Physics
-
Posts
394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Physics
-
-
1 hour ago, Jake Arver said:
This does not mean to say it's not impressive that some were able to make that work, but the very fact they could is what definees it as an exploit. This is not a dirty word or a bad thing, it happens. And NQ took the correect action here an did so fairly quickly although it appeears they were well aware of this before it became "a thing" on DUscord.
Either way, it's done and will get fixed. So that pretty much ends this discussion.
Keep in mind that if NQ took this same stance across the board in their decision making a very hefty % of ships out there from the mission runners to the hag-boards would be no longer allowed.
Could it of gone the other way? Yes it could of because NQ decision making seems to not just be based on definitions but impacts.
-
11 hours ago, blazemonger said:
That's not true though, unintended behaviour can be beneficial and actually enhance gameplay, that would be what is actual emergent gamplay.
When the unintended behaviour creates a situation where it gives someplayer an unfair advantage is what is an exploit.
This is not about "preventing bugs" with rules, declaring exploits and making using them a bannable offense while you fix the underlying issue is pretty much standard practice. The fun bit is that NQ seems afraid to call this out for what it is and I have no idea why as their action here is perfectly fine and as I would expect.No bugs or exploits was used to match the warp’s, fact. That would of only been pure math and R&D by the players.
As for being able to shoot in warp that simply would of been an oversight. This is probably not a bug in the code it’s simply the fact that NQ probably never coded against it or tested because they probably did not think it would be possible.
Given the level of effort and cost put in by the attackers to achieve these feats in comparison to minimal effort required to defend against it, this NQ referee decision could of just as easily gone the other way.
-
1 hour ago, Verliezer said:
Is there an overview of the 'official' DU color codes? E.g. Atmo, Space, used lettertypes, etc
For the light elements? Try normal decimal code.
-
3 hours ago, blazemonger said:
I can see how from your perspective this may be good, but in my view it really is not.
Warp is supposed to be safe and it should not be possibel to be locked and shot at, I agree that is the understanding and many have it. NQ needs to speak up if this is not correct or if this is in fact a bug being exploited.
In a balanced combat/PVP loop, there needs to be countermeasures other than "fighting back". NQ has talked abouit ECM and I expect them to bring that into the game before they remove the safezounes and introduce TW. There is plent of oprions in hat regards which will allow for non combatant players to mitigate the risks to the point it becomes acceptable to take:
Decoys, ECM to break lock, Radar jamming and Stealth are just a few options. I would not be a fan of Cloaking in game. At the same time, withthese options I woudl expect NQ to bring in Warp interdiction as well. My fear here is that NQ doe snot have the ability to do all this without some major work on the game code.
I disagree with the warp point since it only protects you from collision to remove any risk of people netting up pipes etc.
However in regards to your pvp comments we are definitely on the same page. With lock and fire being hard locked in to the game we need choices, choices and more choices to make it fun!
-
6 hours ago, Daphne Jones said:
This seems like a bug rather than an exploit, but I agree NQ should clarify whether this is intended game play.
It does not seem to be of great concern. I suspect it's hard for the the attacking ship to synchronize warp with the target adequately to be be warping within targeting range. And if they do, I doubt any arrangement of weapons on a single ship could take down a L shield during the time spent in warp on a single leg. If getting hit during warp knocks a ship out of warp. we may need to use atmo radar before warping to be sure no enemies are in targeting range.
You can’t knock a ship already in warp out….yet
-
3 hours ago, Jake Arver said:
Are they though? If someone did not bother to secure their tile and dig out their constructs even when NQ gave advance notice well ahead of time and offered assistance in that regard, I'd say that is on them.. If the previous owner of the tiles I claimed comes asking for permission to dig out their stuff I would probably agree, but it would cost them.
