76

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Annihilator wrote:

hmm, rage rex...
sounds like an idea...

now, think about the range of defense turrets, the minimum place even the smallest base needs,
and then the current maximum size limit for islands.
how many places can you paint green for terraforming, without possible creation of bottlenecks?

because pictures are sometimes easier to understand:
http://content.perpetuum-online.com/ima … radius.png

beta island, with a 3km circle around each outpost...

/let's out deep breathe of relief.

Finally some movement on this discussion. Perhaps the artists can render some drawings and the mathematicians can hammer out details. I'm only selling the concept.

(Also fore sale: shield walls and mining colixum without towers anymore.

77

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Tux wrote:
Rage Rex wrote:

If Devs think it would be 'easy' to manually paint terraformable zones, then the 'easiest' thing to do would be try that with the Old Mechanics and lets discuss from there. On test server, start with old Gamma Mechanics only on painted portions of some Gamma map ...then adjust from there.

I guess I'm like the only one who thinks this is a fair idea sad

This is not a bad Idea ( I kinda like it ) but with this change in addition to (terminal distance restrictions) It would basically be the equivalent of 1 terminal per gamma island on most islands with a 3 to 5 K build / TF radius around them. I am assuming that the devs will "paint" an area in the center of the island small enough so you can not TF off 75% or more of the island. No need for extra empty terminals to prohibit this.

The old mechanics are i think the best way to do terraforming ... sadly because of the bad taste left in the devs mouth from the walls of Imidero they are hell bent on not allowing vertical walls. This is sad that adjustments can not be made to the system, but the system as a whole must be thrown out, instituting sever height limitations was all that was needed to begin with but that was never even tested.  sad

I am not advocating ANY terminal restrictions. There would be no need as long as the painted Zones are far enough away from TPs and each other not to bottleneck the island, anywhere (this includes turret range). If you want to put 10 terminals in one zone, go for it. NO terminal caps. If your corp/alliance controls all the Painted Zones on island anyway, why have terminal cap restriction? Enemy must break into one of your zones if they want to set up an attacking beachfront terminal.

And of course there should be MULTIPLE Zones Painted around the island. Each island has it's own size and shape so Manually Painted zones may be more or less depending on the island. Variation is a good thing.

And Devs, I know you have said no more sheer walls, but for testing this concept do us all a favor and set that aside for expediency. Painted Zones is large enough a change and should be tested in isolation.

78

(39 replies, posted in General discussion)

Cassius wrote:
Ville wrote:

Moveable mining terminal,place 4 walls around you mine.

I was referring to what was proposed here, Tux suggested no structures.
Besides, wouldn't it be easier to simply dock in your mining terminal than drop a tele and get out?

Taking this opportunity to say Colixium should not require mining tower or whatever its called, or ANY structure in proximity to a Colixium field. And it sure as HELL does not need a terminal next to the field for 100% mining safety.

Also, if the Devs ever test their idea that I have quoted in my signature, you will NOT be able to have Colixium structures next to fields as they will be dynamic and out-of-range- of the "painted" zones.

TLDR: kill colixum Structure requirements (at least within proximity)

79

(47 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Tux wrote:
Syndic wrote:

Why aren't - by your logic again - the overpowered ewars winning the fights for you?

http://killboard.sequer.nl/?a=kill-rela … l_id=43287

You can keep saying "nothings wrong with ECM/Supperssion" "Nothing to see here" but the fact is that its not balanced.. I needs to be fixed. but by all means keep posting about how well you abuse it.

And you keep saying "somethings wrong with ECM/Supperssion" "Something to see here" but the fact is that you have not made your case.

Burden is on you. And that you lose heavy fleets is not proof.

80

(47 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Burial wrote:

ECM/Suppressor should need LOS.
Active ECCM should be added.
EW Nexus needs to go from 29% to 15%.

Is that you Burial. You're even uglier than before.

-1

81

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Malsier Dabian wrote:

So I've continued to read all of this without comment for the last few pages.

What I've noticed so far:

* People are telling you (the Devs) to dump your idea of limiting TFing. Or simply remove it all together in favor of Flat islands and modular colony defenses such as different types of walls and gates etc.

* Leave Tfing alone, but fix the hight ranges.

* Do not limit creativity by creating a system which only supports cookie cutter base types.

No way you read the whole thread. Anyone advocating Flat islands is advocating to just shut down the servers.

Also, though you are missing lots of suggestions the one I most want to see tested is quoted in my signature from about 4-5 pages back.

If Devs think it would be 'easy' to manually paint terraformable zones, then the 'easiest' thing to do would be try that with the Old Mechanics and lets discuss from there. On test server, start with old Gamma Mechanics only on painted portions of some Gamma map ...then adjust from there.

I guess I'm like the only one who thinks this is a fair idea sad

82

(47 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Tux wrote:

Flawed Logic and tailored match ups are why we got the tunings we currently have in game.

If you think its as simple as  Mesmer rep vs dps build I am thankful you are NOT advising the DEVS on anything.

Im  not going to go over what others have already explained in great detail in many other threads.

The ONLY nerf-ewar arguments used in other threads are those based on theory craft spreadsheet 1v1 scenarios. So thank you for not reiterating what you describe as flawed logic.

Sid from mining wrote:

Or as I suggested 2 years ago here to make firesales possible:

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … rder-time/

That is different issue. But as a separate issue it is in High demand. Increased market orders and remote buy/sell definite needs in this game especially with nerfed SpT.

Merkle wrote:

Common, you know,

1. Undock
2. Place Can
3. ....
4.  Pro....Um Err Delete?

A fence on US/Mexico border will significantly slow cross - border traffic. People can still hop over, dig under, and cut through it. But it's far better than no fence (for slowing traffic, politics aside).

