philux
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by philux
-
-
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.
-
even in large battle it would be possible to maintain if the calculations are parallelized. I already did something similar in my physics sandbox, i multiplied performance by 100, literally (there were caveats, but they were due to hardware limitations (physics precision)).
A good opencl handler could handle about 10000 - 100000 physical moving shots on an average gpu (770m) easily. (has to have physics ordered in an octtree)
well, if it was only relying on me you coud plug a gpu on a potato and dual universe would work efficiently lol.
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.
-
I vote yes, not for G-force effects, but rather - Gravity in general.
(In that sense the G-force vs tech debate is moot - if there is real gravity in play, we as players need to design means around that.)
So G-forces - for craft in atmosphere - yep. For land and water vehicles, yep. For launching to space - yep. And so on.
And gravity = some cool sci-fi stuff like sling shots using planetary gravity wells.
2 cents.
Anon.
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.
-
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.
-
Dual is EVE 2.0 as far as its economics and politics in-game by the players go. It's no Point and Click adventure like EVE good sir.
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.
-
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.
-
So after watching several game play videos of No Man Sky, I was VERY disappointed and angry at the developers. They basically lied about half of the features and now I find out you can't build the ships as well........
So then I saw a video comparing similar games which led me here... and wow, YES this is what I wanted! Multiplayer, single universe, voxel based custom ships and exploration on a huge scale
Just make sure you don't go back on any of this content Dev's, I think NoManSky will fall off the hype train as soon as people realise everything is the same, just with a different skin and get bored real fast.
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.
-
Judging by the latest gameplay footage, you could tag Elements on a ship to destroy, with possible impact forces being dispersed on nearby voxels. It would make for great tactical counter-play if a ship was built with an obvious point to taunt the enemy into focusing there.
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.
-
If flying is too easy and too unrealistic, this integral part of a space game becomes dull, you don't develop a "connection" with your ship, etc. Please Novaquark, make this also a decent simulation and don't just focus on the building. Thank you.
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.
-
Thank you for all of your responses.. I'm sure this game will do very well but as for me the combat system is a deal breaker. I've played EVE online and in my personally opinion their battles are boring by today's world standards. In my personal opinion I rather have a limit on the number of players in one game with a fun combat style vs playing with 100s of players with a boring combat style. I know people love EVE so they will flock to this game but it just isn't for me. I will stay with Space Engineers buggy and laggy but fun combat style. lol I do see this game being a much better version of EVE and maybe taking all of their fan base but to sell this combat style to Star Citzen or Elite Dangerous fan boys isn't something I see happening. Combat styles matter and FPS is the standard in that world.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal
in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
Posted
I understand NQ's argument but disagree with it due to the reasons given in my previous post.