(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Lets also hope that "Gamma" won't be the last new Island class to be developed. Putting in some restrictions on base sizes makes sense if we consider they can always release new Islands that will allow mega bases to be built when the population can support it.


(641 replies, posted in Testing server)

Yes to the idea that everything should go into hardened mode and shut down instead of directly destroyed.

Why? Global game with time zone coverage issues, which is why hardening was put in on terminals.

Also, it does make more sense from a game standpoint to NOT allow every facility to be built on a single terminal. As little as I like hauling, it creates opportunity for PVP and for potentially smaller scale PVP. This means that yes, you need to allow more than 1 terminal, 3K is a good distance because it will also promote highway building between terminals.

Let me add the caveat, that it's all going to depend on the 'reward' of using Gamma which Zoom is not talking about. And some change to mining where it actually becomes 'important' to save resources and not just produce on Beta (since you're going to have to haul EPI for sure).


(26 replies, posted in Balancing)

Likely this is just part of a larger plan, probably involving nerfing alpha ore spawns when gamma go active again.


(1,455 replies, posted in General discussion)


Zortarg Calltar wrote:


... and ZT bannable offense.

Just a reminder, Perp is a (3) legged game. Quantity, EP, Player Skill. A player or Corp can be competitive as long as they exceed their opponent at any (2) of those legs.

Part of what makes this game Fun is beating the learning curve to get the most elusive of legs, player skill.

Welcome to Perp o/

Edit: words


(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

BandwagonX9000 wrote:
Jita wrote:

This thread came about because insulting someone became a bannable offence. I personaly think that the term 'zortard' is kinda insulting but certainly not actionable where's the whole Spictron, Martha Jewert and Pedophile are probably a bridge too far.

Be careful, someone may report you for implying the Jew part in Jewert is offensive.

Reported for using offensive as a word.


(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Martha Stuart wrote:

Yes, there is a line.  Just because in certain countries it is legal to beat your wife, does that make it right or acceptable?  I know that example is taking things further than they are here, but the point still stands.

No it doesn't. Just because you CAN draw a black and white line in an example doesn't mean that line can than be applied to every instance.

Edit: Just want to clarify that I'm talking about account banning offenses not chat or forum bans.


(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Perp is played world wide. Just linguistically, words don't mean the same thing, let alone phrases or idioms that are perfectly acceptable in some regions. There are also colloquailisms that are wholly accepted within some contexts.

For example, if in America I tell you to 'get your fanny moving', that's perfectly acceptable and considered a polite way of telling you to move your ***. However it's very rude in England and could probably even be a bannable offense.

There is no "LINE", at best there's a very wide grey streak.


(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Martha Stuart wrote:


The problem with ZT is Perpetuum has some really really smart players and this game has a very strong meta component.

Meaning, some players will use the ZT EULA to retaliate against in game action.

Other players will simply troll with a ZT EULA.

AC shouldn't just blindly take action on every reported incident and they don't have to because it's not a game with millions of players.

Lastly, Perp doesn't have a hand-holding culture.

It's wholly appropriate to put in an OPTIONAL profanity filter, it can even be ON by default. It's OK to ban players from GC and other channels for inappropriate conduct.

Going too far is account/character bans with no oversight, which is what ZT means; regardless of the circumstance they follow the letter of the EULA.

Awesome Grem. Always a good listen, thanks for bringing this back.


(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Tux wrote:

@ Zoom, I don't understand why there is any tolerance for racial, sexual, or any other type of harassment allowed on the forums or in the game. There should be no question. .. the more this is allowed to go on the worse its going to get ... I think most everyone will agree when you see people in GC or vicinity yelling about N_____ this or F__ that or suck on a _____ you ____ .. its a turn off for a LOT of players.

When these reports come to you you do NOT need to warn offenders, its in the EULA. You need to exercise your authority and start banning the offenders. I have some issues with exactly this that have not been addressed yet but you will have several tickets from me shortly for these same kind of issues.

This is a game its for entertainment its not some where anyone should feel harassed, bullied or belittled.

It needs to stop or I'm sure your going to allow deviants to drive some of the smartest people away from this game, because eventually they will stop tolerating it. 

Are you calling for Zero tolerance?

Mayyybe smile

On topic, technically you don't need a geo scanner to mine, so I wouldn't put this as a must_have module that needs a dedicated slot. Would it make it easier to mine, no it would make it more efficient, both in setup and relock time, resulting in overall higher session yeilds.

tl;dr Geo scanner headslot will increase total mining session yeilds. To maintain yeild balances at current levels would require a nerf elsewhere unless a stealth buff is the intention of this feature.


(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

Syndic wrote:

It's time for you to log in. Quota's piling up etc.

It's almost worth it to see all of CIR's Riv MKII fleet deployed on one field... that would be an awesome screenshot.


(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

You bring up a good point, but the underlying issue is still there, are these returning players going to end up with the same gaming experience that led to them leaving in the first place if they don't join a larger corp?

This is thankfully a different issue then Monacle gate, where 90% of the new people all joined together to form an ineffectual giant low EP corp.

