Jump to content

Volkier

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Volkier

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

722 profile views
  1. Sure. That's already the case. You would get to the point of where you spent way more on scrap repairing the same thing that broke repeatedly than you would have if you bought a new one. Unless you are referring to the real world where it becomes more expensive to repair something since the parts have gone up in price due to obsolescence - which artificially drives up costs due to lack of production. Transferring this to the game would be NQ releasing T3 engines that cost the same to manufacture 6 months from now, T4 engines another 6 months and so on. Lastly realism is a welcome dynamic in games when it increases player immersion, thus in turn increasing escapism from reality. It is not a welcome dynamic however, when it makes the game less immersive by implementing the negative aspects of reality people are trying to get away from in their daily lives by playing the game. Not quite relevant to the topic as durability isn't a thing in reality - but there is a reason we don't have to urinate in the game every few hours, don't get a cold, have to have your character sleep else they become sleep deprived and balance a well nutritioned diet to avoid indigestion. There are games that implement these mechanics to an extent - aka. survival games - and where those mechanics can be implemented well enough to work well in the genre. This is not the genre for that however, nor do any of those mechanics ever push themselves to the extreme of full reality for the same reason. Realism should always be promoted for the sake of immersion, not reality.
  2. I agree that the current system is a little too forgiving, but durability is not the solution. Hence my proposal - it's aiming to try and compromise with as many alternative thoughts and viewpoints as possible, as it creates a sink for elements and components in the market, keeps the current dynamic of repairing elements during combat, makes taking damage a lot more serious and even expands on the gameplay by introducing a new type of playstyle. Basically a win-win for majority of the playerbase involved is far superior than a loss for the vast majority of people who DON'T want durability. And I say vast majority because durability has been the single most hated mechanic in every single game I can think of to date (where it was created in a similar design to the proposed one in devblog) from the first time any multiplayer game has attempted to implement it. I'd love to be proven wrong in a poll of sorts - and would welcome NQ to poll their playerbase as to how many people actually support durability vs. how many don't.
  3. So I'll start off with re-iterating what I've already mentioned in another thread - having "finite" Durability mechanic has been universally hated by gamers since the mid-90's, and is the worst possible step backwards for this game that I can imagine, that will: - Turn off a large chunk of playerbase - Make replacing destroyed elements hours long endavour due to "element already blocked by another element" error forcing you to strip half your ship before replacing the one thing in order - Create an insane gap between large orgs and small orgs / solo players - Make everything in the game less fun - from building, to general flying, to PvP - Is a survival mechanic that people have repeatedly stated they did not want over the entirety of the development of Dual Universe. Both in forums, discord, private groups etc. The only rational and viable reason I can see why durability would be introduced, is to provide a supply sink and increase demand for new elements, so as the economy does not collapse due to playerbase saturating itself with everything they need to build. (I do have to interject that there will always be players leaving the game, there will always be new players joining the game, there will always be existing players building and creating bigger and more things, the market is showing no signs of being unhealthy, there is absolutely no reason to.... ok /rant off, just had to get that off my chest) Now rather than whining about it without offering solutions, here is a win-win alternative that would not require any massive amount of rework or alterations to the current gameplay that should NOT ONLY appease both the people who want durability (I'm assuming for the following reason) and those who would rather run a cheese grater over their knees every time they wake up than see it ruin the game we are all passionate about - but also make the game more fun as a standalone mechanic, allow for easy balancing at a later stage, AND open up an entire new playstyle and career prospect in DU. So Anyway: Problem: Economy saturation requiring completed element sink Proposed solution: - Keep scrap and element repair functioning exactly the same as it is. - Scrap will no longer be produced directly from raw ore. Scrap by ore will be replaced by scrap by tier (eg. iron scrap replaced with T1 scrap. Gold scrap replaced with T4 scra.) - Introduce a "reclaimer" industry element (or add a recycler mode - the first just seems easier). - "Reclaimer" industry only has a "start" and "stop" switch. None of the whole industry of run maintain etc. That just seems to be more work and more difficult for the devs. Unless they want to use that system - in which case that would work just as well (we would just need more than one reclaimer for multiple elements) - "Reclaimer" industry will yeet any fully assembled element from the [linked input] container - such as engines, fuel tanks, windows etc. - and process them back into a fraction of raw materials and a bit of each type of scrap - The quantity and tier of scrap produced would depend on the quantity and tier of raw materials that were used to make the element in the first place. This means the game has already pre-balanced this system, as small components like lights that require T2 or T3 resources would yield less scrap but of higher tier, large components such as engines would yield a lot of scrap but at tier 1. Yeeting something like a warp drive on the other hand would give back a bunch of low - high tier components and low - high tier scrap. This also opens up the possibility to add new skill trees, as well as balancing the whole system by simply changing how much of raw materials are returned, how much is turned into scrap, and how much 'disappears' due to efficiency loss. Further, allowing the placement of this industry on dynamic cores, would open up entire career as scavaging ships that are designed to nom on other ships that have been captured or found derelict in space - as well as the dynamic gameplay whereby running out of scrap in the middle of space would require the pilot to make decisions of what components (if any) they can afford to recycle on the spot. Overall you get: - Economy sink for completed elements (which basically solves the problem that 'durability' is supposed to fix) - Incentive for people to look for derelict ships - or create derelict ships from other people when it comes to PvP - More engaging gameplay when it comes to repairing in the middle of combat - Expands the salvaging profession into scavenging, as well as creating a salvaging sub-profession - Creates the possibility of another class of ships being built that follow large org' fleets to "clean up" after a fight - Creates options for new skill trees - Allows for easy re-balancing tweaks at a later stage without drastically changing the system - Is still new player and solo player friendly as there are always elements to recycle (considering you start off with a bunch of stuff) - Uses existing already implemented and tested mechanics of linking containers and industry. - Overall win-win for everyone as it expands gameplay and makes it more fun - UNLIKE durability which does the opposite for both accounts (yes I had to say it again). Alternatively, if someone else has any ideas, that would be good too. Basically at this point, anything would be better than proposed durability changes. I'll go as far as to say that completely removing player markets and player driven economy would be better than proposed durability changes. Ok maybe not, but you get the picture.
