(10 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Hmmmm....maybe some kind of module. Wagoon module wchich is really heavy so will reduce robot speed significantly. Would increase cargo by for example 50U. While having this module fitted your robot being outside is shown with this wagoon behind the robot. Ofc there might be restrictions, that only Sequer might use them.


(11 replies, posted in General discussion)

10 guys having 3 accounts each x 3 chars, we got 450M NIC.

Now you gonna test market huh ? Who bets for replay of scam ?


(6 replies, posted in General discussion)

New bot classes. Logistics, tackling etc.


(23 replies, posted in General discussion)

Urban wrote:

One big thing I found about nexus is that unlike all other modules it is ridiculously skill dependant. While a drainer or weapon or repper or anything else definately benefits from having skills to go with it, they're still worthwhile and effective at minimum requirements.

True here. Especially when most combat chars chooses as small as can be attribute value for those skills.

Urban wrote:

Most of the nexus mods aren't even worth the equip given the limitations until at least 5 in the skill. My suggestion would be taking the R5 values as a "base" and staggering out the gains to ten. In the end, a R10 NEXUS would give the same bonus, being doubly as effective as a rank 1, but you'd be able to get a worthwhile effect out of the module at its minimum requirement.

Stop using standard nexuses and pick tier 4. 10+% bonus is pretty cool, especially when using 3 nexuses at time.

LatscherX wrote:

This is absolute nonsense. I don't even feel to explain why, but hey, i'm gracious today.

Such sentences usually mean "I think my opinion is right but I don't have arguments so won't talk with you".

LatscherX wrote:

Sandbox games mean, that nearly EVERYTHING is player made. Naturally there is only a very very small frame (lore, basic mechanics) which players can build on. Adding consequences by giving game mechanic more intrusion into player actions is taking away freedom and choice. Certainly your post is a paradoxon. Giving more freedom by restricting others and thus shaping the game towards a specific direction. Even the definition of 'bad actions' is a shaping of the game.

Wrong thinking. When you let players do what they want will kill the game finally. If not security status there would be too much grief and something like "security zones" would be just imagination. I can see lot of Sequers being killed on Alpha islands cause some guys are boring cause no PVP outside Alpha. So in my opinin you are doing it for your own intrest, not for being a sandbox style game.

Told you many times, that sandbox isn't free to do everything game cause it causes imbalance. And here we got not only bots, ewar and any other robot stuff to balance. Even play style need restrictions because there are such guys like you abusing everything you can. You think it's funny and it's your way to play the game and win it. And I tell you. Winning the game is worst thing that can happen to you. And it's happening now, you are trying to abuse more and more stuff, probably trying to kill guys in Alpha Islands, cause nobody want to play with you. Here we got bigger and bigger gap between you and other corps. While game release such situation would probably kill the game in few months. I join the game, I am new player, maybe on trial, to see if I want to play the game. First steps are always hard, especially when you never played such style game, then few guys trolling at you and laughing, cause everything they do is funny for them, kill me few times. So I spend next 2-3 months on getting more and more money to buy new stuff being destroyed not by NPC by those guys. Man, I am not that kind of player that retreat on the battlefield but I would say that this game just sucks and stop playing it.

So in my opinion, Alexander's idea is a basis in release. In EVE, if there would be no SS, many ships would die in Jita, cause you could do it almost with no cost (insured BSes) inifinite number of times, even without war, wchich is better cause guy will never know when he will die.

Personally I got rid of this game, seriously. Unluckly got no PVP, but saw that my skill lvl could make only scratch your almost year char. Your attitude on forums, all trolls, even that you offended me personally and my nationality on private convo really makes me to abandon this game. And you know what ? I bet you will kill this game pretty soon after release. You are torpedoing all ideas that prevent abusing, griefing etc. Yeah yeah, I know, I am cry baby, not so hardcore like you, and you win, nothing else. Bla bla bla...going back to play Red Orchestra and waiting for wipe...maybe there is some hope in wipe.

Siddy wrote:

Yes, make more options to help people not to think for them self.

While we are at it, can i have options where my guns switch to the best damage type ammo against the target?

And some smart computer that auto lock best target to shoot.

This idea sux, like Alexander said, this will reduce skill needed to fight-multitasking. Current system auto/manual is ok, more options will reduce the fun of the game.


(44 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Limit initiated protections in period of time. 3 inits per 2 min. Then it will also avoid docking games under outposts.

DEV Zoom wrote:

I don't see the contradiction here. PvP needs the support of PvE (meaning industry and resource gathering in this context), I think everyone agrees on that. Then how could we not make PvE fun?

