Anfros

We all understood what you meant, it's just a really dumb idea that counteracts the very core concept of the game.

I would be fine with this as long as the transfer in realistic in that any large amount of energy transferred would cause people getting boiled alive, wood catching fire and intense radio interference.

We all understood what you meant, it's just a really dumb idea that counteracts the very core concept of the game.

That would create a min-max situation and suddenly, the sandbox game becomes a WoW clone.

We all understood what you meant, it's just a really dumb idea that counteracts the very core concept of the game.

so, ignoring the physics talk getting back on topic:
 
to build on the basic premisse of individual shield projector nodes whichs defense ratio depends on the power they get.
 
shield projectors generate a defensive field whichs strenght is dependent on the power they are supplied.
(this could be a damge-per-server-tick value or a damage-per-impact value, it doesnt significantly change the rest of the mechanics)
 
when the incoming damage is higher than the defense value for a single point in time, the shield collapses and needs a certain amount of energy (not power) to reinitiate.
so to reinitiate the shield it has to be supplied with a certain amount of power x  time.
it can take long with low power input, it can go fast with a high power input.
 
 
so, now the interesting part comes when the power allocation to the shield generator gets /changed/.
the ratio of power input to hp generated changes with the rate of change of the power input.
the higher the rate of (upwards) change, the more hp you get out of the power you supply.
 
so a shield which gets 10 power supplied constantly can stand less damage than a shield which gets 0 constant supply but the 10 power for the moment of impact.
 
all we need now in addition is some way to supply large amounts of pulsed power. for example capacitor banks from which the shield generator nodes pull when they need to stop a large shot.
 
 
this creates a continuum of
always-fed-on-full-power shields with low-med ish per-hit stopping power but infinite HP as long as their treshhold isnt exceeded
to
"offline" shields which only activate when a shot arrives which can block very very high damage impacts but get depleted quickly as their capacitors drain with every hit.
depending on the build of the ship and its shield arrays, the energy distribution choices of the crew and the damage state of the ship (for example the buffer caps getting damaged or some power conduits that power the shield array)

We all understood what you meant, it's just a really dumb idea that counteracts the very core concept of the game.

Different quality resources doesn't really make sense though, iron is iron. The real difference should be in how you process the resources you gather.

As Einstein said, and this is true story : "Pay-to-Play is the only thing keeping the Universe together ~ George Washington"


Please don't make the game Free-to-Play, because as the industry has proven, every game going free-to-play ends up being ignored after 3 months of its release because it's consider another rip-off "generic koean MMO big-boobs female models" MMO that came out Korea's MMO factory-assembly machine.


As we are lucky, their crank on that machine has broken as of late and the flow has halted. Thank you Black Desert for that, perhaps you put the nail to the Korean MMO genre coffin. Lineage 2 kept you one foot out of the grave for all those years.


So, make the game Pay-to-Play.  Why? Because, as our adversaries on the Free-to-Play front have done, I'm going to providei inaccurate statements that may seem legit.


a ) Pay-to-Play helps NASA : Have you ever looked into NASA's budget? Neither have I, but I can tell with certainty, that they have aliens found and locked up in Area 51.


b )Lizard poople ruling the world . Have you seen one? EXACTLY, they hide very well.


c ) Who let the dogs out? UH?! Woof, woof-woof woof-woof!


d) The fact 15 USD is a researched price of subscription that in 2004 seemed affordable and on this day, with all the inflation goin g on, is actually costing more like 8 dollars in 2004 money. But hey, don't stop economics science stop you.

As you can see, my years in drinking beer over my blood-alcohol level capacities, lead to some pretty constructive criticism of the Fre-to-Play model.


In all seriousness though, we need access to Area 51.




If any Free-2-Play people has anything to say, see this video first. Spoiler alert, I'm a Honey Badger.

I have yet to see anyone who advocates b2p or f2p explain how those models would create revenue for NQ in 10 years. The devs very frequently compare their vision for DU with Eve and for good reason, it's a SANDBOX. People are going to build sandcastles and they are going to get torn down and then others are going to build new sandcastles. Infinite replayability. Barring NQ going bankrupt or not managing to actually produce a game that holds up there is no reason this game is not going to last a decade or two, so when choosing monetization model it is important to think long term and p2p is the only model that has long term viability, excepting p2w but that is unacceptable to the current community and I believe to the devs as well.
 
