You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by logicalNegation
Logged back out, cant even log back in now, looks like the server screwed the pooch.
Same.
The lag in the last two weeks have only been getting worse and more frequent.
-1
+1 for cargo expanders
I don't know why but everyone that comes from eve scoffs at the idea that there is not a cargo expander module.
Let armor take a hit, add some cargo space (maybe with # of module limitations/ or stacking penalties if that gets implemented). Whatever doesn't exceed the base-cargo size of the next class above. (IE: full-cargo fitted lithus should still be <720U) This should set up a reasonable progression.
With reds on alpha-2 this will be a cost-benefit decision on the part of the player.
Otherwise this will at least addresses some of the initial culture-shock some 'transitioning' players seem to have a hard time getting over.
I agree, all of the Small Features/Balancing I would like to see addressed first in some logical order (releasing nerfs with boosts to 'lessen the blow').
-1 for field rescue
The less that is lost in death, is less they must recover through the market or through mining/production.
Yes there are other issues affecting the markets health overall, but the more we take away from it the less of a real player-driven market it becomes.
I like it as is.
But sadly I've seen many new players rage-quit in the tutorial because of artifacting.
Can we instead get rid of, or make optional (indicate very clearly it is Optional), the artifact training in the tutorial?
This way for players that need hand-holding can simply ignore this part and may or may not try it later in their game experience. Meanwhile, those that do can reap the rewards for the effort they put in?
Making artifacting too easy will devalue the activity, and therefore the supply of products they yield (MK2's, etc.) will become much cheaper and more common.
Drop all the crap the industrials are supposed to make, like the colossal amounts of T1 and boost what industrials need. Kernels, fragments, decoders. Occasional item isn't bad.
I would also like if the Beta Observers or whatever you will have running there had a very rare chance of dropping something nice, like a Cortex or an MK2 CT.
The more raw materials, and the less finished products increases demand for industry, increases market activity = good for the game.
+10^googolplex
Set to expire in 2 months.
Had to look around a bit, but its a quick and easy one.
Can you make this sticky? Maybe just for a time?
There are 2 categories broken down by the type of feature described in the dev blog: "New Features/reworks" and "Balancing/small features". Please click the link below, and rank each topic in order of what is most important to do first.
http://www.polljunkie.com/poll/xdnfbd/p … e-priority
I hate to step on toes, I know Ville has a topic up for this but parsing that in a meaningful way with lots of posts was going to be difficult for devs and players alike. By all means still use that topic and others for continued discussion where this poll does not provide room for elaboration in a public forum.
I did not want to overcomplicated this poll, but I think it is also important to note (Devs) that low rankings might also reflect features or balancing that players may not want to see ever/at all.
Thank you for participating, and I hope that this proves useful for everyone participating!
Can this be a Poll?
It will be easier to collect more results, produce a more legible metric for devs and players alike, and minimize effort of participation (to minimize bias of sample population).
Also, things are missing from the original list.
Ville wrote:Jita wrote:Moving the assets from Dom to a different beta seems pretty reasonable. Moving the gamma is a little over the top.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that Joke will not be attacking CIR, CHAOS and NSE gamma bases (maybe some of the single terminals but not the big ones) if that helps.
Now your under my skin.
So two players: Jita and Burial who don't live on beta, doesn't participate in gamma and performs no industry on beta all of a sudden get this glorious idea to shake up the status quo by ELIMINATING industry on beta?? And "moving all your assets seems pretty reasonable". seriously? It's perfectly reasonable huh? It's perfectly reasonable that two players can completely ruin the player experience of the 50+ dudes actively using beta.
I have a prediction: if you unlock betas ALL THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN is veteran players will sit under stations with shield tanked tyrannos with detectors preventing players from logistically use the outpost while having logged off altos or masked units waiting nearby.
Well its perfectly possible using current mechanics to be a pain on purpose to stop people enjoying Beta's that are open.
This is something that we talked about last night as it could be an issue. It would have been nice to have you there - i stayed up till midnight to try too - so we don't have to have these politically motivated person and not idea based back and forths but i guess work got in the way. We did try to get people from your 'side' to join with Obi, Race Drones and Sunny representing.
What we spoke about was that just because you can doesn't mean you should or will. Joke will not be using unkillable detector alts under stations because we think its a terrible mechanic that needs work. We however recognize that there's limited dev time and in order of importance we think you should go - having the space to play, having the incentive to play, managing the disincentives to play.
