(94 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Rage Blackout wrote:

well, we do have 27 people

New Teamwork Exploit

Zoom, did you know that if you get several people working together that they can accomplish more than the individuals themselves, working alone.

Celebro wrote:
Syndic wrote:

I care and think about the gaming experience of every single person in my corporation, and go out of my way to find ways to make the game entertaining and fun for them.

If you care enough about your players, you should provide them with targets on the long term, not short term, and make others all leave. If you care about your players you should care about the game too, if you still want it to be entertaining for your members.

I have to translate to mean: tell your players to stop playing (on Beta)

I've said today and many times before, you cannot force people to NOT play the game. GAME needs to change as you will NEVER change human nature.

He says he tries to "make the game entertaining and fun" for his corp members. Human nature in a video game needs gratification pretty quickly. You can ask members to restrain themselves for only the shortest term, even if for possible long term benefits. But people have complicated Real Lives for that type of behavior. They come here to escape and blow *** up. Period.

Add islands, remove sparks, yada yada yada

@Vic, good post.


(320 replies, posted in Testing server)

Annihilator wrote:
Ville wrote:

L10 skills, 2ECCMs  the ecm pilot is useless.

how much under fleet conditions with 50% interference dropping sensor strength down?

So in other words it's ok that ECM is useless because hey, when there is interference to boot, you may get some jams.

You is crazy


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

DEV Zoom wrote:

(I know we have multiple topics about this, but I thought it would be easier to make a new topic about the changes we plan to do.)

1. Signal detector balance
2. ECM/Suppressor vs ECCM

ps. DEV Alf is back from the dead, you can expect more ner... balancing changes in the near future smile

I had presumed this was more an 'announcement' than a 'discussion' but you did post in Balancing thread. And with Def Alf asking for feedback on these issues it appears this is all open for discussion, yes?

First Suggestion: Split this Thread in Two. This will be a cluster *** if you try to combine feedback for ewar and detection/masking in one thread. They easily each deserve their own discussion threads

Since Def Alf is back on board all previous countless threads and posts on these topics should be re-represented so that Dev Alf can make decisions. And I beg you Dev Alf to TAKE SMALL STEPS and tweak one aspect at a time. Also, heavy moderation will be required as Corporation Discussion and ad hominem attacks are inevitable.

DEV Alf wrote:

Your feedback is really appreciated!

Just some thoughts:
Nav was mandatory, but many other extensions are just as mandatory aswell. Nav was special because it was the first extension to max before any other, it simply helped everyone in every situtaion everyday.
This new extension is no doubt will be maxed out by all of you (IF it goes to live), but unlike the Nav you don't have to have it from day1.
(Ext affecting only the eccm module is also an option that come to our mind aswell)


(133 replies, posted in Balancing)

Would seem to make more sense to place the 2% sensor strength as a modifier to ECCM modual, not the bots base.

As already stated, 1.) mandatory 'Nav' argument. Also, 2.) this should be about decision making in fitting. If you want more sensor strength you have to FIT the mod. Many just refuse to use ECCM because stacking bonus on rep/damage tunings is hard to give up. With 2% modification to base you incentivize that full tuner fit, and there is less incentive to fit ECCM.

Make the Mod stronger, not the Bot.

Deminyon wrote:

I read all of this and have NOT seen one legitimate reason to NOT have LOS (Line Of Sight) on E-WAR. 

It seems the people who are drooling over E-WAR are the ones who probably utilize them the most and consider them OP

So you reason to change 3.5 yr old mechanic is "because this is a LOS game" ? I don't see an argument here as not-not a reason is not a reason. Also, do you have a Main with some pvp experience as Deminyon has none as far as I can tell. Does that not matter?


(15 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Back when Intrusion 2.0 first came out I argued for long, ignored, time that the Passive Defense aspect of SAPs is broken. Current system permits Defense by Default and that is just too easy, and not conducive to promoting active presence on Beta.

Ignoring Lack of Incentives Issue to be on Beta as that is a different discussion...

