I really get tired of the DEVS messing around with the resources in the game ... I think the only problem right now is the afk scarab liquid miners. other than that If you want to spend the time to strip mine field after field with however many RIV MK2's i really dont care you paid the price for the game and skilled the characters so you should have the benefits ...

If any change needs to be made to effect this NPC's should go back to being red on alpha2' and no liquids on alpha 1 islands. this will stop afk liquid mining. all of the other ores are mined tile by tile so their is a lot more work to be done.

This is not an issue on beta because there is pvp which = risk

Alpha 2 should have some risk = RED roaming (no static spawns please) NPC's

52

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

One of the goals of the new system is to disallow shutting down the islands at the teleports.  Why do you still think in the old system? Why do you want to secure the island and not the base? Why does a corporation want an entire island for itself? And if it does, shouldn't it have to make a considerable extra effort to do it, compared to the corporations who only want a base?


Zoom I am thinking of how to break your system ... and im telling you how to break it because it will be done. I assure you, please dont make the same mistakes as the old system and think that players will do what you want them to because they wont. Players will do any thing they can to gain an advantage over other players and if that means locking off an entire island it will be done.

DEV Zoom wrote:

3. That really depends on the size of said corporations, doesn't it?

Tux wrote:

From past experience the gamma Islands are Barely capable of fully supporting 2 Corporations of a moderate size let alone 3 or more.

So why is that? Is it possibly because of the building spam?

Because just like the Alpha 2 islands when you get 40+ RIV MK2's out mining fields dry quickly. but i guess that was a little off topic on my part ...

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?

Tux wrote:

If i can TF a slopped "wall" around a teleport and put turrets at the top of the slope. and my enemy cannot Tf the slope to attack me then what have we solved. If i have 3 terminals on an island and 3 teleports i can secure my island, people will not be able to roam at all. the only thing the "locked slope" does is give clean LOS from my turrets to the attacker.
(turret)
          \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
            \
              \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                \
                  \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                    \_________

DEV Zoom wrote:

We'll have to look at that, cause I received another report that it's not possible to terraform up there, while theoretically it should be possible to build incremental ramps.

But another question then: why do you want to terraform that? What would be the goal of it?

If you can't shoot the turret because it's out of range, why don't you take some assaults up there, place some bombs and be done with it? I'm pretty sure the turrets can't track the entirety of a large enough squad. Yeah you're going to have losses, but then again, assaults are cheap.

ummm because its going to be the standard for gate defense ... and base defense. ... trust me ...



DEV Zoom wrote:

That reminds me, i forgot to add another suggestion:

Should turrets also have an emergency phase, since their numbers will be limited now? They will go offline if they do, but you wouldn't have the hassle of rebuilding them again and again.

YES!

53

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Ville wrote:

If a building goes offline when it enters emergency stage what stops a well planted group of spys into a corp and shooting the Key things (energy nodes, repair nodes, and boosters[all which do not shoot back]) then let an enemy force over night wipe out your base?

-1 to 1 terminal per island.  I was hoping for like 5 or 6.  That would allow Alliances to Hold ONE island instead of needing to own 3 or 4.

what stops an alliance form living out of 1 terminal ?

whats the difference between 6 and the 12 we had? with 6 Terminals you can double cover gates ... no roaming sad

I understand the concern with Spys .. this could effectively shunt down a whole network ... which is really bad.

I would ask with this change that combat logs for structures that are put into reinforce are kept. .. so then the spy is outed by his actions. Because of this change i would support reinforcement for all structures even turrets. This will allow you to root out the spy and then properly defend your self.

OR (intensive coding) make it so players can not do any type of damage to structures their corporation owns big_smile, this was done kind in the past when plasma bombs were not allowed to kill saps this could be done the same way with structures. ... making the spy have to leave corp to do this. ... which would then make him a target to turrets.

Also with this mechanic Corporations need to be able to fully repair their structures and take them out of reinforcement at their own will before the timer allows. This is because a Corporation need to be allowed. to prepare their defenses for a second assault. With everything offline it will be nearly impossible to do anything that will embolden the defenses.


a few ideas ....

54

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Why is 1 Terminal on an Island a waste?

Your insinuating that:
1. A corporation should need to deploy 3 terminal/networks on an island in order to "start" to secure the island.
2. A group of several Corporations is needed to secure an island 1 Per terminal
3. An island Is large enough to fully support 3 Corporations

From past experience the gamma Islands are Barely capable of fully supporting 2 Corporations of a moderate size let alone 3 or more.

