IvanGrozniy
-
Posts
186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by IvanGrozniy
-
-
1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:
Not agreeing with you and debating you is not trolling. No matter how bad you want an excuse to be right.
We wanted NQ to communicate. They are trying.
I say you are wrong. The CEO is the leader of the company. He has no responsibility to be the PR.
His responsibility is to make sure there is a PR spokesman.
And he is doing nice in that job. He delegated this to Naerais and she is doing it.
And you go and say: "nope, i want to hear from the new CEO NOW!!!!"
You just want to throw the CEO under the bus, emplying he has no responsibility on recent change in Naerais's behavior.
Almost like Naerais is rebelling against him.
So no. I dont agree with you on this.
And that joke makes a perfect caricature of your actions.
Now bite it and reply with arguments instead of insults and accusations of trolling.
-
1 hour ago, UnscriptedVert said:
It's a fact, you get rid of the toxic players, then the other players can have fun. It's simple. You are misinterpreting truth from your reality.
Heck, even @blazemonger admitted to a few of us that there are bitter older players. Difference between you and him is that he admits he is one of those bitter older players, that has been toxic. So I call it how I see it. No strategy involved.
Of all the old timers who play this game, he is the only one I respect. He has also been the most helpful to us newbies. And He is honest in how feels about the game.
In just one post we learn that
- toxicity is a binary designation
- you are the arbiter of truth and reality
- old farts are toxic
- you represent newbies (presumably by election)
-
......
Jokes aside, okaaaay? If you notice, I generally don't talk about players when I'm criticizing DU, I talk about the game. It is game design that facilitates, encourages, and provides incentives for certain actions, even if the said game design is unintended or not apparently purposeful. Blaming people for playing a certain way in a sandbox is counter to the sandbox. Calling players toxic doesn't help, it's quite embarrassing actually, it usually means that when someone throws an "fu" at you, you are too weak to throw "fu" x 10 back at them (expression shamelessly stolen from a Siberian intellectual). Not all newbs are the same, they are here for different reasons. Most people here are very helpful to them if they need help figuring things out. Sly remarks about "admitting x" and "you know it but don't want to admit it" silliness doesn't help either. Those things are generally summarized in a term "not an argument". If you have one, provide it so we can discuss the argument. Discussing players is a slow burn to garbage drama.
-
2 hours ago, Cheith said:
the builder invests significant time on their creations whereas to be good at PvP you (at least partially) have to invest significant time in your character stats. Losing a ship is kind of 'so what'.
I see what you mean. That depends of course...
- if we're talking pvp meta ships, no, this statement is not true. Those things are really expensive to build. And they are expensive to repair. I'm not sure people comprehend how much mining and man hours it takes to build one of the golden ships from Boo's Gold Armada. I'm not sure people understand how much it takes to repair them after a "battle". No one wants to lose one of those, so pvp battles tend to be more about whoever gets pushed out into the safezone first, battle of attrition. Additionally, if we talk about piracy as an easy win card, it's not like piracy is profitable, it mostly does not exist and the "piracy" you can do is very aids if you ask me, you'll spend more on fuel and waste more time and quanta pirating than if you were digging holes in the ground and selling to bots.
- I don't think it makes much sense to divide people into pvpers and builders... pvpers are also builders, whereas you're probably talking about a subset of players that are purely builders I'm assuming. PvP builders are just more specifically focused on indy buildings, ship building for pvp, and station building rather than purely builders who want to avoid pvp. Have you looked at the Foundry for example? That is a station built by a pvp group. There are also others, some really fancy.
- Talents don't matter too much in meta pvp, again it's mostly about ship stamina rather than who can shoot further. Repair talents help though, repair engineers are really important in fights. Smart pvp ship builders make ships that last longer and take more shots.... but they also mine a lot in order to repair.
2 hours ago, Cheith said:My other point is folks keep bringing up 'realism' and 'evolution' - well in the real world when you lose in a fight to the death you are done - and from an evolutionary perspective when you lose in a fight to the death you are also at a dead end (excluding progeny of course - which would be a whole other discussion).
