Jump to content

joaocordeiro

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    1810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joaocordeiro

  1. But for every part of that conflict there needs to be several viable options all with pros and cons, some luck, and some skill in handeling those options (not skill like a ingame skill but like a player knowing when to sell, when to fire, when to turn) If all conflict situations are resolved by a single and simple metric (profit margin, radar range, belonging to an alliance) then it becomes predictable and not interesting, just like paying taxes.
  2. I dont think conflict can become the main driver for this game. At least not the current system and definitely not just PVP The current system provides very little choices for the player. There is a simple rule to make a good pvp ship. There is a simple sequence of talents to give buffs to the ship.. After the ship is design and the talents are learned, there is little to nothing a player can do to win a fight. There are no tactics involved no choices. The pilot may aim the ship but there ia only 1 proper way to aim the ship. No choice. The gunners could be replaced by computer macros with 20 lines of code. This simplistic system provides no variety of solutions, only one. This then translates on highly predictable outcomes. Predictable outcomes equals predictable winners and predictable losers. The winners being expected players with mighty orgs supporting them. The losers being the new players. Not only will this drive new players away. But even the experienced players will find this way of winning battles, based on meta designs, fixed talents and the infinite repetition of clicks, a boring and uninteresting mechanic.
  3. I think territories should not be a necessity for building and mining. But owning a territory should increase the rewards and provide security. This game needs to become more new player friendly.
  4. When i suggested that warp cost could be based on volume instead of mass, i was trying to create a new variation for the problem "how costly is it to travel" We already had a price by mass with regular fuel, why have another price by mass with warp? If values were adjusted correctly, freighters would have a ton of meaningful choices. Some would take a different approach depending on how heavy they are. Others would prefere certain types of ships for certain profit coefficient. When i say that specialization should not prevent players from using industry, im trying to create different solutions for the same problem. Its the ammount of solutions that make the game interesting... Please understand this.
  5. Lets take a look at food. Valheim - you dont actualy need to consume any food in the game. But food will give you boosts. The base HP is 30(25?) but eating stew can grant you 200hp. Other food will give you less hp and more stamina. Everyone hunts for food, crafts, and makes choices of what food to consume next( a rare one to fight a boss, or a more common just to tank a little) Dayz - while you die if you dont eat, food in dayz has a much bigger role. Eating the right food can make you heal faster, withstand more damage, while eating the wrong food can make you sick, shaking, lesa resistant. In dayz food in embedded with PvP, getting food by looting, farming or hunting increases the chances of conflit, each with different pros and cons, presenting the player with choices and consequences. Empyrion - food has little efect on the character it self, it only serves as fuel for stamina. Someone with more food can afford to sprint more often. Food also heals. But the choices offered to the player to how he gets food are very variante hunting, farming, growing, looting buying, etc. If a player wants to farm, he needs O2 and power of their crops will die. Some good will spoil, some food will not. This creates a full tree of choices that make the concept of food in the game interesting. Other games, that could not offer an interesting user experience around food, made the choice to present food as a static resource. Like you can only build more units if you have more food. In this games, food is an enabler instead of a tax. What makes a mechanic interesting is the ammount of meaningful variations solve the same problem. Not the ammount of problems. Tetrix would not be interesting if all pieces were 2 by 2 squares.
  6. I agree with most your critiques. But we have to be careful with the suggestions we present to NQ. I dont think making the life harder to the player will the game more interesting. Food, O2. I think that in an already interesting game, those things could be a nice complement. I agree with "you cannot be a expert of all at the same time" but i put emphasis in "at the same time" But i believe a player should be allowed to change his specialization from time to time. To me the game is already too specialized. I dont understand why cant a player make a industry produce O2 without a talent and a schematic. And dont get me wrong. I think someone should specialize in producing O2. And becaude of that specialization, that player should have a huge advantage against other players. But having an advantage is quite different from preventing others to do it. To me before we implement anything you said, we need content. We need NPCs, ruins, loot boxes, self detonating abandones ships, AvA. The reason im saying be careful with sugestions is because NQ can easly screw things even worse. When you say the game needs specialization, they may hear "we need to increase taxes for mining so only specialists can mine" When you say the game needs a food system, they may hear "we just need to add 1 single food in the market that no one can produce (like schematics) and either ppl can afford it or they enter a death-respawn loop" In the end of the day, experianced players, like you and me, may be able to overcome those new challenges. But new players will feel overwhelm and quit the game. In general, games dont become interesting with the addition of pain mechanisms. Games become interesting with the addition of ways to overcome the trouble. The specialization of industry made the game less interesting because it reduced the number of solutions available to craft. The question to "how to set up an industry line" is answerd by "spend allot of quanta and talent points". There is no real choice between solutions. Because there is only one solution. In the end this did not make the game more interesting. It created more static pain and static barriers where the solution is 1 and known. Not a challenge, more like a tax.
  7. Sure, but why should I be prevented from having 1 territory outside of the sanctuary moon just because I'm a casual player and I can't fulfill the weekly quota of taxes while some addicted players have 100 territories? Why is my subscription less valid than theirs? I spend my entire month away from the game. I don't dig holes, i don't fly ships Why am I being punished because of other ppl's load?
  8. No more taxes!!! I belive the answer could be allowing the rotation of the flattening tool so we could align it with the walls of the cube and get a clean surface. This would also allow for ppl to make paths and roads around the map has we would be able to flatten acording to the terrain slope.
  9. Because ppl would exploit it by removing and redeploying the L core hundreds of times. Basicaly turning the L static core into a 128m diameter dig tool. Maybe now the impact of this is not serious. But back when we had ore nodes this whould be a massive exploit. Maybe this could be implemented with a timer. Like "Your L core will be cleared in 2 weeks"
  10. 1st they need to clarify the rules for the players. Are players allowed to not login as long as they pay a subscription? If yes, then no deal. If no, how long will players have before they lose their stuff? Agree with those 3. Dont see a point.. Ppl will just buy 1kl of a strong voxel and make a pole in the middle of the ship, bypassing issues with structural integrity. At the end this will not fix the unrealistic ships. And will create yet another barrier for new players. Dont agree. What tou call "teach" i call "create pain" Are games supposed to create pain? Is that why we play games? The game is full of bugs and issues in all levels. Some of those are related to core mechanics and will never be changed. So can you really say that the player is 100% responsible for approaching a station? And what is the gain of this measure? What are you trying to prevent? Or do you just want to enjoy ppl loosing their ships? Agree.
  11. Then ask a refund for this being alpha instead of beta. But don't ask a refund for beta to have bugs so huge that require wipes.
  12. No issues with color change as long as the contrast stays the same. All i want is to be able to. Clearly notice objects against the background texture.
  13. Then, @NQ please add a "nice to have" task for your todo list adding a settings option to replace the nebula. Has it became clear this has very low priority.
  14. Thank you for confirming, that for you, this has nothing to do with "immersive gameplay" and all the other BS. Just about taste.
  15. All hail to @VandelayIndustries the judge of who loses an argument. PS: the prof of who lost the argument is decided by NQ by keeping the nebula or removing it.
  16. Yes you are. You are saying that I dont have the right to use the nebula to avoid colisions, because your way of playing the game is the right one.
×
×
  • Create New...