Megabosslord
-
Posts
215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Megabosslord
-
-
On 3/22/2022 at 10:13 AM, blazemonger said:
JC has _never_ said there "would not be a wipe". In fact he very directly said they might wel lbe one closer to "release"
Where did JC say there would be a wipe?
What he actually said was, here (1:30) the reason for a wipe would be "(there is) something that we need to fix and there is no other but to wipe to fix it. I don't see anything like that coming... it's something that would happen if we really had no choice..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOp9nDzkxpc
Then he said here (58:26), when they were considering a terrain wipe for Alioth, "there would be a gold rush to get back to whatever you wanted. That's actually not a good idea. We decided that we would rather not do that. There has already been a lot of investment made by a lot of people to terraform very very substantial parts of the planets... It would be a very bad thing to say 'sorry guys, restart from scratch.'" And that was just on a terrain wipe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai3Kk37ntgg
Sure, NQ re-neged on the terrain wipe. (We all saw how that went.) It doesn't mean it's cool to reneg on game wipe as well.
On 3/23/2022 at 5:37 AM, Carnegie said:so what is wrong with having a few rich people? They add character to the game. This obsession with fairness is not natural. I am not rich by any means, but I don't mind if others are, as they are either wonderful allies or a goal worthy of bringing down.
This isn't the kind of game where you have a score. What is the actual need for a "level set" that is driving the wipe requests?
Better to have a few rich people, than no people at all.
- Zireaa, Ving, Atmosph3rik and 1 other
-
4
-
I'm getting the overlapping elements warning on static cores now too:
-
Dumb question: Where do I see total personal core slots for my character and how many are used?
[EDIT: Hang on. Someone just told me there's no way to see your total/used personal slots. So... I have to either:
(A) Wait for a warning that my character is over quota and hope it tells me by how much, to figure out what constructs I need to transfer to my org, build nothing new in the interim, and then hope there's enuf slots left in my org? OR
(B) Work my way through the construct list in the map clicking every construct to see if it's personal or org, write all that down, then get the calculator out to figure my personal cap by tallying up the +3s, +5s and +10s in Talents?
Frikkin frik.]
[EDIT #2: Just wonderful. Slots also not allocating properly. 10 slots missing (first 22 slots allocated only added 12 to the org). Ticket raised:
]
-
On 2/6/2022 at 5:31 PM, Yoarii said:
Isn't this what you already can do by negative-paste?
Not really. Negative paste is glitchy as hell, but also still uses smoothing so the walls can be multiple voxels thick (even if they don't appear so.)
-
Access to the market containers (check/update orders) from mobile would also be handy.
Also, notifications when :
- large production runs are complete
- certain containers are empty
- send/receive quanta
- player joins/leave org (for also tracking if you're about to lose some core slots)
-
I've always been of the view a player should be able to get 'space-borne' within a few hours of joining the game - even if it's the dinkiest ship possible - like EVERY other space game ever made.
1) It's a space game, right?
2) Promoting easier access to space, easier travel, auto-docking to a hangar, base-building, all have co-benefits to promoting other gameplay loops like asteroid mining, PvP, hauling... and reduce load on the servers and client by encouraging more time spent in space than terrestrial.
-
Make a solid shape using the current tools, select a volume using the 'hollow' tool, and it removes all voxels inside the shape except those at the surface (without messing up smoothing.)
This would allow us to more easily make "container" type volumes, while also easily optimise the amount of honeycomb in a shape.
- Hirnsausen and Scavenger
-
2
-
54 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:
Moons are a cool place
As long as they're desolate. As soon as you have a bunch of constructs being transited by multiple players the upload cost for the servers increases exponentially.
-
Like most people, I started my base on the ground and it grew from there… Now it’s way too hard to relocate and no benefit.
Gameplay progression needs to not only remove barriers, but reward progressing to a space station.
[EDIT: To be clear, every time a player flies between 2 points near the surface of a planet they’re pushing/pulling huge volumes of data from the server to the client, costing both parties IRL money.] -
-
On 1/31/2022 at 2:57 PM, Endstar said:
A core is core is a core
Think about out it, if you incentivise moving into space you avoid having to load terrain. And because space stations are further apart and scattered in 3 dims, you also don’t have the sequential loading of constructs as players travel across the surface of a planet. (Topography maximises data load by forcing things into a single plane.) The transfer cost of someone flying to a space station is a fraction of surface flight to a ground base. In space you can also enforce distance between bases.
