Physics
-
Posts
394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Physics
-
-
4 hours ago, Namcigam said:
Mining poll: How many years does it take to get a return on investment when building a mining base is it one, two or three years... Ohh you want mine exotic ore ohh those picks cost 600 million quanta per unit plus expenses ofc, good luck to ya...
Honestly if you put as much effort into playing the game as you do in posting new topics on the exact same subject you’d be swimming in ore by now.
- Maxim Kammerer, Bazzy_505 and GraXXoR
-
3
-
43 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:
That is space for you. As long as people are willing to burn fuel and time to stay outside the pipelines they should be astronomically hard to find.
So NQ either has to completely change how distances, speed and physics work in this game, or start to offer PvP that makes sense and people actual want to play.
And yes, I agree warp should not be a free for all. But as long as it cannot be used for missions, there at least is a comprise that goes both ways.
If you feel this way about pvp while DU is still in it’s easy mode phase, how you going to be when it’s not?
At the moment the asteroid discover list can be negated by just triggering it and coming back later. The speed changes have not come yet and the outa planets still have safe zone bubbles.
Patch by patch this easy mode comfort blanket will start to fade away. I hope the stockpiles accumulated while the blanket is on does not keep such a negative impact on the economy for too long either.
-
1 hour ago, Thunderblaze said:
Thank you guys for listening to our concerns and following through. Good post.
Can we have more like these the first go around next time? Loving the new community manager.
Nyzaltar is one of the original CM’s
Good post Nyz. Keyboard must be smoking right now ?
Honestly reading through I surprisingly felt like NQ was caring too much. Don’t add to many bubble wrap layers otherwise some players may try to take advantage of the OTT good will you are presenting.
-
I don’t often get surprised here anymore. But reading the forum topic expecting to find another too much ore conversation, I did get a surprise when I started reading here ?
-
Until warp holds far more risk than slow boat through pvp space there is zero chance of packages being warp enabled.
-
2 minutes ago, Namcigam said:
In my pov warp cells are unicorns like warp beacons I hear rumors of such things but for me they are myths. If I bought warp cells I would have no profits. Making warp cells is above my paygrade.
You should look back at current prices ?
-
Personal can stay the same, dont like extra personal slots because i like to choose where my slot can go now and in the future. If it be a personal org or 4 different group build projects.
Personal cores - Same
Org Slots after talents - 100
-
Just now, fridaywitch said:
We *do* know that this is the case. It says so in the blog post. You need 65 max talent players to get your precious 1625 cores, and all of those players need to give all 100% of their cores to your org.
How long has your personal core slots lasted? That how long it will take to claim what scraps of core slots you lent to the org you joined back.
-
1 hour ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:
Hi everyone.
Thanks a lot for all your feedback on the topic.We understand the slot limitation described in the devblog is quite frustrating and we're transmitting all your feedback to the Game Design team.
We'll try to come back ASAP with a reply from the team. Please be patient.
Edit: "current slot limitation" changed by "slot limitation described in the devblog".
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.
0.28 will be worse than 0.23. Hope that warning goes loud and clear to the design team.
-
37 minutes ago, Manchetta said:
Was this planned or does it just mean the server crashed??
Was a restart to solve an issue. All clear now.
-
13 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:
But let's face it, there would just be 17 XL cores instead of the 17 L cores that are there currently with an even larger multi-core build placed there.
And in the process your performance would be worse off.
I'm sorry to say we unfortunately won't be introducing larger cores any time soon. For a number of reasons, most of which are technical related to performance and data.Multiple smaller cores actually have a number of performance benefits as the load limits apply better that way.
- Deckard
Even if the XL core cost 100 core slots (and probably should) and cost equivalent of a warp beacon to produce… gimme gimme!
I don’t even care if the construct looks like melting play dough in build mode when looking across.?
-
Very good changes so far!
My only worry is the calibration charge change. Players are already swimming in ore so to me this was the wrong move and will be capitalised on even further. I would of just extended the time MU's lose charge even further than 72 hours to say 168 hours and kept charge max at 10 and even extended the time it takes to recharge those charges to match the MU grace period increase.
-
I’m not looking forward to the org construct slot changes. Common sense does slap you in the face that it will be a huge nerf to solo and small orgs to bring balance to the gap of available personal core slots in comparison to personal org cores.
If I got told to do this and was harsh without thinking about backlash, I would remember that org construct slots start with 0.
From there I would take a piece out of the residency idea I’ve been asking for and instead of just having the legate issue the constructs through talents I would give every character 1 available org construct slots they can choose to issue to an org of their choice. Every character would be able to boost their construct slot donation to 25 through talents tho.
But let’s see what NQ does.. returns to sharpening pitchfork on grinding stone.
-
2 hours ago, W1zard said:
Make it depending only on a core size is bad idea, as it would lead to a "As big as I can fit in a core grid" ships.
A year ago we had lock-distance based on solely core size, and all of us were flying in as big as possible XS cubes packed with L missiles.
