You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Rage Rex
Nerfs, resets, wipes... How about something creative?
Not terribly interested in the OP but the title, yes. This Ice Age of Nerfing is killing this game. Add some *** bots and mods or something.
Not every Balance needs to be a nerf.
We are allowing you do control them, there is a big difference.
Oh. I did not know. I guess its an elaborate strategy or trap. Very impressive!
Must suck having so many beta outposts...
In advance of the inevitable with SpT
We don't want those outposts anyway!
The selection is so far nice IMO. The multiplier can get people addicted. New random missions and some nice rewards are the key here and hopefully they get it done in time.
I think the new systems look promising. I'm not complaining about it. I'm just saying that mission content is key in retention. But I hope you're right about retention, really.
Merkle wrote:This is quite funny.
Should of made this thread 5 months ago and watch how bad it would of gotten a -1.
I know, right!
If you guys are referring to the fact Biker Gang controls pretty much every outpost at this moment then sure I can see the "humor" in the timing as opposed to 5 months ago.
Maybe if you read OP again you'll see that this should NEVER be introduced with current SpT system. Once SpT is gone, so will monopolization of Betas.
I think Biker Gang may be able to retain about 1/3 of Beta outposts under current politics, but not more. You'll get your cut. And with Passive Income there is more incentive.
Real question is Passive Income (yes/no)?
If you're not for Passive, you're not. It's not Political.
But hey, imagine the bickering within alliance when Passive is introduced. Will greed tear an Alliance apart? Will greed lead to loyal corp members quitting or betraying a corp with leaders who don;t share? Think about the added dynamic.
Rage Rex wrote:Sensor Amp is a MUST HAVE module. It's really very rare that I not use one.
Once a module is a MUST HAVE our other fitting variations are lessened, and thus that particular module deserves some attention and balancing.
Perhaps overhaul to entire Default Robot Locking Range/Time, Sensor Amps, and Remote Sensor Amps. However, this would require significant thought and balancing that would be a disaster in this forum with current biases and low population effect on current strategy and tactics.
In Short, for now, HELL NO on RSA nerf
Lobo wrote:And yeah Bro lately it seems like your just taking swings at what ever style is our FOTY.
You mean whats the point with nerfing SA and RSA when the end ranges and locking speeds are the same? Well, they aren't the same if that's what you mean. If an agent gets double amped he ends up with same locking speed and locking range, sure, but anyone not getting double amped will have better locking speed and range than now. Like Rex pointed out, right now boosting sensors is a must-have but after the nerf it could be could-have.
I'll bet in math you always forget to carry the negative and thus get wrong answers.
You take my word Balance and turn it to Nerf. Then you say that by reducing a modules strength you no longer need ONE ...right then you need TWO.
You're either pretty dumb or just a total spin myster and word twister like you seem to be.
The assignment system is great hope for player retention. Devs just need to make sure it's well balanced and worth doing more than just sitting on Alpha2 spawn.
Assignment system? You mean the new assignment selection process.
There are NO NEW ASSIGNMENTS for Steam, thus NO NEW CONTENT.
My memory is that players always complained that assignments were boring, and that was when they could at least select ones they preferred or that paid better. Now, they have the same *** assignments and can no longer choose what they want because of mission exploiters.
Am I wrong about the content ...I sure hope so. Apparently someon was oh so happy to correct me about the fact that Stage Two of missions comes AFTER Steam and not before. Terrible, terrible strategy.
I hope I'm wrong about content too.
Jita wrote:Also what the *** is the point in setting up a poll if you do it regardless of opinion and close it before everyone votes?
The poll was running for 2 weeks, like every poll so far. I think that's ample time for everyone to make up their minds.
I far prefer your reason that it's ultimately your decision anyway.
Polls are a joke. My five accounts never voted and I'm obviously opinionated on the matter.
I suggested some sort of passive income on Betas a while ago. I think what I suggested was passive mining towers that outpost owners can build near their outposts and if Epriton field happens to be near it, it generated a small amount of Epriton(either to the building so it needs hauling or right to corporation storage). That tower would be shootable so it would be some work to make sure it's operating etc.
Needless to say I got shot down fast for some of the reasons you pointed out..
By the way, SAP loot is way too big income to be generated passively.
