Alexander wrote:

Don't train ANYTHING above 5 for the first month unless you know what you're doing or it's Nav 10.

That's probably good advice past the first month as well.

Disagree that mining and harvesting needs a hauler.  The field container with unlimited space and 10 minute timer is a blessing for miners.  In that other game you needed a dedicated hauler cause someone could steal your ore, in this game you need a sequer back at base with a t4 lwf.

Yes its more efficient with a hauler (you will be mining for 10 minutes longer per 80U).  And you might have to scan down some new fields within range.  But with teleporters next to all the bases there are a lot more areas in 5 minutes range than you think.

The phenomenon you're describing only matters now.  I'll explain.

Yes, everyone else is making points about you can be effective in this and that role without tons of EP.  And that's true.  But the idea that someone with tons of EP is better than you and you can never surpass them is not.

In the long term, the benefit of being a high EP character isn't being the best at something, it's filling multiple roles.  After two years, a player could conceivably be AWESOME combat AND production.  Whereas a new player would focus on combat, and become awesome at that, but not be able to touch production.

Right now, when the game is virtually brand new, no one has the kind of EP where they can do this yet, so most people are highly concentrated in one thing.  A new player can't compete because the new player has 2 weeks in combat and the old player has 3 months.  But in a year, both players will have 6 months in combat, because at some point you get very diminishing returns and you start to train other things.

Having a gun skill at level 10 vs. level 9 is a huge EP commitment, but its not going to turn the tide of a battle in a meaningful way.  So you have to hang on, realize you still got in at the beginning (Eve has been out for 8 years and is still going strong) even if it doesn't feel that way, and focus on being good at what you can be good at.

Also, if your corp is really saying things like "mechs @ 71+kph required," and you don't meet that requirement, find a new corp.  There are lots of corps and they are all different.  Most are a little more flexible than that.

tl;dr
You have to take a long view of the game.  You still got in early, and in the long run you only need a few months in any area to be 95% competitive in it.

Gremrod wrote:
Ral wrote:

Am I missing something or is it not possible to download an mp3?  I'll listen to this one because I'm curious but in general podcasts get listened to in the car, at the gym, etc.  Something to consider for next time.

Yes, I can put a link to the mp3 file so it can be downloaded also.

EDIT: The link is now on the blog.

Thanks.  I think that makes it a bit more accessible for most people.

If you decide to continue with it (and I hope you do!) getting on iTunes or one of the other Podcast directories will make it easy for us to automatically get new episodes, as well as spread the word about PO!

I think the corp bulletin tab flashing or having some symbol denoting a change would be a big step as well.

Jelan wrote:

Ral,

Dont let yourself get dragged in by Maynard, he's only created a trial account for trolling purposes on here and general chat wink

Well he brings up a good point, and I'm more interested in producing a good discussion than convincing people I'm right and they're wrong.  AC is an independent company, without a publisher, and I'm sure money is tight.  I suspect most of the development and initial bills were footed by private investors, so spending lots of cash on advertising may look difficult right now.

My argument is that all of the game's problems, including any financial ones that may exist, stem from low player counts, and an investment in advertising (even if it is leveraged), would pay itself off in new player subscriptions.

Am I missing something or is it not possible to download an mp3?  I'll listen to this one because I'm curious but in general podcasts get listened to in the car, at the gym, etc.  Something to consider for next time.

Kristan Delorian wrote:

For now game starts banner ads campaign. Much cheaper than TV but works well too.

Absolutely agree.  I see a banner ad for Eve literally everywhere I go online (I'm not saying they advertise that much, but that the ads are customized for me.)  Every time I see one I think about signing up again.

Maynard Benaui wrote:
Ral wrote:

The issues you quote (with the possible exception of new player experience), are all DUE to lack of players.  So you get into a chicken/egg situation somewhat, but the lack of content, industry/economy, all improve drastically when 10x the players join the game.

You won't get more content with 10x more players, the game will be lacking content the same as with current numbers and other issues will remain mostly unaffected.


This isn't really chicken - egg problem. If players are not staying with the game now, they won't be staying with more advertisement.




Imo, the game delivers results as you would expect for what it has to offer. You can either change the direction of game development and make the game more appealing and populate or you keep it and build your game slowly because in current form it won't attract many.

