Jump to content

Taelessael

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Taelessael

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Time-stamp: 6 bytes Construct name (5 English-alphabet characters): 6 bytes Construct name (12 English alpha-numeric characters): 13 bytes My avatar's name in the DRM: 10 bytes So, are you worried that if I go give all my constructs 12-character names before I make bpo out of them that the game will crash? I think I have 2 or 3 bpo of my FAE Wolf Mk2 already in my pack. Is everything on fire yet? How ever will it manage to handle the two sets of x, y, and z needed to find the position and orientation of each of the twelve of that ship's off-axis engines? CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE HOW MANY PUNCH-CARDS I'M GOING TO NEED?! DO NUMBERS EVEN GO THAT HIGH?! HOW WILL I CARRY THEM ALL?!!! Seriously though, I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but the tech needed to handle displaying time-stamps to everyone that wants to see them in an mmo has been a thing for quite a bit longer than DU has.
  6. Who needs a job at a factory? People already have the job of providing those stats to anyone that will listen, just don't use reality tv as a reference. But now we're off topic. I can get behind the pvp stuff and the high-tier ore-output modifications as long as it's done carefully, but I think industry should be left alone for the moment. We want people to play DU as a game, not a job.
  7. Given that it isn't hard to see how things are already being sorted by date every single time, I'm going to suspect that they don't show time-stamps less because of data-cost and more because they are less visually appealing than keeping them hidden for the average player during the 99% of the time they don't need to know when it was created. You seem to have missed the point in the math where I did things for a few orders of magnitude more players than any single mmo has probably ever had...
  8. If your point of reference is a reality-tv show... Trying to pay as little as possible for mass-producing something is a fairly major business so far as factories are concerned. A lot of stuff isn't perfect yet, but it is getting there. Also, again, the goal is to not turn the game in to a job. We've thrown realism out the window for other things, let the indy-players have their maintenance-free factories.
  9. I appreciate the attempt, but you should probably stop now. Anyone can claim to have run/managed all of that, and nobody can actually prove it in any reasonable manner. On top of that you are arguing that a simple time-stamp (that seems to already be a thing, though hidden) will break things in a way that somehow isn't happening several times over with each and every print storing information on each and every elements' type, position in 3d space, orientation in 3d space, and links for hundreds of elements. If it doesn't happen, it will be because other things are more important, not because we are going to break a massive mmo with an extra 6 bytes of data. Also, for anyone wondering: ~6 bytes (time and date, depending on formatting) x 100 prints x 1,000,000,000 people (if DU suddenly became more popular than some major religions) = 600 Gigabytes, or approximately 1.2 higher-end thumb-drives (half-terabyte thumb drives go for about 100$ where I live).
  10. A date on a print won't break things any more than a new decorative bit of voxel or an extra element. I wouldn't call this a highly important feature to add, and I don't expect it any time soon, but it would be nice to have... ...except for the "keep your beta-stuff after lauch" bp, that isn't happening no matter how much we want it.
  11. An interesting thought, but presently tricky to implement well. The present abundance of safe-zones close to near about everywhere already encourages all but the largest pvp groups to keep their stuff parked in an SZ when not in use unless they are trying to rp something or be edgy... so implementing this would probably just chase the little guys in to SZ locations leaving you with naught but warp-beacon-stations fitted with base-shields belonging to large orgs to locate... It would encourage some fights initially, and get a lot of pvp players to run those missions in order to try and locate stuff belonging to an opposing faction, but I suspect that if the payouts are not carefully balanced then you'd end up just throwing cash at people in a way that could damage the game's economy. I'd like it, but it would need to be implemented with great care to avoid accidentally breaking other parts of the game by giving some people too much money.
  12. Plenty of orgs keep a sizeable chunk of pve players in their ranks. PvP players like action, big risks, and big rewards, and find precisely none of that in scanning hundreds of tiles to look for good MU spots, managing supply-lines, or pulling hours/days-long cargo-loops. They'll help to be sure, calibrating MU, scouting ahead of cargo-ships that need to slow-boat until they are safely clear of the pipes, and bringing back their loot for the indy-guys to turn in to more ships and bullets, but it is the PvE guys that usually keep the PvP players' engines fueled and guns loaded in larger PvP orgs. -Mining- I like everything there except for the reduced ore yields on MU. I'd agree that the upper-level stuff could use a nerf, but NQ had a lot of issues with tax vs mining output because newer players and players that didn't have a large enough quanta-buffer to take advantage of scale-economics couldn't keep up with the costs. It is supposed to be a thing for casuals to make some cash to play with on their weekends, but if you nerf the output that hard then you'd need to re-balance a lot of other stuff to avoid either inadvertently crippling them, or accidentally rolling someone else in economic power. -Industry- Limiting how much you can put on one core will only annoy people here. Most large industrial complexes will be owned by large groups of players that can afford to drop a couple dozen cores if they want that amount of indy going. As for the rest of it... the goal is to not turn the game in to a job, and while your proposed requirements are all quite easily met, they would still be pushing precisely toward that. People want fun, but that is a different thing to different people. Industry tends to cater to people that like to do a lot of setup-work followed by relatively little aside from supply/sales runs. Trying to force them to crawl through the factory playing with everything on a regular basis is just going to annoy them. -PvP space rewards- I am all for giving pvp players a better reward as compensation for risking their stuff in pvp space and as an an encouragement to get pve people out there, but care needs to be taken here. All of DU sits in a tiny solar-system at present, and if the loot in pvp space is too big you risk rolling the biggest pvp faction in enough material that others can't compete with them should they manage to hold it all (as Legion has done in the beta server with the alien cores' t5 output).
  13. This is already a thing. Slect multiple, > drag and drop.
  14. This is already a thing. Slect multiple, > drag and drop outside the inventory window.
  15. Fiddly... On the one hand it would be nice to see some larger payouts there... On the other there are a lot of achievements that amount to "do a thing with stuff you can pass to your friends/org-mates so that y'all can will have it 5 mins after the first person does"... Increasing the achievements' payout to make them individually significant will probably require re-working what earns what so that this time around when I throw 256 plants and 256 encampment chairs on to the roof of my cargo-shuttle along with a few other achievement-related bits, my org (or any other) doesn't play a game of "hot-potato" with the shuttle like they did back when beta started to earn 200 people all the top-end achievements. I'm all for it, but we need to adjust the achievement-rankings first.
  16. I'm all for planetary pvp, and for pve environmental hazards, and for proper additional content, but a random environmental effect disabling constructs without a proper defense would be annoying, especially with loss of the rez-node and on a pvp planet. Otherwise I'd have to agree with @Sagacious, the spawn of such things needs to be random and not all at once weekly. I would perhaps suggest that area-environmental-damage would have to eat through a construct's shield and ccs before it could disable the construct, thus providing a way for players to extend the time they'd have to deal with dangerous environmental AOE so that they wont have to worry about having to panic-rush-mine a rock that spawned next to their stuff the moment they log back in.
  17. As I recall, many of those fights dragged on for absurd amounts of time because it was possible for a suitably large engineering crew to patch a ship faster than it could be killed (so long as supplies lasted). While I will gladly support a bit of a buff to voxel so it becomes relevant outside of sieges, I'd expect that we'd need something more complicated than making the repair crew relevant again if we don't want to risk sliding back in to the previously overlong fights. Unfortunately my best ideas for such would involve things like allowing multiple shield-generators on a ship (probably while nerfing individual ones, disallowing script control, allowing only simultaneous venting, and requiring them all to have their resistances kept synchronized to get their combined hp?), or adding other mechanics to ships that need managing and cant be script-controlled, such as an e-war minigame that improves the hit-chances of the weapons on the ship that has its sensors/countermeasures better managed.
  18. Agreed. Here you are only partially correct. While players did previously have the option to do as you have suggested, they will now instead have the option to sell their copies to other players. It is most certainly not a perfect 1 for 1, and it isn't hard to see that it will annoy factory players by giving them what is functionally a level of "upkeep-play" akin to mining calibrations... We'll need to see how it goes, but NQ really should be careful here, we don't want parts of the game to turn in to a job.
  19. Right, I forgot the sarcasm tags... I should go edit the original post so people don't miss my intent. My point isn't that there are mega-factories, it is that someone is still complaining about them because they can't accept that it is possible for people to work together enough to amass the supplies to build them. There are mega-factories, there will be mega-factories, they will be operated by a small number of people on behalf of larger groups for the sake of avoiding "too many cooks in the kitchen", and the only thing a wipe will do to inhibit that is annoy people in to quitting and thus reduce the possibility that the game would continue long enough for another mega-factory to be built. So, please don't start with the absurd "objective must wipe" bologna. DU is an mmo that involves amassing stuff, building, trading, pvp, and generally competing with each other in ways that have permanent results for every action anyone takes in a persistent world. Someone will always have more stuff than someone else, people can and will cooperate with each other in large groups in ways that allow them to wildly exceed what solos and small groups do, and the only time this game will ever be fair and/or equal for everyone will be when NQ pulls the plug.
  20. <sarcasm> Well, I suppose this will produce some hard numbers to throw at the noisy ones that for some reason think the game is having issues with privately owned mega-factories... because this is still apparently an issue for someone... </sarcasm> ...Anyways, if they don't want to annoy everyone like they did in .23, they'll need some manner of transition period where both new and old schematics work, and it wouldn't hurt to make it so players don't need to run to an aphelia-structure to get this done (even if it costs just as much).
  21. ...I don't see why RNG is a useful feature for a glorified copy-machine... Could you please elaborate as to why it would be a good thing to add?
