76

(70 replies, posted in General discussion)

GLiMPSE wrote:
Kalsius Dakalsai wrote:
GLiMPSE wrote:

I think the going rate is +5 CoolPoints™ and +10 CoolPoints™ to the Dev that banned him.. any one claiming the +10?

Don't I get any shameless CoolPoints™ for free advertising on the podcast??? People could start thinking the whole system was biased wink


CoolPoints are forum only sir. Read the rules before complaining of bias.

Dear Sir, I understand your inability to comprehend the above statement and will therefore clarify. I merely wished to express my concern that others may feel so inclined to believe, as is their right, that said system in question may not have a fair and equitable method of distribution. Many thanks for your concise response in regards to my initial enquiry.

Regards,

Kalsius
big_smile:D:D

77

(70 replies, posted in General discussion)

GLiMPSE wrote:
Jelan wrote:

Is that the same Jita thats banned from the forum, how many cool points does he get for that?

I think the going rate is +5 CoolPoints™ and +10 CoolPoints™ to the Dev that banned him.. any one claiming the +10?

Don't I get any shameless CoolPoints™ for free advertising on the podcast??? People could start thinking the whole system was biased wink

78

(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

As we mentioned on the Podcast, we have an interview with DEV Zoom. I know some people will not listen to the podcast, it's not everyones preferred way of getting their info so here is a link to those who want to jump straight in...

http://www.perpetuum-intelligence.com/f … 6&t=37

Further questions, comments etc are all greatly appreciated and if anyone has a desire for me to try and cajole a particular DEV into an interview, let me know!

79

(70 replies, posted in General discussion)

Exclusive interview with DEV Zoom posted!!

http://www.perpetuum-intelligence.com/f … 6&t=37

We were worried it was too long and I have to agree with the posters above! As we plan for IT#3 we'll spend a bit of time going over how long we want to spend and we could potentially do a weekly release whilst still recording once every two weeks.

Keep the feedback coming!!

P.S Just for Syndic we will be running a Spread the Love campaign in aid of Jita big_smile

Great idea, would love to support this further. Happy to provide commentator role or some form of league on the PI website if you are interested....

81

(2 replies, posted in General discussion)

As Gremrod and I mentioned in the Incoming Transmission Podcast #1 I have finally gotten the high resolution versions of the posters ready to go!!

Poster 1

Poster 2

Please feel free to post these up wherever you get permission from the owners and if you have any cool stores out there, let us all know and possibly post some pics!!

There is a companion thread over at Perpetuum Intelligence as well!

Show your support....

SPREAD THE WORD.

Arga wrote:

We also now have interference in the game, so sniper gun can increase that too, so having 2 snipers in the same area would ruin the locking.

Yes, 5 or more snipers could surround you and probably 1 shot you if they timed the alpha strikes, but if its 5 on 1, you were going to be dead anyway.

Agreed but in my long experience in gaming, people get real upset when snipers reach out and touch them in that special way too often. Without a sensible counter (I like the artillery idea being the counter) we could kick off a nerf cycle we may never get out of.

83

(41 replies, posted in General discussion)

Beer + interview = much hilarity.

Probably not that bad as the calculations are all done at time of launch and I would expect all the visual tracking stuff is done client side in response to a message like

(missile x, target y, x co-ords, y co-ords, delay)

So instead of 6 of these being done you'd have twenty four but there (hopefully) isn't an exponential increase in server load calculating  trajectories or adjustment to positions etc.

Could be wrong of course smile

/signed, especially when multiple people are adding/ removing from communal folders.

Good ideas but balance is the problem here. If anyone played fallen earth they will know why droves left that game due to long distance vs melee PvP imbalance.

The problem with balance in these types of games is that we don't play like things are in reality. To counter snipers in the real world let's say you have two options, counter sniping and getting someone to stealth up and take them out up close. To take out melee, you either bring other melee or use long range sniping. (any military folks I KNOW I am over simplifying but let's not get all het up about it big_smile)

In games the problem is that we exist in a simplified model of the real world in which all real world scenarios cannot be applied. Therefore, the above balance doesn't play out. If you have 5 sniper bots able to 1 shot a mech at 800m, there isn't an effective counter currently in game, they can potentially do enough damage and retreat before the opposing force can retaliate. Everyone cries for a nerf.

