It would be a way for the people who are currently trying to crack your cans to grief noobs instead. Think of all those trial players promised free stuff, led to a can, and given the wrong can code...it would be so easy to make them enter it wrong three times. Then boom, blown up noob.

This is why I feel 10 or 15 would be a better compromise.

Has this actually ever happened to you?

It should be pretty rare so long as you don't use a really obvious code, since doing it manually is pretty slow - each try takes a second or so to input. bureaucracy managed it by accident once and promptly deleted all the contents he couldn't loot, bless him.

A macro isn't going to make it much faster since you are limited by the speed of the UI.

It would be cool if successfully cracking a code flags you for pvp, or if you make more than 15 unsuccessful attempts. Making it at least 15 would make it harder to trick people into flagging by giving them the wrong can codes.

So what happens if you put your EP in both ewar and artillery mech specialisations? You would then get a negativity bonus in both...unless the devs set it up so that putting EP in one set of skills automatically closed off another set of skills. And that's counter to the degree of customisation we are currently permitted. It's a backwards step

I don't think you need to add negative bonuses for specialisation to occur. However, I think you are right when you say the devs will always be adding new things, and there will always be something to spend our EP on.

Edit: EP doesn't = instant win right now, and I don't think it ever will. So long as you can pilot one specialisation of robots well enough, which should only take a two or three months, you will always be competitve and have a role in pvp. We went on a roam last night and took two players who had been playing one month and one day. They did fine.

This completely negates the point of no skill cap. I don't see how such a restriction would make sense at all gameplay wise.

The whole idea is that you can, theoretically, become good at everything if you have played long enough. The restriction is that you can only run around in 1 bot at a time per 1 account, so being uber in both a heavy mech and at light ewar doesn't give you an advantage over a player that is only uber in one of those.

Right now you can waste EP (and not get it back) but you can't spend it on something that actively harms your character's capabilities. Even if you do put it all in reducing your weapon cycle times and forget to attend to accumulator usage, you can still wait for more EP in order to fix it.

But if you can spend EP on something that harms your character, then the feature of 1 EP per minute, forever, becomes counter productive.

On the other hand, I support the removal of navigation from the game, and just set all the default speeds at the equivalent of nav 10.

If you wanted to make speed interesting, have a set of skills or modules which provide short, temporary bursts of speed under certain conditions such as slope calculation. I like this idea because it's very terrain dependent. So for instance when going up steep slope levels the speed module increases your speed by 5% but uses 10% more accumulator, whereas on flat ground it increases your speed by 10% but uses normal accumulator, and on going down a slope it increases your speed by 15% but uses 10% less accumulator.

You could also have vampiric demobs that increase your speed while you siphon it off someone else, at a rate dependant on your relative distances, or increase your speed but debuff your armor, etc etc.

No idea if any of this is even remotely technically possible.

No, it doesn't Couzao.

The devs have said they are already not going to limit use of outposts in this way. We have to wait for POSes.

I do think a system where the corps can reduce the cost of outpost facilities to blue/green corps would be cool.

Edit: people have asked for corp-only or alliance-only markets. But there isn't an alliance feature in game yet so anything outside the corp would have to be based on standings.

If the devs were catering the game towards M2S they'd have implemented something for us to do recently.

/goes back to Portal 2

When you're killing NPCs, you're locking them in a sort of queue. So you're firing at one, you have two locked, and at the same time a fourth one spawns and you start locking that one. You finish killing the first, decide which of the second or third you will primary, and start killing that. When the fifth NPC spawns/comes into range you start locking that.

What you seem to want is to be able to continously cycle through and kill NPCs without your weapons actually stopping.

I think the disadvantages of this outweigh the advantages, see below...

Yes. And so he should. You have two targeting options, two keybinds. Easy, simple. Not remotely complicated.

Exactly. This is a good thing, and how it should work. The targeting computer should not decide Vasya is primary. The player should as and when he decides it is necessary.

Suppose your FC asked you to secondary lock Vasya, but not to primary him? In your scenario Vasya would be primary locked incorrectly and against your FC's orders, by the targeting computer once John was dead/out of range.

I also think you are trying to make it too complicated. You see multiple targets. You start to secondary lock them. You decide which you will fire on first, so you click on that target and primary lock it. If you need to primary lock another one you simply switch to that one.

These actions are simple and logical. I prefer that extra button click because it adds to the usability.

In fact the Perpetuum pvp interface is so simple it's actually possible to point and click everything...! In any other MMOs mouse clickers are looked down upon, because they simply can't respond as fast as people who have everything keybound. When you think about the horrible amount of skills you have access to in games like WoW or Warhammer or Age of Conan, where I ended up having to drop less used skills off my bar simply because I ran out of keybinds and fingers...and then compare this system. Here your skill is not based on your ability to mash keys at high speed.

Now in fact a much worse issue about the targeting computer is the weird and annoying way it resorts itself all the time. It would be much better for them to fix that than implement automated primarying.

Anyway, I think we've spent too much time discussing this (which has kept me entertained for a few hours) but I'm not going to reply again.

All the stuff you have listed here is separate from what we are discussing. I am arguing with you over one particular point here, that of the primary targeting priority, because I disagree with your suggestion. You responded that "players here will stick to elitism and overcomplicated non-obvious controls, they will have that same constant only 140 people online." Some of the controls can be improved, yes, but the targeting priority is not one of them. I've given you reasons why it works better this way.

You're exaggerating the response you have received from me and others here. We agreed with quite a lot of your suggestions, may of which have already been made to the devs in other posts on this forum.

Just because we disagreed with some of your suggestions doesn't mean we are elitist, or that we don't understand the newbie point of view. All of us have started the game as a new player at some point, many of us within the last few months, and we all remember what it was like. Remember the game has only been out since the end of November.

Why? When you primary someone, they know you've primaried them, because it shows on their UI, and this gives them advance warning that they're about to be fired on. So with your suggestion, if your squad leader tells you to secondary lock several targets, you could end up primarying the next one before he calls it, thus giving it advance warning. I don't want the targeting system automatically to choose a new primary target for me when my current target dies.

It's not obvious. It's more tactical if the player has complete control over what is primary and what is secondary.

I think this is one of the things Perpetuum does better than EVE.

Oh I see what you're saying. Fair enough that makes sense.

I could agree to a system where a corp has access to the trade logs of and outpost that it owns.

So you don't want to cancel the stopping, what you actually want is to be able to click to start it again, and the command is queued, so that it starts again as soon as it's stopped. I wouldn't like this because I think it's too complicated and not something I want to have to keep track of. Your module is either off, on, starting or stopping. If you want to start it again just wait until it's finished stopping.

It's a tricky one, Grem. I was at both intrusions you talked about, and I felt a lot was missed out.

But we don't necessarily want a blow by blow account. Just more stuff said to the point, I didn't really feel much was said beyond you both deciding ECM was key. As a vagabond pilot at Initia naturally I approve of this but some examples of why you thought that would have been good. More about what turned the tide of both battles, what mistakes you felt were made. You did sort of cover it but I don't think you had enough info to really analyse them properly.

When I first started, I never even bothered with the tutorial missions until someone told me you could get your free bot at the end of it.

Agree with Alex's suggestion.

agree