Burial wrote:

Gamma stations could go to a "lock" mode whenever they are reinforced. In lock mode nothing can be deleted. Just flat out removing deletion from Gamma assets is counterproductive to the whole suggestion.

I still think you should be able to "click" remove from your inventory, so that you can keep things organized. From player perspective they are gone. My addition is those things go into some type of delayed recycle somewhere in the terminal (out of your sight) ...anything.

The point is not to make asset organization harder. I like specific fixes for specific problems. Not broad brushes that throw out all the good parts.

A lock-out is fair compromise in old Gamma base model. We'll see if such mechanic would work in new.

I know not everyone is for this. My point is simply about incentives for warfare. Not everyone want warfare.

Merkle wrote:

Deletion still is a hard thing to do on billions of nic worth of stuff.

Just ask Ville he has done it quite a few times.  It still feels just as good for the other side.

I agree that's good thing to watch your enemy burn his own assets. But it's even sweeter to acquire them. The Gamma Asset Deletion Mechanic is disincentive for Gamma Warfare. At the very least it should require more time than simple 'insta-click' delete.

I'm definitely motivated to wreck a few bases 'because' but for long term health of PvP and Gamma Warfare I'd prefer non-vengence, non-greif incentive to attack a base.

Except remote delete from Gamma

-1

Unless Delete is tied to some type of delayed recycle plant mechanic, where deleted items stay for couple weeks before actually disappearing. In Gamma effect would be time for attackers to loot.

Off Gamma it would make no difference.

As big a fan I am of ewar it's mainly because spacebar-DPS is not that fun for me. I would rather see Devs develop other types of variants of Bots and Mods.

I see no need for Assault or H-Mech ewar (unless it is some completely new type of ewar that does not already exist in game).

89

(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Merkle wrote:

So now its ok to get intel out of game now?

Not really pointing a finger at you Jita, just some major double standards going on here.

Not every individual has the same opinion in an alliance Mr

TMI

yeah with longer range tongue

91

(20 replies, posted in Balancing)

I don't understand the flip of Alpha 1 and 2 islands.

92

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Zoom, I don't see why vertical terraforming walls is an issue within your idea of Manually Painted Zones. You can keep them isolated to designated spots on island (far away from TP). Bases will need strong defenses as there will be no way to deny access to island.

Of course you have to Paint carefully, taking into consideration turret range from the edge of your painted zone.

Would love to see this concept tested. You can even start testing with existing mechanics.

93

(16 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Actually, at least OP has fresh idea.

I like the idea of making things bigger. But there is that pesky Single Tile Issue to compete with so we can't have larger Bots as is.

The alternative is to focus inward and get more out of our Single Tile limitations. More Bots is the first solution in my option followed very closely by more mods. If we are going to add "eye" slots and start making mods and bots focus on specific capabilities that could be a good direction. The more we focus on the details of each single bot the 'larger' it becomes despite the Single Tile.

So my above post was premature, thus deleted.

94

(13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Inda wrote:

modular bots thats it... make it more expensive than mk2 and thats all, and let the players "experimenting" with them

Problem is that there is already such a lack of options in game that even mixing and matching on custom bots leaves us with more/less same bots.

Is this actually in development, or on the Dev's drawing board? What are some examples of what this looks like that is DIFFERENT from what we already have? Green accumulator recharge, with Yellow tank, and Blue DPS?

95

(13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Basic Robotics
Advanced Robotics

oh yeah you know you want it.

Ultra Robotics

Where esle are Vets gonna spend their EP unless we can grow into BIGGER BOTS

Lets end the petty discussions about nerf-this, buff-that. And I'm sorry but Mk3 does not get me hot ...it sounds like more the same.

Is the Single Tile issue always going to be an issue for this game's growth? Are we doomed to petty squabbles over the same dozen bots forever? If so, so sad.

---Great to see the population increasing. Life is breathing into game.
---Great to see some nice QoL improvements
---Will be elated to see new mission system (as I am firm believer that game needs a strong PVE base).
---Hoping that Revamp of Beta will be true revamp that succeeds (even if it takes several months to year)

I hope that this community can start thinking outside the box we've been trapped in for so many years and start talking about fresh new ideas rather than the same complaints. I've not seen a nerf-shields thread in a while, whats up with that?

More bots
More mods
More Options

There is so much more that can be...

96

(16 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Wrong "nerf-ewar-thread" response.

97

(47 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Shadowmine wrote:

Such a shame that we cant have any sort of real discussion about any sort of gameplay/balancing ideas without one certain alliance dropping a deuce all over the discussion....

Repeating the phases "nerf ewar" and "buff sensor strength" over and over is not a "discussion."

But hey "nerfing ewar one thread at a time" ...and I know who did not start this thread.

What this game really needs is MORE *** BOTS

More options

More tools

Lets hear some fresh ideas from the nerf-ewar-clan that does not involve theorycraft-spreadsheet-max-ep

98

(30 replies, posted in General discussion)

BadAss wrote:

make so that gamma islands not worked ewar

Thank you for your contribution.

99

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Modular, mount turrets on top of walls or in front.


and I will not stop requesting manually Painted Zones for terraforming as best conceptual solution to ending the madness of bottle-necking TPs and other island choke points.

100

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

thinking more about Shield Walls, perhaps shield towers highly reinforced for very solid inner base protection. But impossible for even Base turrets etc to fire from inside, so turrets useless unless outside.

Perhaps a modular fence can surround the main inner base (called the Bear Cage). It's enough to protect main base and allow Defenders and base owners place to protect themselves, but if they want to actively defend they have to come out.

No firing through the shield, not in, not out.