It's not even all about being a part of PVP but what happen when new player joins the game ? First experience is PVE, no matter if he is PVPer or carebear. He might not even try to PVP cause PVE is crap.

Siddy wrote:
Widget wrote:
Siddy wrote:

EVE is not fail, excuse me.

And if you dont agree that EVE is PVP game, you dont understand the meaning of PVP.

It's more your imagination than facts man. So let's stick to the facts ok ?

Are you dumb on puropse or do you seriosly not understand what is "themepark PvE" and "sandbox PVP" ?

You clearly said "And if you dont agree that EVE is PVP game". You said whole game not sanbox PVP.

Siddy wrote:
Max Tesla wrote:

All pure pvp games fail, and the more people are forced into pvp the smaller the player base gets

EVE is not fail, excuse me.

And if you dont agree that EVE is PVP game, you dont understand the meaning of PVP.

It's more your imagination than facts man. So let's stick to the facts ok ?

Random Quarterly Economic Newsletters:


Let's take Q2-2010 for example. What we see there ? End of page 9 and page 10:

"Looking at the relative share of each security sector shows a familiar picture. Most of the players are in high security space, with roughly 55% of players in that area in the beginning of the period but dropping towards 53% in June of 2010. Low security space declines by 1 percentage point, from 9% to 8%, and the share for null security space remains stable at 32%. Wormhole space started with 6% of the total population (at the launch of the feature in Apocrypha) and dropped down to 4% in the first few months thereafter, but then started increasing again and currently stands at 7%. Prior to the introduction of wormhole space, the share of high security space was 55%, low security space 10% and null security space 34%. The w-space population therefore takes
a similar share from each of the three different security areas."

Look at graph below. It clearly says that most players live in empire. Ofc you can say that everybody has a Jita char that don't leave empire. Ok then. Next page, 11. Ship type used. As you can see here first ship that can be used to PVP is Hurricane wchich is on 10 place. Ofc you can say Drake is also PVP ship but many ppl use it to rat so i don't count it.

Page 14. Whole page. "Table 5: The total population of empire, null security and wormhole space at the end of Q1 2010 compared to the end of Q2 2010. Wormhole space has continued to see rapid growth throughout the last quarter."

Empire - Q1 - 88.11%, Q2 - 87.08%
0.0 - Q1 - 10.13%, Q2 - 10.71%

Table 6: The 10 highest-population systems as of the end of Q2 2010 compared to Q1 2010. These numbers exclude characters with either a capsule or rookie ship as their active ship.

Aren't there empire systems ?

Page 15.

"The top 10% of populated systems contained 78.92% of the population, representing a similar structure as in real life, where population tends to gravitate towards urban
areas (in the case of EVE, areas of high population density)."

So please stop saying that you know what sanbox is. You don't  have idea how EVE runs. You can't think globally, you are not interested in game but just shooting. If all you do is shooting you don't care about anything else and can't see big picture.

You know why I enjoy so much numbers in empire ? Low modules/ship prices, good economy. If Zealot cost 140M it will cost aproximate same for next few months, only patches might change its price. If you want such carebears leave Perpetuum it's equal to current situation when one really powerfull corporation with lot of money kills game economy because they can and it is really funny for them. I bet you would do the same in release. And this is the beginning of the Perpetuum end.

And please, stop saying what you wish and get used to facts, we need carebears to live, to keep this game running. Maybe some of them decide to join Beta island corporation to shoot others ? Dunno, don't care about it. But I care about economics wchich is base of the game.

DEV Zoom wrote:

It was not my intention to offend anyone. I was merely curious what is it that makes the majority of players just sit on their comfortable pile of robots and just go out shooting dumb NPCs. This is not what this game is mainly about and if this is your impression then we are indeed doing something very wrong.

I understand and agree with you about style of gameplay, I also share it. My ambitions are bigger than farming NPC 24h. But what I mention is that we need such kind of players. Even doing missions all their life or farming NPCs on Alpha Islands. It's because market will work better, demand and supply relation. You just see what happen if there are too few players in game, so more ppl in game will cure economy part of the game. Let them farm and forget about them. More than a half of EVE players never left empire, doing missions all the time, those players run the economy of EVE, health economy. Another aspect is money, you need them to envolve game, if you don't have enough money you don't have motivation to improve the game. Another example: You want create PVP game, but wheres industry branch ? There have to be guys that born moles and love to mine (sic!) so I don't have to create alt and mine for my own items. I prefer byuing stuff from market but if there are no miners/producer...enough miners/producers, market will die pretty fast and finish like now.

Anyway, after your answer I can see your priorities in game.

