1

(43 replies, posted in General discussion)

Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:

pics please.... smile

Yay free intel! Drahkar, with 1,034,532 EP.
http://i.imgur.com/FtD63.png

And Brawn, EP is visible at the bottom. Note that Brawn has done ONE thing related to manufacturing in his entire life (not counting the tutorial). He reverse engineered a mining charge CT, then deleted it because. But hey, the day I decide to do industry I'll be ready right? <.<
http://i.imgur.com/qPpN4.png

I'll start by saying that while the gamma patch is nothing short of pure awesome, it's clearly not the ultimate solution to Perpetuum's activity problem. Yes, perpetuum ahs an activity problem! yikes

What gamma did accomplish : it added much needed sand to the sandbox and made the PvP aspect of the game even better. That's great, but I hope you devs realize it's like adding high quality furniture to a house with no roof. No worries though, that can be fixed. I'm writing this hoping it will be fixed as soon as possible, rather than the PvP content being overworked when it's not the bottleneck.

I think anyone who expects Perpetuum to succeed without a carebear population is at least somewhat delusional. I also think any reasonable person will agree that in its current state, Perpetuum doesn't encourage carebears to stick around.

I'll be making a lot of Eve Online references in this post so if you have no clue what Eve is, stop living under a rock.

Defining a carebear : The word carebear is being used in this post in reference to a player who is not only uninterested in PvP but most likely unwilling to face the risk of PvP. Looking at Eve, some important types of carebears are Empire (alpha) industrialists/miners and Empire PvE players/mission runners. Someone willing to spend the majority of his time mining, producing or NPC farming on a beta or gamma island is not, in my opinion, a carebear, as he is not avert to the risk of PvP.

Why carebears are good : Carebears bring many benefits even to a game that is meant primarily as a PvP sandbox. They bring revenue, they bring population, they bring market activity. They are easily pleased by grindy content. They give eachother all the interaction they need to stick around by banding together in carebear corps and working towards bigger carebear goals. They give the game visibility, they bring their carebear friends along. They all have a small percentage chance of being converted into a PvPer. They all have a small percentage chance of interacting with PvPers (beyond market interaction).

What carebears need : Long term goals, shiny expensive toys, grindy content. Perpetuum is very lacking in all of those. While PvPers strive for bloody fights, building a reputation and working towards their corporation's territorial success, carebears don't have those incentives. What keeps a carebear playing? For a mission runner, it's simply getting to the next step. The next step in PvE challenge (tougher missions) and probably even more important, the next shiny bot.

Perpetuum's shiny bots max out at heavies (or heavies mk2). This is a problem. Acquiring a heavy mech is not difficult or grindy enough to be a long term goal. If you think it is, then ask yourself is it ok if once someone acquires a heavy mech and uses it for a few weeks, they unsubscribe and quit? No it's not. That would mean carebears stick around a single month, two if we're lucky. Comparing to Eve, is it ok if a carebear quits once they have a Raven, then Navy Raven, then Golem, then a Rattlesnake or a Nightmare? Yes. Hopefully they stay, but if not they still played, contributed and payed for quite a while.

Is this problem hard to fix? No. It may sound like it, because you may think adding new bots affects the balance of PvP too much, and thus requires a lot of work and a lot of planning. The trick is cost-ineffective bots, cool bots, vanity bots, PvE specialized bots. Bots that are a slight boost in effectiveness for a carebear, for a slightly ridiculous cost. An example from Eve online : faction battleships. Are faction battleships in Eve a problem to balance for PvP? No, not really, because they're not cost effective and they're killed just as easily when primaried by a fleet. They are, however, extremely awesome for a carebear, and they are way more of a long term goal than Perpetuum's heavy or heavy Mk2. Perpetuum needs bigger bots. Cost ineffective bots. Expensive bot variants with a slightly different look and (possibly) a very small increase in combat power. A Raven in Eve only serves as a carebear's goal for a short while. After they get one, they don't quit, because they want that Navy Raven, that Golem or even a Rattlesnake.

Once that's done, all you need to do is give carebears something to shoot at with their shiny toys and they're hooked. Don't make it too complicated. Look at missions in Eve, they're initially a challenge, but they're not annoying to find or inconvenient to run repeatedly. You just hit accept mission and warp to it. The carebears do it, they feel powerful and awesome as their shiny pimped out ship destroys everything in sight and they stick around to do it some more. This shouldn't be too hard to add, perhaps you just need a few areas of land where you have NPCs using the new bigger bots that were added.

