Indian River wrote:

instead of the "magical" inability to delete cargo once attacked why
shouldn't the attackers have to use a slot for equipment that prevents
the destruction of cargo?
because our big bad carebear PVPers would cry some more?

instead of the "magical" ability to delete cargo once attacked why
shouldn't the defenders have to use a slot for equipment that allows the destruction of cargo?
because our carebears  would cry some more?

My version sounds more logical and realistic
Though I agree that the implementation of this new rule is not perfect yet. There should be a difference between pvp and pve combat.

I think the best solution would be to suspend the deletion cost for a few days, a week maybe so everyone is happy.

I would had liked to rearrange some ep points, saving up a few hours worth ep for more important things, but that would mean giving up many rl hours which I had spent on mission grinding..hmm I rather not

I like it. Every robot would be able to do this, but it would take time (as logging out takes and logging in should), but with correct modules and extensions this could be reduced so making ambush spec bots possible.


(14 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Mines, planting automated turrets (which could damage, slow nearby units(, destructable walls etc.. let's get better use of terrain


(17 replies, posted in Balancing)

I like these suggestions


(31 replies, posted in Balancing)

I agree, kernel buy orders must be stopped or they should worth much much less.
or at very least low level kernels should worth much ess than high level ones.


(6 replies, posted in Q & A)

Is that accurate? the max recharge rate is at 50% capacity? I tohught it's around 30.. but it could be from EVE

Ransom has nothing to do with this.. and it's not always an option.
the change would.:
make pvp more rewarding
more realistic (yes it has happened that ships dropped thier cargo into the water just to deny the pirates from the loot BUT it takes time.)

The only reason ppl want to be able to destroy the loot instantaneously is because of a last act of spite towards the winner.. that's poor..
There are ways to avoid to be looted: the easiest one is to not leave the alpha island, but if you do you must accept the risk.

For me btw this is not a big thing, I've played EVE but never really got into pvp. I still think this change would make the game better (and there is a good reason why every mmo with similar ruleset implemented something like this)

Some kind of salvaging would be nice, a special salvagin module would be required, but don't make it like in eve.. it should be like normal looting except if you have salvaging module you can have the fragments+possible other stuff extra. player bots also should drop these.

EVE self destruct is for "denying the kill" from your attackers, but you cant destroy your cargo, you can only eject them and even that is on timer.

** to the previous post: yeah, I think in beta islands all containers should be lootable by anyone, if you loot one which is not yours you get flagged for pvp. (ninja looters FTW)

Raev1n wrote:

PvP isn't broken. You can kill people.

yeah.. you can kill ppl in wow too.. the difference is that in this kind of games there are true risks and rewards in pvp...or at least there should be..
no point being a pirate when your prey can destroy all the cargo instantaneously

+1 for loot should not be destroyable immediately.

Someone said that let's imagine that he would have explosives in the cargo and would rather press the button than to leave the loot for the pirates: then maybe there could be a module for this. a module which would allow you to self destruct your cargo (and maybe yourself). But this module would cost money, would use up slot, make you a bit slower (just like any extra module) etc..

I would really like some mecahnism which would limit how many  can lock on a single target, making more locks impossible or just harder. It would make the fights much more strategic and reduce the power of "blobs". I know it could be exploited by neutral/friendly locks.. but maybe some could think of a not to complicated mechanism to prevent that.

I think only NPC corps should give free arkhes and only at alpha bases. If you are in  a player corp and you don't have money for a new bot or your corp can not support you with one then you probably shouldnt be in that corp.


(93 replies, posted in Balancing)

I think new players should have increased EP gain and not just a fixxed amount like in EVE, but until they close the gap with th eold players.. even if it would last for years.. the bonus would be like +20%, not that much but at least they would feel that they are getting closer and not "being gimped" would help the moral smile


(16 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

Good to see Wessex is here, I was in the Guild while preparing and waiting for Darkfall to launch. Unfortunately  when it happened i could not join the game, and later I have lost m interest in it..
A free up from me

My idea/suggestion is to allow relocating attribute points like five points/month (not below some set minimum, so a full combat char couldnt put even the rest of the points into combat)

My reasoning is that this would allow some fine tunning of abilities, a long term strategy about what you intend to do with the character, also a possibility for fix if you have screwed up something-and it's not like full respec where a combat spec character could transform into a miner in a second.

I think there is a problem with current character generation system, there are some nice choices, but are they real choices? I admit I haven't played too much with perpetuum planner but from what i have seen there are only three paths and for optimal efficiency the corresponding attributes must be maximized.
Now, if there would be a change in this system, to make it more interesting "harder to pick", then probably (most likely) those who already made their character would want a respec-but if there would a be aminimal respec option, like the one I have suggested above it could fix this problem too.

Kaito Kurusaki wrote:

I personally dislike this one alliance = one island gameplay.

yeah, me too. Some smaller, less valuable islands would be good to have. also more islands: more possible entry to the bigger islands: less chance for camping all the entrances

I'm also trying  to compare the different guns/bots, to make it easier I only do it on light weapon/assault bot level and there are many things to consider, dps is far from being enough (a small thing for example that missiles can do the best secondary damage type-I mean every weapon has a main dmg type, for example for lasers it is thermal, the best they can do is 14 thermal dmg and 8 something else depending on ammo, missiles go like 20/15 ..small thing.. but still)

and bots, their stats and bonuses also play a big role in choice. Magnetic robots seem to be the fastest, though magnetic weapons are heavy so they lose some advantage there.
Laser bots have the best hp (and magnetics' are much lower than the others)




(10 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

The speed data (at least for  the assault robots) contradicts the data in the pereptumm planner


(7 replies, posted in Q & A)

I've checked: hardeners give points, so that's clear, only robot bonuses are in percentages (5% per level)


(7 replies, posted in Q & A)

I just calculated:

150/(150+100) --> 150+15 (10%)=165 --> 165/(165+100)
   60%                                                              62,3%

I'm quite sure it's not working like this, I just wana know the correct formula


(7 replies, posted in Q & A)

If the +10% resist means that it increases the base points then  for 150 points the resist would go up from 60 to 62.3%, for 10 points (minimum resist) it goes up from 9,1 to 9,9%. This is not realistic, so the mechanism should be something else or thereis no point boosting the lowest resist.


(7 replies, posted in Q & A)

How do the resists work in this game? How much damage reduction do I get if I increase my resist by 5-10%?