26 Reply by Tux

(47 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Here is the main problem and it has to do with the way ECM works

If my ECM strength is 100 and your sensor strength is 100 I have a 100% chance to jam you ... the exact maths is like 99.999999 something % but fact is when tested I will jam 10/10 times.

If i put in a ECCM to increase my sensor strength up to 400 (example) the ECM @ 100 Strength still has a 25% chance to jam. Considering most EW pilots run 2 to 3 ECM's .... focused on 1 target still gives you around a 75% chance to jam every 10 seconds, run 4 ecm's nd your chance is nearly 100% still 

ECCM is an extremely weak & non effective counter to ECM ... add in ECM tuner and ECCM becomes almost pointless.

I am fully speced into EW with maxxed skills. I dont want to get "nerfed" but what i do want is balance.

A good balance would be for sensor amps to (@t4 + lvl ten skill) nullify the effect of sensor suppression completely

A good balance would be for a ECCM break opponent locks and make one immune to being Jammed for a short period of time 10sec (same as 1 cycle of a ECM) @ t4 with a 30 second cool down. <<< This is similar to the way that it  use to be ... before Ewar tuners were in game.

Yes when taking into consideration "FLEET" composition you can compensate for this with more EW vs EW. Balance is not bringing more ECM's to ECM the ECMers. Balance is employing a viable counter (Electronic counter counter measure) that is as effective as its pair.

TL;DR
Sensor amp and Sensor suppressor should cancel each other out completely
ECM and ECCM should cancel each other out completely

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

27 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Here is the point of and problem with Terraforming

Players in pvp use terrain to their advantage even on the beta islands where you cant terraform, players take high points .. use hills to block los between them and their opponent ... Use structures (veertical walls) around teleports to block los and kill their opponent. and all other types of strategic manipulation to gain an advantage over their opponent.

once you accept that terrain is a offensive and defensive counter measure in combat the sooner we can come to a solution for gamma. This is a LAND based combat game of course terrain is going to be used as a counter measure!

Go to forum: Testing server

28 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Syndic wrote:

Logically,

The POS system is there to make the terminal and immediate facilities secure, essentially securing your base against small groups and roams.

The problem with Gamma 1.0 was that a combination of bad design and player creativity allowed us to redefine an entire island as "our base".

Thus my original suggestion... Multi-tile walls and gates, allowing us the creation of proper castles. Tie it up to terminal bandwidth (walls need to be powered), make it so walls & gates have to be part of a closed loop system (to prevent walling off peninsulas), figure out a reasonable way of limiting it so it's not a 5x5km base around a teleport or whatever, and go from there.

I just don't see a way how to fix terraforming without it being a ticking timebomb.

I have thought long and hard about it .. If Terraforming is to be in game in any usable form its going to be " a ticking time bomb" just as it was in gamma 1.0 so .. lets cut to the chase and just remove it now and find a better solution for Gamma.

Its going to need to be redesigned from the ground up ... The current structures are based around being able to Tf the island ... so if we cannot Tf the island we need a whole new approach to Gamma. ..

Go to forum: Testing server

29 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

THIS

Ville wrote:

At this point just scrap TFing, The Test server version is horrible.  Just give us walls and gates and tweek turrets a bit.


Because TF on test is junk .  ... I agree it will never work

Make more modular walls you can walk on like castle defense + Gates + towers .. modular structures we can build like lego blocks to make bases and cities

Go to forum: Testing server

30 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

I will build a base, but only to test network configurations against bandwidth limits. I obviously do not have the years of experience that you guys have to bring up a well defended colony.

Islands poll: what exactly would be the poll about? This is a discussion, a poll like "Do you want us to redo some of the gamma islands?" wouldn't bring us forward in any way. Neither do "not like x and not like y" statements.

I'll try to put up the old island maps somewhere.


When you build your base just drop the needed structures to build a fully powered and boosted production base and see what you have left.

We don't assume you have the years of experience of building Gamma bases there are very few Corps in the game who do. But here is the issue, you are telling us will all of our experience that we have to be limited by slopes for example ... because it (first) was bad tile stretch look (then) was going to not allow for roam able islands.

Why not:

* Allow the same Tf mechanics that were allowed in Gamma 1.0 within 3KM of the terminal

* Limit the height at which any tile can be raised to to 500M from sea level. this would require you to re design all of the islands so the highest tiles were no higher than 500M.

