201 Reply by Shadowmine

(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Burial wrote:

Sensor Amps and Remote Sensor Amps are a requirement in PVP. They are the Navigation 10 of fitting modules.

I propose nerfing SA and RSA to both be 15% locking range and -10% locking speed.

Additionally I propose beefing up stock robots locking range and time to the point that they would give the same results with the nerfed SA and RSA as they do now, so nothing would be lost on the range and speed front.

RSAs are the biggest reason people field follow bots. If they would be removed or devalued from the game, it would make the follow-nerf more or less unnessecary IMO since reps and energy can easily be taken over by specialized players unlike RSAs.


Thoughts?

Leave it in C/D guys.

Go to forum: Balancing

202 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Rage Rex wrote:

If he goes through with it he should table until AFTER Steam. The rediculous Follow "abuse" argument will be even more irrelevant with Steam population. This is a low population tactic (and its not abuse in my opinion anyway).

Zoom, if you do Nerf Follow, the very least you can do is reset NEXUS and Remote Related EP.

Those skills are still useful, but in a completely different and/or limited way now. Anyone still wanting them can easily skill them back up. But many, especially those like me--with high points in NEXUS and other Remote abilities concentrated on one account--would prefer to have the option to choose a different path. It's only fair given this is a THREE YEAR OLD ABILITY.

I'll still use some of the good NEXUS skills, but on primary combat accounts, not support accounts. Isn't that how you want us to play your game Zoom? Take the sting out...

Objections from Burial, Line, Shadow in ...3...2...1

Just enjoying the tears. cool


But seriously, -1 on Ep reset

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

203 Reply by Shadowmine

(24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

This whole thread was started because they couldn't log in their alt and spark to a beta terminal in time to pick up some active hack sap loot before someone ninjaed the loot. Must suck having so many beta outposts... smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

204 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ville wrote:

Its being blown out of proportion because no one wants it to happen but a hand full of individuals.

Just because you do not WANT it to happen. Doesn't mean it isn't good for the game to be done. ex, Spark teleport nerf, gamma reset, epriton removal from gamma, assignment rework, Distress beacon nerf. The list goes on and on.....

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

205 Reply by Shadowmine

(24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Merkle wrote:

This is quite funny.

Should of made this thread 5 months ago and watch how bad it would of gotten a -1.  smile

I know, right! big_smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

206 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Sure there is, I bet every 10 pages or so they get some actual valuable insight into things. They just have to read through the 9 pages of pointless whiny, crying to get there....

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

207 Reply by Shadowmine

(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

I do think the idea is worth exploring. Even reducing the bonus of Rsa and SA and buffing or adding extensions for locking time and range etc.

Go to forum: Balancing

208 Reply by Shadowmine

(53 replies, posted in Testing server)

Can you link the test server download please. I cant find the damn thing anywhere...

Go to forum: Testing server

209 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

When I farm npc's I never use the follow command. For my hauler, my combat, or my logi. Not sure how you do it.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

210 Reply by Shadowmine

(23 replies, posted in Balancing)

Actually I thought that some tuners took the modified value and other tuners used the unmodified value. I could be remembering wrong though, has been awhile since I looked into it.

Go to forum: Balancing

211 Reply by Shadowmine

(24 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

-1. If you cant be bothered to undock your terminal at the end of a sap to collect the loot, then it should be fair game for whoever gets to it first.

Although I would be excited about some more variety in defending saps. Babysitting a sap for an hour blows, but I think with the spark teleport nerf, corps really will not want any more than 1 outpost to have to defend. Plus sap ninja ops are fun to do for smaller corps who need the loot but cant stand toe to toe with the big dogs.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

212 Reply by Shadowmine

(77 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

On a brighter note, I don't think I have ever been as excited to get on the test server and test things as I am now. smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

213 Reply by Shadowmine

(29 replies, posted in Balancing)

Gunner wrote:

Took the words out of my mouth.

.. and to add to that, as elitist and arrogant players that we are, we guarentee that we will break anything you put on the table.  We only do it to show you what the limitations are, not to make your life harder.

If that were the case, you would submit tickets and report bugs once you found them, instead of abusing them and exploiting them until the otherside finds out and reports it themselves.

Go to forum: Balancing

214 Reply by Shadowmine

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

I believe you are a pretty trustworthy guy smokey. Its just hard to believe that some people in your TS channel knew about this exploit and you didn't. For that matter I think optikhan used it in his kain before you did in that fight.

Go to forum: Bugs

215 Reply by Shadowmine

(8 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Awesome, I have been resisting my urge to play, to try and hold off for this patch. Should be any day now..

Go to forum: Open discussion

216 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Gunner, heres the deal.

Removing the approach command while flagged will DIRECTLY reduce the competitive advantage of multi acct pvper over single acct users. (The wholepoint of this thread)

Removing the approach command for industrial multi acct users DOES NOT directly reduce the competitive advantage between multi and single acct industrials.

