Jump to content

ostris

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ostris

  1. Im kinda hoping NQ ends up doing something with a mining rights unit. Basically a territory unit that allows you to edit the planet voxels/mine. It would be very cheap, can be picked up and placed again perhaps with some cooldown, and multiple units can be placed in a singe territory. It doesn't reserve rights or anything. It would also be deactivated if a Territory unit is placed in the territory. I just think its in the best interest of the game to have at least some minor level of effort needed to modify the planet. To falstafs comment it could also work as a trigger for planets to fill up holes. If no mining unit is present then start this planet self repair process.
  2. Nice did they specify CvC? Most of the interviews JC leaves it vague and it might just be AvA pvp
  3. A big motivator for me would be knowing that pvp(CvC, AvC, AvA, Static and dynamic cores etc) will be in the game through a large portion of alpha/beta process
  4. Literally typed this before refreshing and seeing you beat me to it.
  5. How do you plan on handling aesthetics vs balance in ship building? Example: If voxel "hulls" are very easy to destroy it will force people to wrap important elements with many many layers of hull. This might lead to cube or sphere shaped ships dominating because it is easy to make sure everything is protected by many layers of hull. The more elaborate and "cool" the ship design is the harder this level of protection is to maintain.
  6. Nope, never really got that into eve, played it a bit. I don't know what your statements about armor is supposed to mean, not sure what purpose they have. You just stated armor is voxels. My comment has to do with balancing armor and other combat systems with a new form of combat that would be ramming. I like the topics you bring up but honestly you have such a condescending attitude and never really seem to discuss other peoples points so I guess this just isn't worth trying to discuss.
  7. I would say that making some thing complex doesn't mean everything is complex. Combat is typically a system people want complexity with. Walking forward is something that that people want to be very simple. I feel like collision is something that should be enforced by the game. Not a mechanic that involves resource management and elements. Ultimately i think you are vastly underestimating the effort of adding a new damage/damage type and a new way to mitigate that damage. That is a high degree of difficulty to integrate into the current ideas for combat including armor types and shields etc. I was under the impression they are very against collision as a form of combat. I guess if this system is exclusively to handle landing on a planets it can work. If you add ship to ship collision damage that is a large change from both what the devs have said and the direction the combat system may take.
  8. Personally I'm against collision damage. Making a complex game mechanic that then needs to have elements added and balanced to make it happen is just not a useful investment by the dev team in my eyes.
  9. I dont think outrunning missiles is going to be a thing. Devs have illustrated that hit/miss is going to be based on skills and armor and that no attack will exist in the universe it will simply be a graphic. My guess is balance to missiles will be the cost, maybe range(fuel) and possible something like an anti-missile turret. If you have one it will take energy but will increase the miss chance of missiles attacks by some amount.
  10. Ahh I think that clears it up for me. I knew i had heard skybox somewhere. Thanks for the info.
  11. I wish i could remember the interview but i distinctly remember seeing NQ mention that many parts of the sky will be a skybox. Can't seem to find it though, oh well.
  12. 1) Alien life has been discussed as a possibility but mostly things like finding ancient aliens structures and what not, not so much an alien nation. 2)Between players yes. There is little to no npc's or pve combat elements in the game so you will not run in to waring non player factions 3)Yes it will be possible. As far as survival mechanics most of the time NQ says they want survival mechanics to be easy when you are in civilization but hard when you are away. This make me think it will be more of a fuel for you ship, energy for you ship type system but they have mostly said survival type mechanics will be light at launch 4) I believe melee weapons have not been confirmed at least for launch 5) At the moment i believe all planets are 1 Biome. The starter planet is kind of an earth type biome. the other planet/moon we visited is a desert type biome. 6) Players will be building the cities so they will look as cool as the players make them look. 7) Space outside of the planets/sun in the system is a skybox so it can look as cool as they want it to. 8) Animals in general have been stated as a goal for release but i think the quote is "just enough to make the planets seem more alive." so large space creatures is probably a no for the moment. 9) The game really does need to be sub based to work and this has been discussed many times. I don't think they have taken a strong stance on steam or no steam. 10) no idea. Edit: Keep in mind the game is still in alpha so a lot of these answers could change or maybe some of my replies are out of date.
  13. 1) CvC (really glad this is on the top of so many peoples lists) 2) Doors and hinges 3) Stargates
  14. No, NQ has stated on multiple occasions that they want to keep mining manual. The primary fear being that if they allow any type of mining automation that non automated mining will be useless due to inefficiency. They have also stated that mining with ships was not a goal but they did say maybe mining asteroids with a ship might be possible so I'm a little unsure about that. The basic idea I would stick with for now is mining is a non automated, player only activity with skills and abilities and possibly items to make mining better. EDIT: Also they do not want infinite sources of resources which an automated miner could be used to create, but I am not sure if that's what you had in mind
  15. I don't know if this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread but i believe in the AMA they said there would not be multiple game server clusters. Only a single one active at any given time. EDIT from AMA: Quote We won't have our own datacenter at start, that would be too costly and really not necessary in 2016 when there are so many high quality cloud offers dedicated to high performance gaming. So we will work with third parties to host the datacenter, and we are currently reviewing several offers. Now, due to our single-shard approach, we cannot of have regional servers, there will be one central cluster to connect to. We are considering the possibility to switch from a US based cluster or Europe based cluster depending on the time of day (doing sync in the background or during down times), but this might not be necessary.
  16. Ha very true. Although now with a second look at the video, it might just be oddly stacked boxes. Can't tell if its a ship. Hopefully it is a ship.
