(24 replies, posted in General discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

Ville has upgraded his sarkasm extension

Search and yee shall find the hate.


(48 replies, posted in General discussion)

Stranger Danger wrote:
Annihilator wrote:
Stranger Danger wrote:

Yeah sure blame the decline on active players.  STC did nothing to provide a fun and happy home for new players.

what did you to provide STC a fun and happy home in this game?
oh wait, your corps official agenda is to bully STC out of the game...

Did STC do the same after our corp members allowed them to evacuate gamma with goods in a friendly gesture to new players?  What happened to your complaints when STC had a public doctrine of denying pvp and driving us out of the game, seeing as we were the only other active players in game?  Were you there for the chest beating over taking over our abandoned gamma bases when no one was playing?  As usual you are speaking like you are an expert about subject you are clueless about.

Sorry buddy, you spend 99% of the game on the sidelines, and all you know is whats told to you by our enemies and what you see off the forums.  There literally are few players in game as clueless as you about mechanics, politics, and how the game works.

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … harmchaos/

3rd post from above link a nihilist admitting he would have destroyed the scarabs thus forcing Old School STC out of game.

Annihilator wrote:

just dont quit the game... i had to promise lemon NOT to shoot those scarabs

Back then STC was part of great group lead by people from RPS. Now it's rejects clinging to that legacy and spamming forum with words while doing *** in game. Annihilator would make a perfect recruit.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Lab Geek wrote:
Ville wrote:

There is 52 pages of I TOLD YOU SO.  Feel free to read it.

Just found that thread tongue its still 51 pages of corp dialogue but it does show the amount of debate it has drawn. Maybe this is why the devs havent opt'd to try and work on it since their doesnt seem to be a communally agreed upon solution or a consensus that there is a problem with it at all.

Maybe time for a revist and new thread to try and cut to the chase, as it were?

No way you read it then.

No reason to rehash it all over again. The first 30 pages or so are main 'meat' of it. People who have said SpT broken from day one spoke to MECHANICS. At the time STC  owned all the outposts and dragged the whole debate into corp dialogue gutter. They refused to let go of ACCUSATION that the ONLY reason we were looking for spark nerf was that WE wanted Dev intervention to get access to Beta. Well guess what *** now 77CIR dominates Beta and the same people pushing for spark nerf then are still pushing for it now.

Go read the thread THOROUGHLY and don't *** tell me it's all corp dialogue(skip STC posts). We don't need to rehash that ***. And until Gamma comes out I doubt those of us still seeking nerf will make any headway.


(48 replies, posted in General discussion)

Cassius wrote:

Alliance mandated agenda based troll posting has killed more potential in this game than Dev changes ever will.
But then, that's the idea, right?


Evil 77 and CIR ruining the game again.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

and you will need sparks on gamma for what exactly?

to be able to jump between your three terminals with your whole combat force because else you would not be able to defend them while  also attacking other gamma bases AND also doing your alpha exploiting (your words)?

does that mean you need those sparks because:
1. you are not strong enough to hold a gamma base
2. gamma or beta is not worth living there, which leads to situations where you have no presence in agents to defend your little base?
3. you think an attacker needs to travel to your base to attack it, but you need to be able to instant-teleport there to defend it in case someone takes advantage of youre force "not beeing home".

What are you trying to prove and/or suggest with your latest I-hate-my-life post?


(48 replies, posted in General discussion)

Stranger Danger wrote:

Sad thing is most of these people are long time EVE players...so the concept of not being #1 all the time should be baked in and not an issue.  Why is this an issue in perpetuum then?

I sincerely look forward to a day when there are so many stronger forces out there that you always have a new challenge to look forward to.

I read your wall and appreciate the sentiment but fact is there are too many bad winners rubbing it in the loser's faces on nearly every side of every conflict. It was the norm in EVE and it's the norm here. Problem is here you only have the same group to fight over and over. It's completely normal to loose via demoralization. Assets and wars of attrition did not exist in my days in EVE and I've never seen it here either. Its all about breaking the others will to fight.