We still have to use some kind of smaller-better mechanics, just not related fully on a cross-section, to allow some creative in building ships.I didn’t suggest removing cross section just change the formula to lower the effectiveness. Many things have changed since the XS cube days. Core trade off is too in favour to L cores. if we had shields as well as weapons locked to cores a marriage of new cross section formula and core miss bonus would be a viable solution.
-
Only solution I honestly see is to heavily reduce the cross section benefit but add a set miss % depending on core size.
For example L guns against XS 60% miss before cross section calc, 40% S, 20% M, 0% L.
M guns vs XS 40%, S 20%, M 0%, L 0%.
Now I see a post against Voxel destruction. Yeh sorry but it’s kinda important we start seeing voxel and element destruction again.
-
1 hour ago, Metsys said:
If you could read you'd see it's 138m² for an M core. As far as I know most currently aim their L cores at ~400m². Again, LOGIC! IT MAKES SENSE
Also if with that M core I target an L core nano I still get at least 40% hit probs, if not more. An L core trying to hit said small cross section M core will have a difficult time, which gives M core the niche to be able to counter L nanos. If my M core would max out the space of an M core construct it might become larger than the INTENTIONALLY SMALL L core and SHOULD get hit equally as easily or take even more hits. In return a 2seater L core with cannons (and maybe some voxel) will shred the M core regardless, as the far higher dps and rate of fire of cannons at same/similar range as M rails will completely obliterate any advantage the small M core cross section ship might have.
There is a system in this and asking for the removal defies any sense of logic.I see your point of view and agree on the idea there is some Rock Paper Scissors but NQ still needs to go back and revisit the system.
What would be beneficial is some solid numbers on TTK, Build costs and speed advantages. To get a more clear picture on where balancing needs to land.
There should be a place for both larger and smaller ships in the pvp arena.
-
I'll only mention the MMO's I invested time in otherwise the list is too long ?
Star Wars galaxies. No game can get you so involved with every aspect it can offer like that game did. From working towards building your own shop that sells all the top quality items in your profession to the mind stomping grind and sense of achievement in unlocking your Jedi character only to grind again in secret to keep the bounty hunters off your back. ?Many fond memories from start to game end.
Planetside. Fights like no other and was a true MMO war. This game had its own problem in the end with the introduction of BFR's but will always be a game that made history.
WoW. Was always fun and had untold amount of hours sunk in. From raids and preparing for raids to the painful grind to Grand Marshal in the pvp battlegrounds (Played Alliance) and duping gankers in to getting a gadgetzan bruiser beating.
SWTOR. Like WoW but had that Star Wars fix to it.
Planetside 2. Similar to PS1 and had its better parts but just had somthing missing what PS1 had, could never fully put my finger on it.
From there i remembered SWG and needed that Sci Fi sandbox fix but did not want the uncertainty of private EMU servers. Google searched Sci Fi / space MMO and ended up here ?
-
3 hours ago, Verliezer said:
My two cents to the mining, calibration and Taxes. In all these are to create a sink and to limit the players claiming everything and getting lazy.
What if we ditch the calibration completely and lower the tax to 250k or so.
Then make MU run on fuel, It would create a sink and stimulate fuel production and maybe even fuel trade. As a player you can setup fuel feeding system to your mining unit and go. The bigger your fuel feeding supply chain, the less visits you need.
B.t.w. Generic power needs would create a good sink as well ?
ps: make sure you can't mine and create fuel at the same time on a planet!
Won’t work because players can optimise the process to extreme levels. Whole point of calibration is to limit MU’s per character.
-
1 hour ago, blazemonger said:
This now makes absolutely no sense at all after @NQ-Deckard shared in DUscord that the "suspension" is ONLY for existing active paid for territories and NOT for any new ones or for those that were inactive before this comes into effect.
So, how exactly does this help in "This will allow the Design team time to revisit the tax rate, which many community members said was too steep.", this actually contradict this very statement/excuse/reason entirely and just adds to the (usual) confusion and vagueness of what NQ is communicating.
Inquiring mind wants to know..Because I had plans to claim 100 territories for 2 weeks free mining, damn NQ decided to ruin it!
-
6 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:
Hi everyone!
As you were quite a few to wonder what was the reasons behind "it's more complex than it seems" regarding the tax rates, here is an explanation frome the Game Design team:
"It's all about faucets and sinks. When implementing a major system like taxes (which should have been there from the beginning), "more complex than it seems" refers indeed the interconnection of several systems: Tax rate/Upkeep of course, but also resources generation through Calibration and Asteroid Mining. Another important factor quite difficult to anticipate is "Player habits". When taking into account all these factors, it's extremely difficult to make it right on first try. When balance issues occur, the best way to find a long-term solution (and to be sure to have identified the right issues) is to analyze at least a few weeks (if not one or two months) of data. Fixing a balancing issue too hastily has a high risk to backfire, as it might generate other unbalance issues if not handled properly.
Now to explain a bit what was the original plan:
It was about to provide enough Tier 1 resources (through calibration and asteroid mining) to pay the taxes and have a comfortable margin of T1 resources for building.
