Atmosph3rik
-
Posts
1187 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Atmosph3rik
-
-
It couldnt hurt to keep the wishes and requests realistic.
Requesting clothes, realistic.
Requesting a clothes designer, not very realistic.
It also wouldn't hurt if we all kept our comments related to the game's development.
But sometimes it's hard to resist.
-
Trying to leverage your pledge to force NQ to do what you want definitely shows a lack of respect for them.
Imagine if that actually worked... what a horrible game we would end up with, if they caved in to every demand?
I would love to see more video of them doing more complicated building but we don't have that yet. Personally i hope it's because they are busy working on letting us actually play the game ourselves.
To many other companies these days are happy to spend thousands producing videos of things they haven't even started yet.
-
-
I'm sure this has already been said fifteen times.
But to be honest i think the game is a lot better off without a "community" run by someone who's first move is to pledge without reading anything, and then threaten to cancel the pledge if the game isn't immediately molded to meet your expectations.
-
800,001 euros. Price is right rules all day.
-
While I understand, I dont think its up to the devs to do anything about such things.
Yes people will want some simple tools to deal with the most obvious problems.
But this being a sandbox with this much freedom you shouldnt set too many hard limitations.
Just accept that there will be idiots, you will get griefed sometimes and there will be plenty of people doing stupid things like flying into your building with obvious phallus shaped things.
Setting hard limitations on such things will only diminish the game, not add to it. I'll even go as far and say GM intervention should be restricted to the most serious issues. Like hacking and similar offences that cross the line.
Its already a big thing that the safezone is non pvp.
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "what the devs will do". I'm interested in what a developer can do about it, not a GM. No one wants a GM to have to sit around telling people where they can and can't park all day.
If constructs were simply invincible inside the safezone though, and you can just park them anywhere you want it would be a bit of a mess. We just don't have the whole story yet i think.
Who knows maybe that is how it will work in Alpha.
I also want the game to be as realistic and player driven as possible. But with things like Safezones things get complicated, because they aren't realistic at all. And I do think the safezones are really important too, and i plan to spend most of my time casually enjoying the protection of a safezone and building stuff.
-
-
This is a really good question.
I would hate to see the Arcship safezone become a huge Walmart parking lot for people's ships who are offline.
If you're building a base what happens if someone just parks a ship on top of you in the safezone while you're building?
I'm really interested to see how NQ handles this. I have no idea.
I guess another thing we don't know is exactly how permanent constructs will be. Obviously we'll be able to edit them in some way. If you place a voxel in the wrong spot or put down a wing element when you meant to place a thruster, there should probably be a way to delete them and recoup all or at least some of the resources used.
If you can delete parts of the ship then what's to stop you from just deleting the entire ship when you aren't using it?
I guess there may be a resource penalty for deleting elements or voxels. Although honestly i don't really like the idea of that because it would punish you for experimenting with different shapes and configurations.
I think there also might be a cost to reproducing a blueprint, beyond just the resource cost. Which might be enough to make people think twice about simply deleting a construct.
My guess is that there will be a way to Store your constructs when you aren't using them. With a cost for reproducing them.
So many questions. I can't wait to see how this all works!
-
In the latest video they showed multiple players standing on a moving floating platform.
So i think we'll be able to build a hanger door or whatever out of voxels and put a core unit on it and program it to open and close.
It looked like they were using ship thrusters in the video to move the platforms but hopefully there will be other more precise ways to move a construct like rotors and tracks.
-
Well this thread went well.
-
The problem with that is if you want to build underground bases, you don't want your access tunnels regenerating on you and trapping you beneath or making your entrance impossible to find
I think this is where controlling land comes in.
If no one controls an area you can only mine there. Which would be a temporary change.
But once you control an Area you can make permanent changes to the terrain.
-
Terrain could also regenerate without the resources regenerating.
In Landmark the way the procedural resources work, if you mine a vein of ore, the terrain will regenerate in 15 minutes or so but the ore itself won't. That specific vein of ore can still respawn later on at some point but it usually won't right away.
In DU planets could also have resources that respawn procedurally but are depleted. So resources could become more scarce over time without the planet being turned into swiss cheese.
-
I don't think we have any idea how this might work yet.
As far as i know NQ hasn't said whether terrain will regenerate at all or not.
Someone should ask in the next AMA though.
-
You've definitely got a point.
Has NQ mentioned anything about Player vs Construct combat yet?
I wonder if they plan to let players target and attack constructs.
-
-
I am definitely glad they are letting people save Blueprints through launch. Wiping progression and inventories is the way to go but wiping something creative like blueprints would just be depressing.
Anyone who participates in an Alpha or Beta will always have an advantage just because of familiarity with the game anyway.
The thing i found about saving designs in Landmark was that most of the time when i dig up a really old one and place it i immediately think it looks horrible and that i can do it way better now anyway. So a lot of my older designs really just end up being souvenirs.
-
It's worth a sub to me because i want to play it.
You get to charge a monthly subscription when there is simply nothing else out there that compares to your game.
-
So, I wrote this long comment, but it didn't bode well for Novaquark. So, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. What is the lowest mesh size for the voxel terrain. (If you aren't a dev, please link some form of source) I'm also curious why the smallest mesh size ever used is on the order of 100 mm, but the terrain looks to be on the order of 1 mm or even smaller.
I'm not sure if i understand your question.
But if you're wandering about the size of the voxel grid itself i think NQ answers that here.
https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/14-voxel-tools-pre-alpha-game-design/#entry131
Hi Kiklix!
You're totally right. The smaller the voxels are, the more performance issues you have.
We had to make some tough choices, and we think we have come to a good compromise:
- Voxels on any planet will have a size around 100 centimeters.
- Constructs made by players will be composed with 25 centimeters Voxels permitting better precision.
Granted, this is still bigger than Landmark, but in exchange you have mobile constructs
And for the planets, well, you will have some up to 100 km radius (which means a bit more than 125 000 km2 !)
-
-
I would love to see more off people playing with the building tools.
-
I think they have at least mentioned that they would like to keep everything in the game. I don't remember where exactly i read that. And that could always change too.
The whole silly drama with that angry youtube kid and the large ships they've been using in the promo videos was interesting though. That did seem to show that they can import an outside 3d mesh into the game somehow.
I have no experience with any kind of 3d modeling programs other then building stuff in Landmark. So i can understand how this would definitely give people who do, a major advantage over me.
I'd still be fine with it though. I really don't think they should hold back on the building depth at all if they can avoid it.
If it's going to allow people to make even more amazing ships then it seems like a good thing to me.
-
-
In one of the videos it looked like he actually placed one of these hover type engines.
So hopefully they are working on some other planetary vehicle type elements too.
-
I am literally playing nothing right now.
Before that.
Elite Dangerous
Landmark
Rift
Everquest
and if LAN counts
Doom
&
Bolo
Naming Planets and Star Systems
in Idea Box
Posted
I like the idea of Organizations or players that control a territory or even a planet being able to name it. And the name showing up on maps and other places. But i don't think the name rights should be permanent.
You should definitely have to maintain control in some way to maintain the name.
There are plenty of other ways to reward people for discovering a planet. You should really have to do more then just fly by it to get to name it though.