Jump to content

Volkier

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Volkier

  1. 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?
  2. 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)
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. "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.
  6. 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".
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Pretty straight forward for me - I am absolutely outright against 'shops' for RL currency for in-game items - be they cosmetic or otherwise. Therefore I would not want to see this system implemented, and have a final personal confirmation that I will not be going back to EVE online. Plain and simple.
  13. It is really off-putting with the UI handling from the left in the trailers, though I do appreciate that there are left handed people who probably feel the same way if it was the other way round. Either way, it would be very nice if DU gives you the option to chose which hand performs the UI actions and animations. At best, the devs realise factually, majority of the population are right handed and/or are used to right handed UI in vast majority of games, thus giving us such an option, and at worst we would just have to cringe and try put up with it (like we did with Dead Space games).
  14. I'm laughing my ass off as to how seriously people are taking this topic. The passions are real! Not that such passion a bad thing in any way.
  15. Well, clearly "no lifers" wasn't an option in the preminary voting then right?
  16. "Those who have no lives".... since I don't see many of us having one outside DU once it's out.
  17. You, sir, have no idea how hard it was to resist the troll to quote your entire OP with a one liner reply.....
  18. Very true. Though I still remember the drama when they taken down BoB. And not through firepower or combat, but through the betrayal of one of BoB's top commanders. Though to be fair, BoB were lowlifes who deserved everything they got. Even from the goons
  19. Yep, and I this is the last thing I want to see. I actually wrote a very similar example down before changing it as I'm shit at wording shit - but having "AFK parked auto-cannon racks" on the battlefield should never be a thing. To rephrase, I guess what I was trying to say is I don't mind seeing automated defenses - providing they cannot be efficiently used as an offensive measure, and they have limitations (like fuel) enacted on them. Because I feel that, as mentioned, a large battleship that costs an arm and a leg to just move to a place in fuel, should be able to at least defend itself against a solo small fighter or two regardless of how many people are on board. But no, I agree with almost everything (except for below) you've said - which is also why I didn't address specifically automated turrets. It also depends on what someone defines as "automated", considering NQ did say that it would be a "lock and fire" mechanism, due to the way the engine will have to handle players at close vs long proximity. Which brings me to the next point: I'll have to mildly disagree on this, since it then becomes a question - which Lethys asked me - where do you draw the line? Should progress for two people be rewarded but not for solo? Or would it have to be ten people before you get rewarded? Or 100? I personally fell that if someone spends a year mining, researching, crafting and whatever else to make a little homely base, it should function just as well as the same base built by 100 people, who only took a week of combined effort to achieve the same step. Yes, it's way harder for the solo player, but it's still possible - albeit not practical, efficient or perhaps even "fun". This makes it still obviously far more productive to band up together, since in that year those 100 players would achieve more than a solo player would potentially in their lifetime - but there is no artificial limits put on this purely based on numbers. I'm also separating this point from the "auto turrets" debate, as I see the later as (mentioned prior) a point of discussion to a problem to a question that is too early to be asked - and on that point itself, I'm still of mixed feelings as... well, I think it's too early to ask that question yet. Hope that clarified what I was trying to say. I used 5 as a hypothetical example to try and illustrate the point - but I guess what I was trying to say is that a months worth of effort of a single player should not be worth 2.5 hours worth of combined effort of 5, simply because it's 5 people. It's not so much the number, but an extreme to try and illustrate what I'm trying to say. Obviously 5 players would be more efficient, and perhaps a week of their combined effort (so about a day and a half each) would be worth the month of the soloer, but I guess I got carried away as that is more of a 'balancing' topic, than this. In fact, I think I got a bit carried away altogether, and treated this as a completely separate topic (as described above). So with that, I guess what I was trying to say, is that I can understand the reason why some people would ask for something like automated turrets, and understand the reason of why the "bandaid" suggestion of automated turrets would be detremental to the game (while not solving the issue itself). So in retrospect, I think that the reason itself warrants further discussion - and it's way way way to early to be having this particular discussion as we have no clue how the game will play.