If the new owner does not respond to such a request I guess you have a point about support. Otherwise, I'd really hope NQ let the game be the game and have players sort this out between themselves. I claimed a tile with two massive L core statics and I'd ask for probably 40 million or so (and consider a counter offer), and would consider that generous, if the previous owner asked for persmission to dig out their stuff.Bit of a grey area since we are technically still in the transition peroid of Demeter IMO. Without effecting the ground NQ could perhaps make a compromise and just move the static to the surface?
-
3 hours ago, Jake Arver said:
Frankly, with large static cores costing 430K or so, is it really worth it?
That said, I'd agree that there should be an option to discard any left over voxel material and reclaim a core.
It is a cheap function to add as far as dev time and ouwld probably save a ton on support tickets.
Empty construct option when? I'm sure NQ does not wan't random grey core's with ghost voxels laying around anymore than we do ?
-
Crafting specialisation with progression through earned XP when?
-
1 hour ago, Doombad said:
Right or wrong is measurable, as is everything. DU is bleeding players. Worse, they are bleeding long-time, dedicated, and influential players.
NQ clearly has no plan and have gone silent. There is no excuse.
Measurements can influence the opinion of right or wrong. However unless you measure every scenario and choice possible that is all a measurement result is, an influence on an opinion.
You say DU is bleeding players but again is this solely based on this topic or other factors in play? Are the other factors also drawing in new players? I truly don’t know these answers and I can take a guess neither do you. While on the subject of measurements NQ has far better data on what the current state is. Let that data influence their choices.
-
13 hours ago, Megabosslord said:
So that’s two calls (scans and abandoned tiles) where what you’re actually saying is NQ made the wrong call, announced it, then changed their mind at the last minute to the right call.
If that’s the case, and you’re right and I’m wrong then:
(A) Why are the initial decisions so often wrong - if indeed they are wrong, and it’s not that they just don’t suit you personally?
(B) Why announce any decisions at all? Players are only going to act on announcements, then become frustrated when they change.
(C) Still doesn’t explain why, when the decisions change, the back-pedalling is done quietly. Only makes it worse. I don’t know where they announced the scans reversal. I stayed up till 2am for the Demeter release, logged in, and they were just missing. A reversal should have the same airtime as the decision it is reversing.
(D) You’re making a deal with the devil when you pardon sloppy stakeholder management because it suits you. Next time, when the reversal goes against your wishes, you are hoist on your own petard.
(E) NQ rolling the dice on their IP like this, flinging mud at the wall to see what sticks, is reckless. In 25 yrs experience developing larger systems than NQ/DU with many more users, my shareholders would have skinned me alive for free wheeling like this with their investment.
Being right or wrong is completely a matter of opinion and everyone is entitled too one.
This also includes the general opinions held by NQ and these opinions just like everyone else’s are fluid. The whole point of feedback and discussions is to share your personal opinions and reasons behind them. If the feedback from players change NQ’s opinion on a topic then NQ always holds the right to make changes to their game as they see fit, plain and simple. Will there be choices I disagree with NQ passionately? Of course there will be!
We already share the opinion that NQ should of been more carful with their wording in relation to Scan data.
-
1 minute ago, sHuRuLuNi said:
What 'game'? There is no 'game'.
So you preach on every topic you visit ?
-
7 hours ago, Megabosslord said:
You only skimmed the post, right?
Frustration with the neighbour (and it was actually several neighbours I'd tracked down, all who left a year ago with no intention of ever coming back - one who asked to be paid in Starbase to handover DU assets, all with very abrasive comments on DU and NQ), combined with waiting 9 mths for the solution, given hope, then having it deceptively taken away again, were only the final straw.
I get where you are coming from here. However at the same time i know players who has been burned just as much as you and one even physically burned the drive DU was installed on with lighter fluid and filmed it on youtube. However as Zarcata metioned players cool off and opinions change and many of the inactive players i know are now considering making a return to the game again.
7 hours ago, Megabosslord said:No. It was death by 1000 cuts.
