Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Ol Timer wrote:

My concern is that the game is slowly becoming one large mock-corporation rather than a PVP centered game. In my .


it already is and ur corp is also part of it as i said the community here has failed itself

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Balfizar wrote:
Ol Timer wrote:

My concern is that the game is slowly becoming one large mock-corporation rather than a PVP centered game. In my .


it already is and ur corp is also part of it as i said the community here has failed itself

You make some real good points here.

It would be pretty funny if one allowed alliance mechanics in, when really there is just one mega-alliance in game now.

This has got to be the most one-sided push for a rule I've seen novastrov do yet.

Just like friedrich said, and he's designed games, mechanics to promote bigger numbers or make it easier just encourage massive groups which aren't needed.

even the nova member here realizes how it's killing the game for them lol.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Khader Khan wrote:

Oh look its the CIR/Nova signing the head count thread. looks like we now know your true active strength. First its stop shooting so I can be the killer now its log on the forums and sign a thread to waste the dev's time on a mechanic that is A. Not needed at this time and B. irrelevant to all Alpha corps who BTW are the small corps your claiming this will help. Whats next Spin Doctors?

I would be willing to say this is a good idea in a year from now, if and when the server population is either increasing or holding steady. As it is right now this wouldn't bring anyone to the game. PVE is whats driving them out fix that then worry about other things.

Novablob would rather reign supreme on a game with no players than to have healthy competition on a thriving server.

Honestly working on *** like INSTEAD of what really matters (pve content) will be the death of perpetuum. I don't know who is in charge here, but they got gift wrapped a *** of subs courtesy of Eve and they're just pissing it all away.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

i dont care about the political stuff.

alliance feature would not change anything regarding "2 blob or not 2 blob" -> the feature is not in, but the blobs happened at any time or population size of the game. So how the hell could such a feature make it worse then now?

the new outpost system will kinda force "everyone who wants to own an outpost on a certain island has to join the islands biggest corp." If you think about corp assests, and all the stuff to manage about production and such -> if any group of a corp starts to not follow the grand leader anymore, they will end up with zero assets, corp wallet or such stuff. A single corrupt "financial officer" could ruin the gameplay for a reasonable fraction of the server population (remember the RG prototyper incident).

Alliance or conglomerate features will offer possibilities for a sub-corp to split off or revolt against the leadership without ruining the whole island population.

If the DEVs do not artificially limit the max corp membercount to somthing below 100 - Player will ALWAYS find a way to build a group that offers the greatest ammount of protection for the least ammount of effort.

Sandbox rule #1: do not risk what you cannot afford to lose wink
Sandbox rule #2: Carebears wont risk their equip, even if they can afford to lose it

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Annihilator wrote:

Sandbox rule #1: do not risk what you cannot afford to lose wink
Sandbox rule #2: Carebears wont risk their equip, even if they can afford to lose it

Carebears name thier robots and feel a personal loss when they blow up. When I lost "Sniffy" my artifact scanner termis, I was crippled with remorse for hours.


OHhhh Snifffyyyyyyy ..... *WAAAAAH* I misssssss you. I don't like Snuffles, your replacement even half as much, no bots as good as you finding those GO caches.   RIP Sniffy.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Nidhogg wrote:

/signed

dont understand the people who dont want Perpetuum to advance, you are against any sort of change?

Or perhaps its the corp ticker that gets you voting 'no' but that would just be immature and silly. Condemning an idea because your gaming opponent is in favor of it.

Its not that... the games PvP is already stale enough because of these powerblocks... if the game wants to keep PvPers, there needs to be more than a single faction to fight.... this napfest crap is getting very old.

This mechanic just encourages corps to do this when reality is the game is not big enough to support this... power blocks are seriously hurting this game.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

What I'd like to see, is Beta islands that can be controlled. Don't care if it's 1 corp or 100 corps.

As it is now, I'm like an arms dealer. I don't have any issues going into a war zone to sell my arms to one side or the other. Sure there's the danger of just being in a war zone, that's incumbent in the job description, but that's why its profitable.

However, no one goes onto an active battle field to sell arms. The beta islands currently are Free for all combat zones, total chaos - but not in the hectic good way, in the slow dull way.

Change, any change, can't come to soon.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

If you think that not having an alliance system is going to fix pvp think again. Corps will blob into mega corps or the naps will just be 2hr camp fests to protect friends naps and that'll decrease pvp even more.

34 (edited by Mara Kaid 2011-08-19 18:55:51)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Let me give it to you as a member of a smaller alliance that lives on hokkogaros, and enjoys the pvp there. These kind of suggestions are so that mega-alliances can form and make it pretty stale for the game. Reread what balf said, and others from ATG.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

There's simply not enough players to lock down all the islands. There will always be FFA betas, which I think is good, but there should also be beta islands that are controlled. This is the part where everyone gets a chance to play the game like they want. Having all Pirate zones or all Empire zones are both bad extremes.

It also, on further reflection, isn't that bad of alliance owned outposts, as long as there are significant disadvantages for an alliance owning multiple outposts; that is more frequent SAP's or Less energy credits. TheTo be clear, an alliance should be limited to 1 Island, at least with the world as small as it is now. That will limit the size of alliances, simply because there's no advantage to having 80% of the popluation in one alliance to control a single island. Also, because having 2 or 3 non-allied Corps trying to occupy the same island just won't work.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Honestly, all you people that are signing, are you tired of having such little diversity in targets? Because its just going to get worse as people get tired of this stale "Alliance vs Horde" bs. Are you tired of only having 62nd roam Nova every night? Very few people even out there roaming in groups. This whole us vs them crap is silly. We shouldn't be expanding the every growing list of blue corps...

People are going to keep leaving the game because of this stale PvP environment. When all your enemies are gone and many from your corps who get bored, what will you do?

This is the wrong direction and message for the game... Might as well go play EVE and join some super blob alliance.

Say no to napfests/blobbing, say no to alliances.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

What if they terraformed the Beta II Islands so that the 2 outposts were seperated by a single choke point, and there were no TPs between sides? This would facilitate 2 smaller corps that could actually be in conflict with each other on the same island.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Arga wrote:

What if they terraformed the Beta II Islands so that the 2 outposts were seperated by a single choke point, and there were no TPs between sides? This would facilitate 2 smaller corps that could actually be in conflict with each other on the same island.

Ive had similar suggestions in the past, I think something like this would be perfect.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Arga wrote:
Annihilator wrote:

Sandbox rule #1: do not risk what you cannot afford to lose wink
Sandbox rule #2: Carebears wont risk their equip, even if they can afford to lose it

Carebears name thier robots and feel a personal loss when they blow up. When I lost "Sniffy" my artifact scanner termis, I was crippled with remorse for hours.


OHhhh Snifffyyyyyyy ..... *WAAAAAH* I misssssss you. I don't like Snuffles, your replacement even half as much, no bots as good as you finding those GO caches.   RIP Sniffy.

I name all my bots DatAss. That way I can ride DatAss, put things in DatAss, and blow up DatAss.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

And there's no confusion then between the new DatAss and the old DatAss when you yell it's name in vent!

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

DatAss comes back for more is all I'ma say.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

The people posting here are not posting because they are part of some hive-mind only interested in harming or destroying the game, or because the bad man is holding a gun to their head forcing them to post.

The people are posting because they agree with the necessity for alliance features, as I believe everyone in Soviet Novastrov who fights shoulder-to-shoulder to protect and defend our island, agrees with me when I say that there is no feature in this world any Developer in any game can implement that would force our friendships forged in struggle and war to be broken.

So instead of trying to dehumanize us by pretending everyone who agrees with this is part of some collective hivemind bent on destroying the game we all love, argue the feature itself. We have shown, through 100+ accounts and individual people agreeing, that our part of the Perpetuum community wishes alliance features.

This is community feedback and a polite, civilized request for alliance features. Grow up already and talk like adults.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

syndic wrote:

There's other stuff we can camp when we want to camp,
through 100+ accounts and individual people agreeing
So instead of trying to dehumanize us by pretending everyone who agrees with this is part of some collective hivemind bent on destroying the game we all love

Don't forget to log in your Arkhe scouts in bobsquad and have them vote too...

And you do a good job of camping your whole island for most of the day as is I don't think 2-4 hours is gonna hurt the big bad SOVNOVABLOB

Didn't you say before you don't care about the game you'd rather play APB?

Participate, Congratulate cause everything else will be seen as HATE.
Max yellow max all skills lvl 10 min max for the win

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

I'm not against some kind of alliance mechanism in game. Alliances have been in the game since the beginning, so having an in-game mechanic for it probably won't make much difference, aside from making it all easier to track.

I think the voting thing is fine so long as it's not required when setting an alliance up, but you could have the option to turn it on or off. Most of this stuff can be done on TS anyway, and I rather like the emergent nature of it, and the way current alliance structures are not dictated by in game alliance features.

What I would rather see first are things like contracts, escrow, shares, dividends, player stores, in-game advertisments, service offerings and so on before an alliance feature. Things that would encourage player interaction outside of corps or alliances, to counter the effect of the interal corp markets have had on the economy, as well as the economic lure that being part of an alliance has for a small corp.

However, I am against having allies able to take SAPs on behalf of another corp in their alliance. This will PROMOTE corps merging into large entities, and thus promote blob warfare. This is the opposite of everything the devs have shown they want for the game, and will not in any way help small corps. All it will do is encourage small corps to sell themselves as pets to large alliances.

(Off topic - the best thing the devs could do to discourage large alliances from forming would be to split the game world up into smaller islands with one outpost per island. I would like to see this done for new beta islands.)

"...playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles."
Bernard Suits, 1978

45 (edited by Gremrod 2011-08-21 06:42:40)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

I can agree with points from both sides of the fence on this topic.

I do feel they need to work on more tools at the corp level rather than an alliance feature.

That way the current corp tools newly added tools can be extended and reused in an alliance feature.

Best to test them at corp level and make sure they work correctly before extending them to a wider bucket like an alliance.

