Jump to content

ClockworkRose

Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. There will always be your nano factory thing to make any resource you want. This is just to enable... Industrial quantities and efficiencies.
  2. I agree that simple processes like oil->gas should only Require a single simple machine. Infact, your nano arm -thingy should probably be able to do everything in small quantities. My proposed system is meant to be for increasing efficiency. I posted to picture / link to show an example of how complex such systems get in real life. I think that the secondary outputs of such a system should not be single sourced. For instance, one of the outputs in the image linked is coke. You should be able to turn oil -> coke from your arm thing or a simple coke oven machine. The benefit of the large processing system is you get some coke and more gas per unit of input. The system is not meant block the obtaining of any resource, only improve it.
  3. There is no "correct build". Its essentially all balanced around the quantity of material you wish to process. If you have a small amount, its not worth it (economically) to spend / create a larger processing setup. In addition, I'd imagine schematics and processes for the later machines would be rare, and would require ever more expensive materials to create. Essentially you have to make a choice in how far down the tech tree you need to go for your situation.
  4. Many exploring and mining type games have a way to process raw material collected into a usable form. Imagine in minecraft smelting iron ore to create iron ingots. I would like to propose a similar system for DU, but one that allows substantial factories, with complex inputs and outputs.The basic idea is that with exponential increased complexity of a refinery, you get linearly increased yields of materials. Similar to how some mods in Minecraft work (ic2, mechanism, etc) and several other games work. So a simple smelter would turn 100 units of ore into 100 units of metal, but maybe adding ore washing gives 106 units of metal. and then adding an input of flux, grinding, and sifting gives you 112 units of metal. Real life ore refining has many steps with many machines, feedback loops, inputs, and outputs. Add to that there is no reason to stick with real life limits in this game. Maybe a matter fusactor can take some of the rock scrap and break it down to get the last bits of ore. As an example of how far you can go, with a pile of machines and process, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery#Common_process_units_found_in_a_refinery There is a list of common processes involved, many of which require different inputs, output, feedback, and have multiple working parts. Constructing and running a large complex orbital refinery seems like a blast. A nice part about this system is it doesn't really impact normal gameplay. You could still make your iron with a smelter, and at a reasonable rate. You just get increased efficiency with increased investment. Devs could add the system later, and / or add onto the system later. Little changes by adding such a system into the game post release. The system is inherently balanced because of linear gain from exponential effort. This means that (assuming last level is high enough) only the biggest refineries could justify implementing it. Anyway, that's my idea. I'm captivated by the image of pipes running all over between machines, with conveyors and furnaces burning, all infront of the backdrop of a planet. Let me know what you think.
  5. A few more options: Point Defense. Rapid fire automated guns (your choice, laser, ballistic, plasma). Could be used to defend against missiles, drones, or even light craft. AoE self centered weapons. Something like an EMP burst or other Strong field fluctuations (gravity field burst?). Could be used for clearing the local field of small craft, or damaging satellites. Siege weapons. Something to do high damage to a stationary target while making yourself somewhat immobile. This has the added benefit that "taking the field" in warfare has meaning. Examples are the mass driver, some sort of charged particle cannon, maybe large plasma bursts.
  6. One cool addition to the game would be Gas Giants, Nebula, and other forms of gas in space (and maybe on planet surfaces). These could be large and (gameplay wise) slowly replenishing resources. You could harvest it by flying a ship through a nebula with a collector attachment, or dragging a collector on the surface of a gas giant. Maybe even construct a station in a nebula that is constantly collecting a small quantity. You could harvest everything and get the same nebulous "Gas". or if you wanted to make things more interesting, You could have different gasses, with different sources and different uses. Methane, Hydrogen, etc. Then you could go as complicated as you want for its uses. The logical first step is reactant for a chemical rocket. Probably some sort of early game fuel, preceding reactionless rocket tech. Following that, hydrogen gas could be processed into a a reactant in a fusion reactor. All sorts of things are possible for propulsion. Maybe you need to restock your maneuvering jets every once in a while. You could also need the gases for processing and creating elements in factories. Maybe they are needed as a catalyst, or you need a huge refinery with dozens of steps and feedback to create rare compounds. One major problem I see is implementation. I don't know what their engine looks like, but I didn't see much in the way of gasses or nebulae in any of the videos that have been shown. It might take some magic to make it work in their voxel system, and it might not even work at all. Thoughts?
  7. I cant figure out the multiquote thing, so... @nietoperek You dont want to compare anything to WoW. Noone has ever recreated their success, but many have failed trying to do so. There are a lot more failed P2P games than successes. @CaptainTwerkmotor Being a unique games changes very little about the business / payment model. Plenty of games are unique, but very few work out. And you even highlighted the fact that P2P has the WoW clone stigma. Most people view a P2P model as a soon-to-fail project. Many people would shy away just from that. I want the game to succeed, I just have doubts that P2P is the best way to do that. Especially with regards to recruiting a critical mass playerbase.
  8. I'm not a fan of the P2P model just from a # of users perspective. P2P is quickly becoming a somewhat antiquated model. Every new games with a P2P model released recently has failed. P2P would restrict player populations significantly. This game seems like it will benefit from large player populations. Larger / more factions, more builders and economic participants. P2P < B2P < F2P in terms of player population. P2P model with plex system is nice for those who want to play for free, provided they have the time enough to generate profit for said plex. This has its own downsides, like often requiring significant playtime investment, and essentially allowing RMT and allowing people to buy in game stuff. P2P is also a mode of continuous support for the developer. I agree that something like that is valued, but there are other ways. The addition of a cash shop on top of a P2P model kinda feels like a cash grab. Its much easier to justify B2P w/ Cash shop because of the need for continuous income. Additionally, it puts pressure on the player to make use of time paid. Say this game is running, and No Man's Sky is then released. It forces the player to make the decision of using the time paid effectively by playing DU, or playing the new hot game. This just kind of leaves a bad taste in your mouth. For those reasons, I think I would prefer a B2P or F2P model.
×
×
  • Create New...