676 Reply by Tux

(89 replies, posted in General discussion)

I totally agree with this statement. I dont know any company in the world that could sell a product advertised to do one thing have thousands upon thousands of units sold and then change its functionality with out either recalling the product altogether or offering refunds for all units sold.

Fool me once shame on me (probes)

Fool me twice shame on you (walls)

I will not be fooled a third time ...

I hope you enjoyed all free testing we have provided as you will be losing testers quickly with your current course of action.

Go to forum: General discussion

677 Reply by Tux

(16 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Why not just go mine on alpha .. ideas like this are what is turning this game into a kiddy fun park. .

Death is a natural part of any life cycle deal with it and stop trying to make the DEV's make this game unplayable..

-100

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

678 Topic by Tux

(3 replies, posted in General discussion)

Just checked today and Scarab is not in robopedia.. also can you add MKII versions to robopedia... will look better for new people looking at game for there to be info on all robots that are in game

K

Thx

Go to forum: General discussion

679 Reply by Tux

(78 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

For the whiners:

If your opponent has a strong wall system
Your choice is to bring a squirt gun or a fire hose.
The squirt gun will lose.

Don’t complain about trying to roam someone elses Island ... its their territory, they can build it how ever the feel is optimal. If its difficult to assault them that’s because they put in the work to make it that way. That is the benefit of living on beta .. you can own your own stuff and make it what you want. If you don’t like it go to alpha …
I’m perfectly happy mining my EPI in peace.

Walls are fragile as it is  . .

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

680 Reply by Tux

(78 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

NO... NO ... PBS walls should not decay if you want them removed shoot them or buy a plasma bomb

How many years has the great wall of china been standing ?!?!?!

-1 makes for a bad PBS mechanic

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

681 Reply by Tux

(13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:
Tux wrote:

YES !!!!! would this be a on|off type of tile indicator or would it be more like current ore scanning mechanics where some tiles are better than others?

We have no fertility levels, so yeah it would be like simply a red tile or nothing at all.

Tux wrote:

while you at it could you give use ore field incubators for beta and make them grow|expand in diameter with charges like the wall charges ???

A little off topic here, but I don't think we could ever balance that if you could place your own mineral fields smile

well it was worth a shot ... big_smile

looking forward to the new scanning charges for plants .. good work

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

682 Reply by Tux

(9 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Takeo Prime wrote:

you may not need to add player built structures (pre-designed kits) if you were to just add some new items with simular mechanics to wall pieces.  Some could be:  Half walls, double height walls, ramps to both heights (firing points) walls with the ability to walk across the tops, walls with port holes for firing, and some type of forcefield door or ramp.  Turret and towers for eyes and we could go build what we wanted and have some security.

Just saying we are close with the Legos that you have given us. wink


All I can say is http://www.minecraft.net/ and walls are a good start but they are just the tip~^~

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

683 Reply by Tux

(13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

DEV Zoom wrote:

While we can't give you a "fertilize tile" tool, we also feel the necessity for something that can show you fertile tiles. The easiest way to do this would be a series of new geoscanner charge types, which would work similarly to tile-based mineral charges, but they would show you fertile spots for a specific plant type.


YES !!!!! would this be a on|off type of tile indicator or would it be more like current ore scanning mechanics where some tiles are better than others?

while you at it could you give use ore field incubators for beta and make them grow|expand in diameter with charges like the wall charges ???

K

THX

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

684 Reply by Tux

(128 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Walls are good and natural growth time is not bad at all.
Charges to make them grow faster is good idea. | Keep charges

anything that can be destroyed should be "PERMANENT" until destroyed by another player the idea of walls growing then dying is nonsense and makes no sense ... the nanobots that construct them all of a sudden decide to tear them down ?!?

All PBS's that come into the game should be designed to allow the player corp to make its make on the landscape forever or until removed by another player corp.

+100 to walls as is !!! -1 for not requiring a skill to use the wall converter modules

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

685 Reply by Tux

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

MrCeeJ wrote:

I thought the point of the lockout mechanic was to stop you accessing things in there, making access an important concept.

Equally all the people asking for a bigger world so that trading becomes more viable will not be happy with the ability to sit at the centre of your empire and trade all over the world.

+0 as I am not massively bothered either way.

