I'm not dissing the dev's, even with the best intentions things don't always work out like they hope.

Edit: This is one reason why game developers tend not to offically promise anything.

n|n

Does that look like eyes and a nose, or flipping the bird?

Someone needs a visit by Hug-a-bot (now throughly tested to produce 50% less crushing deaths).

I demand a 'bump' post, don't fall under Coyote's mesmerizing requirement of content!!

Because developers always deliver...

90% speculation and 10% wish.

82

(11 replies, posted in General discussion)

I predict that forum posters will continue to try to influence the market ...

smile

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news … censes.ars

Summary: Guy has Autocad software he bought from archeticture firm that went out of business, wants to resell it on Ebay. Autocad EULA says that the software can't be resold.

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

Based on the fact that Autocad had the limitation in the EULA, the federal court ruled in favor of the EULA and prevented this guy from selling the software.

EDIT: This is what Warwick was referring to.

84

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

The game is still new. The upside is that you get to be part of the building process of a sandbox game, the downside is that you have to be part of the building process.

If growing with the community and the game is not to your suiting, that's ok the rest of us will continue and we'll welcome you back later after we have built a dynamic and exciting world; and the devs have created more PVE for you. You will be far behind the curve though, so if you do leave it will take you a lot of PVE to get to the point where you can come PVP on the player owened areas...

You could choose to make an investment in the future by continuing your subscription, in which case you'll have the EP when you come back, and maybe get in with a good corp that has its own POS structures!

85

(14 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

We are much more likely to get POS turrets/launchers or tackle unless the minefield generator too is stationary. The ability to drop mines anywhere is either going to be totally useless with weak yield or too easily exploitable.

I wish it wern't so, because I like the idea of mines, but balancing them would be really difficult.

86

(12 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

I clicked on the picture and was shocked and a little disappointed; I wasn't expecting something useful.  sad

87

(12 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

There is a logout button on the icon bar at the top of the screen, anything else just ends the application.

Edit: if your quitting the appliction to leave the game, your bot is going to stay on the field for a long time. The game thinks you are just disconnected and has a long time out to allow you to log back in; as Neoxx said, wouldn't surprise me if it was 30 minutes.

Tiggus wrote:

The size of the current alliances does not matter, what matters is they for the most part control the islands they live on

I disagree. There is only 1 alliance that mostly controls thier Island.

The other 2 islands are roamed almost at will by any group of 3 or more causing the alliances to shut down all operations. Now if that group stays too long, eventually the defenders can muster a force and drive them off.

If you want to be picky, no the 'alliance' size doesn't matter, its the % of combat pilots in the alliance. There are only just so many pilots available on the server, and by making new alliances you WILL dilute them; leaving existing alliances with even less defenses and unable to mount any kind of offense.

And that's a nice graph, but its miss leading. First if they can't compete now in beta, they certainly aren't going to hold an island. Logistically 20 small corps forming an organized alliance is impossible, second out of the 5-10 (5 is min. and most of those cicles are the same min. size) members in each corp only 1-2 are going to be combat pilots (PVP pilots don't join small alpha corps because there's no PVP) likely the CEO and a couple officers.

Unless your a strictly PVP corp, you need 100 or more members to have 20-25 combat pilots online at any one time; if you're lucky.

A better graph would be number and type of bots active. I think you would see something a high percentage of the active bots are industry or arkhe/castel; most combat pilots are running an industry alt while they farm level 1 kernels and really have no interest in PVP.

No, I believe that the majority of the pilots that want to seriously be involved in PVP are. The rest are the ones that use assualt bots on level 1 assignments because level 2 isn't worth the risk.

Tiggus wrote:

[*]Increase the number of beta islands, allowing more alliances to spring up[/*]

The player base is already too diluted with 3 islands and 3 alliances. These Alliances have maybe 150-200 agents online at any time (due to player base spread over time zones) which consists of 70-90 actual players with 2,3 or more seperate accounts.

Only a few corporations are full PVP, most have a subset of carebear industrialists that either don't pvp or don't have the skills to participate. In general, this means Alliances can field 30-50 combat agents; played by 25-40 players, but even then it takes 30-40 minutes to gather them.

I highly suspect corps like M2S require all members to have at least 1 Combat account based 100% at thier outpost, and may also require this of any alliance corps. This allows them to quickly log in that character and respond to any incursion. This is not a requirement of any other alliance, although members are required to respond to combat call, thier combat agent may be 10-15 mins of travel time away from beta.

EDIT: If the opposition is already on the Island, trying to get a bot in from Alpha to group up is difficult and mostly just suicide.

The only place to get more players for an alliance is from the existing alliances, and I doubt they would come from M2S or thier pets, so it would just mean less combat pilots that can be rallied. This would be bad for M2S btw, because the only pvp you would get is catching 1 or 2 bots that accidentally wandered too far from safety. They wouldn't even be able to defend an Intrusion, so no pvp there either.

