51

(82 replies, posted in News and information)

A very good point about the higher cost of reset of industrial characters because of the knowledge bases. Another good point about the industrial characters' combat extensions to grind the relations that will no longer be calculated in production. These will be definitely discussed.

As for the blackmail, Hugh, not a very good point.

52

(82 replies, posted in News and information)

Rodger Wilcoe wrote:
DEV Calvin wrote:

At the moment (and this is subject to change) we do not plan on applying the new character features to old characters.

Just to clarify something then, if the patch is coming in this week my characters will be within the 30 day window (from creation), will I be able to utilise the new feature to tweak my extensions?

It would be nice to have a short grace period (~1 week?) for older chars. I dare say most wouldn't be able to utilise it anyway because the bulk of their extensions are probably past 5 anyway, or critical ones would be anyway.

Sounds fair, but I can't promise anything. You should still have the reset available if you are a week old. (You have it, right? >:| )

53

(82 replies, posted in News and information)

At the moment (and this is subject to change) we do not plan on applying the new character features to old characters. They serve the purpose of correcting the initial mistakes of players creating new characters. The current system is far more flexible with the available full resets, so old characters do not suffer a disadvantage from not having this applied.

Intrusions will probably be (and this - again - is subject to change) 3 or 4 cycles for a complete takeover.

54

(17 replies, posted in General discussion)

The wording is a bit cryptic for dramatic effect, but 'coming at you' means they will act the same way as they do now, meaning the spawn will restore itself to its original state. If you kill it completely, you will get another spawn of the same approximate difficulty and there will be a slight chance that you get something shiny.

Should we use less dramatic effect in our blog texts and be all lawyer-like specific, or will such belated explanations suffice?

55

(73 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

The EWARs would be on the killmails if there weren't very serious difficulties with the implementation. We are very aware of the problem, but there is no solution as of yet.

56

(13 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dude, it's just a few moar hours...

57

(13 replies, posted in General discussion)

This is a great place to post screenies:

http://massively.joystiq.com/category/one-shots/

I can tell you all, the new mission locations look moar spectacular, than anything in Perpetuum so far.

58

(5 replies, posted in General discussion)

Well, I am not sure I understand everything 100%, but here are some thoughts:

- I don't think the gift cards have anything to do with us, they should be able to be used at VISA or Paypal checkouts. If it should be done on our side, we do not have a system for it set up.
- The perpetuumnic website is a NIC for cash site, using it constitutes a serious EULA violation that can result in having your account banned.
- If you can't make your gift cards work on our site, try www.shatteredcrystal.com, they have a lot more payment solutions available.

Let us know how it goes!

As far as I'm concerned Zeniths are scary.

60

(14 replies, posted in Q & A)

There was a different classification back in the early days of development, it went:

- runner (light)
- crawler (assault)
- mech
- heavy mech
- walker (see here: http://www.perpetuum-online.com/Media:Concept_art)
- platform (semi-building)

We'll give it some thought.

Arga wrote:

Internal TP's now stop automatic modules. Previously, it was just external, but now I find the I have to restart my sheild when jumping internally too on Tellesis. I suspect it's part of the

"these pools are now reset each time you teleport "

No. The inner teleports did not have protection on arriving because the active modules cancelled them. S'a feature.

62

(1 replies, posted in Q & A)

Reopening closed topics is not allowed. If you have concerns about our reimbursement policies and conduct, please contact us through the support channels.

OK, this is now a heavily modified thread. Only comprehensive, detailed, well reasoned posts will be left to stay.

Crispy Bacon wrote:

Wait, so for the Seth and the Gropho you're changing its 3rd bonus, then nullifying that bonus by compensating for the new bonus?  Why not just remove the 3rd bonus then?

Well, we give a nice round bonus of 5%, so you get 40-50% bonus for an average awesome pilot. This would pretty much render the Gropho indestructible, so to balance it properly, we would have to add 2.334265324523452134% per level. To make it look better, we add the nice round 5% and change the accumulator to whatever, it will always be a nice looking number. We are by no means nullifying it.

That's pretty elementary, Watson.

There are some very good points listed in here and we agree that some changes would be useful. Our main concern is the accumulator instability of the Mesmer and the Seth with the native weapons mainly for PvE applications and the versatility of the shield Gropho at both short and long ranges. Please note here, that the ERP armor as an option was not discussed and is a very good option for these mechs. The inconsistency of the bonuses through the mech lines is also hurting the anal retentive parts of our personalities.

So here is a change proposition package, please discuss:

Seth:

  • Shield absorption -» 5% armor resist / lvl

  • Armor amount decrease to compensate the resist bonus

  • ~15% medium laser accumulator usage decrease

  • Base speed increase to 39.6

Gropho:

  • Shield absorption bonus -» 5% accumulator recharge, in line with other Pelistal

  • Accumulator capacity decrese to compensate for the recharge bonus

Mesmer:

  • Falloff bonus -» -5% magnetic weapon accu usage/lvl

  • Base speed increase to 44.8

Yagel, Arbalest, Kain:

  • Falloff bonus -» -5% magnetic weapon accu usage/lvl

All turret robots:

  • Increase of firing height to get better line of sight

66

(2 replies, posted in General discussion)

Dupe thread. I kept the one in Guides and Resources. Closed.

67

(1 replies, posted in General discussion)

Stirring complete. Closed.

Please keep it relevant. Topic cleaned up.

69

(133 replies, posted in Open discussion)

Moved to Open Discussion.

70

(23 replies, posted in General discussion)

Turkatron wrote:

However, allowing this sort of thing encourages macro-farming.  Many, many accounts were created for the sole purpose of macro-farming isk to pay for accounts, this also made it possible for macro-users to RMT and get their eve accounts for free.  Also, this concept is a form of pay-to-win whether you want to admit it or not.  People only accepted it because they got tricked into thinking it was good for the game and would put an end to or at least disrupt RMT.

Very good point. I haven't thought about it this way.

We are working on a new website and a lore revamp that integrates into the game. Also, holy necro batman!

72

(386 replies, posted in News and information)

Monster wrote:

Even though you submitted your pick after knowing what range (or the exact number?) it actual was.

You would think there would be a deadline, but hey I wouldn't have won either way so /high five

You only had to read the rules of the competition to know the deadline.

Anyways, thanks everyone for taking part and grats to our winner. Let's hope that monster of a bot will reign destruction on all that oppose it!

We are looking into the container mechanics as we completely agree, teamplay is a good thing, but should not be forced onto everyone. So far the ideas that came up:

- introducing tractor beams and reducing the container activation range to what it was
- being able to deploy longer term containers (lots of exploits and abuses involved though)

Please share your thoughts on these.

74

(1 replies, posted in General discussion)

And here is my two cents on the matter. Closed.

75

(386 replies, posted in News and information)

Bon Hedus wrote:

1002

I'm sorry, you did not win. Thank you for trying though!