enough PVP tools for a while. Yeah siege mechs and the like sounds cool, but don't hold your breath too long, Rex.

But But I would go hunting rats in my shiny new siege bot too.

Rex Amelius wrote:

Seems odd to use the building of a structure as a means to breach defenses. I saw another thread about Chaos undocking from base over and over to enter enemy base. That seems odd as well.

Are there siege mechs in the works yet? Rather than all this nerfing, how about providing attackers some new tools? Perhaps some anti-terraforming siege weapon that can blast down walls...

Just saying. Looking forward to seeing more of these mechanics up close rather than from my current forum seat. See you in game soon...

Get out Rex, sane discussion and ideas are not welcome here.

Get out.   fuuu

Annihilator wrote:

tux's post misses one thing:

the prerequisites for MECHS should be adjusted accordingly. the best spectrum of choices below mech class doest help, if its just
1 lvl basic robotics (1200 EP)
+ 1 lvl advanced robotics (420 EP)
+ 4 lvl faction robot conrol (7560 EP)
= 9180 EP total to start your gaming experience in a mech, instead of a light bot.

that you cannot drive it efficiently doesnt matter, since its the same with the assault that you could drive with the same ep invested...

BUT Nerfing mechs isn't an option anyway... It comes down to give bots and mechs a distinct different role with SIMILAR options to specialize (as oppositte from bigger is always better if you can afford it)

No Tux didn't miss anything, his points are precise and what this game needs.

Tux's Post defines what would make this game 100 Percent more funner, yes funner.

Do that and this will be one step toward success.


(81 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dan wrote:

I don't care what kind of mechanic will use the game, subscription payment keeps stupid kids away. At least some tongue

And clearly what this game needs is to keep people away.  tongue

Syndic wrote:

How about writing a comprehensive guide on how you beloved hungarian people want us to play the game we're paying for so we don't get anymore suprisebuttsecks after we sink a few billion NIC into terraforming. roll

I mean, thats what the core problem is right? You want us to play the game the way you want us to play, we're playing it in a different way. So please give us a comprehensive guide on how you want us to play and then everyone can decide if they want to play your way.

Cause this is just demoralizing for the whole server.

This guide is coming, completion date is scheduled for 2325, eta is still on time.

It has cool popup pictures, with shiny things as well.

I almost wish this was a joke, but anymore its becoming more a reality.

Whys wrote:

just make the gamma tp like the internal one in beta. when you use them they send you a bit out of the destination teleport and not just right under.

this way there is no jump and jump and jump for perma protection between 2 island.

I think this would most likely be the best idea, a overall balance between completely removing it, and removing gate camping scouts.


Arga wrote:

Simply put, if you don't want ganked or killed, then don't go to gamma's, they should be reserved for TOTAL PVP, in any fashion the player can come up with.

That's a simplistic view, simply put.

Everything in PVP has to be balanced. If you want to call a TP a total PVP point, then you have to remove ALL the mechanics, including the destabilization. And even then, its a contrived choke point. If islands were arena PVP maps, there's no way the map would allow one team setup on the other's spawn point, before the game even started.

Suggestions that add risk for both attackers and defenders are balanced, suggestions that simply make defending/camping better, are not.

Comparing Perpetuum PVP to any arena PVP is a complete waste of time, in arena PVP things are made to be balanced (in terms of numbers, as well as possibly gear), in a sandbox PVP the last thing you want as a attacker (or defender) is to agress someone on their terms, or having a equal fight. 

Now that that is cleared up, to the topic at hand.
I'm all for the total removal of everything from Gamma to Gamma connections, I think that would be a wonderful thing.

I think your looking at this from a single side, lets say Agra and Merkle go out on a roam looking from some sexy kills.  We know a hostile force has been moving a heavy amount of indy bots in and off a certain tele.  Thus we setup a log off trap, with a friendly eye watching for movement.

Now there are two (simplest terms as its usually how it will happen) ways this could turn out.

The first is our friendly eye calls the target (a rivs with rivs friends, no escort) we log in and gank said target.  We now flagged up on a hostile island, attempting to de-flag and run, and we do, escaping successfully.

