Jump to content

JayleBreak

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JayleBreak


  1. The (IMHO) idiotic thread about PTW, did raise a question in my mind. What defines "winning" in DU?  In chess, you lose if you are checkmated or decide to resign. In poker, you are a winner if you walk away with more money than you came in with (even if you were "down" for most of the time you played). In a FPS, you "win" if you are the last man standing, or with the most "kills" at the end of the game.  But what about a game with no end? Perhaps its being at the top of the "leader" board in kills, have the most money, most territories owned, rank in your organisation, builder of the biggest construct etc? Frankly, I don't see any of those as defining a winner.
    The only way I can see myself as a winner in DU is if I have fun playing and participating in the community.  I start by not defining my self worth on the basis of games won, rank in leader boards etc. More people should try this, they might find they like it.


  2. Sounds to me like they will follow the well worn trail: go to release as PvE (and continue working on PvP) wait until that peaks, then introduce PvP servers as mid-life kicker until that fades. In the end, all is well if the players have fun and the company returns a profit to its investors.
    Its important for games to die in order to make room for new games. Kind of the circle-of-life.


  3. 9 hours ago, Daphne Jones said:

    I'm thinking the limited CVC in A3 is going to be boring for the PVP crowd.

    What I really like about how NQ is developing this game is that they are treating alpha much more like the way it should be treated, as opposed to some games that are released with "alpha" (or "early access") label. NQ reinforces the meaning of "alpha" with both the NDA and limited server availability as constant reminders that the game is very much under development. So I advise anyone who is looking to join the alpha with the intention that they are getting access to a game they can play just for fun to wait at least until DU enters the the "beta" phase (see: https://www.dualthegame.com/en/news/2019/12/04/roadmap-update/) .
    If you are like me, and want to both help in the development of the game while learning a game with some depth then by all means join in.


  4. 11 hours ago, Eternal said:

    Fiat money in real-life has no intrinsic value

    Of course it does. The same government that issues it requires that you use it to pay taxes. And if you don't pay taxes there are serious real-life consequences (thus the intrinsic value).


  5. I think the computation overhead caused by user designed oddly shaped ships, and large number of potential objects (and other contributions to server lag -e.g. internet) makes anything involving collision detection in combat a losing proposition. And as mentioned in one of NQ videos, orbital strikes were rejected because it wouldn't be "fair" - meaning people shouldn't be subject to death without any warning that danger is near or was inescapable.


  6. 2 hours ago, gerrylix said:

    Amazing in singleplayer but in multiplayer we sadly have no way to sync that kinda physics reliable.

     

    I wouldn't say no way. A distributed datacenter based server based system (doing the physics) with high speed interconnects would work. Google is coming out with Stadia and frankly the only reason I can see for a PC gamer to subscribe would be if it offered big machines (say 1TB main memory) for use by multiplayer games specifically designed to take advantage of them.


  7. This is great for single player games, but in multiplayer games the lost of synchronisation between multiple players observing (and acting on) the same scene brings nasty issues (I saw my enemy get crushed by a falling wall, but he saw the wall and dodged) which in today's games can often be ignored (no falling walls).  So synchronisation cost and effectiveness is a much more important issue than more realistic physics to a multiplayer game.


  8. On 1/25/2019 at 12:38 PM, SGCam said:

    Everyone will be in the same "shard/server".  Literally every single player.  And that's why not having NPCs works - because there should be plenty of players to make it feel lively.

    I'm a new player, but I've seen some impressive plans others have posted (forums, discord) on constructs they will build (imagine Jabba the Hutt's palace).  I can see players visiting/exploring these constructs, but in practice they will be lifeless most of the time (like the districts during the last test). Having NPCs occuping these constructs will present to the visitor a richer feel, and if they are player programmed they will provide another avenue for creativity.

×
×
  • Create New...