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. 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.
  2. 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 -> shipmaking. I like to be constructive, so in this thread I'd like to discuss what other ways NQ could easily create more such loops without allocating too much devtime. Here are some ideas (not necessarily all mine): Low Cost Exploration: Scatter reliable quanta rewards across planets/space to generate exploration gameplay. Here is a detailed version of this idea. Low Cost Asteroid Belts: Generate asteroids in PvP zone periodically (copy/paste Thades' belt asteroids if needed), insert high tier meganodes in them, add their coordinates to districts. Low Cost NPCs: Code really simple NPC ships (e.g. they just orbit planets or moons in PvP zone, or patrol between planets, and they attack back whoever targets them) reliably spawning around planets and moons. NQ can always iterate on these to make them less grindy, more engaging and interesting. No matter how many of us will complain about mining here, there are many who engage with it because it's rewarding. The game is in the immediate need of new gameplay loops that has rewards as reliable as mining. As mining and PvP shows, it's OK if the gameplay is released at a primitive state. Do you have any other ideas on how NQ can add new gameplay without costing them months of devtime?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. People can say what they will about Eve, but it has well-functioning emergent markets. What makes Eve markets function though, isn't some huge level of initial money investment in order to make anything. - Eve resources are way more diverse. It does not take the same base 25 resources to make everything. - Resources are unevenly and diversely distributed. You commit entire playstyles on gathering one or two types. It takes significant effort to begin collecting moon goo (t2), doing reactions (t3 cruisers), doing PI (citadel and implant production). You don't get to roam around the universe for 5 days and get everything you need to build everything you want doing the same exact thing (mining planets). Every resource comes with it's own know-how. - Eve has many alternative chains of value generation. The only income track DU has is mining -> industry -> construct making. You can choose your place in this chain (eg you can be just a miner), but it's one single chain. Once a few people come together there is no reason to not to horizontally complete this chain (mine and build everything in-house), Eve has many chains. So one can be completely uninvolved with the ship production chain yet generate value to go to markets and buy ships. That's why people go to markets in Eve. They have ways of making ISK unrelated to the production chain. If markets aren't functioning as NQ was expecting, the culprit is the feature incompleteness and lack of several deep chains of value generation. It's true that higher investment levels can be better for t4/t5 production, but getting everything behind huge investment walls isn't the answer for specialization and market activity. When the sole prerequisite is money, it just means making money with money is heavily buffed. Eventually rich people will return to their gigafactories and the rest will just starve. EDIT: One thing I forgot. Well-functioning markets are grounded on traders. Traders (among many other roles such as organization managers) can't function without a market API. JC seems to be categorically opposed to APIs. That's a bad choice.
  6. Our Warp Beacon couldn't even start because the assembler "ate" the ingredients. The support ticket was "relayed to developers" (idk what happens now). And now NQ puts 6 months between those with their beacons (and all the other stuff) and those without. NQ put themselves in quite a conundrum by treating this game as a beta and a soft launch wherever it works the best for them.
  7. Hi NQ Nobody can dispute making everything in megafactories was too easy, linear, and out of balance. But there are so many issues with your approach to fix it. PROBLEM 1) You are putting yourselves in quite a position with treating the game as a beta and non-beta whenever it works. On one hand, with the promise of keeping our wealth into the release, we're expected to treat the game as it's an actual launch to compete with other players and organizations. But then there is no support, mechanics can change dramatically, etc. You're also putting at least a 6-months gap between those who could exploit the unbalanced mechanics early and accumulate wealth, and those who couldn't. SOLUTION: I don't really have a solution to this. Perhaps the best way to operate right now is to announce a full wipe at the end of beta if you can financially handle it. PROBLEM 2) This update leaked to lots of people for several weeks. The knowledge put those people further ahead. SOLUTION: Either enforce your NDA, or do not disclose (economically sensitive) details of how you'll change things. PROBLEM 3) Completely unhelpful talents just to unlock elements are a bad idea. Eve Online learned this lesson over the years and they are doing away with artificial prerequisites to start playing the game. Industry is one of the rare domains where talents actually GREATLY matter. Most production will eventually become unviable overtime without respective talents. It's bad analysis if you thought the lack of talents was an issue. SOLUTION: If you want to wall element usage behind talents, you should do so behind the existing talents. This way at least people get a benefit alongside element access. A sense of actual progression and no waste of days of training. PROBLEM 4) I am quite worried whether the game actually has enough quanta supply recipes for sufficient production. SOLUTION: The game needs isk faucets besides the honeycomb NPC order businesses. I have low-cost proposals for that in the idea box. PROBLEM 5) Machine-based recipes create lots of issues. It'll be quite tedious to teach the recipes to every single element and to keep tabs on them even in non-megafactories. Moreover, how will our investments be saved? I hope (but am not certain) the recipes will be saved under "dynamic properties" of a machine. But then we won't be able to deploy the same factory from a blueprint. It'll be impossible to move factories. So you're not only investing in the machine, but also in the location of the factory. That'll have even greater repercussions with territory warfare. SOLUTION: You should have at least made the recipes character-based. Given that you don't tolerate account sharing and ban those who do, this would still achieve specialization, yet make it way less tedious. PROBLEM 6) Cost is an artificial and unsustainable way to motivate people to specialize. Once people accumulate enough capital, megafactories will begin popping again. Then those who can afford them will be miles ahead of others. SOLUTION: To achieve truly sustainable differentiation and specialization, there needs to be differentiation in the ways the source materials are acquired. Ore is equally available to every individual. It should take organizational level effort to access some building materials; it should take outside-the-box intelligently developed systems to access others. Moreover, it should make more sense to make one product somewhere and to make another elsewhere (geographically).