Voila! With a bit of advertising (or get your game on Steam already, ffs), you have a carebear population, along with all the benefits! Carebear mission runners and carebear industrialists need eachother and sustain eachother. They also both benefit the PvP population to some extent.

Another problem to tackle, alongside adding shiny toys for PvE players to drool over, is fixing the barrier of entry into industry. I'm reffering to kernels, but that's another story entirely and I'll leave that rant to someone with more industry experience.

Until then, there's very few people online, so more people get bored and stop logging in aswell. Off to play Eve, I need to grind towards a Bhaalgorn for my collection of relatively useless and terribly expensive but very cool looking pimp ships. tongue

Annihilator wrote:

exploit more then m2s already does atm?

btw, login for me atm is so slow, i think the server is already overloaded from sending the position of every online player to most beta corp members out there...

LOL cry some more. The fact that you have such a stupid definition of exploiting makes any past and future accusations of it much less credible.

DEV Zoom wrote:
Drahkar wrote:

I think a much better solution to limiting probes would be per outpost owned, not per corp.

The idea crossed our minds too, but that would very much limit their field of use, bar out small pirate squads and alpha corps, not to mention gamma islands with PBS where these probes would really shine in my opinion.

Player built outposts could obviously also support a certain number of probes.

I'm not saying it's the only solution, just that a limit per corp seems like a quick emergency fix that wasn't given much thought and wouldn't be as balanced as it could be.

DEV Zoom wrote:
Ville wrote:

I fully comprehend that.  What I am saying is that i  have to have an active CEO just to get those installed in the first place and there is more then one corp out there were deputy CEOs are running the  show due to mia ceos.

Right, it's high time for a CEO change mechanic anyway.

... No. Just no.

If you want to change your CEO, you can have your corp reform under another name and tag. The corp was made and is owned by the CEO.

If there is a CEO change mechanic, it should be optionally activated by the CEO himself before hand.

Anyway that belongs in another thread.

I think a much better solution to limiting probes would be per outpost owned, not per corp. If you own 1 outpost on the island, you can place somewhere between 1 and 5 probes, depending how you want to balance it.

If you limit it per corp, alt corps can be made. A corp is just a list of cooperating agents, it shouldn't physically affect the world in that way. Outposts are concrete and meaningful, you can easily justify it by saying the probes run on power from an outpost, and the outpost can only support a certain number of them. You could also link it to stability or a new upgrade like the current facilities.


They could also be rebalanced in other ways like making signal maskers passively make you immune to probes, or changing it so that instead of seeing people on the radar, you only see your probe turn red if it detects something.

Regardless, they are currently broken and limiting them per corp is only plugging a leak. Please fix the problem.

7

(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

Annihilator wrote:

lol

now i have to log in and check my locking times, and later calculate the lowest possible locktime for bot with bonus and without...

Make sure you don't ask for Mr Derp's input on locking times...

Ingame Help channel wrote:

[17:44:21] <Drahkar> btw Mojo, the order in which you calculate your locking time bonuses doesn't matter as far as I know since they're all factors
[17:45:05] <Drahkar> At least for the extension and the amps, but I would imagine the bot bonus works the same way
[17:55:50] <Mojo Derpus> you dont understand % calculation much ^^
[17:56:11] <Drahkar> Great argument
[17:56:24] <Mojo Derpus> i can explain it to you if you like
[17:56:53] <Drahkar> 12.5 x (1+0.5) / 0.73 = (12.5 / 0.73) * (1+0.5)
[17:57:09] <Mojo Derpus> yeah thats in the case of one factor
[17:57:38] <Mojo Derpus> but if you have a therm of 3 consecutive multiplications by the same factor the last factor will have the least influence
[17:58:17] <Mojo Derpus> 1*0,5*0,5*0,5 while it is true that each will half the result
[17:58:31] <Mojo Derpus> the last will only substract 1/4 and the first 1/2
[17:58:39] <Drahkar> rofl
[17:58:47] <Drahkar> Nice name
[17:59:28] <Mojo Derpus> the place of the factors within the formular is important
[18:00:27] <Mojo Derpus> the more factors the more important is the first factor in comparrision to the last factor

btw I thought you had a spreadsheet with that stuff Anni. In case you don't, Warux from ATG tells me the robotics bonus is added with the extension bonus. Haven't looked into that further myself.