* 3KM is the distance at which all of the beta terminals can have walls set at so it would be a consistent range for a base footprint.

* Increase the terminal bandwidth @t3 to 100,000 from 40, 000.

*Allow only 1 terminal per island.

If people are not given the freedom to create their own bases with unique designs you might as well just add more BETA islands with 1 terminal in the center of them and remove the tower requirement form colixium mining.

Go to forum: Testing server

31 Reply by Tux

(16 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1


Merkle wrote:

Link the Stability Timer to the size of the bot.

It would be.

Lights, Ewar's - Same as it is now.

Assaults - + 5

Mech's - + 10 Sec

Heavy's - + 15 Sec

Or something Similar.  You get the idea.

This will give smaller bots a greater chance at chancing bigger fleets.  All of which I can't see as a bad thing.

This would make sense in bot lore, bigger bot the more time it takes to stabilize the molecules of the said bot.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

32 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Zoom take a island on gamma and make it how you would build a gamma and we can start from there ...

Make an island that you think industrialists and military players would like to live on

Were wasting time .. with all of this theory crafting

Go to forum: Testing server

33 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

We could regenerate any of the islands if you think some of the terrain features are not suitable for gamma mechanics. Like if you want more of the very traversable northern type islands, or islands split into smaller islands and connected with internal teleports.

Now is the time for that, and only you can tell this, since you have the experience with it.

I dont want the island to:

cookie cutter and all look like the old blue gammas
be chopped up like Landers bridge
have mountains like Guthraw
have unusable space in the center like davis barrier

Honestly it doesnt matter what the gamma island looks like to begin with if we are free to do what we want to with it.

Limit build height & depth +/- 50M if you need to  .. institute erosion 300M away from buildings and apply the structure changes you have done ... BUT  we need to keep the ability to terraform something other than Pyramids or gamma is not going to work ...

Go to forum: Testing server

34 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Gremrod wrote:

Keep the same gamma islands or have them generate new islands for the gamma 2.0 release?

Zoom
this needs a poll ... I would like new islands in new places. = new map with new teleport connections .

Go to forum: Testing server

35 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ok, new idea:

Instead of the various terraforming range limitation rules (terminal-teleport range, within terminal range, no peninsulas, whatever), we could just simply paint the terraformable areas for each island manually. Which would basically mean the inner parts of an island. This method would also make it pretty straightforward to display it on the map, similar to the slope map. (And is also more precise than distance calculations.)

I really do not like the restrictions on terraforming .. If terraforming gets to heavily restricted there is little incentive to spend the time and effort building a gamma island.

Why is it so important to limit terraforming ... terraforming is the main aspect that separates gamma form all of the other islands.
what is the point in limiting areas of terraforming ?is it to make it so you cant lock off an island ?

If you can only place 1 terminal and are limited to a 1 to 3KM build radius form the terminal for turrets and all TF on the island erodes back to its original state if not with in 300M of a structure then what is the point of limiting any area on the island for terraforming.

Any TF away from the gamma base will go back to its original state  so if the ownign corp tries to tf a gate closed they will not be able to secure that gate because of turret distance restrictions ... because every gamma island has at least 2 teleports one will always be open for people to come through ... it may require a little effort but it wont be a 12 hour terraforming marathon just to get into the island.

Go to forum: Testing server

36 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

YES but NO more BETA terminals ...

Charlie islands ... = epriton with ... no safe place to run (terminals)

These islands could also have erosion or shifting terrain that changes the landscape every month or so.

Celebro wrote:

I think they should replace some gammas with more betas islands at least 3 more considering its the only way to get Epriton. No need to redesign just use the same islands and add a few terminals. With the player number increasing there is no need for so many gammas I think but more betas.

Go to forum: Testing server

37 Reply by Tux

(30 replies, posted in General discussion)

I got a 10 page post of what should go into gamma once its balanced and viable long term... wink

Go to forum: General discussion

38 Reply by Tux

(60 replies, posted in General discussion)

DEV Zoom wrote:

I didn't think this through yet, so this is just theorycrafting:

What if robots had a built-in mobile teleporter like Inda says, and you can only use it when your accumulator is at 100%, and it sucks it completely dry everytime you use it. (No other limits.)

The range of the teleport could be different for all robot classes. More for scouts and transports, less for heavy combat stuff for example.

Lets run with this Idea Zoom .. If this can be programed then in think we can balance from there once we see how the population as a whole would use it.

