176

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

Its far from game over.

What will happen is "Hey guys were beat, log off for 12 hours and then get out."   Your completely underestimating the determination of the player.  As well as before you log in...you scout with something, unless your a complete idiot, which, Hell, will happen.

You choose that as its 100 % safe, verse, I will take my chances.

If your wanting to do the "aggression" thing, will work both ways, on all teleports, internals and externals.

If you do the timer you nerf all mobility of a fleet, but I'm not saying that is a bad or good thing.



Also I do wish to point out, this will make any fast lock bot the way to go.  Have him on a tele, wait for a hauler to move off to plant there tele, log in, agress, kill.

177

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ok, solution proposal #3:

You can't teleport while you're in combat, but NPCs won't aggro while you have molecular instability.
This means you can escape from NPCs if you pay attention, however PvP teleport camps are deadly.


I really hope you know what your implying here, and how dangerous that this will truly be.

178

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

Correct it works anywhere you want it to.

I'm going to call it a feature just for tonight.

179

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

They have a few minutes to jump back in, drop there timer, and do the process all over again.

Yay!

180

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

Mr. Zoom you never said if we can do it or not.

I ask as this is very similar to a "problem" that Eve had, yet it was used, everyone knew about it, yet it took about 4 years to get fixed.   In the mean time safety was quite easy.


I'm sure its not easy, but if you have a flag you go through no matter what happens, period.

181

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

So is this consider a exploit or not?  As we have already observed several players use this on multiple occasions.

As basically if it's not were just run around in stuff and then run to a external when we want to stop PVP'ing, with 100% safety.

I would agree with keeping the PVP flag through islands, it really opens the game up on multiple levels for everyone involved.

I do hope you can find a novel way to fix it!

182

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

Burial wrote:

I would personally add a reinforcement to literally every structure in the game. That way the defenders have 3 days to get their sh*t together at a time suitable for them.


I would suggest you add them to all structures, yet when turrets get incapped they go "offline" and cannot be onlined until they are fully repped.

Also the boost to turrets I was referring to was not a boost of damage but of survivability.

183

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

What we have... http://clip2net.com/s/6Dk1v4

What we should have... http://clip2net.com/s/6Dk209
The second allows freedom of movement but with a small buffing to turrets, and a look at ranges the movement will be kept open.
Just keep the amount of turrets small, as in 5-10 and you have your solution, just you need to make bases much harder and more hit-points.  So that players have the security to use them without being *** caged by another base.  No other base within 1km to 3km whatever distance you choose.

Terraforming for me is not a make or break thing to me, it doesn't make me get up at night and want to play the game, now I understand that some wish to continue to do so, and in time a happy balance can be struck.

184

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

I would also suggest, rescaling Gamma and how you think gamma should look like. 

Personally I would like to see a smaller yet more powerful base structure.  So that everyone has the room to move and get gamma back into a fluid state.  Think harder structures to kill, rescaling Turrets to higher DPS, and harder to kill with small fleets, to reduce the amount of them. 

So you have smaller stations that allow owners to have the stability to invest into the gamma structure, and still allow the freedom of movement on the island.

I can go on, but I won't.

185

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Merkle wrote:

Have the buildings make there own pad, without any need for terraforming.

Remember when people were terraforming with turrets? smile Not sure we want to have people feel inclined to use that kind of twisted mechanic again.


I do remember, just simply undo when it is removed.

186

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

We actually had a hefty discussion just about what you have stated, the only one that I would concurr with is Nora, other then that, the openness will negate the rest.  All of which is a great thing, bringing back roaming capabilities to gamma is a great thing.

As well as the minor percentages to what is worth to what is given.

187

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

If you want a great short term fix, remove gamma, reset.  Then simply have gamma's, with main termails with your said restrictions without terraforming available. 

Your looking for a short term solution, and you dont have the resources for a long term one.  Have the buildings make there own pad, without any need for terraforming.  As well as, implement the CPU, and Power restrictions that are needed to fix the sprawl.