Lots of good arguments against Passive Income. With current population it could be a windfall, but with 1000s or players that loot keeps spreading thinner.
I actually for increasing and varying loot, such as adding plasma. But that would be balancing with population.
I doubt we'll see passive income, but it has its conflict generation qualities.
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.
Shadow, I'm shocked that you agree with this!
Oh, and Burial you're already getting your Follow Bot nerf for the purpose of limiting pay2win multi-account abuse. One of the biggest losers in that nerf are RSA users. Don't you think we should take a look at the other 99 ways to abuse multiple accounts and pay2win tactics?
Or was it always about ewar range, like I have been saying?
Reality of forum campaign to "reduce competitiveness" of "pay2win" multi-account "abuse":
1.) nerf Follow
2.) nerf RSA
3.) nerf NEXUS
4.) nerf ewar strength
5.) nerf Zenith
6.) buff Heavy Mech sensor strength
Finally, no more pay2win multi-account abuse!
Sensor Amp is a MUST HAVE module. It's really very rare that I not use one.
Once a module is a MUST HAVE our other fitting variations are lessened, and thus that particular module deserves some attention and balancing.
Perhaps overhaul to entire Default Robot Locking Range/Time, Sensor Amps, and Remote Sensor Amps. However, this would require significant thought and balancing that would be a disaster in this forum with current biases and low population effect on current strategy and tactics.
In Short, for now, HELL NO on RSA nerf
-1
Don't even go there at this time Devs. You have bigger fish to fry.
Agree with stacking penalty in concept
But NERFING is too in fashion these days and doing this requires thoughtful balancing.
This game is in desperate need of adding more bots, mods and features. The discussion on nerfing this and nerfing that is getting depressing.
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.
So you are still able to pay2win.
If you cant be bothered <then you don't deserve it>...
Exactly the type of reaction I would expect from some. But I invite you to consider it more, though I know this view will exist regardless.
The point of PASSIVE income is EXACTLY that you don't have to be bothered to do anything, except win and hold the outpost and deflect attacks.
But on the flip side if owner can't be bothered to walk out and collect loot, why should SAP attackers not be bother to actually defeat the SAP?
Reset needs to come either way, Rex. Getting it done before Steam is way better then trying to figure terraforming out and doing the reset after Steam when new people have already expanded on Gamma.
Before Steam I can agree. And in general I welcome a Gamma change and reset. I just don't like the idea of mass Dev transporting of assets to Alpha or anywhere, really.
I find it very interesting that you seem so eager to see it done sooner than later.
Rage Rex wrote:There are countless ways to balance and adjust the amount of loot.
Yes, my point is to make defenders work a little more for their stuff , not just handed to them if no one attacks.
Hopefully, in a more active population people actually live in their outposts and find INCENTIVE to do so. Long ago I argued for more active ways of defending SAPS, not just the auto-sit-and-do-nothing-win approach of today's mechanic. So in concept I'm with you on incentives for active ownership.
But passive income is great incentive for conflict. The point is to just hand it to them as reward for having conquested the asset. And it's reward for holding it. With SpT gone, you will have to live much closer to home to do so.
There are countless ways to balance and adjust the amount of loot.
We see quite a few random alt corps and characters logging in to ninja SAP loot after it's defended itself. This is mainly done with Active Hacks for the prized Cortex loot.
A couple things wrong with this
1.) it incentivizes use of trial accounts and multiple accounts placed around the map for the single purpose of collecting loot
2.) it does not invite conflict as the loot is same whether defended or attacked. So, why attack SAP when you can just log in at last minute and collect the same? In fact it's in best interest of ninja looters that SAPS be at full so they can get the most loot.
I highly doubt this would ever be implemented but here it goes...
SAP loot from successfully Defended SAPS goes directly to Corp Hanger.
This would mean that loot would start piling up pretty quick, especially for all those outpost owners who dont' always pay attention to their own SAPS.
This 'windfall' would make outpost ownership more rewarding and hopefully invite more conflict over outpost ownership.
I know many of the very valid arguments against, and doubt this would be implemented, but think about it before you react. After witnessing another ninja SAP collection last night I was joking on comms about how OP this would be until I thought longer and realized it would actually make Beta a little more valuable to hold and fight over.
