Jump to content

Atmosph3rik

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    1029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Atmosph3rik

  1. For my personal preferences WoW went in the wrong direction with a lot of those decisions. Which is why i only played it for a little while. I played Everquest for maybe 10 years, and Rift for several years too, on the type of PVP sever where the player base is divided into two teams, and there are areas of the game where you cannot avoid PVP, and other areas where you are safe. PVP wasn't a side activity, it was something that happened organically as you were playing the game. I think the devs are caught in a tug of war between people who enjoy PVP and people who don't. And for me the perfect game is when they try to find a balance. What WOW did was try to go all the way in both directions. That may make a more popular game overall, but it's not what i'm into. The game that NQ set out to make, is a niche game. It might not please everyone on the extreme ends of the PVP spectrum. But it's also not two separate games, one for PVP players, and one for non-PVP players. It's one game where both sides benefit from each other.
  2. We can discuss the ethics and effectiveness of their marketing videos. But they certainly aren't the first company to include cinematic footage in a promo video that isn't "gameplay". But to demand that the actual gameplay adhere to the content of a promo video is just ridiculous. If the game won't work that way, why waste our time grumbling about the promo videos. Wouldn't it be more useful to think about how to make the combat that we are stuck with, more fun? This is a game that can't have fast-paced realistic combat, because of other choices and technical limitations. But it has a ton of other amazing features that no other game has. And those features would all be more fun with PVP/conflict. If other games that also faced the same technical limitations, like World of Warcraft, or EVE, have been successful. I don't see any reason why it can't work in this game. But it means people will have to accept that the PVP might only be "fun" in the context that you can do it, in THIS game. It might not be as "fun" as the PVP in other games that are more PVP focused.
  3. I can't speak for anyone else. But as someone who was here before there were even screenshots of the game. I knew this is exactly what the combat would look like. Because NQ was always very clear that it would be "target lock" style combat, because that's the only type of combat that would work with the game they were trying to build. Anyone who's ever bought a video game should know the difference between a cutscene or a cinematic promo video, and actual gameplay footage. All you had to do is read one of the Dev blogs on PVP and you would have known everything that you need to know. The mistake that NQ may have made is in thinking that people would accept that style of combat. Or i guess in underestimating how many people would just put their fingers in their ears and ignore the reasons and just demand better combat anyway. Complaining that target-lock style combat is bad is just a waste of time. The only solution to that is waiting for technology to catch up. What this game could have right now, is good target-lock style combat. When i say that i'm picturing World of Warcraft, except you are a spaceship instead of an Elf. We need depth and specialization, customization. All the things that made games like WOW so successful. I've been playing a game called Dark Deity. It's a tactical RPG, basically a Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics clone. And I absolutely love this type of game, but the "combat" is just hitting a button that says ATTACK and then watching a cutscene of two people whacking each other with swords. The fun is in building your team of fighters, equipping them, learning their strengths and weaknesses. Preparing for battles, considering geography and positioning, and attempting to give yourself an advantage against your opponent any way you can. Most of the game is in the preparation, but the combat part is still fun, because it's fun to watch all of your hard work pay off when you win. Just because a game has "combat" or "PVP" doesn't mean it is required to have hyper realistic simulated one on one combat.
  4. I haven't had a chance to mess with the Alien cores yet, so i can't really say how they are working either. But they are at least an attempt at addressing that issue. The Alien cores seem like they are kind of geared towards what you might call "endgame pvp" though. They are definitely not something that is going to provide entertainment for anyone who is just getting into the game. The game needs more of everything. Removing the Safe Zone isn't more, it's less. But about the term "anti-PvP" i honestly don't think that category of player even exists. I have never heard anyone advocate for no PVP at all in the game, the way people constantly advocate for no Safe Zone at all. Personally i don't have any interest in seeking out PVP. But if there wasn't PVP in the game it wouldn't be half as interesting, so i want them to make it work. From what i've seen there is a large group of people advocating for PVP being a central part of the game. And they have all levels of interest in actually participating in PVP. And then there is a very small and constantly rotating group of slightly confused people who would like the game to be something like Counter-Strike. But they don't seem to understand that you can't force people to play Counter-Strike. You can play Counter-Strike with other people who want to play Counter-Strike. But you can't force me to play it. Removing the Safe Zone won't change that.
  5. I think it's funny that the majority of self-proclaimed "PVP" players all demand to get to be the pirate. But none of them seem to be interested in playing the game in a way that creates PVP for other players. Get out there and haul something in the PVP zone, build something in the PVP zone. Do something in the PVP zone. Everyone wants a shooting gallery. But no one wants to be the duck. Have you considered that's because shooting galleries are boring, and no one wants to be the duck?
