Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • backer_title
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Zeddrick's Achievements

  1. Javascript has inconsistencies, sure. But array subscripts starting from 1? It's not right.
  2. You'd think it would be compatible, but Lua is a bit of a mad language though, why couldn't they have picked Javascript! andy@smiley:~$ lua Lua 5.2.4 Copyright (C) 1994-2015 Lua.org, PUC-Rio > function foo() >> return 0 >> end > function bar() >> return false >> end > print(foo()) 0 > print(bar()) false > if not foo() then print("yay") >> end > if not bar() then print("yay") end yay > if foo() == 0 then print("yay") end yay > if bar() == 0 then print("yay") end > Looking at the list of changed functions, there are going to be a lot of upset people using DRM protected LUA scripts when this comes out!
  3. I don't think this is any different from things like the stacked element changes -- you could spend money on a construct and then NQ is happy to break that and send you back to the original builder for repairs. The original builder might not want to help you, and then you're on your own. It's not a very good way to encourage users to create content in a game which relies heavily on users creating and selling content. I know of people who stopped shipbuilding because of the element stacking changes, for example. You can un-DRM by picking up the element and re-dropping it. Then you have to re-boost and re-apply the new version of the code from whoever wrote it. If it isn't a standard LUA script you can download or buy you're SOL.
  4. But this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Did you even read it or did you just skipread 'PvE' and 'PvP'. GO back and actually read it. Explain how your brainfart is even remotely relevant to what I said?
  5. So long as the PvE enemy is still there and you defeat it in order to get the wreck back that's cool too! I just don't the idea that your shipwreck is somehow teleported back for you. You fight something and in wins they should get your ship.
  6. Assuming nobody is a coward, they're fine with losing the ship to PvE if they lose a mission, right? I don't really see why dumping a ship in PvP space would be *worse* than exploding it. The player can just abandon it if they want, and then it's just like it would be if it got exploded in PvE. Or if they fancy a challenge they can try to save it and they might have some fun doing that. Or are you suggesting that they lose a PvE fight and just get to keep their ship? That's PvE for cowards.
  7. Nah, I want to fight the other people who come out to try to get the ship. And hopefully the ship is still intact, just ran out of time in the mission. So it ought not to be defenceless.
  8. I meant why are they playing PvE, which is a combat game. But you knew that, right?
  9. Why? Either you lose the ship or you get dumped in PvP space and your location is broadcast. If you don't want to PvP you just force respawn and lose the ship, which is what would have happened anyway. Or if you feel lucky you can try to get back to safety and perhaps save something you would otherwise lose. Either way the PvP groups can go to the location and fight each other for the ship or just because they saw each other in space and wanted to shoot somebody. Seems like everybody wins. I mean, some people are suggesting you should get to keep the ship anyway after losing at PvE, but if they're that risk averse why are they playing a combat game at all? Where's the fun in not risking anything? Perhaps the lower tiers could have small rewards and be for the cowards while anyone willing to risk their ship gets to do higher tiers and get better rewards?
  10. I reckon it would be easier to just supply the data as nested dictionaries instead of JSON in the first place. Perhaps with on-demand loading of the data to deal with things which are rarely accessed.
  11. For consequences of losing a mission, please dump the player somewhere in the PvP zone complete with their ship in whatever state it was in when the mission ended and somehow announce the location to everyone. The player get the possibility to not lose their ship and PvPers can join in with the fun!
  12. Missions *still* inject an unsustainable amount of quanta. Look at DAC prices. It only works because of the low player count at the moment.
  13. Do you think they know that ^ means XOR in most programming languages?
  14. If a company that size is trying to do three things at once then either they're doing very insubstantial things or they're doing it wrong. Put the focus on one thing so you can be agile, create feedback loops with users and respond to change requirements fast. Most likely they have a stack of tech, a product that's failing and no idea what to do next so they're just arsing about with whatever crazy ideas they come up with to see if anything works.
  15. Do you think it was really lying early on (implying intentionally deceiving knowing full well they would not be able to deliver what they were promising)? I think there was a lot of naive optimism and overpromising, probably because JC was new to the industry, but IIRC the actual lying started happening after 0.23 and JC's departure. IMO that was probably the moment the company realised they couldn't deliver on their promises and started, for example, to use 'constructive ambiguity' to charge people to play in a persistent universe which they knew they were going to delete later. And, as with everything else it was trying to be, DU was a poor successor to eve online too. The real selling point was if you wanted a game which had all of these different facets available that could grow over a very long time. I think with proper focus and planning DU might have got somewhere really good after, say, 10 years of growing had it not alienated most of the players early on. SO I don't think it was really lies.
  • Create New...