joaocordeiro

Dont know if this is now possible with a simple setting. But a few months ago the only thing you could. Do was to mount an entire new disk on your user's folder.

I have been assuming an 100% loss for several months now. (game failing). So i have no issue with 50% devalue as long as the project survives. But then again, my part is only 7 dacs. I guess founders with 30 dacs may have a issue with that.

Not me m8. At least not without a summary here.

Clearly cheating. Like empyrion. There NPC cores give infinite ammo, o2 and fuel.

I know what you mean. But DU is kind of different because of the level of pain required to own anything... Look at PUBG, 50 players start, 4 win. If we were to blindly follow my logic, we would have 46 sad players and 4 happy. But that does not happen because there is no pain in playing the game. Weapons are free and you get them in 30 secs. So wining feels like wining the lottery with no cost at all. Ppl losing still feel good remembering their kills and joking about their noob partners. Look at dayz. Dayz is one of the worse in this aspect. Players play for hours and lose their loot, some times not even knowing what happened(headshots dont give any sound or clue, just black screen) Most fps players cant handle this. Yet the game still manages to keep its balance, because if pve. Players spawn with nothing but 1 fruit and no weapon, in a world full of zombies. By the time most players get killed by others, they already managed to find food, survive several zombie attacks and get a weapon. Maybe they already killed a cow with a perfect headshot. They already feel like a winner. But DU is different... Here you sufferd to mine, to transport, to craft, to build, to voxel... By the time you have a ship with any decent capability l you dont feel like a winner, you feel scarred and nervous. And hope you can do 2 or 3 runs before "they" get you.

Sure. But in that scenario the pray, the new players, will be very quickly exhausted. Because the more asymmetric the combat is the faster the target will cancel its subscription. So, although the net is positive. It will quickly lose "low rank" players. Efectively ending the game. Im my opinion NPCs are fundamental to keep a optimal number of prey in the game. In numbers large enough that a single player wont often have a major setback and when he does, he can reffill his joy and his resources, hunting npcs.

But NQ still says its a "IF it happens will be a parcial one"...

Why do ppl still see this as a solution... The is the only safety net noobs have... If industrialists cant beat those "1 buy 10000 sell" orders then how will players not interested in crafting play the game? Jesus. Would it be that hard to use your head for a 2 minute thinking before posting this?

Sure, thats common sense. But my point is that for every winner , there will be loser. And in this game, losing is weeks to months of setback. In my opinion, the frustration generated by the losses will not be compensated by the joy of the win. Specialy because the losses will be focused in the new players. Directly directing new players to subscription canceling. For most of new players the following will happen: Months of grinding in safezone. Falling into holes other players left. Finding 20l of ore ppl left behind. And when their ship becomes ready. They get killed by 5 ships, bigger and better then theirs, hunting in a pack. They never had a chance and they know it. Rage quit+cancel subscription+nasty comment or youtube review. Do you agree with this "negative happiness" average? If yes, how is the game viable?

He just wants to engage and win an internet fight. No one trying to get to a consensus would continue for so long on a baseless argument. Not worth replying because he knows what he is doing. I would like to focus on if you guys agree with the "happiness average" topic. And how to balance it in a player only world.

This is more than a database issue..... and you know it..... Its about ppl not liking doing mining all day long. It needs to be an alternative.

There are no good options here. This is about bitting a crap sandwich or a crap risoto. NQ should never had promissed that changes on a Beta/buggy/exploitable phase would matter for release. Now they have to chose between very serious unfair power and wealth accumulations or go back on their word and wipe. And beta is not over yet. More exploits will come. More bugs will cause major loss to some players and near infinite gains to others. Sure they can try to quick fix those unfair situations but they wont be able to. During that 1st week that we sold t5 to bot orders, we knew they would try to fix it. Many like me took action. A simple buy order i placed and later canceled was able to hide my 120M quanta from their 50M cap limit. I got away with 70M extra. But i know ppl that got away with 1000M And how about all those industrialists that got their initial industry using their friends quanta? How did that 50M cap fix their 200M factory? They cant fix this. We are 10000 thinking minds trying to evade their 30 mind fixes. Some will succeed. The solution is only one. 1 - Fix the game, exit beta stage. 2 - Wipe. There is no partial wipe that will fix this.

You have zero means to actually come to that %. So this comment is totally your uninformed opinion, or worse, your attenpt to manipulate the argument with a clear lie. I also talk to ppl that play the game from new players to old alpha backers. None agree that the current situation is fair or that they should not wipe. But even if your % was true. NQ needs to do what is best for the game. Not what the majority of the players wany.

Starting to look more and more like the old JC management. But hey, I'm not blind to your effort to communicate @NQ-Naerais, 5 stars on communication.