If the alliance feature is put into game, there are a few things I feel that need to be done.


  • New extension need to be added around the ability to form an alliance.

  • There needs to be an alliance creation fee. (the other game it is 2bil)

  • Alliances should have a montly maintanence fee based on the number of people in the alliance.

  • Outposts need to have a maintanence  fee and those fees need to scale with the number of outposts an alliance owns beyond the first outpost. Based on the dev blog post below.

http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/posts/ … er-part-1/

Changes in outpost ownership

The recent political events have been very eye-opening for us and brought up the necessity of a system which would be able to prevent one corporation to gain total dominance in the ownership of outposts. (While we know now that there have been other factors in play, the possibility still remains.)

To this end we’ll introduce outpost maintenance fees. The first outpost will be free for every corporation, with no upkeep necessary, but every additionally owned outpost will have exponentially higher maintenance fees. Corporation leaders will be able to set a priority list for their owned outposts, which will control which outpost ownership will be lost first, in case the corporation is not able to pay the upkeep for all of them. This system will hopefully make corporations appreciate more what they own, and prevent them from expanding lightheadedly.

Furthermore, corporations in possession of outposts will be able to designate one of them as headquarters. A HQ-outpost will have multiple advantages, bringing more incentives to both own and to keep them: for one, corporations will be able to control access of others to the outpost, based on their relation settings towards them. And it will be also possible to purchase various upgrades for it, which brings us to...

http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/posts/ … er-part-1/


The other stuff I can think of really fall more under actuall alliance mechanics. But once again I think the features need to be added at the corp level first and polished before they are set for use at a wider range of control like an alliance.

Also listen to Incoming Tranmission podcast #7.

This was one of topics the "corp leadership panel" did discuss on the show.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

46 (edited by WilliamH Bonney 2011-08-22 18:17:36)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

The new mechanics mean that you need 24/7 online "support" within corporation to defend your outposts.

How many Corps have players in strong numbers (20-30) in every prime time zone?

Answer, none.  However, there is ONE alliance that does have decent numbers in all time zones, well, enough to "defend" as you all are saying.  And yes, I am in that Alliance.

So, who comes to compete?  No one.  Sure folks try in the EU "off time" because there are fewer higher skilled folks during that time, however, if someone actually tried to attack an Outpost, there would be plenty online to stop them.

This idea is truthfully to promote more "small corps" to group up and take/defend one of these Outposts.  The "big alliance" or SovNov or whatever, doesn't really need it, we do it fine in it's current state.  Though, with the incursion patch will make things more troublesome, sure.

And I keep hearing "this game isn't ready" as even I said up top, well, question, how long do you think it takes to code, test, and implement new features?

As a fellow programmer of games, will tell ya's it's a 3-8 month deal (depending mostly on how much artwork, and some on debugging, has to be done).

So, throwing these "ideas" on the forums like this, really is "for the future" of the game, not for the now...

47 (edited by Mara Kaid 2011-08-22 03:17:35)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Dude there's so many basic corp features that need to be implemented before alliance features are in.

Here's a basic one that everyone would appreciate:

Have it so that your producers can use a corp fed mineral hangar when using production ie the mats are actually taken from there instead of from your own personal hangar..

You know how much that would shorten production?

Have it so your recycler/refiner can recycle/refine from/to a single corp hangar.

Terraforming as well.

Also, i fully support what the devs did, and I don't support saps take able by alliances, it would counter the design. Numerous people have posted thoughts and ideas on this.

If you need a game mechanic to show your identity, something is wrong.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

This proposal isn't asking for fully fleshed out alliance features i.e. alliance production, alliance storage, etc etc.

This proposal is asking for BASIC ability to form an alliance, and claim outpost as alliance. Possibly having an alliance-chat channel which would be very sweet as people have been asking for that since forever.

Essentially a "corporation" that instead of inviting players can invite corporations.

Once we have the basics, its easier to upgrade and add to every system; because when features are added on a corp-level the Devs won't have to waste time coding alliance feature & all those corp-systems on top of that. The alliance system will have already been in the game for a while, bug-tested and hotfixed.

What is not fair about the current system is that in order to have equality, an alliance would have to achieve 1 corp = 1 outpost. This is a) unpractical and b) very, very bad for the game. It is ludicrous that we can lock corporations out of our stations based on relations, but at the same time the game treats our "friends/allies" based on relations, as invaders if they try to take a SAP.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

I am all for conglomerate/alliance features as long as all corps are amongst  equals each capable of defending their own outpost, intrusion 2.0 comes much closer to that than what we have now, some little tweaking might be needed depending of server size, until we don't test it we won't truly know.

Imo we don't need any more 'blob assistance features' in this game but rather like mara says, there is still some corporation features needed which are of higher priority.

RIP PERPETUUM

50 (edited by Syndic 2011-08-22 04:00:39)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Blob-features isn't something that should be taken seriously as it only means "I lost X so they had more Y so i dont want them to have C".

I'm pretty sure the Devs would love to have 3-4 alliances of 1-2 thousand subscribers actively contesting, creating content and promoting the game.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice