201

(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dear god, Please don't change the drop rates!!  Wont somebody think of the children!!  But seriously please don't change that, it indirectly affects other things in game.  Law of unintended consequences and all.  lets just see how the research patch turns out before we start changing everything else all willy nilly.

202

(6 replies, posted in Balancing)

The problem for me, is that with T3 facilities on gamma I wouldn't invest in material eff at all.  I just want the EP back because the skills are almost usless under Indy 2.0  and gamma.  The difference between maxed out eff skills and no skills with a T3 factory is something like 5%.

I think you are grossly underestimating the effect the Rift will have.  Augmented reality is going to be a drastic shift in how people play games.  Not to mention the fact that the Rift, and its technology, is applicable in many other areas outside of gaming.  Everything from robotics, to remote surgeries could be improved by this type of technology.  It is already used in military applications.  The other thing about Rift is that it is basically a prototype, or proof of concept.  The real impact that this technology will have, wont be decided now.  Check back in 5 years when this tech has had a chance to saturate the market.  There are still major flaws with this technology. 
There is also no other major competition.  When other companies start to compete in this area you will start to see major advances.  Given a decent amount of time the kinks will be worked out and it will be improved upon

on your second point.  PC's have the majority of the market, not the minority. according to

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/n … highlights
http://www.techspot.com/news/52070-pc-g … owing.html

nVidia and many others would like to disagree with you smile

"By 2015, DFC predicts PC game revenue will top $20 billion, roughly twice as much as PlayStation and four times as much as Xbox. Pretty staggering, isn't it?"

In the realm of MMO's the PC reins supreme, by a WIDE margin.  You are correct that the PC market is going mobile, but mobile != tablets.  It means laptops, especially, high-end laptops.  I would rather play a game on my laptop sitting on my conch or recliner chair, than sit in front of my desktop, especially if i'm gonna be there for longer than an hour or two.  The major problem that i see with tablets and other mobile devices is that no one has developed a control scheme that trumps the speed and accuracy of a mouse and keyboard.  Imagine trying to play any of the Staples of PC gaming with a touch interface?  Do you want to play Counterstrike, battlefield, COD, etc etc on a tablet?  I don't.  What about RTS?, RPGs? racing games?  The fatal flaw with all of the mobile platforms (for me anyway)  is that what I play, as of yet, is not practical on anything but a PC.

204

(20 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I was thinking of something along the longs of a team based mission, akin to a raid in other games, where a small team of Players has to take out a small or large NPC gamma base.  Not destroying the entire thing, but something like, taking out a reactor, or a command relay.

DEV Zoom wrote:

Hunter: personally I would be quite happy if we could go Steam exclusive and forget about this multiaccounting nonsense.

@Celebro

I don't see it as a problem.  I meant that in response to Zooms post, the problem is that the system has built in advantages to people you run multiple accounts.  So unless you fundamentally shift the mechanics it will always be beneficial to run more than 1 account.  I love my accounts and can't even remember what it was like to run with 1 account, nor would I ever want too.

The problem is this:  I want to do large scale mass production, so I need large scale mining to maintain my production requirements.  So long as I can only do large scale production with multiple accounts, I will always use multiple accounts.  The amount of materials needed for large scale production are not attainable or feasible with 1 miner.

Second problem.  The amount of EP required to be either a miner or producer is exceedingly high.  The solution?  Use multiple accounts.  5 accounts = 5 x EP growth.  I am sorry to tell you this, but from the ground up, this game was designed for players to have multiple accounts.  You might have done it accidentally, but none the less, your systems are designed to have multiple accounts run by a single user.

From a business standpoint, why the hell do you even care?  If a user wants to give you 50$ a month instead of $10 why in Zombie Jesus's name would you want to change that?

207

(3 replies, posted in Open discussion)

So similar to an ARP table updating, in a virtual game world kind of way?  like multiple routers all talking to each other when an address has been added/removed?

208

(3 replies, posted in Open discussion)

this article was posted on PCGamer a few days ago,  its about how EVE's server is run on  a classified military Supercomputer.  They were one of, if not the first, commercial company to get access to it.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/15/eve-online/

Anyone care to throw down some money so AC can get a supercomputer?  Personally, I would rather have the supercomputer than the mission patch,  but that's just me sad

209

(15 replies, posted in General discussion)

I love how the corp that is responsible for some of the worst "Chest thumping" and racial bigotry, is trying to shame people for doing far less than your corp and alliance ever did. 

