(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Annihilator wrote:
Burial wrote:

When a heavy fits 2 ECCM he is already losing more than 30% of it's damage output if he would have gone with tuners otherwise. Ville, if you are saying it has no influence in battle you are a ***.

dont forget that they will all roll with masking modules in the future according the other topic.

so, gropho/Mesmer with 2 sensor amps, 2 eccms and 1 masking module - headslots left ?

A choice between buffs is still a choice. You don't NEED to fit maskers with detection nerf even if there is some NEW advantage.

Do you people think damage tuners are some inherent right? If so go beg Zoom to buff damage tuners or default damage. Quit trying to destroy ewar in your attempt to free up head slots for damage/range or whatever other buff gets you hot.


(85 replies, posted in Testing server)

Do they come with similar repair beacon as exist for walls?

Sounds tedious but then so does terraforming. They should definitely be destructible. Would also be helpful if manufacturable as well instead of another nic sink.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Burial wrote:

When a heavy fits 2 ECCM he is already losing more than 30% of it's damage output if he would have gone with tuners otherwise. Ville, if you are saying it has no influence in battle you are a ***.

Damage TUNERS are a buff to default damage. You are not "loosing" damage when you DON'T fit them. Rather you are making a CHOICE between different types of buffs. As I have been saying for months YOU simply do not want to have to make sacrifices in your fitting choice. But choices are at the heart of balance.

You cant have 2-4 damage tuners every time you undock. If damage is the real issue and you need too many damage tuners to be effective then the issue is "damage" buffs not ewar.

My God!


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Jita wrote:

Also quit eating so much sausage and making it about other people.

"Making it about other people" comes from my observation over the years watching people come to forums and spam tears until some Dev throws up his hands and say "ok, we'll change, it." That is essentially what is happening with ewar. The process is as relevant as the mechanics themselves.

The irony in your comment here is that this game does not have NPC AOE loot drops because YOU followed that model to the T. Whether Devs would have made that change or some other in response to Beacons is another issue. Nevertheless, your tears greased the knee to jerk.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Remote ECCM

I think I've seen that thrown about once or twice, and it may be a interesting addition as it requires choices, coordination and teamwork to be effective.  Unfortunately this ewar "balance" crusade is not about balance, its about taking ewar off the field and never having to worry about it again. Remote ECCM would only further gimp THE 5 who don't know how choices, coordination and teamwork come together in balance.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

STC Complainer 2of5 wrote:

CIR: "hey, that kain got some shots off, ewar is totally fine" THE 5 have been arguing that ECM permanently "stun-locks' it's target, now it's 'getting' shots off, now it's killing the Vagabond
CIR: "hey, that kain managed to kill that vagabond after its injector charges ran out, it's totally doing decent damage!" THE 5 have been arguing that ewar is the problem but now it's INJECTORS, now it's that there is not enough DPS

Devs, before you go and FVCK UP a 4 year old mechanic I think you need a better sample size in population and testing. It's obvious to me again, that THE 5 just want their full tuner DPS fit and anything else, like replacing a gun with a neut or using another ECCM is just too much gimp on their precious PVE-style DPS set-ups. They are not PvPers. They do not know how to change tactics to counter different fits. They just sit their like fish out of water continuing to flop their useless tales.

I know 77CIR are not the most friendly, popular bunch. But they know PvP mechanics and balance better than anyone else in this game. And you devs would be FOOLS to ignore their advice. And if you think it's just two side each spewing propaganda then you should at least give benefit of the doubt to long standing mechanics.

You have much, much more important things to work on. How about getting started on those islands? New players coming to the game need room to grow. Gimping ewar ain't gonna help them.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Injector or no injector how is this related to ewar? What was it? 14 seconds for vagabond to explode while focusing all ecm on the kain?

And regarding post count, it's 5 or less people complaining about ewar for the last 6 months coming here with bogus 1v1 scenarios over and over. Our 'side' refutes them over and over. Yet based on all the threads and posts Devs just ASSUME there is an issue because 'people have been complaining.'

Fit a *** neut on that kain for your *** 1v1 sample.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Ozy wrote:
Tund Bungler wrote:

The only reason Ewar shuts everyone down currently is because all of your members are out riding bikes and we outnumber you 2:1-3:1 every fight. Thats hardly a game balance problem. As we've demonstrated time and time again, even a Vagabond running 4 ECMs with a 100% jam chance on a Artemis WILL NOT shut the Artemis down 100%, and the Artemis can break through the Vagas shield and kill him. I still don't get how you guys think this situation is imbalanced in favor of the Vaga.

http://pastebin.com/ZpbZ38cu (Vaga w/ 3 ECMs vs a Kain MK2 w/ 2 amps and 2 eccms.)

That Kain took almost 5 minutes to take that Vaga out because that's how long its injector charges lasted. But sure ... take out those two ECCMs, apply all 4 ECMs to an arti ... and then see how long it takes that arti to kill the vaga. My guess: about a minute after the vaga's dry.