Ah, you say, but diluting is just what the game needs; smaller groups would lead to non-blobbing tactical PVP.

Or, more likely leading to a squad of 30 bots roaming around looking for smaller groups to wtfpwn from the only alliance that wasn't diluted, and the defenders resources too thin to protect what they have so they can't risk combat, or if a group of 5 bots kills 10 of thiers because of tech differences they don't come out unless its a 4 to 1 advantage (and they still die and all the members Cquit and/or leave the game).

---

A collary to this is with the game so new, the only experienced pilots are those that were in beta, which is only a small subset of pilots in most corps (except 1). These pilots will get more experience as the game progresses, but you really can't expect them to be more than a blob until they have been in a lot of battle. 2 years worth of combat in beta is going to be much harder to over come than even 30K extra EP.

Since this is a future thread ...

I predict that having advanced tech and numbers will continue to be a winning combination in all engagements.

I predict that until either the numbers or tech of the opposition increases, PVP will continue to be mostly running around the beta island trying to pull defenders out of position or pushing them into dock up.

91

(14 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Thierry wrote:

The issue with strategic mining, desert war-style,  is that there are lots of bottlenecks already on the map, so it would be fairly easy to interdict those.


Well, exactly.

Putting mines in the middle of nowhere isn't strategic.

Invading armies typically don't use mine fields if they are using a blitz, because the front is moving too quickly.

Fields would be especilly strategic in the early game, when alliances don't have enough troops to cover all the approaches, but still useful later to slow advancing mechs and limit the effectiveness of light-fast bots.

... yeah, they aren't going to add mines.

Its a nice thought though.

92

(14 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Strategically, mine fields are used to limit enemy movement; either to slow or redirect an advance.

Mines range from anti-personnel to anti-tank.

If mines are introduced, obviously some players will want to use them as ambush/tactical units. Using external devices for directed combat by passes the limitations of the bots and makes it much more difficult to balance the game.

Mines are strategic elements, it should take time and effort to deploy; specialized modules and skills, not a unique bot.

The different properties of the mines should be by tier, and come in small, medium, and large; the cost and skill needed to deploy increasing with size of course.

Size equates to damage, tier to abilities.

Tier 1 - Visible effect on the ground
Tier 2 - No ground effect, stil detectable with module (Geo Scanner)
Tier 3 - No ground effect, IFF
Tier 4 - Undetecable, IFF

This is just an example of tiered effects.

edit: I'm against tactical use of mines, hence the need to make them hard to deploy and easy to spot/detect.

93

(3 replies, posted in Balancing)

It would be nice to see a revamp of the starter area, and its probably on the to do list; so posts like this are great. Its still really early in the game though, so I would expect the devs to let it play out a little before they make any radical changes.

Additional warnings during charater creation though would be helpful now. We'll see in the patch!

Snift,

I've posted this a couple times in other threads, real life analogies are good for explaining how something works, but it is not valid as an arguement for changing or even validating a game mechanic.

Valid arguements reference the mechanic and how it effects the game or your gaming experience.

I'm not expecting people to stop using them as arguements, simply pointing out that if your trying to convince the dev's to adjust something, or other players to see your point of view, references to real life or even other games isn't going to hold up.

Really, alts are only good for setting at various stations to help snipe market items.

96

(15 replies, posted in General discussion)

There are already 2 other threads about deletion EP loss and Respec.

Snowstyle wrote:

PvP should not be turned into PvE. Nor should the two be mixed.

Then the POS should not be targetable at all because its a environment item. Which leaves scheduling Incursion type events to capture or destroy the POS.

Edited: PVE to environment, its environment because it is not occupied/controlled by a player.

98

(7 replies, posted in Q & A)

I hope its not like reading a great book, getting all excited because its part of a triliogy, only to find out the second book is still a year away and the last book is scheduled 5 years out. Damn you Donaldson!!!

I'm surprised the pirates aren't posting for around 120U, more trips means more exposure.

I would like to see 400U, but I don't really expect it to be 5x larger; 1.5 - 2x is more likely.

100

(17 replies, posted in Balancing)

I really do understand there is currently an imbalance in cost vs performance for the Arkhe, I get it.

And I really wish that I could think of a solution instead of just saying this or that won't work, but I think only time can fix this.

Really the game is only 1 month old and there is already a seperate noob classification?

For those players that came all the way through beta testing and signed up for EA you've lost sight of what being new to the game means.

I'm not calling for the game to coddle new players, but you also can't ask to impose changes that ruin the starting experience just because you are already past it.

This game is all about PVP and that is what is going to attract people to it, its freak'n bot on bot action after all. Maybe your trying to set an entrance exam, if noobs can't struggle through a crappy start then they fail and you don't want them here anyway. Personally I would like to see more players, even bad players make good targets, and with more players we'll get more content.