Is the 3 terminal per corporation limit going to stand or will you limit this to 1 per corporation?

How will you balance the 2 TP 3 TP and 4 TP Islands so the number of terminals does not pre determine what islands are going to be able to be locked off form the outside? << keep in mind that if its possible in any way shape or form players will do it, its just a matter of time. 

If i can TF a slopped "wall" around a teleport and put turrets at the top of the slope. and my enemy cannot Tf the slope to attack me then what have we solved. If i have 3 terminals on an island and 3 teleports i can secure my island, people will not be able to roam at all. the only thing the "locked slope" does is give clean LOS from my turrets to the attacker.
(turret)
          \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
            \
              \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                \
                  \ <<< you cant change this part of the slope
                    \_________

Please keep thinking about the terminal / teleports on the islands ... build distance from the teleports is not the solution it only makes it take longer to achieve the same defense (in conjunction with the placement of multiple terminals around an island. ).

DEV Zoom wrote:
Tux wrote:

Please limit this to 1 >> If more than 1 terminal per island is allowed players will naturally place them near gates for defending the Island << This is not theory craft it was done in the past it will be done again. We need to make the gammas roam-able … even @ 1 km away from the terminal I can place turrets
(Turret ~~~~1KM~~~~Terminal~~~~1KM~~~~Turret)
to cut off some Islands form roamers If Im allowed to place 3 terminals. Please start with 1 Terminal and balance from there more can always be added later if you feel the need.

If that's the concern then I would rather add more teleports than to "waste" an entire island on one terminal.

55

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

[*] All buildings received a bandwidth parameter. Terminals provide the bandwidth for the network, and all buildings connected to the network use a certain amount. Works pretty much like CPU vs modules in the case of robots.[/*]

With the additional structures you guys are adding I think an increase in the terminal bandwidth may be needed

[*] Buildings go offline if they get disconnected from a network.[/*]

Good Addition

[*]Both single module terraforming and beacon terraforming has a limit of how steep slopes you can build. The limit is currently set between the slope capability of assaults and mechs.[/*]

Mineral fields will need to only spawn in “accessible areas on gamma islands in order for them not to get “trapped” before they could spawn anywhere.

[*] Buildings go offline in emergency phase, except for the main terminal and facilities.[/*]

FINALLY !!

[*] Buildings can only be deployed within a certain radius of a terminal. Suggested radius: 1km. Exceptions: mining outpost, command relay, energy transmitters, and the planned highway node.[/*]

I would make it a slightly larger foot print 1.5 2.25 3 depending on Tech Level of terminal

[*] Only 3 terminals per island.[/*]

Please limit this to 1 >> If more than 1 terminal per island is allowed players will naturally place them near gates for defending the Island << This is not theory craft it was done in the past it will be done again. We need to make the gammas roam-able … even @ 1 km away from the terminal I can place turrets
(Turret ~~~~1KM~~~~Terminal~~~~1KM~~~~Turret)
to cut off some Islands form roamers If Im allowed to place 3 terminals. Please start with 1 Terminal and balance from there more can always be added later if you feel the need.

[*] Terraformed landscape will slowly degrade to the original terrain with time, but this only affects areas that are outside of a certain radius of buildings (ie. unclaimed land). Suggested radius: 300m[/*]

Good Addition

[*] Reactors will not generate energy on their own. Instead, we will introduce a new underground resource, which can only be exploited by a building, but it does this passively over time. The exploited resource is directly sent through the existing network into the reactor(s), which has a buffer for this resource. (So if you lose all your miner buildings in the network it will still provide energy for some time.) - This feature is still heavily discussed/in development, and I bet you have a lot of questions too, feel free to ask.[/*]

This is the mechanic we have needed all along to balance and limit the size of colony networks on the islands. If there is a limit on the geothermal energy that can be harvested from an island then there will be a limit to the number of structures you can effectively use.

The same mechanic that has been applied to all modules and robots needs to be applied to gamma structures.. we have a prototype system for a reason …. Make structures so they need to be prototyped and not just reverse engineered all the way up to t3.

56

(13 replies, posted in Bugs)

Can you please delete all of the documents for colony and TF plans as they will all be irrelevant in gamma 2.0

there is no need to keep paying for them and the ones that are shared are only clogging my window ... I thought these were going to be removed when gamma was wiped.

Dazamin wrote:

I appreciate that, but the principle is the same, choices, options, you can't just fit everything, there's no reason why that shouldn't apply to bases It may be that the bandwidth is set too low (or too high). I'm interested in what's wrong with the principle of limiting what can be fit on one base in some way?

