It will be so.

27

(40 replies, posted in Balancing)

Annihilator wrote:

you still dont get the point.

in an analogy, you complain to god that sweet beet and grain do not have the same size per unit.

Oh i like that analogy! big_smile cool

28

(12 replies, posted in Open discussion)

What?

Your Zenith is the wizard...

Your spells are:
Hold person
Clairaudience/Clairvoyance
Confuse
Blindness/Deafness
Globe of Invulnerability

fuuu

29

(50 replies, posted in Balancing)

On average, NPC spawns contain the same lvl of NPCs as before (meaning sometimes higher, sometimes lower, depending on luck). If they spawn lower level, they spawn it in much greater numbers, not to mention only on BETA you will be able to get rank 4-5 elites.
All  those who want to farm specific kernel types can find their spawns as well.

30

(19 replies, posted in Recruitment forum)

BAN! cool

31

(304 replies, posted in Balancing)

Are you sure?

We will look into it!

We recently talked about the attributes with the team, and we have similar feelings about the attributes. Do we really need them? I personally say that they are more likely in the way, instead of having any use. This is what Zoom mentioned as groundbreaking change, and will definitely call for a free character reset for everyone IF we decide to go this way.

Elite NPCs only spawn at random spawns (3 spot / island), and random spawns aren't roaming spawns.

35

(46 replies, posted in General discussion)

It is aimed for low chance, but if it is really needed, we will increase the chance, also in every patch we will replace more and more old spawns to new random spawns (mission related npcs won't be changed )

cool  thanks!

37

(9 replies, posted in General discussion)

He forgot to underline the sooner wink

We fix the wepstabs in next patch, don't worry. cool

We will try to fix it! One way or another big_smile

We have these  ideas in mind as well, sooner or later they will be implemented.

Its good, as probably it is the first time you seeing me posting anyway, so i am 100% efficient, right? smile

I have that in mind for a long time:
Reducing LWF bonuses to 15% at t4, keeping their negatives, and increasing all bots'  base speed to achieve the same speed as before with t4 lwf. Would mean non lwf users wouldn't be so much slower.

At the current state of the dev server, where the Gropho has accu recharge and Seth has resist, the Gropho almost permaruns 2 medium repairers, and with this can tank the Seth's lasers, and kill it. It's just plain firing practice. The Mesmer tears this Gropho apart, even if the Gropho has shields. Lowered the medium lasers' accu usage about 15%, also lowered the accu usage of EMs' about 10%, and kept their falloff.
Medium shields got their 5 sec cycle time back, as they are a defense system by design, and by design they take away your damage dealing abilities. With 5 sec, you can still play lower - shoot - raise shield game, but to shoot efficiently you need to let it down for longer time, or you shoot less.
Seths with resist bonuses are strong, it may cause 20-30% further damage reduction from the current live status.
Gropho's shield with recharge seems stronger against 1 mech, but weaker against focus fire, and handles neuting slightly better.

Ldemobs are LOS affected on Dev server already, and unique modules.

As well there are plans for a Demob resist extension, 1% /lvl, reducing demob extension bonus from 3% to 2% and increasing S-demob base effect by 10%

100% cycle time means +1 addiotional cycle in the same amount of time without any cycle time bonuses. Its not exactly cycle time, more likely rate of fire, i can use it 1 / every  12 sec, if i got cycletime bonus i can use it 1 + bonus / every 12 sec. In that way you will never reach 0 cycle time, which would be ridiculous.

46

(111 replies, posted in Q & A)

We will,  and on the industrial bot section as well.

There are only one beta observers on each new alpha, the rest is alpha observer, and that is intended.

48

(3 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

it had 15% before

49

(3 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

did you use co-processors? they were changed

Annihilator wrote:

i think your argumentation wont reach DEV Alf the way you have set it up.

I always read the posts cool