51

(189 replies, posted in Balancing)

Hunter wrote:

I suppose its funny to read how russians fight on english forums.

No tongue but we obviously just have a misunderstanding.

52

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

You still seem not to get it - it doesnt matter what you reported, or how often - or if you could have seen this coming 2 years ago.

You used it.

53

(189 replies, posted in Balancing)

If the numbers are correct its worth investigating - Gargaj is a number freak eh? So let loose the Gargaj! tongue

Overall we have 2 different approaches: Hunter find some statistical values which might be an indicator for something - and other then that - EWs arent used as EWs but ast the fastest dpsers with the best defense.

Anyway - something needs a change there - making EWs dpser should make them slow and using them as EWs should make them fast without offensive, direct weapons.

Hunter - dont be mad - i think we just had the speech barrier cracking down on us.

Right Codrus - it would be very easy to but an algorithm in the game, you choose your target decoder, but in some different lvl decoders you already have - and the game calculates and shows you how much you'd need of which decoder.

But other then that - the idea is mainly to keep the prices stable. I'm sure if the DEVs agree to the basic idea, they will come up with something useful.

Again another idea - for the emantime they could make them recyclable.

Sure - im not saying usage of bots is balanced becasue of this. Esp. in the romaing part its obvious that mechs are obsolete.

56

(189 replies, posted in Balancing)

Hm in think you didnt understand a single posting in this thread Hunter ;> no need to be agressive man.

We're all working in the same direction btw ...

57

(189 replies, posted in Balancing)

No Hunter, balancing fans ;> pls reread.

58

(189 replies, posted in Balancing)

Right Anni - and right again Line: i also noted that your proposed changes would influence EW to either EW or dps - but like Line says - EW are rarely fit with EW stuff these days, they just come with a dps fit and are still fastest.

Maybe weapons should just weigh heavier for lights and EWs. If they want to be offensive they shouldnt have the defense of speed.

59

(189 replies, posted in Balancing)

Right hunter - atm lights are king of open pvp - the most natural form of pvp. Thats ridiculous. Lights and EW are support units and have their dedicated skills. Thers no reasoning for them to be active offensive units.

And right Line, theres no way to balance masses - but lights and EWs are best dps units atm in roamings allthough they have the least firepower. Why that? becasue they can choose their fights at will, retreat if necessary and evade most attacks and kite.

This makes them superior to anything in roamings allthough they are the cheapest, easiest to abtain and ugliest bots.

60

(35 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

A Fightnight thingy would be nice and i wasted some thoughts on it - its hard to come up with some specs since the bottypes arent balanced at all.

To make it balanced, youd need a lot of rules which would make organisation tricky.

3on3s between lights/assaults, assaults/mechs and mechs/heavies would be a start.

Yes - you will not find an overall balance when there are always different scenarios. Effectivity depends on the objective.

Defending or sieging clearly favors mechs/heavies becasue there is a static goal and if the attackers flee the defence or attack was successful.

Now in roamings or open pvp - there is no such static element and thus always the fastest movers will be in advantage. They pick the fights, attack or retreat.

So pvp in its most natural form - is currently dominated by small and fast bots and so makes a lot of other bots obsolete in roamings.

To change this - and make a variety of bots viable in roamings without crippling light bots, they either need A) to be even less capable in offensive means - or B) their permanent advantage needs to become a temporary advantage used on purpose but not always granted - their max speed should be a temporary boost with slower base speed - so that they cannot attack/run/away/dodge/hide/attack/run away for ever.

That was all this was about Line... try to read and comprehend next time...

No its weapons slots. You can have a trojar with 2 medium launchers.

64

(35 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

There are no real fights atm - we fight over nothing - so its time to get real purpose in for pvp - be its competitive sport like POS or ganking areas. But arenas? Hell no.

65

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

bureaucracy wrote:
Dromsex wrote:

Noone is covering up anything Saha. Obviously the game mechanic was created by the DEVs. They are responsible for any game mechanic or bit of coding.