You are right, as of now they games future looks grim, but if this is the end then hey, i'm gonna enjoy it while it lasts.  Deal with it.

210

(153 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Arga wrote:

unlimited resources doesn't allow for market competition, since the corps with the largest demands can not only satisfy those demands, but generate extra supply which solo players could never hope to compete with.

If gamma corps mines out Titan, they would be more willing to buy it from alpha miner (not that they would, it would just be an incentive) than if they NEVER run out.

I beg to differ, during the first 5-6 months of STC's existence I was one of 3 producers.  I supplied the Entire corp with bots.  The other 2 producers supplied mods.  When we first started we were one of the largest active corps in the game.  I mined all the mats, and so did the other producers.  We also had *** mat efficiency skills too.  Mining/Production is one of the last remaining areas where you can work as hard/little as you want and are directly rewarded by the amount of work you put in (with no random chance effects, such as drop rates, hit rates, % chance of getting decent stuff in artifacts, etc, etc).  solo miner/producers can succeed in this arena, you just need to skill for it.

You are correct in the fact that real world economics don't always apply to a system with infinite resources.  BUT supply and demand, market equilibrium, resource availability, time, and other factors do apply to this system and these factors will always play a roll.  These factors also drive market prices.  I agree with Tux, the market is where the competition should be.  When you rely on a computer system to provide artificial competition it always comes down to the algorithm and how best to "game the system".  When its player driven it then becomes survival of the cleverest. 

Yes people will buy titan.  I personally can't stand mining titan, so I usually buy it in large quantities(there are others who do the same).  If PVP gets going again, there will be even more demand for materials.  This games problems stem from not enough people.   Most people would be surprised how many "problems" disappeared over night with a decent population.

Edit:  I alpha mine all the time.  its where i get all of my HDT and liqui.

Not all people find mining terrible.  Mining/production is one of few areas left where people can do as much or as little as they want.  I personally am a large scale mass producer and want to be able to mine in massive quantities to support my production habit.  It is one of the few areas of the game that directly reward the amount of time and work you put into it.

Personally I think Arti-hunting is about as much fun as ripping my own fingernails off, and about as rewarding. But that doesn't mean everyone hates Arti-hunting.  It's just something I personally don't like, and don't take part in unless they are giving me those guardian beacon things smile

212

(153 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I just meant that if I am going to have to go ninja mine in hostile territory on a regular basis I want a HUGE hauler that can be tanked to high hell.  I don't want some lone assbot to roll in and be able to kill a massive hauler, like the way they can with scarabs.  Yes, yes, these mining operations will be defended, but if a lone wolf goes for the scarab and is willing to lose his bot, he/she will most likely get the kill before the defensive forces can kill the assbot or whatever bot he/she uses.

i'm not demanding a new hauler, i'm just saying that if mining in hostile territory becomes the norm, the bots and equipment we have now are not sufficient.

edit:  and a bigger hauler != more yield.  it means you can haul faster, which has nothing to do with yeild.  if you can mine 5000U of epri in a day, making a 5000U hauler doesn't mean you can mine more epri, it just means you only need to make 1 trip to haul your can when finished.

213

(153 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I would be down with Arga's/Zoom's systems if you gave me a hauler that can hold 5000U.  I do not support this system so long as the largest hauler we have is a Scarab mkII.

And if this system is put into place, DEAR GOD make the haulers a little more sturdy.  If I have to ninja mine again in enemy territory the hauler needs to be something along the lines of a Lithus that can hold 5000U, but moves at 20 kph.  whatever it is, this system is not even possible right now with the current indy equipment we have now.

I agree with you Goffer about the mining towers, but the market is already broken.....

Doek wrote:

There are also two conflicting points of views here. I'm saying specializations makes this game meaningful, and to be honest, it's the central idea this game was designed around. A functional market-driven sandbox is actually not about the content at all, since the stories are player-driven. Having a functional, mildly entertaining storyline to help familiarize most new players with the working details does help (which, granted, falls short right now), but the complete lack of a functional market where most of this hinges on is pretty much what inspired you to bring up the idea to essentially remove extensions or extension requirements. That's what I'm getting out your post at least.

The problem with the system we have now, is it encourages multiple accounts.  why depend on the market when i can run a second account, and just make all my own stuff anyway?

216

(10 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

its not that they can't do it now, its that they are a very small indie team, and have a tonne on their plate already with research/mission overhaul plus steam launch.