Fit a neut on your kain

Or nerf shields or injectors.

Not an ewar issue


(113 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

As far as I can remember, this has been what many of you asked for.

Manipulation by thread and post count. It's the same few guys complaining over and over but you don't see it.


(113 replies, posted in Testing server)

Tund Bungler wrote:

All the folks who actually PVP regularly with competence are in this thread screaming that this is not the case. Please start listening to them.

I don't think Devs see it that way. Content and coherence of argument weighs far less than thread and post counts. They have been flying blind in the 'balance' and 'fix' departments for some time.

But somehow occasionally they surprise me. I wrote off ewar weeks ago. I know it's as good as dead. As for detection, meh ...next stop "oops we need to adjust makers too."


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Newly added:
Terraforming will be limited by manually painted no-terraform areas along the coastline of islands, making sure that no teleport can be cut off from the others. (Should we decide to put fixed teleports in the inner parts of an island, then appropriate no-terraform routes will lead to it.)


Sure, everything can be re-evaluated. But why this? Seem kinda arbitrary to bring up this topic. I'm curious how you think this would make the game better. I'm even more curious why you would jump 5 steps forward and start wondering about exploits.

DEV Zoom wrote:

Yes, we can create the TERRAIN quite efficiently. But that's like 5% of the content that makes up a playable island. It needs terminals and outposts, highways, NPC spawns laid out, artifact configurations, at least some minimal decoration, and so on. We're looking easily at 3-4 weeks for an island and then we're not doing anything else.

I sincerely appreciate the transparent response to the work involved in creating what seems a SINGLE new Beta island. That kind of information goes miles and miles to discussion ideas on the forums. Clearly my hope (fantasy) for 99 islands is years away under current production capacity.

I just wish you would now at least give us more info on what is happening with Gamma, as it's very clear from this single golden nugget of info that Beta Utopia is far from the light.

Games I've noticed with collision have mechanics whereby each player involved in a colission 'moves' to some degree. So if you line players up in the theoretical block-terminal-circle-grief those players are not wall units. They move when collided into.

Actual OP question does not appear to be about "though shalt not pass" but about when you do pass is there damage to one or both bots? how is that calculated? and how long will it take someone to mastermind an out-of-box advantage that everyone cries is an exploit? 

But why even talk about this? I thought the Devs made fundamental decision long ago not to include collision mechanics.

I have an idea: lets wait for some *** forum whine where 1 or 2 or 3 people piss and moan about x and Devs can introduce Collision Mechanics to fix x and break a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p.

Burial wrote:

You are beginning to see the light.

...or accepting the darkness


(4 replies, posted in Balancing)

[reserved for awesome reasons after I think of some]


(4 replies, posted in Balancing)

Kvazio wrote:

Change: NPCs destroyed by AoE explosion damage will not drop loot anymore. Direct damage from plasma bombs is exempt from this rule.

I thinks, this is killed npc farm on beta and gamma...

ya think?

Well now that it is after the fact let me be one of the first to develop some reasons explaining how this is good for the game and argue how it helps new players (and even the Vets)

let me think...

Enforcement and equal application then?


(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

Tis the Season for a Sale!

All is right in Perpetuum


(65 replies, posted in Balancing)

Tund Bungler wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

If playing the game without easy mode is wasting your time, then I don't have anything to say really.

Zoom I think you need a break man. You aren't seeing the big picture here and are instead just *** talking the people giving you valid feedback.

Yeah, have a Coke and a smile and...


(65 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ok, stupid question: did you think about shooting the small ones first?


Yeah kill all the harmless bots while the mechs and heavies pummel you.

Quack Quack.


(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Jita wrote:

Actually us shutting down the ability to get these crazy amounts of stuff hurts us more than any of you because we haven't done it and corps like 77 CIR and STC have abused the hell out of it. Thus gives us a stuff disadvantage.

Your memory is short, your foresight even shorter. Just admit you're feeling are hurt and you're lashing out. I cannot believe this from the man who coined "pants on head"

Zoom you never learn.

JiTC, nice work. Burial would be proud.

Rage Blackout wrote:

looking forward to the Atom Bomb that gets dropped to "fix" anything




(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Manufactured controversy.

77CIR is dominating the field with EP, previously existing assets, experience, and teamwork. You can argue about EP gap, sparks, multiple accounts and other issues of game design but you guys want to focus on *** transport missions and beacons?!

Only reason anyone is doing missions and beacons is the rest of the server decided not to come to Beta anymore. Assets are not the problem. All vets have billions in assets. Telling players not to play the game (not to 'bully') is not a solution fair to any individual player.

This game needs more islands and space. Much needs to be balanced with sparks, Beta Incentives, intrusion mechanics, Gamma.

77CIR is not the issue. Transport missions and beacons are not the issue. Stop acting so STC