Jump to content

Dracostan

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dracostan

  1. When you say 'your' do you mean those core BPs that we are named as Creator in the BP, or all core BPs we have in our Nanopacks or personal constructs, irrespective of who the Creator is?
  2. Building materials should have 2 mass categories like the products - light and heavy, to have a more 'real world' feel to the materials. As the building materials are predominantly used in static builds, actual mass is not really an issue. So concrete, brick, marble should all be heavy mass honeycombs. Carbon-fibre and wood should be light mass, as they are far more likely to be used in dynamic builds and again would reflect real world feel to the materials. Lumi glass is a special case that could be heavy mass, because while it does feature in dynamic builds, it's not a predominant material, rather a highlighter, so it's overall mass contribution to a construct will be low, despite being a heavy mass honeycomb.
  3. I'm sure I will be covering things mentioned before, but my 2cents: Removal of Schematics: Does this mean the full removal of schematics as a game item from the game, or just the wiping of the currently held schematics in players assets/factories? Removing schematics from the game entirely would be a poor choice, as they provide a progression gate through the industry gameplay. The removal of them would simply result in the situation we had early in Beta, that LEAD to the introduction of schematics, of players being able to easily set up 'omni-factories'. This will all but eliminate the need to interact with the game markets and would lead to an even more exaggerated situation of element hording, as this will be coupled to the now relative ease & rate of ore extraction. Fixing 'exploits': I agree that imbalances caused by errors in costing, or alt parallel missioning should be addressed. However, this could have been done on a case by case basis when it came to light and can still be addressed individually, rather than a heavy-handed approach across the game population. Beta-vet to Newbro advantage: This will always be present in a persistent MMO, as even with a full wipe, vets will have game knowledge that newbros don't and so will be able to progress more effectively. And then further down the line, as more new players join, the advantage of the 'earlier' new players will be above those just joined. A wipe will not effect this aspect of the game. Planet 'quality': This needs clarifying as to whether this is an asset update for the rocks, trees & biomes as was applied to Jago, Teoma etc, or is this the system-wide implementation of the new planet tech that has been talked about? If the latter, would this involve a re-distribution of ore pools as well? While the above may seem like I do not support a wipe, I actually do, but only if the reason for the wipe is a technical one on the server side, that cannot be done in any other way, or that would require significant manual dev involvement. I can see that the introduction of the new planet tech would require a wipe in the same manner as the geo-reset, and the complete removal of schematics is a significant recode of the game (though technically a roll-back), but otherwise the issues raised in the devblog are not sufficient to justify a hard reset of the game world. Should a wipe go ahead, then I would ask for the following : Talent points are refunded, not wiped - this is because talent points are the only thing in the game that cannot be gained through exploits and are gained through paid game subscription time, rather than in-game activity. An acceptable compromise would be either a significant portion of points are refunded, or an accrual multiplier be available to Beta-vets, as a concession to participation in the Beta period. Core Blueprints are retained - the principal activity of DU is creative building in a sandbox universe. The creative legacy of the Beta should be retained in some form, as it was from Alpha. Issues relating to bugs with older Constructs will be addressed with the forthcoming element collision and de-activation mechanics - should a builder want the particular construct in the game, and functional, they would have to rework it, as with any other existing constructs. Schematics should be retained in the game world - Schematics are a vital part of the game progression gating system and as such should remain. Otherwise DU will revert to the state it found itself in in early Beta, where players ran their own omni-factories and so had little incentive to buy from or sell to the game markets. Remember it was this situation that led to the introduction of schematics in the first place. All players would start with 50M Quanta - This would allow a bootstrapping of the game economy, without handing the Beta-vets an unfair advantage of wealth. What players decide to do with this start-up cash is then their decision of how to progress (the starting Quanta amount is obviously something that can be set dependant on review of the games current economy). Basic industry units are seeded at every market, including Haven - The principal factor in almost every game is how quickly a player feels they are 'into the game'. With a starting bank and seeded industries, a player can more quickly enter into the starting level of making their own stuff and setting up an income stream, outside of selling to ore bots. This will give new players a sense of involvement in the game world that surface mining and selling to bots simply cannot match. Coupled with the need to travel the system to purchase schematics to expand their industry, this will encourage the players to venture throughout the system, rather than stick to the inner planets, as this will introduce the game mechanic of flying through the system at a early stage of the game play. It will also boost the market interaction of new players, again setting up the interaction with the market mechanics early. Wipe or not, I will be sticking with DU, simply because the game world and its community in general are a fantastic place to be - the creative freedom and possibilities the game tech allows, as well as the support and encouragement of the community in response to the creations realised in this game, cannot be found anywhere else. I am eager to see what will come, both before and after launch, and look forward to adapting & working through all the new game loops and systems that may come. Draco
  4. I'm not saying a hauler should have the advantage over a dedicated PvP ship - that's not what I'm trying for here. I'm just trying to get game mechanics and systems that will give haulers a chance of getting away. At the moment, there is not this chance available to the defender - and with the proposed stasis weapon & changes to speed, this imbalance will only get worse.