This may also make diplomatic negotiations in Alliances more interesting about outpost ownership. And corp leaders beware that you could lose the loyalty of your corp members if your greedy *** does not share (not speaking to you my beloved 133).
Lastly, this should NEVER EVER be implemented with current Spark Mechanics given already stated reasons on how all outpost more easily are controlled by one entity.
It's not a closed topic and I am happy if you guys brainstorm about this, but right now we can't spend months to get beacon terraforming right. So we'll restart gamma without it and put it in again when we're 100% sure it won't screw it up again.
So reset Gamma first, then think of solutions ...act, then think.
I hope your solutions don't then require more resets, or make work done after a reset pointless or broken.
Good luck.
Rage Rex wrote:valid points
You're now missing or ignoring a simple fact that all the EWAR might you have now with follow you can easily achieve WITHOUT them, paying even lesser attention to robot control and risking lesser stuff. Ewar range, strength, etc etc stays the same, you just need to think a little and use teamplay, REALLY use it.
I know the effectiveness of mods is not changing, which is indirectly one of my points. People are simply biased about the effectiveness of these mods in the hands of one person instead of two. Too many advantages to list in the hands of one person rather than two in this game.
I have said that I've only very recently begun to use a follow bot. Before I would pair up with RSA buddy. That will never change. Even with a follow bot I have awareness of RSA pairs. So, yeah, that's another thing about this whole Follow nerf, is that none of the mods, none of the ewar will be less effective.
So it's doubly stupid. Really it's just annoying, and the play2win rationale burns me up given it's utter hypocrisy.
Thanks for clarifying the focus on ewar btw 
I will define the abuse as locking a target whilst on follow to provide superior range, superior tank and even better DPS as you don't need to sacrifice head slots for Amps.
Celebro, I know you're a thoughtful person. Yet I simply disagree with you on this issue.
Having superior range, superior tank, and better DPS come from mods designed to do exactly that. If you do not like the extra head slot access you from having someone RSA you versus use your own Sensor Amps, then seek a nerf to RSAs. If you do not like the extra repair you get from remote reps, then seek a nerf to remote reps. If you do not like the NEXUS effects to armor, damage, ewar range etc, then seek a nerf to NEXUS effects.
I've essentially been saying that this Follow nerf is primarily an attack on ewar range--the main complaint of the month--which some want to nerf directly but cannot convince Zoom to do so. Nerfing Follow is next best target.
The RATIONALE for nerfing Follow lies in fuzzy descriptions of 'abuse' and 'play2win' multi-account usage, NOT the effectiveness of other modules. Arguments about 'competitiveness' abound against multiple bots on field of PvP but only focus on the small NICHE of Follow usage. There are 100 ways to gain an advantage from having multiple accounts both in PvP and in industry. I simply argue that it is DISCRIMINATION of one muti-account advantage seeking play-style while ignoring 100s or other multi-account seeking play-style advantages.
Very simply, its NOT a FAIR approach to limit ONLY ONE type of multi-account usage while ignoring the 100s of others, especially those in industry where the true power of muti-account usage lies..
And the argument about Follow being a First Step in diminishing multi-account usage is a LIE. People like their own variations of advantages they get from using multiple accounts and will seek any opportunity to diminish the advantages other use.
But people don't see this Fairness argument. So I blow wind over their heads...
It must be coincidence that everyone against these changes, are the ones who abuse the follow command in PVP the most.
This "abuse" you speak of, please define it and distinguish it from other types of multi-account usage.
I still don't see what the problem is. If i decide to risk two bots then i can lose twice as much. This will be such a non-issue with real population. Sandbox like this will always thrive with muti-account users. You that don't like it live in a dream world if you think you will ever 'level' the playing field with one-account-one-person. Dream on...
And don't tell me about 'limiting' versus 'stopping' ...it only reveals your own playstyle bias.
^
That would be fine ONLY if this session timer cannot overlap with existing instant log out timer. Otherwise you could disconnect on jump, and sit on other side completely invisible while your instant log timer allows you to escape without aggression.
...nearly same as existing problem minus flag mechanic effects on instant log out.
... no point wasting my breath. Go *** up your game some more and appease this mass of ewar haters
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Rage Rex
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.139 seconds (94% PHP - 6% DB) with 6 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