The second is nearly the same scenario, our eye calls the targets, we log in, and start to attack the targets, we are now flagged up on a hostile gamma, now the defenders log in, or mobile tele in, or even run in off a masking tower.  Now the tables have turned completely from a 100% advantage to the attackers to a much more favorable advantage to the defenders.  The defenders wipe Arga and Merkle, and both rivs made it out safely as the attackers were both flagged up and unable to jump out.

The techniques of both scenarios are valid, they are well within the game mechanics, as well as, they both take time to hash out, using multiple players, working together for a common goal.

Both are using the same set of rules, I do believe tho that the server DOES need a small protection JUST for loading purposes ONLY.

If we all want a game where scouting is 100 % percent free on gates, then it should be kept as it is, I personally do not want it that way, its gives attackers too much power to simply watch a gamma tele with zero risk, in a fully PVP zone.

Another solution would be to make all gammas have massive throw out radius.
Just a thought.

Personally I'm ok with as little of protection as possible, most of all of you are assuming is that you should be able to get onto a hostel island safely.

I don't think this should be the case at all.  People should have to work a bit to attack AND defend, and both attackers AND defenders should not have a safe place where they can jump back and forth all day long, waiting for reinforcements.

This idea of gate camping is a fact that IS happening now and will continue to happen, personally, for betas to alphas, and gamma to beta's your hands should be held just a little bit, however for gamma to gamma connections, your hand should not be held at all.

Simply put, if you don't want ganked or killed, then don't go to gamma's, they should be reserved for TOTAL PVP, in any fashion the player can come up with.

Arga wrote:

I'm not going to outright disagree with this.

However, shortened protection on the external TP's would give players on the gate a significant advantage.

Where this would be most prevelent is the G1/G7 Islands just off beta, not at the B-G TP, but at the next G-G Teleport. Any corp setting up on these Islands could easily setup login traps at the (2) G-G TP's, and make access to the gamma strings much much risker than it would be with the existing timing.

I see the additional Risk here, but I don't see an offset for additional reward; other than rewarding the gate campers with additional kills, but their risk has not increased; the gate campers do have a risk, but the protection timer doesn't effect that risk.

The result of shortened timers, would be to give Gamma Island owners a greate ability to lock-down not only their Island, but access to any connected Island.

Again, I'm not saying the time shouldn't be reduced, or possibly even removed, simply that the consequence of that change will be to make gate camping highly prevalent, and possibly even mandatory, on gamma Islands.

Edit: "Merkle Trap ^2"

I would respond to this, by thinking of the tele is just a extension of gamma.  If all of these islands were all together with no tele's there would be no protection whatsoever.

However, I do understand there is a natural choke point with the tele's thus I do believe there should be "some" protection, however, it should NOT be 100% as it is now, the protection is there just so the player can load his or her environment, and then make decisions from that point.

Another example is, lets say I do set a log off trap with a set of eyes on gamma, I see my target, I log in and kill said target.  Its gamma a full pvp zone thus I'm within my rights, my question, why should a gamma to gamma tele have such a great protection power, it needs to have just enough so players can load and make decisions on what they see.

As for the, well this island has beta connections and this island doesn't, to that I would say WONDERFUL, this is a GOOD thing, that means that not all of the islands are of equal value, and who knows, people might fight over said valued islands.

TDRL: Protection on gammas needs to only be there so that the player can load his/her client, and then make decisions.  It should not be used as another tool in PVP, again this is only for Gamma to Gamma connections.

Is it possible to have the protection timers on all gamma tele's reduced?

To me this would only make sense as this is a hostel place to run to anyway, so can we make it a less friendly "noob" environment, as well as its going to be extremely difficult to get any scouts into a side gamma, not to mention it will be impossible to kill a gate scout with 100% protection.

I don't want it to be reduced to zero, but give it just a bit more risk v. reward, then attackers will have a chance to kill a scout, and defenders will have a chance to kill attackers on the gate.

Personally I would like to see at the level of internal tele's on beta, maybe just a bit less.

This would ONLY pertain to Gamma to Gamma connections, NOT Gamma to Beta connections.


Khader Khan wrote:

Ok +1 if you get a 5% demob effect as well wink cant have a good with out a bad

I can agree with that, as it simply makes sense.

Line wrote:

If kernels, then common ones only - no observers or scarabs, they should stay at least a little challenge to obtain.

I think all of them but Observers, scarabs should be in there as they are part of the "normal" grouping.