I see. And I agree. If that's where the conversation headed before I mentioned this was a civilization building game then no comment. If it was the case though... then... I think games should (and they do) take inspiration from real life but they should not mimic real life. And I'm mainly talking about the fact that in real life things are cohesive, there are causes and effects, stuff just doesn't appear out of thin air. In a game, this happens all the time, but it only makes sense if it is cohesive within the world it is trying to build. The cohesion is where I make the parallel between real life and games. I do not like that some games mimic real life where it becomes a second job. In terms of DU and civilization mechanics, this is why I already mentioned elsewhere on this forum that before you set out to make such a game with such "grandiose visions", maybe you should start with first principles and ask what civilization is, what are its characteristics, what are its causes. Once you have the key ingredients, then you think about choosing a few important ones that you can actually gamify and make a cohesive yet fun system out of. And I'm simply saying this never happened. It doesn't feel like it did anyway, since the game exhibits absolutely no civilization building mechanics or progressions. NQ should probably rethink that "vision"
- Cheith and le_souriceau
-
2
-
42 minutes ago, CoyoteNZ said:
Big Arse shields and better ways to protect elements.
Make it if a skilled pirate with a good ship runs into a well built hauler who has invested in lots and lots of armour, and has invested in some high grade shields; the there is just as much chance he will hold out for an hour heading for a safe harbour as there is that the pirate will get him.
Make it so there is actually time to call in friends or an Org to assist, either the attacker who thinks he has found a good whale, or the defender who who puts out a SOS to a rescue service.
You say there needs to be risk and reward. True, but migrating risk is part of that. You should be able to carry an extra 10KT of armour and have it help, rather than just have your elements destroyed. You should be able to spend big coin and have a big shield which takes up a lot of your cargo space if you want.
Having it that if you are in a hauler and you get spotted means you are dead is stupid. Just like the combatant is able to do things to make their ship a murdering killer machine, the haulers should be able to make their ships the nightmare of targets.
Thats not even going into stuff like having the option to jettison containers and the like so the pirates have to make a decision of chase the easy loot, or keep chasing the primary, but you won’t get both.
Plus is it really PvP if a fully skilled pirate in a fully decked out combat ship comes apron anything but the like currently?
I am not a proponent of the current pvp model whatsoever. However, if someone fails to understand basic DU ship and pvp mechanics it's on them.
1) never fly in the pipe. Using this sekret anime technique you will encounter pirates 0.000001% of the time.
2) Do not build naked haulers if you want to fly in the pipe. Yes that is more expensive. So are meta pvp ships. But if you get killed by someone in 10 minutes that's your fault, you made a crappy hauler, you failed to research how one would build a meta hauler, you failed by flying in the pipe.
This does not mean I like #2. There needs to be a way to retaliate. Shields. Guns, etc. I for one do not like the rule that you can't use L guns on s or m cores. I also do not like that you have to use gunner seats in order to use big weapons. There's a host of barriers to entry for a good pvp ship or a hauler and these limitations do not help the situation but rather exasperate it. If you were hauling and you had the ability to have 3-4 L rails on your ship without a gunner seat, anyone would think twice before attacking.
-
5 hours ago, blazemonger said:
Do you _really_ need us to tell you what we expect/would like to see here? Frankly, that you even ask tell me you are pretty much oblivious to what is happening on the forums specifically. Maybe if you replace "communication" with "Engagement with your community".. Does that ring any bells?
DU would be a better game and further along if NQ actually took note of so many threads in the forums with some great content, suggestions and ideas. But not ever a beep from NQ, no idea if it is ever seen or taking on board/considered (from the lack of any follow up it appears not) and then we see NQ make mistakes or strange choices that we discussed and suggested for months prior all of which was for nothing and ignored. There was one CM who understood this and tried, she really tried (at least that is the impression we all got and we appreciated her for it) but NQ lost her for whatever reason. And I will leave it at that.
This to be honest... I love how absolutely every communication from NQ is "business as usual" which is all the more cringe. The CM who actually tried is now in a better place (on earth
) and good for her. Some creeps at NQ CM management like to put chains on people and then gag them. I hope they're gone or else the communication problems will continue.
-
On 4/20/2021 at 11:20 AM, Cheith said:
So, losing at PvP in a more real world is permadeath - you lose you're dead. End of character. I obviously didn't make that clear originally as to where I was going, but the original statement is still true. Most folks aren't up for it - they are fine with destroying the creations of others that took months of effort but not their own creations (the character itself). I have no problem with PvPers except when they decide everyone must participate to have a meaningful game experience. There is just no justification for that - evolutionary or otherwise.
I fail to see why permadeath (character death) is brought up in DU context though, it doesn't exist in DU. I'm also not sure what this argument means "they (presumably pvpers) are fine with destroying the creations of others.... but not their own creations (the character itself)"... ?? Character? I don't get it. If someone pvps they are risking their own creations (in DU context, it is their ship / ammo / guns / whatever is on board). Not sure what "their character" has anything to do with it?
