2,576 Reply by Burial

(68 replies, posted in General discussion)

We need Virtual Wars. smile

Go to forum: General discussion

2,577 Reply by Burial

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Like I said before, I like this it, especially the idea that there are unknown amount of betas in the world and only these that are discovered are on the map.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,578 Reply by Burial

(4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

They all are good suggestions imo. +1

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,579 Reply by Burial

(41 replies, posted in General discussion)

Looked for a replacement and here I am. I think I first heard about the game from friends and then MMORPG.com

Go to forum: General discussion

2,580 Reply by Burial

(135 replies, posted in General discussion)

I agree with Arga and I think it would be pretty pointless and, in the end, ruin terraforming to try and fight with what players can and can not do. Just add the tools to effectively counter these kinds of landscapes.

Flying bots that can haul other players.
Deployable elevator mechanisms.
Deployable bridges.
Very close range personal teleporters.

Go to forum: General discussion

2,581 Reply by Burial

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Nice dream smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,582 Reply by Burial

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

As I said before, the system could use some entirely new items only obtainable and usable in the minigame, that way it would keep it safely seperated from the main game economy. And of course it could and should be tweaked to fit the game.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,583 Reply by Burial

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

You dont get it at all Scyylla.
I am not saying anything about loosing what we already have. It would be something completely different. Heck, it even could have some specifically made equipment just to fight in the system. It would fit in the lore perfectly since we already have dematerialization inside terminals and teleporters.
And where does sandbox end and themepark start? If you look at the things in Perpetuum, you could easily see it already has tons of "themepark" features.
You should just think what is fun and what is not and not so much about breaking the sandbox.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,584 Reply by Burial

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Open world PVP wouldnt be going anywhere. It would be just a thing people who want could do.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,585 Topic by Burial

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

There would be a module placed on the alpha islands where people could sign them/their team up and after enought people have joined, the battle would start. There would be atleast two sides who fight to win the game. Fight could be over territorial points and territory, items or whatever else, it does not really matter. What matters is that IF people were to blow up, they would be teleported back to the start and after some time-out they would continue to play.

What it would archieve: People would have a nice AND fun thing to do besides what we have now, in addition, people would learn PVP without loosing anything besides ammo. I believe it would be a step towards more population as it would give something very different to do.

For the wins, one could get similar credit as one gets from the missions and one could buy cool stuff for it. In the future, it could be integrated into more systems and it could give even more meaning to the whole thing.

I hope I didnt miss any important details. The concept is pretty easy to grasp but if you have any questions, then shoot. smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,586 Reply by Burial

(41 replies, posted in General discussion)

Very hard to keep it up unless you guys get dev help. Why not ask for a special island or arena from the devs as a feature?

An arena where teams/corps/individuals sign up and then fight WITHOUT or with loosing the bot would be fun. smile

Go to forum: General discussion

2,587 Reply by Burial

(3 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I agree, a simple username-password logging would be the best.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,588 Reply by Burial

(102 replies, posted in General discussion)

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Jack Jombardo wrote:

Haha, it's what I expected *g*.
The server isn't even online again and the first one start to whine like pink girlys yarr.

And it's not the DEVs who don't know, what is important. Most of you don't understand what this game need!

First of all it's: population

Not more content (there is enough), not new icelands (hell, betas are nearly empty, go there before you ask for more), not POS or whatever you want to call it. It's flat population.

um where were you a few months ago? the player base grew massively & now where are all those people? gone for the most part. why? player base wont grow lol if your dont have the content to keep them. I know this for a fact as NEX has had some 700+ people join to play this game & 80% have stoped playing for a few reasons... the bigest was: "yay i enjoyed the game but ive done most of the fun stuff over the last month or 2 & now what?"


The dev sell this game as a sand box game. How many of us play perpetuum for its pve content? there are far better pve games out there.
Yes the driving force behind games like perpetuum is the players but this game has horrible player retention after 1-2 months. Why ? coz after that theres not much to do.
Beta has been poorly implemented i feel as theres not much difference between alpha & beta in terms of rewards.