  5. This isn't Eve - if you like Eve mechanics because it favours you, then play Eve. I'm trying to advocate for balance that gives defenders a chance, for counters to game systems and mechanics that currently skew the balance too far in the attacker favour.
  6. I'm not looking for a get out of Pvp button - I'm looking for balance between haulers and warships that enable a chance for the defender to escape - what NQ has handed to the PvPers with a stasis weapon (and potential speed changes) is a golden gun. There needs to be a counter for these mechanics, these additions make the balance worse for the defender.
  7. "To better balance PvP, we are adding stasis weapons and altering the behavior around a constructs’ maximum speed. With these sweet guns, big armored ships with powerful rockets will no longer have an advantage that allowed them to escape more agile smaller designs." Another mechanic addition that benefits the attackers with NO counter for the defenders. All this does is shift the balance further to the advantage of aggressors. How does NQ not know it is the Pvp ships that have the more powerful engine configurations - not the haulers ?
  8. I see that, and that is how orgs will have to deal with this system, but for large orgs or orgs that NEED large core counts, like creators for ship showrooms, or community projects like Utopia, IC - even Legion or NG - not using core slots will likely not be a viable option in order to keep functioning.
  9. The problem that if this was pre-planned, then NQ are playing us for fools with their initial proposals, knowing that a supposed 'compromise' on the counts was always going to be the final offering and players would look at it as a 'better deal' and be thankful for NQ 'listening to the playerbase' - when in fact they are playing a dangerous game of tactical psychology that will eventually backfire.
  10. Ppl don't need to joint your org to donate core allocation to it - they could be players in a completely antagonistic org, using the core allocation as a weapon to destabilise the orgs infrastructure. Having org core count limit controlled by players, rather than the specific org legates, is a fundamental breach in org stability that will punish ALL orgs.
  11. This uptick in core count feels like a placation that was pre-planned. AND - It still doesn't address the fundamental issues raised in the other forum thread, namely nested orgs that allow access to potentially unlimited core. By removing nested orgs, then the original org core limit will be effective - Then NQ can look at the core number limits legitimately. Additionally, the proposed system is WIDE OPEN to exploitation by malicious groups to control and attack orgs core infrastructure. I simply cannot believe this was not envisioned by the devs when this system was being structured.
  12. This proposed change is COMPLETELY unreasonable, as it is a quick fix of tweaking some numbers on the server, instead of addressing the ACTUAL issue of nested orgs - Which NQ acknowledges as the problem in the devblog. This change will result in so many creators and collectors leaving the game that it will not be a viable game anymore.
  13. QUOTE: "Several months ago, we suggested a way to address the issue of cascading organizations being created as a way to circumvent the soft limitations of construct and territory numbers. Players raised some valid concerns about the proposal, citing that it would adversely affect how they managed their organizations’ holdings. In consideration of that feedback, we temporarily tabled the proposed changes and went back to the drawing board. The problem remains and needs to be resolved sooner rather than later to avoid a myriad of issues in the future. DU simply can’t support an infinite number of constructs per player. It’s why we have construct allowances in the first place. We needed a solution that would support community projects for organizations of any size without penalizing those that are prolific. After all, one of the core features of DU is to build lots of cool stuff." Then actually address the issue of nested orgs, rather then nerf a small aspect of them that is not significantly related to the issue stated. The current construct allowances are sufficient to support the game as intended. The proposed core limit will effectively end the personal builder profession, as there will simply not be the core allowance to provide example ships in showrooms for them to advertise effectively. It will also impact 'collective' orgs of all sizes, as core allocations will need to be managed manually, rather then by passive application of talents of the orgs legates. This will mean that at any point in time the org could loose core allocations and constructs, simply from ONE person opting to leave the org - or even from vindictive action. Core allocation for orgs needs to be controlled by the legates of those orgs, not by the membership. So instead of penalising the entire player-base, and adversely the builder community that NQ so want to be a core feature of the game, I suggest that the fix that needs to be implemented is REMOVING THE ABILITY TO CREATE NESTED ORGS.
