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.

Treelover69's Achievements

  1. I agree with everything else, but the quote above since we've technically already got the first two, and somewhat have the 3rd: - Fuel is just an additional ore requirement. - Maintenance is effectively the desync bug that was randomly jamming industry units and required replacement or turning it off and on again. - Degrading skills are essentially another form of the industry desync bug - you're clicking a button to turn it on again. I honestly don't think there's any mechanics they can add to industry to make it more engaging that wouldn't be creating tedious busiwork. For that I think they'd need to introduce completely new mechanics to the system. Just my 2cents.
  2. Imo its just grindy tedium. I think we had a trial run at that with the bugs where industry would randomly get hung up, or stuck at somewhere between starting and finishing and needed to be rebooted. To me it just ended up being mindless, probably because it didnt really drive any decisions - "have you tried turning it on and off?" For brainstorming, say it's a thing, some possible ways of doing it - Jams - similar to industry bugs in early beta - Degradation - the repair tool isn't particularly engaging, but could maybe have it impact speed/efficiency? - Fuel - essentially just more mining/adding more ore to the base cost of everything, but could maybe change manufacturing speed/efficiency based on fuel type? For me it'd be best if it presented meaningful decisions. To do that it'd have to interact with the system, eg. say there's a maintenance schedule - could make it run less efficiently if it hasn't been upkept - but the cost to repair vs the efficiency loss would need to matter so there was a decision to make about whether you repaired now, or whether it was more efficient to do later. My concern is that this would be a super finicky balance driven by a lot of environmental factors that could easily break any meaningful decisions that need to be made, plus inflation potentially making that cost meaningless again over time. I think if the safe zone get's reduced (is the beta boundary is permanent now?), the recurring loop would be that other players essentially steal your industry. I guess this comes with territory PvP now that static constructs have to be on land with a TCU. When that happens, you'd have to rebuild a factory elsewhere giving you a fresh take at industrializing again (which is where i get most of the fun from). It's a soft reset and a consequence of a decision made about how many resources you were willing to risk, knowing that someone else would likely try to steal it or destroy then sell it on the market - the larger the factory the bigger that risk. I can't think of a good substitute for this kind of gameplay loop.
  3. It's not off topic, - Ship building - you're asking for torque, they're asking for more unique elements for making ships purpose built. All torque does is force everything to be roughly centric/balanced - that aint skill, its just tedium trial and error. The lack of a reason to "good" at ship building is because the only gameplay loop is hauling, so every ship is designed to haul unless someones and hauling isn't hard. Does it go? Does it fly? Cool, done. - Mechanics for PvP need to be developed in, there needs to be incentive for specific unique ship utilities. - Space needs to properly developed with reasons to be in it so that there's a reason to have "space only" ships. - Number of engines/breaks/adjustors/wings etc... per construct needs to be limited so that rockets actually have a reason to be used can be more integral. - Atmosphere re-entry/burn could be a bit more punishing. To me, the lack of gameplay loops/restrictions/reasons to build ships is a bigger issue than whats in the OP. There's no meaningful design decisions to make, only what looks nice.
  4. I'm assuming you mean magic blueprints - if I apologize. Unless they add a way to lock the magic blueprint to that station (which is where the dev time would be), its exploitable. It would create the same problem as using the nanocrafter to move ore around freely just with elements. It's fixable & they should do it, but I dont think it's as simple as just make constructs MBPs.
  5. It doesn't help that there's nothing to take those items out of circulation reliably.
  6. Imo this is needed economy wise. But there's no point until they actually implement a solution to fix the imbalance of supply/demand. I hope they have the guts to do it but at the same time it's a massive risk because of everything everyones built, so I don't expect they'll pull the trigger.
  7. Yea 100%, this is really the only way to "balance" - imbalance with counters. "Rock, paper, scissors" instead of "rock, paper, shotgun". League of Legends does this well. WoW does this well. I've not played with Eve enough but it also seems to do this well The radar range & scan time was the first stab at this, failed. The PvP rework will be interesting, my expectations bar is pretty low at the moment but I do hope that they at least get into the right ball park with whatever "energy" becomes. Wish there was more communication on it, unlike the majority of other features coming up this year this is about the only one I can think of where player feedback early in the cycle can offer fundamentally good direction.
  8. Doesn't GW2 run off AWS? It's PvP centric & and MMORPG with relatively big fights ~300 people. Is there something more nuanced that would go to say that PvP in the way DU structured it wouldnt work within that type of setting?