  6. It's funny that the top two threads right now are basically, "What if only PVP?" & "What if only building?" We've advanced to the third stage of grief.
  7. What ever size ships and static cores that they decide are viable. I would just like a cohesive labeling and naming system, and a complete set of elements for each size core. Right now it's all wacky and incomplete. New players shouldn't have to find out that they bought or crafted the wrong sized element after the fact. Especially when it comes to the more expensive elements like the AGG. I spend a lot of time wondering how things like incorrect names, or lack of L sized wings could be put off for so long. It's a bit frustrating to find out that it's often because NQ didn't even know it was missing. I try not to bug them over and over about that kind of stuff, but it makes me wonder if we all need to be bugging them more. Should we all be filing bug reports about the missing L sized wings?
  8. It might not be a bad thing if NQ were to take a step back and consider whether people will accept "lock and fire" mmo style combat. Which has always been the plan for all combat in DU including Avatar vs Avatar. There has always been a bit of cognitive dissonance in the community when it comes to accepting that. Maybe it's not worth it to spend several years developing "lock and fire" AvA combat, if everyone is just going to hate it. Construct vs Construct PVP still needs a lot of work, and especially some depth and specialization. But it seems like the majority of the people complaining about it simply don't like the fact that it's lock and fire. People who are drawn to the game simply because of the words PVP aren't interested in hearing about technical limitations, they just want realistic combat. But i don't know what NQ is supposed to do about that.
  9. It's not that i want to give NQ a lot of credit, or even blame the investors for doing what needs to be done. It's just that in the beginning they were trying to make something awesome, and if the mistakes that they've made in the past, and the "rules" of business dictate that they can't afford to do that anymore, that's a huge bummer. I've never been involved with a startup, but i've been involved in opening a few restaurants. And unfortunately, the trap a lot of people seem to fall into, is spending all the money on performatively "opening a restaurant". Instead of spending the money on building something that will make money. Spending money is just more fun than making money. It's cool that NQ has so many offices and employees and all that. I just wish they had saved a little money for making the game. I don't know what they are supposed to do when they run out of "runway". But i don't think pulling the plane over and just telling everyone that we've reached our destination is going to work. It's unfortunate that so many mistakes were made. But what's happening now isn't a mistake, it's a decision. And that sucks a lot more than a mistake in my opinion. Maybe there's just a point where they've spent too much money on the idea, and they just can't spend anymore. But i still think the idea is worth money, and if they don't spend the money to make it happen, someone else probably will.
  10. All i see is gold when i look at DU though. It's got flaws. But the parts that work are incredible, and there's nothing else even close to it out there right now. It may not be laying golden eggs yet. But as frustrated as i am with DU's development, there are exactly zero other games being developed right now that i am interested in. If NQ decides not to see this thing though to the end, i'll just be sitting around waiting for someone else to pick up where they left off.
  11. Sure NQ is responsible for all the bungling in the beginning. But the current blind push to make money with a product that they don't even understand, and isn't finished, is clearly coming from the investors. At least in the beginning NQ was trying to work towards a version of "success" that included making the game that they set out to make. I don't really see any reason to give the investors any credit for investing in a risk either. It's what they do. When it pans out, they make a thousand times more money than they would investing in a sure thing, that everyone else is already selling too. The way i see it, they thought they were investing in the next Fortnite, and when they realized that it might not be a huge enough goldmine, they decided to try to recoup losses instead of seeing it through. It's the classic story of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, because it wasn't laying them fast enough.
  12. I never considered that they might wipe talent points until yesterday. But you've pointed out so many times that if they have good news, there's no reason not to share it. The only reason to remain tight lipped is if they have bad news. Why would they specifically mention that they won't be wiping core BPs, but not mention talent points? Seems like an easy opportunity to gain a little good faith from the player base.
  13. Interesting that they didn't mention talents in the list of things that we can be sure won't be wiped. Looks like talents are on the table.
  14. Well, it's not like SC has achieved any kind of status or position in the market that could be "taken on". Neither of these games will be taking on anyone or killing anything until they spend the money to finish them. They aren't products yet, they're projects. It's baffling to me that they expect them to bring in money at all.