That choice is a lot more complicated than that. Owning your own hardware has lots of downsides: Hardware costs. They would have to pay, in one time or a rent, for all the hardware. Not just the servers, but also routers, backups, databases. And also pay for datacenter rack space. But they would have to pay for a prediction of what they think they would grow. Not for the real usage. Enterprise class servers take 2 weeks to be ordered. And rack space requires prediction. So it would take weeks to months for NQ to get more infrastructure ruining if they needed it. Then if they lose players/subscriptions they could not easily return all that extra hardware no longer needed. They would have to pay for the rack space and any renting even if they were not using the servers. Human costs. They would need a team of 2 or 3, very highly skilled and highly paid infrastructure architect/manager. Support. They would need to pay allot to have support for the technologies they use. If they had a problem with the database, they would need to pay their support. If they have a problem with their router, pay the support. If they have a problem with their backup solution, pay the support..... Licensing support. Currently, professional software will have much lower licensing costs of their software is acquired via cloud provider and deployed into a VM. mostly because they don't need a sales team, or a mechanism to check the licensing and even the support team is quite reduced, with most tickets being solved by the cloud provider and only the hard ones being forward to them. Also, again, with the unknown growth, NQ would have to buy extra licensing to predict the future needs, And also be stuck with what to with the rest of that year's long license for the server they no longer need.... Security. If NQ was to have their own infrastructure they would be 100% responsible for all their infrastructure security. Cloud providers will automatically, and without extra cost deal with most cyberattacks and most DDOS. Again NQ would have to hire 1 or 2 full time, very good, very well paid cybersecurity experts. And even with those, their chances of success would be low. What I would say is, if your project will mainly need EC2 instances, yes, AWS is too damn expensive for raw computing. AWS shines if ppl use other services like docket containers, CloudFront, lambda, autoscaling groups. You would probably do batter with some virtual infrastructure from OVH or similar VPS provider. But owning your own hardware, putting it into a colocation regime in a datacenter, is 100% out of the question for a startup like NQ.

Thank you for your unrelated comment.

I'm quite sure they could process any NPC processing in the client's computer. Much like they process lua. Most of this 1st iteration simple AIs could even be written in lua. And given the right API, they could even ask current players to make those simple AI scripts for them. Most of us, me included, would be happy to break our heads making a "hard to beat" AI script.

Intruduction In my opinion NPCs a hard requirement for this game to succeed for several reasons. Here are some: Players don't have any obligation, and sometimes not even the skill to create good content. NPCs are fundamental to create any kind of engaging content in the game. With ships being so valuable and so hard to get, specially for new players, it is very unlikely that any battle will be a symmetric one. NPCs a fundamental to give a chance for a new player to experience any kind of rewarding pvp instead of an instant rage-quit followed by a subscription cancellation. Most players completely ignore other players not in their org. NPCs are necessary for players to feel someone is around them on a station, or a base. That they are not playing this game alone. But most importantly. For someone to win, someone has to lose. Without NPCs to take the big losses, some players will be the losers. And who are those players that will be the losers? New players of course. Being less organized, having less resources, knowing less information. No new player will continue on the game if all their experience is loss after loss. NPCs are fundamental for new players to train, get loot to compensate for their heavy losses and more importantly, to stabilize their happiness level. NPCs in general are FUNDAMENTAL to keep the average level of happiness in positive levels. Instead of 2 or 3 big orgs having fun while everyone else cancels their subscriptions Pain is stronger than joy. PlayerA kills, and loots PlayerB PlayerA gets 5 joy, PlayerB gets - 10 joy. Avarage = -5 NPCS are needed to make it back to 0 avarage. The development cost I understand the cost of creating NPCs NPCs able to navigate inside a dynamical created construct would be extremely hard to code and also extremely expensive. But there are all kinds of NPCs. Not just those smart, walking ones. The dispenser that gives new players their speeder parts could be a standing still NPC with 10 lines of dialog. A standing still station that fires at everything that approaches, completely empty inside could be a NPC. Some placeable standing still guy with dialog connected to some lua and configurable by players, could be a NPC. Some standing still flower, spitting acid on passing by ppl could be a NPC In time, with more budget, this dumb AI NPCs could become smarter. But those don't have to be born smart. It's not a choice between "completely empty universe" and "fully automated AI" There is middle ground. Conclusion In my opinion, not being able to understand that a player only game will always have a negative average happiness level shows that this new management will not make this game succeed. And while I feel sad to trow this "bash" at NQ, in return to their needed reply, I feel that this bash is needed. Because there won't be a 3rd chance for this project. Its simple math. PS: For all pvpers that want their prey to be 100% human. Your prey will not join or continue to play the game if they only experience loss by your hands. Lions can only hunt zebras because zebras have plants to eat You are the lions. New players are the zebras. NPCs are the plants.

Sorry m8, long day here. Then they did a great design choice there. They can always scale with cost. But at some point, the amount of data transfer between the client and the servers will be unacceptable. PPl can't be expected to have 1gbit fiber with 5ms latency to play the game. At some point, they will have to figure a way to reduce the data required to play the game. I for once think the hole we make should slowly refill with time, reverting to "unaltered terrain" status. Excluding ofc the terrain change near bases.

I dont even know if they are using a relational or a non relational database. But you cant change from relational to to non relational database without a total project reformat. It seams wrong to mention dynamo db. Makes it look like they have a choice. Either they already use it or they will never do.

Tnx for the reply, but sniff sniff for the answer.

Unlike some other technologies, database managment is not something we have enough info to even start commenting on. As so, i think this thread is 100% speculation. But we do have some info about the ammount of data we store. Just look at our cache files. That ammount of data is abnormally large. If we take that number and the network IO we experience when traveling and we "speculate" the ammount of data the database has to serve and store, it is easy to understand that the database already has all those technologies or else it would be crashing under 1000 simultaneous players. But now for real, dont you guys think cache is too big? Meaning the ammount of data transfered is too big? I do. And i think its great that NQ is trying to find ways to reduce it.

Why do ppl want to to make the game more painfull to play?

And why would the "sheep" join a PVP + grind only game to be killed by you?

IF MMOs are great because of grinding, why is DU failing?