Go to forum: General discussion

39 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Gremrod wrote:

I think for a re-release of gamma the islands should not be the same as the islands that got wiped.

I think the Devs would use the same islands just to save time in coding. maybe as zoom mentioned move around some teleports but there needs to be a common balance between all of the gamma Islands.

I was hoping for new islands ... it would bring some fresh life in to this whole proccess. Hell it would be awesome if the Pioneer of the island could name it lol (wishful thinking i know)

I think the 2KM that we had in gamma 1.0 worked well ... I do not think there needs to be a limit other than that ... but saying that if you allow 3 + terminals on the islands we are back at square one where the owning corporations will wall off the teleports. ... this can be done at the suggested 3KM from the TP just takes more time.

Go to forum: Testing server

40 Reply by Tux

(26 replies, posted in Balancing)

Orange NPC's are point less and broken please remove them... If its an NPC' it needs to be red.

NPC's used in missions need only spawn when the mission runner is in the "target area"

All roaming NPC's need to be red .. all static spawns need to be removed ...

Go to forum: Balancing

41 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Gremrod wrote:

The old system had some issues that could be corrected easily IMO. I like some of the changes mentioned by Zoom with the OP.

But.....

I think the old system was fine too. It only needs some tweaks. Limit the turret range/boosting. Rework some of the tier structure numbers.

Find a way to keep TF as it was but can't be used to turtle the island or build walls that can close off a base from the outside world.

Don't hard cap an islands limit on terminals. Let the mechanics handle this with a terminal building range of 3k etc like some have suggested.


Terminal ranges are only balanced if the islands the terminals are on are balanced as well. If their is no cap on the amount of bases on an island then attacking a base becomes way to easy. If ranges are implemented the TP networks need to be redesigned so you still have the freedom to place Terminals freely.

Islands with 4 teleports will force and inhabitant to place their terminals in the center of that island because of distance limitations. remember these islands are only 10KM x 10KM in size minus the shape .. so the space in which you can build become extremely small once all of these 3km form teleport and other bases are put in place.

Go to forum: Testing server

42 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Syndic wrote:

A Hitech terminal already has 5 emergency phases. 5 chances over 15 days in total from siege to destruction, assuming every timer is hit and won by attacker.

That's already borderline ridiculous, no need to make it more so by limiting 1 terminal per island/pulling stuff out of reinforce willy-nilly.

When I build my Gamma base I want it to be vulnerable to attack.

When you attack a gamma you need to take 2 weeks off work and play 24/7 to make sure the defender is not rebuilding his base. When games start moving toward a scheduled pvp event (un changeable reinforcement timers) it always favors the guy who brings the most numbers.

I want to be clear i do not want a mechanic that allows a 5 man corp to control a gamma island while under siege from a 50 man corp. that is bad for the game and is a broken mechanic. But the 50 man corp that wants to go around knocking down bases needs to fully commit to doing so. this means around the clock surveillance of their targets, and response fleets at the ready for when the defender makes a move.

"Corralling cats" once every three days to shoot something or defend something is "borderline ridiculous" so why have it be the mechanic at all. why not develop something much more fluid? For both sides the attacker and the defender.

Go to forum: Testing server

43 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

+1

Jita wrote:

It should have been changed already that if a friendly agresses part of a base then the whole base should agress him.

Go to forum: Testing server

44 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Corporations should be able to pull their structures out of reinforcement by repairing them and setting them online again. I know this would cause the attacker to have to watch the base 24/7 in order to destroy it, but i feel that the attacker needs to do more than just show up once every three days will superior numbers in order to destroy a gamma base. turning the reinforcement system to an intrusion type system mechanic is i think the wrong direction to do in.

The Defender needs to have as much control as possible in order for balance.

Go to forum: Testing server

45 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

The "entire network" will not go offline because 1 reactor in incapped, only that one structure will go offline.. which could cut of energy to some structures but if properly designed the batteries will keep the network up and running for a long time after said reactor is offline.

the spy would need 20 + people all in the target corp to effectively do what you talking about

Ville wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:
Ville wrote:

-Tweeks:  If networks go offline and stop working when control is lost(command) I see some problems with this.  Spy shoots reactor.  Network goes down.  Players log off sequers plated to the teeth with plasma bombs.  Mass login/staggered login and with its 1 reinforced timer.  Shut the network down again.  Attacking force turns into who brought the most guys /win.