  4. So just to further play a devils advocate - which area would a ship that does two or three of the things fit into? Like something that can do a bit of cargo, yet is still small and light enough to function as a shuttle and is designed with first person immersion in mind so has a bit of glamour but is still functional (this is an example off the top of the head, not claiming to have a ship like that - you can mix and match any number of roles for another example to make the same point)
  5. Wouldn't be an issue with districts as you're pretty much always within the range of your ship's linked container. As for trap bases and general traps - I don't see anything wrong with it. Having traps gives us players more choices with regards to how we venture around the Duniverse. It gives exploration a bit more depth, finding 'abandoned bases' more interesting and an adventure as it could potentially be a trap, and players who do want to make trap bases the creativity to one up each other. Ultimately, the only way you are going to trap someone in districts if is the person walks into the trap. As for everywhere else, it needs to remain the wild west that was promised, as not knowing what to expect is what keeps the game alive, enjoyable, interactive and overall fun. I would rather be "griefed" by negative player interaction, than be surrounded by a safety bubble in the form of arbitrary "anti griefing rules" set by the developers. If I wanted the later, I'd play a single player game (there's plenty of single player titles to choose from).
  6. Durability will kill the game. People have said "we don't want survival mechanics" for the past 4 years. This goes against what NQ has promised the game to be. If they want to re-work how elements are fixed up, that would be a welcome change. Durability is just the worst possible way to do it. Simply adding a "deconstructor" that strips elements into their raw crafting components and a "repair hub" that repairs any element using the raw crafting components with the scrap limiting how much it can repair to 50% will solve all the "issues" that people claim to exist which require a durability mechanic. And it will encourage people to PvP since now you don't get some crappy ship that you will never use and will scrap for elements anyway out of it.
  7. I'd make this sound as diplomatic as I can, but I do apologise if it sounds like I'm raging or venting - because I sort of am. This mechanic is the absolutely the worst idea imaginable not only for the current state, but also the overall atmosphere of the game. For the love of everything holy, if anyone at NQ stumbles over this, I urge you to reconsider - at the very least based on the sheer volume of feedback you have gotten over the past 5 years of development where people explicitly stated they don't want this to become a survival type of a game. I'll use bullet points from this point onwards as I cannot articulate my arguments without the sheer volume of disappointment otherwise: - Replacing destroyed elements on ship builds would become impractical and impossible due to how clipping of elements currently works. You will need to strip off half the ship to place an element in it's original position, because the original position is 'too close' to another element - so you'd need to replace everything in order. This will only further encourage box ships taking away from immersion and spirit of the game. - Arbitrary system of "this element got destroyed X times = perma death" would make ships with a couple of elements that were already damaged before obsolete, as players would try to replace those at first opportunity. If anything, this just seems like a fundamentally the worst possible and the least practical way of implimenting the mechanic. - This is further expanding on the first point - but mechanics like this work in games like Eve because you have a pre-existing number of hard points to which you slot in desired modules. It takes a matter of minutes if you have the modules in your inventory. It would NOT work in a game where you would need to spend hours replacing one element due to placement priority on a ship. It would NOT work when some elements can break and other elements can break at another time. Other building games that started off with this, had to implement game mechanics to fix the issue - Empyrion with repair projectors that automatically fix up your ship, space engineers with nanite bots etc. And those games have a "clip to box" build system, not a free standing one like DU. DU is going BACKWARDS by implimenting this. - The whole "but muh economy needs money sinks!" argument - to date - has been a myth. Markets haven't crashed. Prices haven't plummeted. There will always be people leaving the game. There will always be people abandoning constructs. There will always be new people joining the game needing stuff. There will always be existing people building more and bigger stuff. If money sinking becomes a requirement, add element disassembler that strips an element to it's base component (at reduced efficiency if you want), add a mechanic where you can only repair using scrap to 50% of element's hp and efficiency while simultaneously adding a repair module that repairs using crafting components. Make the mechanic fun and challenging. The current proposal is literally the worst way you could impliment it. - If you want harder penalties for crashing your ships - which I fully 100% support, claiming destroyed cores needs to return for a start, or/and increase the cost of scrap, or give people options to use components INSTEAD of scrap to instantly repair an element. Again, make the game more interactive, fun and challenging. Not less. -