We just fundamentally disagree on the way the game accomplishes its goal (to entertain players).  In a game like WoW, and I don't mean that as an insult, you could say Aion, Rift, FFXIV, etc, the game entertains by having endless content for players to go through.  As the game ages they raise the level cap and add more content for players to enjoy.

In a game like Perpetuum or Eve, there is minimal content provided by the game, rather, players are encouraged to "make their own fun."  Player-created corporations fighting each other for valuable resources which will be player-gathered and player-created into bigger and better weapons to continue deploying against other players, is the main content in these games.  Yes, an equivalent of Eve Titans or even Capital ships would add to the content available, and I'm sure they will come.  But right now the game's problems are lack of market activity (too few people supplying and especially too few people demanding), lack of PvP activity (triple the number of players trying to access beta and this will step up significantly), etc.

PO is an extremely niche game; it is not for everyone.  It is not for most people.  I suspect that is why many people are leaving it; if you put a random MMO player in a world and say here's your bot, here's how to shoot it, go have fun, they will scratch their head and wonder where the first quest hub is supposed to be.  Even relatively successful sandbox games like Eve have negligible numbers compared to WoW or even its off-shoots mentioned above.

So basically what I'm saying is the content in PO is directly connected to the players.  More players, more content.  It's not the type of content you're used to, but for the audience PO is intended for, it's what is needed.

Maynard Benaui wrote:

I do not have any figures on subscriber numbers, retention rates, company finances and such but I am concerned if it would be wise to spend (already limited?) resources on advertisement when the game suffers fundamental issues(new player experience, overall lack of content, industry/economy, etc.), issues affecting retention rates and thus paying off of the investments into advertisement.

Ah, but that is the very essence of my point.  The issues you quote (with the possible exception of new player experience), are all DUE to lack of players.  So you get into a chicken/egg situation somewhat, but the lack of content, industry/economy, all improve drastically when 10x the players join the game.

I guess I should have added that I mean this less as a suggested course of action, as I'm sure everyone at AC is aware of this option.  I meant it moreso for people to keep in mind as they are complaining about everything.  The game will work really well as it is now once there are more players, and all of the changes we are clamoring for (myself included) probably aren't really needed once players start coming.

Right?!

My title sounds extreme but it really isn't.  I'm about to tell you the single biggest cause of all PO's problems, and then, how to solve it.

All the significant problems with this game stem from one cause: lack of player base.  With 300 people playing at a given time, there aren't enough players for a sandbox to work.  With more players, there will be more mining, more production, and a lot more bots sploding.  This is good for everyone.

How do we get there?  Start running ads on Syfy, Spike, and Comedy Central (during stuff like Tosh.0).  It can be the official game trailer or something new.  You can say it doesn't work, but it does.  In fact, I suspect most of the people that are leaving Perpetuum are going to a game that is doing just this

I can't tell you how many times I have seen an ad on TV, thought WOW THAT GAME LOOKS AWESOME, and immediately gone to its site to check it out.  I will usually stop fast forwarding through commercials on my DVR if I see a game ad.

If I go to the site and see a game has a free trial, I'm already downloading.  Sure, TV ads are expensive, but I think for Perpetuum this is the catalyst that will really get things moving.

I mean this less as a suggested course of action, since I'm sure everyone at AC is aware of the option.  I say it more to remind people that all of the changes we are clamoring for (myself included) are probably not necessary, as player count is really the only problem.

TL;DR
Advertise Perpetuum on TV, stop complaining

Edit:
Added last paragraph

Agree with OP, however I think viewed in the light of getting the basic game running smoothly, holding off on that polish is understandable, if not ideal.

Arronicus wrote:

As we seem to be in complete agreement on some parts, like hauler missions paying more than they should, or other missions underpaying, not much point discussing that, but I feel it prudent to bring up some of the areas where we dont see quite eye to eye.

Instead of quoting the entire post, im going to snip out just a few key little sections to reply to.


Ral wrote:

Hmm.

Point 1

  However, this game has CONSIDERABLE NIC sinks, that other games don't have as many of.  That has to be replaced somewhere, and we don't have NPC bounties.

Point 2

Mining missions should pay more, and should allow the possibility of mining the required minerals at a location of the player's choosing.