At least in EVE you could lick your wounds after getting *** and go find new targets and new pastures to rebuild momentum and re motivate. That can't happen in the sad two powerblock, six island world of Nia.

Nothing can be said to get another side to keep checking into the *** cage.

This is not about one or two corps. It's the nature of winning and losing in a video game. And before anyone starts pointing fingers all you mother *** are guilty of it.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Gwyndor wrote:

This is the balancing thread, not corp dialogue. What makes you think spark teleport is balanced? What makes you think it isnt? You are the one making about metagaming and politics.

Actually, this is the main thread. And this topic has been a pretty big one in multiple threads for over a year. OP is just one more in long line on this issue. And the amin issue I complain about with others is Instant Power Projection.

Look at the map. Even if 77CIR could still control all those islands and hold all those outposts it would be much much harder. Not everyone has 6 compat accounts. IZ is helpful, but requires coordinated movement and more organization. People can spark in independently back and forth and back and forth whenever at NO LOSS of time. Try going back and forth 2 times with IZ.

As for Corporate Dialogue, SpT is technically a Mechanics Issue and should surpass corporate dialogue issues. Realistically, it's just too intertwined with corp discussions to expect people not to drag in all the mud and start pointing fingers, making accusations and demands about "how you should play or not play."

I know its a major convenience, and as much as I want to see it limited (nerfed) more I know other BUFFS to transportation system and networks, combined with remote mechanics have to come in to compensate for the lost convenience to those NOT using sparks to project power.

It's a tough issue. But absent 100 more islands it too easily used by the strongest to control EVERYTHING.

Gremrod wrote:
Rage Rex wrote:

Definitely not Beta / Gamma.

I want to say yes for Alpha but that would be OP. For each Teleport to act like a mobile means you could take any TP to any TP on island. That's tempting, but no. Perhaps something more limiting but also allowing for much more fluid travel through TPs at least on Alpha.

Basically, Devs rework the highways and TP networks. They suck

He is saying allow the internal TPs to connect to internal only but let them reach each other rather than having a hop.

That seems fair enough. Too bad it's not up to me.


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Syndic wrote:

You guys do realize that if sparks get removed you'll spend less time playing craft the world and more time hauling your gear around the world in circles as we chase stuff around from base to base right? smile


But theory is that others will have room to come to Beta and grow without Dominating Power up there *** in minutes. It's good for the game imo

Definitely not Beta / Gamma.

I want to say yes for Alpha but that would be OP. For each Teleport to act like a mobile means you could take any TP to any TP on island. That's tempting, but no. Perhaps something more limiting but also allowing for much more fluid travel through TPs at least on Alpha.

Basically, Devs rework the highways and TP networks. They suck


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Burial wrote:

Sparks were actually implemented because there was no remote trade management, contracts or any other sort of remote asset management.

And this is not the first time Devs used a sledge hammer when they should have used a scapel. I'm not even sure if remote mechanics are on agenda.

But whatever because Gunner's idea to completely remove sparks from Beta may be the best compromise possible given extreme usefulness of Sparks in Alpha and certain need for them in Gamma.

With that perhaps a look at IZ. But for now I can live with people using IZ to 'project power" from Alpha or wherever. It certainly is a lot more difficult that sparking.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Burial wrote:

Exactly, why would EW ever need shield hardener, it's not like it's getting hit ever, right.

Shield is a buffer so that in that 1 second ewar mech is in open it's not 2 shot in the face.

Also, we seem to be hitting your ewar mechs quite fine, and with great regularity.

Take those damage tuners out your ***, fit some ECCMs and watch how dynamic game-play changes tactics.


Come to think of it Burial, were you not with M2S when they all started running with 3 guns and a neut in their mechs to counter CHAOS with there apparently unstoppable spider Tyranos fleets? I'll bet you were one of the guys who said "HELL NO! if I give up a gun I'll lose 25% of my DPS! NERF SHIELDS!!!"


