Jump to content

joaocordeiro

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    1637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joaocordeiro

  1. During beta, yes. If the territory was to be release, players and devs would get a false sense of availability of territory resulted from player exodus.
  2. Nope, subscription based games are not impulsive buys. Anyone that likes space games and is willing to pay a subscription is already aware of DU's existance. The reason this game does not have more players its because of the state of the game and bad reviews. Adding this game to steam(at this stage) will create: Development overhead. Less income from each subscription. An obligation to have a return policy. Several new contractual obligations. A new place for bad reviews to be displayed. A negative feedback score. How will any of this help?
  3. So you decided to focus on that part instead of using this opportunity to talk about the game economy issue. Good for you for dodging this in the exact same way your m8s did 1 year ago. Creating this entire situation. Hope you enjoy grinding bunnies in your old mmo after DU closes up.
  4. I think there is allot of frustration in general on the community, generated by ppl's expectations colliding with the reality. That is vented out by showing hate.
  5. If only someone had warned you all that removing the bot orders was the same as removing the only market regulation that this game had. You all wanted this. You all wanted the market to freely move with the supply and demand. Even though i gave you several examples of how that would not work. Now swallow it quietly and start your statement with "im sorry for pushing for bot orders to be removed" Ores need to be redistributed with 100 times less quantity. Ores need to respawn. Bot orders should exist to control extremely excessive demand or supply speculation in all products. If no one wants to mine. Because its the most painfull gaming experience ever made in the history of video-games. Or because of some other reason. Then ppl would buy ore from NPCs. What is wrong with this????
  6. Well, that's the thing. Programmers know that 99% of the code working is a failed code. Because to the user, those 99 successful actions are ignored. But the 1 action that is not working is a bug getting all the attention. I find some of the technology they implemented in ground breaking. I have played Antronear do you even notice the planet while going from one planet to another? In DU you can just set the ship to orbit the planet very low orbit and enjoy the planet passing by. Its amazing that you can do that with so much detail and custom data. Does it bug, yes. Could it be improved, yes. But its amazing.
  7. And look, I dont mean a generic "management failed" Here are some specifics: No user metrics whatsoever. Stuff like "what types of actions makes players hit alt + f4" Or "what type of actions players quit the game after", "what type of players bring friends to play", "what are the actions players most do when joining the server" No alternative thinking allowed. Who ever went against JC was aiming for the door. No decent feedback tool, questioner, nothing. No user behavior expert.
  8. Well while i agree with most content, I dont agree with it being obvious.. JC was surrounded by white knights that would defend his vision to the last key press. Several questioning sessions happened with ppl not asking those "obvious" faults. We dont know how much experience NQ devs actually have in gaming we know JC fired some gaming personnel. And the ground breaking technology is there. The way voxel world moves around you gaining detail in approach is a ground breaking tech. The way the servers feed data to us is a ground breaking tech. To me this game failed in the manager. Not questioning and adapting the vision of the visionar.
  9. I agree with the op. The engine does not support any means of organizing cities. Even creates somes barriers making harder for constructs to be places near each other. But i think another question should be asked. Why to have cities in the 1st place? Just to look great? Like a mock-up city that no one actually uses? Why would a player want to live in a city? Cons: Lag Exhaustion or nearby resources No secrets Constraints on further building Why do ppl live in cities in RL? Jobs - in DU you can easly commute 10km, no need to live in the city. Protection - no one will build a city in a pvp zone. High supply - again transportation in DU is almost free. So why build a city?
  10. Being "right" it should be in rdms.
  11. When i agree with the TOS I am not agreeing alone. NQ is agreeing with me. See definition of the word "agree". It implies 2 sides.
  12. I think its not about "friendship". I think its more about the impact on an already depleted community. I think their they see this groups/persons that play an important role in bringing new players and keeping the game with players and they are afraid that taking action against them will make a huge chunk of the remaining playerbase to quit the game. It is a delicate situation, but worse than taking the risk is this "bi-polar" communication, where in one announcement they say "we will take action" and in the next they say "we wont take action"...
  13. I agree with the op 100% allowing an exploit to be used is bad for everyone. Its bad because it gives an unfair advantage to those not using the exploit. Its bad because it creates an incentive for non exploiters to become exploiters. Its bad because it sets a precedent that exploits can be used as long as NQ says nothing. And if an exploit is used by a large ammount of people, it can even become protected against NQ action. @EpicPhail how about you debate points, instead of trying to dodge with "near insults"? It was not a rage topic. It was a quite logical one. And its about using an exploit. Not if its used in PVP or not.
  14. I mean, how would it happen? What community? Who would be the player(s) that would organize that? Who is the leader of an important org or alliance that would say: "you know what? We wont take this opportunity to hunt you or at least increase our advantage over you"?
  15. Does this pvp and or this "player based civilization" promote a "community"?