Similar story with melee, if you buff melee enough to survive long enough to get in close and then have the melee trait of super high damage, everyone who isn't melle cries for a nerf (this is what happened in FE) .

Right now, we do not engage like traditional forces do, if a melee gets in close, everyone including the snipers target them and try to shoot them as fast as possible. In the real world, the elements of a squad have a defined role and generally (again oversimplifying) stick to their assigned role. We don't play like that, we don't play in an accurate enough model for that to be effective, right now concentrated fire is more effective, so if a melee got close to a mixed group with snipers included, the snipers would still fire on the incoming enemy rather then concentrating on their assigned role.

I'd love to see a sniper role, I like the play style and I know people would love a close in melee role but balancing these in a modelled universe can often lead to far more pain than the pleasure the new roles would provide.

Just my humble opinion yikes

87

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

One idea I had was that the OPs could have 3 tiers of defences. The inner tiers only become attackable when the previous ones are disabled and a timer is started.

Please note I am typing on an iPad on a very bumpy and packed train so excuse typos and dumb Apple autocorrects.

For example:

Tier 1 consists of 4 watchtowers, with minor automated defences (to stop someone sitting with an arkhe and a syntec gun aft all day) and a low armour regen. Each should take between 4-6 mechs about 20 mins to take down. Once a tower is disbaled it cannot be repaired for 24 hours and requires both resources and RR to bring back online.

Once all 4 are taken down, a timer is started, this timer is dependent upon an amount of resource stored in a special hanger in the OP. This hanger can store between 1 and 12 hours 'reserve'. The amount of resource can only be changed whilst a minimum of 3 towers are active, once there are two left this hanger is locked and the amount can no longer be altered [add appropriate techy story plot reason here]. This provides two things, one the attackers do not know how much is in the pot, and two, the defenders cannot accurately predict when the attacker will take the last towers down. This IMHO, evens the field a little bit away from the poor timer system right and introduces a level of chance to both side (unless you have evil spais!!!).

Tier 2 is a similar concept but is only a single structure, the concept here is that an attacking force (equiv of 15 mechs) needs to attack the structure (20 mins or so) then deposit their own materials to 'own' it. [mid post brainstorm] this could be tied to the new energy system, the previous owner must deposit an amount of energy in the structure which slowly deteriorates, when the structure is taken, the attacker must match the current amount to 'hack' it or overload it or something. Once taken, the attacker must the enter an amount of energy which sets when the actual intrusion will happen. This I'd done on a sliding scale, say 1000 energy units to start the intrusion in 4 hours, down to 50 units for it to happen in 24 hours. The OP owner has 1 chance (within say 2 hours of the structure being taken) to change the timer by half, by depositing double the amount the attacker deposited in the OP. This puts some tactics into play in terms of how much does the tracker put in vs whether the defender wants to alter the time.

Tl;dr - put a system in which a) requires resources, b) has some tactics behind it and c) is not reliant on random timers which means people either have to do stupid timed events or just ignore them as they do now.

CHANGE THE SYSTEM!!!

88

(41 replies, posted in General discussion)

Germ and myself are in very different timezones which means we have to carefully co-ordinate when we record the main part of the show. It does have an advantage though that in terms of interviews etc, we can cover a vast amount of timezones between us.

I'd interview you Jelan, I'd even stay up late if I had to big_smile

89

(138 replies, posted in General discussion)

So, while you're here throwing your hands up me and everyone else will continue to bolster our lead in EP and be unstoppably OP because that 5% extra locking range is going to dominate you 10/10 times... i keed i keed.

GLiMPSE hits the nail on the head. All games which rely on a similar system to Perpetuum emphasis the law of diminishing returns. Everyone can be useful no matter what EP, you just won't be in your Mega Death Kill Mech 2000 on day 5 because you can spend 24 hrs a day grinding like in other MMO's. Time based skilling levels the field, it also means that someone may spend 60 days of EP to get that last 5% locking time whereas you can spend EP in other ways to be effective too.

http://www.perpetuum-intelligence.com/f … 3&t=27

That has a good EvE example but here in Perpetuum, player skill plays even more of a part and working your way up the bots is the best way to build those skills.

