Jump to content

Volkier

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from hdparm in If you became CEO of Novaquark tomorrow, what would you do?   
    Make the launcher compatible with OS other than windows 10 again. Or simply revert back to old launcher. Or even just give people the option with what launcher to use. 
    Game currently runs perfectly well on Windows 7 systems, but that has been prohibited after the launcher update. Even the swap over to the new launcher originally was still viable as you could get it to work after manually installing web view - but after it's third or forth update, it just refuses to run at all. 
     
    I just find it really really odd that NQ would deliberately remove the ability of a chunk of people to play their game, which otherwise runs perfectly fine and without issues, through what at this point looks like deliberate effort. Like a developer had to go through the trouble of creating something that specifically doesn't work on a portion of the systems, then when people got it working "updated" it to definitely not work. Just very very odd business model in my humble opinion but eh, what would I know?
  2. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Demlock in YARSOS #1   
    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 fly for weeks on end before your element goes down to 99%
    - Does feel like a survival mechanic - which I appreciate is not what many people would be keen on. Like eating food or drinking water kinda thing XD

    pros:
    - Providing maintenance can restore your element back to full functionality - does create a new job line / skill line
    - Providing maintenance can restore your element back to full functionality - does fix the current system's discentive for PvP
     
    potentially escalating problems (peps?)
    - If maintenance does not restore element back to full functionality, that means that now the moment you loose 0.001% durability on an element that element is useless for building purposes. Currently, building with "damaged" elements is near to not possible due to players inability to use undo / redo for element placements when there are dynamic properties attached to an element, bricking the entire 'undo' function when the player attempts to do this without having an element without dynamic properties in their inventory. Even if that bug was fixed (which should have happened well before any sort of such system using dynamic properties was implemented imho) and item durability was not tied to dynamic properties - you would still run into the issue of "how would the game know whether to use an element with full durability, 90% durability or less in any given scenario while building.

    Basically right now, loosing a life on your element makes the element worthless for building - in what is ultimately a world building game. This has been mitigated by NQ by restricting "life loss" only due to pvp - which means that while flying is once again viable, pvp-ing is not. If even with maintenance you cannot restore full functionality to an element under this proposal, then just sitting in your pilot chair while building and tapping your mouse accidentally would be enough to deem all active elements on your ship un-viable for building.

    - On the other hand, if maintenance does restore your elements to full functionality, then the solution does not provide an element sink that NQ is trying to create.


    So yeah for the sake of a health discussion, just thought I'll throw in what I can potentially see as problems with any "slowly diminishing elements" system. I'm still like the idea of " x% of your elements are destroyed when your core goes boom " system the most, as it solves just about all the problems that the current system has created and on average provides the same level of element sink while rewarding careful pilots and well built ships. Can't remember who came up with it though as it was a communal result of a discord discussion XD
  3. Like
    Volkier reacted to Kurock in YARSOS #1   
    YARSOS aka Yet Another Repair System Overhaul Suggestion

    Preface:
    No one likes the elements breaking on X lives system. The factory owners want it to be 1 life (because that's quanta in the bank eh?) and other players don't want it at all.  
    @Volkier has been fighting the good fight and while the "multiple lives system" was suggested by (the factory owner) players and implemented, the great ideas of Volkier go unacknowledged.  So the hopes of this suggestion getting more than a passing glance is low indeed.
     
    The suggestion:
    How about instead of lives for elements, have a maintenance meter that degrades randomly with element use. If the maintenance meter reaches 0 then there is a chance elements will be destroyed *while in use*. HP loss from crashing and PvP makes the maintenance meter take a big dive.  An element at 0 hp means it's broken and unusable (as usual). Scrap repairs hp as normal. (hp is so gamey... calling it "integrity" would be better especially since that is a trait sorely lacking in some). Just repairing an element with scrap will make it functional as normal however if it is *used* (just to reiterate) there is a random chance it would be destroyed permanently.  Finally, maintenance takes enough time (or maybe the construct needs to be stationary, or maybe you have a better suggestion so comment below) that it can’t be done in combat and in if the maintenance meter has degraded enough, it may require *parts* to bring the meter up again. A fully maintained element is the same as a completely new element.
     
