This would be in conjunction with current spark restrictions, or Rex's idea, doesn't matter. This is just an additional restriction on spark locations. Just curious what the DEV's think of it. i.e. Not a big concern, don't see it makes any difference, too difficult to program, something else planned, etc...
Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Search options (Page 2 of 19)
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Shadowmine
Posts found: 26 to 50 of 471
26 2014-10-08 00:46:37
Re: Curious what the DEV's thoughts are... (11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
27 2014-10-07 23:29:35
Topic: Curious what the DEV's thoughts are... (11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
Curious the DEV's opinion on only being able to spark to gamma and betas that your OWN corp owns. Just curious if you have a feeling one way or another.
Initially it seems that the corp that owns it should get the advantage of being able to spark there to defend it.
28 2014-10-07 22:41:10
Re: Beta - Break the Monopoly / Reignite Small Gang Activity (27 replies, posted in Balancing)
I guess, but you can still do that exact thing if you are not flagged. So all you really did was discourage people from flagging up unless you KNOW it will be a competitive fight. While before there would be a chance of a kill or some pvp action, now the small gang never flags and goes home.
29 2014-10-07 22:23:58
Re: Beta - Break the Monopoly / Reignite Small Gang Activity (27 replies, posted in Balancing)
I guess I just never got that argument. If you see someone drop an armored, why didn't you just drop one of your own as soon as you see them drop it? Then you just follow them if they jump... Really not that hard of a concept...
30 2014-10-07 22:21:00
Re: Perpetuum - Game community and developers at odds with each other. (169 replies, posted in General discussion)
Is all this spin and trolling necessary? Outside of a small handful of noobs, everyone who reads this forum really knows who the Aholes are and who they are not... Even the Aholes are nice sometimes and the nice guys are Aholes sometimes. Just some choose one path more than another.
And in my personal opinion, if someone is gonna call out Jita for it, it probly shouldn't be Ville...
(No offense, Ville)
31 2014-10-04 21:24:58
Re: Perpetuum - Game community and developers at odds with each other. (169 replies, posted in General discussion)
And as to the original post on mmorpg, I just don't see how airing perpetuums dirty laundry on a widely visited gaming site is going to do anything to help this game. Can't say I would be standing in line to play a game that has a community labeled "Toxic".
But I guess I am old school, I don't believe in talking about family problems in public...
32 2014-10-04 21:21:48
Re: Dear Devs - Why no discussion/action to balance the game? (155 replies, posted in General discussion)
Nerfing SpT wont fix your problems. Youre not losing because of power projection. You havent been able to find a way to win with what you have now and you wont find a way with even less.
Its short sighted, bipartisan comments like these that destroy any ability for mature adults to actually have beneficial discussions about this game and its direction....
Such a shame that some people can't see beyond their own personal/corporate agenda to actually try and take an objective look at some of the issues being discussed... (sigh)
33 2014-10-04 18:10:46
Re: Beta - Break the Monopoly / Reignite Small Gang Activity (27 replies, posted in Balancing)
How bout allowing the ability to jump through tp's when flagged again? Would go a long way in allowing smaller units the ability to roam...
34 2014-10-04 18:08:59
Re: Perpetuum - Game community and developers at odds with each other. (169 replies, posted in General discussion)
Actually, the forums were a much nicer place to hang out back when CIR couldn't afford a subscription to play the game...
35 2014-10-03 23:09:46
Re: Remove sparks, mobile TPs and probes (37 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
While I am kinda in agreement about removing these things or at least tweaking them. As I recall, spark teleport was introduced when the population was low as the game world was too big and you couldn't ever find pvp.....
36 2014-10-02 22:42:04
Re: Mining Ops (13 replies, posted in Q & A)
Theres a special circle of hell reserved for people who leave 1 tile left on a spawn.
QFT
37 2014-10-02 22:41:08
Re: How do the Devs view power projection? (10 replies, posted in Balancing)
Shortsightedness at it's finest. Surprises me how far people are going to ruin their own gaming experience. Cherry on top is all the crying on the forums that there's no-one to play against.
Well spoken, sir.
38 2014-09-25 22:37:36
Re: Welcome new players! (45 replies, posted in General discussion)
No one said that every person doesn't count, just the more people you have the less what they do matters..
And can you really max out a hvy mk2 with only 700k ep? I feel like you are not maxed in every applicable extension...
39 2014-09-22 23:08:33
Re: Account "gifting" (39 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
I guess Toku doesn't quite get the difference between sharing robots and sharing accounts....
40 2014-09-16 23:25:22
Re: Mining Ops (13 replies, posted in Q & A)
I would still try to mine with the hauler when possible. then just pack up a little early and then use all the accts to haul at the end of the day.
But perhaps most importantly, get someone into a scarab as quick as possible. Even sequer mk2's can help early on..
41 2014-09-13 19:56:38
Re: PLEASE PUSH GAMMA PATCH UNTIL THE OCT. 1st (50 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
PHM/CIR are the only corporation that is going to be building on Gamma right away upon release anyway. I say let them test everything on the live Server and if we have to wipe Gamma again, it only really affects them. So LETS DO THIS!
42 2014-09-12 00:55:39
Re: The psychology behind 'losing'. (60 replies, posted in General discussion)
Game is not dead, just in a coma.