  20. Twerky Kitty, that would be a dream come true for me - just being on a such ship crewed by other people who you play with on a daily basis. I'd love nothing more than that. But we all know how hard it is to get random people from your guild / corp / alliance to turn up for a raid or join up a fleet in MMOs - let alone finding a consistent crew who are online consistently at the arranged time. RL unfortunately takes precedence for a lot of people, even if you find a great group of people who are just as passionate and willing as you are. Which is why MMOs all have some form of 'solo content', and while it obviously needs to be a rewarding experience for people to group up, solo players shouldn't be completely pushed out the door - despite the game being an MMO. So on that note, no I would never want to see huge battleships be anywhere remotely effective on the battlefield - to the point of being more of a hindrance than help - when crewed by a single pilot. It's a giant slow moving target, with hardly any defenses online, that is easily incapacitated due to having no engineering, and perhaps even easily taken over. But at the same time, I feel that a single seater small fighter shouldn't be able to take out or safely go up against a giant battleship for the sheer fact that it's a giant battleship in space - regardless of how many people are piloting it. Basically I want people to play within their means, and taking perhaps what would be greater risks for greater rewards. But I would also want to see players being able to evolve and be rewarded for the effort they put into the game. So as a hypothetical (and vastly exaggerated for the purpose of making the point) example, someone who spent a month mining and traveling across various parts of the galaxy in order to build a reasonable sized ship (nothing battleship sized, but say something with a kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms, and a reasonable cargo hold/garage), should not struggle against five guys who mined a safezone for half an hour to make a flying contraption with rocks and duct tape, just because "they are five guys". All that said and in a nutshell, I think it's really more of a question of "where do you draw the line", and it's way too early to even be asking that. Hence why I didn't even bother addressing the "automated turrets" discussion itself - as I think that's part of a discussion to a response to a question which is too early to ask. If that made any sense
  21. I'm 100% positive they have stated that both alpha and beta will not require a subscription, as it will only be available to the backers of the game at that point in time anyway. Once the game is fully released, that would be when subs / DACs kick in. Don't remember where I've read it, but was either kickstarter Q&A or Q&A on here, or one of their devblogs.
  22. **In the best possible Russian accent** You want hire people? I do good job, watch stuff. No need provide food or weapon, used to work in chain gang, will eat brick and kill thief with brick. No refund or discount, price already cheap. Can also be doctor, cook, mechanic and pilot for your stuff. Good deal yes?
  23. It's ok, don't worry. I've got a google diploma and run my own cult, so I'm legit / qualified and whatnot. Your children are safe with me.....
  24. From what I understand (though this may only show my lack of understanding rather than reality), is they want to somewhat follow EVE online's model. That means, certain parts of space would be considered "safe" due to being heavily policed and protected, certain parts of space would have limited protection, so petty crimes would be ok, but blowing up a planet would incur the instant wrath of the galaxy, and certain parts of space would be a wild west in space scenario, where players would be free to do whatever it is they want to, and regulate or police whatever area they 'claim' if they wish to do so, with their own player forces. Though specifically destroying a planet - I'm not sure if that would be possible. NQ said that you could 'dig up' a planet (think the 2km down number was being thrown around, but that was too early in the pre-alpha to be concrete), so hypothetically speaking, you could "destroy" the surface area of a planet with enough firepower - but I don't think you would be able to destroy the core of the planet itself from what's been said.
  25. Skimming over the thread, I can safely say that I would be pulling my pledge and boycotting the game if it turns into a censored SJW shithole to "protect the feelings" of degenerates whose sole purpose in life is to try and find things to be offended by. That said, I can completely understand and support reasonable rules that ruin the gameplay on an immersive level for majority of the people, because one person decided to be a troll. An example of this would be naming policies in older MMOs back in the 1990s / 2000s, where names like "qwertyuio1234" or "Aragorn513" were not allowed for the sake of creating a living, realistic and immersive world for the playerbase. In context of DU, I can completely understand and support them not wanting planets that consist fully of dick pics drawn all over them as an example. But to go back to the point, in game conflict is part of the game - regardless of whether that conflict originated from in game politics of one organisation to another, or a group of players encroaching on someone else's in-game property. RL politics and censorship that has zero relation to the gameplay or immersion value of the game, has no place in it whatsoever. As for people who cannot differentiate between reality and an online MMO, or who try to bring their personal real world issues into the development and structure of an online game, need to piss off and crawl back to under whatever rock they feel "oppresses" them. EDIT: Fixed a typo and split a paragraph.
×
×
  • Create New...