ostris
-
Posts
235 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ostris
-
-
They told us it won't be in alpha but probably beta
At the meet up or somewhere else?
-
If more people pledge it will be part of release (most likely earlier to test it)....
for sure lets hope they make that goal.
-
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
-
No worries, EVE Online's contract system has you covered. TL; DR : the hauler puts up a collateral fee for the cargo, that the person issued the cotnract evaluated his cargo as.
If I wanted to move 10 billions worth of minerals to my factory, I would take into account :
1) the price of my minerals
2) the time I would invest on them if I was to refine or manufacture through them.
3) how much I would actually make in the market.
Then I set up a collateral of 20 billions on my 10 billion cargo. If the cargo hauler does not deliver the cargo within a certain window, I get the collateral the hauler put up to undertake the contract. If the Hauler delivers the cargo to the cargo container I designated for him to put the cargo in, he gets paid as the contract is fulfilled.
And that's how it's done. A simple mechanism of contracts. Contracts in EVE == player quests. Some may ask you to bring the body of a particular person to them to be rewarded. Other contracts may be for minerals, while others use contracts to sell stuff.
Yes, this can be used to scam noobs that can't tell what contract is a scam, but hey, ce la vie.
So yeah, cargo should be stealable, but if you put up collateral for it when issueing the contract, you are covered. It's the hauler's problem to make sure they deliver the cargo.
Literally typed this before refreshing and seeing you beat me to it.
-
Hey, you must be indeed an EVE player.
Armor = voxel type combination. 1600mm armor plate? 10 voxels thick armor. That means 5 layers of materials that can be aded in that armor.
Shield = who knows, that's not stated yet how it will work.
The Devs are against Voxel-to-Voxel defomration on collision, as it would invovle en masse on demand voxel editing. THAT is what they do not want.
What I suggest, is only to have ships have their capacitors overloading on via the same F = m * a formula, used to get a ship's intertia, when ships decellerate over a short period - aka, an impulse tolerance on the capacitors of a ship, possibly linking that with the nanofield lore and how they fields can "absorb kinetic energy" to a point the capacitors just pop and you get a sweet sweet 'splosion that would make Michael Bay tear up.
That, is in fact, NOT taxing on the server.
Sure, does this mean a powered off ship would be sent off a ship's path? Yeah, but the ship that "Rammed" it, would get damaged, as its cpacitors woulds overload due to the aforementioned F = m * a formula.
Also, large battleships, do not move fast. They can't, so, their masses will be relative to each other in frames of ship classes. Could one battleshi push another ship by slowlly but surely applying pressure on its offset of the center of mass ala Rogue One - oops, spoiler I guess?.
Yeah, it could do that. But we are talking here about a mechanism, that ensures, anythign colliding with a planet at a planet's critical velocity, is toast, as planets are more massive than any ship could possibly be - as well as the mnot having capacitors, so no trolls, you can't explode a planet
- but also, the SAME mechanism can be used to deter starfighters from bouncing off of battleships and pilots feel good for being skilled enough on avoiding death, or tricking someone else on slamming onto another friendly target, or, you know, FLEETS REQURING ACTUAL FORMATIONS and stuff like that.As I said, the Devs have the tools for the mechanism. It's as simple, as having fall damage for players. If they implement it like that, it would be amazing and it would actually make many many people happy. As I said, voxel editing en-masse is the problem, not collisions.
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.
-
Hi, the devs already made the game complex when they went the EVE gemotery based hit-chance formula way.
Also, JC Baillie has stated the game is about being complex in a way that's challenging. And they already got center of mass and inertia figured out for the game's physics grid. Collision would only take advantage of what they got already figured out.
What's next? I guess no fuel, because you can't bother to stop and check if you got any before trying to travel 250 Light Years orth ofo distance? Or perhaps no ammunition required, because you can't bother buying more ammo? Or no item los perhaps?