For Defensive aspect of SAPs the Defenders should not only stop enemy from taking SAP, but should also have to do something, ANYTHING, to GAIN points to a terminal. So if a SAP is at 80 and no enemy bothers to come out to attack it AND defender does not bother to come out to defend it, it should STAY at 80. No one should gain. Perhaps with a necessity for defenders to undock and 'do something' enemies may be more inclined to visit knowing Defenders have to be active.

As for the 'do something' I would have to look at the dozens of suggestions posted when Intrusion 2.0 first came out. Even a nominal 'click, I'm here' is better than nothing. Though I'd rather see something more fun, like some type of PVE event (balanced with potential for live player event).

TLDR: Intrusion System needs another overhaul.


(58 replies, posted in Balancing)

Thing about Masking and Detection is that there are two other very important factors to consider when discussing balancing. Those are Population and Size (#islands) in Nia. We all may have completely different perspective on Detection if current population suddenly had access to 10x number of islands. Or if opposite, we had 10x population on same number of islands, I doubt there would be same ideas on Masking.

If Devs do decide to balance them I prefer balancing come with the addition of something else, like specialized bots for these roles, rather than straight change to the two mods holding all else the same.

To much attention on balancing status quo, not enough on developing new toys.

Burial and Shadeless. Incentive issue is pretty old and of course needs addressing.

But even if incentive was stronger to live on Beta/Gamma then current Power Projection Issue would only be worse. Yes that again.

Islands may be empty but then everyone knows a dominating force can be up your *** in less than 10 minutes anywhere. Smaller entities need a buffer to grow.

Burial, I thought you were for more islands.

Gwyndor wrote:

Don't bring back as many gamma islands as you had before, just take a couple gamma away and turn them into betas. A sort of soft release so you can take small steps and as the player base increases you can add islands back

Gwyndor wrote:

Add a few more gammas so they can't all be reached within 8 minutes and then I would be down to do pve with current mechanics but some added value to the spawns would definitely persuade some of my mates to go after it while the pvpers are out patrolling


Two post s in two threads today. Perhaps clarify/elaborate.

Can't see any reason to decrease anything. Add or leave same.

Shadeless wrote:

To small.... What did you smoke, you guys need even more outposts?

Just the opposite. With more Islands and space there is more opportunity for other entities to use and control Betas. With so few islands AND spark TP it's too easy for the dominating force to control it all. Many of us have been arguing this same point in both political  positions: owning nothing and owning everything.

More space also means more opportunity for multiple power blocks to form. A two powerblock game is boring.


(4 replies, posted in Bugs)

The unlock on switching primaries is extremely annoying. Broke a great QoL feature to fix ... forgot the terrible reason.

Population has a fair bump. Perhaps promotions in order after each of following:
Mission Revamp II

When you have funds try Castel Mk2 with detector. It was fun when I started playing to both artifact and hunt for targets. Anyway do what Ville said.


(63 replies, posted in Testing server)

Zoom, you following other Gamma feedback/suggestion threads? Any comments coming soon?


(15 replies, posted in General discussion)

-1 OP

Devs,  a statement on progress would be nice.

If I read that right...

Not only can we freely spark between islands and terminals
We can have our goods delivered risk free, effort free.

Sorry Takeo. Unless I read that wrong. Maybe Alpha

Hell no Beta.


(58 replies, posted in Balancing)

Tux wrote:

Give use more bot choices ... no need to keep re balancing the same stuff over and over ...

bring in new content so the current content is not so " " over powered

You had me until "so the current content is not so OP"

This game has needed variety in Bots for long time. I just fear that with more variety the Full Tuner Spacebar Brigade will only complain more. Who knows.

Devs, add variety for Spreadsheet's sake!


(39 replies, posted in General discussion)

Gremrod wrote:
Tux wrote:

#1 best thing about gamma is the creativity we have with terraforming.