But you are solely responsible for exploiting it.

I am extremely amused by the fact that someone who not only played Neocron, but also liked it enough to call himself "Dromsex" is complaining about using game mechanics in creative ways. It makes me wonder how you even managed to play it, considering that just figuring out a proper CON/Armor setup felt like exploiting faulty game mechanics.
I imagine you must have written an email to the support every time you actually got something to work, demanding that they ban you immediately as those features clearly weren't meant to be functional.

Insurance fraud is not a creative way tu use game mechanics - its a major exploit in this game and you got caught. Thats what these threads are about.

But i understand its a new situation guys - you get caught as usual but only in this game you dont get perm banned.

Its funny how infestation members get cought in every game for the same thing, be it Neocron, MO and now PO.

If we just focus on this point and let aside possible future changes wghich might interfere here: youre right.

I just wanted to point out taht the current system isnt like you thought: 100 dmg when hitsize is bigger then dispersion, but its even 110% in some occasions which tends to show the liking of the designers - or a fail at restricting the calculation.

Correctly fit - even 3 EWs can take down any mech - demobbing him constantly, ecming him and needlepinning him to death. In some rare cases even less are sufficient - because the EW can mostly evade any direct fire because of its speed, hide and come out and shoot - hide ... etc.

So, to have any effect - the change would need to be noticable.

Light weapons should be effective against light ones and also, reduced against bigger targets whereas bigger weapons are of course most effective against small targets, normal against equasl targets and again reduces against bigger targets.

This would maintain the bot progression according to their progression in research, value and EP requirement.

The fact that now big weapons arent useful against small targets but small are viable against bigger targets - is a reminicense from a, thanksfully, other game.

67

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

Noone is covering up anything Saha. Obviously the game mechanic was created by the DEVs. They are responsible for any game mechanic or bit of coding.

But you are solely responsible for exploiting it.

And yes, you are the only ones who know how to make t4 items. Its serious business to know such a thing. Pls explain this secret to the rest of the community. You mean - there is a way to obtain items ingame legit? Elaborate pls.

Combining would be good but - numbers can be tricky here as in your formula.

You would need 10 billion lvl 1 decoders to form a lvl 10.

Despite from this unpractical number - either lvl 1 decoders would becoe even worth less then nothing or higher lvl decoders would increase in value very much and allow market speculation and create pseudo NIC.

Optimum would be to choose a system that would keep the current decoder prices at the current prices, but still required some work when combining decoders for an upgrade.

This here - is a more realistic approach and would keep similar current prices without market inflation:

x = (1*(x-1)) + (2*(x-2))+1 + (3*(x-3))+2

where x is the decoder lvl you aim for.

This would mean - to make a lvl 10 decoder you'd need:

1 lvl10 = 1 lvl9 + 3 lvl8 + 5 lvl7

the others would be made of:

1 lvl9 = 1 lvl8 + 3 lvl7 + 5 lvl6

1 lvl8 = 1 lvl7 + 3 lvl6 + 5 lvl5

1 lvl7 = 1 lvl6 + 3 lvl5 + 5 lvl4

1 lvl6 = 1 lvl5 + 3 lvl4 + 5 lvl3

1 lvl5 = 1 lvl4 + 3 lvl3 + 5 lvl2

1 lvl4 = 1 lvl3 + 3 lvl2 + 5 lvl1

now to start from scratch and only start with decoders lvl1-3 you would need:

1 lvl5 = 4*lvl3 + 7*lvl2 + 5 lvl1

1 lvl6 = 12*lvl3 + 16*lvl2 + 20*lvl1

1 lvl7 = 29*lvl3 + 55*lvl2 + 60*lvl1

1 lvl8 = 85*lvl3 + 133*lvl2 + 145*lvl1

1 lvl9 = 232*lvl3 + 378*lvl2 + 425*lvl1

1 lvl10 = 632*lvl3 + 1052*lvl2 + 1160*lvl1

i think this is probably a superincreasing knapsack, correct me if im wrong.

you forgot you beta topic reference Anni!

