Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zeddrick

  1. OK, I actually agree with not having DAC in the game for similar reasons. In general, though, it is always possible to buy in-game money for real money as this 'service' is offered for a lot of games by botters and the like. Having something like a DAC does two things -- it legitimises the sale so people don't need to be 'cheating' in order to do it and it sets the price in such a way that if too many people try to pay to get quanta the price of quanta goes up a lot, discouraging them from doing so. But in DU, the DAC is there because it is a part of what was promised in the kickstarter. It being there, it should be available to everyone not just a lucky few. Presenting the game world as 'new' is not, I believe, a particular advantage which is high on most peoples' lists for the wipe. Most people, in fact, think that blueprints should be preserved because it is an advantage for new players to be able to see things which have been built, buy ships from other players, etc rather than being in a game with nothing to do and everything being made from scratch. Regardless, if someone can suddenly become rich in a way others have no access to then I think that will break the game world. I've personally put a large amount of hours since day one of beta into accumulating a few billion quanta and some ships, stations, etc. and the wipe will destroy all of these things. Then I'll have 3 DAC. But some people will have 40, 80 or even 160. There's no way I will be able to catch up with those people no matter what I do, they will own the markets very early on and make it so it's not even worth me buying schematics because they will have made back the costs of theirs (and lowered prices accordingly) before I even get far enough to buy any. For me, that's a non-starter. If some people are going to have that many DAC, I should be able to buy some for RL money and compete.
  2. It's not evil. It's just not a level playing field. Clearly they could use it in various ways and it wouldn't matter, but the fact that they have he option to monetise it very early on and nobody else does means that it is not a level playing field. Why should someone who, for example, paid 3 subs for 2 years have all the value they got from that erased in the name of creating a level playing field when someone who spent less money on a rugby backer account, say, and contributed nothing ever since gets to have a big advantage? If DAC were on sale for actual money then I wouldn't really have a problem with this. Anyone who wants to could choose to buy a big pile of DAC on day 1 for money and so the playing field is level - everyone has the same opportunity but at a different cost. But as it stands the backers will have a unique and limited resource which everyone else will have to pay quanta for. Quanta which just got erased in a wipe. And I think that's very unfair. Not evil. Not undeserved. But not fair and definitely not a level playing field. One way to fix it would be to give everyone DAC in exchange for the talent points and quanta being wiped, but I doubt NQ would do this at an exchange rate which matters because it means nobody would be paying subs after the launch for months.
  3. Now the wipe discussion makes a bit more sense actually. I wonder how many wipe-backers are gold founders or above who stand to be rich again very quickly post-wipe in a game world where everyone else is poor and struggling for quanta?
  4. OK, so I don't want to knock anyone's entitlements or say that people don't deserve what they get. I just said it was broken! The whole idea is that the game will be wiped to create a level playing field. How can there possibly be anything like a level playing field if eveyone gets wiped and then someone gets 160 DAC on day 1? It doesn't even matter if there are only 6 of these players, they can probably end up with double-digit billions within the first few weeks, hire people to scan for them, rush warp beacon production or whatever and disrupt the game in exactly the sort of ways the wipe was intended to prevent. Saying that we need to wipe to create a level playing field and then giving some players 160 DAC is just completely broken, right?
  5. IMO it's because they are dishonest and want to take as many monthly subs as they can right now regardless of whether or not that is the right thing to do. They know people will cancel their subs when a wipe is announced so they keep putting the announcement off and claiming to be still discussing it. IMO of course.
  6. Wait, there are people who will have 160 free DAC at launch? That is soooo broken!
  7. Some of us are just hoping for the game to get better and move more towards where we wanted it to be. But have still moved on to a large extent and are now just keeping an eye on things just in case. Someone in another thread described it as an abusive relationship where you keep asking someone out and they keep not saying 'yes' but not saying a hard 'no' either ....
  8. - look at forum, see if any wipe announcement. - look at reddit. - check discord. - play X4 instead.