Collision is needed, otherwise the game will be a joke when battleships land point first and bounce on a planet like balloons, not to mention, their physics grid and center of mass is WASTED, let alone any need for clever ship designs is just a bad joke in the game. Why make arrow shaped ships that can mitigate collisions when they - eventually - happen? Build ships like Enterpise, because why bother, it's not even gonna suffer from such a terrible design whatsoever.
As you see, the solution for collisions, is something that has ALREADY assets the devs created. Just link decceleration to capacitors overcharging and have it be linked to the ship's center of mass - you know? That thing in the last update video (january)? Center of mass? YOu got to put thrusters near it to give the ship a better push? Yeah, that same thing can be used for collisions that overload a capacitor via a formula. Sure, some ships may not even pop on one collision, but it's certainly a good incentive to avoid collisions with any craft.
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.
-
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.
-
Missiles should be slow as a balance. They do lots of damage vs guns and lasers, so they should be slowed down. So yes, you should be able to outrun them.
If you want to talk about emulating leading a target, all the devs need to do is place the targeting reticle ahead of the moving target, instead of on top of it. Then in order to lock on you also need to put your aiming reticle in that area.
Missing could happen under different circumstances. One where the gunner doesn't place his reticle in the proper position. Another where the accuracy of the given situation is very low and the gunner misses his target. Another where the distribution of damage bubbles might place a bubble in an unoccupied space.
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.
-
In a sense, the farthest range on the LOD will be a drawmap, but it's a skybox. A skybox is the illusion of distance for instances (like systems in EVE or No Man's Sky, yes, No Man's Sky is not a continuous universe, shocking I know). Drawmaps are dynamic, Skyboxes are static.
The difference between a drawmap and a skybox, is that the drawmap is relative to your perspective and the LOD limit. You can see a star from millions of kilometers away because it's huge in comparison to a planet, so the drawmap can have dots to symbolise that star in your drawmap, but a planet won't be seen, because it's too tiny to be even registered on the drawmap. But, if you move closer and closer to that star, the details on said drawmap will be higher, and as you grow even nearer, the star will become bigger and the planets will pop up in the drawmap.
It's exactly what NQ does with its LOD based rendering for the engine. The closer you get to the space station, the more details pop up, only in the drawmap's example, the drawmap gets higher and higher in defintion, until 3D objects pop up at a range you won't otice the transition from a 2D drawing to a 3D enviroment.
They're using a sky box for the tech demo.
JC mentioned this in one of the videos where he rotated the sun around the planets to demonstrate the day/night cycle.
I couldn't say if there will be a sky box in the final, but the VAST majority of the stars will be procedurally generated. If not ALL of them.
Ahh I think that clears it up for me. I knew i had heard skybox somewhere. Thanks for the info.
-
No, no it's not a skybox :V That's the whole jist of the game, no Skyboxes. Yes Man's Hype has skyboxes and stars that rotate around planets. You can't have a continuous universe like that and this is why the NQ devs are working hard on making planets rotate, instead of some Sean Murray BS with stars orbiing planets.
So no, Skyboxes are not a thing in the game. The way JC explained it in the DM21 interview, it's that the farthest LOD rendering (the point you can't see anything with any form of scanner) will be a 2D image of the distant background on the servers. That's simply a tesselation trick, the closer you get to it the further that "draw map" goes back and away from you as objects render in in LODs you can't even detect.
So, as long as there are nebulas in the game, I can't expect the sky to look like that shitty No Man's Sky pink-yellow-blue background. And so far, Nebulas have not been confirmed. So, no, the devs can't make pink nebulas, without nebulas existing in an area of space you wil ltravel towards.
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.
-
I've seen the trailers and interviews from this game and I am absolutely blown away but I must ask some questions before I sink my money into this. Don't get me wrong, I know this won't be a disappointment but I do have some things that I've always wanted to do and some of them were the reasons why I'm in to games like these.
