Annihilator, the point is that players wont deposit nic for people to do missions for them, unless those missions directly result in greater profit than the reward, hence the mission runner would have no motivation to do the mission for that corp, but would rather take the "objective" items, for himself. In order for the system to work, the nic MUST be generated out of thin air, like it is for npc missions, and a limiting factor MUST exist, that way players will have a reason to both make and perform missions.

I've always like the idea of player created missions. The only way to make it work in practice though is to create an internal balancing system that decides the reward based on what your mission parameters are, and a meta-resource exclusively used to create missions.

Heres an example. A corp gets delegation points (the meta-resource) from each megacorp for either holding an outpost associated with that megacorp, or from having members with high standings with that megacorp (so it's available to pvpers and pve'ers). Delegation points determine how much reward your missions can give out, and they can be performed an unlimited number of times (with the normal 6/10 restriction), as long as you leave them available. When you create a mission, it's level and reward are automatically decided by what objectives you decide, or perhaps a number of reward type options are available and simply the size of the reward is determined automatically.

honestly it shouldnt matter if kernel npc prices dropped, unless you are farming level 1's you'll make vastly more nic selling to other players anyways. All it does is encourage PVE players to make MORE money, by not instaselling to npcs, and selling to players instead.


(7 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Atlantica Online does a fantastic job of making PVE and PVP mechanics different but good. You should take a gander at how it works. Much similar to guildwars, except that skill effects are actually tied to the character targeted rather than area.


(8 replies, posted in Q & A)

No serious issues in SE US, could be an issue with routing to western US.

Savin: My comments are only related to PVE, which I interpret as combat vs. npcs primarily. Industry and market solutions are beyond the scope of PVE in my eyes. Industry should have it's own thread, separate from this one, so that good industry ideas do not get overlooked. (I main a prototyper. Economics make or break an MMO in my eyes.)


(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

Alpha X wrote:

Bought the 12 months straight up ...

With continued support this game will grow ... either that or CCP will buy them out and link it to EVE LOL tongue

Yay for planetary interaction the standalone game! But seriously, I expect this game to do to Eve what WoW did to EQ.

And i bought a year for my accts as well=)


(4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I would however like to see UT/DotA style warfare areas for some sort of benefit open up, but no team balancing. Heck dont even make the teams related to the players, just pelistal vs nuimquol war broke out again, go zone in and play dota with giant robots, (or just gank everyone there for fun, or just try to farm the waves of bots and avoid the pvpers, whatever floats your boat.)

Alpha islands are fine, as long as the rewards there stay limited enough to motivate people onto PVP land. Suicide ganking is not a necessary mechanic (even if i do like it personally). Let the carebears (no insult intended, I love carebearing and only pvp to create market demand) have their safety, and let the pvpers fight, and die, over the really cream of the crop stuff. Good system in general right now IMO, little tweaks here and there (like removal of safe zones in beta), are fantastic, but the basis is all right with me.

I just wanted to chime in on this, because i really love good PVE (and perpetuum doesn't yet have good PVE in my opinion.)

In my opinion, PVE should be designed so that it would be fun, even if you weren't being rewarded in game from it, then just add the rewards on top. This means looking at games that don't have a persistent character, and basing the PVE content on those.

Using RTS logic would be a good idea for group based encounters. The previously discussed use of scripted actions (alpha island invasions by npcs at scheduled times maybe?) would go well there, as would semi-instanced areas (instanced in that they are technically zoned as a separate island, and persist only as long as there are active players there, but they dont keep other players from coming in to the same instance as you, I believe EQ2 had a few dungeons like that.)

For solo encounters, either the player twitch reaction difficulty or the strategic difficulty needs to be increased, and not just by making the numbers on the targets bigger. I personally intentionally go beyond my efficient farming level to farm T5 heavy mechs solo in urban spawns just so i can really make use of the combined tactical elements of cover, range, ewar, and targeting.

Now how that is done, I could care less about, I loved Tabula Rasa's fast paced punchy FPS based style, and I also love Atlantica's heavily tactical turn based combat. They're both good examples of how to make PVE fun.


(4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Not a fan of these ideas personally, timed pvp seems contrived, and bot lossless in pvp would be bad for the economy.

Lifeblood, armor boosts exist, in the form of active hardeners. Just like locking boosts exist in the form of sensor amps.

Slope capability boost, well, that would be jump jets.

But yes I agree, this is not eve. The balance is different, and the mechanics are different. People should remember that when they ask for things.

LWF is not an afterburner, it's a nanofiber internal structure.
In this game though, with speeds all so similar, and ranges so short, you'd need something more like a MWD's drawbacks. The idea of being able to "boost" your stats (whether speed, armor, targeting, range, slope capability) with an active module is a good idea, though movement enhancing active modules would have to have horrific drawbacks to be balanced.