  14. Original Arc and Quark ships, all engines and wings placed legit, by me, alone, no janko - but now apparently I'm an exploiter using overlapped elements...... Well done NQ for another heavy-handed and untested update.
  15. This has been suggested and discussed many times by both the community and NQ, and the response from NQ has always been 'Most ppl play over the weekend, so it makes most sense to have asteroids spawn on Saturday. There is no intention to have asteroids spawn spread over the week.' So much for listening to player feedback.....
  16. Needs caveat 'compared to the basic model ..... That is all
  17. I know - but in the beginning, and for a good while, it was a place with a broad range of things to choose from. Now, unfortunately, NQ has successively whittled the spectrum of what ppl can do - in a reasonable time frame, mind - to barely scraping at rocks, babysitting MUs or running missions afk. As for creative stuff, there simply isn't the player base now to support the number of builders we had even a handful of months ago, because of what NQ have done to the game.
  18. Your analogy to Eve is flawed, as Eve allows you to 'do everything' without necessarily 'choosing a path'. I've played Eve for a great deal of time and I can see that I can do pretty much the same in DU, should I choose to spend the time on the appropriate talents - including chopping and changing my path. Indeed, the difference to Eve is the talents don't cost anything to start training, so you actually have more freedom to choose your path in DU. And responding to the OPs claim that DU should be 'more like real life' in that we shouldn't change our career path at all easily- why? This is a game set on a new frontier, where we have been tasked to rebuild - or more rightly just flat out build anew. Surely the idea would be to have a society able to rapidly respond to changing demands on that society, as it grows. Having a monolithic society, that has deliberate blocks and inertia to career change is a script for stagnation and boredom - as can be seen in the 'real world' you seem so eager to replicate. This is a game we play to escape that monotony, why would you want to bring the limitations of the world into the entertainment we indulge in to escape it?
  19. NQ are collecting questions to answer on a video Q&A session, due to be recorded in a few days
  20. In the last Q&A I asked about the spread of T4/T5 ores being deliberately pushed to the asteroids, to which the response was 'No' - Now with the deployment of Demeter, the spread of all ores seem to have been significantly reduced across all planets, but particularly T3 and above, with even T2 being a lot more rare than before the geo reset. This seems to go directly against the response given in the previous Q&A, as well as significantly impacting the ability of players (especially solo) to find and establish a stable ore income of reasonable volume & diversity. Short term: Has NQ considered the impact of low quanta fluidity in supporting the new tile taxes, as ppl are trying to sell ore to raise quanta, but all other ppl are also selling ore to raise quanta, so not being able to purchase listed ores - resulting in a stalling of quanta flow through the economy? Long term: Has NQ considered the impact of potential ore rarity due to low extraction volumes, brought about by miners not transitioning to the new MU's (or just giving up on the game-play loop due to dis-interest), extraction rate caps from pool rates and charge caps, as well as larger orgs stockpiling to maintain gigafactorys (and potentially control market manipulation) and reduced quanta flow through the economy due to tile taxes? And no, saying players can always take Aphelia Missions to make quanta is NOT a reasonable response, as Missions are not a game-play loop that many players want to, or are able to spend the time undertaking.
  21. Article here (I thinks !)-> https://www.bitcoinisle.com/2021/11/18/what-is-metaverse-the-future-vision-for-the-internet/ with original article here -> https://capital.com/what-is-metaverse-the-future-vision-of-the-internet [BE AWARE, UK can't see this page due to crypto advertising rules] and both NQs (https://www.linkedin.com/company/novaquark) and Nouredines (https://fr.linkedin.com/in/nouredine-abboud-89b3ab1?trk=author_mini-profile_title) LinkedIn pages speak of 'the Metaverse' and how the voxel tech used in DU is the basis for a distributed buildable virtual environment, to be applied to 'other projects'.
  22. Bigger picture view -> Recent interviews by new CEO have stated NQ is a 'Metaverse' company that is developing voxel tech to use/licence in any virtual world that gets established. From this we can deduce DU is a tech demo of the voxel tech first and a Sci-Fi MMO game second.
  23. The blog said HQ declaration will be from the 'Territory Management' interface - but we haven't seen or been told where that interface will be yet. (Speculation, this could be the Territory Tax window in the Wallet)
  24. Demeter is giving the ability to tokenise TU's, just the same as constructs, so you can transfer tiles easily - HQ declaration will be from the 'Territory Management' interface - but we haven't seen or been told where that interface will be yet. (Speculation, this could be the Territory Tax window in the Wallet)
×
×
  • Create New...