Question 1: I was reading up on an interview and It said the devs are unsure about the alien life in other planets Is this true?
Question 2: Is It likely to stumble into a massive battle between control of a planet or a large area of one? I'm not against It, Infact, I'd really really like It if that happened
Question 3: One of the reasons why I thought about getting this game is because of my idea of building some kind of recuperation facility in deep space were I can sell stuff and give out tips to new players. Will this be possible? And follow up to this question, Will eating be a thing, too? One of the things I've wanted to sell is food.
Question 4: Are swords confirmed?
Question 5: Will there be planets that have only one biome? Planets with just ice or planets with just lava, planets like these (Sorry for the long images);
Question 6: I'm well aware that the game will have cool futuristic cities but will they look as awesome as these; (Again, I'm sorry for the long images, hopefully the moderator that looks this over can shrink this down)
Question 7: Will space look as cool as this;
Question 8: If monsters are confirmed will they look as cool as these.
Question 9: The whole subscription thing doesn't really thrill me. Will you release this game on steam?
Question 10: I kind of like the whole "Moderator has to approve your post before It gets put on the forums thing" It saves me the embarrassment of doing something silly. If It's not too much trouble on the moderators, Is It possible for me to keep this on even when I do make 1 more approved post?
Thank you for answering my questions and again, I'm really sorry if the images I posted are too long.
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.
-
-
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
-
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
What server architecture are you using? ie. your own dedicated setup (eg. eve online) or cloud (eg. google compute, aws, etc). Will there be regional servers? US, EU, Oceania, S.America & Asia? Or is it dynamic global like star citizen is aiming for?
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. -
That process would NOT work so well if there were collision-damage physics in the game lol
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.
-
Yes but you can see several people on several platforms move on their own plane.
Its an effective demonstration of the multi crew tech. Not very flashy though.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
"If Construct vs Construct' is a stretch goal, how about ""Construct vs Player""?
How are the PVP battles going to be if you don't get this ""Construct vs Construct"" stretch goal?"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. -
I think you are missing quite a few points here. Falstaf explained that you can use the forum to appeal to NQ to change there stance. But you have to be willing to deal with people disagreeing with you.
Wizardoftrash then explained why NQ decided to keep CvC for later or a stretch goal. In his post he explains why with the current team there are more important things then CvC. And why the road map makes the most sense.
You can try to "Put pressure" but I dont think a lot of people will agree with you.
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.
-
Ok, I think I understand what is going on here. I'll bring a fresh perspective to the table. Here is my guess.
CvC pvp is not on the table as a launch feature because they want to hire someone who's main job will be building CvC. To have enough money to hire that person, they need to hit their stretch goal.
This may not be a matter of allocation of time here. In theory a small team COULD reallocate their time to develop CvC before other game features assuming they all havr the same versatile skillset, but that is not realistic. Right now, you probably have team members contributing to the game in the areas that they specialize in, and that skillset is enough for the game with its current launch features to be out on-time in its current budget.
But lets say it will take one of those members twice or three times as long to develop the CvC as someone who could be brought in and is already experienced in those kinds of mechanics? Not only is reallocating that dev's time groselly inefficient, but the dev wouldn't be working on the parts of the game that they are good at, and possibly wouldn't be doing to job they thoight they signed up for. If Dev A loves working on multiplayer code, Dev B loves working on the building engine, and Dev C loves and specializes in building world gen algorythms, how do you think Dev C would like it if the owner went and said
"hey Dev C, the fans want CvC combat more than they want new biomes. 3/4th of our projected biomes will now be a stretch goal, you are going to build CvC for the next two years"
If I were Dev C, i might not be working for them anymore. They might be fixed on hiring someone to build CvC because their current team simply don't want to build it first. Its not our game, its their game.
Ok, so lets pretend for a second that the game gets finded (likely) and they don't hit their first stretch goal (unlikely).