This change creates the space. The roundtable set out some discussions about what those incentives should be (and Zooms post about how some of it is already tabled is encouraging). Once those are either in place or on their way we did plan in a month or two to have a talk again about what the problems are and the best solution for them. Stuff like detector alts. People seeing who is in station. Possible kick from station mechanics. There is a lot that would help.
We've always been clear in saying this change on its own will NOT fix beta. Its a step in the right direction. We are going to put our money where our mouth is and live the idea we have been selling by moving out to a beta 1 station as a corp, giving up the alliance life, doing ALL of our industry there (and not relying on stocks) and even giving up heavy dropping in favor of lower level pvp that is more achievable for everyone. The rewards for doing that arn't amazing right now but if the devs have taken steps to fix things, how can we not take steps to help. We hope that other corps will embrace this too but that's their choice. This is a sandbox game and is as much about the choices people make as it is the mechanics.
One thing everyone who came from all sides agreed is that theres thirty *** people playing this game Ville. This whole back and forth and speaking as corps is absurd, we are all just people trying to play a game that want it to succeed. I'd burn everything i ever did in game for a chance of 150 people on beta again. Please try and drop the political posturing and lets work together to find common ground around the things that we CAN do in a short period of time to help, alongside ofc the devs own goals, in moving this game forward.
I would also like to invite everyone in advance for the next rountable we will be holding at the end of August. Perhaps someone from PHM or CIR could host this time?
Alright this might be inflammatory to asset holders but:
With respect to this, would it then make sense to do a 'beta-reset' of sorts?
Meaning, all assets are moved (by devs to make sure all player assets are moved out) out of all beta stations, and beta stations all drop ownership at the time of the 'beta-patch'. This way, when some stations are 'unlockable' no one particular corp is getting screwed.
This initial phase allows everyone to re-enter beta on a semi-level playing field. Obviously there is EP, and other accumulated personal assets that may or may not be used. Leveling this would be full server wipe, and that is a non-starter for a lot of players.
If all Beta-owners agree, this can be a beta-reset to equalize issues during the transition to new ownership mechanics, or types. It doesnt make sense that some owners would keep their stations, while other don't simply because they were unfortunate enough to pick the wrong island.
Also: invite Inda to the roundtable. He is a relevant and non-political voice that has been advocating for the game as a whole for years right?
I have a series of questions I'd like to ask Avatar Creations in a whole:
What do you see for your Beta Islands?
1. Alliance Held property where large groups of individuals hold faction specific islands?
2. Smaller Alliances independently holding each island one in it's own?
3. Entities on a Corporation level holding different terminals on the same island?
Before we continue this discussion it would be wise to figure out which the "developers" have in mind for owning Beta because there is specific things that have to be reworked for each of those scenarios to be true.
My vote is for all 3.
Though I understand that would require perhaps more islands.
I think even if adding this content takes more time but incorporates more playstyles/activity/densities, then it is worth it.
Vocal minorities are an issue with all voluntary survey techniques. Forums probably more so.
I do not mean to say they are either wrong or right, but rather people speak out more when they feel strongly, or negatively about a subject.
Grain of salt, and all that...
I will say, Zoom, I remember a gen chat discussion when you were around for a hotfix. The idea was lifted similar to what is being discussed here (based on what I've skimmed).
To address the feature of a more 'open beta': adding either beta islands with no Terminals, and/or betas with one or multiple NPC terminals.
The idea of a beta with no outposts but some strong PVE content, like a NPC 'base' (undockable) with its own special SAPs I think was something worth noting. That also addresses the concerns raised in this, and many other topics.
Same with betas with all NPC outposts.
I think this, added to the current beta mix, will hit on all ends of the spectrum, empty->open->open/lockable->all lockable.
Reasonable compromise, would you agree?
Confirmed, deployment working now.
Thanks zoom!
Confirmed!
Virtual Training Terminal shows at least 4 in deployment queue at all times. Right now deploying only adds us to the end (obviously, as per queue discipline) but does not affect the original 4.
Cancelling still works, but the original 4 in queue are not processing, and therefore all agents in terminal are stuck inside with little else to do.
Devs!! HALP!!
I convinced some people to do reviews on metacritic:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/perpetuum
Do I get a prize? 
With all due respect, nothing on any PVP island should be considered to have safe passage.
