Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Search options (Page 2 of 5)
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by L1fe3looD
Posts found: 26 to 50 of 108
26 2010-12-31 20:33:44
Re: M2s members spamming private chat with vulgarity (14 replies, posted in General discussion)
27 2010-12-31 20:10:41
Re: M2s members spamming private chat with vulgarity (14 replies, posted in General discussion)
looks shopped
That it does. There's plainly no way one person could like *** that much.
EDIT: why is *** allowed, but not P E N I S ?
28 2010-12-31 20:05:35
Re: M2s members spamming private chat with vulgarity (14 replies, posted in General discussion)
the channel system in this game is so broken
29 2010-12-31 19:12:36
Re: We need GM online (13 replies, posted in General discussion)
they wont. it's standard kindergarten ethics, do it for one, do it for everyone. They simply can't. it sucks, but it's got to be that way, or nothing would ever get done. This is why Devs put so much effort into reducing server lag and fixing optimizations, so that when those "super mechs" come rolling out, this wont be an issue (in theory...)
30 2010-12-31 16:25:43
Re: Walking in Outposts and Dancing Needed! (13 replies, posted in Open discussion)
31 2010-12-31 16:24:23
Re: We need GM online (13 replies, posted in General discussion)
lol join the club, and start farming nic/mins.
32 2010-12-31 14:52:51
Re: PLayer created transport missions (5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
see: Contracts.
Also, EveTimeCode?
33 2010-12-30 21:15:54
Re: Calicem Scientia - Accepting Members (55 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)
Updated information for those who are interested. Check us out on our website for further details.
34 2010-12-30 20:09:29
Re: Interview from Mondes Persistants (4 replies, posted in News and information)
it's basically an overview of what's to come, and what's already here. It's a decent interview if you're new to the game or looking to get into it, but it doesn't actually reveal anything "new" unless you haven't heard about the upcoming heavy transport bot.
35 2010-12-30 20:05:24
Re: other ways to make money (4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
do they plan on removing those at all (I'm honestly not sure). Also, make sure you're selling your kernels on beta.
36 2010-12-30 19:25:49
Re: Keyboard Extensions Fail (5 replies, posted in Open discussion)
better make that SoB a tank. Plate her up!
37 2010-12-30 19:19:04
Re: other ways to make money (4 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
well there are ways to make money, but they're more specific ( i.e. - production, buying/selling, etc... ) but I think as more PVE options present themselves, the money options will increase as well.
edit: get a couple guys together and farm the higher level mobs. between 5 guys you can lock down a sizeable group of mechs and in an hour or two the mods and kernels you get could be quite beneficial. I don't have any kind of actual numbers on this, but I do know the amounts of mods/mins that come from this are quite substantial.
38 2010-12-30 16:13:43
Re: Game Breaker. (18 replies, posted in Open discussion)
"blob missing, watch for finger"
39 2010-12-29 19:41:14
Re: The Enclave is recruiting. (42 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)
Enclave is a good bunch of guys, happy to roll with them.
40 2010-12-29 19:20:45
Re: Manufactured: Whatever you want! (16 replies, posted in Services and Discussion)
glad to finally see things like this cropping up. Good luck to you in this venture!
41 2010-12-29 19:16:18
Re: Fanfic: Lost Spark (32 replies, posted in General discussion)
nice work Nimda, awesome to see stuff like this!
42 2010-12-29 15:16:18
Re: Make pvp possible for newcommers and small corps (ex: Landing crafts) (18 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
Tha landing craft thing was only an idea to make pvp possible for newcommers and small corps also.
So what XB63A writes may work as well.The main thing missing here is that newcomers and small corps can not participate in pvp. Well, not in a rewarding way.
I do not mind getting my bot blown up as long as I get a decent chance to get some reward.
The way it is today I only get a 100% chance to be blown up. No motivation there for me.So, what XB63A writes may work as well, but I think there should also be the possibility to return the same way. All limitations of pvp as they are now aplied, sure (think its a one minute timer).
Also, what L1fe3looD says that there should be a limited number of bots to be transfered would be ok I guess.
Eaven the big corps could use this to make a breadgehead around a teleporter for example.I think this would make pvp fun for everyone, not just for a few.
It would give the "big alliances" a massive headache is what it would do . That being said, the idea is legitimate, and you're right, in that a single small corp engaging an entire alliance isn't going to want to do so for long. On the other hand, you could work with one of the alliances, therefore using their intel and whatnot to your advantage.
43 2010-12-28 22:25:43
Re: New player looking for PvP corp (1 replies, posted in Agents seeking corporations)
please contact me, brutalis, or CoyoteTheClever in game, for more info, or drop an app at our website for more info, and we'd be happy to speak with you.
cs.miroven.com
44 2010-12-28 22:24:38
Re: Looking for noob-friendly pvp corporation! (1 replies, posted in Agents seeking corporations)
Welcome. You'll enjoy Enclave, good bunch of guys.
45 2010-12-28 21:52:18
Re: Make pvp possible for newcommers and small corps (ex: Landing crafts) (18 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
not a bad idea at all, would be tough to implement though, you'd have to have a limit or something on the number of bots you could bring over, otherwise you'd get huge invading armies wandering all over islands. Perhaps this in conjunction with some type of defensive weapon to counter would be a good idea?
Also, if you're looking for PVP, check norhoop, or even hakkagaros if you're ballsy enough. We watch the gates, but i've noticed quite a bit less of it on norhoop, and hakka they will let you get off the gate, just not very far until a response is formed
46 2010-12-28 20:27:25
Re: Calicem Scientia - Accepting Members (55 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)
why did everyone stop laughing when I mentioned that part?
47 2010-12-28 19:58:17
Re: Player owned structures (5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
I like the idea very much. could also expand the ideas into other areas.
drop radar from 1k to targeting range, and have a radar trailer,
you could add slots to the trailers too, and fit them like bots ( shields, armor plates, etc.. )
48 2010-12-28 19:17:39
Re: Player owned structures (5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
this would be pretty darn cool. might be a bit OP though, depending on how easy it is to set up.
49 2010-12-27 22:42:31
Re: Arbalest fittings (9 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)
your best bet is to always fit for the situation. it's hard to say any one good fit.
50 2010-12-27 22:32:08
Re: Intrusion times (22 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
The bade idea of registering for an intrusion is flawed anyways. There should be a requirement to hold three additional saps for a couple of hours before the station saps become active. There would be a 1 - 24 hour delay as to when the station saps would then become active.
You would then need to control an area in your timezone for an extended time before then attacking your enemy in their timezone. Basing it on money is dumb.
this is the obvious, and most fair/realistic choice by far. This allows the "random" aspect to play, as well as the requirement of multiple timezones, etc.. etc.. it also allows a corporation with a specific TZ of activity to react.
Posts found: 26 to 50 of 108
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by L1fe3looD
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.075 seconds (94% PHP - 6% DB) with 6 queries