You are concerned that they won't be able to test CvC during alpha and beta of it isn't added till launch (true) and that they won't be able to test it after launch (false). Deff harder to test, but not impossible.
Combat simulators, a possibel mini-gams of sorts where a player sits in a simulator pod, uploads their blueprint to the simulator, and fights against other players CvC without actually risking their ships. They would use this to test iterations of the combat system and balance it before players start having real engagements. Alternatively, they enable CvC just in some zones during the testing phase, and gradually expand the area as it improves.
We all want CvC, we all want it on launch and in beta, we want it to be really meet, and I'm sure the Devs do too. They MUST have a good reason for making this a stretch goal, you will just need to respect that.
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.
-
I'll be honest I dont have it in me to go over your entire post.
But they did explain how player vs construct works. So as I said in my post that did not agree with you, its on you to take in all the available info.
But I am breaking one of my personal forum rules and as such I wish you a good day.
If you are still talking do you have a link to where they discuss avatar vs construct before CvC is implemented?
-
Its hardly irrelevant. I clearly responded to the content of your post.
Its just not the type of answer you were looking for. Big difference.
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..."
-
@Ostris the way combat will be implemented at launch has also been explained already.
I realise not everyone has the same amount of time to "research" their pet projects. I really do. But that again is not really NQ's fault. They put the information out there they cant force you to read or listen to it. And for a game that is pre alpha, we have a lot more information available to us then some games a month before launch.
And nobody is telling you what you can or can not talk about on this forum. By all means you can try to convince the devs of your point of view. Just accept that if you make a thread, there will always be people with different opinions. If you dont want to deal with that then you need a blog, not a forum.
I was gunna respond to this but everything you said had so little to do with what I posted or anyone else has posted that is seems pointless.
Ultimately I can only hope the devs see this and implement basic forums of CvC in alpha/beta for testing or we hit the stretch goals and it doesn't matter.
-
Yes but many people explained many times already that nobody is going to reach space that fast.
The game just isnt set up that way.
It will take time and resources to even get of the ground. Not to mention the infrastructure to build the basic elements for space.
I really don't like how this is continuously brought up in a CvC discussion. We have been told that it will take awhile to get to other planets and space. This has very little to do with CvC. We have been given almost not estimation of time on how quickly houses or building can be built. How quickly hovercraft can be built or other in atmosphere ships. These all fall under CvC combat and are just as important as space combat. We also have not been given any information on how Avatars will interact with constructs in combat. If CvC isn't in the game what about CvA. Can constructs attack avatars if CvC isn't in the game? Can Avatars attack constructs? There is a lot of questions that come from having half of the games combat system implemented.
But anyone who followed DU and the kickstarter is given a lot of information on why they choose their set of features for launch.
Why there is no CvC on launch without the stretch goal is very clearly explained.
Eventhough they have 24 people working at NQ they are a small indie team. Thats why they kickstart the project to begin with.
While this is true in a way the whole point of a forums is to discuss and possibly influence the devs and their decision making process. As an example in the AMA JC explained they are currently working on biomes. I think it would be far more important to have CvC then anymore then the 2-3 biomes they have show in many videos. Maybe they still have work to do on the ones we have been shown but the point is to say that this thread is here to give feedback to the devs on what the community thinks is important. They honestly have not given any reason as to why CvC is rated lower then anything else in the basic kickstarter. The only real reason seems to be that they think it is best for the game. We are trying to influence that choice.
The other thing would be to maybe have NQ provide more feedback on the CvC that will exist in beta/alpha if any. My primary concern is testing of CvC. This system will need a lot of testing and it would also be best to do that testing in a alpha or beta. Players in alpha or beta will be a lot more forgiving if X ship element or Y defense element is to strong or if something just doesn't feel very right when played.
What Information would cause you to up your pledge?
in General Discussions
Posted
Nice did they specify CvC? Most of the interviews JC leaves it vague and it might just be AvA pvp