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Shadowmine wrote:
Syndic wrote:

The bottom line is that the EWar nerf will go in regardless, and EWar will be probably worthless when considering cost of bot versus what it actually contributes to the fleet. At that point, 6 different compositions that currently suffer against EWar will become available, and then we break the game so thoroughly it will take years to unravel the balance mess.

For each mechanic nerf, 3 will become overpowered.

Until we're back to who can field more people.

3 fights and excuses about lags and DDoS after that, there won't be anything left to do except turn it into a 10v10 lobby shooter like world of tanks.

And I believe the word you are looking for is "Useless" not "Nerf". big_smile

Fixed for you


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Shadowmine wrote:

Say what? How does LOS/masking/range/ AND SPEED not matter in anyway? That is ridiculous, that is the basics of piloting ewar! God forbid you actually have to put an ecm tuner on your ewar bot, or (God forbid) a shield hardener! (Gasp!)

Shield hardener, really? Can I cram any other useless mods in my ewar bots head? WTF are you talking about?

Go do some more 1v1 analysis on ewar bots, and while your at it give that poor ewar mech 3 guns so he has a chance.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Weedy wrote:
Burial wrote:

Masking, speed, range, no LOS. What do you mean by completely vulnerable to DPS bots?

EWar bots with your proposed 'balanced' changes won't be able to do anything to stop DPS bots from killing them in a matter of seconds for being the glass-cannons as they are. LOS/masking/range don't matter in any way if there is a mech on your ***, you won't be able to stop it or delay it IN ANY WAY.

Basically, EWar pilots are pure PvP pilots. They ONLY thing they are useful for is PvP - their specialty is not needed in any other department of the game, not even ratting, because it is a lot more sufficient to bring an extra DPS bot. They can't farm, they can't make money, they are existing only by the support of others for the services they provide. If they don't have a miner account/DPS account, they cannot exist outside of corporation and outside of PvP - and I know quite a few people who only play a single dedicated EWar account. With your changes, by fitting 1-2 ECCM modules and putting 10-20k EP into ECCM skills, you want to render people who specced into this only role USELESS in the only field where they can do something.

It will basically destroy ANY need for those robots to be played by people and fielded in PvP, as they will be substituted by much better possible alternatives. IF those changes ever go live, free respecs must be handed out to accounts with skilled EWar, because they will be left useless in the ONLY area where they can have some use. And, EWar bots will also require a significant buff in some other area if they get nerfed EWar-wise, otherwise those bots will never be produced and bought and sold and fielded again. No new players will spec into EWar either, as when even veteran skills are going to be lackluster in the case of your suggested changes, newbie EWar pilots are just going to be a complete waste.

Also, EWar has NEVER been a problem - only several special people (or rather, a group of people) are rooting for those changes since a certain period of time. With that, devs also need to remember that on forums only a MINORITY of community is present (it is the same for the most games out there), and a MINORITY of that MINORITY is strongly trying to force these changes upon ALL OTHER players in-game. It is going to have huge repercussions if the bigger picture is actually taken into account - balance is only a small part of the question here, it is a question of gameplay, game design, and character development.

excellent post btw


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Shadowmine wrote:
Gunner wrote:

When you field Mech Ewar against us, we deal with it and stomp your face.

I dont know what more to say.

So it must be balanced then, right? big_smile

Thats only one in a long line of arguments used against the same ol phony 1v1 max EP numbers that no one knows where you come up with them from. You use tuners to boost your numbers, you don;t account for lower EP players, and you post post post post post post post post post post until the Devs throw up their hands. They have way too much going on to truly test this out and figure out ...


In the meantime just keep up your metagame. I know the Devs well enough to know you'll get your nerf soon enough.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Gunner wrote:

I never use ECM tuners.

Hope that helps.