  8. It's not so much a matter of laziness - but rather registering yet another login account with yet another website. Make registration not require an account and you'd get a lot more traffic. That said, looking forward to the phase 2 portion to throw a ship in the mix
  9. Just to re-iterate: I've never salvaged a single player wreck to date, and I absolutely despise the kid glove style of change. If I screw up and crash, as a player, I want that sense of urgency and uncertainty of whether my ship is going to be there. As a player, I want that type of game interaction. I want "vultures" to exist and try to sell me my ship back if they claim it, or alternatively attempt to outmaneuver them while running back to my wreck. Negative player interaction drives positive player interaction, thus all player interaction as a result - which can only benefit the playerbase and the game. We are not here to play a single player game, we are not asking for pve mechanics to be removed - we NEED sanctuary type planets for players to learn - I can understand and respect that BUT we also still need the overall game physics and mechanics to exist there too, or heck, even a planet like Alioth which is currently in the blue sector but outside of sanctuary - as a compromise. If NQ representatives are still reading this tread, I urge you to re-evaluate the crash nerf decision - which is the way I see it more so than salvaging nerf (since I've never done the later, but have the former). What the OP said with regards to this removing more emergent gameplay is 110% spot on. And not just for the scavengers. On a flip side - NQ is opening the can of worms now to having to write a new set of arbitrary rules into the registar, as a penalty for people "griefing" by crashing dozens of XS cores into markets or player bases, since the built-in game mechanic that would have prevented this has been removed.
  10. A link would help as it's not showing up with search... On a flip side - I can kinda see a whole bunch of people building a whole bunch of ships, purposely crashing them into the markets and leaving them there in protest against the change XD
  11. It's unfortunately incentivised for third person flying. I would have preferred them to - while giving you the option to go into third person during flight - keep LUA scripts to physical in game screens (elements) instead of widgets to display relative information - which would remove the cube meta and incentivise people to build around proper cockpits with screens if they want telementary and information. But hey, we can't all have what we want I guess XD
  12. Considering how much warp cells cost to make or buy, I'd say it's fairly balanced right now. And this is from someone who routinely flies through pvp space. Not to mention that warpdrives would cease to be insta-safe button once planetary pvp is introduced. If it becomes a major problem at a later stage, I'd far prefer NQ to be looking at some sort of ECM style weaponry, radar jamming countermeasures, and jamming countermeasures countermeasures (if that makes sense) On that note, I have no issues with the current balance mechanic as well. More crew should not instantly mean a better ship. Build a ship specific to a role, and that ship should excel in that role. With the exception of how tracking currently works based on the gun size vs. the core it's shooting, creating a scenario where an XS core will never be hit by an L core at the same range while shooting at the L core - regardless of what type of guns the L core has opted for. However, this is already being addressed by NQ from what they've said with regards to what weapons can be equipped on what cores and whatnot. EDIT: And I know it's kinda a late edit - but you DO realise that they are already planning to add planetary PvP and remove the safe bubbles around planets right? Which would mean that warp drives are no longer safe. This is already planned and promised. Everyone just needs to wait rather than asking for a re-balance now, then another re-balance to fix the first re-balance, then re-balance again after planet pvp is added. Like the system isn't broken, it's just literally not fully made yet.
  13. Completely agree. Safe zone or no - it should be up to players to design their ships around their flying capabilities or accept the risk vs. reward if they overload their ship. If your game crashes, your ship stops anyway. To date I have yet to salvage a single ship, so I am by far biased in this assessment as this was never a source of income for me - but removing such features and basic elements of risk is a major step backwards in the game. As for "griefers building invisible walls" - you guys do realise that radars exist and you can set them to show you static cores right? Removing features and limiting gameplay should never be an option or a consideration in my humble opinion. As long as players have reasonable means to circumvent it - which in this case there is - NQ needs to let us players figure out how to interact with each other and stop trying to micro-manage and social engineer the community. I would far rather deal with griefers in the game than the developers neutering the gameplay or setting arbitrary rules around how the griefers grief me.
×
×
  • Create New...