Jump to content


Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Volkier

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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...
  4. 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)
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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 have the decimal point shifted two places to the left. XS light = 0.7kg for example. Basically a lot of elements need to have their weight reflect some sane sense of rationality and reality which they currently do not XD
  9. I think we chatted extensively on this topic - and the main issues I have with the current system are unfortunately not going to be addressed, though for the sake of conversation I'll add to the discussion. Those issues that the current system has created being: - Discourages of PvP as there is little incentive to get anything useful from the enemy ships if the elements cannot be restored to full functionality - Discourages salvaging gameplay - for very much the above reason. Basically any element that has been restored once already is worthless in comparison to a fresh element - Discourages using higher tiered elements (rare engines etc.) over the base models - Discourages building ships with anything other than base required elements for function - since using decorative elements is heavily penalised. Even if decorative elements have infinite repairability, having diminishing returns means that a ship full of chairs and tables and closets is going to be penalised heavily due to completely wacky weight balancing that currently exists with those said elements (for example, xs lights should not be 70kg NQ) - Discourages ship testing or risk taking - and in turn exploration - In a game that is about building stuff, exploring worlds and interacting with players - both positively and negatively - it's a mechanic that makes that core gameplay aspect just not fun. - Cannot be tweaked or balanced at a later stage to address the above. The only thing you can change through skills or patches, is increasing/decreasing the number of lives before either an element's full destruction or diminishing efficiency - which does not address any of the above outlined issues. Now there is absolutely merits to an element sink mechanic - which permanent destruction is supposed to create. While my original thought was to propose an over-haul to how scrap is manufactured so that element sink happens at the source prior to repair, after speaking with yourself and several other people I have changed my mind somewhat and would instead propose a compromise: Element destruction is tied to the destruction of the construct's core, upon which your construct will have a certain % of your elements permanently destroyed requiring replacement - while others remain in their "repairable" state. Higher tier elements would have a lower chance to be permanently destroyed. This basically: - Solves the issue with PvP as there is incentive to look for and salvage parts off destroyed enemy ships as there is a high chance of decent reward in terms of high end elements. - Solves the issue with salvaging for the same above reason - there is now incentive and reward into picking apart ships that the pirates left. - Solves the issue of decorative elements being non desired, as on the contrary they will now have a chance to get destroyed instead of something more important. - Creates a clear contrast between a serious crash, and scraping the side of a building with your wing because of lag or the voxels didn't load in in time, meaning players are more likely to explore and fly around more risky terrain as well as experiment with builds. - Can be tweaked and balanced at a later stage by reducing or increasing the % of elements destroyed as the core blows up, or alternatively adding a talent tree that reduces the % of elements / elements by tier / etc. - Minor crashes which are 99% of what happens at the moment as the player is doing everything right but is lagging / has someone else fly into them / graphical glitches etc. are no longer going to penalise the player - unless the entire ship blows up (which is a reportable bug at the moment anyway if it's not the player's fault). - Brings the gameplay to the same level of other MMOs where death has a "random drop" chance of equipment (in this case ship elements) - such as EVE online (yeah I know I know, it's the first one that came to mind cuz space / pvp / etc. Albion / guild wars / countless others have the same principles for equipment sink upon death design) - And lastly - does what the currently implimented system is trying to accomplish - which is to create an element sink. So yeah - my 2c on the topic. Either way, the currrent "x lives" system is unworkable for the future of DU in my humble opinion.
  10. Alternatively - a simple RNG for a % for an element to get perma-destroyed when your core goes boom - would still be a superior mechanic that creates whatever element sink and necessity the current system does with practically none of the disadvantages listed above. Hell, if there's a minimum % of elements destroyed mechanic - even if it's as low as 1% - would encourage people to actually put decorative elements and whatnot on their ships. And it would actually make salvaging / pvp-ing / flying fun.