    But why?
     - It's far less grievous if the *permanent* destruction of elements is under the players control: aka a choice led to that outcome.  Whether that is going into a PvP zone or deciding to not do maintenance.  Hopping landing gear leading to entire ship exploding should not be part of this equation at all.
    - Why "on use"? - computation is off-loaded onto the client in DU... mostly... except for factories.  That is why the batches of factories had to be increased as well as the schematic nerf.  Can't have all players DOSing the server with millions of factories now can we?  Anyway, what uses items but players themselves.  Hence on use.
     
    What does this mean?
    The side effect of this kind of system would be:
     - Even elements on static/space constructs would not be exempt from needing maintenance.  Those doors and buttons will need to be oiled and kept in working order... or just them break and buy replacements.  More choice for players. And factory owners should be happy right?  (no they will never be happy until your whole ship has to be replaced after moving 5 meters)
     - Mechanics! Imagine actual mechanic shops.  Job creation right there. (throw in some maintenance specific talents and we are golden)
     - Accidents (especially those caused by glitches and pop-in towers) are far less infuriating.  There will always be glitches, that is the nature of the beast. An entire ship should not need to be replaced because the (default) flight script decided to get stuck in a perpetual left turn.
    - More of a market for parts.  Will that make factory owners happy?  My guess is no ?
    - Elements that aren't used directly won't need maintenance... this covers those decorative items:  Leave them looking good without being a pain. No need to remember to water those plants.
    - PvP and salvaging rewards...  fully functional elements: with some parts and scrap they are good as new.
    - Industry needs maintenance.  You want to keep your expensive factory working?  Keep it maintained.  The reality is the initial cost isn't the problem, its keeping them going that is the real trick. No fire and forget factories.
     
    Future improvement suggestions:
     - Talents - Make maintenance fun with a talent tree for your mechanic
     - Tuning - alter you engine to have less performance but a larger maintenance meter.  Or the opposite.  
     - Efficiency - Have engines become less efficient as they are less maintained... requiring a visit to your local mechanic for a tune up.
     - Recyclers - Take those destroyed elements and recycle them into parts which could be used to maintain the not-destroyed elements.
     
    Element lives don’t matter... I demand maintenance.

    TLDR: Random destruction chance with mitigation mechanics (maintenance meter) gives players a chance against mishaps. 
  4. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Kurock in Repair system overhaul   
    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.
  5. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from admsve in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    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. Like
    Volkier reacted to Ziggy_SD in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    With regard to the 12-minute warning of a 4-hour maintenance period just now:
     
    NQ, you said you were listening. Really? 12 minutes?
     
    As others have repeatedly said: Play your own game from scratch, without God-mode, day in, day out. Try, try and try again to feel what it is like to be in the game, not a mere observer.
     
    Of all your recent kneejerk reactions to the state of the game this one vividly demonstrates that you are hearing the noise of dissent, but not understanding it.
     
     
  7. Like
    Volkier reacted to Sanchopancho in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    You want a player driven economy, but there is nothing to make it a good experience.
    The gui of the market place hasn't even the simple function of filtering planets. There is no history of prizes or perhaps an export function. How we should analyse the market?
    There are simply numbers and that numbers changes even when you have filtered it by distance. Every 5 to 10 sec the sort is changing. With this an overview is very difficult.
    the market gui seems to be made by a person, who dont know whats the important things there must be.
    the main thing is that it is available and nothing more.
     
     
  8. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Aaron Cain in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    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.
  9. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Monk_NL in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    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.
  10. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Tional in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    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.
  11. Like
    Volkier reacted to Raker1 in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    Have your devs play the game , from the start with no god mode 
     
    They will learn more from that than any hand picked forum
  12. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Emptiness in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    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. Like
    Volkier reacted to blazemonger in A better damage/deterioration mechanic   
    Here's what I suggested in another thread and I feel it deserves it's own thread here and the option to discuss what I believe would be a much better solution to damage/repair/element deterioration:
    Elements can be patched up when damaged, destroyed elements can only be removed/replaced
     
