(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Alexander wrote:

I like this idea but it doesn't really seem to fit in. They're a free for all. Alpha is not the place to plant them. Someone will find them.

Killing someone else plants is far too rewarding not to do it at least once a day.

That's why I think anyone who steals (or sabotages) them should have to flag. (Even if it's your own)

Just my 2 cents, of course.

Ah, yes, that would be a simpler mistake.

The in game help states:

The formula of how they affect each other: let's say your robot's signal detection value is 80 rF, your enemy's signal masking value is also 80 rF (this is a typical heavy mech versus heavy mech situation). The actual formula goes: 1000 / your enemy's masking value * your detection value (in this case its 1000 / 80 * 80) which is exactly 1000 meters. It means you can spot this robot in your landmarks window when it gets closer than 1000 meters.

1000 / 80 * 80 does not equal 1000, it equals 1000/6400 = .15625m

I assume it is supposed to be 1000 * (your detection value / your enemy's masking value).

That way, if they are equal, it actually will be 1000, and 80 detection vs. 100 masking would reduce that to 800.


(11 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

I really, really, really, really feel that harvesting from incubators on Alpha should only be possible when you are flagged. 

There are already plenty of ways for overly cautious people to make money..  This, I feel , would "liven" things up a bit, without forcing people to participate if they did not want to.

Alexander wrote:

You also can't put CTs or damage items in them. Would be better if they left containers as they are and added a contract, item for item trade or an escrow service. Player made transport assignments anyone? Player made kill assignments? Like a bounty system for players but at both player and CEO level. Links in well with a war system too.

Sounds like a more expandable service.

You can put damaged items in an FC, I do it all the time while kernel farming.

Edit: I do like those other ideas, though.

Just ran into someone in general chat who is having this problem, I had the same problem before I formed a corp.

You can not transfer bots between accounts using a field container.  Everyone seems to assume you can. It does not allow you to place a packaged bot inside an FC window.

I do not see any reason why this should be forbidden.  I can not think of anything this does except make it hard for new players to transfer bots between alts.


(114 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Zorac wrote:

Will anyone continue on Mark Zima's masterpiece? I would to see this continuing to be updated.

- Z

All the changes for the last major patch need to be integrated.  In addition, there is still a bug where nex mods that buff .05% per ext are shown as 0.0% per ext.

If I get some free time this week I will try to look at it.

Rasfrasen wrote:

Would it be possible to have a single target be the primary automatically or have the next target in the list become primary without having to double click it or hit r each time you eliminate your current primary.

It literally takes a fraction of second. Go into a low level spawn and practice it. While you are killing mark 1, "f" target your next 3, then tab 'r' to cycle through them. Very efficient.

It's also nice to get in the habit of only using tab, 'r', and 'f' because then it makes targeting from he landmark info tab more natural.

Also, I STRONGLY suggest remapping your untarget key from "u". I moved mine to "x", so I can actually hit it in battle. I think this would make a better default than "u", too.

OK, this is my work computer, which I have NOT been having problems with. (But I d not use it as much for perpetuum, so It may be a coincidence..)

It is using Verizon fiber service out of Seattle.

Tracing route to gameserverb.perpetuum-online.com []
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     3 ms     1 ms     1 ms
  2     3 ms     1 ms     3 ms  L100.STTLWA-VFTTP-17.verizon-gni.net [98.117.116
  3     3 ms     2 ms     2 ms  G14-0-7-217.STTLWA-LCR-02.ncnetwork.net [184.19.
  4    65 ms     1 ms     3 ms  so-6-0-0-0.SEA01-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [108.57
  5    31 ms     4 ms     4 ms  0.so-7-1-0.XT2.SEA7.ALTER.NET []
  6     5 ms    67 ms    20 ms  0.so-2-0-0.XT2.SEA1.ALTER.NET []
  7    67 ms     5 ms     5 ms  POS5-0.BR2.SEA1.ALTER.NET []
  8    68 ms     6 ms     6 ms  so6-1-0-2488M.ar4.SEA1.gblx.net []