70

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

I understand, you're innocent.

71

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

Campana wrote:
Dromsex wrote:

No, of course not LA. You used the insurance in an unintended way. There doesnt need to be a law against this ;D These ingame/eula rules are not there for legal reasons but to ease up the process - but of course they are not needed in a game...

They should have banned you all right away - hopefully this will still come.

Don't be silly. I read somewhere that field containers for mining were considered a "soft exploit" i.e. a game mechanic used in a way not originally intended by the devs (source). Does this mean people who use field containers should be banned?

No, but they could!

72

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

Nobody needs to explain anything - thats the funny part. If you do something that isnt intended by the DEVs, they can do whatever they want.

Apart from that - insurances have a clear real life copunterpart - so intended use is a no brainer.

73

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

Lupus Aurelius wrote:
Dromsex wrote:
Lupus Aurelius wrote:

There was not exploit or fraud.  Because there was no rule / requirement / procedure that it violated.  There was no hack, becuase someone did not use out of game mechanics to affect in game performance.  The only ones that are at fault here are the Devs, everything else was done according to the at the time published game rules and functionality.  Corrective Action at this point would be to declare it an exploit, create a mechanic to prevent it, and publish it in an easily referable source, such as an Exploit Forum or list, and state from this point forward, it is not allowed.  To retroactively punish people for something that was not a violation prior to that point is inherently wrong, logically, and ethically.

Thats simply not true. Something is an exploit as soon as it gets someone an unintended advantage. Declared or not. No need of hacks, bugs or declarations.

If u use the insurance to make money by intentionally blowing the insured item up - you dont use the insurance to insure yourself against pityful losses, but to actively gain money.

And by this you do something not intended. And by that you exploit. End of story.


Nope, wrong.  First question that no one has answered - what requirement does it violate?  Until you can answer that, there is no violation. Period.

EDIT:  You can not prosecute someone for an activity if it does not violate a law.  You cannot claim someone violated a rule or requirement, if no requirement or rule exists to cover that issue.  A general rule that could be applied to cover unanticipated situations still has to have some criteria to which it applies.  Until you can show such a rule / requirement, you cannot state that anyone violated anything.


No, of course not LA. You used the insurance in an unintended way. There doesnt need to be a law against this ;D These ingame/eula rules are not there for legal reasons but to ease up the process - but of course they are not needed in a game...

They should have banned you all right away - hopefully this will still come.

74

(268 replies, posted in General discussion)

Lupus Aurelius wrote:

There was not exploit or fraud.  Because there was no rule / requirement / procedure that it violated.  There was no hack, becuase someone did not use out of game mechanics to affect in game performance.  The only ones that are at fault here are the Devs, everything else was done according to the at the time published game rules and functionality.  Corrective Action at this point would be to declare it an exploit, create a mechanic to prevent it, and publish it in an easily referable source, such as an Exploit Forum or list, and state from this point forward, it is not allowed.  To retroactively punish people for something that was not a violation prior to that point is inherently wrong, logically, and ethically.

Thats simply not true. Something is an exploit as soon as it gets someone an unintended advantage. Declared or not. No need of hacks, bugs or declarations.

If u use the insurance to make money by intentionally blowing the insured item up - you dont use the insurance to insure yourself against accidental passive losses, but to actively gain money.

And by this you do something not intended. And by that you exploit. End of story.

Theyd have the ability to boost their speed for some seconds if they didnt use it to intercept - this might give some a chance to get out of fire range, depending on when u used it the last time.

Yes you still could scout - but hide and seek wouldnt be viable anymore. If u use it right before combat or within combat, your interference would be at max and have its effect on you and after its used up your of the same speed as other bots.

This allows for tactical scouting or even tackling - but not for rushing in and out and in and out.