Jump to content


Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Volkier

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

685 profile views
  1. Oh don't get me wrong - there are far more possibilities than in space engineers with DU, but we need basic tools to utilise those instead of playing the guessing game as to what the voxels are going to 'clip' to: - Visible mesh of voxel corners and a tool allowing us to move those corners (or just type in the x,y,z for those points manually) - this would cut down on the stress tremendously and already uses in game mechanics of how voxels behave - all that's needed is a visual and player input - Ability to alternate between voxels meshing to whatever you are placing, and whatever you are placing meshing to existing voxels. - Copy paste actually copying and pasting an existing shape without ANY deformation of that shape. Pasted shape should override ANY voxelmancy that exists in that space, or randomly wants to create itself and deform random parts of the pasted blocks. - Option to place a voxel without affecting existing voxels or the voxel you are placing (I get that the last one might be a lot more tricky to made functional as to how the engine treats voxels though) EDIT: - This is probably the easiest - "Straighten tool" - un-deforms selected voxels into their original placed shape. Any of the above would make building actually fun and enjoyable instead of hours and hours of battling against voxels that do whatever they want, and every time you think you are beginning to understand the 'science' in their behaviour, they do some arbitrary and random BS that blows whatever theory you had out of the water.
  2. This. ESPECIALLY this: -For the love of god don't do voxelmancy ripples, bulges and bumps on only 90° and 45° lines... Please give us a way to see and erase those metadatas. What would take me half an hour or an hour at most on games like space engineers or empyrion - which only give you blocks and significantly limit you to the preset shapes of the said blocks, takes me DAYS currently on dual universe and still comes out messy because voxels keep trying to merge with each other when I'm trying to get a clean angle or corner. It should be the other way round - considering how much more should be possible with Dual Universe engine, but instead of giving us the flexibility and options to mould voxels whichever way we see fit, it's a constant fight against the voxels deforming themselves whenever you place another set against them.
  3. I'm really confused over the information proved for airfoils - specifically the lift / drag stats and their measurement being given in degrees. For example: - A small aileron Lift/Drag = 9.0 degrees - A small wing Lift/Drag = 7.0 degrees - A small stabiliser Lift/Drag = 5.0 degrees Can anyone please explain to me what do those degrees represent, mean, and how those measurements are calculated as that makes about as much sense to me as measuring the length from point A to point B in cubic litres
  4. Wasn't there an e-mail that went out a few days ago saying that you can get your friends in a week early before the 27th Beta? But it seems like this wouldn't be possible until the beta release. I'm even more confused now
  5. And I'd say the same thing. Think I actually said exactly that up there in the post somewhere (albeit for different reasons) How are things Twerky?
  6. Eh I've been messing around on Empyrion Galactic Survival, practicing building ships with blocks and whatnot Great game, with very few flaws. Though I'm expecting a lot more from DU, as it has already addressed my major gripes (ie. what I see as flaws) with Empyrion (small planets, instance wall between planet and space, just the distances overall, clipping through your constructs unless you are in your seat when it moves building frames are more limited - though I expect DU to have fewer "elements" at alpha, simply because Empyrion has been out longer) - though it does have a few mechanics I would love to see in DU (mining, resource gathering and crafting aspects are done quite well in my humble opinion). So anyway, DU definitely looks to be the "next step up" from Empyrion - even from what we've just seen in the development footage - but regardless, its a great $20 to spend on however long worth of time one plays it while one waits for DU, if you enjoy building a ship or two, and exploring / blowing stuff up with your creation. Anyway, here's a semi-built station with a few small capital ships parked next to it that I've been messing around with in Empyrion EDIT: You can turn autobrakes off to have no friction :P. I know it took me three weeks to figure that out too, and was really off putting. But yes - definitely closest thing to DU, and something that is actually worth comparing it to (so you can point out where DU is better for the most part, but maybe even in time where Empyrion holds it's own. Competition can only be a good thing for both games right? :D)