  9   175 ms   177 ms   177 ms  te6-4-10G.ar2.FRA4.gblx.net []
10   177 ms   239 ms   175 ms  te6-4-10G.ar2.FRA4.gblx.net []
11   193 ms   219 ms   193 ms
12   225 ms   218 ms   192 ms
13   194 ms   219 ms   193 ms
14   193 ms   193 ms   220 ms
15   190 ms   190 ms   216 ms
16   190 ms   192 ms   191 ms  gameserverb.perpetuum-online.com [

It is transatlantic-ing on global crossing (gblx) into France.  I went ahead and took the liberty of conducting a 100 count ping session to their European bridgehead router and was 100%, 150-440ms, average 203.

I will try at home, which is where I have been having problems lately, and see if that is different.

To put it another way, there is nothing right now keeping an outpost owning beta corp from farming alpha instead of beta (or having alts to farm alpha, same difference)... But if they did that, what would be the point of being a beta corp?

Also, it might help if outpost rewards increased.

Dont do a weed wrote:

Why are industrial corps immune?

How do you handle npc corp alts that fund the corp you are at war with?

How do you shut down npc supply lines to a corp you are at war with?

Indy corps are immune because if anyone can declare an aggressive, unilateral war at any time, then it will not work.  PvP griefer corps would just declare war on every corp name they could find and troll alpha all day.  It would be the end of alpha islands, in short.

But keep in mind that's only on alpha.  Same with NPC corps that people start in.  If people want to eek out a living with alpha rewards and try to support a PvP alt with that there is nothing anyone can do except completely get rid of alpha islands.

That said, you shut down supply lines by not letting them carry stuff onto beta islands. Same as now. 

There are other ways it would change the dynamic, though... Do you think No Hope would allow pretty much anyone to join if the outpost holders were forced into wars, and therefore taking a majority of the risk?

If nothing else, protection prices would go up sharply, as PvP corps "at war" and actually protecting an island would have to start collecting more, as they would always be at risk, and would have to begin evicting those who did not pay their share.


(3 replies, posted in Q & A)

Thank you, I had not noticed that particular page.


1. A war declaration must be by mutual agreement, but so must a peace treaty, once a war is declared.

2. You must attempt to declare war to challenge for an outpost (intrusion). If you own an outpost and do not want a war declared against the challenger, you must abandon your outpost w/o a fight. (abdication)

2. War dec fighting on alphas does not engage the general pvp flag.

Is there any scenario that this would not cover?

PvP corps who hold outposts would be forced into declaring war against each other, but could not declare war arbitrarily against indy corps.

Fighting between corps with declared wars on alphas would not activate general PvP flag, so It would not allow for bottom feeders to take free shots at victors of close battles.

It's been getting worse and worse from Seattle last week or so. Are there any ideas for fixing this?

It's going to be a long term killer problem if some solutions are not though of.


(3 replies, posted in Q & A)

Does anyone know how the chance to jam is calculated? I have searched and found nothing except anecdotal observations, which tend to fall into 2 camps:

1. OFMG, ECCMs are SOO useless, it does not even matter if you have one quipped, because they will just go straight through it if they have any ewar strength ext's at ALL.

2. OFMG, ECMs are SOO useless, An ECCM raises sensor strength by 30-45%, there is no point in even equipping them against someone who will have even ONE equipped.

Now, from personally experience, I know both of these are wrong.  ECCM's help, but only somewhat.  When I have one equipped on my arbalest I can still get ECM'd quite often, but not nearly as much as if I do not have it equipped (in which case it's nearly auto success).

Does anyone actually know how the actual chance is determined?

The game guide page was not much use on this, at least knot he one I could find...

http://www.perpetuum-online.com/Help:En … lectronics