As for XL cores, NQ have said they’re coming - just not yet. The longer they leave it though, the more constructs are being built in less efficient L cores. The data volume is marginally lower for the same shape in one core compared to splitting that shape over multiple cores due to duplicate header info. But it’s the rendering where the big improvements are - reducing FPS drops using LOD.
The XL core - if it has double the dims of an L - needs to ‘cost’ (talents, cap, and build cost) 6-7x an L core, or provide some other benefit, like longer elevator jumps, since you want to incentivise using an XL over just using 8x Ls and some irregular shapes that would have used fewer Ls. A XXL (3x3 Ls) would be exponentially more efficient replacing 27x Ls and need to cost 20-25x an L.
-
On 1/29/2022 at 2:31 AM, PsychoSlaughter said:
Nope. This is no defense of NQ's decision, but I don't think it's about performance and load time. The issue is with data storage in the cloud and how NQ isn't earning enough revenue to cover the costs of the game. Every construct you own has information about it that they need to maintain somewhere. Reducing the number of player-owned constructs means a cap on the size of the databases - that, they can future plan for. Static, dynamic, or space makes no difference - they exist, and they cost NQ money. Seems like this would be something to plan for in the very beginning. They should have decided how much data per player is sustainable and enacted limits. Doing it this late in the game means someone's estimate was waaay off, they've lost the minimum critical mass of subs to cover costs, or costs have risen so much since initial planning (they've been at it for like a decade) that the current format is unsustainable.
TL;DR - doesn't matter the type of core, NQ needs you to have less of them to save money
Hey PS! Hmm… It is possible you’re right, that it’s not compute cost, but that like a lot of recent start-ups they assumed storage and transfer cost would fall over time (they haven’t, not by a lot - and transfer less that disc. I’ve been running large dev projects for ~25 yrs.) What tells me it has to be compute is how quickly Deckard dismissed the observation that XL cores would render more efficiently than multiple L cores. (XL cores would benefit disc and DL vol even more.) It also makes no sense that they gave all historic players 5 HQs even if unsubbed and only after an outcry added it back to Panacea. (Removing abandoned constructs should benefit compute but also disc AND DL - assuming there’s nothing whacky going on in DB structure or metadata on null voxels.) Do you have a source my good friend?
[EDIT: I still think they’re sitting on a potential goldmine with this game if they can not jag it up. Not just the space travel zeitgeist being hot, but the ~$1bn p/a spend demographic that has rolled thru Minecraft onto Roblox are soon going to be looking for a grown-up version of same. I hope they have someone sharp on VC.]
-
6 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:
Hello Noveans, as yesterday's discussion thread was so lively, we would like to open a new thread to hear your feedback on our planned revisions.
One CM delivers bad news, another delivers good news. Are we being good-cop-bad-copped?
-
Saying no construct is subject to abandonment "for at least a month" isn't accurate. You're proposing 2 wks from the warning. (To take advantage of the full month we'd have to monitor our construction slots constantly to know if an org member has left, unsubbed, reallocated their slots to another org...) From the first automated warning we'd only have 2 wks. Which raises the question why the warning isn't as soon as a player leaves?
-
-
6 minutes ago, TeeWRX82 said:
It wasn't long ago where NQ thought our raceways were great and amazing. Now after demeter and now the next patch it seems as though their main goal is to destroy it all. SMH
Question: If NQ made space cores exempt from the core cap (which makes total sense for several system and gameplay reasons) and gave you a convert static-to-space function, could/would you move your raceway into space?
-
I mean, I thought it was blindingly obvious: space stations might be big, but individual stations are rarely close together (meaning only the player building the station can impact their own load time), there's no terrain to render, and generally less traffic around them so system o/h is far lower than ground constructs - plus incentivising players to move into space would drive more traffic necessary to drive progression and at a minimum one-step closer to PvP.
Sometimes I wonder who's calling the shots at NQ and what on Alioth they're thinking (or not thinking.)
[EDIT: Please also let us convert statics to space and fix BP alignment, so we can just BP our ground bases and move them onto a deck in space.]
- Warlander, Zarcata, huschhusch and 1 other
-
4
-
Here's an idea, instead of dropping this all on us in one release (fixing our ships, trying to figure out how to reallocate cores, go around in 2 wks and tokenise everything and do handovers, recruit org members, renegotiate terms, AND demolish a bunch of cores) give us:
- DAMAGE ASSESSMENT: the planned screen or JSON export with total count of our constructs by player and org (which we should have had a year ago.) THEN ask us for feedback so we can all make an informed decision on this release based on how much it will really impact us,
- TOOLS TO EASE THE TRANSITION: a "quick demolish" cos we've all known forever that pulling down a L static is a frikking nightmare and you've just never listened; also fix static core alignment (again for the 1000th time) and other basic tools cos many of us are going to have to rearrange our whole set-up, move bases, consolidate with mining operations, relocate from surface to space, etc. also many players haven’t bothered to rebuild or move our bases yet from getting done over in Demeter geometry reset, and
- REASONABLE TIMEFRAMES: more than 2 wks(!) to absorb the initial reconstruction and redistribution of everything we've build in the last 16 mths.
