Stranger Danger wrote:

to prevent input from inactive players with extreme bitterness and borderline obsession.  Most of the forum toxicity is coming from inactive players posting regarding past politics that don't even matter at this point.

Cassius wrote:

The game is based on control, but not acting like ***.

Careful what you ask for Stranger, the only forum posting criteria you could pass is volume, not quality, or relevance, or useful, elite, or even fun. Just volume.

Posting in another of a long line of CIR/77 "look at me being an ***" thread.

And please, I will quote Cindy in lieu of the inevitable stock replies, "I have a lifetime account, I can play or post whenever I want"

Please don't close this thread, it concentrates all comments of a certain type in one location for me to read quickly while at work.

Are you a wizard, Stranger

This community needs incentives. Badly. In any form. Please give, Zoom.

BeastmodeGuNs wrote:
Weedy wrote:

Q: Why Jita and his corporation JOKE are so terrible at pvp?


A:

Jita wrote:

1100m laser zenith mk2

Gauss vaga that does about 20% less damage than a gank kain

Ictus with three launchers and two neuts and is cap stable @ 600m

Double medium aux assaults that tank better than the old castle mk2

I could go on.

You sir, know nothing about testing and experimenting, which surprises me, especially since peanut does quite experimentation and testing of game mechanics on live server himself.

In his own way, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 … ger_effect

DEV Zoom wrote:

On a scale of zero to stupid you are not allowed to post negative potato.

That's just the way you are, NEVER adding any REAL incentives to control beta, like the one suggested in this thread.

Q: Why Jita and his corporation JOKE are so terrible at pvp?


A:

Jita wrote:

1100m laser zenith mk2

Gauss vaga that does about 20% less damage than a gank kain

Ictus with three launchers and two neuts and is cap stable @ 600m

Double medium aux assaults that tank better than the old castle mk2

I could go on.

56

(20 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

░░░░░░░░░░░████
░░░░░░░░░░░█░░█
░░░░░░░░░░█░░░█
░░░░░░░░░█░░░░█
███████▄▄█░░░░░██████▄
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░ Zoom~ Add This░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░ Please! ░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█████░░░░░░░░░█

Why don't we have that yet?!

░░░░░░░░░░░████
░░░░░░░░░░░█░░█
░░░░░░░░░░█░░░█
░░░░░░░░░█░░░░█
███████▄▄█░░░░░██████▄
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░ Zoom~ Add This░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░ Please! ░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
▓▓▓▓▓▓█████░░░░░░░░░█

Let me just relog to my Dev Alf account, one moment.

Zortarg wrote:
Nooodlzs wrote:
Dazamin wrote:

I disagree, its just different now, of course your playstyle might have been affected, that doesn't by definition make it more unbalanced. You may notice that all EWar bots were essentially nerfed, I wonder why??? :iiam: The Ictus was hit hard because of its non standard bonus setup, if required an adjustment to the base level, as with mining can be used I would think, but its not gonna be what it was (I hope).

When a Rivler/Symbiont Mk1 can neut 354*4 V Ictus Mk2 443*3 with a better accumalator and recharge time, far better resists AND more armour, 10kph faster, also taking less EP, there is something seriously wrong with the nerf.

Use a Symbiont/Rivler Mk2 and it shows that all my EP into Ictus was wasted.

fuuu

you are comparing a heavy mech class with a mech class robot. not realy a good one. if you want to compare to industrial then you have to compare to termis/gargoyle.

using your logic i could complain that a kain does less dmg then a mesmer...

Mk2 ictus and Mk1 riveler are not very far apart in their cost of production. Besides, at this point it doesn't matter much what costs what; you rather count them as a unit you can field on the battlefield. And when one NON-specialist unit is FAR BETTER than the specialist one, it becomes clear that something is screwed in this equation.

Expected you to know such basics, Zortarg, tsk tsk.

Dazamin wrote:
Nooodlzs wrote:
Dazamin wrote:

No

Since nothing was well balanced in the first place, it doesn't really matter that its still not balanced.

It was far nearer being balanced than it is now, some bots have been indirectley boosted and others have been nerfed into the dust, as a green pilot with most of my 700k ep invested into Ictus I am extremely dissapointed.

I disagree, its just different now, of course your playstyle might have been affected, that doesn't by definition make it more unbalanced. You may notice that all EWar bots were essentially nerfed, I wonder why??? :iiam: The Ictus was hit hard because of its non standard bonus setup, if required an adjustment to the base level, as with mining can be used I would think, but its not gonna be what it was (I hope).

It doesn't require any justifications, simply because there is no justification for it. Devs are not able to see far enough. If you ran the numbers, you'd understand the issues much better. But I doubt you are willing to go that deep, and posting comments will neither solve nor justify current model of balance.

61

(9 replies, posted in General discussion)

I thought it's all about tears.

Devs need to create extra profitable spots and areas in non-safe zone, for which players would have a reason to compete over.

Zoom will go all Milton Friedman on yo ***.

Oh Gwyndor, you just wait for that ECONOMY REBALANCE that is slowly crawling towards the live server.

65

(21 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Gwyndor wrote:
Ville wrote:
Kayin Prime wrote:

I actually laughed out loud when I read this thread.

lol +1 so did I.

Yes

Maybe allow custom avatars if they pay and a nice fancy border?

So we can collectively laugh at those people?

66

(34 replies, posted in Balancing)

It would be cool if they added 30-50% more cargo space if you buy a booster. It doesn't really affect PvP, isn't pay-to-win, isn't helpful for combat bot farming much, but would give a huge utility help for industrials and actually make it a bit more worthwhile subbing.

No need to thank me, Zoom.

67

(21 replies, posted in Q & A)

Who wants a balloon

68

(4 replies, posted in General discussion)

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/ori … 59/e44.jpg

Now Read Proto as Potato

10 cpu+reactor too goot

Even though that those comments are like 95%+ of all comments about the patch? I'm just genuinely wondering, what is your reaction and expectations.

And why, if you wanted to decrease a gap, you didn't do it in some softer or more indirect way, rather than doing it the way it was done.

http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/posts/ … balancing/

Any comments, Zoom? Seems like a lot of people are quite disappointed.

72

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Wait-wait-wait.

Let me quote the smartasses please.

Burial wrote:

The rabble is awfully one-sided.

Burial wrote:

Your faux-sensitivity of the newbies is engaging, but I think it's high time for you to make up your mind on whether you want to follow Syndic trampling his stilettos after another caprice towards the game's doom or actually making this game work.

Gap needs to be lessened at any cost to the Ragged ***. Ragged *** will adapt, newbies won't.

Jita wrote:

So mad. Spewing thread after thread full of tears. Attacking anyone who disagrees. Considering your track record who could take your views seriously. Weren't you guys the ones claiming abusing mechanics is a good thing?

Nobody saw that coming, right?

73

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Like ever.

74

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Nobody totally saw that coming, amirite?

75

(8 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Do you even lift?