Unfortunately it seems that players got a lot less Tier 1 resources than we expected, which generated this feeling of "struggling" for many of you. It was not intended.
The Game Design team is actively working on tweaking the balance of various systems (not just one) so the global player experience improves again. Still, we know that it will never satisfy everyone: some will find that it's still not enough, some others will think it's too generous. Just keep in mind that we will have to find an acceptable middleground for the majority."
Best Regards,Nyzaltar.
Thank you Nyz! Don't take your foot off the forum replying pedal, NQ increasing their interactions and giving straight transparent answers like this will be a win for the company and community every time!
While on the subject I’ll give some quick personal thoughts in response to the design explanation. I hope the design team keeps in mind that the more ore injected the harder it will be to get the ore and element prices to start rising again.
The majority of sinks should be coming from the loss of the game loop end products (elements) not from the very start (raw T1 ore) even tho this is a good strategy for new players to get a foot hold.
NQ is still overlooking a valuable ore faucet because of its bad implementation so far. Surface rocks could be made to give players a reason to go out and explore the planets again in the hunt of ores. All NQ has to do is clean up the mess made by having these rocks scattered everywhere. it’s not really giving any worthwhile purpose to players and is just an eye sore.
Aside from Sanc moon make the surface ores spawn randomly over the planet in clusters kinda like the MU calibration rewards. Clusters should be from 5kl to 50kl in size. (50kl being more harder to find of course). Also add the more rare spawning T3-5 surface ores to the spawn list on their respective planets. If this happens I will look forward to finally having a reason to use a hover construct in the hunt for these ores and maybe I’ll accidentally run in to a NQ ship wreck with some sweet schematics in the cargo hold?
In regards to calibrations, there will be no harm in increasing the time it take for MU to lose their calibration charges 2-4x if you just increase the time it takes players to gain calibration charges the same amount. Maybe keeping on top of calibrations will stop feeling like a daily chore and players can have more time to focus on other aspects.
Finally I believe HQ tiles should not go to the inactive state while the owner has an active subscription. As soon as a tile becomes HQ it should just go to active with its tax cost set to zero. If a player is no longer subbed then a timer for the HQ status to expire should begin.
-
Quote
In reflecting on the aftermath of the Demeter release, we recognized that we fell short in this area. We read your feedback but did not make the adjustments we could and should have. We pledge to be better about working hand-in-hand with the community by implementing a plan to increase two-way communication and making some important tweaks and balancing to the game that will address some of the pain points as much as we’re able.
Awsome to hear NQ is keen to expand on working with the community and want to increase their two-way communication! Here is tip 1: Dont start failing this on literally the next sentences of an announcment ?
QuoteAs a first step, beginning January 11th, we will postpone the next territory upkeep pay period for two weeks. This will allow the Design team time to revisit the tax rate, which many community members said was too steep. The purpose and functions of the upkeep system go beyond limiting “landgrabbing” and are more complex than they may appear on the surface. Many factors and interdependencies need to be taken into consideration.
Ok so the purpose and functions of the system go beyond "land-grabbing". Maybe if NQ explained why the system is more complex than it appears on the surface the community could fire back ideas and feedback to make it better with the info in-hand? Just saying "it's more complex than you think" puts off these feedback think tanks and kills the subject and any possible two-way communication. Design team does not have to come up with inspiration and ideas on their own, they just need to make the decisions with all the possibilities that come from their own minds and ours.
Edit: just read up replies. Damn it Blaze beat me to the punch! ?
- antanox and blazemonger
-
2
-
49 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:
And keep in mind the old pvp builders weren't good at all. All they did is use as much gold/silver etc and then as many elements and engines as they needed to get a desired thrust. It took ZERO skill to build old style pvp ships. All they did after was like what was posted, form the voxels into a skull....oh wow!! Such skill...lol. it's good those people left as they provided no value to the game.
Stop shooting down your own credibility. -
1 hour ago, Walter said:
I think we reached a new level of ship's ugliness in pvp if this is the new meta I refuse to fly any of these I prefer to be wrecked in my old-style ships designs.
And I agree with OP on all points except that making one weapon class have a shield pen, all shields should let pass 20% of dmg as shield bleed-thru.
And these Engines should be 100% obstructed where the logic in this, are we now in Looney Toons?
When I look at that and remember the ships before the changes ?
-
4 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:
It really wasnt that great. You pointed at something and left click. It was monkey brain dead activity. Second, we must not forget, a big reason for these changes were to help the server. Gun cycles were increased for that reason, and shields were added too. Server literally shit itself when you have to download the damage. I really don envision any scenario where the old style of pvp comes back. And to that I say good riddance. Flying your ship is way more fun, and having speed differences alone will add fleet comps and variation. We need to thoroughly test those new changes first so we can give accurate feedback and go from there.
Each to their own. I really enjoyed being the repair man as much as being the pilot. Also I get the reasons why shields are so strong currently and I doubt it’s just to do with the deformation calculations. Let’s hope NQ can rectify the underlining issues.
What kind of game is this to you?
in General Discussions
Posted
Some people really like to dig deep in the topic graveyard ?