- EXCLUDE SPACE CORES: I mean, this should have been blindingly obvious. Space stations might be big, but they're rarely close together, there's no terrain to render, and generally less traffic around them so system o/h is far lower than ground constructs. All those who want to build very large bases can move into space, driving gameplay progression and luring more players one-step closer to PvP.
Not rocket science.
-
12 hours ago, Skyreaper said:
Yeah so what's stopping everyone from applying the 15 constructs to their own org? Doesn't sound good to me with all the mining static constructs needed atm..what will be the player max now?
Re: stacked elements;
Have the players been naughty? Bad stackers! Hang on, wasnt it like 2 ppl needed to stack elements in what's called 'jenkomancy'?
Elements now 'stacked' that are maybe one voxel space into another element were permitted by the build helper using only the arrow keys.
Although a bit of a bug, many games have them and they get called 'tricks', players' not naughty..programmers' naughty, leave old constructs alone that were NOT 'jenkomancy'.
2 ppl logging in and off to place elements inside each other is obviously an exploit, what was permitted by the build helper^
Conclusion: bit more slack on the leash pls, i cant even put adjusters on my engines now... not in, on! xD
Also, 25 XS static constructs that only have say maybe a couple miners and a container are very different from 25 L full voxel buildings/space ships..?
~5 of my ships are throwing the stacking error now when all I ever did was place with arrow keys. Either something is wrong with the algorithm, or NQ did a sneaky change to element hitboxes.
-
-
11 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:
I'm really happy to hear that the element stacking issue is getting further consideration.
If you can stomp out the exploit, while still allowing as much freedom and flexibility in the system as possible, it's going to make ship building a lot more fun, and make ships look a lot better overall. Great news!
Not happy till they (a) fix the algorithm so it’s not flagging elements that were never placed with the exploit and (b) a better way of finding them. On an L core with 1000 elements just saying ‘go check all your ailerons’ is weak.
-
3 hours ago, CptLoRes said:
Remember when NQ used to say DU was a open world civ-rebuild game and they wanted us to build as much and as big as possible. And when we said are you sure you can handle that? They said either nothing or "don't worry guys" for 4+ years..
So while what you say is probably true and likely to happen, it will also means the main premise for DU will be null and void and that NQ never managed to deliver on the tech needed for the game they sold us..
Like these from the E3 announcement?
Or the loading screen that reminds you every 5th login what was meant to be possible?
-
On 1/20/2022 at 5:47 AM, ADCOne said:
Ok I found it, always the last place you look! Just posting the screenshot of where to find it so others with the same question can save time.
It seems for me it is something to do with the maneuver space engines:
This is extremely unhelpful on large ships. I have to go around the ship checking 47 brakes and 48 stabilizers/ailerons looking for one that's colliding when they're scattered everywhere... there's no one place you can stand and see more than a handful of them. And I have 3 versions of this ship (pic).
Plus I still don't know how I even got colliding elements in the first place when I just placed stuff where it allowed me. NQ obviously changed the rules.
-
20 hours ago, blundertwink said:
I get what the OP is saying, but players will always be in conflict with devs because given the option, players will build at the maximum scale that they can.
This is perhaps one reason why major studios aren't that interested in the "MMO builder" concept -- because compared to single player, you'll never be able to build at the same scale and compared to a traditional MMO, a builder game will be far more expensive to support.
The only way a multiplayer building game will work is if there are hard limits...the idea of an MMO builder game where you can build structures of any size is a nice one, but not one that can exist in today's world with today's technology.
IMO, expect more limits and harder limits...especially as NQ moves forward in 2022 and needs to cut costs more.
Inversely, it's utterly self-evident that static cores should (a) be bigger than dynamics - since you need to land/park a dynamic on a static. Even markets use a 3x3, and (b) statics and dynamics should have different caps. They're entirely different in terms of purpose and use.
NQ: Time to answer the question - Will there be a wipe?
in General Discussions
Posted
There's something wrong with that hyperlink. [EDIT: Ah fixed. Had to remove an ampersand+'20' from the URL and insert a colon after the https. Forum bug?]