Jump to content

ostris

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ostris

  1. 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.
  2. 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. 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.
  3. Videos delivering on promises they have made in trailers and interviews that NQ has stated should be mostly implemented or finished. -Building and actually flying a large ship- They have said the basic building of constructs is ready and we have seen large ships and large ships moving in nearly every video released but we have not actually seen it from a player point of view. -Video showing multicrew on a ship- In nearly every interview they have talked about multicrew and how you can have a large ship with all your friends on it. Show this. Show what it looks like to be on a ship someone else is flying. Not sure if they have stated that status of multicrew but once again in many videos you see multiple players on large ships but the ships are not moving. -Show how the server tech handles a large concentration of constructs. Once again the devs have said that most of the server tech is ready and they have showcased what that looks like with players but not constructs. Large space battles and high density of constructs have been promised in nearly every interview but they haven't really show it yet. I understand that the combat system isn't ready yet but at least show from a player perspective and a server perspective how a large concentration of constructs are handled. I feel like the DU Dev team is at the top of a very slippery slope. They are starting to show a lot of things in trailers and say a lot of things in interviews are ready, or mostly ready, but not delivering on them in a real player perspective way. In a post no mans sky world if a dev says something in means very little. And if you say something and don't really show it people will doubt you. Show us or explain why you cant show us the big promises that you are making in interviews and the perception created by the more trailer style videos. To show examples look at the kickstarter video: @35 you can see many ships flying around in and it is lag free. implying large ship density is ready or partially ready @~40 you show many people on the space station implying multicrew is in a semi ready state @55 Many large ships flying around the space station and it is lag free NQ has stated many times that server tech and ship building are two things that are mostly completed implying proof of concept style videos should be possible. By showing it in a trailer but not showing it in a first person, "heres what it looks like in game" kind of way it creates doubt in my mind and I'm sure a lot of others.
  4. Putting this disclaimer on top: The dev team has not actually said if CvC will be in alpha/beta just that it may be added post release. They have been silent on what will be in alpha/beta as far as construct v construct. It just concerns me that NQ seems to have an attitude of "it can be added later" when I think this is possibly the most important part of the game because of the time needed to get it right and its impact on everything. For the purpose of this post I am assuming they plan on adding CvC post release with little to no CvC in alpha/beta I agree with OP that in videos and interviews they are selling large CvC battles as part of the game. Shipping without it is a huge negative. My concerns go deeper then just the perception of the game at launch. I have serious concerns that CvC will not be implemented in Beta or even Alpha. In my eyes one of the hardest things to do is make pvp combat balanced and fun for everyone. In a game like DU this is much harder because there is so much freedom and creativity in building ships that compounds the difficulty of pvp balance. In most games, take star citizen for example, all the ships are predesigned. This makes balance easier because control of the ships is in the hands of the developers. In DU I feel like most people will understand that it is an adult game and you will die, people will steal your stuff and that's just the nature of the game. However, no player will or should tolerate losing their stuff because construct v construct combat is a cluster-fuck of balance that was not properly tested and hastily implemented post launch. PvP is also something that will have an impact on every player in this game that leaves the safe zone. Lets say you want to be a miner, you have no interest in pvp or killing players. You build up defensive skills and a very defensive and safe ship so you can mine and move your cargo. The pvp system has to be able to acknowledge that you should be able to defend yourself from a lot of small ships and low skilled players if you do this. If the system is messed up and not well thought out and some low skilled player can use OP Laser ship A to insta kill all your defenses, you will probably say fuck this I'm not playing till they fix this crap. While I'm sure the dev team is smart enough to now allow something that imbalanced there will be months worth of balance needed for any pvp system to work well. If you consider the free form nature of the game I would not feel comfortable with the pvp system until it has been tested for at least 6 months to work out all the bugs and balance issues with it. Ultimately the message that i think OP is trying to get across that CvC shoudl be a much higher priority is correct. lack of having it a launch can simply make the game less appealing or because of the horrid balance issues it could lead to. My hope is they will push hard to get as much CvC in the game pre release as possible.
  5. Its been stated in several interviews(i think he mentions it in the graystillplays video). The choice to do this is based on balance and developer choice. I believe there is no technological limit to 2km.
  6. Agreed, its a nice video but i really hope they focus on putting out a video that delivers some of the promises the NQ team has made. Large ship density, multi crew and large construct. Got my fingers crossed.
  7. Don't know if there is a topic for this already but with the kickstarter under way I thought it would be good to communicate what videos people would like to see from the Dev Team. My list: Build and fly a large ship - So far we have really only seen the construction and flight of a small fighter. It would be great to see a medium or large ship built and flown. Preferably with more then one player on the ship. Show how the game handles several large ships/small ships flying - We have seen a lot of this for seconds in trailers but it would be great to see how the game handles several ships all flying near each other. preferably played controlled. Maybe have the ships fly through space as well as on planet. Move the space station - I think it would be a fun video to slap a bunch of engines on the space station seen in many trailers/videos and move it. Showcase all the current elements in the game - Radar, guns, engines etc showcase and possibly explain what they do. Please add the videos you would like to see and hopefully the DU team can add some more media during the kickstarter time frame.