  7. Ok, so what I was saying (or suggesting?) is that every construct would have it's own 'tag acceptance' setting so to speak. In other words, if you want to 'donate a ship / base' to an alliance, you set the construct to the "insert alliance tag of this rank here" as designated control of the said ship / base. If you were an officer in that alliance - as an example - and wanted to 'overthrow' them, you would go into that ship and edit that setting to "insert your corp / your player / number of players" as designated control of the said ship / base. Alliance removing your tag will no longer affect it. You've commandeered the construct with your group of rebels (or several constructs if several officers perform an organised mutiny and hijack a number of assets before anyone 'revokes their tags'). Now I do believe we are on the same page so far - so what you are talking about is basically those without enough "rank" to simply change the ownership systems in a ship. Which in my humble opinion is a GOOD thing. You could still actively 'steal' the alliance ship - albeit following the rules that anyone else in PvP areas would in order to achieve the same feat (ie. steal a ship or overtake a station). You would also have the advantage of already being "on the inside", but not having "commander codes", would need to actually work for it. And you'd likely need a whole load of people with lots of preparation and careful planning to pull it off - again, a GOOD thing. One "double agent" should still be able to cripple a ship - you know, plant charges, shut down modules etc. - but not single handedly "change ownership" of a structure without holding some form of rank over it. Now what that would involve, I don't know yet - but NQ did say that stealing constructs is part of gameplay that they will eventually like to see (to my knowledge at least - correct me if I'm wrong), and how they will implement it is something we'll have to wait and see. I'm guessing it would have something to do with the core of the ship, and/or other systems on board. Albeit, however they do implement it, I don't think there needs to be any additional system designed specifically for "insider alliance takeovers" - as the model for stealing ships would already exist, and "being on the inside", in my opinion, is already a solid enough advantage. Which is what I was trying to say I guess - and I have a habit of not making sense
  8. But wouldn't that be configurable from the ship - for that specific ship? Or any construct (ie. base / warehouse)? I mean it makes every sense that it will be the case, rather than some 'central command' somewhere. Not only is the idea of someone having full control over a tag of every single construct in a massive alliance an insane and outright near impossible concept to implement, but it just seems like a needlessly painful and difficult way of doing something, that creates the very problems you describe above. Obviously someone can mess around with your tags to prevent you from stealing any more constructs from your alliance - as an example - which would make sense of course (you've been found to be rebelling against your overlord, and your overlord decided to revoke your automatic access to their shit), but I don't think a system that will "automatically grant access of everything you build, to your entire corp / alliance" would make it into the game. You would likely have the ability to set the access of your constructs to specific friends, corp, alliance or w/e - and someone hijacking your ship would (or at least should) be able to change that in the ship's / base's console.
  9. "Engage warp drive!" "Warp drive engaged sir and.... uhh... there appears to be the remnants of some organic matter attached to the ship by a cable. Not even sure how much of it is left after being pulled into light speed without inertia stabilisers...." "I guess we better have a look... Disengage warp drive!" "Disengaging sir! Aaaaaaandd... whatever that was is now a very fine misty splatter across the rear section of the hull. I'm afraid our microscopic sensors can no longer pick up on what composition that organic matter used to be." EDIT On topic itself, yeah I fully support the "building your constructs in an open world setting" as you propose. But at the same time, I can also understand that not everyone wants to be in a PvP environment 24/7 in such games - and having that open world exist in a "safe area" is something that I can only see benefiting the game. And no, I don't see people building massive star destroying dreadnoughts and battleships in these "safe areas" over a week long progress, as it makes a whole load more sense to do this under the protection of those players' own corporation and alliance claimed territories - where they don't need to fly the required resources from to build the said construct, and fly the built construct back to - which makes such safe areas arguably more "dangerous" when it comes to constructs of that power and that size. Now for the idea itself - I propose simply separating the "building and blueprint" aspect of the game, and "testing simulator" aspect of building. The later will allow you to create a construct, and see how it performs "on paper" - ie. have all the variables calculated etc. You could still make a blueprint out of that "on paper" concept - but bear with me, as this brings me to the next point. The "building + blueprint" would become a separate mechanic, whereby a blueprint would be a final uneditable... well "blueprint" of the construct. So if you want to change something on the construct after you built it, you have to now make a new blueprint after the editing / changing the construct. Now what if the blueprints cost more money to create, after every time the construct has been made from one and edited after the fact? You can still edit things off blue prints, you can still make constructs in concept and print a blueprint straight away, but it becomes significantly more financially viable to make a concept, make sure it works on paper, then build a construct, field test it, do all the necessary alterations that you want, then print a blueprint of your creation. It may still be financially viable for you to have two or three blueprints of two or three versions of your ship that you have modified over time - but at some point, it again becomes financially viable to simply build a new ship from scratch rather than editing the construct and making a blueprint of it (for insurance or recreation), meaning you strip your old ship for the material, remake it etc. This also encourages players to run with good quality constructs that they don't feel they need to edit much (or at all), promoting good designers, encourages players who like to experiment to constantly be building in the physical world, and encourages players to re-build their ship now and again, rather than making a small fighter that they will fly for the next year, swapping out a "thing" here and there, while still retaining the freedom and ability of players to alter their constructs as they see fit as well as make them directly from blueprints avoiding the building stage altogether - providing their insurance will only reinstate the construct as per their 'old' blueprint (as an example) should they go kaboom. This does speculate on what the blueprints will actually do for the player too - I am assuming insurance payout will be based off them, but I may be wrong. Still, I feel this will combat a lot of the problems that you mentioned in your post regarding immersion.
  10. Would it not be best to leave these kinds of things (ie. what kind of government structure an organisation or an alliance wants to have) to the organisations and alliances? Some may be more democratic, electing their leaders. Others may be a more anarchistic, be a full monarchy, or simply have a dictator like rule. Wouldn't it be better to have this kind of choice and options for people, rather than structuring an artificial system that says "this is how you manage your group".
  11. Well, technically there's maths in many games. Even if it's something as simple as calculating what your armor class would be with a certain set of armor, after adding your Dexterity proficiency capped at what type of armor you are wearing, and what your skill for wearing it is. As per classic D&D rules, or old school RPGs. Then everything got boring with dumbed down mechanics, and automatic calculators for everything. I blame the console generation.
  12. Well, I can see how collision damage would create a problem with people strapping an engine to a bunch of blocks, and yelling "allahu akbar" in the voice service of their choice. BUT having said that, I'm also in full support of 'free' collision model - providing there is no server load and providing it's implemented well. Now what I mean by "implemented well" - is in a way that specifically makes it ridiculously inefficient to attempt and do what the first sentence of this post stated. For instance, having to take out shields prior to "ramming", would mean that the ship that is trying to grief, would require to A: have enough firepower to break through the target's shields, and B: have enough of it's own shields to sustain the enemy firing upon them. That alone would force the later to invest above the bare minimum. Next there would be the mass of the ship - a small ship would make a small hole in a big ship, destroying the small ship and producing some minor damage on the big ship (to put it in the simplest terms). A ship would need to be big enough and going fast enough to do enough damage to it's target - meaning it would need to be more bulky, and have an equally bulky engine - which would likewise cost a bit more to make / fuel etc. Which would then need more power from bigger power cells (which would actively also power the bigger shields that this ship would now need)... well you get the idea - you are basically trying to nullify the cost discrepancy between the two constructs, so the ship trying to kamikaze would need to cost at least close to the amount it's target cost - possibly more, depending on how the damage ends up being calculated. Insurance premiums can also play a big part here. Say you are a griefer who kamikazeed your current ten ships in a short span of time. You claim insurance on those ten ships, and want to build another few and insure them with the money you got from the insurance. Now if you did that in real life, I doubt your insurance company would want to have anything to do with you, and will likely tell you "sorry sir, I'm afraid we cannot do anything for you". In fact, after the third "accident" they will likely double your premiums, look very closely at your records, and