Demeter screwed me. It took away the ore I'd mapped but hadn't mined yet, took away my scans (another last-minute reversal, after doing MORE scans because we were told they'd be kept). It ganked my space elevators (Caterpillars thrown out of alignment by geometry reset combined with 'manual control' crash). It trashed my base (which was high on a terraformed ramp, meaning after the geometry reset it was left floating high in the air, inaccessible, for which there was no 'excavation request' type solution despite my raising it during PTS:
For the ore you failed to mine that is on you. To be fair to NQ on this part they did provide a good amount of time with the advanced warning here prior to the demeter patch drop.
The decision on the scan wipe was 100% the right call by NQ imo. This is even if it did only slow the community down in scanning up the whole system. However I completely agree with you that NQ messed up in giving the impression scan data was safe. Moving fowards NQ need to choose their wording more carfully as NQ and players should know last minute changes can happen, not mattering if the cause is technical or from player feedback. I'm sorry to hear about the geometry reset effecting the space elevators but the geometry reset needed to happen. As for your floating base, if terraforming would be too much of a hassle could you ask support to lower it as a compromise? Admin accounts can move statics / space cores.
7 hours ago, Megabosslord said:Then I wasted hours and millions in quanta setting up mining ops that got locked up by the core overlap bug, put in 2 excavation requests that failed, had a ship tokenisation error. All this after I'd been wrestling for weeks with problems trying to get a multi-core static BP ready for sale, and gradual realising there was nothing on the horizon to improve head-aches for builders like this:
I still had big plans, having spent months building the giant floating island with a system in mind to convert it to space cores and build this:
But my base and space elevators were fragged, my support requests were getting incrementally less helpful replies (like suggesting reinstalling the game to fix what was clearly a game bug) and there was no light on the horizon that NQ were ever going to do anything to make dealing with L static and space BPs easier. If anything, it was getting harder.
Yep! I'm completely with you on this topic. Multi-core blueprints and building detailed Multi-core structures is a complete nightmare in DU. I do hope NQ manages to implement tools in aligning blueprints because the current system is just not worth the effort or even the time risk of being off by that half voxel and dismantling and starting from scratch. Rather than even trying it it's easier to just align cores and copy and past grinding it over.
7 hours ago, Megabosslord said:The only thing I had left to look forward to, was the promised abandoned subscriber tile clean-up.
Then a worrying thought entered my head. "What if NQ back-flip on this, like they did on scans?" I mean, surely not twice in a row, right? But to be safe, I thought I better come here and say a few words about why I thought wiping unsubbed player tiles is a good thing:
That post felt redundant, because it had already been decided. And there are obvious reasons for it, beyond my post: Like the performance improvement of not rendering abandoned constructs - which is inevitably only going to get worse. Or the disincentive to unsubscribe on a whim and mothball in-game assets till launch.
Anyway, Pann had liked my Tweet saying this was my favourite thing about Demeter...
Finally, a win.
Then, a few hours later, NQ steal-patched HQ tiles for unsubbed players.
The several players around me who despised DU, who'd played for a few weeks and quit over a year ago, were protected.
It was precisely at that point that I realised I had zero faith left in where DU was going. No way of knowing. No trust in any announcements made. And without that, there's just no way to plan projects on the kind of scale that I like to work. Projects that take months and hundreds of hours.
That's what it really boils down to: WIthout at least a little predictability on what is coming next, or a clear process and probability for getting a feature request considered, there's no point investing any significant amount of time in the game. And predictability has dropped to zero.
NQ most likely did shuffle through all the feedback presented to them. My personal opinion here is im not surprised at all they went with the decision to protect the assets of potential returning players and i believe still that was the correct choice. However if i was honest I was a bit surprised they decided to auto-assign all 5 HQ slots rather than 1-2.
On a final side note. I agree that constructs being a clear hazard such as that Multi-core tower by your base should be tackled by NQ after X amount of time has passed and no progress has been made. A very good compromise solution would of been NQ using their "hide construct" feature they use on markets to remove the hazard until the inactive player returns to continue the build.