I get the dev team is small & i really do like the devs, but i cant put away the feeling that we are playing an anemic game.
The potential for the game is nothing short of massive. I guess i just want to see the future plans stated again since many of us older players have been waiting for so long now. this past year we have gotten 6 new islands & mk2 robots as the big ticket items.

I ask the DEVs this. If you wish perpetuum to be a sand box game. when are we the players going to get the tools to build in the sand box?
Devs when i read this blog back in feb http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/posts/ … /#comments i desided you would have my loyalty for the next year. And you still do im just frustrated that after all this time the big 3 (imo) Artillery,Terraforming and player-built structures. We haven't got any  updates on since that blog (if i missed a dev blog about then my apologies).

This is very true, currently my play involves:
Get NIC -> PVP -> Get NIC

0110011100001111001010001 wrote:

Dude...I don't *** care.

Who are you?  Really People need to start thinking there important, as your not, and stop posting this BS post all over the forums.

There are many people here who do care and know pokk, sorry that you are not one of them. tongue

Go to forum: General discussion

2,589 Reply by Burial

(102 replies, posted in General discussion)

Sad to see you go. Are you keeping the subscription running?

Go to forum: General discussion

2,590 Reply by Burial

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

Drahkar wrote:

I don't even see the point of changing Racial and Spec ops robot control bonuses.

No one asked for it, it was never discussed with the players, it was only just "announced" by being included in the patch notes for a patch that is already being implemented.

It doesn't fix any problem and there was never a problem with it unless the information was withheld from the playerbase.

I don't want to be mean but it just looks like someone pulled a random change out of their a**.

I guess there is a reason for it. Might be related to new types of bots and then the bonuses were off or who knows.

Go to forum: General discussion

2,591 Reply by Burial

(14 replies, posted in General discussion)

Are talking about Seth or are you having issues with Artemis?

Go to forum: General discussion

2,592 Reply by Burial

(11 replies, posted in General discussion)

Here are the stats.

Go to forum: General discussion

2,593 Reply by Burial

(24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Drahkar wrote:

Another solution Dan and I thought of is that you could convert your relation gains into items and sell them to other players. These items could be called bribes or anything else.

This mechanic is already in the game but not very well supported. I can be sitting afk, in a squad with someone else who is running missions and effectively giving me half of the relation gains. I can pay that person for it. The downside with this method is that for no apparent reason I have to be online at the same time as him and I cannot be doing something else in my own squad, which means the person running missions is most likely gonna have to be a corpmate (or at least not an enemy).

It would indirectly fix the problem if a player could trade his relation gains for a Bribe item that he can then sell to other players. The purpose of the item would be to give it to the relevant NPC corp in exchange for relation gains.

I actually like the idea a lot, if the Bribes is changed to something more appropriate. "Vouch" the other guy and trade your reputation for his is the right word I think.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

2,594 Reply by Burial

(7 replies, posted in General discussion)

Usually it is so that one person can only compete with one team and it is fair that way - hope they apply this principle here.

Go to forum: General discussion

2,595 Reply by Burial

(24 replies, posted in Events)

Looked like tons of fun. I am sad that I missed it.

Go to forum: Events

2,596 Reply by Burial

(34 replies, posted in General discussion)

Will contact this guy and ask if he can make a plan for our spy network too. And it will be better then yours.

Go to forum: General discussion

2,597 Reply by Burial

(25 replies, posted in General discussion)

I think the prizes are better now.

Go to forum: General discussion

2,598 Reply by Burial

(34 replies, posted in General discussion)

Celebro wrote:

Sorry I meant allies can't do the SAP, only the OP owner so their wouldn't be able to do OP 'maintainence service' if needed during owners absence times.

As it stands, the system is just one step towards the future, it all will be added in the coming patches.

Go to forum: General discussion

2,599 Topic by Burial

(2 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Found this video from youtube this morning. Very skilled hacker.

Go to forum: Open discussion

2,600 Reply by Burial

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

In addition, having a way to group people would be pretty good also, but not vital.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests