Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • backer_title
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Taelessael's Achievements

  1. Why was voxel hp buffed? Unless some manner of bleed-through is added to shields that causes a ship to suffer some ccs damage with shield-hits it isn't going to be a terribly relevant stat given the element-only nature of most pvp ships. Buffing voxel won't entice people to start using it, CCS and shields killed armor-tanks for most people, it was easier to just out-run the armor-users for a minute in an element-only ship and recharge your shield while your wing-man kept the armor-user from recharging theirs. Annoying and time-consuming as it is, pvp isn't going to be balanced without additional game-mechanics. To put it it simply, the pvp-design game is too simple, and the only way to fix that is going to be to do a lot of work and add some likely rather complex mechanics until things aren't simple anymore. -If you want voxel on ships, you'll probably need some portion of damage to bleed through a ship's shield and impact the ccs. -If you want those ships to not just be disjointed clusters of elements with gold bricks clipped inside their shield generators/engines, then you'll need some kind of reason to place the voxel on the outside of elements (such as making some amount of bleed-through affect the elements that would have been hit had a ship's shields been down if it would have hit elements instead of voxel). -And finally, if you don't want us pulling 20g with an x-mas tree of guns mounted to the front of an engine-wall wrapped around an L shield, then you're probably going to have to add in some kind of heat mechanic that makes running a all of that simultaneously on something too small to dissipate that kind of heat a dangerous thing to try and do. I know it isn't easy, and I'm certain that were all of this to be done then there'd still be some new meta to eventually emerge, but it would give additional ways to balance things, and with each added bit of complexity it takes ever more time for pvp players to discover what the best option is.
  2. This thread isn't about clipping elements in to each other like people used to before NQ stopped that, its about un-cluttering the inventory screen with damaged elements, and allowing them to be connected in a long-term useful manner to dispensers. This seems a very reasonable request, though I might also ask for some kind if indicator in the corner of the element's inventory icon so that we can see how many lives elements from a given stack have remaining.
  3. Ah, I see, you're afraid someone will snowball mission-money in to DAC from whales for mission-alts. I understand why you'd be worried about that, and frankly I'd be more surprised if it didn't get attempted, but ultimately it does run in to just a few problems... There are an assortment of issues that do put a cap on such forms of alt-ing, it is unfortunately not as small a cap as I'd like it to be, and it is very fortunately smaller than you think it is, but honestly we can just ignore all of those because at the end of the day there's really only one point that matters: What you are proposing would quickly result in runaway inflation, as the sudden influx of quanta would quickly devalue all pre-existing quanta, as well as everything tied to it. This would destroy the market for nearly everything, render things like tile-taxes meaningless, and quite possibly flood the universe with anything that can be made from the subsequently worthless UEF-ship-parts. Trying to balance out a few people having more money than they should by giving even more people more money than they should have is like trying to extinguish a fire by throwing gasoline on it, you'd only be making things worse.
  4. It seems to make a nice enough amount of quanta for my solo self. Six mil while I sleep and another 6 mil while I'm at work each day adds up to a fair chunk of change. Also, if your going to compare your profits to the one or two whales willing to blow the better part of a grand on a game every month, odds are you will never appear even vaguely competitive. <div style=sarcasm> A more realistic solution is to make it harder for the whale to use their alts, such as by placing a limit to how many packages can be loaded on to one ship so that our theoretical whale would need 1 ship per alt (which would slow them down for about a week while they got their hands on 50 ships with auto-pilot, and the irl hardware suitable to run he game 50 times simultaneously). For the week after that we put a cap on how many times a given mission can be run by the entire population of DU, and then finally on the third week we just delete the mission system and auto-miners all together after realizing that any the ability to make quanta afk will allow those small handful of whales that exist and are willing to blow a silly amount of cash on a game to easily make more quanta than other people. </div> Anyways, letting all mission-runners pretend to be whales wont balance the game, it will just ruin the economy with inflation. Pay to win is annoying, but if the whales are willing to blow that kind of cash on a game then I'd rather see them paying it to NQ (who will make our game better) then to mmo-gold-farmers, because the only way to stop them from whaling DU is to close the game down.
  5. I'm not sure if you think nobody is doing missions, or if you think too many people are doing missions, but this doesn't seem like a great idea either way. Missions of all sizes require a degree of efficiency to be profitable (or very profitable), but a good number of people do run them and make money off of them. If the price were to fluctuate as suggested then you'd risk either running off all but the most efficient haulers, or pushing too much quanta in to the game and causing some rather significant inflation that could hurt the ability of players that prefer to make quanta in other ways to buy things. Also, there isn't a 1-package per account cap, there's a "you can't run the same mission more than once at a time" cap because when they let people run the same mission several times simultaneously (even via alts or as an org), the result is mission-runners flooding the game with quanta and destroying the market by making things too expensive for everyone else (or doing stupid things, like claiming every single territory on an entire moon again). You can take as many different missions simultaneously as you like, and they are in fact very accessible to anyone with a big enough hold and enough thrust to get them out of gravity.
  6. Right... bit busy irl so I'm just going to go for it... -First, don't insult people, it's rude, and it makes you look childish and your argument not worth consideration. -Second, if someone is breaking in to your home and putting a gun to your head and ordering you to fly in to pvp space in DU, thats a problem for the cops, not NQ. If your "forced in to pvp" is that you have to go in to pvp space to claim the stuff meant as a reward for people willing to risk their stuff without just buying it from other people that will often gladly sell it to you, then that isn't you being forced, that is you consenting to pvp and just not liking it. You can stay in the safe-bubble, you can buy everything from other players, complaining that you are being forced because you don't want to have to risk anything (or expend anything to circumvent the risk) to earn a reward meant for people willing to accept a big risk is just silly. -Third, if by some random absurdity all the pve-only players were to leave, all the pirates, pvp players, mixed-content-players would still be here, paying their subs. -Fourth, because I half-expect you to cite some random vaguely similar game where things get blown up in pvp but not in non-pvp, EVE Online is also a vaguely similar game where you can get pvp'd everywhere and there isn't a safe-bubble, and it is still going after almost 2 decades. Random vaguely similar games prove nothing for or against pvp (consensual or otherwise). -And Fifth, before you say something absurd about me being a pirate that somehow has some ridiculous problem with pve players having the option to avoid pvp, I'm a mission-runner, not a pvp player, avoiding pirates is easy and we need more of them to start to provide some kind of a challenge. So, do you have anything to contribute to this suggestion? Advised payouts? Time limit to sell the packages? Ect...? Any questions? Personally I think the packages should have a timer on them that deletes them if they mission they were for expires, and should be bought by bots on the market for the mission's collateral price (we can raise it later if it looks like it needs to be higher), but it should probably never payout the full mission-payout price. Thank you, and have a nice day.
  7. A bit of payout for stolen mission-packages may incentivize more pirates, it would make missions more interesting if there were more pirates to avoid.
  8. A - How does this improve things? b - Most people don't have the energy to devote to reading something that small.
  9. How ever will those poor orgs with several people cooperating toward a single goal by doing a bunch of different things and training a bunch of different skills simultaneously ever manage to compete with a single guy doing one thing at a time while his main and alt train two whole different skills at once?!!! Oh... wait... Anyways, this is a terrible idea as not only would it become pay-to-win for pvp, but... -a lot of people would make use of dozens of free-alts to do what Emptiness is complaining about, -and a lot of people would just stop paying because t1 would be "good enough" for a very sizeable portion of the player-base, -and people would use alts to claim hq tiles to avoid the taxes that are meant to keep people from claiming n+1 tiles, -and we'd be opening the primary server up to the unending stupidity that results from trolls and hackers being able to enter a multiplayer game without having to risk getting an account they paid for banned. Better to just leave things as they are in so far as subscriptions, trial accounts, and material-tier access is concerned.
