Crepitus wrote:
Shadeless wrote:
Doek wrote:

I agree, but only beta sparks. Without decent remote market/assets management, removing alpha sparks is not the best idea.

The problem here still is that people would be able to reach anything without any effort. Asset management? Could Make that possible to do remotely, so you still can do your wanted asset management/selling/production etc.. but not hop in a bot whenever some1 pleases... make it bit more real again.. This let's scout find target, oow spark, ooow something changed, let's spark back pop in bot and pew pew..... that just sucks.

Disagreed.  PvP is the only aspect of the game that's not a grind or ENORMOUS time sink, it's also the best part of the game, coincidence?  The rest is Work.  Research change + Autopilot + Spark tele + TP beacons + for pay EP resets are the best things they've ever done to ease the pain.


I don't expect any of your alliance to agree. Not realy suprised either.

Doek wrote:
Shadeless wrote:

Good idea, and remove sparks then while ur at it, at least get some decent old combat back instead of this current jibberish.

I agree, but only beta sparks. Without decent remote market/assets management, removing alpha sparks is not the best idea.

The problem here still is that people would be able to reach anything without any effort. Asset management? Could Make that possible to do remotely, so you still can do your wanted asset management/selling/production etc.. but not hop in a bot whenever some1 pleases... make it bit more real again.. This let's scout find target, oow spark, ooow something changed, let's spark back pop in bot and pew pew..... that just sucks.

DEV Zoom wrote:

I didn't think this through yet, so this is just theorycrafting:

What if robots had a built-in mobile teleporter like Inda says, and you can only use it when your accumulator is at 100%, and it sucks it completely dry everytime you use it. (No other limits.)

The range of the teleport could be different for all robot classes. More for scouts and transports, less for heavy combat stuff for example.

Good idea, and remove sparks then while ur at it, at least get some decent old combat back instead of this current jibberish.

29

(12 replies, posted in General discussion)

Agree with most above, AP now is great, let the devs focus on other things first, unless it cost very few effort i rather see they focus on Gama.

30

(6 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Would it be possible to auto rename the robot according to the loaded preset, so in case of pre-fitting serveral robots you know exactly wich robot is what?

31

(45 replies, posted in Bugs)

If you did fix that, i think you made more people happy then you would realize smile.

Keeping my fingers crossed for this!

32

(45 replies, posted in Bugs)

The pathfinding was mentioned in update news on 2011-8-25. Seems to me this feature is documented. Maybe it has been removed in some other updates notes, but i have not been able to find it.

link for the update notes: http://www.perpetuum-online.com/Changelog:2011-08-25

33

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

I would like a block corp option ingame (so instant block for all player in that corp) and especialy on the forum. Would that be possible?

edit: instead of profinity filter.

Annihilator wrote:
Dazamin wrote:

So no more tps, not allowed to log off, would you prefer if bots weren't allowed to move once you decided to engage too?

IMHO the best solution would be that no bot is removed from beta terrain upon logout or disconnect.
logoffski fixed, eternally. If you dont have time to drive your robot home before you log off - dont go to beta.

everyone will be happy, hole fixed, and the game population will grow.

what about d/c's.

35

(22 replies, posted in General discussion)

The numbers will keep climbing, and as the game is free now, people that once played are more likely to keep accounts active (ep wise)  in case of any new content updates.

And when the increase of player stabelizes, trial can kick in (i hope devs don't wait for that and let it kick in alot sooner as soon they managed to get gamma live and maybe some needed server upgrades tongue) .

36

(5 replies, posted in General discussion)

it's very inconsistent.

About the area's, open spaces/terrain.. Not true. e.g 1 week it worked great, the next week same area it failed each time after 3-4 seconds. Even failing on short distances.

Autopilot is a great feature and i realy hope the devs will look into it to improve/fix it..


Something got me thinking, when i returned to the game it worked at start, but after playing a few weeks it got worse and worse.. Maybe.. some cache? server side or client side. I recently started using my laptop, worked fine at start, now it's as crap as my main PC.

37

(67 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Realy nice to see some1 is keeping an updated guide. Great work!

Daily Bump.

If there will be a steam launch, would you then also consider a clean new server? I dun say wipe the current 40 man server who each have unlimited resources they can play with each other, but perhaps you can make a poll for some time and see if any old players would return on a new server.

40

(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Steam won't do jack, if the newbie *** does not improve and many people won't start after seeing reactions like above and knowing they will be years behind jackasses like that.

41

(45 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Maybe the 20% is a bit steep, but i think the idea is very good.  First couple of months people are able to do serveral builds, first  months people can do serveral builds, without losing to much ip.

Would like to see first 2 months alot cheaper % loss though, so New Players can expiriment more.

42

(54 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Syndic wrote:
Mara Kaid wrote:
Syndic wrote:

A: Light bots cost ~200-300k off the market from infinite NPC sell orders for a reason. They're a newbie

Why are you loosing kains and mesmers to newbie bots then?

I propose this as a "Syndology 1"

Because you're a profound follower of the occam of zergology, and only engage when you got a 7:1 situation. That's fine... We'll simply up the game and move around in 20 man groups, so by all means bring 140 people to zerg our 20... if you can find enough willing to follow you.

Off-topic::

I never saw you attack or defend 1 time, without having 3x the numbers. So Syndic stfu about calling others zerg, YOU zerg just as much as anyone else. EVERYONE ZERGS so STFU about who is zerging what.