Right. I mean you're not right since we have emergency shields, but that reminded me that we might have to exclude reactors and energy transmitters from the emergency-offline thing smile

Alright let me slow down.

At 3AM my time Agent XYZ alone in corp chat decides to walk over and shoot the reactor.  He puts the reactor into reinforced.  The network goes offline.  The enemy fleet shows up, and puts the entire base into reinforced mode, in under an hour.  Corp wakes up the next morning, boots the spy.  Meanwhile accounts (up to 2) that are attached to primary fleet accounts, spend enough EP to get into Sequers with all plates and slow boat with plasma bombs in cargo.  Those accounts are logged off on top of the reactor patiently waiting.

3 days later the primary fleet shows up.  1/4 of the fleet shows face to the enemy base to lure the guys away from the base at the corps set time for the emergency shields to drop.  The emergency timer goes live and all those little sequers login and start bombing the *** out of the energy system, using LOS to block incoming turret fire from other buildings or suiciding onto the structures using the help of the turret so that the base is now complete incapacitated.  The rest of the fleet logs in, wipes up the defenders pushes straight to the base that is completely vulnerable.  Then start the camp of the Island. 

Then the corp can do a couple of things, rebuild or give up.  If they choose to rebuild they will have to build a reactor and then have to put up energy towers to gain accumulator and hope the enemy doesn't have a force big enough to keep harassing the towers trying to gather energy choking the newly setup defenses out of accumulator.

Am I reading something wrong?

Go to forum: Testing server

46 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Ville wrote:

-Tweeks:  If networks go offline and stop working when control is lost(command) I see some problems with this.  Spy shoots reactor.  Network goes down.  Players log off sequers plated to the teeth with plasma bombs.  Mass login/staggered login and with its 1 reinforced timer.  Shut the network down again.  Attacking force turns into who brought the most guys /win.

Right. I mean you're not right since we have emergency shields, but that reminded me that we might have to exclude reactors and energy transmitters from the emergency-offline thing smile

Why not make it so a member of a corp can not damage his own structures instead of cherry picking the structures that are most valuable and not allowing them to go off line.

In an assault if the defender puts his energy grid in places that can be attacked then thoes structures should go off line when attacked.

Go to forum: Testing server

47 Reply by Tux

(17 replies, posted in General discussion)

Let me know the time and date

Go to forum: General discussion

48 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

some how i see going down this path ending up really badly.

I dont think turrets are a problem right now. they kill what they should ...

Why should an assault be able to come close to a turret ?? even if it could scale a hill and get with in firing range of a turret you will need it to be able to "tank" the turret for long enough to drop several plasma bombs .. because its not going to do enough damage to kill or reinforce the turret before the turret kills it.

DEV Zoom wrote:

If assaults die too easily to turrets we can tweak the turrets' hit dispersion/explosion size.

Go to forum: Testing server

49 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Tux wrote:

except for that one island should be designed for a corporation not an alliance of many different corporations ... unless you would like to take this time to officially implement the alliance feature smile

Because corporations are the functional group all your systems are based around I think in those terms (corporations). so i ask why does 1 corporation need so many terminals on 1 island ... what is your goal or purpose for allowing so many? the only benefit i see to allowing so many terminals on an island is to strengthen the defenses of the island as a whole, is it not? Why wouldn't a corporation do everything it possibly can to defend as much space as allowed in order to gain as much benefit form the island as possible?

I'm not talking about friendly corporations, not even about alliances smile
Is it really so unthinkable that 3 opposing corporations occupy the same island? Much like beta outposts?

Yes,  its really unthinkable that 3 opposing corporations occupy the same island. This will never happen it goes against everything that players want in / on a Gamma island... players fight to keep others AWAY.

There is no reason that 2 or more opposing corporations would control terminals on the same island unless one was in the process of taking control of the rest of the terminals. In the end it will be a single corporation owning all of the terminals or ... there will be several owned by an "alliance" of corporations.

Go to forum: Testing server

50 Reply by Tux

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

My question wasn't about why you want to terraform such a structure, I was asking why do you want to terraform into it (as an attacker) if you can simply go up with assaults?

Assaults will do nothing against a turret .. if in range of a turret the assault will die in 1 or 2 shouts (if the first shot misses).

so then when attacking you need some type of cover to get close enough to shoot the turret or ew the turret or something ... which will all be done by EW Mechs and Heavy Mechs ... you will never see any one run assault class bots against turrets they are too weak.

Go to forum: Testing server