51

(55 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Campana wrote:

I said this on the blog already, but all it will do is encourage beta corps to operate on alpha.

M2S has bought a lot of ores on alpha previously. I bet Domhalarn are doing that now. The Norhoop Alliance operate on both alpha and beta so how this would make any difference apart from shifting more miners to alpha, I don't know.

In order to stimulate mineral trade and prevent corps being self sufficient they need to put different ores on different beta islands, or at least change the distribution a bit more severely to stimulate trade, or more reasons to hold territory.

That, pure and simple. There'd needs to be differentiation between the islands in terms of the mid level ores to encourage trading and the use of Alpha corps as brokers.

What I don't get is some of the comments above.... On one hand people agree with the comment that corps will still be self sufficient and then state they will trade out. That's the point surely? if you trade out the ore, you aren't self sufficient, you may be building everything you need but you are playing in the marketplace to be more effective.

I am waiting to see what happens in terms of profitability. Those on Beta can surely make more NIC (either pure NIC or resources) than being on Alpha? If this is the case, any beta corps wholesale moving their mining fleet to alpha to mine Titan is putting themselves at a disadvantage? Sure there will still be members of beta corps who semi afk mine on alpha, but the more you do on Beta, the more NIC you make.

Hopefully with more players, more Market action we will see Alpha corps step up and act as suppliers to beta corps. There is an opportunity here, let's see who seizes it.

52

(43 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ember wrote:

...

Alexadar was right... the game is too young and small mistakes become smaller over time... but I'd like to see some kind of reset eventually maybe when the super-duper-ultra-tank-mechs come out wink

I was okay with everything until this.... Being able to reset, however infrequently makes this possible. I specialised in a certain way, getting to level 10 in uber artillery mega death tank the day it comes out is my 'reward' let's say for being dedicated to a path. In that, I also have to weather the hard times when other classes are FOTM or small balancing changes make my current build less effective. That's okay, I don't mind that.

But with resets, my advantage is lost and my hard times are harder. Made up example...

I specialise in mechs and big guns, this pays off big time 12 months from gamestart when uber mega tank comes out and everyone wants to play it. They all have to wait, I get 'paid' for my dedication by getting in early and offering an advantage to my corps/alliance. In the 12 months however, I have been less effective in small bots.

Someone else specialises in small bots, puts their EP into being the best small bot pilot ever, they have a great time for 12 months benefitting their alliance and corps hugely. When uber mega tank comes out, they still have a role to play but they can't jump in the shiny as quickly or as effectively.

This is nicely balanced. With a reset, the second guy could hint reset, dump all his EP into the right skill set and jump in the same robot as me on the same day. This either leads to everyone 'having' to reset to be competitive or we end up with everyone jumping ship once every (insert EP reset timer here) and everyone whines there are no balanced gangs because everyone turns up in artillery bots for a roam smile

Bah early morning rant mode off...

53

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

Thats part of the design doc I am putting together, it all depends how much investment can be made in the Perpetuum system in terms of load. If it can be designed for scheduled 'pulls' of batches of information, it is much easier to control than allowing any access at any time. This was one of the early limitations CCP was worried about with EVE API, without control, someone can easily fubar something and bring your servers down.

I will be creating a developer area on PI to discuss this and other things, including putting up my initial thoughts for API structures and features.

54

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

The Perpetuum Intelligence kill board is now live and in BETA!!

Go here for more details. It is pretty feature complete apart from two details pages (corps/bots) and those won't take me long to create due to the design of the core system.

There are known issues but I need assistance to find if there are any more!!

It certainly isn't as pretty as the FNAVY one (great job guys) but I am seriously considering opening it up to further community development and anyone who wants to assist me, either coding or graphic design for PI are most welcome to get in touch!! I plan on expanding PI as a community site primarily (away from its initial intentions) and am looking for feedback and suggestions from everyone.

You need to sign up for an account on PI, it is safe and secure (I use the PHPBB3 security subsystems rather than homebrew) and there is always a place for open discussion!!

55

(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

We record every two weeks so you'll have to wait a little while cool

56

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

I am working on an API document for Gargaj to highlight some areas I think could be expanded on with API's into the game, would be happy to open up discussion from other potential developers to add and comment.

57

(43 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Campana, good arguments. I support what you say in a way, however as the game progresses I would hope we can expect very specialised bots to come in to play, i.e specialist Mechs for example. For these, I would support some form of negativity bonus. It promotes specialisation.

I agree that eventually, if nothing was added, everyone could be equal in everything. However in reality (I hope) that will never happen as new things will always be added. I don't expect negative bonuses to apply to standard stuff, that would be game breaking, but I would like to see those who specialise and dedicate themselves to a path, not necessarily always be beaten down by the players who have spent more time in game.