I would also suggest that if you are looking for smaller bases with smaller footprints, then you need to boost the effectiveness of all the defenses.   I would also suggest that you reinstate OP being no closer then 2500meters from one another, and reduce how many can be on one island at one time. 

Unfortunately I believe your looking for a dynamic Gamma scene with full loot drop, and you are expecting the players to do this with no Gamma incentive at all.  This is a entirely different conversation however.

If you are looking seriously at inproving then game, and removing gamma castles, great, also think about re-adding Epi back into the mix for a better incentive to live out there, again.

188

(153 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Just remove Gamma's wink

Yea Line stay on topic, stop calling him out when he has no idea what else to say.  smile

Actually if you really wish to be unbiased in your opinion, this is very similar to the power projection problem.  If I wish and have enough money I can power project all over the place, with unlimited accounts.  There are guys in EVE that do this just for Fun, and it is quite fun to watch.

191

(163 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Everyone should be on a level playing field.

So we should all have the same EP, and have equal equipment when doing any activity.  Either PVE, or PVP.

This would require the stoppage of all EP for all the Higher LVL guys, just until everyone is back up to the top.
As for equipment, everyone should be restricted back down to T1 Equipment, until everyone has the chance to a quire appropriate stocks of T4 equipment.

If you PVP, this is about PVP.

If you PVE, this is about PVE.

If you scratch your ***, this is about scratching your ***.

We all look at things through our own lens, and then Zoom has to go through and pick out what is what.

And trust me, after taking a small break, you can see right though all the political BS, it sticks out like a sore thumb. 

Good Luck.

DEV Zoom wrote:

Not being able to follow a locked target is probably the best solution that doesn't hurt other uses so I think we'll go with that.


A quick and simple work around.

Have a Light Ewar, masked (works with anything really), It follows you in whatever bot you wish.

That light Ewar Targets something else and boosts it, giving out RSA's Ect Ect.  The target its boosting is doing the same.

http://clip2net.com/s/6xBonZ

Here is a quick and simple picture illustrating what will happen.

194

(249 replies, posted in Balancing)

Hey we can all use StP so there is nothing wrong...Right!

smile

195

(249 replies, posted in Balancing)

Line wrote:

They could just produce more interference to limit the situations where there is 20 enemies, with 18 of them are in ewars and other 2 are dd and rem-rep

All EW bots need to have there interference about tripled from the values they are now.

Then ECM needs to be nerfed, basically, into the ground.  Suppression needs a small tweak. 

ECM now, perma jam all anything below 80.  This should never be the case, it should be around 50 percent without tuners.  Tuners are there to make you better at it, not to make it better at nothing as your already hitting 100 percent of the time anyway.

Adding anything remote will just promote more masked follows, with RR ECCM's and RSA's.

You do have several options, do what is suggested above.

Or do what is suggested above, add in a second "short" range Ecm, with the current in-game values.  Just make them short range.  75meters and less.  Gives flexibility to the small bots, and greater control with the mechs.

FYI, I voted yes.

"Perhaps its a situation where the mechanics don't allow 'follow' and 'lock' the same bot."
Changes very little, makes it marginally difficult to continue to do what we do now.  But I see Khatar addressed this.  (We as in everyone who plays.)

If you want the simplest solution, remove follow altogether, and sort everything else out later, and slower.

I would like to state that Hunter called this about three months ago.  smile

Just a FYI, you need to remove both to actually make this effective. 

We will just make a program that spams approach to get around this. 

Just some Evil thoughts to think about.  fuuu

Bonus needs to be independent of the fleet they are boosted?

Huh?

You might need to reiterate your idea, as this doesn't make sense.

199

(48 replies, posted in General discussion)

Looking at kickstarter, there is some tough competition on there.  I would suggest those doing Kickstarter or some other one, just for visibility sake.

Hm, that should be looked into as well Jita.