  17. I agree i think an effective demonstration of multi crew is a big step to have working in pre-alpha. Also lag free with several ships flying around and the platforms are rather large. This video is a little short and light on explanation but very awesome(not super flashy). Dual universe has so much doubt around things like stability and multicrew, getting some proof out there is nice. Also note that this proves that constructs landed on other constructs move with each other well. You can see a landed ship on one of the platforms.
  18. I believe the devs have also stated that shared defenses will be a primary reason for building cities. If you can get 2 or 3 orgs(market org, manufacturer org, storage for a mining org) to all share space they can share the protection bubble used to stop raiding and looting. Once you have that base of 3 orgs they could maybe rent out space in the protection bubble to a couple of small orgs or maybe a combat/protection org. These small orgs would then build their org HQ in this very strong bubble. Not sure how this will play out but it seems like shared defense could encourage clustering of building.
  19. For reference this was in the AMA, its the only thing i have found that speaks to player vs construct at launch when CvC is not around. First of all, if we don't reach a given Stretch Goal, is does not mean that the feature will never be implemented, but that it might be postponed to a (free) game expansion. Remember that this is a MMO, and unlike a singleplayer game, there is no "final" build. Now, Construct vs Construct combat means more precisely that we implement certain elements like weapons, shields, etc, that you will be able to use to make localized dammage to other constructs. If this damage hits a players inside the construct (or at the surface of a planet), this player will die and respawn. So, in effect, CvsC combat implies CvsPlayer too! Now, without CvsC combat you could still board enemy ships and take control of them by neutralizing the crew. Who knows, maybe this will become the prefered way of doing combat business in Dual! it seems to state that player vs construct will not be in game at launch, if i understand it right.
  20. People disagreeing is fine as long as they are adding value to the topic at hand and saying something that is logically backed and contributes. If not I'll call it out and say something about it with the hope that they actually add more to what they were saying. In the case of Falstaf many of his posts were not backed up with anything that contributes and in some cases were just wrong(CvC not being needed for months). Wizard post is great example of disagree but contributing. He didn't just say NQ said xyz or say things that are just not true and argumentative/inflammatory. As far as people agree or disagree, reading this thread has made it clear that many people think similar to me that CvC is important and needs to be added ASAP. A large portion seems to want CvC but has accepted that it wont be in the game at launch. Which is fine but i think it is worth getting these opinions out to the devs so they can have it available to them. Putting pressure on development teams simply means expressing opinions that something is the right or wrong path for the game. Devs do not always have the best ideas for their games and community feedback can definitely change what the devs do. Great example of this is overwatch. The dev team was COMPLETELY behind the idea of hero stacking in competitive. They greatly resisted changing off hero stacking. They considered it a core concept of the game. The community and pro scene disagreed and as of a couple months ago hero stacking was removed from competitive. I would be very happy if all the pressure on NQ does is get them to implement some form of CvC in the beta or alpha for testing. If it isn't ready by release then so be it, but hopefully some pieces of it are put in before release.
  21. I agree with most of this. If this is the case, depending on community feedback, it sounds like NQ may have prioritized incorrectly. All we can hope is by putting pressure via forums they will find the money to get CvC out faster.
  22. If you are still talking do you have a link to where they discuss avatar vs construct before CvC is implemented?
  23. No you really didn't. First they haven't really explained that much about combat. Just that avatar v avatar is the only thing that will be in the game, that its lock on style, skill/armor based not fps based, etc. They have not stated anything about how avatars will interact with constructs. Example being we are in a fight, I'm losing, i hop into my space ship. Can you still target me and not my ship? can you do damage to me through my ship? Point is there is a lot of question marks about combat that they have not answered that come from missing half the combat system(CvC) Second, The primary point of my post(and this whole topic) is to bring up WHY they have chosen what they have chosen to be in the basic kickstarter. Saying hey they said what will be implemented does not give any context as to why they chose what they chose. Most importantly WHY they chose to not include construct v construct. The whole point of this topic is about some in the community thinking that CvC is too important to leave out of launch. Saying we cant do X because we are doing Y is really all NQ has done. They have not explained WHY X is more important then Y. We as the community have the right and responsibility to voice if we think Y is more important then X so the devs are aware of the demand. You consistently say things like "the way combat will be implemented at launch has also been explained already." We all know that, we have all done as much research as you. We are trying to give them feedback on why we think priorities are different. Saying they already said x or y contributes nothing to the topic as hand. This is especially true when the game is still in pre-alpha where NOTHING is set in stone and everything is still subject to change. Third, I am not really saying you have some authority to say what we can or cant talk about. What you are doing by saying things like NQ SAID THIS is not contributing to the conversation or topic. You are just parroting facts most of us already know. We are voicing our opinion on those facts and are trying to change and discuss. It contributes nothing and gives off the implication that the topic is not worth talking about because NQ ALREADY SAID THIS. Contributing something useful to the conversation would be saying "I don't think construct v construct is important because pvp should be a minor part of this game. I think this is a game for creativity and exploration." I would disagree with that but your logic is sound for why you think CvC doesn't need to be in the game at launch. Most of what your opinion has been is parroting the things NQ has said or really just incorrect arguments like "We don't need CvC cause it'll be months before we are in space." Which completely glosses over issues like, lack of testing, perception of the game, and CvC with non space vehicles or building which we have little to no information on how long they will take to achieve(could be as little as days). In short please contribute to the topic or simply stop being a troll and saying pseudo inflammatory things like: "Do more research" and "Oh yea I forgot, people think reading for 5 minutes is already too much. Ugh..."
×
×
  • Create New...