Maynard Benaui wrote:

With no offense intended either but when I read your lines, you sound like brainwashed by M2S crap :-(

Haven't told same thing before not to troll or offend. I have same feelings like Maynard.

DEV Zoom wrote:

I simply can't believe that a little group of big-mouthed hoodlums (no offense intended) can intimidate all the rest of the players in such a way. It either means that they are this good or that everyone else is doing something wrong.

Someone explain please.

AFAIR DEVs job is to avoid such situation in the game. Ok, this is sandbox, such situation may happen, but can you realise in release bots costing such money ? Ok, I can understand that in realease there might a problem for M2S to collect so much NIC to buy everything on market and sell at 2-3x prices, but what if they could ? Some noobs that join game and try to get something will stop playing cause they have to work 2-3 weeks to get an assault. Instead of getting new enemies to fight M2S you will loose players and game will never envolve.

Sorry, but I disagree with acusing us of whole situation, we don't create this game. Current situation is really hard to cope with. M2S got big advantage and game mechnics is favorising this. Instead of making diversified world with many corporations, advanced diplomacy and territorial control, you make a game that will end in 2 sides of barricade. Because it's not worth to be small/medium corporation. I think many stuff is unbalanced, there are too many boosts comming from skills so players that play more than half of year have too big advantage. Boost from skills + tier 4 items. You say, what they have that I don't ? Hmmm....tier 4 items and now you took my chance to get them. So if I have lower skills and can't have tier 4 items how can I beat them ? Use 10 robots on their 2 to win ? Maybe I am used to battles where similiar numbers but with one side well skilled and second one poor skilled doen't mean who will win. Here you have situation when 2 M2S Hmechs can kill 1 mech in few seconds. So where is strategy ? Get 5 more ppl to jamm/damp/demobilize/drain/neutralize them ?

What is my point. If you make this happen again you will loose players instead of getting new ones. And it's not the matter of M2S but all corporations. Number of players first month after realease won't be so much bigger to avoid current situation and it might happen again. What would you do then ? Still try to accuse us that it's our fold ? Man, it's your business, it's your job to make fun to all players, not only those that can think better than others. So if you are laughing at carebear tears now you can finish in situation when all you efforts to make this game go in vain. I want this game envolve. I have experience and many thoughts from EVE gameplay, I was discussing with many ppl how each patch of EVE changed the game. So my advice, think of yourself too. Are you going to make hardcore PVP based game that is cool for big mouth guys or you want a game enjoyable for everybody and make more players to come ?

I think changes you made are great, but the timing and game conditions are really poor. This is closed beta, instead of "testing" you just made beta islands western movies. What you just did is like running this car: http://furious.pl/robocze/auta/fiat_126p.jpg at wall with 60KPH speed with question in head "will it survive?". Instead of waiting for this car to become like this http://tsikot.yehey.com/gallery/data/500/hammer_1.jpg then run at wall again. Both cases you will test what you desired but consequences in both situations are drasticly different. I hope you won't do such mistakes in release cause this will really kill that game.

I also hope, you will at least read and try to understand my point of view. I'm here not against you, just trying to help.


(28 replies, posted in Corporation dialogues)

LatscherX wrote:

Hello Ladies and Gentleman,
Prior to the patch we witnessed a mass exodus of 99% of all corporations leaving beta islands and returning to their former homes on alpha territory.

Wow, this means lot of PVP for you guys, good job !

First try to see it there is any image on the screen. Look at monitor while being dark in the room, try to see if you see anything but really really dark. If yes it's inverter fail (makes screen bright by running monitor lamps), it's common problem with LCDs. New inverter is pretty cheap and easy to replace by electronics guy.

If you still can't see anything on the screen it's probably power source problem, most common problem are capacitors in power part of circuit. It's also simple and cheap to solve.

Both problems are 2 major problems with LCDs. I think the one with power and capacitors is most popular. Producers (even those good brands) try to use capacitors for temperature 90 Celsjus degrees instead of 105 degrees. Those lower ones simply dry really fast and stop working properly, sometimes even brand new piece of electronic can fail after few months. Same problems are in mainboards and power supply in computer.

So my advice, if you have good friend/relative that know some electronics tricks, talk to them, there are many tutorials about LCD monitors how to fix it. You might go to some electronic service but sometimes it just don't calculate (pieces cost a pennies but they can take lot of money for service) and is better to buy a new piece of hardware.


(73 replies, posted in General discussion)

About ads my first though was product placement. Too pity there would be too small amount of players watching those adverts but it might be some kind of money income.

Waiting to see COCA COLA logo on some mountain near terminal big_smile.