I thought this was funny. You'll surely think it's extremely boring and uninteresting, but I'm posting it anyway, hence the title. Don't have too much fun reading this!

Ingame Help channel wrote:

[15:50:34] <Mojo Derpus> now iam confused maybe iam doing something wrong
[15:51:16] <Mojo Derpus> or if there is some kind of exploit
[15:51:33] <Drahkar> What's the question?
[15:51:38] <Drahkar> (just logged in)
[15:52:05] <Mojo Derpus> how to get incredible locking times of 2-3 seconds and less with anything else than an gropho
[15:52:33] <Drahkar> What's your accelerated locking, sensor connection and robotics, do you have 1 or 2 amps and what tier are they?
[15:52:45] <Drahkar> Also if you saw the bot the other person was in, that would be extremely relevant
[15:52:52] <Mojo Derpus> 2 t4 amps locking skills on 5 advanced on 8
[15:53:01] <Drahkar> Locking skills on 5, there you go
[15:53:25] <Mojo Derpus> yeah but i calculated that the benefit from the locking skills is less than the 40% i get from advanced
[15:54:13] <Drahkar> Mind telling me how you calculated that? Also what bot was competing with your Gropho?
[15:54:21] <Mojo Derpus> a mesmer
[15:55:17] <Drahkar> I still think the answer is your very low locking skills
[15:55:28] <Drahkar> You have sensor connection 5?
[15:56:01] <Mojo Derpus> bonus missing from accelerated target locking 20% bonus missing from sensor connection 10% bonus i get from advanced robotics 40%
[15:56:05] <Mojo Derpus> 30% < 40%
[15:56:18] <Drahkar> Also keep in mind the landmarks window sometimes takes a fraction of a second to display an NPC that can already by locked by clicking it on the terrain
[15:56:45] <Drahkar> Your own reflexes and your latency might be playing a bigger role than you think
[15:57:36] <Drahkar> Both amps are affected by connection so you can double that 10% but that's not how it's actually calculated I think
[15:57:39] <Mojo Derpus>  i think it has something to do with the calculation  and if iam right interferrence would do nothing on ppl with high sensor connection and accelerated target locking
[15:57:44] <Drahkar> Also if you have accel locking 5, you're missing 25%
[15:57:55] <Mojo Derpus> as the locking time from that would always substract 90% from the time
[15:58:21] <Drahkar> Interference shouldn't be a problem
[15:58:28] <Mojo Derpus> nah thats just a side note
[15:58:33] <Drahkar> I doubt you'll go above the minimum tresh hold while farming
[15:58:48] <Drahkar> But seriously, accelrated locking 5 is insane
[15:59:04] <Mojo Derpus> insane low ?
[15:59:08] <Drahkar> It's a rank 2 skill, get that to 8+ ASAP
[15:59:27] <Drahkar> Unless you never PvP, but then if you have problems tagging mobs you should still get it higher
[15:59:46] <Drahkar> It's extremely useful and cheap EP wise smile
[16:00:15] <Mojo Derpus> yeah from what i can tell it is the first bonus that gets substracted from your locking time
[16:00:19] <Drahkar> I have it at 10 but I assume you haven't been here since release, still get it to 7 or 8 ASAP and finish it later
[16:00:57] <Mojo Derpus> so its the most effective in terms of reducing your locking time while i assume that the bonus from advanced robotics gets substracted last
[16:01:24] <Mojo Derpus> wich makes it the least effective
[16:03:18] <Drahkar> I never bothered finding out how locking time is calculated so I can't help there
[16:04:47] <Mojo Derpus> being interested in meta gaming will help you to stay on the top
[16:05:25] <Mojo Derpus> half of all exploits bugs and cheats ever found are found this way
[16:05:39] <Drahkar> I don't see your point
[16:05:56] <Drahkar> I don't even see how calculating locking time is meta gaming, it sounds like regular gaming to me
[16:06:10] <Drahkar> I also don't see the point of looking for exploits
[16:06:21] <Mojo Derpus> reporting them of course
[16:06:38] <Mojo Derpus> iam not m2s or CIR
[16:06:39] <Drahkar> Sounds like more trouble than not finding them in the first place
[16:07:05] <Drahkar> I know, your corp tag is displayed in the channel's members list so that much was obvious
[16:07:08] <Drahkar> I have brown eyes
[16:07:21] <Drahkar> Which is similarly irrelevant
[16:07:58] <Mojo Derpus> well then i explain again you asked why it would be relevenat to find exploits
[16:08:15] <Mojo Derpus> i said i would report them and that his highly unlikely if iam an abusive player
[16:08:24] <Drahkar> Yes but I don't see how that related to your corp tag
[16:08:32] <Drahkar> I didn't see you mention any abusive players
[16:08:40] <Mojo Derpus> i mentioned CIR and m2s
[16:08:57] <Drahkar> Those aren't players, I didn't think you were that new
[16:09:18] <Mojo Derpus> i think 90% of the other players in that channel got hte refference
[16:09:19] <Drahkar> In this case nevermind training accelerated locking, you could instead use a Waspish until you're actually ready for a Gropho
[16:10:13] <Mojo Derpus> if you dont want that image you shouldnt be in m2s
[16:10:51] <Drahkar> I don't mind the image but can still disagree with it
[16:12:31] <Drahkar> You're welcome for the help smile