  22. ...This just sounds like making auto-miners more complicated for the sake of making them more complicated... Planetary auto-miners are supposed to be basic income for casuals & new-players, and subsequently need to be relatively simple. If you want something like this, you'd probably do better asking for it in a way that applies to asteroids, such as: -A system that allows the deployment of territory units, static cores, and variant auto-miners on asteroids, with these auto-miners running on mining-cartridges obtained via missions. On a related note, until NQ decides to add in random meteorite storms, coronal-mass-ejections, corrosive clouds, and space-lightning, the only thing that makes a mission dangerous is player-pirates, so scaling a mission's rewards to it's "danger" would be quite difficult at this time.
  23. Game's been all over the place for pvp balance. NQ wants a diversity of designs and sizes in combat in an "everything's relevant" kind of way but they keep trying to generally tweak the broad rules/numbers to make it happen instead of adding new stuff. Meta was XS/S core cubes at beta-launch, so they removed the radar restrictions and restricted weapons that it was based around, then it was L core bricks because it was possible to make them effectively too heavy to kill with a repair crew going, so they added cross-section, and then ccs, shields, and tardis-ammo, then it was L core SNES cartridges because there wasn't a good reason to not have a wall of guns that outrange everything else propelled by a wall of engines that outran everything else, and now with the weight-speed cap its S core USB of doom, because cross-section lets it relatively out-dps everything else while light weight lets it out-run everything else. As for the changes proposed here... -Giving L weapons higher alpha with the same dps would help diversify things a bit by encouraging fighters to try and get under its guns, but the S-fighters are already the meta for the moment... -L weapons getting to knock things around would be amusing, but short of meme-ably egregious kicking capacity it probably wont do much of anything long term, -CSS has needed to apply differently to different cores from the get-go, letting larger constructs have a higher CSS cap would go a long way there, but only in defensive scenarios, To sum it up, I don't think these changes alone will change the balance/meta much, if at all. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of great options to achieve the desired balance that don't involve adding a lot of stuff. The simplest way to do things I can think of would be: -A power-system added to allow for element-balance-tweaks and to help nerf the ability to have the best acceleration/speed and the best cross-section and the biggest shield all on one ship for any given size (speed/cross-section need to be incompatible with oversized shields). -CCS modified (as you suggested) so that bigger ships can have more effective armor than their smaller counterparts, -Weapons/cross-section modified so that in pvp the best thing to kill a ship (or ships) is a ship one core size larger, -A capacity buff/nerf to gunner-seats applied in a way that encourages matching the core-size to weapon-size (make an M core with M weapons require a smaller crew than an identical L core with M weapons), -The addition of tiny, short range, fast reloading L missile-launcher (call them torpedos or bombs) that can only be fit to XS ships, and makes a few of them the best thing to kill an L core with, -The addition of a basic set of reference info in a weapon's listed stats (when inspected on the market) on the weapon's hit chance vs cross-section so that we aren't pissing off all the new players by not informing them that anti-L weapons will miss so often against xs targets as to be less useful than XS or S weapons.
  24. Still trying to think that up or I'd have posted it here. Unfortunately at the moment we are all playing in a relatively tiny universe where if the players are given anything they can just go ham with it, there aren't any pve hazards capable of trimming down the stuff in the world, anything of interest that isn't already in a safe-zone is within a single warp of one, and nobody wants to pvp over the pvp objectives because they don't think they can win against Legion. On top of that the market hasn't had time to rid itself of all the salvaged stuff yet, there aren't a ton of new players joining, and NQ dangling a wipe over everyone has a large number of existing players either taking a break until they are certain they wont be losing all their work to NQ's poor problem management, or stockpiling ore and things they produce themselves for when its needed in a no-wipe scenario...
  25. I want an option that doesn't involve a wipe, and I want that same option to not involve having to regularly replace the hundreds/thousands of elements on my constructs, and I want that option to also not involve forcing me to either store deployed elements in a massive lag-cube, or fly all the markets to buy all the ores/elements I'd need if I decide to build something. I also know that while it is potentially difficult, courtesy of the nearly 2 decades EVE has been letting some people care-bear it up in high sec without even paying for fuel I can say it is entirely possible. I also know thanks to having run my own pvp-survival server in Space Engineers that few things kill people's enthusiasm to play a game like having to design for and perform regular maintenance on their starship. People play games to escape reality, not to be reminded that their car needs an oil change every 3,000 miles, everyone wants to captain their own private Enterprise, and nobody wants to put in man-hours it would take just to keep it clean without space-roombas. I understand that you probably have a factory that isn't rolling you in quanta right now thanks to recent salvage pushing a lot of the element prices down below their manufacturing/transport costs for a while, and that you don't think regularly maintaining all of the elements in your factory is too much of a problem for you, but I've watched maintenance kill people's enjoyment of a game because the grind quickly turned it in to a job. So, I say its' a terrible idea, and if it happens it will crater the game.
×
×
  • Create New...