I "think" most people would use this for deleting that pesky ark that they forgot to delete when they wne to over to Hershfield or Shin to buy another bot. OR OR maybe to delete some storage containers that are no longer used in a terminal that was once used to mine / farm out of.

and for your example this would benefit the corp that owned the beta terminal your talking about. For example if corp A owned a outpost and got removed but did not get all of their possessions out of that terminal before corp B locked them out corp A could remote sell any assets. this would benefit Corp B and their allies. Because Corp A would have to sell these items at "firesale" rates in order to complete their departure from that terminal (yes there is always the option for Corp A fight their way back in and haul it all out. 

The biggest benefit that this would have is for players that are in for example Telle buy an item in Shin and go pick it up at their convince. We can see all of the markets form any where already buying form any where is the next logical step in the market progression.

Heck make it a skill tied to range or faction and make people spend EP on it if necessary. I have no problem walking from one end of the world to another to pick up an Item but if it may or may not be there at the price im going there to buy it for by the time i get there i just wasted a bunch of time for nothing.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

686 Reply by Tux

(33 replies, posted in General discussion)

Good ideas I agree that PBS should be built in a unique way that involves constant player interaction. Planting a node and watching it grow makes little sense when constructing a PBS, you should have haulers bringing in construction materials to build the thing. Also if the PBS's were able to be attacked 24/7 and destroyed in one of the 4 ways that Line described that would be awesome (for people who like pvp).

+1 to good ideas.

IMO the only way these things will be worth it tho is if there are some greater benefit to them over current outposts.

if the Dev's ever decide to chime in and give us a nugget of info on how they plan these things to work, we may be able to have a intelligent conversation about their specifics. But until then .....

Devs: you should mark threads with a "read by dev such and such" or good idea / bad ideas so we know your at least listening to what we have to say.

Go to forum: General discussion

687 Topic by Tux

(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Could you add in the ability to remotely destroy items in our private storage ?

"I have just cans in some storage's and i am to lazy to go to the terminal and delete them."

But really it would be nice to have access remotely to our personal storage to organize and delete items.

Oh and add in a new skill for remote sell orders

k

Thx


.... yes i know this has been asked for in the past but hopefully if we keep asking we may get it ....

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

688 Reply by Tux

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ville wrote:

I am thinking on a small corp scale.  These Saps are not set in place to support "Smaller" Corps.  These Saps are setup for the Zerg.  Who can funnel in the most bots and the most tanks during which timezones.  Tux you tanked this squad for a solid 2 mins: http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=11032.  This is not a "pesky" ewar, this is an inbalance issue.  That needs to be resolved, IMMEDIATELY.  I Very distinctively remember before the ERP nerf someone saying " I don't want to have to ALWAYS bring an Ictus to fight this fit."  We don't want to ALWAYs have to build our defense squad around a bot that costs less then 10 Mill to fully fit.

LOLWTFZOMYGOD !!! you think the MK2 needs ANOTHER nerf ??? if the two guys you had in the troiars neuting me were actually skilled players then i may have gone down before i made it 3/4 of the way to the exit TP where the rest of your blob intercepted and killed me. The game does not need to be dumb ed down the the lowest common denominator people just need to learn how to play. needing 15 guys it kill 1 isnt a show of power its a display of "Im going to throw everything I have at you until something works" 1 skilled player could have taken me down if they brought the right fit, but because you are lacking you brought everything in the sector to come kill me .. .  but you know what it was fun as hell taking that &*(% right in front of you ....



oh and it was well over 2 minutes lol

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

689 Reply by Tux

(29 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Naismith wrote:

The point is that the defenders are twiddling their thumbs for an hour with no other recourse, since being on stand-by for possible incoming means just that; you can't farm or mine (refit with incoming? empty loot can with incoming?), you can't mine (drive miners back to get into support bots? log them out? empty loot can?) because the SAPs are that fragile that a 4-5 ewar group can take them.

You can kill these pesky E-wars if you have the right squad one or two assaults or mechs will take them out so long as your present for your SAP vulnerability.

Naismith wrote:

Making a vicious circle of forcing people to play WOT/Skyrim while alt-tabbed

this is why people loose SAP's if you have no interest in the game other than owning an out post then why play. if you are so board you cant chat with corp mates (water cooler discussions) for an hour your corp must be pretty boring. no one is forcing you to be in game, if you dont want to play then dont. Why complain that you have to play... here forward no one will own outposts if they are inactive. 

Naismith wrote:

The difficulty of the SAP's needs to be brought in line where YES, the defender has to commit their players and assets to defend like now, but the attacker should also have to commit a sizeable fleet to have a chance at completing it. Definitely not 4-5 light bots and if it goes it goes, if it doesn't who cares nothing was lost.