-
48 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:
Maybe there should be something worth doing, before we start talking about adding more limitations?
Just look at what happened with 0.23, and now with bots/tax. While obvious that something had to be done with industry to prevent everyone from being completely self sufficient in the long run, the timing (and execution) for the industry nerf was disastrous. At the time industry was one of the few things people actually enjoyed doing in the game. So when it was nuked without any other replacement activities, the resulting reaction from players was obvious. And this trend has only continued, and it feels like there is less and less of a game with every new patch.
Better yet, rather than limitations.. why not craft quality buffs. People should be able to make anything but to get the best stats on that exotic weapon you need to specilise in weapons with a side tree. But if you choose weapons and ammo you don't have enough points for brakes and engines.
-
22 hours ago, Leniver said:
Hello,
I am not here to talk about Demeter the pro/cons.
This is a personal list of improvement I see that could be added to the game and would change player life quality.
Some of the improvement are more for new players, the goal is to make the game less confusing for them.
Some of the improvement can be complex to develop, some others are easy.
Blueprints / Tokens-
Blueprint should update while the elements in container change.
When you are preparing all the element to deploy your blueprint, you inspect the blueprint to see how many of each elements you need. While you are filling the needs, the blueprint should update.
-
We should be able to deploy compacted construct without having to select the nanopack.
As we can have only 1 compacted construct and that the compacted construct can be only in the nanopack, there is no reason to have to select a specific container to deploy it.
-
Add a shortcut to deploy the compacted construct
We could use the same shortcut (Alt+B), if the player has a compacted construct in his nanopack it deploy else it tries to compact the targeted construct
-
The error message displayed when you try to deploy a blueprint from the wrong container should be more explicit.
If the blueprint you try to deploy is in the other container (not your current selected one) it should display a message like "Select your 'nanopack' to deploy this blueprint" and not "Invalid element".
-
Allow blueprint to be deployed with element having less life.
The player should be able to use element having less life to deploy a blueprint. By default, if there is enough full-life element in the container it would take those, but if not and there is less-life element it should take them.
-
Show the construct as an hologram when deploying
When deploying a blueprint, the player should be able to see an hologram of the construct to help him for placement. (more useful for static and space construct). This option could be deactivated via settings for performance improvement.
-
We should be able to use a token without having to select the container it is in.
Currently we get a very confusing error message when trying to use a token from a container that is not the one selected. Many player don't understand what's happening.
Surrogate-
Add a filter "show owned only"
Display surrogate owner by the player
-
Add a filter "show company only"
Display surrogate owned by companies the player is in.
-
Allow multiple filter to be checked in same time
-
Save selected filters
Player should not have to select filter every time he opens a surrogate, they should be saved client-side.
-
Save station sorting selection
By default every time, surrogate are sorted by "most used". If the player want to have them sorted alphabetical he has to do it on every search.
-
Add possibility to save a search as bookmarks
For people that use a lot VR, they search for the same names/filters all the time. It would be great to be able to save the search as a bookmark. The player could simply click on it and it would load his saved search. (search, filters and sorting)
-
We should be able to use "Surrogate VR Station" in VR to switch station.
A player in VR could be able to use a surrogate station while being in VR. It would prevent to have to exit and enter again when we want to switch Station. Of course the initial station will always be the point of origin.
Piloting
-
Add an option for player to start in 3rd person view then entering in a piloting seat.
Most of the player are piloting ship in 3rd person view. This could be done by adding a way to switch the view in Lua or via game settings.
Mining Units
-
Add Lua API to it
We need a way to manage the MU in a construct as any other industry unit.
-
Available Mining Unit charge should be displayed for player
Currently if you want to know this information, you have to open a MU. This information could be displayed on the right of the player's quanta.
Charges 3/8 Balance 1 000 000 h
-
Add a possibility to skip mini-game
Many player just want to apply the default calibration percentage to the mining unit, they don't look for the additional rock.