Is the overall impression that new players are getting distributed throughout the established corps? Are the alliances balancing out organically?

Wasn't there an idea floating around about another set of items having multiple uses. Like an all-in-one Geo/Tuner module?


(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

Celebro wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

so, how long will the PvP vet. corps voluntary stay in lower level equip to not scare away the noobs? How long until someone with Lemon's PvP skills starts to trample down all those fleets of assaults and lights with his 3-4 accounts multi(s)boxing?

Why do you think that the follow on with lock was removed?

Anyhow most corps have mixed group of vets and new players. If the numbers keep rising, we a going to be so few, that the 'Vet effect' would be almost irrelevant.

Are we actually getting new players mixing into vet corps?


This seems to be showing a trend of people hopping in and starting their own corps.

I know it's not popular, but my opinion is the game needs a handful of large powerblocks to create good PVP content, not hundreds of small ineffective corps trying to use politics to defend themselves.

Once those large blocks are established, than there is room for smaller corps.

I can rehash why this is a good idea, or everyone can just agree and I'll go back to lurking tongue

DEV Zoom wrote:
Kaldenines wrote:

Finally, what makes you think that a terraforming charge that was not used and is sitting in someone's inventory does not warrant reimbursement?  What other in game assets do you consider to have zero value? I want to make sure I don't store too many of those items.

Huh? I meant that unused terraforming charges don't need to be reimbursed because uh... you still have them? smile

His point was because Gamma is closed TF charges have no current value because they are unusable and implies that they should be removed from inventory and reimbursed for this reason.

No is still a valid response, you just need to be clear on what you're saying no to. big_smile


Kaldenines wrote:

  (This is like walls all over again)


Shadowmine wrote:

Ya gotta love Arga... Making well thought out and eloquent written posts on topics he has zero hands on experience with in the past 3 years. Has never seen an ewar tuning or a battle in perpetuum ever? Or at least in 3 years? But never the less, does a great job of derailing the actual topic at hand into a debate over minutia that has really nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Well done sir. I salute you. smile

My Alt is dedicated ewar, but technically your correct "Arga" hasn't seen the inside of a PVP bot.

Edit: Pushes train a little more off track.  yikes

Ozy wrote:
Arga wrote:
Oriamen wrote:

The "problem" with ECM is that it's good in large engagements but even better in small engagements.

The 'Problem' is when agressors only bring DPS and they run into a smart group of players that have a balanced squad with dedicated ECM bots.

I've been out of the game for a while, so correct me if i'm wrong here, but it wouldn't it be more correct to state that a DPS bias can indeed be disadvantageous, while an EWAR bias will most likely not be (unless the opponent is either using loads of ECCMs or the DPS in question are ranged gropho mk2s).  So, it's not necessarily about balanced groups but having a sufficient amount of ewar.

Too much Ewar can certainly be an issue.

Balanced groups have to bring suffcient DPS to overcome HPS (Sheilds/Rep) or it becomes a standoff at best but more likely due to the RNG nature of Ewar/ECM, a losing scenerio (unless they can call in DPS reinforcements).

How an encounter plays out depends as much on how the FCs recognize and react to the groups they meet, as well as the groups composition. Meeting a group that has ewar in it almost certainly means a drawn-out battle of attrition. Groups out to blitz are going to want to avoid ewar, this is especially true if they are aggressing into enemy territory.

Edit: What Sydic said. But also the ewar nerf topic is very old. General concensus is that tuners probably need a tweak downward. Vocal parties continue to call for no change or major nerfs.

Also, I had wanted to say that group composition is highly dependant on what you're trying to accomplish with it. So in that sense, if the goal of the FC is to harrass and slow opposition, than having a heavy bias to ewar would be the balance they wanted.

Lastly, ECCM isn't useless, but because it's a head slot the trade-off makes it undesirable... unless you know your coming up against heavy ECM/Suppression group where SOME dps is better than lower DPS.

Oriamen wrote:

The "problem" with ECM is that it's good in large engagements but even better in small engagements.

The 'Problem' is when agressors only bring DPS and they run into a smart group of players that have a balanced squad with dedicated ECM bots.


(12 replies, posted in General discussion)


Anything to see here yet?

Celebro wrote:

Arga, you have no excuse for not posting since payment model change, you should have bunch of lifetime accounts smile

I lurk ...  tongue


(235 replies, posted in Balancing)

Cassius wrote:

I am hard pressed to think of a real world example of an outpost in hostile territory that did not have wall.

And real life attackers have mortors, helicopoters, bombs, and missles.

Even in a classical castle siege, attackers had trebuche's, gate rams, and scaling ladders.

But the point is really, that you can't compare 'real' combat and fortifications with games, because games have a limited set of mechanics.

If Perp is going to have impassable barriers, then it needs other game mechanics to counter that. Yes, counter-TF can be used, but from a playablity view, its boring.

Attacks need to be more dynamic. CIR left the front door open on our first gamma, because we wanted people to attack. We used turrets and terraforming to create 'kill zones', not barriers. That was a fun attack scenrio, not 4 hours of cat and mouse trying to TF a ramp into an undefended base.