No Jerry Springer antics (although finding our Jita is really the love child of Styx and Syndic would be awesome) we hope to have a good discussion.

62nd are definitely in, much respect there. M2S have a slot and I think the community would be happy to accommodate a number of different representatives. I encourage other players and alliances to step forward. There is a lot going on in this game and having the views of other gamers will be important. This is a golden opportunity to have constructive, mature debate on the state of the game. If people truly want this game to grow, it is our duty to support e open dialogue. The offer is there, it is for the community to waste if people don't step up.

This was kind of where my idea wanted it to go. I don't see the issue in having multiple bots, having something that's special in some way should have a cost, I also like the concept of it being built into the prototyping.... Think of it like this...

| - - -  RCM Sniper - - - Sniper - - - Artemis - - - Close Range - - - RCM Close Range - - - |

In moving to either extreme in this example you obtain significant advantage in your chosen field. There has to be a cost to gain the advantage at the extreme, this cost in RCM terms is permanently fixing your bot to gain that advantage. If you want to retain flexibility, you fit out but don't get the advantage.

This adds something I have been ranting about for a while, industrial influence on the PvP combat dynamic. It also means attrition is possible in extended combat. Lets say snipers are good at defence in intrusions (work with me here) then there is a tactical advantage to an attacking force focussing on these initially to get them off the battlefield to reduce the defenders effectiveness in future battles. Now say it takes time to create more Sniper RCM Bots (through prototyping etc), as an attacker I have gained an advantage. If you can swap this stuff out left right and centre, that attrition advantage is eroded (not saying it is removed completely, but it is lessened).

tl:dr;

If you want super bonuses to specialise and gain tactical advantage we should have permanence, if you want flexibility, you don't get the super bonuses.

My thanks for your assistance kind sir!!

Back on topic, we are glad people enjoyed this little foray into a new format for the podcast, we will go back to tried and tested for the next one as we are hoping that the expansion will have had time to bed down and there will be some interesting things to comment on...

In terms of a future panel, I have noted some of the comments made in this post and will try and wrap them up into another post specifically on that feature cast.

Again many thanks for listening, your support and constructive feedback keeps us going

Good idea, I like the concept of being able to adapt current tech and make it more specialised or fit a particular role. Things I would suggest...

1) RCMs should be faction specific, i.e to prevent to much crossover between factional types, I like the idea of enhancing particular faction traits, not making everything one homologous mess.

2) RCMs should be permanent. As was stated on podcasts, we need to make sure there are enough NIC/Resource faucets. With reasonable cost and the flexibility, lets have some permanence in the game. This should also enhance understanding of playing a role in combat, being to swap out lessens this impact as you still see one Tyr in your hanger which you can adapt (albeit with cost as stated). Lets see the Tyr head change in response to a sensor RCM and it be a different bot permanently, not Transformers

3) Suggest a +1 on 3 required skills, one robot control, 1 type specific (i.e. Shield in your example) and one engineering/electronics specific. This reminds players that support skills are important too!!

In terms of general balance, I was worried it may end up creating freakish Chimera type builds which may drive us towards a flip/flop balancing act but with the addition of 1) or something like it, this is tempered a little and becomes less of a concern.

My sincere thanks to Styx for turning up and discussing this stuff with us, I really enjoyed it and I hope that the community does too.

We understand that the time we record and RL are big factors in being able to attend but for the two hours we need people to turn up, we hope people are able to make the effort to support the community and continue to build up the reputation of Perpetuum.

To Alexander, that is a great overview of some of the points raised. I think there are definitely some topics there that the community and the DEVs can have some interesting 'heated discussions' about....

Great idea, and I like the small structure idea for the moment. When we get POS however I think it would be better to have a Radar/Sensor building which needs fuel/upgrades which grant the ability for the smaller deployable structures to be augmented...

e.g. Radar building can be upgraded for greater range/capacity but does not give details.

Deployable structures give details but you need to be within 1000m of them to see their data.

Combine the two and you get details across wide range....

However, this also present opportunities for enemies.

1) Small squads can search out the smaller deployables and attack them (some kind of corps event would be great for this so it isn't completely risk free for the attackers) which removes your detail view of your POS

2) Attacking the radar structure could cripple the ability of the corps to operate (i.e. you have to visit each individual deployed sensor) until they 'fix' it with materials and special industrial modules.

This provides good content for all types of corps from small to large and does not limit interaction to 'end game' corps only.

Thanks for all the feedback guys n gals.

I would like to send out a personal thank you to the following who took to the time to put together answers to my questions.

Crepitus
MoBioS
Syndic
Campana
Alexadar
smokeyii
Arga
Legedric Warstrike

As regards our deviation and the lack of political landscape, we are hoping to do something special for the next one which will hopefully make up for it

There was a portion of the discussion which related to 'bought' resets with either ingame currency or RMT. Thats what a lot of FOTM discussions revolved around. Just making it clear that FOTM was a worry if that type of purchase was allowed. Also given 'Month' is the last word, technically there is nothing 'onwards' to be flawed in your statement.

I still dont think a yearly reset is good for the game. If you fubar a skill line, fine lets have some way to claw back 90-95% of the EP invested in a skill to spend elsewhere, make it time limited (i.e. 1 per month, just to stir the pot), moderately in game expensive or require a line of missions to be completed which required say 2-3 hours to complete.

No it will come out of the ground in the time determined by your skills, however dedicated miners will get big bonuses due to their skills, especially if the 50% is applied at the base amount per cycle. As the bonuses stack up, as a miner you will be able to pull greater amounts of ore from a field than a non-miner can therefore for the time you invest (which should be less than a non-miner) you will pull ever greater amounts out.

In simple terms, miners just became the flavour of the day with the ore respawn change. For a given field, 10 miners will pull more ore than 10 combats but the field will still take the same amount of time to regen. You just became a very important link in the chain of efficiency.

I didn't, my post wasn't clear on my interpretation, editing posts on the iPad is hard so I didnt bother I understood you wanted to move to a self sufficient model after you were ready, however, whilst you or any other beta corps can, I think the game is broken. My 2nd paragraph was aimed at your total self sufficiency goal, my first at your current model. My apologies.

I have no issue with your points and I think it is honorable that seeing ops like "titan day" as a corps achievement is definitely a worthy goal. However, even in communist corps there has to be a point where allowing others to do the alpha work is more beneficial to your corps than dragging everyone back to alpha.

In no way am I disrespecting your corps model, it just happens to have become part of the discussion

What you do highlight however is the critical need for the DEVs to look beyond changes to existing systems to try and move people around. Why is it not worth the 40m riveller to go mining in a remote spot? Because that Riveller doesn't need to be there to mine the good stuff, it can be found within 2km of an OP!

Right now, there is little incentive to spread out because everything can be found so close to home. No one will spread out further either until things like POS are in game and there is a reason for you to not move your 20 corps mates to alpha, you'll need to be nearby to defend your POS. Without this part of the mechanic suite, mining on alpha for beta corps is easy and again breaks any economic model people want the game to move towards.

I also want to get back on my hobby horse about mineral sinks. Right now there isn't enough minerals cycling through the market, people aren't dying enough. Now, this is hard with fewer players but it is also because right now, you CAN have 1 op a month per se and get all the titan you want. That is broken, if there aren't enough outlets for materials and NIC the markets will always be broken no matter how much the current mechanics are tweaked.