Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Olmeca_Gold

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • backer_title
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. About a year ago I fell in love with DU's tech and the promise. Launched my organization (DIA) with the beta. I have grown it to a relevant proportion. I then left the game due to what's basically a lack of content. This devblog series does not rekindle my hopes for the game. Here is what I think about the game's current state and my open letter to NQ and response to the devblogs. Is DU a Tech Demo, a Beta, or a Full Launch? Dear NQ, A fundamental thing about why this game is losing so much momentum is you calling a tech demo a beta, then expecting players t
  2. Some people in this thread seem to just want a voxel building game where you can also sometimes get together in the same server with 50 other people to show off ships or for arranged fights. If DU was such a game then there would be no reason for NQ to bear the costs of a single shard seamless MMO.
  3. NQ managed to develop the Minecraft aspect of DU pretty well. The Factorio/Satisfactory and Kerbal Space Program aspects are semi-decent. They couldn't quite nail the Eve aspect. There is currently not enough content in the game to emerge fights, alliances, piracy, betrayals, etc., on a daily and sustainable basis. Even if there was, the PvP experience is inadequate. The game mechanics provide no reason to get "organized" and "civilized". In fact, players running organizations are behind of players who spend the same amount of hours to solo-play. Numerous features are missing to make the game
  4. Covers most of the basics. One thing that would have been nicer is the "accountant" right which could check the log but not transfer/buy/sell. Many orgs will need people with the ability of merely checking the logs but without actually accessing the money itself.
  5. Firstly you quoted my entire message with your reply. The mission interface in the screenshots doesn't provide the volume/mass info. Nor the system seems proofed against making it impossible to complete the mission. Your reply to me has zero bearing on those 2 methods of abuse. Maybe you're only talking about the method of camping delivery stations in PvP space. Camping contract destinations would not arise meaningful gameplay for either side. It would be bullcrap. The UI doesn't provide the new player with the ability to discern whether the mission sends them to a planet (with a p
  6. Here are a bunch of ways people can abuse this system presented in the devblog: Method 1: Making it mechanically impossible to complete the mission. - Abuser issues the mission. Puts something of low value in it (e.g. 1 L of quarts). - Assigns a very high collateral and reward to it. - Innocent hauler accepts it. - Abuser scoops the mission container, kill its construct, or does whatever else it takes to mechanically make it impossible to finish the mission. - Mission fails, abuser gets the collateral in exchange of 1 L of quartz. Solution:
  7. So we can at least transfer construct ownerships without both parties having to be present.
  8. We are getting tired of the only real content in the game being pretty vanity constructs which aren't functionally superior. The much-promoted space elevators are functionally inferior to element elevators. There is not much reason at all to hold and maintain space stations. Twitter, twitch, reddit and forums are all full with pretty looking ships that aren't being put to use for the lack of a greater purpose. We can't attack the much-advertised freeports and the big cities. There is no reason at all to get together, introduce bureaucracy, get organized. The only group of people who are consta
  9. This is all very high developmental cost. In this thread I wanted to discuss ideas that would take weeks for NQ to develop, not months.
  10. I think there are 2 main lessons NQ needs to draw from .23. 1) How many of you are still working toward solving the Gold Star puzzle? Only a handful of people will chase events, wrecks and such just for the sake of doing it. Without sustainable, predictable, dependable rewards; any content is stillborn and waste of precious devtime. 2) If only 10% of players are supposed to engage with industry as JC aspires (a valid aspiration), then others need gameplay loops to engage with. There is only one loop of reliable moneymaking, and that's mining -> industry -> shipma
  11. As a player who has put hundreds of hours to this game so of course I wouldn't want a wipe. But nothing else than a wipe would even the sandbox and take back the harms done at this point. Maybe the best solution is giving beta testers an offer they can't refuse (3 years of gametime?) in exchange of their hours, and wiping the game after beta.
  12. Ideally the exploration rewards would have its own usefulness and demand. But that's more of a long term proposal. I wanted to keep my proposal as something they can implement in 5 days.
  • Create New...