In a f2p system you would need an game store of some kind, but what would this store sell? Ingame currency or materials is out of the question from a market and p2w point of view. Cosmetic items? What kind of cosmetic items could you actually sell in a game were all the things that actually matter are going to be player constructed? Could you have special colors that could only be utilized for construction if you buy them? That's basically just taking sand out of the sandbox, which would probably be a deal-breaker for me and many others. Could you sell pre-defined shps or blueprints? Sure but they would probably suck or be op, the combat meta is probably going to be to diverse and changing for any predefined ship to be good without cheating.
 
As to subscriptions being expensive in some countries due to currencies and income levels, that is entirely up to the devs/publisher. There is absolutely nothing that stops games from being prized differently in different countries. And yes 12-15€ is more that my electric bill too and there are many people that cannot afford to buy subscription. Playing games is not a human right though, just like you are not entitled to own an iPhone or a car.
 
The devs need to use a monetization model that works for their company and for their game vision, and NQ has said that their choice is probably gong to be p2p, with the option of buying game time from other players for in game currency. I personally think this is a good choice as I think this leads to the fewest compromises between gameplay and money and I know large parts of the community agrees with me.
 
So until someone actually explains how they would want f2p or b2p to actually work and how that would keep the game alive and development funded 10 years from now I will consider this topic finished.

About as long as it takes for them to kill themselves

I have yet to see anyone who advocates b2p or f2p explain how those models would create revenue for NQ in 10 years. The devs very frequently compare their vision for DU with Eve and for good reason, it's a SANDBOX. People are going to build sandcastles and they are going to get torn down and then others are going to build new sandcastles. Infinite replayability. Barring NQ going bankrupt or not managing to actually produce a game that holds up there is no reason this game is not going to last a decade or two, so when choosing monetization model it is important to think long term and p2p is the only model that has long term viability, excepting p2w but that is unacceptable to the current community and I believe to the devs as well.
 
In a f2p system you would need an game store of some kind, but what would this store sell? Ingame currency or materials is out of the question from a market and p2w point of view. Cosmetic items? What kind of cosmetic items could you actually sell in a game were all the things that actually matter are going to be player constructed? Could you have special colors that could only be utilized for construction if you buy them? That's basically just taking sand out of the sandbox, which would probably be a deal-breaker for me and many others. Could you sell pre-defined shps or blueprints? Sure but they would probably suck or be op, the combat meta is probably going to be to diverse and changing for any predefined ship to be good without cheating.
 
As to subscriptions being expensive in some countries due to currencies and income levels, that is entirely up to the devs/publisher. There is absolutely nothing that stops games from being prized differently in different countries. And yes 12-15€ is more that my electric bill too and there are many people that cannot afford to buy subscription. Playing games is not a human right though, just like you are not entitled to own an iPhone or a car.
 
The devs need to use a monetization model that works for their company and for their game vision, and NQ has said that their choice is probably gong to be p2p, with the option of buying game time from other players for in game currency. I personally think this is a good choice as I think this leads to the fewest compromises between gameplay and money and I know large parts of the community agrees with me.
 
So until someone actually explains how they would want f2p or b2p to actually work and how that would keep the game alive and development funded 10 years from now I will consider this topic finished.

I have yet to see anyone who advocates b2p or f2p explain how those models would create revenue for NQ in 10 years. The devs very frequently compare their vision for DU with Eve and for good reason, it's a SANDBOX. People are going to build sandcastles and they are going to get torn down and then others are going to build new sandcastles. Infinite replayability. Barring NQ going bankrupt or not managing to actually produce a game that holds up there is no reason this game is not going to last a decade or two, so when choosing monetization model it is important to think long term and p2p is the only model that has long term viability, excepting p2w but that is unacceptable to the current community and I believe to the devs as well.
 
In a f2p system you would need an game store of some kind, but what would this store sell? Ingame currency or materials is out of the question from a market and p2w point of view. Cosmetic items? What kind of cosmetic items could you actually sell in a game were all the things that actually matter are going to be player constructed? Could you have special colors that could only be utilized for construction if you buy them? That's basically just taking sand out of the sandbox, which would probably be a deal-breaker for me and many others. Could you sell pre-defined shps or blueprints? Sure but they would probably suck or be op, the combat meta is probably going to be to diverse and changing for any predefined ship to be good without cheating.
 