(32 replies, posted in General discussion)

I'm impressed, very good writing. As far as I'm concerned, this should be cannon.


(7 replies, posted in Q & A)

Official response requested. Also requesting secure timecode trade. I want to play for free.


(19 replies, posted in Balancing)

You are clearly using the wrong weapons sir, medium EMguns > medium gauss guns.

Really the problem is that the short range medium weapons just... suck. The long range ones are much better all around.

And you are right, the cost benifit in nic favors assaults, and that is intended to make you want to have more people. Basically the lower cost effectiveness of mechs puts a NIC value on teamwork.


(19 replies, posted in Balancing)

Ember wrote:

ability to tank  - advantage mech

DPS (mech) = DPS (assault) - see above

longer range (mech) < 17.8% higher base speed (assault)
viable targets - advantage assault
EP investment - advantage assault
NIC investment - advantage assault

Set aside who is doing more damage and the tanking for one moment... the mechs only viable targets are other mechs and heavies.  both of which are rare in PvE and given the current state of things probably don't belong in PvP where they can be torn up by a pair of assaults, that require a far lower investment.

They may be balanced, I'm not convinced that they are but the case could be made.  However, without a viable target they have absolutely no role outside of shooting the other idiots rolling around in mechs trying to do things that they could accomplish more efficiently in smaller cheaper bots.

Suggestions for a fix have been made here and elsewhere... improve precision, raise assault bot hit size, or introduce a med weapon class of bots (with bonuses to precision) inbetween the mechs and assaults.

Viable targets? Any target that either has shorter range than you, or is slower than you is viable. Yes you will do less dps vs an assault or light bot. They have less armor. In PVE you will spend more nic on ammo, i still find killing T5 assaults to be much easier in a kain than an arbalest, and it's worth the extra cost. Assault bots with full guns, due to their lower base weight will move at a similar speed to a mech that eschews it's non racial weapon slots(missiles on blue/yellow, turrets on green). Mechs do have a hard time dealing with light EW bots, but that's perfectly balanced just like an interceptor. Plus with more head slots, you can lock faster, ramp up your dps even more, or just keep an assault out of the fight with suppressor/ECM.

You make the point that two assaults can beat 1 mech? Good. 2 lights can beat an assault too. And 2 mechs can beat a heavy mech. 2 pilots who are skilled should be able to take down a larger enemy. The mech does cost more than 2 assaults, but if you had 2 pilots, you wouldnt be fighting 2v1 in the first place, and 2 assaults sure as hell beat 1 assault.

Making it easier for large bots to steamroll masses of smaller ones is a bad idea. When that happens small bots will be useless, because then people will die before they can even get in range of a mech using an assault.


(19 replies, posted in Balancing)

Mechs should do less damage to small targets than small targets do to mechs, period. This is balanced by the fact that mechs have longer range and more armor. It isnt really an issue in pvp (where being able to strike from a greater distance is quite the advantage) or pve (where you can choose the bot/mech you bring based on the spawn).

Alexadar wrote:

This is a buff in case when technology is researched. Else, we have increasing time for pelistian kernel farming.

In case when game balanced in any technological level: we got balance fix with this patch.
Else: we got unbalanced game in different levels of KB research.


Use the market. or farm T5 mobs.

Overall pelistal received a buff. Other races get range bonuses to high end weapons, and this range change brings missiles back in line with them. The improved explosion radius, even longer T4 range, and improved racial ewar range make pelistals much better than they were pre patch.


(8 replies, posted in General discussion)

If you know what you're doing, it's not that bad, you can be relatively effective with moderate EP expenditure in a field. That said, you will clearly not be maximum awesome in any field any time soon. Focus on low EP roles (sequer is a great start for industry, an assault bot for pve, an ewar tackler for pvp) and you'll be just fine. Just so long as you know you'll be a little behind the 1337 curve.


(27 replies, posted in Balancing)

The cost to value ratio presumes that pilot availability is a limiting factor. If you have 10 pilots, would you rather have them in 10 mechs or 10 assaults (you probably actually want a mix of types, including things that are not mechs or assaults but for the sake of argument, assume those were the choices you had). Clearly the 10 mechs, despite their drawbacks, should easily dispatch 10 assaults (again assuming an appropriate amount of EP, even as low as 60k for every pilot involved). Yes the mechs cost far more nic, but with a limited amount of pilots, who cares.

I would say key them to the player, give them a limited duration, and make it so that each player can only have x number of structures at a time


(27 replies, posted in Balancing)

Skills meaning extensions. A well designed character in a mech is clearly better than a similarly designed character in an assault, assuming both have a decent amount of EP.

Mechs do not have 4x the CPU. Non sized modules should have negligible reactor costs IMO. That's the point of non-sized modules. They consume a resource (CPU) that is available in similar (not identical, but similar) amounts to all sized bots, to provide the same benefit to all sized bots.