He went silent, I hope he's not too frustrated. fuuu

Artemis, although this isn't really about the Artemis in particular but the fact that thelodica already have huge accu problems and didn't need a nerf, in my opinion.

Looks like they refunded the EP at least. Still hoping we get a new way to further increase accumulator capacity or recharge because obviously I can't bring the current 2 skills to level 11.

If they really don't want to replace the bonus, and if they really want to go through with the changes, fine. Just give us the EP back.

Also no there's no extension to raise my accumulator capacity beyond what I currently have which is accumulator expansion 10 and energy management 10.

I'd have to test it to be 100% sure but I think with those skills AND with lvl 6 in spec ops, pre-patch, I can't perma-run my guns on the Artemis despite having an accumulator mod in one of my leg slots. I'm not even asking for a boost, I just don't see why it needed a nerf.

Either way, getting the EP back for spec ops is much less a matter of opinion or balance.

I agree you shouldn't be able to participate for a different corp than the one you were in either at the tournament announcement or the ladder announcement.

Otherwise it's no longer a corporation tournament, it's just about getting as many corps (regardless of which it is) from your alliance into the tournament then switching the players around so you have a team for each of them. It's no longer 15 or 16 corp, it's much less.

13

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

I don't even see the point of changing Racial and Spec ops robot control bonuses.

No one asked for it, it was never discussed with the players, it was only just "announced" by being included in the patch notes for a patch that is already being implemented.

It doesn't fix any problem and there was never a problem with it unless the information was withheld from the playerbase.

I don't want to be mean but it just looks like someone pulled a random change out of their a**.

14

(35 replies, posted in General discussion)

Alexander wrote:

Change: The robot bonuses of Troiar and Troiar Mk2 have been changed from 5% to 8% neutralized energy per extension level, and from 5% to 2% accumulator recharge time per extension level.

Change: Faction specific robot control extensions (Pelistal, Nuimqol, Thelodica, Industrial and Spec. ops) now don't give any extra bonuses anymore, but all affected robots have a new robot bonus based on these extensions instead.

  • Combat robots: 1% reduction to faction specific weapon cycle times

  • EW robots: 1% increase to signal masking

  • Industrial robots : 1% reduction to miner and harvesting module CPU usage

  • Industrial haulers: 1% increase to maximum armor HP

1 problem and 1 potential problem.

The problem is every non ewar loses 1% accumulator capacity per level of spec ops, which for thelodica pilots is frequently trained despite not even using ewar bots. I doubt thelodica combat bots had too much accu to begin with, and most likely Kains and Mesmers used it aswell. The EP is now wasted unless refunded and we need a replacement for this accumulator.

Potential problem would be that the troiar changes may not be adequate but I'm gonna leave that debate to people more informed on the subject.

The intrusion 2.0 patch also includes this :

Change: Faction specific robot control extensions (Pelistal, Nuimqol, Thelodica, Industrial and Spec. ops) now don't give any extra bonuses anymore, but all affected robots have a new robot bonus based on these extensions instead.

Combat robots: 1% reduction to faction specific weapon cycle times
EW robots: 1% increase to signal masking
Industrial robots : 1% reduction to miner and harvesting module CPU usage
Industrial haulers: 1% increase to maximum armor HP

This means that any non-ewar pilot who put a ton of EP in spec ops will suddenly have their extension become useless (unless it gets refunded). As a thelodica combat pilot I've never had enough accumulator even in an Artemis, simply firing my guns with an accumulator module in a leg slot.

I'm pretty sure there was no imbalance where thelodica (and every other non-ewar) had too much accumulator. I think the previous mechanic behind these extensions was fine and if it gets changed then the Spec Ops extension should be refunded. Unless thelodica accumulator (and nuimquol combat mech and heavy mech accumulator) were in need of a nerf, we could also use a replacement for this extension.

If you really plan on going through with this change, perhaps it would be time to introduce Efficient Weapon Usage, -X% accumulator use on all weapons per level. In that case I would suggest 2% or 3% per level and a very high rank so that it's EP-expensive.

Also please don't give us a huge EP penalty for having trained that skill back when it was useful. I could use it somewhere else now.

I like the idea of alpha outpost ownership but as someone mentionned, perhaps taking them should be less focussed on PvP. I guess it depends if you intend the outpost to be for carebear endgame or PvPer's first steps.

Either way the rewards should be extremely small. Obviously no SAP loot, definitely never any lvl 3 facilities, and whatever is the reward should be balanced with the assumption that some alpha outposts would be taken by a solo player just because no one else cares.

Ville wrote:

Free bump

Very good points Ville. I love you too! smile

Arga wrote:
Drahkar wrote:

I think it was already bad enough that you absolutely had to run pre-made boring missions over and over to get your industrial character's efficiency up. Now you need to do it even more and with your combat characters too, to get access to sparks.


Your implication is that players with an indy and a combat character have to grind twice. While having multiple accounts is very common, I would not suggest balancing the game around it.

Meaning, Indy characters have to grind for refining and combat players for better sparks. That is balanced.

Missions are also more than just a relations grind, for solo (and new) alpha players, they are a significant part of the PVE game. Mission runners do missions to get better relations, to unlock better missions.

Any change in the way sparks are accessed shouldn't effect how or why missions are run.

Adding alternate ways to access sparks are good, but don't change the way relations are gained.

tl;dr - Add alternate ways to access relational sparks, but don't change the mission/relation mechanic.

I'm fine with that.

Also, optimizing the mechanics with which one player can grind on behalf of another, as detailed above, would not add any new ways of getting or bypassing relations, so I think that would be a good solution.

Goffer wrote:

I like the way it is. Standing is at the moment one of the things you really have to do for yourself (or find someone grinding in squad for you and have the reduced benefit)

Yes so we could simply optimize this mechanic by allowing the person who is being relation-boosted to not be in squad nor online. The result would be the same, only more optimized.

This could be achieved by letting someone turn half of their relation gains into an itemized relation booster, as mentionned earlier.

Requiring the person being relation-boosted to log their character on, accept a squad invite and go afk does not improve the game in any way.

Annihilator wrote:

hmm, i really don't see whats "themepark" on sparks...

you got some that you can buy for NIC, you got some that you can unlock by doing missions...

next thing you ask for is trading extension points... "because its not sandbox enough that i cannot sell my characters base attributes". Sparks are nothing more then a switchable extension...

By that definition, bots can also be considered switchable extensions. Or sparks can be considered invulnerable modules. Does this mean you would support the following mechanic :


Drahkar wrote:

According to some posts here, it sounds like the playerbase would support the idea of any bot beyond light bots requiring a license to pilot, which you would gain by grinding a few hundred missions. This would be fine because "you can just use the light bot instead" and "this is just people not wanting to put effort into doing the missions required to pilot bigger bots".

To more closely match your own example, we could say that "you can buy some bots for NIC, you can unlock some by doing missions" so it's fine?

Scyylla wrote:
Drahkar wrote:

Glad to see there are no good arguements against making sparks/relations more sandbox.

According to some posts here, it sounds like the playerbase would support the idea of any bot beyond light bots requiring a license to pilot, which you would gain by grinding a few hundred missions. This would be fine because "you can just use the light bot instead" and "this is just people not wanting to put effort into doing the missions required to pilot bigger bots".

Ridiculous and pathetic.

Yes, I agree your ideas are ridiculous and pathetic....

There is nothing wrong with missions the way they are or the way they are heading. They fit fine into the sandbox. Open your eyes and quit being a lazy free cheeser. Perhaps the free cheese mentality is what got your corp into trouble last time?

I wasn't in the corp at the time so that's irrelevant. There's nothing free about paying for something, which is only one possible solution. Taking a current feature and optimizing it doesn't add anything free either, see here :


Drahkar wrote:

Another solution Dan and I thought of is that you could convert your relation gains into items and sell them to other players. These items could be called bribes or anything else.

This mechanic is already in the game but not very well supported. I can be sitting afk, in a squad with someone else who is running missions and effectively giving me half of the relation gains. I can pay that person for it. The downside with this method is that for no apparent reason I have to be online at the same time as him and I cannot be doing something else in my own squad, which means the person running missions is most likely gonna have to be a corpmate (or at least not an enemy).

It would indirectly fix the problem if a player could trade his relation gains for a Bribe item that he can then sell to other players. The purpose of the item would be to give it to the relevant NPC corp in exchange for relation gains.

Glad to see there are no good arguements against making sparks/relations more sandbox.

According to some posts here, it sounds like the playerbase would support the idea of any bot beyond light bots requiring a license to pilot, which you would gain by grinding a few hundred missions. This would be fine because "you can just use the light bot instead" and "this is just people not wanting to put effort into doing the missions required to pilot bigger bots".

Ridiculous and pathetic.

Another solution Dan and I thought of is that you could convert your relation gains into items and sell them to other players. These items could be called bribes or anything else.

This mechanic is already in the game but not very well supported. I can be sitting afk, in a squad with someone else who is running missions and effectively giving me half of the relation gains. I can pay that person for it. The downside with this method is that for no apparent reason I have to be online at the same time as him and I cannot be doing something else in my own squad, which means the person running missions is most likely gonna have to be a corpmate (or at least not an enemy).

It would indirectly fix the problem if a player could trade his relation gains for a Bribe item that he can then sell to other players. The purpose of the item would be to give it to the relevant NPC corp in exchange for relation gains.

Zigzagman2 wrote:

rubbish

I thought The Older Gamers implied mature posts on the forums, amongst other things. As far as I know it's something like "older than 24" not "older than 6".

I think it was already bad enough that you absolutely had to run pre-made boring missions over and over to get your industrial character's efficiency up. Now you need to do it even more and with your combat characters too, to get access to sparks.

I have no problem with the idea that the NPC conglomerates can give you access to some sparks if they like you, but the fact that it's the ONLY way to acquire them makes it feel like a theme park mechanic that doesn't belong in a sandbox game.

There's pretty much an infinite amount of solutions to this but here are a few I thought of :

1) Allow people to bribe NPC corporations for relations. This would have the added benefit of being a NIC sink. It would also not only give an alternative for getting sparks but also an alternative for raising your relation bonus when using NPC facilities. If this were to be implemented, I would suggest that it be somewhat affordable at low relation levels and becomes MUCH more expensive as as your relations get higher. It would need to be overall expensive enough so that you don't see everyone buy max relations with every corp, and so that gaining relations through missions remains a viable option.

2) Allow people who gained access to a spark to somehow sell access to other players. Again, selling this spark access to other players should be very expensive for the seller, otherwise as soon as 1 person gets access, his entire alliance gets it too (including spies who give it to all other alliances in the game). This has the up side of encouraging player interaction and encouraging people to run missions (make an extra profit from selling sparks). It also serves as a NIC sink, but unfortunately it would not help industrial characters gain their industry relation bonus through any alternative means.

3) Allow anyone to buy any access to any spark, but make the sparks that are usually gained through relations be extremely expensive. This doesn't seem like a very good option since the only other upside is that it's a NIC sink. It doesn't further encourage player interaction and it doesn't add any alternatives for industrials who want to improve their industry relation bonus.

How is the current mechanic very different from a sandbox mechanic :
It's different because there are absolutely no alternatives. If you want a Seth, you can farm kernels, research it, make a CT, gather materials, then build it. You can also skip any of these steps by buying kernels and/or buying the CT and/or buying the materials and/or buying the Seth itself. Of course there has to be a predetermined way to make a Seth, but you are not in any way forced to make it yourself if you want access to it.

Conclusion : Please make sparks and relation gains more sandbox!

Drahkar wrote:

Another solution Dan and I thought of is that you could convert your relation gains into items and sell them to other players. These items could be called bribes or anything else.

This mechanic is already in the game but not very well supported. I can be sitting afk, in a squad with someone else who is running missions and effectively giving me half of the relation gains. I can pay that person for it. The downside with this method is that for no apparent reason I have to be online at the same time as him and I cannot be doing something else in my own squad, which means the person running missions is most likely gonna have to be a corpmate (or at least not an enemy).

It would indirectly fix the problem if a player could trade his relation gains for a Bribe item that he can then sell to other players. The purpose of the item would be to give it to the relevant NPC corp in exchange for relation gains.