If I drive 3 mining accts and sit them  on a field, it adds maybe 5 minutes time to get to the field. But once they are there, not having the approach command does nothing to reduce the competitive advantage gap. You then just empty your can with 1 scarab as you mine. Doesn't even affect my hauling.

So why would you remove a useful command in non pvp situations that really doesn't solve the problem at hand?

And still this isn't about removing multiple accts. Why in the hell would a game developer want to tell people to not give then more money? The point is to allow people to have as many accts as they want. But to not allow those that do have multiple accts to have such an advantage as to make the single acct player unable to be competitive.

In the case of industry, having one acct just means you need to spend 3 times as much time mining to be competitive as a guy with 3 accts. Actually not an impossible task, but one you would expect.

In the case of PVP, however. 1 acct cant just spend more time pvping to reduce the competitive advantage gap of multi acct users. So since you cant even the advantage, you need to make it MORE difficult for the multi acct PVPer. You are not removing the ability to use multiple pvp accts, just making it a LITTLE more difficult to do so is all.

I don't see any reason to not remove the approach command to flagged targets, tbh.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

217 Reply by Shadowmine

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

1.9 sec lock time does you no good on interisland teleports, as long as you can press the teleport button in 1.9 seconds. (really easy to do as you land within teleport range)

@Zoom: 15 second timer is better than nothing until a more comprehensive fix can be found.

Go to forum: Bugs

218 Reply by Shadowmine

(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Sorry I'm not addressing everything here, but there is a practical problem with limiting terminal placement based on range.

You don't know where the other terminals are.

If you would know, the location of the terminals could not be hidden anymore.

If you don't know, you would have to trial-and-error the WHOLE island when you are trying to place a terminal.

I actually don't think this is an issue at all, tbh. Asking the players to have to scout an island before placing a gamma terminal is not asking too much, imo. With the new terraforming changes, choosing and locating a good spot to place a gamma base will be much more important. I don't think its asking too much to have to run a detector over the island if you get an error stating another terminal is too close.

Will actually make scouting new base locations fun, and make you want to get your base down in your spot before someone beats you to it.

Go to forum: Balancing

219 Reply by Shadowmine

(48 replies, posted in General discussion)

You have the "Rage" part down, now if you can just learn the "Quit" part... big_smile

Go to forum: General discussion

220 Reply by Shadowmine

(77 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Maybe a locking time bonus for Terraforming bots? Maybe Garg mk2 and Symb Mk2 or some such get a locking time bonus modifier? This would help make terraforming less painful with a t4 amp or two, and would still allow ecm and especially suppression to have an affect in combat. Otherwise I am ok with instant lock time. Pvp terraforming will not be a big player I suspect, but we can wait and see.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

221 Reply by Shadowmine

(99 replies, posted in Bugs)

Anyway to keep the mechanic as it is, but if you jump island with a pvp flag the server automatically places your bot on terrain after few second delay? Sucks for slow computers and internet connections, but such is the life of a pvper. It can still be used for disappearing haulers, but at least bots can be killed in pvp again.

Go to forum: Bugs

222 Reply by Shadowmine

(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

Then you don't pay close attention, as the 2nd mission patch has been slated for after steam from the beginning..

Go to forum: General discussion

223 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Lemon wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

Lemon: you're talking about the 5% of multiaccounters who actually know about 3rd party apps, while we're aiming at the 95% who multiaccount because the game itself provides an easy mechanic to do it.

The amount of multi accouters used to be 5-10% of Perpetuum, the light client and affordable subscription didnt help slow that fire. I started at 1 account by month 1 i was at 2 and by month 3 I had 6.

My intent is not to cry wolf but simply show the good and bad in order to help you be prepared.
~~~

Here is a MultiBox Example and this will not be prevented from these changes.

Our side is 15 bots-2 Single account players equals 13 bots played across 7 people, all of which are dynamically changing who they support and their actions as the fight goes on.

Then enemy is 28~ at most seen in force, I cant comment on account/player relations.  The change that is going in will only prevent the 'mild' version of this.

Intended? The greatest foe to multi-boxing in PvP you have is your spotty connection nodes to the US, thaose d/c's are a majority of my mutli-box deaths.

Great, so you are on board with fixing the "mild" version of this, and we will continue our efforts on lessening the multi acct advantage in the future.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

224 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

When you come up with a good way to reduce the competitive industrial advantage of multi acct users as compared to single acct user. let me know. I will support you. But until then, you not coming up with a good idea how to do so, is not a valid reason to not balance and fix the problems we can.

The more you guys struggle, the more I enjoy it. Just sit back, relax, and take it. big_smile

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

225 Reply by Shadowmine

(459 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Sure, remove it completely. it still only really affects pvp. But if it makes you feel better Gunner, I will drive each miner to the field separately. It will add 10 minutes to the time it takes me to clear a mineral field.

Its not about stopping multi account users, its about reducing the competitive advantage gap of single and multi acct users. And if you think this is also the solution to nerfing multi acct industrials, I am all for it.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests