And why for god's sake are you even adding recycleable items to infinite sell orders? Even EVE and CCP in all the stupid things they did over the years knew to NEVER EVER seed any recyclable items on the market, they removed shuttles and even the PAX AMARRIA when players found they could recycle them.

Price caps are a big stepping stone to actually "killing" an economy. That may sound overly dramatic, but it's actually true.

I know the devs arn't economists, and neither am I, but this is all common sense stuff.

EDIT: Hell if you like the game the way it is right now, may as well skip the middle man and just seed materials on the market in infinite sell orders and we can just get rid of all this silly mining, then we can all just pve and run missions for stuff.

We tried going through the devs on this, but since they have made no changes, and since apparently it's now being allowed by the devs, I figure everyone should know about the new "legal" exploit/colossal market killing screw up of epic proportions, this way everyone can abuse it equally and not just a handful.

Currently you can obtain an infinite (Based on your wallet) supply of all materials short of the new collixum via recycling all the new seeded structures for gamma, and also via recycling all the seeded mining charges. (See new Collixum mining charge for two of the rarest materials in the game at low low prices.)

The ratio you get material back at is so high that it should allow the playerbase to return to "almost" a pre-patch level on several bots. (Still a bit higher.) Best yet, you can do this from the comfort of any station with no actual work required. Step 1: buy, Step 2: Recycle, Step 3:???, Step 4: Kill the mining profession off entirely.

Anyway, add mining to the artifact scanning profession as now dead. Just need the devs to kill off farming npcs and missions now and we can all move onto something else.

And before someone asks, yes I'm mad bro, the devs royally screwed the economy and are ignoring everyone reporting this claiming "it's intended".

EDIT: The devs have removed the mining charges from the market it seems while the server was still up, so make the above costs 20% higher, structures still make this exploit possible for now, so thread stands.

Nice, been wanting this as well.

29

(3 replies, posted in Testing server)

Caught CRM on skype, he's working on it.

30

(3 replies, posted in Testing server)

After some testing today we found that something is bugged on the resists of turrets. The blueprint/foundation of turrets is showing very different resist values than the completed turrets.

Foundation:

Standard: 23% 30 points
High Tech: 56% 130 points

Built:

Standard: 23% 30 points
High Tech: 23% 30 points

Also the built ones still show that pointless "Armor 50%" stat that seemingly has no purpose.

A few people mentioned to me Nexus mod alts and the effect it would have, a proposed fix to this is to change my previous solution of preventing module use while moving, to simply prevent locking while in follow, this way you can still have a NEXUS alt, without allowing direct bonuses via modules.

Been in a fierce discussion on TS about this and others have made some very valid points, such as this reducing player accounts (Something the game doesn't need at current pop.) And the fact that the number of people using more than 2 accounts in pvp atm is rather low percentage wise. (Although almost everyone now uses 2.)

I'm just aiming to find a solution down the road when this does become a bigger issue, and I think larger diminishing returns on multiple accounts is the way to go.

I really want more people's opinions on this.

Eta Carinea wrote:

+1

Guess a found a method where "everyone" won't want to stone me to death over. tongue
I admit it, my previous idea on the follow command was a bad one, you can stop sending me hatemail now.

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Blackomen wrote:

Anyway, TLDR: I both want suicide ganks on alpha but without removing "real non-bot" players there. Let me know if someone figues out a way to do this.


bring back good roaming spawns to alpha. no really. a player that is even semi at his screen will see a swarm heading his way & move / call in corp mates to help.

Just on alpha have the roaming spawns move a little bit slower than they do on beta / gamma.


would this fix the bot (non realy) player issue. not 100% but it might help.

i remember when they were on alpha a few people did die to them when they left their mech afk on the field.

I am a strong believer that Alpha should be safe from pvp ganking. But you are still at risk from NPCs

That could work as well. I'll still miss the suicide ganking, but that may be for the best in retaining new players.

Ok an idea fewer people will freak out about. (Rightfully so, removing follow would annoy everyone including me.) How about no modules being active while in follow and for a short time after using follow? This won't affect haulers, won't affect miners, but will have a drastic effect in pvp.

It doesn't prevent people from multi-boxing, but it will sure reduce the mass volumes of follow alts per player as long as the module delay is long enough after stopping follow..

Eta Carinea wrote:

maybe some follow penalty can be added to combat based bot's and the industrials or even just the haulers can be placed into follow mode with no penalty, Somehting like a drastcilly increased lock time on all combat bots in the follow chain.

While I like your thinking here, the issue is that most follow bots are industrial bots, sporting RR's, Nexuses, remote sensor boosters, and energy transfers.

Perhaps if it was based on mods fit...

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:
Blackomen wrote:

Flame on.

http://gallery.koroded.net/d/12475-1/flamethrower.jpg
tongue

Blackomen wrote:

Solution? Remove the "follow" command. Now each multi-box account needs to at least be controlled, (Or managed a hell of a lot more.) And this should reduce the sheer volume of people running as many as 5 accounts at once in engagements. (Maybe more, but only seen as many as 5 so far.)

First off Massive NO lol.
why? i have 2 alts not coz i think its cool but coz i must i dont use follow bots in combat most times. I use it for mining & pve. With how bad the auto pilot is at the best of times having the follow command is the next best thing. Not only that but when moving in large number of people (for what ever reason) being able to put a squad mate on follow & take a bring from the keyboard / mouse is way more than just a "handy" thing to do.

its not actually a "follow" button its an approach. So if i can select an object & go "approach" & instead i have to manually guide my mech to that target EVERY time. Need to say how boring that would get?
For a game that requires constant input, removing anything that makes it even more work is bad.

Hate to say it omen but your solution is like handing a Axe to a brain surgeon to use on his next patient. Removing the "Approach" command would not solve follow bots being used pvpers will use 3rd party programs.

What it will do is hurt every one else in the game.

TBH i cant think of any other way or system of movement that could replace what approach does & stop follow bots.

The solution i think could in part maybe be with the interference system & how that works. 

any way if people go into a pvp fight & the enemy are using follow bots here's an idea... ECM the follow bot ???
if you cant manage that basic pvp strategy then perhaps pvp isnt your thing tongue

Ok I'll work my way down from the start, first off as I covered in the previous post, I said it would have negative issues associated with it, such as mining and hauling, these are things "I do not want to change" as both you, me and everyone else in the game can agree that you need a bare minimum of 2 accounts to do "most" activities at any kind of "sensible" rate. Especially mining, where it's actually a requirement rather than a choice.

Next, interference does help. but doesn't solve the issue, then you have third party programs, yes this would also be an issue, but short of actual hacks (Injection and such) all they would do is slightly simplify it, and would not be able to match a follow command.

Now as to your "solution" of a ECM'ing the follow bot, you do realize just how pointless that solution was right? Your either doing one of two things, first your using your bot to ECM the follow bot while the guys main bot kills your bot. Or second, you yourself are using a follow bot to counter his follow bot. (Circular logic ftw.) You may want to think of this a bit more, and do we really want to compare which of us has more pvp experience/knowledge? You know better than that Obi.

It's not that I "want" to remove the follow command, it's that I want a solution to rampant multi-boxing "IN PVP" and I honestly could not come up with a better solution, feel free to offer up one if you have it. I don't want to be forced to multi-box even more to be competitive down the road. And it seems the multi-boxing pvp only increases over time. (It will be even easier with the new expansion as the game will be more GPU based than CPU.)

I know this is going to be a hell of a controversial topic, but I feel so strongly about this that it has to be posted.

Edit: Since people are getting the wrong idea here, I'm rephrasing this.

What I am looking for is a way to curb the rampant multi-boxing follow alts in "PVP" not pve. Currently they are being overused, and the only effective counter is to bring even more follow alts. Also they essentially remove the use of dedicated pilots in Remote repair and support. (Which as you can guess is my prefered way to play in pvp these days.

The catch here, is how to do this without affecting the pve side of the game where the follow command is so damn useful. So feel free to offer up ideas, as removing the follow command was all I could come up with.

Annihilator wrote:

haha, grem, you must be either trolling, or you have joined the game after m2s exploited the hell out of the gankability on ics-a back when it was still possible.

to bad the youtube footage got removed due to copyrighted music mixed in.

beta had around 50 active player at that moment, and from one day to the other the population was down to... 3 or 5 until hotfix of that.

I thought Grem was around for some of that, may be mistaken. But yeah, the real reason alpha became totally safe was because of just how much suicide ganking we did along with an endless list of police tower exploits we constantly found over and over again. I know a fair few players quit due to our ganks as well.

As to where I stand on this, well as you can imagine I "LOVE" to suicide gank, but I also see the issues behind it. I do think "something" needs to be done about 100% safe mining en'mass on alpha especially to curb afk/bot mining. (I think a deployable bomb on alpha with a 60sec charge up to warn non-bots/afkers would remove bots real fast.

Anyway, TLDR: I both want suicide ganks on alpha but without removing "real non-bot" players there. Let me know if someone figues out a way to do this.

Unfortunate but very necessary with the many missing models and minor bugs. Glad it will actually be pushed back slightly.

40

(4 replies, posted in Testing server)

DEV Gargaj wrote:

Done.

Much appreciated Gargaj. wink

Always enjoyed your podcasts Grem, look forward to it.

42

(3 replies, posted in Testing server)

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:

+9000

But does that mean... its over 9000?

Ancient memes aside, I agree with this, buildings need the more important information listed.

43

(4 replies, posted in Testing server)

This may be a small issue, but it's really annoying me and ruining my perfect UI setup I've used since beta.

The bot cargo window can no longer be resized down to a small 2 item size box, it's now quite large and takes up far too much space. (About a 9 item space.)

Please make it resize down to a small 2 item width 1 item high window again.

DEV Alf wrote:

Helio's  Volume should have been decreased as well, and we already find the problem, it will be the same as triandlus'.
Also there was an increase in yield.
http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … e-amounts/

*Throws a freaking celebration."

For anyone that's had to move 100m units of this stuff, and god forbid had to do it "before" scarabs existed... You know your partying too.

45

(85 replies, posted in General discussion)

So many things to quote/comment on here since my last post, I think I'll boil it down to one sentence for once.

Only good thing that ever came out of PLEX in eve, was to use them as a inflation proof bank. As they would always rise with inflation, regardless of changes unlike everything else.

Edit: I had to add this on. But I also wish it were possible to limit multiboxing. I can and on rare occasions do run 6 accounts simultaneously. (Could easily handle 12 post-patch.) But I wish it could be limited to no more than two myself. (Two accounts are almost mandatory for most things sadly.) A lot of us multibox just so we can keep up with the other multiboxers.

46

(13 replies, posted in Testing server)

As one of the highest ep miners in the game, I actually like the change to more active participation in mining. I moved over to harvesting for a long while as it actually required me paying attention rather than sticking a straw in the ground and watching a movie/tv.

Not sure what effect this may have in the long term as I don't really mine on the test server, hence can't say if it becomes annoying or not after extended periods.

Most of this is hard to take in context as there are just so many factors changing from the weight of the minerals, to the yields, to the definitive amounts per tile, to the refining changes to the manufacturing costs to the freaking point system implementation.

Think I'll +1 this as well.

As long as those T4+ and T2+ mods require a player made module in order to receive them, it shouldn't imbalance the market.

In fact I'd suggest requiring a T4P item instead, to increase the cost.

Now I will admit I'm biased as hell here as I really have a hard time finding people selling T4+ mods. Just make sure that these cost a LOT to obtain, or they will replace T4 as the pvp norm. They still need to be damn expensive/rare.

Shaedys wrote:

The resists are not almost the same.
The advanced takes 2.5% damage, the high-tech one takes 1.1% damage.
That means its over twice as good.

You misunderstand what I was trying to convey. The basic starts at 23.8% then jumps to godmode (By comparison) at 97.5% then increases again to a miniscule 98.89%. Is it better? Yup. But the difference between 1 and 2 or 3 in COLOSSAL, and the difference between the other two is much MUCH smaller.

Anyway, doesn't matter now, it's all been changed. New system is far more in-line with the tech levels. However ironically the advanced/high-tech got nerfed hp wise. (Basic obviously improved a great deal.) But perhaps with resist boosters that will be a moot point.

I know, made my head spin for a bit.

50

(52 replies, posted in Testing server)

Arga wrote:

I have 5 accounts, and oddly enough, they all do agree with me. But none of them are named Lemon wink

I also agree with your statement about not having gamma colonies, however I disagree with the reason being cardboard modules. It will be because corps can't evolve to form new entities, powerful enough to hold gamma.

My bad then, must have confused who Lemon's alt was.

And I guess we'll just have to let things unfold to find out. Hope we're both wrong and it turns out awesome day 1. tongue