  10. To keep it short, moving about space-stations was a bit of a nuisance in beta, as gravity could kick on or off seemingly at random while you were near the station, and most v-boosters would throw a ship clear of a station's gravity nearly instantly and well before the ship could properly line up to land on a landing-pad. As such, I'd like to propose that station-cores have their gravity-fields height (and possibly strength) made in to a stat that the station's builder can adjust at the core. This would allow players to make landing-pads suitable for larger ships that ensure their pilots don't need to hop out and catch them with the maneuver-tool to keep them from floating away, keep players walking around a station from spontaneously having gravity kick on and off during a jump or while jetpacking around, and prevent a lot of really annoying collisions with the ceiling of any enclosed station-garages when the v-boosters on a ship fire the moment the pilot takes a seat. Control doesn't exactly need to be extremely fine here, 4 or 8 meter increments for height and quarters or thirds for gravity-pull would be perfectly adequate. Any considerations or thoughts?
  11. Is there a height-limit to static constructs now? Dang, I'd wanted to get my floating platform back to its position 40km over a planet... I'll miss the micro-gravity assisted landings... Still, a small price to pay to not have to dodge space-spires during low orbit/atmo flight.
  12. I'd agree with all of this except for jetpack-farming. The issue here is less to do with jetpack-farming and more with how the dsat mini-game is just "follow the waypoints through the empty void". If the dsat-minigame was more involved, (say if it worked more like the scan-tool as a hot/cold game) then you'd have to probably get a fair bit closer to rocks before you left your ship, and that would probably put you in radar range for pvp. Alternatively an environmental hazard that would kill players and/or insufficiently protected cores (radiation, micrometeorites, ect...) after a short time would likewise solve the issue. The "Jammed Zone" gives haulers a chance, without it any hauler not warping would have no chance to evade pirates. That said, it does seem just a hair on the large side and could probably stand to shrink a bit if they don't increase radar range. Group/special missions need to stay as they are. Just because people wont have beta-keys doesn't mean orgs wouldn't abuse it for stupid-cash. It would be better rather if there were missions with even larger packages than there are now, you'd have a bigger payout to make it worth the use of said larger ship for the hauler-pilot, and subsequently a bigger ship for said pirate to loot. 9kt packages would be a start, but we'd probably want at least 1 more tier above that, and if the package actually contained something that could be sold (for less than the mission payout) then it would add to the pirate's loot. I'd say the rest of that looks good, not that I'd expect NQ is going to bother reading it.
  13. You seem to be missing the point I have been trying to make over the last several posts. We don't need to wait 5 years for tech to improve, the tech has been able to handle timestamps just fine longer than it has been able to handle almost everything else that happens in DU.
  14. Usage-based wear and tear systems just annoy people, and in ship-building games like DU they have this bad habit of not helping the economy much as the maintenance requirement tends to either drive people to smaller and more efficient designs that don't pull much from the market, or it just drives them from the game. If you want to boost sales it tends to work far better if you come up with something that has people losing things to pvp or environmental hazards (like a mission to go save a destroyed ship's cargo from the middle of a meteorite storm in an asteroid thicket). As for adjusting taxes, they are kind of important to keep people from doing stupid stuff, like buying an entire moon, so you'd have to adjust the payout for a lot of other stuff too if you change taxes. At the end of the day we'd probably end up right back where we are now, just with less stuff in the world... I understand the desire to get mining to be a more active thing, to make dedicated miners a more functional play-style again. Unfortunately t1 auto-mining is supposed to be the quanta-supply for new players and casuals, the only way to keep the market from being flooded would be to make it not a viable source of quanta for most people, and that would negate its purpose. You can move more of the t3/4/5 stuff to asteroids and/or require more of them to make things if you want to encourage more active mining, but t1 and t2 probably need to stay more or less where they are.
  15. The game can't be all about fleet combat. It is important but it isn't the whole game, and seeing as my name is causing more latency than the time-stamp is, I think we can spare a few bytes for the builders that get you your ships to blow up.
  • Create New...