151

(8 replies, posted in Balancing)

Simulation would be overselling it. But a player independent reaosn to move goods yes.

152

(8 replies, posted in Balancing)

Make more goods produceable. Make infinite supply exists at current price in fewer locations have it at infinite supply at higher rate elsewhere. Raise the infinite supply price of charges a lot. Make a version of plasma that you can directly buy.

In short take safety wheels off alot even if not completely.

[toast_transportAssignmentExpired]

154

(8 replies, posted in Balancing)

Some of the stuff is buyable from NPCs with infinite supply at a given fixed price level. I guess the point is to shield on having extreme scarcitites on some of the things that just need to be available for starting players to get started. However I think this might be done to a kind of extreme degree.

There is a nice mechanic where it can make sense to reverse engineer and have the same good be player produced. This works by the production price being significantly lower than the direct NIC price. However there are some goods where production based option is not avialble and the direct NIC option is the only one. Some of there goods could receive a change where their direct NIC cost would be raised and a production path for them introduced.

Aslo for example artifact charges and mining charges are so cheap that their price is a just a formality. It can go to the extreme that one wonder what would be the difference if miners or scanners just didn't use charges? I can guess there is a minor point in that they still take signifcant U which can be considerable when compared to non-industiral bot cargo holds. However making them economically relevant should be on the cards. Mining charges are a good that seems would have almost guaranteed organic demand.

Also whereas several goods are optainable for cheap global price they are also available very conveniently. Even if a good needs a fixed very low price ceiling that need could still be served by providing it at that price in a single publically enterable terminal. One could boost distirbution and logistics by a) cutting stuff from autosupply on betas b) taking autosupply away from either alpha1 or alpha2 (maybe not both) c) have the same good be at different infinite supplies at different outposts. With optikon C even if there is no organic production of thew item there would still be organic logistics of the item without the game breaking down if the organic logistics would fail to emerge. There is already a precent case for different infinite demands.

Also in a similar game I have seen where NPCs sell a good cheaper in one location than they buy it at another location. In a way these form a kind of implicit transport mission. In order to promote logsitics being part of the game one could have a clockwise and anticlockwise good price gradient in alpha2s. Terminals would autopost a supply order of certain volume per time elapsed to the market which would just accumulate at a price floor. There would be a corresponding infinite demand buy order or similar periodic buyings of lowest bidder. Thus even in the absense of demand for basic game utilities there would be someone circulating goods between the alpha2s. If too many transporters would be up to the task they can compete the price lower but then it would be easier for player entered private transport missions to look good compared to the NPC provided mechanic.

I come back to game and there are new kinds of public facilities to be used. However their private counterparts didn't get included in the same go.

If you had private field terminals you could mine at gamma without being able to chicken out into indoors. The minimal "ante" for playing with gamma would also be lessened.

For radical changes allow them in beta.

There is a lot of similarity to a field terminal and a jet can that doesn't die.

156

(78 replies, posted in Balancing)

I was looking into how I could try to make newbies refine for me so it would make sense. However the balance between alpha1 and alpha2 make it quite hard.

Iget that there is a goal to make advanced players move to alpha2 but I think curretnly it insulates it too much.

I also feel that alpha1 being distributed over several outpost is ahuge disadvantage compared to alpha2 housig everything under one roof.

I suggest that alpha 1 special facilities be more effective than alpha2 even if by marginal amounts. Alpha2 doesn't need to pay for intraisland logistics while alpha1 does. And yes I suggest this so I it makes financial sense to post private transport agreements between alpha1 facilities. But I am also backing this up in that when a players facility usage is more based on EP than facility points then alpha2 allows better scaling. Many of the facility services happen instantly while moving resources between outposts is inherently limited by the resource U usage making moving them take time.

So for alpha1 outpost make each outpost have 2 facilities with 60 points and alpha2 make all facilities with 50 points.

There is also a lack of trade between alpha1 and alpha2. By using this alpha2 properties is that it is still close to alpha1 and betas making it a trade hub. However alpha1 has better absolute efficency. But the efficency of moving resources from example beta to alpha1 compared to moving them to just alpha2 and trade there would not make alpha1 dominate.

The private transport assignment system accepts field terminals as a destination. I tried to use it from Field Terminal  to  main terminal but I couldn't accomplish this.

I had a private transport aqssingment box with me and placed it in the terminal. When I tried to load it with cargo that was also in the field terminal it failed with error message that talked about not being able to find the container.