Their should be limits .. I agree

But we  should be able to choose to build a full production base .. or a full 'death Star' base .... if i can not build a full t3 production base .. whats the point in doing production on gamma?  if its just production with no defense turrets im fine with that ... but at least all facilities fully boosted and powered .. thats where the "base line" should be set

58

(35 replies, posted in Bugs)

Im sure you can bootleg win 7 by now or even 8 ... FYI when a manufacturer stops supporting one of its products and you still use it .. use it at your own risk .... Just sayin.

Hopefully the bandwidth values are not set in stone yet but ... It would be very disappointing if you could not build a full T3 Production base ... even taking in to account having zero defense.

Devs do you have anything you can share with us about Gamma ... even if its un finished and your still working on it we would like to know what your thinking ....

Gamma is a great Idea we want to help get it done right but for that we need you to talk to us smile

Sure we can turn lvl 1 decoders into lvl 10 decoders so i dont see whats stopping us roll


Norrdec wrote:

Can I have a magic transmutation table to change Epi into other liquids?

I have more fragments than i know what to do with ... this was actually a suggestion by a new player ... so yes new corps that don't have troves upon troves of production stocks may find this useful ...  just like decoder combination and ct combination

But hey maybe a new un corp'ed player  should have recommended it so you wouldn't be blinded by the corp tag and may have actually given a productive response. 

Rage Rex wrote:
Tux wrote:

New gamma facility that breaks down fragments

Perfect >> Functional >> Damaged

of course at a cost big_smile

Dooo it Devs !!!

Generally Tux your ideas are not bad but...

Seriously, do you guys NEED more fragments after the Quintillion U Dev-Transferred from Gamma after you burned Zillion beacons from farming Sextillion tokens?

Don't answer. Just disband already.

New gamma facility that breaks down fragments

Perfect >> Functional >> Damaged

of course at a cost big_smile

Dooo it Devs !!!

64

(102 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

Join the RPS channel in game to speak with a recruiter!

Sharp Shooting Precision Firing .... everything else is a distraction wink

Ide like to see all static spawns removed and have only mission and roaming spawns. The mission spawns do not need to be static as they can be generated in a random location on the island when the mission is accepted.

to / from teleports / terminals = major points

+10

Burial wrote:

Some better corp storage permission system is much needed.

+1

+1

Rage Blackout wrote:

Cash Shop -  Passworded folders!!!!

+1

^^^ More improvements needed

69

(17 replies, posted in General discussion)

We need changes like this all the time ... great stuff DEVS!

70

(1,455 replies, posted in General discussion)

Crepitus wrote:
Martha Stuart wrote:
Syndic wrote:

With the current way sparks work I'd lower their complexity down a notch.

Spark Teleport is the new Navigation.

If its the new Navigation, can't we just get rid of the skill entirely and just give everyone 10 slots from the get go?

This.  It is indeed the new navigation and should be given to everyone at the same level.  The cost of the skill hurts new players the most.

Everyone gets 1 spark with a 10 hour cool down and the cool down decreases with each level you put into the skill. or it will remain un balanced .. unless you limit the number of sparks to the same amount for everyone.

So who was top 6 winners ?

Welcome to Perpetuum Skymarshal.

Its always nice to see new blood in the game, I hope you guys stick around for "The Winter" big_smile

See you on the field. yarr

73

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Jita wrote:

Some are saying that a general level of smack talk is part of the game and clear guidelines that are universally enforced is needed.

Yes, I agree with you in that general smack talk (lolz we kicked your arse !!!) and "a good ribbing" are part of every game ...

Personal derogatory attacks have no place here.

74

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

I am trying to find what options we have that the devs could implement in the next 30 days so they can launch it by the end of May.... there are lots of good ideas but if it involves implementing a LOT of new things i do not think it will be done.

Having the Devs custom craft every gamma i do not think is an option.

75

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

You can do the same now only you need 12 terminals.

If the owning corp is not willing to defend that " placeholder " then i will get destroyed. I don't see the problem. If a corporation has the power to colonize a gamma island im sure they can clear a terminal off of a gamma island..

Celebro wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

a 1 terminal per island restriction is open for abuse - you dont want an island, but you also dont want someone else to build something there - so you just build a terminal as placeholder

+1 I don't like 1 terminal per island either. What I liked about gamma is you have a chance of building a small base without anyone noticing for a while.