I totally agree with this statement. But you need to realize that you can be creative with boundaries put in place. I think TF can be in the game and allow for people to keep being creative. But they do need to put a boundary system in place to keep people from pushing sand outside the box and breaking it.

This is not directed at you Tux, this is directed at all of us.

Let's give the DEVs time to get it right and stop bashing them and pushing them to hurry up.

I also agree that Terraforming needs to exist as a Creative Element. This is one of the reasons I am advocating the Painted Zone Concept. Aside from the Access Issue, with terraforming possible on most of island (old system) the result is extremely ugly (even if functional) results. If Devs CONTAIN terraforming to limited sections of the map they can POTENTIALLY accomplish the following:

1). Full island access without mid island chokepoints (fully cross-able)

2.) Unlimited terrafroming within the zone for Base Protection and Defense (unrelated bonus: add Shield Wall for friendly entry/exit that blocks non-friendly in similar fashion as terminal entry rights)

3.) CREATIVITY for base design withing each zone without spilling all over the map.

4.) Dev Reset Control per Zone. For whatever reasons if Devs need to change the boundaries or move or simply reset a particular Zone they can do it Zone by Zone rather than affecting ALL of Gamma. (i.e. partial resets instead of full resets).

4.) Dev Island Design Control: the sections of the island NOT subject to Player Terraforming Creativity are therefore subject to Dev Creativity, including Highways, TPs and whatever structural or landscaping design pleases them (i have a few ideas on Highways and TP mechanics that do NOT rely on terraforming outside the Painted Zones, but one step at a time).

Burial wrote:
Syndic wrote:

There is plenty of PVP to be had outside of Norhoop. For example, if you jump into Novastrov or Domhalarn usual result is instant PVP. Nobody stops you from coming in, we always encourage people to come shoot at us on our island.

Everything was going fine PVP wise back in 2013 when we were blue with 80% of the server and the 20% could not counter our 10 man Full-Tuner Mesmer Mk2 fleets.

Thank the Spreadsheet god that June is coming.

Burial wrote:

any idiot with a calculator can notice the PVP


Oh my Spreadsheets, why hath thou abandoned me?

Tux wrote:

12 more Alpha II's One terminal on each island (maybe some with no faction affiliation)
Add 24 Beta 3 (pvp islands with no terminals but has colix and epriton)
36 Gamma

And keep spark teleport in the game with the expanded island numbers .. but under the current island network its not sustainable. This is why I lol because i have been saying since before Gamma that we needed 60 + islands for corps to be able to thrive long term.

You're hardly the only one saying we need more islands. I think islands should expand before population growth, not after. I think ODDS are population would grow faster with lots of space to cozy into. Plus it COULD be the buffer all the new EP players need so they are not FORCED to compete with vets.

And if it happen I'm sure even STC will find a home. But I'll bet your minions will cry victory if you ever find a home withing 50 plus islands.  "see we have a Home nah nah nah nah nah" " you said you would stop us and you didn't nah nah nah nah nah"

Are Devs adding 50 islands in June?

Tux wrote:
Ville wrote:

If you intend on leaving epi on Beta only, than we need more Betas and we need more separation.  Way too small atm.

What makes the world to small ? Sparks Maybe ? lol

Um, well yes.

Sparks do make it small. Is that not the point we tried to make in 50 pages of the SpT thread while your little minions bickered away against it?

So what you lol about?

"if you build it they will come" ?

I often wonder if that would be true for the population of this game. Say we quadrupled (or more) the number of islands AND spread them out so it would take forever to get from one side to other.

Perhaps it would incentivize many to grow into the game rather than be frustrated out because it's 'too hard' to go to beta or wherever. it may not be good for pvp in short term but in longer term... I wonder.

I also think growth of number of power blocks would be more likely. Hey maybe even STC could own a Beta somewhere way up north lol


(58 replies, posted in Balancing)

Kaldenines wrote:

-Add a ping that everyone can see every time the detector cycles. 

Not sure where I stand on Detectors but a ping is complete overkill. Actually, its silly component to an otherwise fair discussion post.