Jump to content

Volkier

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

1022 profile views

Volkier's Achievements

  1. Mate can we stop with that braindead non-argument? Nobody is asking for DU to 'support' older systems. If DU decided that to move their engine to a more modern architecture that requires DirectX12 support, then sure, it would be a valid argument. That's not the case - the game works and runs perfectly fine. We just aren't allowed to launch it anymore for arbitrary reasons - and yes, having a deliberately restrictive launcher that does nothing other than update and launch the game is exactly that - deliberate and restrictive. Again, and I shouldn't have to repeat myself but at this point it feels like I have to in order to drive the point home: Everybody knows Microsoft stopped support for Win7, Nothing to do with 'supporting an OS or not' - nobody is talking about changing game engine architecture here. If DU came out and said "Microsoft paid us $ to block people from playing" (I'm not saying that this is what happened by the way) - that would make more sense and be far more logical and rational than what you are suggesting.
  2. I would normally disagree with you - niche in the market and all that - but I can't really say much since I want to play DU like I have for years, but I'm prevented from doing so after they've updated their launcher deliberately removing compatibility. Game itself works perfectly, I just can't launch / update it any more.
  3. Make the launcher compatible with OS other than windows 10 again. Or simply revert back to old launcher. Or even just give people the option with what launcher to use. Game currently runs perfectly well on Windows 7 systems, but that has been prohibited after the launcher update. Even the swap over to the new launcher originally was still viable as you could get it to work after manually installing web view - but after it's third or forth update, it just refuses to run at all. I just find it really really odd that NQ would deliberately remove the ability of a chunk of people to play their game, which otherwise runs perfectly fine and without issues, through what at this point looks like deliberate effort. Like a developer had to go through the trouble of creating something that specifically doesn't work on a portion of the systems, then when people got it working "updated" it to definitely not work. Just very very odd business model in my humble opinion but eh, what would I know?
  4. EDIT: Changing the nature of this post - as I have got the launcher to work, after admittedly thinking I will never see the sun set on Alioth or the frosty wastelands of Sinnen ever again. In case anyone is having the same issues I've had with regards to running the new launcher on Win7, you need to do the following: - Microsoft NET framework updated to 4.8 . DU should do this automatically, however if not it can be acquired from microsoft https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2088631 - Microsoft WebView2 . This one is a bit weird because there are a whole lot of different programs with the same name that search spews up, and what you actually want is "Evergreen Standalone installer" on the microsoft website https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/webview2/ Yeah it's pretty straight forward and basic, but maybe it would help someone else who isn't sure what services they need to install for the launcher to work Oh and also, admin please delete if this isn't meant to go here (was looking for new patch feedback forum originally, but there seems to only be devblog feedback one). Still, I don't know if it's a glitch and I should be able to post in 'updates and announcements' On a semi related note - if you are getting "white screen of god rays" after the update, disable volumetric clouds.
  5. The thing is - if lives or durability or efficiency was removable from dynamic properties so that those elements could be built with properly - it creates a slew of other issues such as how does the game split them into stacks, how does the player know without clicking on every single stack which one is the full functioning one, how does the game know what stack to use first to undo something, how do you prevent scams since those elements can now be used in trading / market / dispensers, how do you work with picking up and undo-ing in order to apply skill bonuses to someone else's ship and make sure the elements with the correct function go in the same place - or alternatively if you want to use a fully functional element to replace a broken one without yeeting the broken one altogether. Basically while I don't particularly like it, I can fully understand why it would be added as a dynamic property as the alternative would be creating a complicated mess to make the system function, or have a non functioning system that causes more issues than it solves (kinda exactly like the x lives mechanic we have right now). Which is also why I've come to a firm belief that any solution cannot involve dynamic properties for it to be a functional solution.
  6. I was thinking more along the lines of scrap only restores to a certain % efficiency as you suggested, while repair station restores to full. So you would not be stranded, but you would also want to visit a local repair station to restore elements to full functionality. Also battle scarred ships would handle differently and more efficiently to fresh reinforcements - providing there's a minimum cap you can restore your element to. Though that just creates a new fun mechanic without providing an element sink, so doesn't really solve what NQ is trying to solve, while permanent durability loss doesn't solve the problems that the "x lives" system has created. Yeah, but I think the schematics system already does that to a degree - since as you said not everyone is going to have schematics for everything. Though I do see what you are saying, and that's also part of the reason I would prefer to keep field repairs on scrap with repair stations using element parts. I think PvP is already tedious enough without the requirement to have a cargo hold full of hundreds of different sub-components. Though it will certainly be realistic, we want to encourage risk taking and player interaction, not make it a chore. On reflection, the one I've posted here is quite a bit more different than what I thought - I was thinking of another we had while brainstorming in a discord discussions with a bunch of other players on the subject - though that one never made it into a forum post. But here you go - (basically TLDR - scrap is produced using a recycle-type module on existing elements that will yield scrap + parts up to the tier of the module recycled. Sorry it wasn't the one I was thinking, but point remains - while I think it would be a cool mechanic, I think the simpler and the most win-win for everyone whether it's factory owners, builders, pilots or pirates, the better. And an RNG items destroyed and not dropped on death is a time-tested and proven mechanic to date. Though I won't deny there are definitely better alternatives - just need to find one that's appealing to everyone )
  7. I'd rather we had to use repair stations tbh - would make those useful for stuff other than voxels. They currently take parts already, so devs don't need to change / add anything - and it makes PvP more interesting imho... Though I still don't like efficiency dropping from the element going into yellow health as it feels like the original 0.23 system on steroids. Unless you are talking specifically about combat taking efficiency down - but then you have the wonky mechanic you have now where damaged elements behave differently just because they blew up from hitting the ground instead of blowing up from hitting a missile. The parts system also means that factoria players won't be happy as people would be buying subcomponents instead of fully assembled parts. So I dunno - I'd say the ideal solution for a fun game would be a mix of all the discussed mechanics - but I don't know if it would fix the problems of the current system if implimented as an element sink. If it makes you feel any better - I originally proposed a very similar solution initially as well - one that used subcomponents to restore full efficiency, with scrap only restoring a certain amount of efficiency to elements, added alongside an element recycler. I've since realised that - while it would be a fun mechanic - it's less likely to keep the most number of players happy and require additional gameplay mechanics to be added to go alongside them, while requiring a moderate developer time cost.... Though I might be completely wrong on all accords XD
  8. Yep that will work - providing there's some way to prevent elements having dynamic properties applied to them for a reasonable amount of time, as that will otherwise severely impact building ships - especially if you want to do short test flights to see how everything you've placed is performing in real time rather than on paper throughout the build process. Though based on the direction of 0.23, the pessimist in me would argue that if we are going to get maintenance degregation it's not going to be anything remotely reasonable like what you proposed - but rather you would need to require maintenance after flying from Alioth to Sanctuary. I guess I'm just being very cautions with what cans of worms will be opened as it's very easy to turn something that is fun and has the potential to make the game more enjoyable, into a tedious grindy mechanic that does more harm than good. And with the track record of gradually implimenting stuff so far......... you see what I'm saying XD Overall, and to be honest, I would far rather NQ focused on creating element sink through PvP and promoting PvP (ie. high risks and high rewards) rather than unfun mechanics that create far more issues than they solve - such as the current lives system - which incidentally discourages PvP as it takes what used to be little reward to a net loss for everyone involved (since elements with under max lives are worthless). There do need to also be penalties for crashing and flying recklessly - but again, this mechanic went in the opposite direction when scavenging was removed / nerfed a few months back, removing the ability of players to claim destroyed constructs they come across. As such, and the way I see it - I think any system that we propose and promote needs to put fixing current problems created by the "x lives" mechanic first, while complimenting added gameplay features as a secondary. I think the developers would also be more willing to consider a fix that involes fewer lines of codes rather over adding new functions at this point or revamping the whole thing. Though again, this is all merely speculative, said in the spirit of discussion of ideas, and I'm not a coder (nor would I know what the devs are thinking at any given time) so...... yeah just my 2ʱ So in that spirit - the main and biggest problems I see with the current system (ie. the x-lives, not the one you proposed) - pvp is discouraged since under fully working elements are worthless (not viable for building with them / can't be used in BPs etc.) - creative building is discouraged as decorative elements are penalised (you'll need to replace more stuff if you get into a fight) That list grows exponentially if they revert to the original system from 0.23 as they said they wanted to eventually do, so the community needs to come up with a viable alternative to propose to the devs before that happens. Hence why I still believe a "x% elements destroyed when core goes boom" would solve both of the above problems while keeping the same level of element sink which would be easier to digest for the minority of people who want to play the factory meta. That said, on paper I do like your maintenance system: however, while it doesn't discourage or encourage creative building for decorative elements, I do think it would need to provide more incentives for PvP - if only because that's a requirement for the system to function best. Now it does create opportunities to do so by opening up the possibilities of overloading modules (higher rate of maintenance drops) for shorter period of time (think EVE online's overload requiring nanites to repair after the fact) - and it does make repair-work mid-fight more interesting - which is why I like it. I guess I'm going around in circles, and I do apologise for that - but my biggest concern is that I'm skeptical it would be implimented in a way where it becomes an every-day survival mechanic. What would you think could be easily added to the idea though to encourage PvP, as I believe that is just about a prerequisite for this to work? That doesn't fix the problems that the current system created though. It's just lives with extra steps. Elements under 100% efficiency are still worthless for the same reasons elements with 2/3 lives currently are. PvP is still discouraged. If anything, I'd argue that this is potentially worse as you no longer have to have an element be destroyed for it to be bricked, now it's bricked the moment it's HP drops below 90%. Now I do like that idea if it was a temporary measure in combat - ie. field repairs only gave back so much efficiency so PvP isn't a meta of "who has more scrap and people on board" - a ship that's hit 100 times is going to have stuff on it work less efficiently that the other ship that was only hit 10 times - but might not have 20 crew all repairing. But that will only work if there's a way to restore the element to full function after the fight itself (either in base through repair unit w/e). This will actually be a great mechanic to have - but not as an element sink imho - for the above reason of it basically creating the same problems as the current lives system does if used in that way.
  9. Problem is that having an element be 90% efficient would create the same problems as the current lives system. It is still worthless as it has dynamic properties so you are severely inhibited using it to build stuff with, in what is fundamentally in large part a building game. And the risk/reward rating for the person attacking is likewise still a problem as they still can brick their elements to 90% in a fight. It's basically the same lives system, just instead of a countdown of lives you have a countdown of efficiency.
  10. It's better than the lives system that's for sure I do see a couple of issues that will arise here though - so to play the devil's advocate: cons: - Balancing would be tricky, as making elements break too quickly will destroy any sense of immersion (you know, like those survival games where your character has an infestation of gut worms and have to eat every 5 minutes in game time lest they starve to death). On the flip side, realistic timeframes similar to those on current aircraft before you would begin to even notice a degrade in performance, would mean that you should be able to fly for weeks on end before your element goes down to 99% - Does feel like a survival mechanic - which I appreciate is not what many people would be keen on. Like eating food or drinking water kinda thing XD pros: - Providing maintenance can restore your element back to full functionality - does create a new job line / skill line - Providing maintenance can restore your element back to full functionality - does fix the current system's discentive for PvP potentially escalating problems (peps?) - If maintenance does not restore element back to full functionality, that means that now the moment you loose 0.001% durability on an element that element is useless for building purposes. Currently, building with "damaged" elements is near to not possible due to players inability to use undo / redo for element placements when there are dynamic properties attached to an element, bricking the entire 'undo' function when the player attempts to do this without having an element without dynamic properties in their inventory. Even if that bug was fixed (which should have happened well before any sort of such system using dynamic properties was implemented imho) and item durability was not tied to dynamic properties - you would still run into the issue of "how would the game know whether to use an element with full durability, 90% durability or less in any given scenario while building. Basically right now, loosing a life on your element makes the element worthless for building - in what is ultimately a world building game. This has been mitigated by NQ by restricting "life loss" only due to pvp - which means that while flying is once again viable, pvp-ing is not. If even with maintenance you cannot restore full functionality to an element under this proposal, then just sitting in your pilot chair while building and tapping your mouse accidentally would be enough to deem all active elements on your ship un-viable for building. - On the other hand, if maintenance does restore your elements to full functionality, then the solution does not provide an element sink that NQ is trying to create. So yeah for the sake of a health discussion, just thought I'll throw in what I can potentially see as problems with any "slowly diminishing elements" system. I'm still like the idea of " x% of your elements are destroyed when your core goes boom " system the most, as it solves just about all the problems that the current system has created and on average provides the same level of element sink while rewarding careful pilots and well built ships. Can't remember who came up with it though as it was a communal result of a discord discussion XD
  11. Yeah I agree with you. The issue I have is that there are a LOT of things that there is currently no counterplay to, and I would far rather see if the planned updates would include the said counterplay rather than the adding or removing mechanics which are posing a temporary problem rather than a permanent one. The reasons being: - Just like in real life - it is far more difficult to get the powers that be to reverse a bad decision after it has been implimented than getting the said decision to be implimented in the first place - If such a mechanic is a temporary measure that will be reversed in the future, someone would need to put in the time right now to work on implementing it, fixing the bugs, fixing the bugs with other impacted systems and then un-implimenting it, fixing new bugs, and fixing new bugs with newly impacted systems as a result. And to me, removing aspects of emergent gameplay is a bad decision - even if there is currently no counter. On the flip side, realising what gameplay has emerged and expanding on it would in in contrast a good decision in this instance. In short and to circle back to the point - absolutely agree that there should be a counter against stowaways and spies, but it needs to be a worked in system that expands on that aspect of gameplay for everyone involved. Implementing it as an element is this a great way to do this as it can be later expanded upon. Completely disagree with removing stowaway ability for the same reason and principle I disagree with removing any gameplay that has emerged due to player creatively using the tools and systems given to them within the game to achieve results that were not planned. It would be a damn boring game if every player interaction was curated and scripted.