Shadowmine wrote:

Poor guy, you will only be able to equip 3 ECM's instead of 4... Oh the horror...

and I have NEVER used one, ever. And like Gunner said. it really just come down to "you suck at ewar" otherwise you would be OP too and clearly you are in Alpha. tongue


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Shadowmine wrote:

All this *** about 2 ECCM's make heavies immune to ECM. Couldn't the ewar pilots then just add an ecm tuner to mitigate the effect of ECCM? Or is that too difficult of a concept to grasp? How many ECCM's should a bot have to fit to mitigate the effect of ewar? 3? 4? 5? 6? Isnt this the premise of pvp in this game? Fits, and counter fits?

Ewar pilots can just add more headslots I suppose. As headslots not tight enough as it is.

I have said many times I have no problem removing the ewar tuners from the game. They were added in year or two ago for? what reason?


(57 replies, posted in Balancing)

Kaldenines wrote:
Rex Amelius wrote:
Gunner wrote:

dont take it away, it will make it less easy to dominate beta


Hold on some one is saying there is a target on the far corner of Kent

<5 minutes later>

Got em. Back to mining on Nova

But if you got your target it must be helping the game by creating more pvp!

Of course. Sparks create PvP. BUFF sparks!!!

The faster I can kill anything that steps foot on Beta anywhere the better for PvP in this game!


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Ville wrote:

You modified your post.

This ain't twitter. I often make adjustments to ideas in original post I make them in. Anyway, I thik you get idea then?


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Ville wrote:

That allows me to snipe stuff inside the base to put it in emergency phase.

Do you mean players? They can dock or hide behind base structures. wink

If you mean base structures, I don't follow as based on proposed mechanic anyone sniping structures also gets shot.


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Regarding Turret Range. In order to make a more roam-able island turret can't be shooting at EVERYTHING that comes in their 1000plus range or whatever. Obviously they NEED range to avoid the Sniping H-Mech Issue.

So, propose Three Aggression Behaviors:
1.) Fire at anything once within short range, like 500m or something
2.) Fire at full range at anything that attacks any turret or base structure (beware exploits)
3.) Fire at full range at anything that drops bombs, wall units, or commences terraforming

Idea is to allow roaming gangs to maneuver more easily mid island between bases without being pinched between long range turrets.

Balance must obviously considered for manipulating this system with one guy while 30 others remain 'safe' AND prohibit friendly triggering the turrets with 'friendly' fire.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Burial wrote:
Ville wrote:
Burial wrote:

Transparent why Syndic only wants tuners touched.

Dude you were Throwing biased numbers out there!  How many tunnings were you stacking 2? 3? 4?  You completely made up an entire argument around a problem that doesn't exist!

There's never any point having more than 1 tuner and sometimes it's more worthwhile to have none.

Weedy wrote:

Devs, why do you want to leave EWAR pilots completely vulnerable to any DPS bots, unable in any way to defend themselves with those new changes?

Masking, speed, range, no LOS. What do you mean by completely vulnerable to DPS bots?

Maybe the point about being destroyed in 14 seconds. Keep playing 1v1 gayness. You're close to your goal of manipulating Devs and freeing up head slots for more damage tuners. roll

Next stop Ictus.

We shall be tug-of-war dps on dps heavy mech slug fest.

...and funny thing is, after nerfing all the dynamics out of the game you still suck. And you'll still lose. tongue


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Gremrod wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:
  • Turret balance / damage reduction.

What about turret range? Does it fall under turret balance?

If not, then do you guys think that turrets that can lock and fire / out range any heavy mech in game seems a bit too much?

If the Gamma islands will be more accessible (hopefully) I think Range is a far more important issue than damage. Range is what dictates where one can and cannot navigate.


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Again depends what you mean by "roamable". I doubt you want the enemy to dance around in your base without any obstacles. Walls are meant for that purpose, but obviously they only hold so long.

I'd also like to add that walls would not be allowed in the proposed no-terraform/no-build coastline areas.

No-terraform/no-build areas need to be far more extensive than just coastlines and teleports. I realize you are trying to create build able highways. Perhaps those units alone can be exception to no-build areas.

Roaming the coastline of a mud-walled island is not much different from previous Gamma. Do you think this won't happen?