  8. After spending some time on the Dual Universe Facebook, kickstarter page and these forums I have noticed a lot of very negative feedback about the subscription price model. It actually got me down a bit seeing how many people were saying things like "sub game, I'm out." And i just wanted to say to people who may be feeling a little down about all the negative feedback(The NQ Dev and community manager as well): Remember Overwatch. For those that don't know Overwatch got a lot of flak when they announced that it would be $40 pc/$60 console. In fact I was able to find this post from 10 months ago simply by Googling Overwatch overpriced: https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/3rughx/so_overwatch_will_be_40_am_i_alone_in_thinking/ At the time I remember what felt like a HUGE amount of the player base saying very similar things about Overwatch that are now being said about DU. "Full price for an Arena pvp style game, I'm out." Players saying things like the devs were out of touch, that these types of pvp games are all f2p now, it should be f2p and players can just buy heroes like every other game. The blizzard dev team knew that hero swapping was simply too important to the games concept to allow for a f2p and buy heroes style game. They knew that to have a good game they needed to sell all the heroes in a package so that teams weren't held back by a player who only owned two heroes and was getting counter picked. In short they priced the game the way it needed to be priced to make the game work. Overwatch has become extremely successful and has sold millions of copies. I just wanted to say to the dev team if you make a good game people will buy it and pay a sub fee or whatever pay system. Just do what is best for the game and the vision you have for it. To the community and the dev team, if you are feeling a little down, like I was, about the amount of negative feedback just remember that other games have gone through similar problems and come out extremely successful.
  9. I vote no. Seems a bit too complex for far to little payoff. Most of the problems like, ships accelerating too fast and turn speed can be handled by the engine and thruster mechanics and fuel consumption. I do not think this problem will need an additional system of injuring the player or ship. Not to mention with all the technologies that seem to be available in the game, nano compressing weight and items, artificial gravity and whatever other crazy technologies in the game this seems like a problem that could be easily solved. If this was a flight sim style game. A game that was 99% about building a ship and flying it with an ultra realistic feel to it, I would be all for it. In dual universe with all the other things to do in the game and the combat not really about dog fighting or ultra realistic flight. I just don't see the pick up in spending time on a system like this.
  10. I think server downtime may be very minimal. They have spent a lot of time making this game adopt new cloud technologies. One of the best part of cloud tech is the ability to upgrade and make changes without a lose of service. Hopefully they can adopt some of these technologies and keep downtime minimal or eliminate completely.
  11. I believe that animals are a stretch goal before release. I wouldn't mind if some were harder to kill and dropped some type of valuable crafting material. However i think large boss fights and huge PVE monsters are outside of the goals of the dev team. Large pve fights require a lot of mechanics and modeling time and are usually highly scripted to make it feel like a big event. This would be the opposite of DU teams core idea that they are not content creators. That players create the content. If you do one big pve boss people will expect more and expect them to be well thought out fights. It's jut not the business the DU team wants to get into.
  12. Assuming the game is full loot/lose your ship when you die that is already a pretty huge penalty. You will have to respawn that the closest node which will be a big deal. If you are attacking and have brought a node with you it cost you a lot to do so and you should benefit from it. I honestly dont think any other penalty is worth it I would have to see how zerg style combat would, work bringing several nodes and just zerging with really cheap ships. If that is possible perhaps some kind of node usage cooldown could be implented thats shard between nodes that are within a certain distance. Assuming the res node mechanics are well though out and dont allow cheesy situations like zerging i think no penalty other than loss of items/ship is needed.
  13. I feel like your reasoning is kinda flawed. Rich guy with 1000's to spend on a game is always going to have an advantage. Real world rules don't stop because its a game. If someone is willing to spend lots of real life money on a game they will have more then someone who doesn't. Plex style systems can actually reduce the impact this sorta thing can have on games. If you have no plex system farmers WILL sell in game money against game rules. I know DU doesn't have a classic farm for money system but the large gold farmers will find ways to make money and sell it for real cash. Its a fight that WoW had lost for years, gold farmers spamming the market with really cheap gold. If you have a legit way to do it in game it can be controlled a little more and you wont have massive amount of gold farmers pumping the market full of currency. The bottom line is, if there is someone willing to spend more money then you on anything they will probably have an unfair advantage. That's just life. As far as other points brought up I feel like one of the statements that is just flat wrong is that P2P is dead. P2P is not dead most f2p mmos are not very successful as a general rule. Two of the most successful and long lasting MMOs are still p2p or same variation of it. Second is that new p2p mmos don't work. Most people list out a huge amount of mmos that tried p2p and then failed or moved to f2p. Most of these games failed because they simply weren't very good. Almost all of the mmos released in the last several years have basically been WoW or EQ clones offering very little innovative ideas. The games didn't draw players in enough because most people viewed them as LOTR WoW or Star Wars WoW etc etc. Lastly I feel like its important to mention that the reason a lot of mmos go f2p is because they simply don't need as much cash generated to be successful. As I said most mmos are basically just WoW clones and that is just as true for hardware requirements for the servers. Basically they can use the same stuff(or same power stuff in the cloud) they used in 2005 to run most mmos. Bottom line is its much cheaper to run a classic WoW clone mmo then it was 10 years ago. Hardware is cheaper and the games systems and development have become standardized. Get quest, kill x or collect y or do z, turn in quest, level, gain abilities, reach max, grind high end content for character progression. The f2p with item shop can easily cover the cost of an MMO now due to reduction in cost of server/game upkeep. The problem is DU is actually doing something very very different with technology requirements and game design. NQ doesn't get the benefit of reduced cost in server hardware and a "standardized game design" or at least not nearly as much of benefit as a more standard MMO. They are trying to do something different and that costs money. Ultimately I think p2p is fine if it is what the game needs.