  9. Same Yea, from my 2 days here's its been people that funded the kick starter or threw a lot of money at the game. There's entirely valid sentiment/criticism, but it get's hidden behind calling NQ the bad guy. You can agree the game needs work but disagree with calling NQ the bad guy and they focus on talking about NQ rather than the actual game state - not sure why, maybe over investment? Humans are weird. My personal favorite was someone saying this game has had a better development cycle than DU.
  10. I don't understand why you're saying me agreeing with you is a contradiction, followed by just regurgitating what we've already agreed on, is it for the sake of getting the last say? Not really sure here. This has little/nothing to do with the quote "MMO development is never finished". This has to do with how they've labelled the game (alpha vs beta which varies drastically across the industry) and are behind on the roadmap, not the quote. You're not reading, suggesting I think things I've explicitly said I'm not and are strawmanning. There's no point in having a conversation like that, so I'm done, thanks for the convo.
  11. Yea, i agree with this. I dipped pre 0.23. I've said it elsewhere, but I couldn't find a reason to do something beyond aesthetics and the sake of just DUing it: - No reason to be in space outside of travel/PvP - No reason to PvP outside of blood lust - No real economic reason to do it, and you can't get to the places that would actually hold value (planetary PvP/stations in safe zone). - No reason to build buildings since the structures can only mechanically serve as aesthetics - No reason to build in space outside of having a space station for the sake of SPACE!!! - No reason to focus on specialized industry when everyone/every org can be a generalist (even with schematics) - No reason to participate in industry when the ore is more valuable than the finished products - No reason to use rockets, especially when you can just strap 20L atmos engines with 10 L ailerons to lift pretty much anything. - No reason to add cosmetic elements when they just add weight & add to the repair bill - Not enough reasons to build different specialized built ships outside of "atmos only" & "space/atmos hybrid". - What about space only for efficiency? Moon minerals are outshined by planetary ones & PvP doesn't have a reason outside of blood lust, maybe asteroids will help. - Add ship specific tools dedicated to roles like salvaging ships? - A ship designed to help you out mining instead of being just linked to stationary container at the surface? So many mechanics, so few reasons to play/interact with any of them.
  12. Yea i agree with this. I thought talents could do something like this, where you had to choose your industry manufacturing and could only have X number of things chosen at any given time - maybe with a cooldown so it couldn't be swapped around instantly to w/e you need on a whim. This is assuming the design goal was to encourage trade and not just have everyone with generalist factories. Either way, the volume/diversity of industry needs to be toned way down given the current oversupply & no sink problems if natural trade is going to thrive.
  13. Yea, this is pretty much it. They needed to actually hard limit individual's ability to diversify industry to force players into specialized industry make trade happen. Only think I can think to do would be to make it so you can only talent into X number of industry chains, and can only make things you're talented into. If it's restrictive enough, goods will flow more readily, but I doubt people want another talent/industry rework anytime soon...
  14. Yes. I did. My opinion hasn't changed - -> With enough people and lag tolerance, you can do this. - Solo players are a thing, you can function as a solo player. Note the difference in scale referenced in the kickstarter that you just quoted, multiple people will always be more efficient than 1. - Missions, AvA & player markets are literally coming - The markets are a mess but bots & schematics are not the reason why (if anything the lack of buying bots is part of the problem), specifically there's an oversupply problem and no item sinks. Schematics are there to remove some of the currency in circulation from all the oversights to date - it does that. It's not my preferred solution but I can't say it doesnt do what it's there to do. I'm not going to slam NQ for the basics that they have delivered, but I will criticize implementation. I'm digressing from this convo, it's run its course.
  15. I don't and never did disagree with this. I agree and I highly doubt DU will be polished & "full" release ready in 9 months, I'm especially concerned about AvA/Territory warfare being implemented but if they can fix the netcode to work smoother, i'll have more confidence. I'm not going to speculate on the backend work they've done with their netcode, reducing the backend call frequency was a bandaid - I'm skeptical that's all theyve done given the improvement from Beta launch. This isn't true, the Dec 23 Look Ahead again covered what could be expected this year. How that aligns with the road map is another story (specifically it doesn't), which goes back to the first quote. Except this is again - objectively true. Elite dangerous only just released odyssey for Alpha after releasing in 2014. World of warcraft is still revamping and introducing systems, and in the last few years completely redid the games graphics - and it's ancient. "MMO development is never finished" is a true statement as long as they can sustain business they will continue development to retain player interest, MMORPG's are pretty much the originator of games as a service in that regard. Fundamentally I agree. There's a broader lack of coherence in the gameplay loops, and contradictions in how game mechanics have been implemented.
  • Create New...