As to subscriptions being expensive in some countries due to currencies and income levels, that is entirely up to the devs/publisher. There is absolutely nothing that stops games from being prized differently in different countries. And yes 12-15€ is more that my electric bill too and there are many people that cannot afford to buy subscription. Playing games is not a human right though, just like you are not entitled to own an iPhone or a car.
 
The devs need to use a monetization model that works for their company and for their game vision, and NQ has said that their choice is probably gong to be p2p, with the option of buying game time from other players for in game currency. I personally think this is a good choice as I think this leads to the fewest compromises between gameplay and money and I know large parts of the community agrees with me.
 
So until someone actually explains how they would want f2p or b2p to actually work and how that would keep the game alive and development funded 10 years from now I will consider this topic finished.

You see, if you were not to read the EULA of a product and that product indicated "I got access to your personal messages, facebook and twitter account" and you signed up without looking at the EULA, you are silly and no legal ssstem can save you from being one. Same goes for scamming. If you have nothing standing on your shoulders, then good luck against scamming. And this doesn't extend in=game alone, but in the real world as well.
 
 
And being a Conman, takes CONFIDENCE. If a guy goes like "uhm.... and.... uhm.... yes...but, uhm... no, uhm...." you are not a Conman, that guy's a joke.
 
 
And what's wrong on using your verbal skills and mental faculties against another player to scam them? What's next? PvP is not fair because the other guy is skilled more at predicting your movements? Should the devs ban that guy as well because his/her Intelligence Quotient outmatches ours in its entirety? Should I be banned from the game because I can make a better LUA script than someone who is not trained in such a field? Should a designed be banned for having an external source of knowledge on building ships?
 
No. Noone will get banned.  If you are easy on trust, that's your issue good sir, NOT the Devs'.

The expansions in eve online are more like large named patches than the expansions of WoW. They are free and all content is available to all players. Calling them expansions is basically a PR thing. Imo having to pay extra for content is one of the best ways to kill off a sandbox.

I'm against any mechanic that would make just standing around chatting with friends have bad consequences. If there is a food mechanic it should only affect players who are doing something.

In a game that specifically revolves around fighting for survival at every turn, I agree that the need for food/water/sustenance is a good mechanic. But my impression and hope is that the main point of this game will be social interactions between players with creation, destruction, politics and other mechanics acting as a catalyst for those interactions. When basic basic survival is not the main thing in a game but the devs decide to tack on foodlike mechanics anyway, in my experience, most of these mechanics usually boil down to "you need to take a break from playing the game every x amount of time and go interact with this random unfun mechanic before you can continue playing the game". In my opinion these kind of mechanics need to be at the center of the game or they will be more annoying than fun.
 
To me it basically boils down to this, the player should not be incentivized to log off. If a player feels they cannot sit around just chatting with their friends ingame, without interacting with the game in any other way, because doing so actually punishes them that would, in my opinion, be VERY bad for the game. The easy solution to this is making the food requirement low enough to be trivial, but then why have it in the first place.
 
As for the idea of having the player consume food even when they are logged off, that just punishes people who have to be away from the game for extended periods of time, which in my experience from games like this is going to be punishing enough anyway.
 
That being said food is a reasonably good way of going about an upkeep mechanic, making sure people need to bring supplies to support any effort they are undertaking. I think there are better ways to go about it though, that feels less punishing for the individual player. For example fuel, life support, ammo and many many more things and I expect there will be multiple such things in the game.
 
That said I am not against food as a thing, if for example we have npcs in the game I can see food being part of their upkeep mechanic, and I would love for agriculture and forestry to be in the game just like I want mining to be in the game. I'm just againt using it as a survival mechanic.

In a game that specifically revolves around fighting for survival at every turn, I agree that the need for food/water/sustenance is a good mechanic. But my impression and hope is that the main point of this game will be social interactions between players with creation, destruction, politics and other mechanics acting as a catalyst for those interactions. When basic basic survival is not the main thing in a game but the devs decide to tack on foodlike mechanics anyway, in my experience, most of these mechanics usually boil down to "you need to take a break from playing the game every x amount of time and go interact with this random unfun mechanic before you can continue playing the game". In my opinion these kind of mechanics need to be at the center of the game or they will be more annoying than fun.
 