  14. I think the risk is part of the game. If there is no risk you get everything done in a couple of months and its game over. My biggest concern is the freedom this game allows will lead to exploiting and breaking the game. When you are harassed by exploiting pirates that will drive people away from the game real fast.
  15. Players should rag doll except when in a safe zone(then they can just disappear). Since ships are not anything special they would have to stay in the game no matter what. As far as i know the game will not separate small ships from big ships or buildings. All of these are just voxel structures with elements so having them disappear seems like bad idea. I think the idea of a cryobed is nice but mostly as a better way to stay logged out. Offering protection or some type of well rested buff that decreases damage taken or w/e. If I have to walk to a cryobed simply to log out for a couple of minutes or I die/get penalized I will probably not play this game. In my eyes that is an awful mechanic. Cryobeds should be a buff not a requirement.
  16. That not exactly true. While iron is iron you can find different purity that is harder or easier to mine/process. It can be mined from different types of rock with a different percentage of iron to other material. In the game world you can have it be high quality iron simply requires less of it to make what you want. 1 iron ore = 1 iron bar, 2 iron bar = 1 pure iron bar or 1 high quality ore = 1 pure iron bar. I don't think high quality should be only found in the ground and you should be able to process any quality of iron into another. Finding a high quality deposit simply means you get more iron for your work/time.
  17. I feel like the emergent gameplay in DU will help prevent this type of thing. In most other games the content is static. The only way for a player to get this piece of gear or that piece of gear is to kill a boss. The only way to let new players not have to spend years playing is to provide shortcuts or make content easier. However with DU they have stated that their hope is new players will have a very different experience then the veteran players did. Veteran players will have to mine and build the first ships at great expense. In a year or two new players might be able to haul some cargo or join a org and then buy/borrow a fighter and dive in to pvp or w/e it is. Skills will take time but content will change with the game.
  18. Scamming should be allowed but the game systems shouldn't make it easy to do. As long as poor game mechanics don't lead to scamming I'm ok with it
  19. I agree with most of the others in this thread that land will perhaps not be all that valuable but what you put on that land will be. I also wonder if they plan on having most land not have a large amount of resources but some area with very dense resources. This would create a high amount of value for certain pieces of land as mines.
  20. The devblog is your best bet to see what is planned to be implemented in depth. I'm sure most features are only partially implemented at this point in time so showing them might be difficult.
  21. I do hope they mostly stick to first person when not in a vehicle. while piloting a ship I can see the need for third person. It really depends on how they implement flying and if they can give a good feel to flying while in first person, which is very possible. I agree with most that both(in or out of spaceships) is basically saying third person. Third person has way to many combat advantages over first person to not use third person unless you just want the first person feel. Whatever they choose first person for all or first for out of vehicle third for in vehicle i think it should be locked to those views.
  22. I will probably play mostly with a small group of friends. When they are not around hopefully ill be able to have some decent solo play available. Freedom of choice seems to be very important to the devs so I assume there will be good solo play in the game.
  23. Alpha member is about helping the game grow in the right direction. Not so much about the fun of playing early. It's the first source of real feedback to the devs. I think alpha is about those that want to provide real feedback and test for the NQ. This is not some WoW clone, or another MOBA where the rules and structure are kind of set for the devs already. With this games ambitious design and scale the feedback will be very important, because things will need to be cut or heavily reworked once players get their hands on it. My only hope is that a diverse set of players are there to give feedback.
  24. I think there was a topic with a similar idea posted and most people liked it. I think it will be a nice addition to have "High quality" metals and resources. DU team has not specified if this will be in game or not.
  25. The engine for the game is Uningine 2 and i believe it has dx12 support. I think this game is going to be slightly less physics intensive then the other games listed. Although ships will be voxel based, targeting is going to be tabbed based. I dont know how the level of physics they plan on having with ships. Also they have mentioned that liquid and planetary physics will be very light. Example gravity will have no effect on on a mountain if you disconnect if from the world at the bottom
×
×
  • Create New...