  8. It's not my prediction that piracy would be viable under current mechanics with player numbers of a full release. Improvements like warp bubbles and webifiers could change that. Still, I think ship deletion is too powerful a mechanic that'd also kill the viability of piracy. Perhaps not immediately, but 6 months down the road (once everyone learns that's the best way to punish/discourage pirates).
  9. I don't know in what other context we can talk about the viability of piracy if not the current state of the game. No one knows what'll happen a year from now. I didn't say there are no differences between Eve and DU so I don't know why you feel the need to refer to the many differences between the games. You were talking about how new player ship losses are more punitive in DU, and how this is a reason for NQ to not encourage piracy. I think new player ship losses cost about similar amounts of time in both games.
  10. Have you ever tried getting into PvP space looking for something to shoot at? If so, do you have a collection of victim ships that you ganked? Viability can only be measured by action/fun you are getting from an activity relative to time you put in it. Currently piracy is tens and tens of hours of looking for something and not finding anything; because travel routes are vast, warp is becoming more and more prevalent, and there are no detection methods beyond the radar (or spying) so you're looking for the needle in a haysack. It's truly irrelevant what happens when you can actually get into weapons range of a ship in a place they can't run away into safezone. Typically that happens once in a lifetime. I disagree with your analysis. Both games are about not flying what you can't afford to lose, and in both games there will be those who violate that rule and learn the bitter lesson. It takes similar amount of effort to reship into an early ship you invest in both games. You do 1 hour of mining and get pretty much any ship in the ship shop in DU.
  11. Eve Online actually gathered data on this and it turned out that the new players who lost ships early on were likelier to stay in the game. Meaningful human interaction makes the game interesting, no matter which side you are on. The game can better educate new players about what to do and what not to do. Keeping piracy completely unviable is not a real long term answer to any problem.
  12. The game is at a very early stage. In many ways, it's less feature-complete than a generic beta relative to it's ambitions. Yet NQ decided to "start the sandbox" by practically committing to no wipes and beginning to charge players monthly sub. Perhaps that was financially needed. Or it was the only way to prove that the tech is working. But "starting the sandbox" means many of us are not actually here to help NQ develop an unfinished game. We are here because we see the potential in this game, and want to get in the action early. Those who joined even earlier have even more advantages wrt the sandbox, despite the wipes. Their designs, relationships, organizational numbers were carried over from alpha. On the other hand, lots of balance issues are allowing those who can exploit them to economically get ahead. The much-needed rebalances will pull the ladder behind them. Bugs keep wasting people's hours (or days) of gametime. An assembler "ate" our warp beacon (a month's work) ingredients just this month. And support is nonexistent. We will get an apology mail in about 3 months. 1) In hindsight, is NQ happy or critical with the overall direction they took the game's beta launch? NQ is treating the game as a beta when it comes to justifying lack of support and feature incompleteness; but treating it as a soft launch when it comes to committing to no wipes and collecting subscription payments. Is this approach sustainable? Was there no other way? 2) When can we expect support at the level of AAA MMOs? Can we expect any improvement until the actual launch? 3) Is NQ worried at all that the status-quo will eventually wear-down the enthusiasm of those who believed in the game's potential and joined? I for one am worried about myself.
  13. Currently it's extremely easy to avoid any kind of PvP in DU. - Literally avoid any direct path between planets and you're fine. - Emergency warp to nearest planet in case someone tries to approach, you're fine. - Just warp if you can afford (many do). - Actually defend your ship for a change. So no, self destructing is not the only tactic to fend off pirates. Piracy isn't even at a remotely viable state in DU.
  • Create New...