90

(41 replies, posted in General discussion)

Thanks for all the great feedback, we knew there would be things to improve on but thats what makes it fun!!

The political stuff was more difficult, primarily because of the reasons above, this was a first run, people were reluctant to talk but hey, now we're here we can do more!!

All suggestions welcome!!

I would also like to personally thank Gremrod for taking a chance with this, and me. I had a blast and I am really looking forward to doing the next one!!

EDIT:

For information, I will be posting up some real high resolution versions of the Posters shortly and will ensure the links get updated!!

Zoom, I'm coming to stalk you! Lets make a promise to have it ready for Grem and myself to discuss!!!

91

(2 replies, posted in General discussion)

Agreed, if it isn't urgent, it can wait.

92

(9 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Nice idea but you provided all the arguments against the idea in your post. No matter what you do, there will be an optimum way to take the raid down and once it's figured out, it'd just farming again.

The problem with stuff like this is one it's beaten everyone whines that there isn't another new one to do and everyone is just grinding out on the ones that are there. This is a sandbox, we need more tools to make our own raids and content, not more static 'grind' to beat.

How about this?

Give me a structure that when I put ore in gives me a perfect refine + x% over say 6 hours. This would be in a dead end valley such that there is only one approach say 500m long. I have to capture it, similar to pve raid, once done I have to put the ore in and I can also supply other things, like turrets and missile launchers. The amount of these I put in determines a number of NPCs I can spawn. This is the balance. If I think I can hold the area for 6 hours with players, I make a large profit from the mechanic. If I think I need help, I can bring stuff with me to provide helpers.

Off the cuff idea but you get some pve raiding and then a PvP raid which has to be defended, have some global notification when one is being activated and then you can get your group together, and come raid me instead of mindless NPCs alone smile

LE;DR (Long Enough, Did Read)

Great post, I think it shows a great community when people take the time to elaborate their points of view and feed back into the games development.

On the post, I wholeheartedly agree!!! I have posted similar thoughts in the past, making the foundation of all other processes (materials) harder to obtain and generally more boring to obtain has done the complete opposite of what was needed. It achieved the DEV goal of removing a massive problem which contributed to the insurance issue but the end effect has annihilated the Market.

The main issues are the ones you hit on perfectly, when mins are hard to obtain, supply dries up and those mechanics in the game which previously were not as profitable become so. as I have said before, killing the bottom of the pyramid does nothing bunt make the pyramid smaller and therefore effects everything above it. If you want a thriving Market you need to adopt the things which have been said above and before, increase demand for minerals by adding higher level sinks.

-- Making minerals more available makes lower tier bots less onerous to replace , therefore people are more willing to fight as loss is less painful.

-- Higher level sinks like larger bots, POS, constructions whatever which take large amounts of minerals encourages trade and competition

-- At the moment everything can be obtained by everyone on beta, make certain mineral types more prevalent on some islands, with the new islands coming in, split the minerals across two betas so no one beta has lots of each type. This encourages, if not mandates trade.

Right now, it's just too painful to mine. When I go to alpha, I see far more long time alts running transpot than I do seeing anyone mining. This is bad for the economy, bad for player interaction and therefore bad for game.

The bottom of the pyramid needs to grow, this will only happen if there is appropriate demand above and the willingness (and playability) to actually supply in at the bottom.

94

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I have no personal gripe against ewar roaming gangs but I take your point.

Maybe the module needs some additional negative effects over and above what LWF gives currently (the first one would be that you either have LWF or the Booster, not both)?

If I were to pick on light ewar at the moment its that the only counter is more light ewar..... Maybe some would disagree but this module would provide at least another option other than just blobbing up or bringing out a counter light ewar gang.

I personally think the game 'needs' fast attack, it just needs an effective counter. Consider EVE (and yes I know people will gripe but its an example ffs). I was a long range sniper specialist, all my skills made me excellent at 220-250km range. However I couldn't hit small stuff that far out reliably. Now when the enemy is at a suitable range and an MWD activated I could pop stuff in a volley, they certainly didn't like that!  (Yes I know the EVE transversal calculations played a part but here in Perp we have the hit size for calculations)

There's your counter without naffing about with all the other bot classes. If the bot activates this thing and suddenly mech weapons are effective, you provide a balance against the speed (PS this is just one example). Everyone moans now because ewar + speed APPEARS to trump everything else, here's a new mechanic with a balancing aspect which makes more bot classes effective in a fight, makes using the module need SKILL to use and doesn't require mega content development.

95

(12 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Shiny but not MMO...... Meh.

96

(38 replies, posted in General discussion)

You missed one which also broached the topic here....
Jumpjets.

I posted a summary there so will not repeat here.

97

(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

I agree but earliest I would expect anything would be mid next week.

I agree that PvE needs to be a priority, we can always blow stuff up but we need reasons to do so. Right now the following appears to apply

Time to grind for replacements > time spent playing to need replacements

And

Pain of grinding for replacement > pleasure from playing the game to need replacements

Even good PvE mechanics can solve the above issue and if it does, I am sure all us inventive PvP players will make good on the opportunity and have lots more pew pew without needing a massive content update dedicated to PvP.

98

(1 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Some okay ideas and I like the folder/container idea for transport.

On the transfer things they can all be covered by a simple escrow system. Pick player, pick items, pay fee based on volume and duration, set a cost/collection fee and hit go. Player can then pick up escrows in station for any fee set or collect remotely for an additional Syndicate fee.

NIC sinks based on player convenience are always good smile

99

(25 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I think this has evolved into two points, the first being travel and the second being tactical advantage.

I would propose two types of module. The first being a travel mod, it reduces combat effectiveness and defence but increases speed. This is the Indy speed mod.

The second is the combat speed/jump mod. This reduces parameters such as cargo space, increases your hit size and maybe affects armour/shield in some way. This creates a traveller/interceptor dynamic. Interceptors are hit and run, they are there to catch things and maybe take out the Indy travellers or small stuff, they are however paper thin, rely on the surprise, speed and the ability to 'jump' in and out of cover or to move onto terrain impassable by a following enemy.

So we don't have mechs fit with the first mod as it makes you pointless in combat. We do however provide a pseudo class for all current bots (except ewar, they are fast enough and have a defined pseudo role). You won't see this in larger gangs as you are made paper thin, you aren't there to hold the line.

On a side note, this also opens up something I have been toying with in the current mechanics which is based on a fast, hard hitter role to disrupt gangs but in effect is a suicide class. For anyone into Warhammer 40k think of assault marines. They jump over a hill and it's all or nothing, you either picked the right fight or you get a whooping.

All good stuff and if balanced correctly, you could end up with a whole suite of new tactics, strategy and possibilities without having to introduce spews of new mechs, it could be done with two mods smile

100

(14 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Arga wrote:
Kalsius Dakalsai wrote:

.snip.
Put the mining back the way it was, reduce mineral density on alpha and promote roaming NPCs to control afk mining.

.snip.

Mining is too painful, change it back and put in the high level matereial sinks (bigger bots, POS, big buid req equipment) in to counterbalance an increased amount of minerals in the game. The devs seemed to have had the right intention in the nerf, they just put the wrong solution in place.


So... First I'll be the first to agree that mining is not fun, but the mineral reduction was and is necessary, and reverting it isn't the answer.

There was another reason for the reduction, besides there being 'too much ore' on the market, making mining/scanning skills actually mean something.

I don't want to have to go into all the minute detail, but to put it simply, skilled miners will get much more ore per hour than unskilled miners now.

It was totally unbalanced when military specialized characters could spend a few days of EP and mine 80% as effciently as a dedicated miner.

That said, they now need to do 'something' to make mining not as tedious for dedicated mining characters.

Arga, I agree with your points, I also pointed out the skill trees in my post as I am a huge proponent of specialisation being the key to increased gain. PvP chars should definitely not be within a mile of a specialised mining char, but they do need to be able to assist, just at a very poor level. I also agree that the scanning skills needed a boost in viability, I just don't agree that making life painful in the game for everyone is the best way to approach fixing something like this. It feels like we are all punished because the mechanics don't fit the situation the DEVs found themselves in.