It would be great to have an option to apply the default percentage without having to load the mini-game, in that case no rock would pop and no bonus would be applied.
-
Notification should contain the MU element name
It would help to keep a track of which MU has been calibrated in a specific construct when you have to manage multiple MU for an organization.
-
Notifications should have a specific filter for MU
The player should be able to display only notification related to MU.
Avatar
-
Keep auto-run enable when opening a window
All user interface opened while auto-running should not stop the auto-run. Currently I can't check a market price while auto-running.
-
All locked screen should be unlock with ESC
Currently if you are locking the screen with "TAB" you can't unlock it with "ESC". But if you are locking the screen with the chat, then you can't unlock it with "TAB" and you have to press 2x "ESC".
-
Allow player to close channels
Chat interface has too many tabs. We should be able to close them so only 1-3 tabs would be displayed. For every channels we should be able to choose if we want it to display when a new message come in the channel or not.
Map
-
Split constructs in 3 sections (dynamic, static, space)
For people that have access to many constructs the list is sometime very long and hard to find a specific construct.
-
Add a way to hide a construct from the list
Some construct have no interest (multi-core building, showroom ship, ect...). We should be able to hide some constructs from the map drop-down with an option to show hidden construct.
-
Keep the previous selected tile filter.
It's mainly when you are scanning tiles, you want to display your scan results. But every time you open your map, you have to go and select again the scan result filter.
-
Add a search
Most of the time we know exactly which construct we are looking for. Instead of having to go though all the construct list, if we could search for it it would help us a lot. Of course the search should stay if you close the map and open it again.
-
Add a RDMS right for organization's constructs to allow member to see constructs in the map
Currently only legates can see constructs on the construct list. But sometime you give right to an org construct to a member and he has no way to locate it on the map.
Building
-
Allow player to switch engines / weapons
It would be nice to be able to switch engine of same type/size on a ship. Example switching "Basic Atmospheric Engine L" to a "Advanced Military Atmospheric Engine L".
It would make the life easier so we don't have to deal with the placement, links and tags. Of course the applied talents would not be saved.
-
Add a shortcut to start a new link from previous element
This is more when you are setting up factory, but can be also the case when you are linking your engine or containers. It would be nice to be able to have a shortcut that will start a new link from the previous element.
Example: I want to link 10 engines to the same fuel tank, I start a link from the fuel tank and then go on the back of my ship. Link first engine, hit the shortcut, link the second one, ect...
Same if I have to setup 5 Metalwork Line for a specific production.
-
Add a shortcut to swap link direction
This is more for the factory but could be also used for button with PB. Would be nice to be able to change the link from "OUT" to "IN" or vice-versa.
-
Increase the jetpack speed
When you have to go through all you L core to make a link or something else it takes a long time. Would be nice to be able to fly very fast with a modifier key. This speed could be configured in the settings.
Effects and Sounds
-
Add possibility to remove certain effects
For some people effect in the factory are not needed or glowing rocks are glowing too much. Would be nice to be able to choose which effect we want or not.
In some area there is too many effects, it's lower the game immersion.
-
Add more sound channels
It would be nice to be able to reduce the "industry sound" or other noises while maintaining the sound level of other sources.
-
Add color filters for color blind people
Some colors are very difficult to see in the game. Also the Nvidia filters are not supported so we can't use them to help us.
Miscellaneous
-
Load elevators at first
The elements in a construct are loaded sequentially based on their type. Elevators are loaded at the end.
On big construct (like factory), elevators can take 20-60 seconds to load. Would make more sens to load first the elevator than an assembly line because you need the elevator to go to your assembly line.
-
Allow possibility to move a talent to top/bottom
Some player have a lot of talents queued, if you want to promote a talent you have to drap it to the top. We should be able to push it to the top or the bottom of the list. Of course depending on the pre-requirement.
-
Add drop down for the recipients to the wallet
We are transferring most of the time money from our avatar to one of our org or the opposite. Instead of having to search for every time, a drop down with some preset recipient would help us.
