Emptiness
-
Posts
381 -
Joined
Posts posted by Emptiness
-
-
It seems that the intended use case for AGG ships is to always have one player with the ship while others ferry cargo to or from it.
-
T5 megas are an utterly ridiculous concept. That single T5 mega probably has as much as all the other T5 nodes on Ion combined.
-
When I originally heard the terms "anti-gravity generator", I thought it would make a ship fly in a gravity environment as if there was no gravity, with no speed restrictions, horizontal or vertical.
The reality was extremely disappointing.
The proposed changes? Even worse.
I think that antigravity pulsors should negate gravity on the axis they're facing, and have a hard limit of 6 S/12 M. Max? Full negation. Half max? Half negation. So one could choose to partly negate when horizontal or on the tail, or full negate when horizontal.
-
12 minutes ago, SpaceGamer said:
They just stated that AGG is NOT intended to hold a ship in place
Are the devs completely out of touch with how people have been playing their game for the past few months? And what's the point of calling it a sandbox if stuff is only supposed to be used in certain ways even if it seems like it could be used in a lot more?
May as well rename DU to "JC's Vision(tm)" and put as the description "Follow JC's Glorious ViSiOn and adhere to rigid rules as you fulfill his WiShEs".
I've had about enough of this nonsense.
-
On 11/24/2020 at 1:22 PM, Warlander said:
carebears dont like these types of systems
Lol. I don't know if I'm a 'carebear', but DU's damage model and implementation is absurdly dumbed down. I have ~1200 hours in Space Engineers (where a crash will wreck and break apart a ship and most of the time very little can be salvaged) and ~500 hours in Kerbal Space Program (where a crash over ~50m/s literally means complete craft destruction).
I'd prefer a Space Engineers damage system, with needing to ensure ships have structure or else they break apart. None of this floating element nonsense. If you crash, well, better luck next time.
Of course, Space Engineers doesn't require dozens if not hundreds of hours for cumulative crafting times for even a moderate sized ship...
-
1 hour ago, Hiturn said:
I can't get out of atmo loaded without that my XL engines take too long to warm up.
If you have enough atmo thrust and lift (~1.2-1.4g atmo thrust, ~1.5-1.7g high alt lift, ~300+m/s max speed), you should have no trouble ascending to 0.08 atmo and give space engines literal minutes to warm up fully.
I speak from personal experience, with ships as massive as 5.5kt.
-
3 minutes ago, ExPLiCiT said:
Agreed there should be some kind of diminishing returns as you add more components based on core size.
For most components, diminishing returns in addition to the natural lessening of effect (add an engine? 1x thrust. Add 3 more? 4x thrust. Add 3 more? 7x. Etc.) don't make sense.
For atmo air brakes, though, technically they function by increasing frontal cross section to increase drag. Right now, the direction doesn't matter, and they don't actuate, so they can just be stacked infinitely.
Atmo air brakes need to function differently. Space brakes too. They're just magic blocks right now.
-
2 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
You do, it's called an Emergency Control Unit
That's not a parachute. If a player normally relies on a gradual slow descent to land, will it also do the same gradual descent to a flat area? Or does it just apply brakes and yolo? I'm willing to bet that most people do not put enough atmo brakes to do a non-crash fall; something which I think is a bit of an exploit in itself.
We need parachutes.
-
6 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
It's not against TOS as User (Player) != character
Then why did they ban for market 15? An action, I might add, which definitely harmed them a lot more than not banning.
-
@NQ-Naunet Something else to consider for these changes: the "Further, if you disconnect while another player is in range, the server already assigns the task of handling the physical properties of your ship to that nearby player." part.
People have been talking about this in the official discord a lot, and one major concern is that the "player is in range" distance should be equal to or further than linked container range (at least 2500m). Otherwise, the following sequence would be possible and exploited.
- Have a ship consisting of a lot of engine and a hub of 10 L containers.
- Link to the hub.
- Move away from the ship and have a third party accelerate the ship to cruising speed towards another planet.
- Have the third party disconnect.
- Move within linked container range of the ship, but not the physics range, and fill the container with megatons of cargo.
- Have the third party log back in, instantly accelerating the ship back to cruising speed, with all of those megatons of cargo being accelerated for free.
edit: Here's a second potential exploit for you to consider:
QuoteMarten said: If your going between planets and log out (a scenario they listed in the post) someone can find your ship, force it to move by proximity, and just follow you out to the middle of nowhere for ganking
-
7 minutes ago, Tenchikun said:
it was just an idea, not a solution! As you pointed out, my idea is flawed but the game is flawed ten fold.
Sorry, I was merely participating in discussion. I didn't intend for it to be taken as harsh criticism.
-
14 minutes ago, Tenchikun said:
if everyones ships dissappeared when a player disconnected.
Suppose that someone lands on a market pad and logs out, causing their ship to vanish. What happens if another ship lands there and then the first logs back in?