  16. But what makes pvp great? Is it great for everyone? Lets say there is this guy, he is not as smart as you, his tactics are not has good as yours and because of his consecutive losses, his current ship. Is also much less capable than yours. He will keep loosing. Is this PVP great for this guy? In my view a great pvp is when players have a large number of tactics and strategies that can change the balance of the battle and where a loss is not a month worth setback. Most PVPers defend that there should be only 4 metrics to win the battle: Numbers Size Talents Meta But none of those has anything to do with tactics or strategy. All of those will determine the outcome of the battle before it even starts. Like a browser game, the player is just there to enjoy the ride while the battle unfolds. Then PVPers defend that the pain of loosing a ship should be an insentive to play better next time. What joke. Most ppl dont play games to experience large amounts of frustration and pain. And this game needs those players to be viable.
  17. Lets look at empyrion, there is still de-sync and combat issues, yet there have been NPCs for years. And ppl still have fun with the game, even being quite buggy. Because there more joy than pain.
  18. Does it? Cant NQ implement NPCs while fixing PVP issues?
  19. Once upon a time, back in alpha times, i tried to explain how this game was moving towards a model where 1 guy/group would rule over everyone. I explained how this was unsustainable. I explained how at the end, the dream of building a civilization would be reduced to 1 or 2 groups killing everyone not in agreement with them and heavly exploiting the rest. At that time, i was called a pvp hater and a carebear. Fortunately the pvp safezone was never removed, like those "pvpers" wanted. Can you imagine how would the user experiance be if anywhere outside the sanctuary moon was like this? The thing with pure, unrestricted pvp is that only 1 guy wins for 1000 that loses. This is unsustainable. The solution? PVE NPCs, ship wrecks, avandoned bases, "kill this NPC" missions. And i know someone will say that the problem is because if some part of pvp being badly implemented. But thats not the real problem. If we have an unstable system, any movement will make it go wrong. If we have a stable system, it will have the resistance to sustain any movement. DU's model of only player combat, only pvp is unstable and cannot provide a resilient sustainable joy and entertainment to its playerbase. DU managers have to understand that they cant have 95% of the players suffering heavy losses and sadness while they focus on how good the game is if you are those 5% that are wining. And its not about what can those 95% can do to improve their situation. Because if 5% of those 95% become the new alpha hunters, the other 90 will still continue to suffer. Please NQ. Talk to a expert in gaming user experiance and ask him/her if you have a sustainable game. Please.
  20. In a way, that's what they are doing. They said the exploit is fixed with next patch and ppl using stacked items should remove the stacked items or else. The only thing between this and what you hoped is to remove the "or else". But how "firmly" would they be asking without the "or else"? Should they say "please" 3 times? Should day say that a kitten is sad? There is a topic, long before this one, saying that using exploits is a bannable offense. This is clearly an exploit...... I think doing it this way is actually going too soft on players. If I was NQ I would roll some exploiter heads with some permanent bans.
  21. It's quite obvious that they just implement a double check with the same check mechanic that was already implemented. They did not change the way elements appear in red(colliding) they just fixed the exploit that allowed ppl to stack items. If you placed your items without any exploit, moving those left and right, with the arrows and seeing if it was blue or red, then nothing will happen to your ship or to you. This entire conversation about hit boxes of an AGG was never mentioned by NQ on their statement. They not consider now an AGG like a big box instead of a cylinder. The "item is colliding" algorithm was not changed. What changed was the fixing of the exploit that allowed players to completely ignore collisions.
  22. What we need is 3 or 4 bans to ppl that staked 20 stabilizers in the same spot.
  23. Dude 1 You don't get to tell me where i should or should not talk. Feel free to not reply to me without the "drama queen last word" 2 i dont have to explain to you my experience in designing ships. Neither it has any importance in following rules. Stop making excuses and dont exploit. If you find yourself breaking the rule, explain what happen to NQ. If you are really innocent, there will be no problem.
  24. That's 100% BS. Do you understand? BS! And I have been building ships that look like ships for several years now, And I use arrows to place my elements, but exploitable bugs. We all know that S happens and that some block may overlap another in a non exploit build. Like stopping in the middle of the highway is against the rules. A Cop may stop and ask you what's the matter. And if you have a plausible justification for stopping, you will have no issues. In the same way. If your element is slightly overlapping, NQ may ask you some questions about it and may ask you to change it. But you will never get an immediate permanent ban because of this. What we are talking is about NQ having the right to investigate your case or having to be quiet about your abuse. It's not "ignorance" it's "too much experience dealing with exploit kids in several games" Here is what a normal person does: "I just read that there is a rule not to go right" "I should start going left all the times" Here is what a exploit kid does: "i just read that there is a rule not to go right" "but what is right?" "is 45ºs to the right, right? Probably not, only 90ºs is right. how about 89º?" "what if i was already going right?, can i continue?" "what if i collide and my ship turns right? can i continue?" "This needs explaining, because I want to go right by some exception to the rule!!!" So the rule does not need any explaining. The rule is: Dont stack. You as players have to try your best to not stack and may need to explain if NQ queries your ship. NQ has to act according to how serious was the stack. What I can guarantee you is that no random player will be banned because of a 1 voxel overlap without a warning. Now stop making excuses to exploit.
×
×
  • Create New...