You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Mark Zima
While I don't crash every time, teleport/dock chashes have been on the rise recently (especially teleport).
And the worst thing is: when the game crashes on tp it attempts to write full memory dump or something like that. As a result, the whole system grinds to a halt for a couple of minutes preventing quick relogin.
I bet you guys didn't think how your walls destroyed such a basic Perpetuum feature as "walking across the land". Can I haz reimbursement too? For not being able to travel some parts of the world.
Unfortunately the idea could be very well turned against you as well.
1. Scan for logged off robot.
2. Build walls around that tile.
3. Victim logs back, drama ensues.
Broken wall mechanic is the problem, not the OP idea. It's kinda sad to see this plant-turned-wall hack being a factor at all 
Tags: vaporware bs marketing
UPD: apparently (thanks Gremrod), it's not vaporware. Just some mech-stylized shooter.
Egil asks for anti-decay. Whatever you do walls will regrow in the end. With no work for defender and constant drain for attacker. Same with gates. Wallspam will become even more viable since it won't block spammers.
Note about bombs: if they are buffed they'll be abused in other areas so walls themelves need changes, not bombs.
Wallspam is bad for the game.
The best idea I've heard so far is to link walls to some kind of nearby "hub" structure that requires active maintenance (energy, fuel, money, watever, per wall tile). Distance from the hub should be limited (like, 1km radius). Total number of hubs also limited. This way we can build fortifications around bases and other important places, but can't spam indiscreetly. 1km from op/tp limitation needs to be removed in this case. Maybe outposts can serve as proto-hubs themselves.
Also we should be able to shoot wall (and plant) tiles directly.
PBS will fail if the devs continue to balance the game in favor of pirates and nolifers.
Explosion damage is a big help, but you need group level dps to take advantage of it.
NPC AI may need some adjustment to not suicide into players tho.
Detectors can see the open SAP from 2k+ already. So NO it's fine as it is now.
What would be good is for Intrusion window to reflect the actual SAP visibility distance.
Small note: everyone in the corp should benefit from the probes (if they want to). Arbitrary limits or extension-based limits (or even technical limits) on how many people can receive the data will just constantly make people unhappy.
You can't rely on the same bomb to clean both plants and walls. Anti-wall bomb should be expensive, while anti-plant bomb should be cheap.
I say no, lets not turn it into eve where you can only have dreads and carriers etc in low sec, everyone should be able to get any bot if they want it.
This.
I call these things "roadsigns". Basically, a structure that's visible in the world and on the map, containing short title and description. Map visibility can be controlled with a usual relation slider.
They should be limited in number and location, like any other PBS. (We learned that from the proximity probes experiment.)
Sundial is right. First try was fun, but kinda catastrophic. Now please disable it and iterate on design.
Still, I love the idea and I'm all for more defense tools. Hope you'll find a way to make it realistic.
Limiting their number like that changes exactly nothing.
I thought they were meant for defense. But right now they are much more useful for offense. Just sneak a few on an enemy island....
I can only hope this feature was not overdone on purpose to justify it's removal in the future.
Nope. Can't set your own relation to your own corp.
That's what should be fixed.
AFAIK all current alliances are NBSI. Nothing special about that.
Original purple color was the best.
Also, Nian Trust (alien) colors theme is unfitting for a Syndicate (human made) bot.
Like there was no PVP before I2.0. If you want a SAP, take care to scan. Gate arkhes won't cut it anymore.
2 universals are kinda fail indeed. Universal+specific hardener, universal+plate or just 2 hardeners would be better in most cases.
Soft cap or hard cap, variety in fitting will be reduced, and therefore variety in combat too. Is there an objective reason to mess with a perfectly working system?
-1
I'll repeat my answer from a different thread:
Introducing "diminishing returns" for modules like tunings, range exteners and such will just kill fitting variery and freedom, because the best choice will always be "fit one of each for max effect".
Don't use shield tank problems as an excuse to just nerf everything. Current fitting system is very good. You can put pretty much any combination of ew/dmg/rep/range mods into the head slots and it will make sense (at least in some situations and setups). Diminishing returns will skew it towards "max 1 of each" or "max 2 of each" which will greatly reduce the number of viable/possible combinations.
Introducing "diminishing returns" for modules like tunings, range exteners and such will just kill fitting variery and freedom, because the best choice will always be "fit one of each". So -1 and sorry for offtopic.
-1 to Titan ore on Beta, Undock adjustment, Terminal features (as Takeo puts it), Industrial balancing (they'll just f*ck it up), Ore fields balanced (same).
+1 to the rest, Squad and KM fixes being top priority.
+1 to Dan suggested more sorting options in hangars/containers.
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Mark Zima
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.079 seconds (91% PHP - 9% DB) with 6 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