Maybe I'm wrong tongue

58

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

Ideally the kill mails would have a unique id and a hash value, that would be the easiest method to do verification against the game state.

A simple export option would help greatly also, one of the planned features I have is to allow you to export all your killmails back out from the system. I realise there may be other KB's people want to use and PI may not be around for ever so I will code that in a later release.

59

(43 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Yup, unless the devs have something planned where going fast has a drawback, or that going slow has some sort of bonus, every new player will be told by their first corps to get nav to 10.

Personally I would like to see some negatives on bots to further enhance specialisation. If you have spent lots of EP being the best light ewar, it naturally fits that you shouldn't be uber mega in an artillery specialised bot. Put whatever lore you like around it....... After adapting to light combat robots, pilots found themselves unable to adapt well to the heavy artillery classes..

Artillery Mech 1
+10% artillery precision per nav level below 10 to nav level 5
-10% artillery cannon damage per Basic Robotics level above 5

Thus anyone who specialised in heavy bots wouldn't get hit with the negative. Of course back on topic, this concept goes down the toilet if you can RESPEC.

60

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

Everyone on the kill mail will get 'assist' for a kill although I haven't seen any kill mails yet that show a pure ewar on there, only ppl who actually do damage. If the devs put ewar on there the system can handle it.

Given the data in the kill mails there will be quite a bit I can do in terms of data mining etc but that will be added in later releases. If I get it stable and with good features I may also open source it for others to build upon.

61

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

From phpBB3 stats

Total posts 80 • Total topics 36

You musta been there on day one big_smile

Sure there may not be much activity there, but heck, everyone is complaining there isn't enough people in game. I will keep adding stuff in there like the kill board and hopefully more people will use it. If not, no big loss.

You'll always be welcome Syndic big_smile

62

(43 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Arga wrote:

I find the best arguements come from myself.

They don't.

They do.

Shut up.

Bite me.

sad your mean.

Arga confirms he plays with himself regularly although an argument is usually involved....

Back on topic, even taking into account some limitations or the inherent limitations of sparks, a respec late in game would be too powerful. Given enough preparation, you could switch completely to a dedicated build with none of the weaknesses which everyone will inevitably accrue as the game develops. That would mean it would become essential to respec, not optional and that is broken.

In a similar vein I am thinking Navigation will get defaulted/removed like stEVE did with learning skills. As soon as it becomes 'must have' for everyone, it isnt a differentiator. Unless speed gets some negatives, it will remain the skill everyone gets to 10. But hey, i could be completely wrong tongue

63

(114 replies, posted in General discussion)

Crepitus wrote:

SNIP *

Great idea, I do some work with research organisations including universities and they are always keen to look for new research opportunities. stEVE ended up with dedicated people and has an established economy, Perp is still young, can still suffer big swings and that could be very interesting to researchers wanting to do a longer piece of work.

And they can't take the heat, I'm sure GLiMPSE and others would step up to be part of the interviewing panel. If they make it out without crying, they might just be the right candidate tongue

64

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

The Perpetuum Intelligence Killboard is in development.

Currently I have completed the database and the entry verification code. I have spent about 4-5 hours over the past few days debugging and running through some simple UAT type testing.

I am currently writing the global statistics and personal stats pages which hopefully wont take too long. My hope is that I can get v1.0 into open beta testing by the weekend. Anyone wishing to participate should sign up for an account as this will be required to post kill mails. You must also ensure your sign up name on the forums is the same as the character you will be posting mails from.

There will be a number of early limitations but i will hopefully fix these as time goes on. Initially it will work like most other KB systems in that the Killer and Victim need to post their kill mails for a Kill to be verified.

If anyone is interested in being a beta tester, let me know by signing up and posting on the PI forum topic in General Discussion.

http://www.perpetuum-intelligence.com/f … 6&t=39

In before GLiMPSE.... This isn't a con and I am not trying to steal your details and sell them to nasty people. However, exercise good judgement, don't use your Perpetuum Login information to sign up for a PI account, use alternate email addresses if you can and use a suitably good strength password (the system enforces a certain level by default).

65

(43 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

No respec, paid or otherwise. I am currently sitting in specialised yellow with a glut of EP. Many others I know have moved EP to swap from yellow/green to blue. This means they are less specialised, WHEN blue gets balanced (and it will) I will be sitting pretty being specialised. Respec will kill this aspect of the game, specialised chars should always be advantaged in their field over generalists.

NO TO RESPEC!!!

66

(114 replies, posted in General discussion)

GLiMPSE wrote:
Styx wrote:
Kalsius Dakalsai wrote:

Add higher level NIC sinks so the alliances and large corps NEED to buy stuff from the Market

How does adding higher level NIC sinks encourage alliances to buy from the market, if anything it will reduce the amount they purchase in order to save NIC for those higher level sinks.

