So, we both meed in the middle and demobcontest?
Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Search options (Page 2 of 7)
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Redline
Posts found: 26 to 50 of 167
26 2011-02-20 19:39:12
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
27 2011-02-20 19:15:38
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
No i dont want that - but see - EW arent primarily being used for EW and if you dont want any progression at all - then alle vehicles should have the same price.
28 2011-02-20 18:16:39
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
Redline wrote:The points still stand. Why should one class of bots be free to dictate fights and do the fighting? The demob thing doesnt do anything.
Youll need a gang of diverse mechs to cope with gang of dps fit EW. The latter is easier to achieve, cheaper and your still free to roam anywhere.
Who is dictating fights? The ewars who run away because they can't kill anything BUT a lonely mech/group of noobs who dont know wtf they're doing,, or mechs who stand wherever they wanna stand and ewars have to run away from them?
What exactly do you want? 120kph base speed on mechs (for a start)?
Of course faster mechs doesnt make sense. But EWs should either be able to use their max speed with EW eq only - or when using guns (which) they arent meant for - be slower as lights.
or b) have their max speed be a temporary ability to still be able to tackle and scout - but not to rush in and out and evade enemy fire while being capable of returning fire, which makes them op for that small amount of money/ressources and setup requirements.
A temporary speed aterburn that overloads interference and last for until interference level isnt up would work on all families independant of accumulator, bring a negative element to them so reduce their offensive capabilities and would time base the afterburn effect until interference reduced again back to 0.
29 2011-02-20 18:11:07
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
The point still stands that if your group of mechs gets killed by a group of ewar, you are terrible. The solutions were already posted a million times but a few folks(like 2) just put their hands over their ears and yell LALALAALALALA.
You seem to not get a major part - i dont have a problem with the mentioned at all - i got killed in the hoop 3 times total and havent lost a single fight i was in.
Its just an observation: EWs setups are easier, cheaper and can choose their fights. Thats simply not good.
30 2011-02-20 16:54:40
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
The points still stand. Why should one class of bots be free to dictate fights and do the fighting? The demob thing doesnt do anything.
Youll need a gang of diverse mechs to cope with gang of dps fit EW. The latter is easier to achieve, cheaper and your still free to roam anywhere.
31 2011-02-20 15:18:44
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
Through a hill? Go try.
And moreover - to need a diverse mech setup to counter a cheap EW setup - isnt balanced. And then again EW can always chose to fight or not.
Its 3:1 for EW.
32 2011-02-20 14:54:21
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
Its easy to do actually. Take the speed, use terrain to avoid mech range, kite the group and focus the nearest.
Then its a EW group against a single mech for any mech in the group.
edit: since you have the speed - you can dictate in which terrain to fight and always use this advantage and if things get tight you run out of range in 5 secs and start over.
33 2011-02-20 14:35:37
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
well EW can on roamings.
34 2011-02-20 13:57:37
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
Nobody said that theyre not useful in roams - they just arent useful to push off EWs.
35 2011-02-20 13:32:45
Re: [LR Bond #1] 20 Shares @ 500k 20% interest two weeks[Closed/PAID] (17 replies, posted in Services and Discussion)
received my shares and interest. Thanks!
36 2011-02-19 17:23:37
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
No Sir, Glimpse of HokkogarOZ.
37 2011-02-19 15:47:34
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
So Billy-Bob Glimpse get your brother Cletus to sign up here and do a full vote on things next time.
38 2011-02-19 15:27:31
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
Ok if the outcome is either that or the other bot will be used then i vote for that one.
39 2011-02-19 13:19:59
Re: NPC Factions vs. Player made Factions (2 replies, posted in General discussion)
An intermix of npc-factions relating to the player-factions - which should reflect player behaviour.
To have the possibilitiy to show player behaviour as a player - a third type of zone is needed where pvp reflects on the players standing as either: good, mercenary or playerkiller.
I think this is even more important then POS since it creates your avatar identity.
40 2011-02-19 01:57:00
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
I wouldnt suggest making mechs center of the fights as opposed to know - thatd be stupid. But as Annihilator put it precisely:
EW dictate AND do allthough they should only dictate OR do. Thats basically it. Making top speed temporary would change that or atleast would speed make a tactical ability with cooldown as opposed to always having it. Or making EWs either use EW stuff with high speed as supporters OR weapons with low speed.
41 2011-02-18 20:17:25
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
Im not talking on behalf the com. - but of course mechs cant compete with light speedwise when it comes to roamings - on point defense sure.
So in order to pressure other lights out you need speed aswell which leads to using lights. And thats boring - at least for some people .P
42 2011-02-18 18:00:44
Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT (212 replies, posted in General discussion)
Well - people have trained EW and mechs aswell - tahts not the reason to not use them. Its easy to use them to be efficient - but its a matter of look, game design and style. People simply dont like spiders only in a game where lots of bots are pointless in open pvp.
43 2011-02-18 05:23:36
Re: The Truth behind Insurance Fraud - Dev. Misconduct & Player Injustice (92 replies, posted in General discussion)
Thats the reason why normally such exploiting behaviour results in an instant and permanent ban.
Its not enough to exploit the game, but also countless gibberish argumentations follow.
44 2011-02-18 01:36:28
Re: PvP balance. (again and again) (189 replies, posted in Balancing)
Better do so or Siddy will start danish!
45 2011-02-18 01:28:47
Re: inverse MKII Variant Robots (13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
Well - i point out weaknesses when it comes to reaching more players without sacrificing anything.
The change could be a money sink for a certain group of people - and add more diversity to the look and feel of battles.
Also - it could be of tactical usage not immediately knowing what kind of bot/mech the opponent is using. mki or mkx
But overall - it doesnt take anything away - and the additions are fairly easy to make.
46 2011-02-17 21:55:53
Re: inverse MKII Variant Robots (13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
It is a blessing that our players are players and not designers
I am
47 2011-02-17 21:31:00
Re: inverse MKII Variant Robots (13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
So you enjoy Tom & Jerry online much?
48 2011-02-17 18:44:10
Topic: inverse MKII Variant Robots (13 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)
Whats the difference between an arkhe, an intakt and a gropho?
Yes, its a different model, different animations and different numbers in its price/resources and abilities.
So, since certain robots are primarily used in roamings and others in intrusions and possible again other bot types on still to come objectives - i feel the perceptioned variety of bots reduced by seeing always the same.
Now instead of changing the current mechanics to achieve a wider spread of bots being used for different purposes - a simple thing could change all of that.
If there were MKII (or whatever) variants of each robot having the inverse abilities of the normal MKI ones - you suddenly could use heavy armored Prometheus' in intrusions or Intakt speed like light Tyrannos for roamings.
In a first step these variants could have a different color tough to make them kinda distinguishable and later could have their own models (heavy spiders/light built mechs).
MKII variants of lights would have a comparable price/resource req. like MKI mechs and vice versa.
49 2011-02-17 18:22:33
Re: hit dispersion and light / mech balancing. (22 replies, posted in Balancing)
Since EW still dictate and do instead of dictate or do - the change will have no noticable effect.
50 2011-02-17 18:02:35
Re: Random roaming groups (15 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)
Seeing you are x-23 i assume you have been insured.
Posts found: 26 to 50 of 167
Perpetuum Forums → Posts by Redline
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.088 seconds (89% PHP - 11% DB) with 7 queries