Sometimes if you get caught hauling, you are going to get popped. Loss, of indy or combat bots, is part of open pvp. When I was mining, I mined in a termis, because I knew the consequence of just being on a beta island. Perhaps the low population has granted the illusion of safety. The inevitable 'gank' is part of the game.
Other games have these same mechanics, they allow for TP camping (gate camping) terminal camping (station camping), all valid and if not fair forms of PVP. Notably, this is to disrupt logistics.
But that's the whole point, attackers should be allowed to choke logi chains, hold down key locations to prevent the defenders from continuing about their daily business. This disruption should be met by a defensive fleet to open up the logi again. This forces one to engage in PVP, because it prevents you from doing anything else until the threat is removed.
I do like having one 'reserved' spark that can take you back to alpha regardless of your blood spark. (IE: how do the defeated retreat when all is lost?)
But as many have said, the issue is power projection: the ability of one to defend many distant locations against multiple attacking fronts.
I do understand mobility is an issue, but as Zoom said, the TP and highway system will lessen the travel time but introduce risk! Risk=>pvp oppurtunities. Popped scarabs=>lost bot/material/equipment=>more demand.
Perhaps its time to admit, things might be too easy for PVP island logistics.
Perhaps the same number of people required to take and hold one island, does not mean they can immediately spread their influence without weakening their defense in some areas.
I will say on the issue of beta terminals, zoom mentioned plans for new betas with no terminals, and npc terminals. So in the future, perhaps both sides of this issue will be satisfied by this (potential) new content.
+1 to full removal of, or any reduction to, Spark Teleport.
Assuming EP is also refunded for this.
1) +1. More incentives for beta over alpha.
2) NOT small nor simple. That needs its own thread. Also -1
3)+1. trick might be limiting level of bots available on alpha (no L4-L5s) to make beta/gamma better by comparison.
4) Login=>EP generation already a thing. Except every 3 days. What would be better is an incentive to Stay on and be Active. Dont think that should directly result in EP gen however.
5) +1 Robot paint credit/store items need to be introduced; Paint isnt pay-to-win, everyone agrees on that.
6) Do you mean the time to acquire skills, and NIC for modules to fit a decent pvp mech? -1, MMO progression should be tolerable but not short. Shorten the path to a player's goal, shorten the lifespan of that player in game.
7) Already a thing: read bonus tab on robot info.
8) I am mixed on the trial thing, how to do it, limits, if it will mutually benefit players, game, and devs, how it can not be exploited. Infinite time in trial -1
9) +1. But I will say we need PVP to create demand for resources, high-end and low-end alpha materials. More PVP will create movement on market that will benefit end-game indy/carebear types more than equivalent in missions. For PVE combat, some longer story-arc like missions might be a nice capstone however.
10) +1 w/ feedback before locking it down.
I like blockers idea, sorry to say Altera.
I don't think its too bad to say if you want to afk, fit a crazy tank. This requires lots of skill and reduces mining output. (I'm talking all head slots shield hardeners for example).
Or if that isn't acceptable, just make the Red npc's glass cannons, hi dps, low tank. This way an active/semi-afk player can pop them with their spare turret slot, or risk getting their tank broken over some time.
But I want to avoid getting new players insta-popped, with no method of recourse (H-mechs would be too big to take on, and they might not be able to escape if they are in a slow indy bot.)
It's clear there is a balance to be struck here. Perhaps the devs have some ideas...
Devs,
I think the change is overall in the right direction, but might have made things too hard (at least for alpha1/2).
Second point, it is clear even from chat today, returning players were completely unaware of the change (buried several patch notes back: thanks to your hard-working ironically).
I do remember there was an NPC change a while back, and there was a big bold MOTD in gen chat. Something like this might quell the excuse-by-ignorance crowd.
As for the change itself, let's discuss:
Overall, PVE combat is harder because aggro pulls much more, and not just the type the player picked to aggro. This is more realistic, and makes for a more challenging PVE combat experience. However, it is clear that this may have surpassed that of the capacity of even veteran players.
Maybe some spawns are only designed for squads to deal with; that's fine. But not all of them.
The consequences of this are less loot/plasma for the player's immediate rewards(when successful) and less fragments/kernals/other misc goods hitting the market.
So with the increased challenge, should come increased reward. Maybe you want to reduce 'farming' activities and make it a more thrilling risky activity. That's fine, but you have to reward the players accordingly otherwise the risk will quickly outweigh the rewards, which is our current state.
+1
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by logicalNegation
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.092 seconds (91% PHP - 9% DB) with 6 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