To me it basically boils down to this, the player should not be incentivized to log off. If a player feels they cannot sit around just chatting with their friends ingame, without interacting with the game in any other way, because doing so actually punishes them that would, in my opinion, be VERY bad for the game. The easy solution to this is making the food requirement low enough to be trivial, but then why have it in the first place.
 
As for the idea of having the player consume food even when they are logged off, that just punishes people who have to be away from the game for extended periods of time, which in my experience from games like this is going to be punishing enough anyway.
 
That being said food is a reasonably good way of going about an upkeep mechanic, making sure people need to bring supplies to support any effort they are undertaking. I think there are better ways to go about it though, that feels less punishing for the individual player. For example fuel, life support, ammo and many many more things and I expect there will be multiple such things in the game.
 
That said I am not against food as a thing, if for example we have npcs in the game I can see food being part of their upkeep mechanic, and I would love for agriculture and forestry to be in the game just like I want mining to be in the game. I'm just againt using it as a survival mechanic.

Trains are cool, and would no doubt be easier to automate than ships or wheeled vehicles. I certainly hope they are included at some point.

You lead your Organization.
You own the space you claim.
You make the laws.

You punish those who break them the way you want to.
That's it.

As for a jail system, eh, I don't know about that. Keeping players in a cell for long periods of time would just make them less inclined to play, just remove their respawn rights and give them the death penalty! Much simpler and more effective.

No doubt any teaser for the game will generate about 100 new threads about why p2p is bad.... In all seriousness though, I'm getting ready to get hyped, though I don't really think it would be good for them to get too many people hyped about the game this early in the development, ideally we want hype to build up to the release and not people getting exited and then moving on when they realize how far away the game is.

I think stargates should be in the game. But I also think normal FTL travel should be balanced so that if you are traveling in a small craft going between systems using normal ftl is the method of choice. As to if people who enter the game at a later stage should have an easier time reaching the stars, that's how the devs have explicitly told us it's going to be.
 
I find it interesting that whenever I hear the devs talking about the game I really like what I hear, I imagine an upgraded version of eve that fixes many of the problems that game had while adding solid crafting mechanics. But then people keep making threads about tacking on all manner of unfun survival and rp mechanics, that imo would be really bad for the game if they were implemented.

I think stargates should be in the game. But I also think normal FTL travel should be balanced so that if you are traveling in a small craft going between systems using normal ftl is the method of choice. As to if people who enter the game at a later stage should have an easier time reaching the stars, that's how the devs have explicitly told us it's going to be.
 
I find it interesting that whenever I hear the devs talking about the game I really like what I hear, I imagine an upgraded version of eve that fixes many of the problems that game had while adding solid crafting mechanics. But then people keep making threads about tacking on all manner of unfun survival and rp mechanics, that imo would be really bad for the game if they were implemented.

The problem arises when you have someone owning the stargate and only allowing that orgs ships through, which could well mean that there will be situation where an enemy is attacking you and you have no way of striking back. The way I see it if it really shouldn't take more than 1 hour to travel between systems that are within say 20-30 ly apart, if you have proper ftl drives, and even then that would be monstrously boring. Any game mechanic that just makes you press a button and then you are effectively locked out of interacting with the game for any amount of time longer than say a few minutes is a bad mechanic. I don't want a game that says there is nothing more you can do ingame right now, go do something else!
 
IMO the limiting factor in space travel should be fuel and the size of the craft. If a space A is twice the size (size could be in mass or volume or some mix thereof, doesn't really matter) of spaceship B and spaceship A requires say 4-8 times more fuel to achieve the same FTL speed that could mean that if you are just running around in a small single man ship you might easily be able to travel vast distances in a quick manner, but that for large cargo transports or warships stargates might be much more efficient and practical.

Since the universe is going to be infinitely large a probe COULD well take several months to travel to a distant location, but I highly doubt going to the next system is going to take more than hours, this is a game after all and people have limited time to play. If the travel time is to long that would simply defeat the whole purpose of the game being single shard since it would effectively limit peoples ability to interact with each other in a timely manner.