On 4/20/2021 at 11:20 AM, Cheith said:You're referring to a 2019 marketing presentation? One it is marketing and not reality (imo marketing and reality are only lightly connected). Two visions are just that, visions - things change, visions evolve. Funny you talk about evolution and fail to recognize the possibility in the development of the game. Kickstarter has lots of caveats and as long as a game is delivered that is vaguely in the same ballpark as the marketing they are fine (from a Kickstarter perspective). The fact you personally funded it while relevant for you doesn't really mean that much in the longer term.
I also fail to see what's going on here... I was merely saying that the whole premise of the game was civilization building. And that the game has nothing to show for it in terms of that particular vision. It's just another mmo tech demo with voxels. As for evolution of the game, sure I'm all for it. And if they are going a different direction they should say so. Until they do the "vision" remains the same and the game makes no sense. Not sure where you see the irony of me failing to recognize possibility of game developing into something else. Currently it isn't developing in any direction whatsoever. We'll see with the upcoming patches though. With new management the game might take a different route. At any rate NQ has a massive recuperation mountain to climb.... more than 20 million dollars later.
-
I like how territory warfare has turned into space territory warfare because we already have space castle sieges.. now we just need bug giant empty space cubes to fight over.
-
7 hours ago, Cheith said:
Umm what? So, which hugely popular MMOs have permadeath? Not just full loot PvP but actually once you die your character and all their stuffs are gone? Stats, the lot. Very few - in fact as far as I can figure out none have it as a mandatory feature at present. So, don't think so. The reality is PvPers want realism for everyone but them.
I'm not sure where you're going with this here... I wasn't even talking about perma death or full loot... I was mainly offering a rebuttal to your statement that "After all if we are being super-realistic you only get to lose at PvP once - and very few folks are up for that.". That statement is simply false.
7 hours ago, Cheith said:The reality is PvPers want realism for everyone but them.
What are you even talking about? Where is this coming from? Like... why? What realism? Why so antagonistic about pvpers? Sounds like you're grinding your axe there?
7 hours ago, Cheith said:As to Kickstarter - who cares - doesn't mean squat a few years down the road. Games evolve to survive or all the money and the work goes down the drain. Player built civilizations (in a real sense) has to be a joke, or a marketing term anyway. There is nothing in this game (PvP or otherwise) that would provide an evolutionary path to anywhere. I think we are at cross purposes in this discussion as the game has no where near the complexity required to even model a civilization never mind have one evolve.
Kickstarter is important because backers paid a lot of money to support this game, and last I checked JC's "vision" for this game remains the same, this whole game was meant to be a civilization building game with 6 pillars.
This is taken directly from their marketing (timestamped to relevant part):
As for your statement here:
8 hours ago, Cheith said:There is nothing in this game (PvP or otherwise) that would provide an evolutionary path to anywhere. I think we are at cross purposes in this discussion as the game has no where near the complexity required to even model a civilization never mind have one evolve.
This is absolutely true, not necessarily in terms of complexity but in terms of selective pressures that generate civilization. These things can be gamified and progression can be done well to facilitate actual civilization building. None of which exists in DU. The game is basically just another mmo with an outdated inefficient voxel "feature" that does not scale for an mmo population.
-
1 minute ago, Cheith said:
After all if we are being super-realistic you only get to lose at PvP once - and very few folks are up for that.
Eh... false.... A lot of veeeery popular games should have died by now using this logic, meanwhile the reverse is true. Just look at Rust steam charts for example. For all the hate and dismissal that game gets even from numerous people in this community, it's very much alive and growing. Just one example doesn't prove much, but, there's that. I think people downplay the factors that attract people to games that these people don't agree with....4 minutes ago, Cheith said:From the front page ...
Create entire cities, giant space stations, massive warships,
underground bunkers or… flying cars!
it is a sandbox - you do what you do within the rules allowed. No mention of evolution - just building.
From the Kickstarter (also from numerous JC interviews):
If civilization building does not imply evolution (which is just incremental iteration) then oranges are actually alien eggs. Address the actual points raised in terms of how and why cities are built, because necessity will drive players into one, or to develop one eventually. MMOs typically have hubs for this reason premade by devs for socializing, organizing gear, buying and selling. etc. If the DU universe is to be player generated, then one of the outcomes for a civilization building sci-fi mmorpg is player made cities.
Why does this imply evolution? Because the converse is stagnation. Cities evolve or devolve, that which is preserved is what we call a historical reenactment or a museum. The natural ebb and flow of civilizations involves evolution and devolution, rise and fall of cities / city states / eventually countries of multiple cities / etc. -
On 4/17/2021 at 1:09 PM, Taziar said:
Someone built a small city (including monorail) in this game, it is not as different from Second Life as one would imagine. It just has a bit more focus on actual gameplay (which feels odd to say considering the state of this game).