When you shoot a robot you can see it's hp goign down. However when the bot has a shield you can't see how much you are damaging. Now this can be legimately be attributed as an upside to shields. I sometimes had encounter with shield users and tried to accu neutralise things. I got about 0 feedback on how I was progressing. Well I decided that I can affford to lose 1 slot to see how I am progressing and get info waht the enemy has. So I used a chasis scanner. However the chasis scanner inclulded no info on target accu levels. I am stuck being very dark on whether I came even close to success or not.

Make the accu level of enemy bot readable somehow. The most natural place for this would be the chasis scanner. I am okay if it takes a separate gear. But itis a little inconsistent that hp is so visble and accu so hidden.

159

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I would like to say that getting a straight "no" or "we won't be doing anything about this" has been very clarifying when I have gotten this responce. I get that it can be dependant on other factors whether something is addressed or not. Sugegsting state of "on the table" ie something might be done or might not, but it has been read and not given an immidiate no.

I am slightly worried that there might not be a systematic way of arriving at a correct "danger pay" multiplier.

161

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ah there is reason to belief it's my bookkeeping error as a very likely possibility. Scan made at 11:44:00 with 96.25% showed 16:34:52. I was on the passive SAP as it opened and then suprised cehcked the numbers 16 minutes to go. You can check that the Nauwy passive SAP was completed at 16:26:25, 8 minutes before the scan time and that doesn't include time taken to complete it. However it seems taht the 11:44:00 is on the dot and thus likely not written right when it happened. There is a clear possibility that SAP was as early as it could have been at exactly -10 minutes (with 2 minutes of completetion time).

While I was hasty the process of getting corrected shows how using signifcant numbers as a guide to accuracy salvages a lot.

162

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

If the accuracy is going to randomly be 50% worse then it is misleading to even have seconds on the scan. I thought that it would just cap near 100% or approach a limit that isn't quite 100%.

163

(27 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I just had a scan be 15 minutes off when according to percentage theory it should have been capable to be only 10 minutes off, accuracy was 96.25%.

164

(56 replies, posted in General discussion)

Lab Geek wrote:

You guys are great at theory crafting and coming up with wonderful concepts. The reason your *** are buried in the dirt is your complete lack marketing and meaningful investment of your time and/or capital.

You know that that quality theory crafting doesn't come for free it takes up time. I do favour robust framework over polished but empty shells but the lack of polish really hinders much more on them.

165

(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

3 x Bot Mk2 -> Bot statue

Statue can be deployed to (atleast) alpha. Doesn't decay over time. Has hp comparable to a gamma base. Player must flag to attack it.

To be clear this misbehaviour means being able to deploy less containers than I should be. It just gets super annoying when the less is 0.

Atleast bombs are somehwat trying to be weapons so atleast dropipng them should be okay.

I currently think that dropping containers is only restricted by the PvP flag. I know that a agressor can start locking you and you can still drop a container. I am guessing this is the reference. However I fail to see how this would counter as "being in combat".

I could agree that there could be introduced delays or that a field container needs first to be "activated" to accept cargo like beacons do.

This is fine line of using less used features in a programmed forsaken game,such as transporting cargo in beta. You can't really be sure that what you have in your hands in an intended feature.

If you refuse to give a security code and use the "x" instead, if you try to place a container again it compains about "you need to wait to place another container", while I have not placed any containers.

169

(1 replies, posted in Bugs)

If you are on a slope your robot can touch it's shields edge. The expected behaviour would be for the shield to be slaved to the center of mass.

170

(56 replies, posted in General discussion)

I am fully suppporting you not playing on the 29th.

171

(62 replies, posted in Balancing)

A high ECCM rating and a ECM can end up doing next to nothing. THere is a lower bound where low interference does nothing. That would be the equivalent of only your 5th shot starting to do damage.

Demobbings not working on stuff taht is counterfitted isn't taht out of the line and the game has plenty of 0 effectiveness features already.

172

(9 replies, posted in Balancing)

I have way more favourable numbers for my beta missioning. I guess this is more of the symptom of your mission branch rather than missions themselfs. Note that those that do combat missions can readily and seamlessly turn into PvP as situation calls for it. I think part of your reward is supposed to come from people that don't have that property and their mission income. So it's more like the misions are there to be not to die of boredom as you wait.

btw: while talking baout misison s branch balance transport is utterly screwed by missing the level 6 slot.

173

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Nice, the challenge is on to make the beefeater blink

174

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Gotta return the nora favour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDr5blVJpLw

175

(23 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Well spun. I should have realised it deosn't matter as nobody anyways goes to gamma even if it were known to be made out of gold.