Point 3

Where I disagree with you is that we need more minerals in more locations.

Point 4

I believe the regeneration algorithms are very generous, but I have not measured it in any meaningful way.

Point 5

...missions should be removed altogether and a complex contract system should allow players to create missions for other players.


Point 1:

I can certainly agree on that front, when I started mining, I felt like I was constantly out of money, due almost exclusively to the sheer amount of Nic I was putting into mining charges. Consider though my proposed Npc buy order system. While encouraging industrialists to build bigger and different stuff (the easy stuff would always be getting sold right away), this would pump nic into the market at a nearly garaunteed rate, as long as it was worth the time/effort to be selling to these buy orders. Do you have an opinion on where this could take over the role and then some that hauler missions play?

Point 2:

This is one that I hope the devs have already been looking into. But then, I think alot of mining missions need a complete overhaul as is.

Point 3:

You disagree that we need more minerals in more locations, but you did not disagree with the point that some places have everything you need, and some places have nothing.  Ignoring for a moment the fact that they have reduced availability of minerals in the game and we HAVE seen the market growing smaller as a result, (Though yes, some of this is the result of alot of people who left the game, but we cant forget, alot of them left because of the reduction of availability and access to minerals) Do you not think it would be a good idea to push some of the existant minerals from surplus areas, to barren areas? Encourage trade, force people to leave their one little area, etc.

Point 4:

In regards to the mineral regeneration algoriths, with 1 miner, they are generous. with 2, the fields will run out in a few nights if mined for a few hours a day, on many beta mineral fields. With 4 (miners should be mining together in the first place, for safety) rivelers and decent skills (which really should be the point of comparison, as it only takes a few months to reach this point) most fields dry up in very short order, from a few hours, to a few nights on the massive ones, and regenerate at a rate nowhere near worth your time of keeping more than 1 bot behind. Ive seen some of the OLD alpha ones regenerate nicely, with a few arganos on them, but with a bunch of rivelers around, most stuff dries up fast. Compared to the fact that missions never 'run out', should you have to go find a new mining area every few nights? Now, I didn't create this post to try to get the devs to revise mineral regeneration, I just think, in terms of them wanting player population to be much higher than it is, if we got 10x the people in the game as there is now, the mineral fields are all going to be dry, constantly.

Point 5:

You will have to elaborate on this, as I dont think I have ever seen a game implement a player created mission system for actual rewards that worked. In a different thread though. I am curious.

-Hacksaw


(Post edited for clarity)

Point 1: The NPC buy order system is technically sound.  I just don't like it because its artificial, and everything attractive about this game to me is that it is a player-created sandbox.  Other than the "pilot light" items, like miner charges and ammo, everything should be player bought and sold.  And even those items, I'd like to see people undercutting the NPCs more.

Yes players manufacturing items to sell to NPCs is better than hauling missions, but I would support it in a temporary fashion only, to get the game moving.

Point 3: I do agree with you that there shouldn't be valuable minerals very close to stations.  There should be common minerals close to stations though.  My reasoning for this is that I think the game should be completely accessible for every play style with only one account.  Miners would need to be able to get to base and back within 10 minutes.  However, placing rarer minerals farther away encourage teamwork (or alts, but basically the same thing), because with a hauling character everyone can mine more valuable material.

The other point I argued was that there are enough minerals in the game, but we get into that in...

Point 4: "With one miner, they are generous."  I am one miner, so that is my frame of reference, though I see no problem with a group having to continue moving to find more and more ore.  However, it should never get to a point where there is "nothing" to mine.  I can't speak to whether we are at that point or not, as I am one 3 week old character with a Termis.

I personally favor a system where once fields are mined, they regenerate in a random new location, like artifacts, but not specific to the agent playing.  As it is now I have no use for Area charges since I have bookmarked where I can find everything, and that seems unrealistic, as well as de-emphasizing the scanning skills' importance.

I'm sure that as more players play the game, more minerals will be added proportionally, if not dynamically, then in occasional patches.

Point 5: I talked a little about it here (http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/post/22263/#p22263).  I just see hauling and mining missions better served by a contract system, and bounty contracts being huge for combat players, not to mention pvp in general (corps hiring mercenaries, etc).

Hmm.

As a full-time miner (with one account plus a hauler alt), I somewhat disagree.  I do believe that hauling missions are too good, and should be nerfed or removed.  However, this game has CONSIDERABLE NIC sinks, that other games don't have as many of.  Miners pay a significant amount in miner charges to NPC corps, that is NIC leaving the game.  Repairs, factory costs for all production, etc, lead to a LOT of NIC leaving the game.  That has to be replaced somewhere, and we don't have NPC bounties.  Yes there are kernel buy orders but kernels are needed by players so aren't a strict source of new NIC the way bounties or mission rewards are.  Missions are essentially the only large source of new NIC in the game.

Now, I agree that as risk and involvement increase, so should reward.  Hauling missions should pay the very least of all the types and should be mostly pointless unless you are already going to that station for another reason, and have some room left.

Combat missions, likewise, should pay 10x what they do now.  Mining missions should pay more, and should allow the possibility of mining the required minerals at a location of the player's choosing.

Where I disagree with you is that we need more minerals in more locations.  Again, as a full-time miner, I have no problem at all mining as much of anything I want any time.  Even the Imentium fields 3000m from main stations are ALWAYS there for me, even when other miners are using them at the same time.  I believe the regeneration algorithms are very generous, but I have not measured it in any meaningful way.

tl;dr
From the perspective of a full-time miner, I think mineral location/scarcity is fine as it is now, hauling missions should be significantly nerfed but not removed, other missions should be significantly buffed, and missions have a very necessary place in the game to prevent hyper-deflation of NIC.

OR

...missions should be removed altogether and a complex contract system should allow players to create missions for other players.  And something like NPC bounties are added to bring new NIC into the game.

DEV Zoom wrote:
Ral wrote:

Another thing I just thought of, naming our bots.  There are even two spots for a name in the Equip screen, one big and one small, so it seems like its already designed for one of those to become a customizable name.

Rightclick robot, rename smile

Doh, thanks.  See, this thread is educational!

One more thing, a mute button in the options.  Of course you can drag all the sliders down, but a mute button would be convenient.

Agree with paint jobs, but that might not fall under the category of "easily implemented."

Another thing I just thought of, naming our bots.  There are even two spots for a name in the Equip screen, one big and one small, so it seems like its already designed for one of those to become a customizable name.

How do you get total players online?

Natasya wrote:

-Ability to view market outside station

-> Is allready there ...

The other ideas are quite nice...

Oops.

So there's a lot of discussion here about what I consider "big" changes, that would require lots of dev time and potential balance issues (AoE, jumpjets).  I'd like to take this opportunity to bring up a few little changes that would add some polish to the game, that wouldn't take long to implement.  If this catches the attention of a Dev, maybe these could be implemented soon, just to add that last little bit of polish to some game features that are already in.

Some of these have been mentioned already, but for the sake of organization I'll list them again.

-An assets view, where you can see everything you own and where it is stored
-A "set destination" option on the map, which will highlight a map landmark on the radar, so you don't have to keep the map open while traveling
-Ability to view market outside station - Already implemented
-Ability to interact with market outside station (dependent on extensions, like that other game)
-Ability to change market orders without cancelling and re-listing (allowing remote changes to orders in other stations)
-A total EP count on Agent Info screen
-Total EP counts per categories (Robot Control, Weapon Usage, etc). Percentage of total EP?
-A "time to upgrade" next to the EP needed for an extension.  "3500 EP (2d10h20m)" Just to get an idea of how long you need to save without doing maths.
-A total number of players online. Even once chat bugs are fixed there is no "mandatory" channel so even General numbers won't be inclusive of everyone.

Asset and market stuff is just to make life easier and stimulate the economy a little.  If we could change prices on our orders more easily, prices would change more often and be more competitive, which might stimulate more buying and selling.

EP changes are just for sense of satisfaction, look at how much EP I have, I remember when I only had this much, etc.  Quickly figure out how much you have in a certain category to identify how specialized you are in that area.

Total number of players is critical, with such a small population, it will be a lot of fun to watch the number grow and reach new milestones.  This also gives an idea of the potential for PvP encounters at a given time, competition for resources, etc. How massively multiplayer the game is at the moment.

What other ideas do people have?  Remember we're talking about easily implemented changes that might get into an upcoming patch, so no new modules or balance changers.

XyberViri wrote:

Hello, im doing some water testing of PO for my guild and was wondering something and had a question to ask for a guild mate:

1) I haven't seen a clear answer on this anywhere but i was wondering, given enough time is a character able to spend all the EP you build up? is there a cap you eventually hit one day and either stop getting EP or just can't spend anymore?

I believe the intention is that new skills will be added faster than you can learn them, so no player can ever have everything.  This forces one to choose where they want to specialize, as well as letting new players catch up to old ones in certain areas.

I was honestly surprised that I got so much free stuff from the tutorials.  We are in universal agreement that the market needs to be stimulated, and now we have all new players gunning for light bots from the market.  How is this bad?

It's a free market.  If the light bots cost too much for new players, they won't buy them, and prices will come down.  Then they eventually will not be too expensive, and new players will buy them. 

Economy thrives.

CrepitusGoldenGoose wrote:
Ral wrote:

*SNIP*

I agree with all of your ideas except the removal of the NPC missions, relation is a tedious grind and is clearly intended to be. 

Player contracts would be amazing.  We're already doing something similar in our corp paying people 1 mil nic per hour to crap around between stations, and it would be even better if extended beyond just transport to player bounty hunter contracts and whatnot as well. 

Obviously it should be generic npc items that have the same weight as the real items or something so you don't have griefers accepting missions just to destroy enemy corp goods.

I'm ok with relation being a tedious grind and paying off if you stick through it.  What I'm not ok with is it being required to access any area of the game.  So I'm an industrial character exclusively focused on mining, but I'd really like to get into producing.  But I'm unwilling to do transport missions or "the grind," so I can't ever be competitive in that space.  I can't even refine my own ore, even if I put every single EP I get into it.

That's why I want relation to play a much smaller role.  To step up to harder missions, sure, but to be competitive in the marketplace, no.

I'd like to respond to one specific part of your post, about the grind and missions.

I've always felt a bit weird that this is a sandbox game where players make their own fun, yet there is a mission system.  I too would like a storyline, but I think a mission system makes it less of a sandbox and more of a WoW in the future (to a very small extent, granted.)

I would support the removal of missions as they are now.  From what I can tell, you do missions for two reasons: to make money, and to increase relation.  I think relation as a component of refining/manufacturing efficiency is stupid, it doesn't make sense, and its a HUGE deterrent to potential manufacturers (myself).  Let extensions be the only factor in efficiency of production, and it becomes more attractive to industry-leaning players who don't want to be forced to grind ANYTHING for hours in order to be competitive (myself).

As far as making money, I still believe there needs to be a way for PvE play to produce money without involving industry.  Combat-focused characters not yet ready to head into PvP, or who just dislike PvP.  Already you can sell drops and kernels, but this isn't enough.  So, either add bounties on all NPCs (ala Eve), or increase the infinite buy orders for kernels dramatically. 

But grinding isn't fun either.  So when I go find a group of NPCs and kill them for their bounty and drops, how about an escalating storyline, spawned by a drop from one of the bots, or a distress call from an NPC agent, or something to get me to go to the next group of bots which were created as a result of my interactions.  This can culminate in a big event with great rewards.  All without a formal mission system or relation increases.  We can still have relation to a small extent, maybe we get a tip from an NPC corp that there is an artifact in this area, or a field of Imentium there, etc.  Something to work for maybe but not REQUIRED for anything.

Finally, we need player contracts bad.  I think there would be plenty of demand for player-created transport missions; maybe not between the three main stations, but that doesn't make sense anyway.  Players can pay NIC to have their valuable bots and goods moved to Beta; they are paying someone to take a risk, so the money is being truly earned.  Mining contracts, where instead of just placing a buy order, I hire a player to deliver X amount of ore by a certain date.  This would motivate miners to get out and do something, knowing they are getting a guaranteed return because it is a game mechanic, and maybe there is a bonus if they do it by a certain time.  As it is now, I can look at the market, see there is a demand for something, go mine it, and all the orders are filled and the price has dropped substantially.  Contracts could connect players, build relationships, maybe set up a standing order between players where miners are naturally supporting manufacturers who are supporting combat players, without necessarily using the market.

To me, that would make the sandbox much more fun and much more of a sandbox.