I think it's a great idea despite what Styx says. It will work to punish the unorganized blob and increase the whining about the DEV's catering to M2S's needs.

Apologies for not being clear enough, in terms of NIC sink I consider anything which would require you to buy from the market for large scale building/needs to be a NIC sink. Consider that for beta dwellers or large alliances, mining low end isn't actually that profitable compared to what you can make on the islands. Hence, add big stuff the alliances will want (add big stuff ideas here) that require things like 500m Titan ore, 400m hdt etc etc. Beta islanders will sell back beta stuff to alpha to make the money to buy in the volumes they need to make Big Stuff. This further stimulates alpha economy and brings prices up for the care bears which can improve the PvE experience.

I also agree with GLiMPSE, the disorganised blob will not be as successful as the organised small or medium sized corps. This is beneficial for all.

Edit for Gordon.
I never suggested inflating NIC, the issue we all have right now is that there aren't enough outlets for NIC, especially for the large island corps. As long as they continue to be self sufficient, everyone suffers. Reducing build costs will only exacerbate that as in easing life for the smaller players, you serve to further increase the gap to the island holders and alliances. The control needs to be the other way around.

67

(114 replies, posted in General discussion)

I think it gave up and left a couple of pages back big_smile

I ink 4:1 is okay, caveated with s need for a vibrant economy. Whilst the reality of 4:1 Right now is actually more like 6:1 because the Market is poor what we need is it to 'feel' like 3:1 or 2.5:1 because the things we all mine/kill can easily be sold at good prices and can be sold consistently.

NPC buy orders are daft, remove them so players are the only route for purchasing

Add higher level NIC sinks so the alliances and large corps NEED to buy stuff from the Market

DO NOT make mining afk'able again, it will kill the above measures

Add vanity NIC sinks to remove some of the NIC from the game without affecting the economy

As always I am probably wrong but hey let's all contribute mad

68

(20 replies, posted in General discussion)

I'm pretty sure Aunty Jelan will be most happy to also help with broken relationships, dealing with awkward bot on bot situations and other general life type problems...:D

69

(42 replies, posted in General discussion)

Gotta say thanks all for the feedback, both positive and negative. I personally still feel there's a lot for us to improve on, especially the politics side and people will definitely start getting some mails from now on!!

In terms of battle reports, and even the politics side, I hope both Grem and myself have proven we are trying to do something positive for the game,we are happy to be wrong and to be corrected, so I hope people will open up and talk to us.

If anyone does want to contribute, either anonymously or not, please get in touch with either of us. There is probably little chance we will make every intrusion so our collective success depends on others wanting to help us out with background information.

thanks again all for listening and taking the time to post comments.

70

(104 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

One thing that sticks out for me is the point Arga makes above in relation to addition of new content. We had the observers dropped in and their kernels make a nice big dent in research, who's to say that in the coming months other 'stepping stones' aren't added that significantly benefit those earlier in the tree?

Possibly kernels from missions or alpha artefact scanning which have a bonus to research in the T1 - T3 realm if they say add T5 and T6 levels in. This way the corps with full tech trees get their new levels to hit and the gap isn't widened too much as others can concentrate on the bonus kernels to accelerate their research up a bit also. This also means newer corps aren't always crippled with the same rates which were needed to get to the top first.

71

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Overall I thought it was a good patch. Interesting changes and I agree with Grem, we had a chat about it last night and I think the kernel change is going to be good in the long term. Expect a more detailed look on the next podcast.

72

(104 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Alexander wrote:

How were smaller corporations getting kernels before?
Answer: Farming them.

How are smaller corporations meant to get kernels now?
Answer: Farming them and buying them.

Now I think if we all wait a week or so people will start to sell kernels. I won't and nor will my corporation as we're still using kernels but those who don't want kernels (Which should be most people) will either be selling them to their corporation or selling them on the market.

QFT

People have long complained that the solo/small corps aspect of the game was lack lustre, well here is the first of many improvements. This is a TEAM game, there will ALWAYS be content which is designed only to be unlocked by groups of players.

Here and now there is a good reason for smaller corps and solo players to mission and farm to improve their lot in the game. As pointed out above, access to the lower tier production is easy to obtain, mass T4 production should not be available to a 5 man corps, however it should not be beyond the realms to aim for 1 or 2 aspects of the tech tree at higher tiers. This should also stimulate the Market actually IF the appropriate expectations are set.

Farm kernels > trade out those you don't need and sell plasma > buy kernels you need from other small corps/solo players who are also trading out

Seems eminently balanced and I will try and keep an eye on this over the coming week to give a view on the podcast Market view segment.

73

(70 replies, posted in General discussion)

\o/

A fair and equitable system for all!!

74

(70 replies, posted in General discussion)

I have to admit it was a shameless plug on the podcast big_smile

All good fun though!

75

(23 replies, posted in General discussion)

Great stuff, well done!!