A lot of people have built a lot of cities, the problem is.... they are useless. And they are namely useless because they are not necessary. As long as DU remains a game where a stronghold / city is not necessary, it is not a civilization building game.
Civilization doesn't just come out of nowhere, there are some very important selective pressures that generate civilization: geography, weather, environment, neighboring tribes... war, scarcity, uneven resource distribution, etc etc... None of this is in the game. Placing higher tier ores on different planets is a bit of a lazy way of doing things, but so far that's the only attempt at a civilization driving factor, even that is done poorly. There is no danger at all, apart from game bugs or someone too asleep at the pilot seat to realize they're about to smack into a planet.
Cities don't just appear, there is a process by which they did appear out of necessity and natural growth. Just because someone placed a few constructs on the ground with fancy voxels and lua doesn't make it into a city. Empty museum, sure, not a city though. Moscow was not built as Moscow... it was an intersection of war and trade paths that necessitated a trade hub and then grew into a stronghold and then into a sprawling city, again, by natural necessity. The result of years and years of strife and trade was a bustling city with input and output, supply lines and social hierarchies and distribution etc etc.. Driving factors. Selective pressures... they don't exist in DU. It's mostly rp and rich players making "plans" and building empty voxel museums.
You would think that if the visionary scientist would have set out to build a civilization building game maybe he'd start off with first principles and ask questions like: what is civilization? what factors cause it? What are its characteristics? And when these questions are answered, maybe the important / realistic causes / characteristics can be picked out and gamified into a coherent system. Something screams at me that this process never happened. It was.... oui... cities.. civilization.... lessss goooo sacrebleu! More than 20 million dollars later we have what we have.Fundamentally DU is a tech demo purported as a game because it's treated like a game (payed subs). There are expectations of a game that is treated as a game, especially when people are paying for it.... meanwhile still a tech demo. As far as I see it, the premise of this 50 concurrent player quota single shard mmo mining simulator is that its vision will be accomplished when there is a player generated city bustling with players, with supply lines constantly feeding it, and top tier production exported as product for the general population to use, organizational and governmental structures, etc. If DU can actually achieve that, it would be a good score. Perhaps it can't and the devs will hire level designers to "build" cities for the remaining playerbase. But at that point you can't call this game a "player-generated" content game... you'd have to clean out and erase a lot of marketing and the whole premise of the kickstarter.
All this to say, pvp is necessary as a driving force for civilization generation Along with geographical differences that matter... along with weather... along with horny T-Rexes roaming the jungles of Alioth and eating innocent virgins...
- Zeddrick, JohnnyTazer, Aleksandr and 1 other
-
4
-
On 4/17/2021 at 1:38 PM, UnscriptedVert said:
Finally, someone who understands the real problem here. And to add to this, the reason people come and go, is because of the old timers who are not saying anything constructive to help the devs, they are basically being toxic players that run off the new players. I have seen a lot of new players come and go, and their reason ? Toxic Players. It has become a vicious circle.
Ahem... and there we have it... blame the players, not the game! Best strategy ever.- JohnnyTazer, Lethys and Aleksandr
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, blazemonger said:
Could this be a ploy by NQ to tick the TW box and move planet side TW beyond release as they will do what they must to hit release end of the year and will push out what they can to get there?
Could be. They did use TW in conjunction with space to feel the ground so to speak (pun intended). Nonetheless TW is delayed, AvA is delayed (not even happening ever I expect). Did they just realize that building an mmo on cloud flare is expensive?)
In terms of PvP idk... it's so broken that adding more systems to it will only increase bugs. If your baseline combat system is not smooth and, most of all, fun, then adding stuff to it won't make it fun either, only more tedious imho. When a rifle is trash adding fancy scopes, lasers, and pink guerrilla camo skins to it may deceive the average newb but it won't improve the rifle.
-
4 hours ago, Snipey said:
We get it you want PVP but what the hell is the point of PVP if there is nothing else leading to PVP? It seems you guys have spent too long drifting in space and all that radiation had shrunk your concept of basic game mechanics to drive PVP. There literally is no game to play to want to PVP in. How about you stop bitching about PVP and focus on the systems that could drive it then complain about how broken it is.
We don't need 500 more topics and posts from you blaze complaining about PVP that's all you talk about. It seems you have little to no knowledge of how a game should be developed from start to finish, you just want to jump right to the end game patches.
4k posts and about the last 300 are complaining about PVP.
Lol Snipey...