Again the prices would be a hot topic for the DEV's to handle.  I DO like the new structure kernels being seeded on this market, I do hope however, that if a building gets killed it will drop kernels as well.

With the new and up coming changes, I would personally like to see all types of kernels be seeded on the Syndicate Supplies.

I wouldn't think this would negatively effect trade, if anything it would just make the tokens that much more prized, as well as make kernels just a bit easier to obtain, and thus more tech on market so on and so on.

As far a what price for what, well I'll let the Dev's have that one.



(2 replies, posted in Testing server)

The new roaming npcs do not seem to have scarabs included.

Please add them so that others can continue there research.


As topic says, its a bit of nothing new at all.  Would be nice if the water edges would give a slight masking bonus (as we are sitting in the water).

And when I mean slight, I mean slight, 5 % or so, just adds another layer to the tactical end of things.



(0 replies, posted in Testing server)

When a Module effects a bots stat in a negative way, this stat should be shown in a RED color state, and NOT the current blue form.


If your using A ECM Tuner, the ACC of 93.50 should be shown in the status window as : Accumulator Consumption 93.50   < Being Effected in a Negative way.

A small change, that shouts a lot of information at you.

For Energy Neuts said mod is working properly.

For Energy Drainers, the Drainer/Neut accumulator usage 10% isn't being added onto the T4 energy drainers.

As in, its still 15 AP and it should be a bit higher.



(4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Not to mention, this would open up tones of new pathways, as well as TONES of new PVE and PVP opportunity, BUT that is in the future.

You make this happen and you have a instant hit on your hands, I'm taking tunnels that beacons would open up, baddys spawn and awesome loots rain like candy.

I might be a really good thing if you would please list what you didn't like, or didn't get fixed.


(24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

ghostttr wrote:

I dont think there should be more bots for the sake of having more bots. But bots should be more differentiated, and some added where roles are missing.

*NPC ewar needs to be more along racial lines than current. Blue needs to ECM, green needs to neut, and red needs to sensor supress.

*We need a shuttlebot, something speedy to go from point a to b.

*The nexus bonus on the scarab is nice, maybe we can get similar bonuses for other races?

All fixed!  (its already like that, I know its a terrible thing and all.)

Nexus bot - Why not.

Shuttlebot - its called a light bot, we already have those wink

: ) A call for shooting peoples buildings in there off time zone perhaps?

I truly pity you Zoom, as this task of balancing is a uphill climb.

Ludlow Bursar wrote:

Here are some more stats for April 2012. Apologies for the zero-filling but tables are turned off in the bbcode so this was the best way to make things readable on the forum (believe me its much worse without the zeros). Once again feel free to make nice graphs and charts from the numbers.

I was quite suprised by these numbers so I had to check them to make sure...

Damage Dealt/Bot Type Total - Num of Dealers (Avg per kill): Bot Type
646,623.06 - 472 (1,369.96): Artemis < Stupid Red sad
272,267.89 - 255 (1,067.72): Kain < I dont use those anymore Do I?
251,103.81 - 244 (1,029.11): Tyrannos < WHAT!!! fuuu
135,438.65 - 092 (1,472.16): Kain Mk2 < Merkle
127,171.48 - 050 (2,543.43): Mesmer Mk2 < Merkle

At least you can see some corps do have a big impact on what happens in the game.

And Red sucks btw.

If you change the Kain then the Mesmer also will need adjusted as well.  It faces the same problems, however, more people use Kain's so the Mesmer's problems will remain hidden until then.

Kain's as they stand right now are extremely situational, and you best hope they decide to shoot something other then the Kain your driving, as it has always been paper thin, at least in comparison to any Artemis.

Does it need a buff, that I'm not so sure on, does it need the Optimal range Bonus instead?  A long long time ago it had that bonus, it was changed as it was deemed too overpowered.  Is that still the case, time will tell if it changed.


(40 replies, posted in Balancing)

Sundial wrote:
0110011100001111001010001 wrote:
Sundial wrote:

Being the slowest generally is not a good thing for small PvP because it does not allow you to dictate engagements / run away easily.

Your wrong on this...if your running your doing something wrong in the first place.

No, you are wrong.

When you are going to be outnumbered (doing small PvP), it is best to make a quick strike and move on to the next island.

In fact I almost always see the Notum Pirates using this tactic.


In fact nearly everyone on the sever does this.