-
Allow elements with same life count to be stacked together
When you do a bit of PvP you get soon a lot of part that have 1-2 life less. When you have them in a container, they are not stacked, which makes it very difficult to know how much of each item you have.
This is a first post, I've certainly forgotten a few points which I will add later. (I'll put the date to make it more readable)
I hope NQ will read this. A reply would be appreciated for the time I spent writing this.
Kind regards
LeniverA very good read and some nice ideas. I definitely think having more specific error messaging in the game is a must and would also work towards the FTUE in Juno.
-
Blueprint should update while the elements in container change.
-
6 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:
A L core hauler should be viable against xs cube (or real non-BS ships) with xs guns on them. But some reasonable number of those xs ships should be a threat, i.e., the hauler should be able to defend itself, but not just ignore the smaller ships.
This is a tough game design issue. PVP is always a tough game design issue. (which is especially funny since the prime reason to design a PVP game is devs trying to avoid work - thus PVP usually sucks.) It's hard to do, but everything should be able to defend itself and everything within reason should be a threat.
I think the best way to do this is to emphasize player skill, but that ship has sailed and reached the new world already in DU.
You say haulers should defend themselves but no matter what you do, people will still forget to attach guns to a hauler ?
-
7 hours ago, Knight-Sevy said:
You forget the mechanics of CCS which precisely counter the cubes.
If the chances of a hit are on a core size people will be able to build ships with a lot nicer visuals in the volume available to them.
This is one of the solutions that seems to be the easiest to do without having to ask for additional development time.
Mechanisms can always be added later. But the urgency is to fix the game and allow voxel constructions.
What about a hybrid of both core size bonus + cross section as a start. Then we can talk about CCS tweeks etc?
-
Why not just reduce the planet warp beacon max distance to 150 SU and add lower tiers of warp beacon with reduced max distance of the current exotic version. Players will take care of the rest in taking risks and building warp highways.
-
Are you not jumping tiles between scanner drop?
Some areas are huge so bigger jumps are needed. T4-5 areas are only about 3-4 tiles wide tho so only need to jump 3 tiles each time so you don’t accidentally jump over it.
-
Accident double post >.<
-
1 hour ago, tomasco said:
I understand Mega's logic. It is understandable.
The game is in beta for 15+ months. And NQ is still learning how to do and communicate changes.
Example 1 - old tile scans. They said in videoblog - we don't know. And put update text - old scans will be kept. After few days - new info, they are going to be deleted.
Example 2 - HQ tiles. 1st info - Player need to flag tile as HQ. And later in release notes - we automatically assigned them for un-active players
Example 3 - taxes schedule. 1st info - it will be like this. 2nd info - NQ confirms 1st info and prepare nice picture with dates. 3rd info - release notes - we changed schedule.
This is chaos. Annoying. No predictability.
I don't agree with Physics's argument about listening to the players. It is good that they want to listen, but they need to do it properly. State what are you thinking about, ask players, make decision, stick to the decision. If you want to change it, do it with next release and properly communicate what is going to be changed and why.
Good argument, only hole I can pick is the 3 examples you put forward are decided changes the would not of been able to be put back an update.
Old tile scan. Keep them and tell everyone they would be deleted in Juno?
HQ tiles + Auto assign for Juno?
Tax schedule is a technical issue so exempt from the debate.
-
12 minutes ago, Msoul said:
The devs briefly mentioned this in a devblog but I will elaborate here for those interested.
Prior to Demeter, there were cases whereby some individuals and organizations owned several hundreds of tiles each. A very impressive feat, considering how prohibitively expensive claiming land could get, coupled with how little value it held. The ones who did this were gambling that its worth would skyrocket with the introduction of auto-mining and territory warfare. A very logical conclusion since the devs would need to add incentives to territory ownership in order to make said features viable. Then Demeter came and owning territories became profitable. The developers introduced calibration limits to put a cap on how much quanta you could extract, but this alone was not enough. Players had already shown they were willing to spend vast amounts on land when it was worthless, what do you think they would do now that it had actual value? Territory taxes and the associated reclamation system were not introduced to cleanup constructs but to prevent an uncontrolled land-rush. Without these measures a single player could (in theory) slowly work their way up to owning a whole planet.