  9. Wait a few months and they will wipe the game. Then you can restart the tutorial with the rest of us.
  10. This is the mistake a lot of people make about MMOs. Even if other people don't pay or add anything specific to the game their just being there creates a world for me to play in. When I'm paying a sub I'm paying to play with a lot of other people. Otherwise I could just play X4 or space engineers or whatever with no sub. Those people who don't create ship designs (or whatever) are the *audience* for the ones that do. They're paying to make stuff and, for a lot of them, they're doing so either to sell it to other players or just so other players can look at it. Scare away those other players with a price hike and you start to undermine the reason why the builders want to play while at the same time hiking their sub fee. Really I think it's about the numbers at this point. More players makes a better game. And that will attract more players. Once it gets past that critical mass where there are a lot of players and the game works well, feels busy and has a functional economy that's the time to start hiking the price IMO. The one good thing which should come out of spending all that dev time reducing the server-side costs instead of adding features is lower sub prices after all? Why else would you prioritise cost if not to keep the cost down?
  11. When I first played it was $9.99 / month (or Euros) IIRC. Then it switched to £s and became £9.99, which was a price rise for us UK people. Then I think £11.99 was next and that was when people I knew started quitting and citing price, but I wasn't playing much then. I lost track of how many price bumps there have been since then. Perhaps I'm confusing £11.99 and $14.99 and think that's a price bump when it's just a different bunch of people in a different discord complaining about the same one? I had stopped playing by then and was just lurking and chatting in discords ...
  12. I wasn't really interested in the exact numbers. The point I'm making is that there is a lot more there which you get for your money than DU has. And there's a lot of loyalty so eve players are more tolerant of this sort of price hike. That having been said, most of the people I played with when I was playing quit as a result of eve's previous price hike. I also know people who quit because of the hike before that. DU really really needs as many players as it can get. Much more than it needs money (after putting all that effort into cost reduction). I don't doubt that they will put the prices up, I'm just saying it will be a really really stupid and self defeating thing for them to do. Sadly that is not out of character for them.
  13. Yes, they need to let a community build by supporting what the players are doing and letting them do more of it. Not constantly limiting players, removing functionality they like and trying to make everyone play the game in a different way. I'm pretty sure it's too late now. I'm one of the ones who survived since the start of beta (with a few months off after 0.23) but have been angry about where things are going for a while now and it's getting worse all the time. I'm at the point where I'm about to just completely walk away from the whole thing for good (and perhaps to check back in a couple of years). I know other long time players who are talking about walking away too (whether they actually will or not remains to be seen). So much for the snowball.
  14. That would be really crazy. Current price is high IMO. Eve has lost a lot of players by going from 14.99 to 19.99 and it's eve. With 20,000 concurrently active players at the peak every day. And players with 10+ year histories.
  15. DAC certainly can be pay to win. Say, for example, you and I have an argument or perhaps you blow up my ship. I can spend a ton of RL money on DAC, sell it and use the quanta to hire players to blow up all your stuff. (We will ignore the safe zone for now). Or perhaps I could find out what schematics you have and use the money to undercut and saturate those so you can't make money from them any more. Either way I paid RL money and could be argued to have won. It might not be your definition of a win but I only care about my definition. But there are limits on the pay to win because there have to be enough people wanting to do the oposite (play to play) to match you.
  16. Saw this. Haven't even read it yet. Came in here to ask if there will be a wipe at launch? And why are you even bothering to talk about anything else?
  17. Last time I tried connecting multiple radars to a gun seat (admittedly before the last patch) it worked in that the gun seat script could read from all the radars, but it didn't allow me to identify targets and select them from the radar output unless it was from one specific radar. In other words one of the radars was magic and the only one the guns would work with. That would stop the use of multiple radars on one seat if it still works like this.
  18. The logic here sounds right, but it misses the fact that players don't like not knowing the answer to this. There is clear anger on the forums this week (some of it is mine) about the subject. Allowing that anger to build right up to October sounds like a recipe for a flop-launch to me because a lot of players will have hit breaking point and walked away before the announcement even happens. If, on the other hand, people know in advance they will probably stop playing but a lot will plan to come back for the release.
