Jump to content

lucagrabacr

Member
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lucagrabacr

  1. Let it sprout organically

     

    Civilizations won't exist or sprout just because you practically force players to specialize, the reason it happens in the real world is because people NEED to, they don't want to do that in games, that they pay a subscription for nonetheless, to even presume people would is condescending to your playerbase

     

    Let the pace of the game be viable for individual players to achieve things they would normally expect to achieve by playing solo, then the civilizations would sprout up by people who decide to come together and make even greater things

     

    Interdependencies will still happen organically from people being better at or enjoying doing certain things than others, you don't have to put game mechanics which arbitrarily make it harder for everyone to do those things

     

    Here's how a lot of people feel about the update from my recording during the AMA, and my input as well;

     

     

  2. I understand why NQ doesn't want to;

     

    • Allow industry on dynamic cores - so bases / static cores have a unique use
    • Allow pilots of a ship to control their own guns - so it doesn't turn into a game where big ships are manned by single players
    • Simplify the crafting process - so people specialize in what they're good at

     

    And before anyone say how I'm just bad at the game, I can make ships / big ships / w/e really fast with industry or market, and I do combat, so no this is not a "game hard pls fix for me" kind of thread I really just want to see DU take off like how it should on paper so know that my rant comes with good intent and is not in a bad faith

     

    I just feel like, and I know I'm not alone in this, that DU ask quite a lot from people in term of cost and time compared to what they get out of it.

     

    Yes, being a part of a single shard universe and have your mark in it is fulfilling, but that's not enough compared to what we have to invest in DU, I know it's in Beta but still can we not use the "but it's still in Beta" argument here please for the sake of not saying something that's obvious, but of course feel free to do it if you feel like you have to just saying it's kinda pointless.

     

    Don't you guys think if DU's formula is perfect (it's great, but not perfect) that it would already CRUSH all space sandbox / combat games out there? (like SE, Empyrion, w/e) but it hasn't. Like seriously, on paper all of those people would have flooded DU already, "oh but it's a different kind of game" like dude seriously it's a space game with planets where you can build stuff it's not really that different unless you make it different for some reason, or too restrictive.

     

    Why can't we have industry on dynamic cores, at reduced speed, which I think would be a good compromise, and requiring the ship to stop (as another streamer suggested) so we can have a playstyle where people can have mobile bases? Which is fun, which is the reason why those aforementioned games do that, you know, because it's fun, doesn't make that much sense in term of ship/base usefulness balance, but it's fun.

     

    Why do we need gunners, like seriously I run a community too so it's relatively easy for me to find gunners compared to most people but at some point people would get bored of being a gunner, like what, I can pay them millions of quantas maybe and I don't think it would be good enough still because even they wouldn't feel like they need that much money if they know they would need to find gunners to make a big combat ship work, it's not like they can trade the quantas with fiat currencies either, which JC really should do or facilitate directly through the DU website with tax or w/e if he really wants to make DU a "metaverse", because actual metaverse out there do that for a good reason.

     

    Even in a hardcore game like EVE you don't need gunners to control your massive ship and you know that's kinda what most people want, they just want to be able to pilot big ships themselves, it's kinda far fetched to think gunnery gameplay appeals to a lot of people, it makes the game too restrictive for most people to engage in it and it's not like it's realistic either, it's the year 2900s where we have anti-gravity technology why can't we have automated turrets? Game balance as a reason is pointless if that balance is not fun.

  3. 7 hours ago, Lethys said:

    some ppl really should get a RL - and no, i will always call it PVP and will not stop calling it pvp just because someone disagrees

     

    don't really see the point - besides that ppl are stupid and can't read in an unbiased way maybe so they confuse stuff

    It's a suggestion not an edict

    6 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

     

    In the OP you said "using Combat will eliminate all these issues"  I honestly don't understand how substituting one word that means one thing, for another word that means something else entirely will be helpful in any way.  

     

    Combat is one of the ways that players can compete against each other.  PVP means players competing against other players.  As opposed to players competing against the game. 

     

    A crossword puzzle is a game.  But not PVP.

     

    Baseball is a game, and also usually PVP.

     

    Fortnite is a game that features combat-PVP.  I think, never actually played it.  

     

    Dual Universe is a game that features things like building, crafting, progression, exploration, and combat.  And all of those things can be done in competition with other players.  AKA PVP.