    Damaged elements
    Players can craft "repair kits" which are tailored to the purpose for which they are used (engines/airfoil/adjustors/furniture.. etc) Repair kits will restore a damaged element to enough health to "get home" where the element needs to be removed and replaced. A repair assembly element of the correct size will then be able to repair the damaged element with new components. A repair assemble element can be fitted to a dynamic construct with M or L core to allow en-route repair as long as the needed components are in store on the construct. A patched up element is a most 80% functional and has less HP and so is at higher risk of getting destroyed. This creates the requirement to have it actually repaired and not left as-is.
    Destroyed elements
    Players can remove these elements and replace them Destroyed elements can be recycled for a return of some of the original components/resources
    Additional elements
    Mobile Nano Crafter which can craft any T1/T2 component up to L size and any T1 element up to M size at less efficiency/speed than industry. It can also craft Space Fuel. Can be placed on an M or L dynamic core. The purpose of this element is to provide a "patch up" availability to be able to make it home and can craft repair kits.
     
     
    ..discuss..
  14. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from decom70 in Devblog concerning Elements/damage/detoration   
    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.

  15. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from merihim in Superior alternative to finite durability mechanic.   
    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. 
  16. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from decom70 in The problems with Planned updates and how they will kill PvP   
    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. 
  17. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from decom70 in Superior alternative to finite durability mechanic.   
    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. 
  18. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from SubQuest in Superior alternative to finite durability mechanic.   
    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. 
  19. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from SubQuest in The problems with Planned updates and how they will kill PvP   
    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. 
  20. Like
    Volkier reacted to PeteComma in The problems with Planned updates and how they will kill PvP   
    To start id like to say i doubt that NQ is going to listen but the problems that will arise with planned updates can be completely avoided and I also apologize if i show some people think they didn't know.
    1. Durability will kill PvP.
    The point of PvP right now is to kill the other guy and take his ship. the battles my not always end in a win or loss but when somebody loses, the elements you recover are enough to cover fuel and ammo and maybe the voxel damage that happens to your ship. with elements being completely destroyed after a fight what do I get for killing my opponents ship? i'll tell you what you get, parts that can never be used again! for those who have ever fought in real PvP you know that parts a destroyed way more than 10-20 times.The already low reward of PvP will be reduced down to nothing.
     
    2. The "rebalancing" of PvP can be easily bypassed with little to no effort due to the docking mechanic.
    (This one is multi faceted so please read the whole thing before you rage reply, also if you haven't done any PvP this won't make sense to you but if you know you know) 
     
    Currently the list of PvP rebalancing  actions will be.
    Bound weapon sizes to core sizes
    energy consumption
    radar lock ranges unified
    Hit-Miss formula changed to account for cross section instead of core size. 
     
    To bypass all of these all i would need to do is follow these steps.
    1. Use a L core to build a ship with the same cross section of  a Small core and use all of my energy allotment for engines only
    2. Build M cores that are only Large weapons and dock them to the L core.
    3. Go shoot anything that moves because i have more guns.
     
    Ways to fix these problems.
    Stop docked ships from firing weapons
    Have better rewards for Killing enemy ships combat (quanta or skill points)
     
    constructive criticism is welcomed but disrespect will be ignored.
     
  21. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Walter in Devblog concerning Elements/damage/detoration   
    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.

  22. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from NQ-Naunet in Salvaging - Nerfed as a casualty or by intention?   
    Thank you Naunet - appreciate the response.
  23. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from Bobbylord in Salvaging - Nerfed as a casualty or by intention?   
    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.
  24. Like
    Volkier got a reaction from JohnnyTazer in Salvaging - Nerfed as a casualty or by intention?   
    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.
  25. Like
    Volkier reacted to Bobbylord in Salvaging - Nerfed as a casualty or by intention?   
    I've posted an upvote suggestion regarding the Scavenging/Salvaging suggestion in this thread. This is the second time I post this (I posted it on Friday, 6th of November the first time) on upvote - the first post was deleted without comment (even though I left a proper Email address I received no feedback or reasoning at all).
     
    Let's see if it will be approved this time and if NQ allows us to at least vote for our future in DU.
     

×
×
  • Create New...