Jump to content

Volkier

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Volkier

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

890 profile views
  1. 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 differen
  2. 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 mak
  3. 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 doe
  4. 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
  5. 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 main
  6. 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.
  7. 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 fl
  8. 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 re
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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 p
  13. It's not about the cost though. People would be happier to pay 2x / 3x more for scrap instead of the current 'X lives" system. Which NQ has said they will revert in the "we heard you" post by JC when it comes to non pvp damage. Which doesn't fix the problems that it has created when it comes to pvp / salvaging therefore. Which they haven't done so to date and have gone completely silent on.
  14. You can also find the line in your "unit start" which reads Nav.axisCommandManager:setTargetGroundAltitude(4) and change the 4 to a 0. It's around line 60 - give or take depending how your script got generated by default. I do get that you would rather have it set to 0 than 4 - I did too when I started and before I know how to change it - but we as players are given the option to change this behaviour very easily at least
  15. I mean I know it's probably not a priority, nor should it be - but: XS lights that are the size of a switch: 70.05kg XS manual button that's the size of my thumb: 13.27kg In comparison, a wooden chair is 2.52kg.. Toilet is 6.72kg.. Entire landing gear XS is 49.88kg. I mean I can go on but I think the point is made fairly well. Like WTF is that light made out of?! There's a LOT of items that are completely wacky as weight-wise - but most seem to be tied to small electronic elements. All in all, switches / lights / electornics (counter / relays etc.) just about all of them need to ha
×
×
  • Create New...