     

    Sometimes Combat = PVP

     

    PVP doesn't always = Combat

     

    When we're talking about balancing the game, i think it would be helpful to stop saying "PVP" when we specifically mean "PVP-Combat".

     

    But sometimes when combat happens in the game, it isn't just PVP-combat, sometimes it's also about trade, or exploration, or Org diplomacy.

     

    So why just call it combat?

    Well I did give an example either in this thread or in another post that games which use the word combat instead of PvP has less of this division because the community perceive things differently (ex: ED VS SE), so it is my belief that it does matter

  4. 1 hour ago, ShellCarnage said:

    But why does that matter?

     

    Even if we called it Combat, people would called PVE carebear leaving you with "Combat Orgs/Carebear Orgs". The Divsion will be there no matter what because they are different game styles.

     

    It just seems like you've making an issue out of something that isn't even an issue.

    Well if DU is meant to be an immersive, borderline-metaverse space game / MMO like JC / NQ envision, having the community divided between PvP and non-PvP minded people and mechanics would be an issue

  5. 1 hour ago, ShellCarnage said:

    This reminds me of the years of arguing on Eve Online that shooting a miner was not classed as "PVP" as the person didn't have the ability to fight back. 

     

    If you play an mmorpg you are pvping period, any of these activites you are playing agaisnt another play : Mining, Trading, 'Combat' as you would call it. Regardless, PVP is what it is and has been for a long time.

     

    Honestly, I don't know why it even matters that much

     

     

    Literally by not calling it PvP would make the arguments and division of "PvP / not PvP" occur much less often

  6. 17 minutes ago, DarkHorizon said:

    If you're a miner, you're a pvper because there might be better miners.

    If you're a ship builder, you're a pvper because there might be better ship builders.

    If you're a hauler, you're a pvper because there might be better haulers.

     

    If you're competing against other players that might be better than you, you are engaging in PVP as far as I'm concerned. PVP isn't just shooting the mark and taking their stuff, it can also be you getting customers business while leaving the competitor high and dry. It's all about where other peoples resources go since PVP is not just what's taken, but what's also freely given.

     

    I'm also fine with calling 'combat', 'PVP', because that's what combat its, PVP. I think the main issue the OP brings up is the community using blanket statements. *shrug*

     

    1 hour ago, michaelk said:

    I don't understand why you think calling it something different will change anything...people are well aware of who this "combat" is against and slapping a new label on it won't change anything.

     

    You may not like the term, but it isn't a misnomer. 

     

    The issue isn't that players have opinions about "combat"....it's that NQ doesn't have any sense of design leadership. If NQ was competent enough to actually design their game, people wouldn't be so scared that they are being "forced" to compromise. 

     

    The divisions within the player base exist because of how NQ decided to design, market, and present their grossly unfinished game -- many of the arguments about PvP aren't even arguments about the game...but rather its future, which is pure fantasy and speculation at this point. "How will PvP affect my buildings" won't stop being a question just because people call it "combat" lol. 

     

    Absent any actual design or structure from NQ, of course people will debate more -- not our fault the game is mostly question marks left open for debate! 

     

    ...stop quoting JC like the random whims and ideas he spews out on streams mean anything other than the fact that this game has no cohesive design leadership. People love to quote JC as if everything he says is some sacred promise. You can find plenty of things he's "promised" in the last 6 years that didn't work out. 

    I just think semantics matter, when people say "Do PvP" or "PvP organization" they imply non-aggressive players or non-PvP organizations don't do PvP, which is not the case, but the implications do divide the community or create a perceived division more so than how much there actually is, and NQ do tailor their developments from perceived player sentiment to some degree

     

    I just don't want DU to end up like ED where there's a completely separate path of gameplay without any PvP because of some hardcoded distinction or barrier (their solo / private group mode), essentially undermining the whole universe of the game

     

    Maybe I'm just paranoid or overly pedantic, at least I hope so

  7. On 10/22/2020 at 3:30 AM, blazemonger said:

    Unfortunately for you, these will not be very useful in TW. ;)

     

    We do have our own take of the death cube :P (see behind the fighters) and the carrier is mostly for this

     

    And how would you know whether or not it would work? o: have JC or NQ released more info about how TW mechanics is going to be like? I'd assume once atmospheric PvP is released agile, disposable fighters would be much more useful

     

    13 hours ago, dumpeet said:

    At this rate you will hit the org core cap before TW update hits, should have invested in industry instead.