It's like you woke up, put on a left sock, got an alarm that the Staff of Wisdom struck again, and just ranted some crazy nonsense no doubt connected to your dreams of Blazemonger terrorizing you witb chopsticks and voxel checkerboard... and then you went to have a smoke on the balcony and realized you were butt naked.
-
Imagine the thousands of new players coming in based on NQ's marketing of schematics...
-
Ugliest ship I've ever seen in my life holy cow
-
Coherent UI has databinding... But I doubt they'll go there... currently the html is redrawn every frame / tick, that is of course costly if there's a lot of it. Databinding allows the html dom to stay in memory and only redraw values that change. That's one of Coherent UI's powerful features that isn't being used. Of course you'll get bad performance redrawing the whole DOM all the time.
-
4 hours ago, Eternal said:
Galvanized steel is steel that is galvanized or zinc-ed. Galvanization is a process of coating steel surface with zinc through hot-dipping to make it more resistant against rusting. You will use such steel type on conditions that require it. For example, a street sign: outside, it rains and that sign will eventually rust if it doesn't have such a coating. You coat the steel to increase it's service life, that's all. Galvanized steel is supposed to look like that unpainted.
The only thing unrealistic is you still see the galvanization on colored galvanized steels in this game. I mean if you painted it, you wouldn't see the galvanization anymore but the paint on the surface.
How was your commute today?
-
Could have used MyBB, ph2B, etc.. those are free and open source and offer plenty of options that are better than this....
-
You must realize that NQ sank more than 20 million into the project. How in the world will this cost be recuperated? This is debt... just financial, not even talking about technical debt.
NQ didn't even make 60K in 2020, meanwhile Eve made $28 million for the first half of 2020.... something is really really wrong here. Technically DU is still an alpha prototype with only the voxel system working reasonably well, even that is still far from feature complete.... so a comparison with Eve isn't very justifiable, but I still make it for the sake of comparison of the analogue from which DU is taking a lot of mechanics.
More than 20 million gone and idk, 50 players playing this single shard mmo at any given time?
-
1 hour ago, GraXXoR said:
But at the end of the day fifteen minutes on YouTube shows the state of the game.
Fifteen minutes on youtube also shows the state of the world and leads to the conclusion that termination is a preferable outcome.
That's not an argument for anything.
NQ is advertising that which does not exist. -
On 4/8/2021 at 4:14 PM, joaocordeiro said:
All this 3 problems are common on any "scripting" language. Any JS or phyton would have exactly the same issues.
nope.... Lua is slow depending on what you're doing and how you're doing it (although it isn't exactly a language you want to compare to C for example )... Couple of examples: the json parser NQ is using is really slow, there are much better alternatives. While loops are generally slow in Lua, so everyone who is using while loops in, say, coroutines, will suffer performance loss. For loops that are ipairs or pairs are significantly slower than numeric loops, etc. Lua has some.. lets just say, holes, but if you know what you're doing it can be just as good as any other language for whatever you want to accomplish.
As far as JS, ow boy... JS can be fast... very very fast, especially when you consider it is non io-blocking and is event based, allowing for maximization of cpu and memory usage. It all depends on how and what you code. Ruby programmers should just switch professions.
As for your comments about HTML being heavy.... well... duh. They literally refresh the dom on every frame / tick.
Again, see here, they prob read the C triggered JS bits and forgot about databinding (you know, the super duper efficient and performant method as it only updates values that need to be updated, NOT the whole DOM... it's the same method I use for updating quadrillion table data rows in dom without crashing a browser.
C++ triggering JavaScript, Javascript triggered C++ (heehee)
https://coherent-labs.com/Documentation/cpp-gt/d9/d2b/binding__c_x_x.htmlAAAAND databinding!
https://coherent-labs.com/Documentation/cpp-gt/df/dfb/_h_t_m_l_data_binding.html -
35 minutes ago, Nayropux said:
It only has to get the HTML from the server once, not once every frame. This is a huge difference.
that's what's up.... NQ using a violin to butter toast.
Take a look....
It's called Data Binding
C++ triggering JavaScript, Javascript triggered C++ (heehee)
https://coherent-labs.com/Documentation/cpp-gt/d9/d2b/binding__c_x_x.htmlAAAAND databinding!
https://coherent-labs.com/Documentation/cpp-gt/df/dfb/_h_t_m_l_data_binding.htmlSo many options to improve performance by a lot... it is inconceivable that a game should refresh and send the whole DOM on every tick or frame... yet NQ did it. Every nail is stepped on.
- CptLoRes and le_souriceau
-
2
-
So, what JC is doing now?
in General Discussions
Posted
oooof.. how their tune has changed...