Elite: Dangerous solves this by only having up to x players in a given session. If you arrive at a station and it's full and you can't dock, you can swap to solo, dock, swap back to open, and you're in a new session with a slot for you.
DU doesn't have discrete docking bays.
-
Here's something fun to consider. Someone on the discord was able to create a script that, with 3 points for triangulation, can tell you exactly what angle and direction to dig to find the closest node.
https://github.com/d6rks1lv3rz3r0/DU-Prospector
Why couldn't this be baseline?
-
38 minutes ago, Umibozu said:
Free month has been added to my account today, so please check yours
Sure has. Thanks, NQ.
-
51 minutes ago, vertex said:
And I need a dislike button for people pushing their own agenda on completely unrelated topics
I 'liked' the post above yours emotionally, then after reading your post, realized it wasn't quite logical and un-liked it and liked yours. A lot of good points there...
-
I got a bit carried away with creating a chain of parent orgs and this was the result. I can't click the ones extending off the right edge anymore... I seem to be the super legate of 16 orgs, now. lol
-
2 minutes ago, XKentX said:
Fixing 20minute breaking avoidance exploit doesn't justify ruining ships due to disconnects/crashes
OTOH, ships stopping mid journey and wasting the fuel used to accelerate them is infuriating.
How do we solve both problems?
-
9 minutes ago, NQ-Naunet said:
I'm curious - I've been seeing a lot of chatter about the 50m restriction; some players really want this increased, and others are saying "no, please leave it at 50!!".
What are the arguments for/against having the 50m restriction?You need experience to sort out the genuine responses from the trolls who just want to incite heated 'discussion'.
The problem with 50m is that it's a universal constant when core sizes are so wildly disparate.
For an XS core, 16m max length, it's fine. 3x the length.
For an S core, 32m max length, it's still fine, but starting to get iffy. 1.5x length.
For an M core, 64m max length, it's now less than the max size of the ship. I foresee problems arising.
For an L core, 128m max length, it's now less than half the max size of the ship. I foresee significant problems arising.
And XL cores are planned, 256m max length. 50m would be less than a FIFTH of that.
My personal opinion is that maneuver tool "max movement distance per unit time" should be 3-4x the size of the core being maneuvered.
-
5 minutes ago, XKentX said:
Scenario 1) you crash when flying heavy ship in atmosphere (usually near market)
If you login you don't have forward speed so you fall down a little and alt+f4 to stop it again. Repeat until you are safely landed and take off.
The proposed changes would keep the forward speed of the ship when you log back in.
Now, the question is: is the speed kept when you log in, or when you get back into the control seat?Should be when the player gets back into the control seat IMO.
-
2 minutes ago, FatRillos said:
The optimization of the game should be prioritized above all else because it would alleviate some of the issues you are having with people asking for ports and repairs. Not nerfing the tools we use to work around broken code.
This. And if some people are abusing the tools .. make that actionable / against the EULA?
-
Just now, Apillion said:
The AGG ship will get a "grounded" tag...
Interesting. Why do more AGG users not know of this? And how do we spread that information more widely?
-
5 minutes ago, Apillion said:
Ecu will keep AGG active
Is ECU not LUA? I thought all LUA stuff stops if a player gets further than 500m.
1 minute ago, klobber said:why, the ship remains stopped until you log back in, when the AGG is still online, nothing changes..or?
The point was to log out/in so the ship was frozen and wouldn't fall out of the sky once one got beyond 500m. See my post here. Also, you can edit your posts; there's no need to post twice.
-
13 minutes ago, NQ-Naunet said:
For my own learning, can you delve further into the use of Alt-F4 as a workaround? I'm currently chatting with JC about the feedback in this thread.
These two explain one major use nicely, albeit log out/in, not alt+f4.
1 hour ago, OwenQuillion said:I want to add to the others who have pointed out that Anti-Gravity Generators absolutely need to stay in an 'on' state regardless of player proximity if this is changed. Currently the only way to safely disembark from one is to log in and log out so the ship freezes in place; otherwise, it's basically going to fall to earth behind you.
Unless, of course, the design intent is to require infrastructure at both ends of the journey and add even *more* AGG platform towers scattered around the game world.
1 hour ago, SpaceGamer said:So we are losing the only way to insure our Agg does not fall out of the sky...Im with others...fix the problems BEFORE fixing the methods to work around said problems. Scrap market going to skyrocket in price. All those AGG Haulers falling like rain with no way to stop it LOL...
Fix AGG staying up BEFORE this change goes through.
-
1 hour ago, vertex said:
"in the past 24 hours" (which I presume it is, but that's not clear).
I don't know for certain, but I believe that to be the case, as well. I've noticed that after time passes, I can add more likes, but never 10 in a single sitting.
edit: and confirmed. was able to add 3-4 in a few minutes, but no more
Sorry, you cannot add any more reactions today.
in General Discussions
Posted
Agreed. As much as I emotionally want to dislike a post sometimes, rationally I view it as a very bad idea.