101 Reply by Rage Rex

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

How about Shield Walls?

People talk about gates like this is swords and horses.

Shield Wall can be similar to current shield except not related to accumulator and not round. Put up two Shield towers, connect them to each other, run off Base power supply and let be target-able (destructible).

Set standings on them so friendlies can pass through enemies cannot

cannot shoot through.

Balance so you cannot layer them (so you can always target the Shield Towers)

add whatever balancing necessary

and ZOOM please test your idea about manually "painting" zones for bases and terraforming. You can more easily deal with balancing zone by zone if for example you discover your painted zone is too close to TP, you can repaint it. Or is someone decided to terraform offensive stuff you can reset terrafoming in that ONE zone without resetting the server. Any issue you find on one island, one zone can be dealt with individually.

Go to forum: Testing server

102 Reply by Rage Rex

(47 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

you called? I'm listening. Always listening to ewar whispers.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

103 Reply by Rage Rex

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Zoom wrote:

Ok, new idea:

Instead of the various terraforming range limitation rules (terminal-teleport range, within terminal range, no peninsulas, whatever), we could just simply paint the terraformable areas for each island manually. Which would basically mean the inner parts of an island. This method would also make it pretty straightforward to display it on the map, similar to the slope map. (And is also more precise than distance calculations.)

Yes yes yes

I think full island Gamma terraforming is broken no matter how you measure the radius and slope restrictions. Read following for concept starting point based EXACTLY what Zoom just suggested.

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/post/96999/#p96999

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/post/97336/#p97336

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/post/97344/#p97344

Go to forum: Testing server

104 Reply by Rage Rex

(30 replies, posted in General discussion)

Syndic wrote:

The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion terraforming is too strong of a mechanic to put in the hands of the players, regardless of the imposed limitations. It's always a ticking timebomb until some smart player figures out how to abuse it to create perfect safety/perfect beaconpit/perfect xyz.

The idea of Gamma is quite cool but not if the price is to be online 24/7.

This. I think Gamma should only have designated sections for bases and terraforming. Perhaps only 25% of island subject to terraforming. Access is key. No turtle islands. But then needs balance with stronger bases.

Old model bases relied more on defending islands at the TP. That cannot happen again or it will be boring.

Stronger bases, weaker islands.

Go to forum: General discussion

105 Reply by Rage Rex

(17 replies, posted in General discussion)

Merkle wrote:

I think only the important people can attend Rex, leaves us out sadly.

There are no important people here, but there may be important ideas. I'll attend if it fits my schedule but I'd rather find a proxy to express my model. And be assured I won't be dragging corp dialog into it.

Go to forum: General discussion

106 Reply by Rage Rex

(17 replies, posted in General discussion)

Forget corp sponsorship.

I'd like to attend as independent.

Go to forum: General discussion

107 Reply by Rage Rex

(9 replies, posted in General discussion)

Merkle wrote:

As do I, I could go a step farther and say that all the gamma island could become "beta" by adding in a termail to them, 1 or 2.  Clean stuff up, provides more space, and expands the game over all.

I've been thinking beta plus. Will again link Zone Terraforming when off this wretched phone.

Go to forum: General discussion

108 Reply by Rage Rex

(9 replies, posted in General discussion)

Admit cursory read but generally I think Gamma needs a True Revamp. Ground up rethink on whole system.  Primarily I think it's huge mistake to allow essentially free placement for terminals and terraforming.

+1 for out of box ideas on Gamma. Current box is irreparable.

Go to forum: General discussion

109 Reply by Rage Rex

(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Devs, you really need to make a Statement of Intent of how you envision Gamma to be Played. Looking at the list of mechanics I can see you addressing specific issues but the fact is you are not addressing the BIG ISSUE about how to balance Gamma Base Defense with Gamma Accessibility.

1.) All Gamma Islands need to be accessible to all players looking to roam them for industry or PvP.

2.) Gamma colonies should not spider across the island and control all entry and navigation on the island.

3.) Individual Bases should be very difficult to take down (despite free island accessibility)

Stronger Bases, Weaker Island.

I have a idea about Zones in another thread that I simply cannot motivate myself to re-iterate here. But if you will please take a close read Zoom (if you have not already) you may find it at least interesting.

And if it takes a year to get Gamma right that is better than some future Game Killing Reset.

Go to forum: Testing server

110 Reply by Rage Rex

(60 replies, posted in General discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

Today i saw this:
http://youtu.be/zYvMOpV2Rjs

intresting way to analyze stuff and to optimize it - that reminds me of what CRM did after my request long time ago:
http://www.perpetuum-online.com/~gargaj … nt=density

Fantastic youtube vid. Is this some 3rd party game consultant?

BUT... Why post this Gem in some necro thread? It deserves it's own thread as it can be applied game wide, not just to TP networks.

Create a new thread Anni or this will be missed.

Also BIG FAT -1 to OP

Go to forum: General discussion

111 Reply by Rage Rex

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Agree with all above but OP. It would be great long term idea to continue making improves to Pathing and AI but soo many other things need love.

Fantastic improvement. You took autopilot from 10% to 90%. I won't dare ask for 100.

Go to forum: General discussion

112 Reply by Rage Rex

(8 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Annihilator wrote:

well, does eve have a themepark based mission system that relys on manually placed npcs spawns on a map where pathfinding matters and the mission rewards should scale with the effort and diffuculty ?

