Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I understand NQ's argument but disagree with it due to the reasons given in my previous post.
  2. I fully agree with OP. A space-themed PvP game without space combat is just a contradiction in itself and hence it's an absolute nobrainer that CvC should be part of the core features from day one. Besides, it will raise a lot of eyebrows among potentially new players and will probably deter them from buying into the game.
  3. That's a good point. To add to that: target locking via manual aiming at enemies does not necessarily mitigate latency, esp. if the object aimed at is rather small (e.g. an infantry player). Thus, the problem of latency is often similar to using proper projectile physics. The main difference lies mostly in the computational costs, as pointed out by you, which are much cheaper for target locking in comparison.
  4. You're mixing up several things here: the g-force effecting a body is the acceleration of it in terms of multitudes of the earth's gravity. Despite its name, g-force must not necessarily be caused by gravitational fields but also exists without any gravity, i.e., in space with zero gravity when a force is applied to a body.
  5. I concur with OP. Hopefully, Novaquark can come up with a hybrid system that allows for actual projectile physics in less crowded instances for a more realistic experience. Relying only on tab locking reduces dog fighting and ground infantry combat to aiming and dice rolling, which is IMHO a contradiction to the otherwise modern approach of the game.
  6. Ruby should have at least have the 20 DAC like the Gold pack.
  7. In DU, you lock onto your target, i.e., pointing at it and then you roll the dice to see how much damage you do. When you lose your line-of-sight to the target and thus your lock, you cannot do damage. With that, a scenario where you fire some shots, duck back into cover and hope the enemy gets hit by some stray shots of yours will never happen. Because no projectile object is actually spawned when you fire a shot, and hence no positional data of projectiles nor their trajectory, nor their impact on collision with other objects is computed. Instead, it is aiming, locking and rolling the dice, as said before. Tell me one Space Sim which doesn't model projectiles ass first class objects, that was made in the last 15 years.
  8. That's an apples vs oranges comparison: DU is not a Space Sim like NMS! For instance, combat is not based on actual aiming with projectile and collision physics, but relies on target locking and dice rolling like in EVE or WOW. Another non-Space-Sim aspect are unlockable skill trees. Overall, DU is best considered EVE 2.0 with Voxel Space and thus is not comparable to Elite, Star Citizen or NMS.
  9. Don't get confused. DU is not a Space Sim like NMS, because combat is neither based on actual aiming nor projectile and collision physics, but tab targeting and dice roling like in EVE or WOW. That is, DU is best considered EVE 2.0 with Voxel Space.
  10. Highly unlikely. That is, Novaquark has reconfirmed today on their official Twitter account that all combat will be exclusively based on tab targeting. No aiming skills required whatsoever, just tab lock your target and mash the mouse buttons.
  11. In the video when the small spaceship flies from the planet surface to the space station, it looks like "flying on rails" without any physics involved, i.e., no notion of gravity, inertia, aerodynamics, gloc, etc.
  12. Indeed! The concept of "spell-casting and rolling the dice" by clicking on enemy ships has been done for over 10 years in EVE. Simply reusing those archaic mechanics takes away much of the novelty and appeal of the otherwise fantastic concept of DU.
  13. I understand the motivation behind it, but the lockon mechanics take much of the immersion away from actually experiencing the game as a first-person avatar. It would be IMHO better if Novaquark would compromise by scaling down the size of players in an instance to allow for manual aiming and real-time projectiles during combat.
  14. I hope in-game physics adhere at least to the basics of Newton's laws. Additionally, I hope flight will be main-thruster centric with only believably strong but not(!) overpowered maneuvering thrusters. Thirdly, I hope the effects of g-forces on the pilot (vertigo, red & black out, etc.) will be modeled correctly and thus dictated "smoother" flight patterns in combat; instead of erratic twitch shooting, circle-strafing, zigzaging, etc.
  • Create New...