One can't mission teleport with a flag. If how it now work in that you can activate mission teleport if you get fired upon only what would be the correct behaviour? It does seem taht the mission teleport meshes badly with PvP as you can still teleport to arrive to SAP scan etc. But it would be kinda stupid if the activation of the teleport would be prevented by mearly being seen by another agent. The distinction of activating it before or after being shot for the first time would seem like a lousy option too.

Doing industrial things on gamma means you need to supervise constantly. Its only semi-afk. Sure its way more annoying than being lazy mode alpha but I don't get how that evasive manuvering blocks the industrials from happening.

What does annoy me is that there is very minor factor of "scratch" escape from them or accumulating damage / need to retreat to repair from them. A red cloud is pretty much guaranteed to have demob and once a single one lands you are pretty much dead.

In a way its stupidly weak as it takes a whole slot and in a way its stupidly powerful as suicide scanning can't really be avoided.

Its also not a good tool to estimate wheter you dare to fight as it requires for you to be in lock range to be used ie already in battle - too late to back out now.

That is more of the effect of adopting the squad mechanic for a purpose I din't think it was originally designed for. Its kinda wierd that players that are not working on related tasks are in the same squad, althought the shared visibility and such are a concrete upside ot the arrangement. One of the solutions would be to provide this needed funcitonality with a feature spesifically taylored for such need. You could for example have a toggle on "show position to congloramate" check box somewhere. Althought I guess if it means implementing congloramates it could be somewhat much work. One could also nuke the megasquads by having a extension of squad member size. However the impact to regular PvP ops could be more negative than the positive impact on missioning.

The issues isn't so much that you have to leave squad but that doing missions as part of a passive mega-squad or genuinely alone means squads of up to 10 already counts as "incentivicing cooperation". However it is right to recognise that this fails to hit what is intended. On the other hand the mission system needs to know at acceptance whether to generate a solo or multiplayer mission. Mission rewards can use the information who actually contributed but the mission handout has not got similar information to exploit.

By this logic, if I am not picking bills from the floor, it means there are none to pick. Its just the case that there are some surface features that discourage you to really test it out and you make the general assumption that if the design has surface of it "broken" its a decent guess that the fundamentals can't be in essentially better shape. But ETHOS isn't exactly a paragon of rational behaviour and perpetuum players in general are not well approximated by homo economicus NIC maximisers. For example if the devs increased PvP area payout to offset the irrational risk-aversion of players the NIC income would be truly lobsided. The standard of "audience acceptance" would be poor there and I claim it would be poor here for similar reasons.

Your description of experience is that you want to progress in wealth power and not actually play the game. That is all has to be for progress. This is not neccesarily how sandbox games need to be played. Also your story would want some paragraph breaks for readability. In particular if there is a lower level bot available to boom stuff why the unavailability of the big bot makes you rather wait for the big than use the little on e in the mean while? It hink game design wise the important thing might be how long does the satisfaction of achieving a middle rank makes you actually use and enjoy the goodies achieved before you start to wait for the next goodie level.

One of the very potentially valuable ideas in your posts to me strikes to be having a cap on how much ep can be extracted from play-activity dependence in a day. This is the main factor that increases its admissibility.

I do not think that making the EP items tradeable would destroy them. I view it more that if it survives trading its proof of the rigiourness of the idea.

What people usually dislike about Grind To Win is that if they ever do not put the daily effort or don't feel like playing they will fall behind and mega-grinders can make quantumn leaps in blink of an eye. However if you put a time-limit cap on what grinding can win for you this addresses this complaint quite nicely. If you grind exactly at the cap (say 100 ep per day) you are guaranteed not to fall behind no matter what. If you grind in excess of that you are in effect buying vacation time. If you make 300 "grind points" per day for every day you play you can afford to take 2 vacation days without risking of falling behind. There is already this kind of structure in that loggin in for 1 day covers your to not log in for 2 days. This is like near the theorethical minimum amount of grind possible. But it maybe highlights the flip side of the design too. Logging in 1000 times in a day does not provide you with additional coverage. In order to qualify those logins must be be dispersed in big real time intervals.

Consider a system of 4 EP tiers instead of the 1 we have now:
tier 0 - log in within 3 days  - 1440 EP
tier 1 - consume tier 1 EP item in 3 days, found in alpha, manufactured from mainly cryoperine, 500 EP
tier 2 - consume tier 2 EP item in 2 days, found in beta, manufactured from mainly epriton, 200 EP
tier 3 - consume tier 3 EP item in 1 days, found in gamma, manufactured from mainly colixium, 100 EP

The difference between a pure waiter only doing tier 0 waiting and one that did all 4 ouf them would be 600 EP about +50% from the baseline. The effect of booster would be to allow the premature consumption of the item to go to queue instead of waste and an additional tier $ - 720 EP income (exactly 50% of tier 0).

In reflection to the fact that you can't put loggins "in store" for tomorrow all the EP items would only live for 1 day. If you wish to trade it its very time sensitive.

Another model would be that each category of activity would generate EP applicaple to that category of skill. So for example first 100 shots fired in a day would generate 1 EP to be used int he category Weapon usage. First 100 resource units processed in industrial process would generate 100 EP spendable in Industry etc. This is similar in FF "slay monsters to get EXP"  put it has a daily cap. Maybe it would be more proper to have small daily activity generate some base level but having bigger activity "beyond the cap" still generate more EP with diminishing returns with a finite limit?

In an effect its a compromise between making the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" smaller while still allowing action to make a difference to "have more". Grind to Win allows the gap to be arbitrarily big. Wait to Win allows the difference to be 0.

account number is arbitrary and is easily circumvented by puring money into the game.

If Chalydor is broken then Solarfield must be double broken. Rhaoshan also has a unique feature teleport connection-wise.

If a demob can catch someone with less than optinmal range, in the next shot its going to be pretty guaranteed to be able to land a optimal range shot if the shot has any effect on speed.

Then its the case that you get behaviour A (respawn to latest visited) if you never set a home base, behaviour B if you set a home base and behaviour C (respawn to newbie terminal) if you set to none from B.

All while I understood it is only supposed to work in two ways and not three.

I know of behaviour where if the mission acceptor is on the field when the harvesting fullfills so the log pops out but isn't anymore when the person near it picks it up it makes it miss the trigger. This can happen by accident if a mission holder moves indoors while others do the lifting part of the missions.