  11. Originally ECU used to function like a "hand brake" in space. But you have to test it out since I've heard people saying that it no longer works after one of their updates over the past month or two.
  12. I don't think the durability changes go far enough to be honest - though it's a major step in the right direction. You are still discouraging player interaction as any element with less than 3 lives is worthless as an element to the victor of pvp. While at the very least they get some sort of compensation - like schematics back - it's still a matter of diminishing returns and a discentive to take your ship out. Needless to say, you still - under the proposed changes - - Have the issue of decorative elements being completely discouraged, opting the pvp meta to be empty box shells of ships - Player interaction for pvp is still discouraged - Moving further into the future, expanding gameplay options for salvaging and exploration are limited and discouraged I sincerely urge NQ to scrap the "limited lives" durability model and re-evaluate better alternatives to how element destruction and the need for new elements from the market is handled. There are a multitude of better alternatives suggested across forums - I won't do a self promotion plug again since I don't care what it is to be honest, as long as it's not the restrictive and gameplay penalising system that exists at present. Once again, to re-iterate - the present choice of limited lives of elements has been universally the least popular mechanic for durability in every multiplayer game that has tried it since the 90s. And for very good reasons. EDIT: The DRM introduction also makes capturing ships not feel like... captured ships. Half of the appeal of pirates to capture ships was for underground lua script market. If you want player interaction, you need to want player interaction - not attempt to socially engineer what kind of interaction you want the players to have. Can't have it both ways.
  13. The 3 lives mechanic is the worst possible way this could have been implimented. Please NQ - I beg you reconsider and take this to the drawing board as it is hurting gameplay across several key aspects - from pvp to ship building to salvaging to simply flying right now. Re-design how scrap is manufactured (requires assembled elements destruction), increase element hp and give them "one" live, allow scrap to only repair an element to 50% and the rest needing some kind of a workshop - literally ANYTHING but the current iteration of the mechanic.
  14. Near impossible to see if they are on or off now - which was one of their primary functions over buttons. Why would you arbitrarily change the colour scheme to something that doesn't work, when the previous one worked great? Like someone had to physically change the line in the code that changed the colour of the switched on status vs. off status. Out of every change - good and bad - this is the most hair pulling one as there is literally zero explanation or rationale as to why someone would spend the time intentionally breaking something that was working. Grrr got to be stop being so negative, but this game was decades of waiting and dreaming kinda thing - so seeing stuff like this along with a few other very badly implimented mechanics changes (durability / making anything under L cores obsolete) are really making me pull my hair out
  15. I mean it's not a great secret - literally the first thing that comes to mind reading through the changes.
  16. So now that the patch notes are officially out - specifically that the % chance to hit now goes off angle and cross section (awesome change, thank you NQ) and weapons can only be fitted on a ship with the same size core or lower (also awesome change, thank you NQ) - I would like to query a very important question which got left out of the equation: What is the disadvantage to having an L core on literally every ship? Say you have an S or an M ship (XL ok, trying to fit an L core will be pushing it) - what would be the disadvantage to simply not copying that exact ship onto an L core? You get the advantage of the core having more HP, the ability to use larger weapons, and your cross section and chance to be hit (and also locked) remains the same. What would be the cons vs. pros of doing this? Please don't say "durr it's going to cost more to make an L core" - that's not a valid argument when it comes to mega corps and pvp focused groups. Am I missing something or are XS - M cores now basically practically worthless and obsolete if you plan to fly somewhere where you can get shot?
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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. EDIT: Also alternatively - a simple RNG for a % for an element to get perma-destroyed when your core goes boom - would still be a superior mechanic that creates whatever element sink and necessity the current system does with practically none of the disadvantages listed above. Hell, if there's a minimum % of elements destroyed mechanic - even if it's as low as 1% - would encourage people to actually put decorative elements and whatnot on their ships.
  20. 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)
  21. 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).
  22. 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.
  23. 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. -
  • Create New...