  15. I really think there needs to be a clear set of guidelines for when you should use the in-game help channel, and what for. If i asked NQ to repair my ship every time i crashed it because of lag or disconnects, they would need to hire a full-time employee to follow me around. But I also refuse to fly anything larger than an S core, because i don't feel like spending an hour repairing a ship. The repair system is really tedious and unnecessarily punishing especially with larger ships. I've only asked for help in situations where i had a bugged element, like a VR pod that was permanently occupied, or when i couldn't enter the command seat of a ship. And i've always been amazed how fast they usually respond, and how quickly they were able to solve the problems. I don't think the in-game help channel should be used as a repair service. But i also think NQ needs to take a serious look at how painful the repair process is. The insanely large number of elements that are required to make an L core ship fly, is definitely making the issue worse too.
  16. I always pictured DU's success would be the kind of slow snowball effect that happened with games like Minecraft. That happens when one person sees another person enjoying the game, and they think, "Hey i might enjoy that too!". But for that to happen they need to finish the game, and let the people who enjoy it, enjoy it. And at the moment it honestly doesn't seem like either of those things are a priority anymore. They have about half of an incredible game, and that in itself is pretty interesting, but they're only going to get away with capitalizing on that interest for so long.
  17. Has anyone checked to see if the flagged elements are functional or not? The last word from NQ was that they would work on the algorithm and then release it with Athena for more testing. but without disabling elements. So flagged elements should still be functional, i think. It sounds like it's working exactly the same as it was before Athena, so maybe they haven't even made any changes yet.
  18. If a wipe makes sense to you. Then all of this should make sense too. Because this is clearly the best plan they could come up with. How could they have handled this any better? Telling us everything too soon means no more testers until after release. Telling us nothing means no one gets a chance to prepare for the wipe. So they decided to warm us up to the idea by vaguely babbling about a wipe for a few months, so when they finally admit what they are planning it isn't such a shock. It's a crap plan. But it's a crap plan that began with them announcing the final wipe and starting to sell subscriptions when the game was half finished. If you believe another wipe is the right decision, i don't see how you can be critical of the rest of their glorious plan.
  19. The build box question/answer was a bit painful to hear. We shouldn't have to beg for stuff like that. The first person at NQ who tried to build on an XS core should have seen the glaring issue and made it a priority. You aren't doing us a favor by making the game better. We're doing you a favor by pointing this stuff out.
  20. All that matters is how the element was placed in that position. If it required an exploit to achieve the positioning, then it's an exploit. But if you were able to put the element in that position using the tools provided by NQ, as they were intended to be used, then it's fine. If no exploit was used, and elements are flagged, then the detection system is still not working correctly.
  21. I'm sorry but i just don't believe that the discussion is ongoing. Are we supposed to believe there's a room full of NQ employees sequestered somewhere for the last month just heatedly discussing this decision for eight hours a day? Come on. I know it's generally considered a good idea to rip the Band-Aid off as quickly as possible to minimize the pain, but in this case i think the wound may be festering while you're sitting around waiting for the most profitable moment to make your announcement.
  22. Making it slightly more complicated to carry over wealth will only increase the advantage to those who do it effectively. And A well equipped PVP org will still have a fleet of ships after the wipe.
  23. I agree completely that wiping Quanta, but not wiping sold blueprints would be incredibly unfair to anyone who has sold a Blueprints. But at the same time, there's a decent chance that a lot of the people who have bought Blueprints may not be able to purchase that same Blueprint again. Since there's no guarantee that the person who made the original will still be playing. That means NQ is just deleting all of those constructs. Poof. Never to be seen again. And the alternative, Magic Blueprints, would be even worse, leaving a HUGE loophole for anyone to bring over wealth into the new game, and punishing anyone who doesn't take the time to transfer all of their wealth into constructs before the wipe. Which of those option sounds good to you? Because they all sound pretty bad to me.
  24. It kind of seems like everyone who wants a wipe has a list of stuff that other people have too much of, that should be wiped. And a list of stuff that's important to them, that they should get to keep. That's not a wipe. That's just begging NQ to take other people's stuff, and let you keep yours.
  25. With the last Algorithm i rebuilt my speeder and repositioned almost every element. i did extensive testing, and had no elements flagged at all. Then i made a Blueprint and deployed a second version of it. Did extensive testing with that one too, and had no elements flagged. Then i compacted the speeder and went to Lacobus to recalibrate some MUs. When i uncompacted it on Lacobus i got the warning message on the screen and had multiple elements flagged. Compacted it again and went back to Alioth and it was all clear. I also tried bringing the speeder to Lacobus docked to another ship, and same result, elements flagged on Lacobus and not flagged on Alioth. So if you're testing the new Algorithm, don't assume that your ship is all clear just because it appears to be in build mode.
×
×
  • Create New...