Now a more interesting question is why did they remove the scaling costs for claiming tiles, isn't that counter productive? I suspect this was in future consideration of territory warfare. Losing a single territory would be far too punishing under the old system and therefore disincentivise pvp.
Very well put. Also if I remember NQ started looking at other avenues of countering the player ability of grabbing huge amounts of land before adopting the Tax system. Example was the proposed Org changes forcing every org to have a super legate or be deleted and each character could only be super legate to 1 org.
Players pushed back against this route and NQ once again listened to their feedback and scrapped those plans and went with the tax system.
-
1 hour ago, DasBier said:
Constructive opinion
Hello dear NQ team,
Even before Demeter, there were always BUGS with the industrial/assembler/all other units as well as transfer units etc. Since Demeter, many more machines fail, they just stop and ALSO MINING units and the productions are canceled or blocked for days to run fully back on. I explicitly point out that it is a very critical BUG.
Sometimes it is noticeable that there are sometimes whole clusters, i.e. several machines next to each other or which are in a line. in this form, in this intensity, it is much worse than before.
You wanted to improve the gaming experience with Demeter and save your costs. But not like this. Before that it was always very annoying when a big update comes that in any case has stopped or was bugged but now every day ?????
It currently costs a lot of nerves to keep a very well-adjusted system running.
If arguments such as yes, looking through now come up, it takes little time. then I freak out. my main system alone has between 1000 and 1500 transfer units. Nobody else turns something off or anything. Please fix it soon.
I know some who are also very bothered by this. this should be a high Priority on your agenda.
THis bug also affect s constructs with only 1 container and 2-3 mining units so you cant say build smaller.
my main Factory: look Support Ticket: #60615
Players if u have same problems please speak - Unfortunately, from my experience and point of view, no more support tickets are processed or every time I ask for GM help in the ingame help channel, I don't get an answer. I don't see any other way to just address it here.
Google translate is solely responsible for spelling mistakes.
Very good post. I hope NQ is able to route out the cause for the machines stopping and find a solution to stop this because the time consumed by players to check and reset will be extremely tedious.
-
24 minutes ago, Valencia said:
I have some questions regarding the Auto-Assignment of HQ to territories.
There are numerous individually owned territories that we had our eyes on to salvage. If I understand this correctly they will all be HQ and therefore unavailable unless, they own other tiles. So how will we know this? Will there be a way to tell if this tile's owner has others and if a particular tile will be slotted to be abandoned? How do we tell the difference in what will actually become available? Right now we cannot inspect a unit and determine this.
I'm too small and too new of a player that can afford to just go out to a random 'inactive' tile and waste the quantas and territory units in hopes that I can get it.
You can’t claim it till it goes in to an abandoned state anyway, The fact it went in to an abandoned state answers your question. ?
-
On 12/10/2021 at 6:13 PM, Anopheles said:
I think unsubbed hqs eventually lapse, but it's still a horrible, top down solution that puts non/former-players of the game ahead of actually playing players
Be carful what you wish for because that logic suggests the HQ tile system should be removed completely. Soon as you decide / need to take a break you fall in to the former player category.
Why DU's PVP isn't as fun as pre-shields.
in General Discussions
Posted
I would like to see repairman a critical role again also. Maybe an idea would be a shield HP nerf (50%?). Then add a very sharp voxel resist increase rather than raw HP.
Finally if an element pops the explosion causes a large CCS penalty that causes a heavy knock on the remaining CCS. Additionally you could make the explosion cause local voxel damage. Some elements could cause bigger explosions than others meaning strategic placements.
Problem with idea: Element burying would need to be tackled.