STC reigned over the server for long time too. I'm sure they were also blamed by some for its 'death.'
A few voices may point fingers of blame but reasonable people see through the bullshit. Game's issues are development, content, and mechanics, NOT player Behavior.
This game will always have *** ...like me. If you don't like it you can take my venerable Old Man's advice and Get Your Tough *** Card Punched.
Pretty much agree, but you can remove/change/balance game mechanics that allow *** to negatively affect the game in a disproportionately large way.
43 2014-09-12 00:10:35
Re: Outpost SAP Missions (24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
TBH, the quickest way to get CIR and friends to stop owning all the outposts is to remove cortexes from sap loot.
44 2014-09-12 00:06:14
Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking (126 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
And I have to agree that if a defender isn't actively defending an outpost the stability should not go up. I would even still say take it a step farther and if the defender doesn't defend several saps in a row the stability should drop. It would be a great mechanic to open and unlock beta outpost that aren't in use, allowing new players to move in and/or take over. And would not affect significantly any outpost that's actively being used.
Next, while it may seem like the game world is small and needs more space. I suggest you have to be very careful in how much space you add. I feel like the amount of gamma islands added to the world in comparison to the population caused more problems than it solved. It made the game world so huge and difficult to traverse in the interest of finding action. And allowed the "turtle" gamma islands to be built in the first place. More beta islands is interesting though...
And somewhere Gremrod mentioned that the population is currently higher than it was when STC reigned... Judging from what I have seen, that is not the case. We are at about the same point.
45 2014-09-11 23:57:51
Re: Why there is nothing wrong with station locking (126 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
50-50 balance is not forcing defender to behave as the attacker 24/7 or their stability doesn't go up after ninja strikes. That's a recipe for burnout, and the game has lost enough casuals who can't keep up with the pace already.
It only burns you out if you own every outpost in the game. And believe me I speak from experience. I "defended" 20 saps a day for the better part of a year. And by defended, I mean I sparked an alt in and hauled beacons and cortexes back to the station. I propose that if Cir and 77th each had one beta outpost, it would take very little effort to maintain your outpost stability. Thus resulting in no "burnout".
I suppose if a single guy tries to take his own outpost it might be tough, but a single guy isn't meant to own a beta station. But any reasonably sized corp could maintain an outpost with ease.
46 2014-09-10 23:03:30
Re: QOL - Insufficient Privileges. (3 replies, posted in Localization)
Bump, just to show its not all about corp tags....
47 2014-09-10 23:02:53
Re: Loading time and crash/lack of response (8 replies, posted in Bugs)
Agreed, sounds like a bandwidth issue.
48 2014-09-10 23:01:08
Re: Why Beta station locks have to go (40 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
Reposted from another thread as this topic is probably more fitting.
How about something where there is the 1 hour window currently for an attacker to take a sap. If he takes it stability goes down. If it is not taken, then immediately afterwards the owner of the outpost has to complete the sap in say 15 min to get the loot and stability increase.
You could then have stability decrease if the outpost owner goes more than 2 saps in a row without taking it, or some such. And even tie the station lockout mechanic to it. Where if the outpost owner does not complete his sap he then loses the ability to lock out the station. Do this in conjunction with maybe a 75 stability or better to lock station maybe.
Add in that only the corporation that owns the station can spark into it. And we may just be having things. If the lockout is not gonna be removed, and Im still on the fence about it, tbh. Then it needs to be made much more difficult to do. And really should only be able to be done if a corp is LIVING out of the outpost.
Even a little random 15 minute timer twice a day that only shows up if you are docked in that station to go and do some menial task to keep your lockout ability. That way you need your corp living in that outpost to have a good chance at keeping the lockout up. Idk, just spitballing here.
Just another idea. Anni's idea about the mission being given during the last 15 min of sap or something for a defender would be ok also.
49 2014-09-10 22:51:35
Re: The psychology behind 'losing'. (60 replies, posted in General discussion)
It takes 2 sides to fight a war... Seems like you are 1 short..
50 2014-09-10 22:45:04
Re: Outpost SAP Missions (24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
How about something where there is the 1 hour window currently for an attacker to take a sap. If he takes it stability goes down. If it is not taken, then immediately afterwards the owner of the outpost has to complete the sap in say 15 min to get the loot and stability increase.
You could then have stability decrease if the outpost owner goes more than 2 saps in a row without taking it, or some such. And even tie the station lockout mechanic to it. Where if the outpost owner does not complete his sap he then loses the ability to lock out the station. Do this in conjunction with maybe a 75 stability or better to lock station maybe.
Add in that only the corporation that owns the station can spark into it. And we may just be having things. If the lockout is not gonna be removed, and Im still on the fence about it, tbh. Then it needs to be made much more difficult to do. And really should only be able to be done if a corp is LIVING out of the outpost.
Even a little random 15 minute timer twice a day that only shows up if you are docked in that station to go and do some menial task to keep your lockout ability. That way you need your corp living in that outpost to have a good chance at keeping the lockout up. Idk, just spitballing here.
Just another idea. Anni's idea about the mission being given during the last 15 min of sap or something for a defender would be ok also.
Posts found: 26 to 50 of 471
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Shadowmine
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.096 seconds (91% PHP - 9% DB) with 6 queries