possibly take you to court for insurance scam by the fifth one. Now obviously the later may be "too realistic" for a game like DU, but there's nothing stopping in having an algorithm that increases your insurance premiums based on how often you have had to make a "claim", based on certain variables (eg. within a certain amount of time / type of ship / system and area / type of damage - instant death or gradual module failure etc.) There is also nothing stopping an in game insurance "company" outright refusing to insure any further ships for certain people, until some condition(s) are met. Lastly, reward good design. Basically, a ship that has it's critical systems damaged by a light bump from a small fighter, due to the location and proximity of those systems, is not a bad design. A ship that is a massive hunk of metal that floats in space, protecting all it's critical systems in it's centre, is also not a good design - due to the cost / power-weight ratio / maneuverability etc. A ship that is designed in a smart way, that tries to predict what are the most likely angles it may be hit from, what shape of the fuselage could be used to better absorb the shock, and where to put the components to maximise their efficiency even if the hull is breached in several places - is a good design. And that last paragraph, is really why I would like to see such a mechanic in game. I would happily take the immersion that it would provide, over the potential of someone griefing me through ramming. Yes, it would certainly suck, but I would only consider it a problem if the game provided a "cheap" way for someone to destroy someone else's months worth of work, in mere seconds, with minimal effort and at nearly no cost to themselves. If they end up losing as much or more in game wealth as you do through their actions, there is really no reason to try and exclude such a mechanic from the game. Provided, like already mentioned, it doesn't directly impact on things like server performance. EDIT: Also, I'm not a fan of the idea of having only "certain voxels" being able to collide. That makes it messy if anything - like what happens if those voxels hit voxels that are not designed for collision - and why would voxels not designed for collision not take damage when colliding in that sense? Because collision damage is not just about suicide bombing - if done well, that would be the very least of what it's used for. It would be more about things like doing crappy landings, or lading inside another construct in a dangerous (and deadly) manner, or taking risks around asteroids or dogfights etc. Collision is one of those mechanics that I want to see either done well, or not done at all. Not half arse it
  13. I just replied to the thread rather than quoting a specific post. Didn't read the whole thing, so sorry if I confused you in the process - wasn't my intent. As for everything else, I stand by my argument and feel I've explained why "I don't wantz itz" already, in this and other threads specifically addressing the subject of cash shops.
  14. That. I personally don't like the model Elite Dangerous uses, and thus refuse to play it - despite it being a space sim with arguably by far the best user interface and control surfaces to date. If you feel so strongly against pay to play model, then don't play DU. Plenty of us are here specifically because it's pay to play, something people have been begging for since BS like "DLCs", pay to win, or simply "pay to use any features of this game" became normalised.
  15. Woah there horsey - what have DACs or EVE PLEXs have anything to do with what I said? I was specifically referring to shops selling in game items for RL cash - not subscription tokens like DACs or PLEXs, in a subscription based game. If I didn't like the idea of DACs, what the hell would I be doing here in the first place, since that was this game's model since the beginning of times. One which I fully support and see huge advantages of over "free to play" models. As I've already stated in every single other thread addressing that point. The thing is, one of the advantages of having a subscription (supplemented with DACs) is specifically to NOT have in game 'cosmetic stores' and the like, which are a necessary evil for f2p games (and also a major reason why many such games eventually crumple under their own weight of priorities, through inevitably putting these stores as the top one). Having cosmetic stores starts a slippery slope of what design concepts are 'held back' from the game, in favour of selling as cosmetics, versus earning or creating them in game. Furthered only by what is considered "cosmetic", like camouflaged armor or bright reflective surfaces on ships that make their silhouette nearly invisible against the background of something like a sun, and eventually concluded by items that really are more than simply 'cosmetic'. As happened with every single game to date. So no, I'm sorry but I will have to vehemently disagree with you here (I think? Sorry if I'm a bit confused over your post). I fully love, support and embrace the idea of subscription, DACs, and DACs earning and trading for RL currency, because I don't want to see in game RL currency shops for in game items.
  • Create New...