And Syndic... are u madzzz?

/Off-Topic::

And about weapon stablizers, Why bother to drive Lights, if you can do everything in your mechs. Small bots where there to do other lights, now that becomes obsulete.

So no to weapon stabilizer.

can you just stay the *** off ore for a couple of months or so? Or u gonna change it again when we increase with popupulation and mess again with it as soon we have a reducing population etc etc.

Why make a basic thing but very mandotary and needed part of the game more anoying as it alrdy is?

You wanna make corp mining operations obsolete? U think it's of any use for an op to move half the map spend there 30 min and then move again? Do you realy think it will help the game in any way? Do you realy not get it that the mass clearers of fields us the mats for corp and not for sale..

Leave beta places alone pls, they not flooding the market, it's BS adjusting mining there, u alrdy have an increased risk wich means u will need people watching/protecting, and scouting to ensure you can mine safely.

Beta should be selfsufficient, and have MORE materials (next to epitron) then Alpha.

And if you insist on changing the mining as it is now, persueing your goal to drive away even more players, change the way of scanning fields, they are focussed on large fields and not 10000's *** fields.

I also agree that with more players there will be more opertunities, but we would need more mine fields though then sad.

45

(5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

You probaly are right about what kind of rewards the pvp points should give. Titles or materials as reward, would do to. Or a temporary relation boost. Or use pvp points in a new relation system wich is a overal relation for the whole corp, wich u can use in a new building to produce/refine/repair etc.

pvp fraud, bigger bots get lesser points for smaller bots or make it none, to avoid frauding. If u wanna go blow up assaults in a light bot then be my guest, the death of the assault should never give that many pvp points that it justify the lose of it.

It should give small bonusses not provide a whole new income system.

46

(10 replies, posted in General discussion)

So what you all think about a rumor that a microsystem will be implemented. next to the current subscription system.

47

(9 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Kalsius Dakalsai wrote:

Nice idea but you provided all the arguments against the idea in your post. No matter what you do, there will be an optimum way to take the raid down and once it's figured out, it'd just farming again.

The problem with stuff like this is one it's beaten everyone whines that there isn't another new one to do and everyone is just grinding out on the ones that are there. This is a sandbox, we need more tools to make our own raids and content, not more static 'grind' to beat.

How about this?

Give me a structure that when I put ore in gives me a perfect refine + x% over say 6 hours. This would be in a dead end valley such that there is only one approach say 500m long. I have to capture it, similar to pve raid, once done I have to put the ore in and I can also supply other things, like turrets and missile launchers. The amount of these I put in determines a number of NPCs I can spawn. This is the balance. If I think I can hold the area for 6 hours with players, I make a large profit from the mechanic. If I think I need help, I can bring stuff with me to provide helpers.

Off the cuff idea but you get some pve raiding and then a PvP raid which has to be defended, have some global notification when one is being activated and then you can get your group together, and come raid me instead of mindless NPCs alone smile

Sounds good to me, but here again u will have the fact that it will be done by the alrdy based powers.

But something like this sounds pretty fun to me big_smile.

48

(9 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

For pve content it would be sweet to implement some kind of raid.  Something a new player can run into 1 day, get killed by and say to himself, damn i want to take that huge bot down.

To take a raid down, u need alot of planning and many players. U would need a system to prevent it being farmed by high EP and module equiped people. (wich will be the hardest part). And players have to fail the first times, even when they have enuf people (as in it should be realy hard, and u would haveto know the raid first befor being able to kill it.)

Raids would add some realy nice pve content, and mining toons could remote rep. Would need some kind of making mad module (aggro module, pve only) So a tank could be created, almost every indi toon can haul, so it would be perfect agro machines.

It would give some people reason who are not into pvp to join corpses or to coorporate with 1 to be able to raid.

As always people want targets, targets is why people play.  Targets dun always need to consist out of better modules/weapons bots.  So shinies that drop raids, could be funny stuff, or just existing materials(just a load of em, to say if all those raid participating people would have mined the same time the bot took to take down, they would not haved gained that ammount of materials, wich can be used by indi toons)

The hardest thing of raids is, how do you prevent the big corps farming em 24/7. a once a week able to take it down mechanism, wich counts for a whole alliance. Once an alliance engaged the raid, no others can get in that area. (no instance, but some shiny fence suddenly pops out protecting the enemy base).

Maybe from a certain spend ep ammount, people cannot participate in the raid anymore. Or other hard and dificult mechanisms like above.

But a raid could look like an enemy base (bots guarding a base, where u attack a bullding, destroy it, or something different, and then the big bad boss bot pops out.

49

(5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

To encourage pvp, it would be nice to have a system where people get points for pvp (kills). Based on damage done on a bot, players would get pvp points when the bot is destroyed by a player. With a small bonuss to the finisher. (total pvp points for 1 kill depending on class would always be the same ammount)

Blobs would get substantional lesser pvp points per player then a single roamingbot who get's all the pvp points itself. Haulers and other small bots would give lesser pvp points then e.g a heavy mech.

With pvp points u would be able to get rewards, a bit better gear then t4 (wich can only be activated on beta). Rewards could also be existing modules/robots.

If the ep difference between players is realy big, there would not be any pvp points given. (dunno if that can be implemented though).

asset management <3.

Other idea's would be nice to.

I would like to have custom paint jobs for the bots to.