There is balance, the balance is that you dont have to shoot at your opponent for 1hr or until they stop bringing bots then shoot the SAP for another 1hr. 2.0 is targeted at small skirmishes not huge EPIC LOLZZOMYGOD !! battles. timers are good it makes it so attacking a active or passive is possible and not make it so the defender can take a coffee break and then bring their 10 billion mechs to stop you. if the defender is present and actively defending their outpost they will keep it (unless the attacker out shoots or out smarts them)

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

690 Reply by Tux

(217 replies, posted in General discussion)

I like the changes to the intrusion system although just like anything else it can be improved upon. I like passive saps they are a cake walk 8). I think the biggest change that would fix a lot of the whiners problems is let corps take their own saps although it should take 2x as long or do 2x the amount of damage.

Im on the boat with the guys that want to get rid of the specimen SAP's and make them energy based(its not like the outpost uses or even sells all those random items its asks for anyways).

This has been some of the most fun i have had since starting the game, these changes have brought something to do on beta. It also has shown that some corps only wanted to "own" an outpost if they could do it while playing huttball !!!!

the system is really easy to understand and use if you want an outpost on beta and "actively play" the game its not difficult to do. the problem that many people have cried is that they lose saps out of their time zone. ummm ya if someone is actively trying o take your stuff they might take a sap or two. but if your playing the game you will capture more than they take.

MMO's are 24/7 things happen when your not online, making corps able to change their SAP timers is the most ridiculous notion ever IMO. Doing this you might as well separate the game into different servers and that's something the DEV's will never do.

Scanning SAP timers is a good balance fro the attacker and defender because it does 2 things:
1. promotes people living on their islands (outside of terminal) ... kill the scanner bot if its such a big issue, if your not present to defend your outpost from being scanned are you going to be able to defend it from being attacked?

2. gives everyone else a swinging chance at mounting an attack. If no one but the defender had advance notice of an opening to attack then the system would be lame and cement existing owners into their current outposts with out opposition.

tldr: play or quit ... choose one

Go to forum: General discussion

691 Reply by Tux

(112 replies, posted in Balancing)

Karos wrote:

^ Just wanted to point out, an Ictus with lvl 10 electrostractic dispersion will still only be neut @ 22.86% effectiveness, from what i heard the Ictus will run dry before the troiar.

This is only what i have heard though, not experienced, i can only guess based off the numbers.


1v1 your right the ictus MK1 will loose to the MK2 Troiar totally depending on the Ictus fit, but in 99% of the encounters that i have been in an Ictus will never be alone (unless he doesnt know what hes doing)  thus making his partners (squads) DPS come into play.

1v1 you can fit an IctusMK1 to effectively not be touched by the TroiarMK2 neut, you will be demobed but 1v1 whats the point you two will not do anything to each other until one of you get some backup. 

run a IctusMK2 vs a TroiarMK2 and i will bet anyone an IctusMK2 that they will not be able to kill me(in my Ictus MK2) vs (them it their TroiarMK2) in a 1v1 fight. Comparing MK2 versions of bots to other MK1's is not balanced.. it would be more balanced to compare a MK2 vs another MK2 because of the differences in their bonuses and number of available high and low slots. 

Also: your not factoring in improved energy neutralization which will add to the amount of energy taken. there are other skills that effect how much you can neut for in an Ictus, such as advanced robotics.

Go to forum: Balancing

692 Reply by Tux

(112 replies, posted in Balancing)

IMO the "DEV's" need to take a breath and look at the root issue (people dont use the counter to this fit),  instead of changing bonuses to bots. How is this game ever going to be "persistent" if every tactic gets nerfed once some one reaches the critical level of EP to properly employ a specific tactic?

For the whiners:   

1. The TroiarMK2 tank is easy to counter, just get a pilot who has "dedicated ictus skill set" (high neut skills with high convergent skill) and neut the TroiarMK2
2. instituting the so called fix that was leaked will not fix the problem, you will just need more EP to do the same thing.
3. the 3% difference is not going to effect the base tactic which is this fit is "hard to hit" with medium weapons.
4. there are (from what i have tested) 4 different ways to do this tank fit and the bonus change does not touch 2/4 ways to do this fit.
5. this fit takes a LOT of EP to pull off, again this fit takes some one that has focused all (90%) of their EP into doing something really well. that is why there is very few people in the game who can even pilot this fit effectively
6. think of real ways to counter this fit ... as mentioned above ...

if people spent as much time developing "out of the box" tactics as they did whining about them this fit would be a non issue, but because people think the game should be reduced to the lowest common denominator (noobs) they whine and whine and do some more whining

Go to forum: Balancing