Not every island needs missions. Don't even all need terminals. I like Ludlow's suggestions, especially variations in size. Clusters of small islands could be fun. Variety.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

113 Reply by Rage Rex

(10 replies, posted in Agents seeking corporations)

Doek wrote:

Oh, and, pros know to split their guns.

Yeah focus fire is sooo 2013

Go to forum: Agents seeking corporations

114 Reply by Rage Rex

(8 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

+1 to more islands and a Hershfield-like Beta or 2.

But seems kinda PIA to redesign whole new alpha layout. Just keep adding islands. Current set does not even need to be 'center'

Oh yeah and give more bot types.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

115 Reply by Rage Rex

(10 replies, posted in Agents seeking corporations)

Mr Swine wrote:

- Ability to keep me as far from combat PvP as possible

STC

Go to forum: Agents seeking corporations

116 Reply by Rage Rex

(49 replies, posted in Bugs)

Syphin wrote:

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … e-goodbye/


Please look at numbers 1 and 3.. To funny..Classic..

Hello Brave Alt.

I guess 2.5 years ago Ville did not did not have the experience to see how ewar balances with the game. The only point you prove here is you still don't get it. Ville eventually figured it out.

Is it not childish to dig up 2.5 yr old posts? Have you have run out of arguments like you run out of Beta.

Dig up my posting history and enjoy this moment as I defend Ville. Oh how things change.

Go to forum: Bugs

117 Reply by Rage Rex

(37 replies, posted in Balancing)

Totally off the wall idea:

I realize that stacking is essential for PVE. If stacking is nerfed due to PVP considerations there will be consequences to PVE community.

New Bot or New Mode:

What if there was new Mod or new Bot (or new Mode) that when used or activated it doubles damage (1x, 2x, nx whatever) or rep or some other bonus. The Bot would become stationary (immobile) like a turret. Since most PVE is stationary anyway it would not matter much. But if attempted in PvP well, go ahead and just sit there stupid.

Add in balancing considerations, especially for PVP (like No sensor strength, or lock 2 targets, etc ...think Siege mode from EVE)

Like I said, off the wall.

(oh and nerf stacking cause its ridiculous)

Go to forum: Balancing

118 Reply by Rage Rex

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Yeah it's long walk but with new autopilot I'm not gonna mind anymore.

The whole of Nia needs a TP and Highway re-working, not just Shin, but i feel ya.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

119 Reply by Rage Rex

(19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Tux wrote:

But hey maybe a new un corp'ed player  should have recommended it so you wouldn't be blinded by the corp tag and may have actually given a productive response.

Guilty for not caring about fragments. Just found it comical that of all the issues with Gamma this trifle would rise. Doesn't the CEO of STC have more important meetings to chair?

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

120 Reply by Rage Rex

(19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Tux wrote:

New gamma facility that breaks down fragments

Perfect >> Functional >> Damaged

of course at a cost big_smile

Dooo it Devs !!!

Generally Tux your ideas are not bad but...

Seriously, do you guys NEED more fragments after the Quintillion U Dev-Transferred from Gamma after you burned Zillion beacons from farming Sextillion tokens?

Don't answer. Just disband already.

Go to forum: Feature discussion and requests

121 Reply by Rage Rex

(115 replies, posted in Balancing)

Celebro wrote:

All you guys need to go all out on test server and fight, no precious pixels there to loose.

It's not about resources for STC. They have resources to lose 10s of thousands of bots. If they cannot ensure Spreadsheet Victory there is no point for them to unlock.

It's the culture. They're snobs. Snobs don't like losing. They're 'too good' to lose so it must be some 'unfair' mechanic.

Just look at their lame mottos. Be Excellent. How stupid is that... excellent at what? Mining? Crying n the forums for nerfs? Ticket spamming?

Snobs.

Go to forum: Balancing

122 Reply by Rage Rex

(115 replies, posted in Balancing)

I guess all my lvl 9 & 10 skills fall short. I need 3 RE. I think a stacking penalty would do wonders.

I guess what you are saying is that I need to bring 3 pilots so that I can have what max 3 suppressors at that range. Sounds like another STC theory craft disaster. Please compose your fleets of this 'OP' setup.

Go to forum: Balancing

123 Reply by Rage Rex

(49 replies, posted in Bugs)

And if Burial is referring to Industrial bots for logistics that's been obsolete for fleets long before Follow Nerf. Why? Ewar of course.

Go to forum: Bugs

124 Reply by Rage Rex

(49 replies, posted in Bugs)

Burial wrote:

Do you understand that follow bot nerf is bigger nerf against heavies than against EW mechs right? lol

To which of your useless theory crafted max xx fit?

Go to forum: Bugs

125 Reply by Rage Rex

(115 replies, posted in Balancing)

Ozy wrote:

In terms of balance, the main change affecting the equation with ewar is the follow nerf. I think that it's effectively an Ewar buff because double RSAs are much harder to achieve on everything that isn't an ewar bot now, which in turn makes both ECMs and Sups more effective than they ever were before (+ tunings). This makes the question whether Ewar is a good place in terms of balance quite legitimate, imo.

With a single tuner, you get 100% hit chance vs heavies and 83% vs mechs. That's two to four bots that can be jammed out depending on how many amps they fit. With a single ECCM, the hit chances shift to 51% and 66%. I.e., the numbers go down to 1-2 bots being taken out per vagabond, depending on what kind of consistency you need.

Please elaborate on your two claims.

How exactly is follow nerf ewar buff? Provide bots and fit examples.

What bots fits and skill levels provide you those % and provide your bots and fitting examples.

Go to forum: Balancing