Jump to content

lucagrabacr

Member
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from Gamer59 in The Point of Designing a Cool Ship?   
    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)
  2. Like
    lucagrabacr reacted to NQ-Naunet in [Discuss] We've Heard You!   
    Let's have it, DU! Let's talk about NQ's 0.23 learnings.
     
     
  3. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from AlexRingess in Making it Harder for Individual Players, Forcing Interdependencies Through Arbitrary Mechanics & The Overall Condescending Presumption That Comes With it Won't Kickstart "Civilization" - Stop This Top-Down Approach on Forcing Civilizations to Materialize   
    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;
     
     
  4. Like
  5. Like
    lucagrabacr reacted to Mordgier in Making it Harder for Individual Players, Forcing Interdependencies Through Arbitrary Mechanics & The Overall Condescending Presumption That Comes With it Won't Kickstart "Civilization" - Stop This Top-Down Approach on Forcing Civilizations to Materialize   
    The voice chat during the Q&A session was really good. 
     
    Much much better than the Q&A itself where JC ignored all the hard questions.
     
     
  6. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from Vanquish383 in Making it Harder for Individual Players, Forcing Interdependencies Through Arbitrary Mechanics & The Overall Condescending Presumption That Comes With it Won't Kickstart "Civilization" - Stop This Top-Down Approach on Forcing Civilizations to Materialize   
    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;
     
     
  7. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from Lavayar in Making it Harder for Individual Players, Forcing Interdependencies Through Arbitrary Mechanics & The Overall Condescending Presumption That Comes With it Won't Kickstart "Civilization" - Stop This Top-Down Approach on Forcing Civilizations to Materialize   
    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;
     
     
  8. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from Emptiness in Game design logic, the vision of DU VS lazy gamers and players' freedom   
    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.
  9. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from LCHMaster in Game design logic, the vision of DU VS lazy gamers and players' freedom   
    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.
  10. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from blazemonger in Nvm, pointless rant (edited)   
    Realized this one wasn't constructive so deleting it and keeping it to myself for now. Just really passionate about the game but frustrated with some stuff
  11. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from NQ-Naunet in Nvm, pointless rant (edited)   
    wow those coffees surely did something
  12. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from NQ-Naunet in Nvm, pointless rant (edited)   
    Realized this one wasn't constructive so deleting it and keeping it to myself for now. Just really passionate about the game but frustrated with some stuff
  13. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from AlexRingess in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    It's a suggestion not an edict
    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
  14. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from AlexRingess in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    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
  15. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from AlexRingess in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    I wrote about these a bit ago shortly after beta release, and exactly what I said gonna happen is happening right now so making a 2nd thread here and attaching a video I made about why we all should just stop calling combat PvP, seriously guys
     

     
     
    It's a misnomer, it's divisive, it's dumbing down the game
  16. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from AlexRingess in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    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
  17. Like
    lucagrabacr reacted to Zamiel7 in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    I think the heart of the conflict is based around people's expectations not being met. One extreme side of the spectrum is a group of people who expect to be able to attack whoever they want, wherever they want, so anything that curtails that is undermining their expectations. The same is true for the opposite extreme: some people just want to be able to mine, build, and trade without having to worry about other players interfering with that. Whether we call it PvP, PvE, PvPvE, combat, emergent gameplay, sandbox mechanics, or anything else will not change divergent player expectations. As I said, there's merit in what you are saying. How players perceive mechanics matters, but I'm skeptical of how much that perception is rooted in language and semantics. Perhaps the best point in your favor is that the term "PvP" has accrued powerful connotations, both positive and negative, and so its use might very well be deleterious to the discussion. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure it's possible, much less effective, to try to alter the vocabulary at this point.
  18. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from Daphne Jones in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    I wrote about these a bit ago shortly after beta release, and exactly what I said gonna happen is happening right now so making a 2nd thread here and attaching a video I made about why we all should just stop calling combat PvP, seriously guys
     

     
     
    It's a misnomer, it's divisive, it's dumbing down the game
  19. Like
    lucagrabacr reacted to HairballHacker in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    YES! I was thinking of posting your graphic ('say "combat" not "PvP) over on the ED forums. There the debate has never ceased and is always polarized between the same two toxic extremes. FDev responded and as a result much of the game has been ruined IMO. I really don't want that to happen to DU.
  20. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from HairballHacker in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    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
  21. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from HairballHacker in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    I wrote about these a bit ago shortly after beta release, and exactly what I said gonna happen is happening right now so making a 2nd thread here and attaching a video I made about why we all should just stop calling combat PvP, seriously guys
     

     
     
    It's a misnomer, it's divisive, it's dumbing down the game
  22. Like
    lucagrabacr reacted to michaelk in Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2   
    I get it, but my perspective is that this ship has sailed a long time ago. 
     
    I think the "division" in the community exists because the vision for this game is so ambiguous and poorly articulated and the state of production is so rough.
     
    If everyone was having such fun with the game as it exists today, it wouldn't feel like a division...but because the promise and potential of the game are so mismatched with its implementation today, there's a lot of angst and commentary about what needs to be "fixed" to make it complete. 
     
    I guess my point is that NQ created this problem by launching such an incomplete project as a "beta" then pitching it as the end-all game for every space nerd's niche whims. 
     
    I think a lot of people really, really want to believe in that promise and would rather blame each other than developer NQ...as soon as you recognize that NQ really doesn't have a plan, you're basically giving up that this game will become the promising civilization it was pitched as. 
     
    There's still a lot of time for NQ to change directions -- until then, I agree that the player base needs to be patient with each other, but also understand that these discussions are inevitable...not because they are being pointlessly divisive, but because the incomplete and unknown state of the game's design invites speculation, discussion, and strong opinions...especially because many players feel so strongly about DU's potential and vision.  
     
    The thing that would fix a lot of these issues is real leadership from the dev responsible for designing the game instead of big fat question marks whenever someone asks about how their game will work...I hope that players can be united enough to push NQ to do its job more professionally.  
  23. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from Zamiel7 in Preparing for territory warfare be like   
    Thanks! c= and ye gotta prepare >:3
  24. Like
    lucagrabacr reacted to Zamiel7 in Preparing for territory warfare be like   
    Good stuff! Always glad to see people preparing for things like this to reassure me there's going to be some fireworks at some point! Also, +1 for the carrier/fighter designs.
  25. Like
    lucagrabacr got a reaction from Zamiel7 in Preparing for territory warfare be like   
    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)
×
×
  • Create New...