  12. What happens when you are transporting someone and they drop connection / crash the game though? I wouldn't want to add RDMS every time someone needs a lift. I would far rather they added some sort of "security server" element that you can install on your ship which will detect any player "docked" to the specific construct at any time and allow players to kick them off. On the flip side, subvert gameplay that is created by letting players "hide" on enemy ships is something that has come about because of people being able to hide / stowaway on other players ships - and I believe in expanding gameplay rather than limiting it on principle. So on that I would far rather the devs took this as an opportunity to expand the said gameplay rather than remove it completely - albeit with the ability to give the players who own the construct some way / method to counterplay against it. Maybe through skills how long you can stay on a construct undetected etc.
  13. It works for engines (that video). It doesn't work for hover engines / vertical boosters - which is potentially the same problem you are encountering expanded to other engines. I'd urge you to submit a bug report as it is clearly not working as intended - but like a lot of these little pesky issues, they get ignored because most people just grumble and don't let the devs know there is an issue (or there is a small group of people who do, so the issue seems to be much "lesser" on the receiving end). For the engines to turn off - I found that all you have to do is go in the direction those engines are working (eg. I have Auxiliary thrusters which I would like to keep turned off in space, toggling the ALT key to turn them off will keep them on until I manually push "down" on my keyboard which cycles them to off) - Again, I'm quite sure this is now how the script was intended to operate and it's glitchy, but it's workable for engines at least in my experience Do you have them turned "off" by default and do they stay off until you turn them on? Thought I'll add to this - yeah it works but hover engines / vertical boosters are not working 90% of the time and behave oddly when assigned to the script. I've submitted a bug report a while back on this, but this has been the case for months now since I've added the script following that video. EDIT: Also also - would it not be a very simple fix to have engines be able to be toggled by a manual switch / button for those who would prefer to not use LUA for whatever reason - like lights or any other element that switches control? Too much lua does seem to lead to frame drop at the moment after all...
  14. I mean radars use a lot of PvP points, so there isn't really any need to limit cockpits / hover seats considering you need to max out your skills to be able to fit both radars on a single hover seat anyway. Or if not maxed, then balancing it to be that way wouldn't be that tricky. Basically give players the option of what seat they will use for aesthetic purposes and what they wish to attach to it - with the limitations being created by PvP cost rather than arbitrary number of links. Or/and just make Navigation chairs actually useful and serve a purpose XD But yeah overall agree - though I suspect they are going to give atmo radars some love when they release ground pvp as the devs didn't consider they would be as necessary as they are currently (hence ground radars aren't affected by radar skills etc. at the moment either - just feels like a placeholder to me)
  15. What is to Come In the short term, we will push a few corrections to improve 0.23, which include: Element destruction will impact the restoration count only when it occurs through PvP, at least for now (not when the ship is colliding/falling as we want to avoid having players penalized simply for crashing their ships because they’re learning how to maneuver them, for example). So when is this going to happen? Although it does not fix the problems that the "x lives" system has created when it comes to incentives to salvage and pvp, at the very least people would be able to once again fix their ships in game when damage is caused by bugs / lag / voxels and other constructs not loading or when they are simply figuring out a new ship / build and whatnot. I hate to be negative here, but the implimentation of the "x lives" system has been a major step backwards towards a game we've been waiting for half a decade for since it's initial announcement due to the reasons outlined in several other threads on the subject. NQ said they listened - and while it's not a perfect resolution, it was a re-kindling of hope that maybe they will take the system back to the drawing board and come up with something that functionally achieves the same result without introducing the massive problems the current issue has created. Yet it's just gone completely silent again after the initial announcement - fulfilling the other short term fixes while ignoring this major one. EDIT: I also understand that this comes across as a little crass. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate everything that the developers have done so far, and this is an amazing game. The crassness comes from the passion for this game - it is exclusively the only one I'm on since the middle of last year now - but that also does mean that I don't feel like I can just shrug and "go play something else" when I see the group of friends leave the game, people refusing to fly their ship, people just loosing interest in whatever project they were working on in game, and it's especially embarrassing when those people are those you got into the game, hyped it up and recommended it for years - who are now leaving because of bad implementations such as this particular mechanic. A mechanic that goes against the vision NQ has promoted for years and what the direction the game was heading and offered. So yeah I'm not rage quitting, or trying to sound pissy and hope that everything said - not just from me but all constructive criticism here - does not come off as some sort of troll rage but is seen for what it is - gamers passionate about DU actually caring in it becoming an amazing game that it's set out to be.
×
×
  • Create New...