217

(153 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Syndic wrote:

And considering every time we come to fight you, we wipe our d*cks on your teddy bears... We're pretty happy with that.

insinuating that you *** children......classy

218

(153 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

no see, the point you are not understanding, is that STC DIDN"T HAVE THE COMBAT SUPPORT TO FIGHT OFF 30 VET PLAYERS, AND NEITHER WILL NEWB CORPS.  I capsed the exceptional stupidity of the above statement.

the above mentality also contributes to the 2 power block system, by forcing new players to either join a major power block, or to become allied with a major power block for protection.  we are veteran players can not have our cake and eat it too.  this game is extremely unfriendly to new players.  we as vets need to make concessions to make it easier for new player to become competitive.

219

(153 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

It did not create PVP hot spots, it created gank spots.  M2S, Eharm, HUN,  and others used to do that to STC all the time.  They new exactly where the fields we mined were, so they would log off there and just wait to gank miners.  This didn't create PVP, it gave vets easy ways to get indy kills from a newb corp.  because they didn't have to go hunting, they would just wait.  in effect you were creating a "Duck Blind".  The hunters would go sit in the duck blind, and wait for the indys to come to them.

220

(33 replies, posted in General discussion)

speaking of EULA's,  how long has it been since your last ban?  you might actually make it a month this time.

221

(32 replies, posted in Q & A)

I'm just curious, do you guys have a graphic designer or artist even on staff?  I know you have coders, but that's only half of the equation when it comes to new items and bots. And this is by no means me criticizing, I know you are a small (and very busy) indie team, I was just genuinely curious?  or do you contract out for graphics/artistry work?

222

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I agree with Deathpaws core idea of encouraging PVP.  The only thing needed to encourage more PVP, is making the Beta's important.  Epri needs to be made beta only again, and I agree with Tux about the wild norg.  This would make roaming viable, it would drive prices up, and it would give everyone a reason to fight.

The simple underlying principle of all of this, even Ville's inane rants, is the fact that PVP was constant when betas were worth fighting for.  There must always be a reason to fight.  Fighting is what drives this entire game.  It drives the Market, it drives Industry, and it drives Politics.  Betas were important, even vital to a corps survival.  They are now only worth having if its a station that has an Active SAP.   And now, most vets have more MK2 bots and cortex's than they know what to do with.  So the active SAPS are becoming pointless. 

TL:DR  There must always be a reason to fight.  War is good for the economy.

EDIT: as much as it pains me to say this, I agree with Ville on the walls.  They gotta go.

223

(57 replies, posted in General discussion)

lemon, the reason you have so many bots is because you don't play.... believe me, if you started logging in and looking for fights, we would gladly oblige.

224

(8 replies, posted in Balancing)

me too, I have never seen anybody use trial accounts to siege a base.  I have seen CIR use trial arkhes to blow up probes, but never a gamma base.

225

(188 replies, posted in News and information)

Arga wrote:
Martha Stuart wrote:
Arga wrote:

Stuff

If the equipment standard was T2-T3 I would agree with you, but its not.  Let's be honest here, if you aren't bringing T4, its a trash fit.  As a new player coming into this game, they not only face a resource gap, and EP gap, and an equipment gap.  New players are not going to be able to buy T4 gear all the time.  They wont be able to afford it.  But if you give them the goal of say, if you grind it out for 3 months you can get your research done for the corp.  they now have access to good gear which will swing the odds a little so they are not at such a major disadvantage. 
So long as T4 is the standard loadout, it has to be obtainable for new players with in a reasonable amount of time.  it cant be some way far off goal, or people wont stay.

If your producing on gamma and buying Epi, your T1+T2+T+T4 price + the PT cost is going to be very close to what you'd pay for it on the 'new' T4 market. If your producing on gamma or beta, you probably have a PT'er already anyway.

Even then, your solo PT'er will be able to still create more T4 gear than they currently can, since they will be able to direct their RP, so corps won't be buying every T4 piece.

tl-dr; If a corp can't afford to use T4 now, the Tech patch isn't going to change that.

you are assuming that the prices will stay the same.  If there is a massive influx of new players, prices are going to sky rocket.  Its a fundamental principle of supply and demand, and market equilibrium. 

If 3000 new players show up. Anyone who is still selling T4 at current prices is either an idiot, or doing it for some not smart reason.  Either way, prices are not going to stay where they are. (including Epri)