    We do have industry : P
     

     

    13 hours ago, Haunty said:

    Hopefully by the time TW comes pvp will be revised a bit so cubes aren't the only option

    If atmospheric warfare would be a thing (which I would assume so because territory warfare implies taking a territory which is based on the ground) even with the current combat system, cube wouldn't work as well for it

  8. 4 minutes ago, HangerHangar said:

    Needs some “cube ships” to act like hangar doors, so you can stash nonflying ships inside the carrier’s armor.

    Thought about doing that and did some experiments, turned out the extra complication is not worth it, not to mention the extra weight and air resistance if you want to add more structure to accomodate that c= the deck can hold more than a dozen full sized XS core ships or about a dozen plus some S core ones so that's good enough for most situation

  9. dualuniverse_2020-10-21t23h38m24s.png

     

    dualuniverse_2020-10-21t23h37m50s.png

     

    dualuniverse_2020-10-21t23h39m04s.png

     

    Also explained why me & my org are going the carrier / mobile sustained assault strategy here c= https://youtu.be/JDta4de2Tdo and how I think it's the best way for small-medium organizations to wage war and go against bigger organizations if you guys are interested

     

    The fighters are primarily for atmospheric base bombardment and fighting in general, while for the usual space railgun thingy (current meta) we have our own version of the usual borg cube, which is more rectangular so it fits on the deck without blocking the guns and has lower air resistance (all of the ships are atmospheric-space hybrid)

  10. I got stuck inside someone's L hover engine today for like 3-4 hours, and the support staff are on break, so I had to wait until someone helped me which thankfully someone did. I couldn't respawn because I got stuff with me. Just be careful of them because apparently you can run inside them and got stuck if they load late :P

     

    dualuniverse_2020-10-18t23h29m34s.thumb.jpg.7a74225de2f4c42ca1be5e7210ca0a86.jpg

  11. A sensible design is naturally cool-looking, but also;

    • Death cubes don't work as well in atmosphere, will be less useful in territory warfare within atmosphere if at all
    • Death cubes will always be slower than normal ships, given the same amount of things and engines carried

    And the uses of "cool-looking" ships beyond the obvious fact that it makes the owner / users happier;

    • Propaganda / branding of your faction
    • Crew's psychological endurance (see how long it takes for someone to get bored of being a gunner in a floating steel cube)
  12. I figured with gold I'd need 4m thick (16 layers) and with steel 8m thick 32 (layers) of armor according to the health point of each material, not counting the resistance, on each side. But I thought it wouldn't be that bad, thanks though guess I'll really have to make it thick at least in vital areas

     

    Edit: Unless the railgun projectile's width is more than 1 block (like 9 blocks) then I guess it would be 9 times less (4 instead of 32 layers)

     

    Edit2: Nvm my initial calculation already assumed the railgun projectile's width is more than 1 block and 9 blocks

  13. DU isn't ED with Solo Mode or Open Play options with the line between PvP players and non-PvP players clearly defined, to say a person or a group of people is a "PvPer" in DU implies that person or group of people does PvP while others don't - which propagates a faulty understanding of what kind of universe DU is supposed to be.

     

    What most people call "PvPers" are really "Pirates", because even if someone isn't aggressively hostile towards other, doesn't mean they don't do PvP, in fact most people would at some point even if they're not necessarily pirates.

     

    To divisively label the playerbase "PvPer" and "Not PvPer" is really, really misleading in what kinda universe DU's meant to be imo

     

    Just putting it out there because people keep calling pirates PvPers, just call them pirates because non-pirates do PvPs too

  14. Alright, so on another thread I argued with other players about the XS core space pirates with L railgun meta, and initially defended the current meta, partially because someone suggested removing different lockon ranges entirely, which I think would be a bad idea and bring more problems. But I see the problem and have came up with different solutions which don't require the different lockon ranges mechanic to be removed from the game, I'll include 1 I already posted in the thread

     

    • Increase XS core lockon range to 80km, just like S core's lockon range, so people with S freighters will have at least a fighting chance, while M and L ships will still need fighters escort
    • Make the L and M railguns (and other guns with range more than 40km) wider than 32m, this will prevent them from being used on XS core ships
    • Make them a lot more heavier that it is unfeasible for XS core ships to outrun or outmaneuver bigger ships while carrying these weapons, this will allow the playstyle but makes it way harder to cheese

     

    What do you guys think?

×
×
  • Create New...