  19. Putting radar on the outside is a really bad idea because once a ship's radar is gone it can't do any more PvP. Whatever fight is going on will end at that point because without the radar you can't shoot at anyone. Unlike things like engines there is only one radar for each gunner and they don't have all that many hit points. It will be much better for actual fun PvP if the radar elements can be protected so they are one of the last things which go. That way fights can go on for longer rather than turning into 'first one to kill the others radar wins'.
  20. I think 'completely failed' is a bit strong. There are some very bad design decisions in there (client side simulation of objects is really stupid and probably used more resources than server side simulation while being intended to do the opposite). There also seems to be a large amount of premature optimisation in there, particularly cost optimisation and some attempts to roll their own DB instead of using dynamo to make things cheap, which is when the game started to slow down and get stuttery for me. But I don't think any of this is fatal and it should be able to improve over time. Probably what it needs is a new round of investment which is hard to get without the visionary CEO and without a launch ...
  21. People who *really* understand how the eve skill system works will disagree with you here. The thing most people don't get is that the skills in eve multiply out. So you have, say, a 5% damage skill, but then also a 5% tracking skill, a 5% falloff skill and a 5% rate of fire skill. If you get them all you do 5% more damage 5% more quickly, hit 5% more often and do extra damage through falloff or can hit further away. Also you get multiple skills which hit the same attribute and those stack, so if you have 50% from one skill and 100% from the other you get an extra 50% from having both. Put them all together and the difference between all 4 and all 5 is a lot bigger than you think it's going to be. In eve it's big enough that without having most of the relevant skills at 5 you can't really successfully 1v1 against properly trained pilots and you really need about 6 months of training to be properly effective. Even in fleet fights the setups are usually optimised so much that the ships don't really work properly unless most of your skills are at 5 (even though the 'gate' is level 1). But DU is a bit different because you have build and operational skills and so long as you can get ship boosts from a maxed out player you're halfway there. And that means that if there's a wipe without a talent reset those experienced players will be 100% necessary to do PvP for the first 3 months. So it won't be possible to make a new player org and compete, you'll have to go to one of the existing groups. I agree that a new player can catch up a lot of the way in a few months with some dedicated training (existing players will have a lot of different ship sizes/weapons trained) but that might not matter. If a new player *thinks* they can't catch up a lot will quit. The first thing a new player will realise is that they can't sensibly manufacture anything at all and sell it without making a loss until they get about 20 of the tier 1 manufacturing skills to 4. And that's just the tier 1 skills. They'll be competing against players with 60+ skills at 4 minimum, many at 5, and will get priced out of the market right away. Are those people just going to train skills for months and wait patiently to get into manufacturing (while not training anything else)? Or are they just going to conclude that this is a part of the game that only the beta players can touch? If it's going to be a wipe then, IMO, it has to be a at least a partial talent point wipe too. The way I'd do it is to let everyone keep 5 million talent points and 1/4 of whatever they had above that. So the oldest beta player is 6 months ahead of a new player at the start of release.
  22. I just logged in for the first time since the patch to try this out. Of the 7 ships I looked at, 5 are reporting stacked elements even though none of them have any (3 of the 5 are ships I made myself and I know I didn't use any exploits). If I were still playing at the moment I'd be cross about that and filing bug tickets but why bother at the moment if it might all get wiped anyway? I'll just wait on the wipe decision, see if I feel like playing again and file tickets for anything I plan on keeping. Also it seems my factory contains stacked elements now. That's just ridiculous. The whole point of this stuff was to stop people gaining PvP advantage (or similar with mission ships) by making small ships which had a large number of elements without paying the size/cross section penalty for that. How on earth does that apply to a *factory on a static core*? That's just insane. What possible justification could there be to apply this type pf rule to static constructs at all? Is nobody managing the developers and asking questions like 'what is the benefit we get from inconveniencing and annoying our users here?' And now I'm cross and logging out again.
  23. Seems to me that with client-side simulations of objects it's going to be really difficult to implement pets in any sort of a sensible way unless they were just part of the avatar model rather than following the avatar about. I imagine this sort of thing is quite some time away technically, and wouldn't you rather have something like NPCs or killable critters rather than just pets in any case regardless of whatever was promised in the kickstarter?
  • Create New...