(73 replies, posted in General discussion)

I am against F2P idea. It's really bad system here. Many of you guys have good arguments why it's bad.

While F2P is in charge there are some guys that play for free, rest of guys have to pay for those guys. Most F2P players would be in fact weekend warriors that play up to 10h a month. Maybe it's not so big number but it makes developer have better servers etc. And those guys will never pay for the game. I think devs goal should be to get long term players that play for years. And what gives exhances like EP boost ? Those guys that play for years will stop paying after 2 years, some of them earlier, cause they have enough EP on their account. So this way I could make 1 race pretty good, it would take me about 9 months to do so, then I will stop paying. Is this the way we would like to see this game ? I don't. Other stuff, ok, long term players will pay for it anyway cause it's worth it.

I know this kind of game is hermetic, not many ppl would like to join in, play and pay for it. But in opinion F2P would kill that game. I prefer long term trial, at least month, when you can do something in that time, then you decide what to do next, pay or quit.

Summary: Bet on long term players, maniacs that wish to play this game, they will make you more money. In F2P+P2P, long term players will pay for F2P players, better servers (cause of F2P players existence), and F2P players won't do much difference to the game. This game is too complicated and multi-dimensional to do something like this.


(5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ulviirala wrote:

You were suggesting that it pre-calculates the required minerals for all cycles which by design is not possible, that's what I was trying to say. If it wasn't too obvious, I'm pointing out that you would probably have to make a suggestion for a change in the Quantity/Cycle system wholly.

It is possible but makes some mess in DB and coding.

Ulviirala wrote:

E.g. 5000 + 5% = 5250, +5% = 5516, and so on. I have been keeping track of this throughout a manufacturing process and mineral requirement went up by roughly 4.5% every time.

Ohh, thanks for the tip man, it really help me to do work later smile.

About my idea. Even if summary calculations won't work maybe add at least numbers from production start. So we can see at wchich values production start.


(5 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Ulviirala wrote:

It is designed like this and there are two extensions affecting it.

Yes, I know it. But it's not related to my topic.

Ulviirala wrote:

I'm not sure if this design is very good but at least you are able to extend your production with a guesstimate of required minerals, like adding 5% to the amount it required before.

Yes, but it's not the solution. Try to produce 5 and more cycles. Such number would consume more than 5% cause CT effic will drop significantly.

Ulviirala wrote:

That the data is disappearing from the factory is a bug and is going to be fixed, a quick logout to character selection and logging in again should bring all the monitoring data back, in case you meant that.

Nope, try to read my post again. I said there are no minerals not data.

Ulviirala wrote:

Otherwise it would be nice indeed if it kept showing the materials it required to start the job instead of hiding them.

And that's what I was suggesting.

There is one glitch about producing large amount of stuff. I mean when you try to produce more than one cycle of item. After completion CT efficiency reduces by some amount and next cycle is produced. It's ok, but how much ore does it take to produce 3 cycles then ?

I know there is some randomness about CT efficiency drop but not having a chance to check how many minerals are exacly needed is real problem when trying to make organised production in corporation.

My idea to fix it is summary mineral values needed for all cycles. I mean in factory, when you click line under production you see on the right side information about producion finish. Maybe there could be a list with all products needed for this production, for all cycles. Ofc it means that all those values need to be calculated at the start of production but I think this won't be a problem.

Another problem is disappearing information about products requirement while running the production. If not that we write down all information before production start we would never guess how many products was needed for production. Ofc while cycles are being produced this info could show numbers after production complete.

I am not a mass producer, but if such problems appear on my low scale producing, how big problem would it be to have larger production. Especially if you can't guess how many production parts you need.

It's not a bug.


(19 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

Mobile NIC generator, washes dirty NICes.


(36 replies, posted in Corporation dialogues)

Kri wrote:

They are beta-testing how market can be dominated. I really see nothing wrong with it, and I am curious of the results. It might produce interesting data for the DEVs too; how to avoid - if necessary - such things when Perpetuum goes live.

Hmmm, good argument.


(36 replies, posted in Corporation dialogues)

You are ruining this game guys. Beta supposed to be testing arena for all aspects of game.

Devs removed bots from market to see how it will happen and make some option for production.

Yeah yeah...I know it's really funny to destroy devs work...

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

you forgot to mention: after CEO transfer the new CEO doesn't get channel operator status automatically.

the initial CEO had the role.

Yep, that's what rly happened.

Wrote that post to avoid situations like Slinger said.

It looks like OPs for that channel works like on all channels and don't depend on corporation roles. Even CEO char can't change the topic.

Maybe it's not clearly bug but something important to correct.