gyurka66

I apologize if i'm interrupting.  But i'm going to talk about the game for just a minute if that's ok.
 
I think the OPs original suggestion had to do with constructs becoming more powerful the longer they are around.
 
That seems like a cool idea to me.  And i don't see any reason why it couldn't fit into the way NQ plans to do "progression" currently.
 
What if the construct or even maybe individual elements progressed in the exact same way that players will?  Would that be an acceptable topic of discussion to our supreme forum gatekeeper captaintwerkmotor?
 
Could we have your permission to talk about that?

Math?
 
t=number of words Capt.TwerkMotor has posted on a thread
 
s=Volume of salt in kg produced by the servers
 
3t^2 = s
 
 
Request to lock thread. You don't educate people by salt. Give some actual salt-free websites.

I think i can safely assume you neither know what you are talking about because you should be talking about the mechanic that has been suggested in this topic. You know you could easily send essays about how retarded is the other person in email. That would be great for everybody.
 
it's perfectly useless to dicuss highschool physics in a video game forum because it's a video game forum. And to video games physics don't apply.
 

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it will fit the kind of game play that DU is aiming for...
 
DU is all about doing things in a "realistically plausible" way. Inanimate objects like ships can't "learn" skills or become tougher to kill simply because they survived combat.
In DU that ship only becomes tougher to kill when the owner decides to upgrade the armour. The players themselves are the only ones who can learn new "skills" to improve their combat proficiency.

indeed. And that's what EVE cannot offer that this game intends to include. Yes, I am kind of a carebear, kind of. I have no problem that this game have PVP, just include things that are not just for PVP. You people came from EVE, I came from Korean MMOs (Aion being my favorite), so our thinking here are different. I do believe that some of this systems can be implemented (why not if they bring immersion to a game? That's why some people are here for. I'm here more for the immersion TBH). 
 
I can understand why you people cannot like Korean-MMOs. I only like a certain. Why? Because some  of them have a good progression-system and immersion. Yeah you're right, I'm here more for the RP and building-progress (because I came from Korean-MMOs like you mentioned), some people are here more for the PVP and combat. If this is an openworld-sandbox-game with dynamic-community, then there is a possibility of roleplay. If I mentioned Trove here, you people will just laugh. What's wrong with having some of those kind of progression-system(just some) that can bring immersion?

If an Avatar will have a progression-system in this game through EXP and will have stats based on level, so can a ship that is built physically from a blueprint. That is my idea. They will have their own progression-system until they are destroyed and then recreated again from the same-blueprint to restart again. So a ship that survived long will be more powerful based on stats because they have more accumulated-EXP than ships that are newer. How about that, eh? A history for a physical-construct. For example, the Black-Pearl-Ship in Pirates of the Caribbean, it survived and won many battles(including against the Flying Dutchman), so that ship must have accumulated a lot of EXP by now(if it's still afloat) and will build it's reputation in the community that people will fear. 
 
So an experienced-ship will be stronger stat-based until they are destroyed. For example, the Zumwalt-class-Destroyers of the United-states. We have 3 of them physically(they are all from identical-design); DDG-1000 Zumwalt, DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor, DDG-1002 Lyndon B. Johnson.
DDG-1000 Zumwalt(the lead-ship of the Zumwalt-class) have sank many ships and built an impressive record, until one day, it was defeated and sank. That ship will be gone forever, but it will go on our history, historians will write about that ship the same way we do about the Yamato-ship. That ship will be replaced and reconstructed from the blueprint under a different-name, but it will not be the same ship.
 
Make a ship gain EXP from destroying other ships. If it has many kills, that ship will be higher-level, and has the kill-records that it can boast about. Upon the destruction of that ship, the EXPs that are gain throughout it's service, will be gone, and if you reconstruct a copy from the blueprint, that ship will have to restart on the progression-system. 
 
An avatar progresses through the avatar-progression-system by fighting other avatars(A vs A). That will work differently, there will be no wipe after death for Avatar(the progression is persistent). You do not gain exp for avatar-progression-system by flying and commanding ships, instead, the ship instead will benefit from that (how can you, when the ship has so many crews?).
 
So to summarize;
A persistent Avatar-progression-system from A vs A and A vs C kills.
A Construct-progression-system from C vs C and C vs A kills, until that physical-construct is destroyed physically. (so they have to kill a lot and survive the process to become the Titans of EVE)
Add a kill-records to a construct that viewers can view. If you cannot do this, add a level that viewers can view(same-thing!).
To Avatars, do it the Call-of-Duty-way (# of kills and death). If you cannot do this, add a level that viewers can view.
Add a leaderboard.
 
That's my proposal.

So from what has been announced, they said that they plan and an eve online target then fire system for construct battle. i for one was thinking how this could be a detriment to smaller smuggler ships who would gain an advantage by flying in circles around larger ships and being able to fire "projectile" weapons such as plasma bolts aka starwars. now the issue that they have stated with this is the projectiles would lag the servers. however, if you coded in a hard coded projectile life cycle ergo 5 seconds it would cause minimal the server lag. it could also create new jobs on larger craft. you could have dozens of gunner seats on large battleships and even on smaller fighters. now what i suggest is kind of a combo of what i said and what they have. i suggest that they have both lock on style weapons that are more effective damage wise and free fire weapons that do smaller amounts of damage. what do you guys think????

Insanity

Check mate

Pfft, no I don't, but as long as you're here now, why don't you pull up a chair and keep reading eh? I didn't find a thread on "flat earth theory" prior so here we go.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-z7O7LddYs
 
In the above video, someone sets out with a drone to demonstrate the curvature of the earth by recording the sun setting twice in a day at two different altitudes, first from the ground, the rising upwards after the sun has set and watched it set again at the higher altitude.
 
In the comments I read after the video, numerous people had attempted to debunk the experiment by saying that and I'm not quoting "increased altitude clears away obstacles from the earth which allows for the sun to set twice from the perspective of two different yet perpendicular altitudes." I engaged one such person who actually decided to provide an example of such so I decided to set out my own experiment (mentally of course) in my rebuttal.
 
 
To which I replied:
 
 
And with that I smiled to myself thinking I'd provided a worth while explanation and I'm just awaiting a reply should one ever come.
 
I had a flat-earther in one of my college classes over the spring semester and we have some good dialogue but I'm curious, what are your thoughts on the whole flat-earth theory? Do you believe in it, if so, why? If you don't, why not? On a side note, do you think this has any relevance to DU? Discuss.

NOVAQUARK! YOU BETTER PUT A FLAT PLANET! I WILL LOVE YOU FOREVER IF YOU DO IT!
 
Also, the Earth isn't flat. Explain the hills and mountains. They're elevated.

Hi,
 
There is something i would like to see in DUAL: it's water...  Ok  i know that JC said it is very complex to simulate water because many physics behaviors will ruin the server.
 
So...
 
In that case, and because i want a swimming pool in my villa and an aquarium too...Will it be possible to create cube with a "water-look-like", only a visual effect but not the physical behaviors inside, just to decorate> it will look like a cube like other cube in alu, brass, carbon fiber etc..but in false water , just to fill my aquarium and my swimming pool... We can imagine too a fountain,  just with a animation.
 
In the same way, i need torch, and fire to spend my long winter evenings close to my chimney...
 
FIRE AND WATER !!
 
 

But those can be "hacked", too

Hi everyone,

@namco:
As you are new to the forum, This is the first warning.
As you are supposed to have read the forum rules before posting, please respect them.
If you don't know where to find them, here is the topic.
Insulting other community members is not ok. 
In the case you would insist in this behavior, it could result in a ban.
Thank you for your understanding.
 
@gyurka66, @Aesir & @namco:
 
Regarding "ramming ships", it's not planned to implement such mechanics, for two reasons (and not just one):
1) This is not properly scalable (at least with current hardware tech & bandwith standards).
2) This would cause game balance issues.
 
To keep it simple:
We will only implement mechanics that are scalable and that can be balanced properly.
We won't implement anything that couldn't be scalable when applied to thousands of constructs and/or people concentrated in a small area. Unfortunately, Physics applied to voxels are among the things that enter this category. So no ramming ships.
  We won't implement anything that could be abused for griefing or unbalanced gameplay. Even if the technical obstacle mentioned above is solved, it's already well known that some people will install some engines on some big rocks and will use it as cheap mass destruction weapons with little to no solution to protect against, with no risk taken for the aggressor. We won't implement game mechanics that unbalance the "risk vs reward" concept. So no ramming ships. About the "why cpu is used, why not gpu?".
Yes a lot of things are calculated by gpus nowadays, physics included... when it's related to 3D meshes.
However, everything related to voxels are still (mostly) calculated with the cpu, and this includes physics applied to voxels. That's why it's necessary to have a decent cpu, with AVX support. If new generations of gpus start to be more "voxel friendly" then it might change some aspects of the problem, but for now it's just wishful thinking.
 
Also keep in mind that servers have a cost, and the servers we need are not cheap. 
Some games can be hosted on servers that aren't really expensive. Unfortunately Dual Universe doesn't enter in this category.
Even if adding gpus was a viable solution, the cost should remain reasonable if players don't want to see the monthly subscription rise accordingly. 
 
As this idea has been discussed several times, with the same answer, this thread is going to be locked.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.
 
 

Everything you have mentioned is already talked about in the dev diaries.  These are all planned features.

I doubt that NQ doesn't change the system as we've seen from the dev diaries (remember it's pre alpha and they only store huge amounts there to test things). 
Lore wise it doesn't make sense that the calabi yau manifold can store thousands of cubic meters, and it wouldn't make much sense gameplay wise either.
So yeah I think they change that to hopefully an interesting system that involves
Cargo containers
Lifters
Tradeships
Freighters
Companies which specialize in hauling
Convoys
Spaceports which have a suitable docking space
 
...

I certainly hope that if I'm carrying several hundred tons of resources that they 1) take up a (semi)realistic amount of space and 2) impact the calculations for anything that involves mass.  I don't want (demi) hammer space to just let people spirit around large quantities in a limited space, or there'd be no point to building large cargo haulers, jump-jet transport couriers or anything of the like.  I understand the concept of "condensing" materials, but I don't think it should be unreasonably effective to the point where it invalidates the concept and aesthetics of cargo, storage and transport.

I see now why you complain about eve's system lol
 
If all I would've seen (day in, day out) in eve is: x-up for fleet, get in ship, follow FC, press F1, fly home....
yeah, then EVE's pvp is boring AF and this stands true:
 
On the other hand there's WHs (where I lived for years) and all that shitty PVP, F1 monky-ing and the above statement are completly wrong and absent. As the mechanics there are completely different, you need highly specialized ships to do whatever you want to do. And I was tank more than once in my bhaal or widow/scorpion.
 
To come back, again, on topic:
EVE did many things right in PVP and those I want to see. But the classic roles of tank/dps/healer are outdated and should be more like a suggestion or possibility - with severe drawbacks/advantages

If I didn't know any better, I would say you are trying to promote Band of Outlaws
Or perhaps I don't know better. Either way, I call it 'subtle'...

It's actually a little impressive how many times you're completely and utterly wrong in just this one paragraph. ECM ships tanky? You clearly never actually played EVE. Don't add complexity? You must not have read my post because that's the opposite of what I said. 
 
If you primary the command ships then you're a moron or you have so much DPS it doesn't even matter, which brings me back to the simplicity of EVE's warfare. Furthermore, you do love your Bhalgorn example, but it's a very rare ship that only comes out in meta compositions. So, as I said, unless you want actual tactics to be really rare in DU (like the Bhalgorn is in EVE) then you need a better system. 
 
Ok, now I KNOW you never actually played EVE. Or maybe you were just a lifetime carebear, because this scenario you describe literally never happens for a thousand different reasons. Any PvPer with enough sense to fit a Drake knows how silly this is. 
 
Once again, you clearly didn't read, because I specifically asked for more tactical complexity. But I guess words are hard, right? Congrats on agreeing with me so thoroughly and consistently. Also, everyone doing the exact same thing is the opposite of tactical depth.
 
Have you ever watched an football game (American or European)? Do all of the players on the team do the exact same thing at the exact same time, in the exact same place (like an EVE battle)? No, they don't, they each have their own jobs and roles that are essential to success. That's what real teamwork is. Not F1 monkeying. But, then again, perhaps to you pressing F1 is a complicated and brainpower-intensive act.
 
In summary, not only are you wrong about virtually everything of consequence in this argument, but you manage to do so while agreeing with my overarching point: that we need more tactical complexity in DU than there is in EVE. The fact that you clearly intend to insult me with your argument is even more hilarious. You are hopelessly incompetent at reading, insulting people, understanding EVE, and making coherent arguments. 

Well, I never said that eves system was good.
 
And no, that's something entirely different. As a possible bubble ship could be useless against small craft (they can enter for example), whereas the logistics could only be useful for large ships. 
To some extent every ship is either of the 3, but DU has a chance to not make it obvious and even better: give them thean ability to use more tactics than just: I'm tank, ugh

umm...
For some degree i agree with what you are saying in that the "it can't be done" attitude is not productive
 
BUT this is no place for personal insults and those won't help in making the other person believe what you are saying.
 
I don't agree with Lethys either but i respect his opnion.

First of all, i think you completly misunderstood my argument, i never claimed that NQ should have anything to do with in game politics.
 
Second, radio stations, deosnt matter if thats multi or single, music is music, hence why while driving in a car you can either listen to what you put togather, or you can listen to one of dozens radio stations. Again, completly missed my argument.
 
Third.yes, some people don't have time to dig through dozens of of sources, THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE TV NEWS AND NEWSPAPERS, and yes, they cover stuff they deem important! How dare they! Giving us stuff that we might find interesting and useful! That's disgraceful!
 
4th. I never said that DU is a single player, in fact, i proposed a feature because it's multiplayer, at this point i'm not sure if you actually read my post, or did you read some twisted version of it.
 
5th. "Why did X-Org went after Y-Org" , according to you "Y-Org was bad, cause Y-Org is bad, you don't need the details". That's not how poltiics work. Nothing is ever simple."
Der fack is this? And how is that "according to me?"
you seem no to be able to understand how news reporting works.
So, i will try to explain it to you real fast. An unaffilated with either side newspaper might report it like this.
"Border dispute has turned into a full war after weeks of mounting tensions bewteen Y and X, both sides accuse each other of attacking each other through indirectly sponsored pirates, in the opening battle, X have crippled the Y defense fleet in system Z, but when reinforcements arrived, X fleet has been pushed back from the system's colony. Mining guild K has issued a warning to all civilian ships mining within close proximity to not approach system Z." This is one way to cover it, a very short way, but it is as unbiased as it can be and it conveys the message, plus i don't have time to write a full story on theoretical event just to strenghen ny argument, my point is made. I said that newspapers could be used as propaganda by organizations, not that ALL will BE used as propaganda.
 
6th. Text does not take much space, your argument about the server having to store few thousands line of tex is ridicolus, and if it would only store the current edition of the newspapers, it would be difficult for it to take up more than the files related to one planet. this argument is simply moronic.
 
7th point.Why are you so hung up on newspapers not giving any context, did you ever even read a newspaper? Your last aegument doesn't make ANY sense.
 
8. Your argument about the clan from EVE at least has some logic. So i'll go with Orwellian thinking here a little.
If the majority of players think something is good, that means 2 thing, either it is good, or they are misinformed, if it's the latter, then there should be means to explain that they are wrong, change their opinion. If you're unable, that means either people are idiots or your argument isn't good enough. Some would say 'So what if they sometimes act like goons, when x happens, they do Y' every opinion is subjctive, people focus on stuff that matters to them, not you, hence why appearently some like them, because there is something about them to like.
 
All in all, your arguments seem to be based on some completly misrepresented form of my arguments and my idea, i do not understand why or how, because i'm fairly sure that except for my slight grammar and spelling errors, my arguments were decently made.
 
Fernix
 

We want cargo freighters to be in game right? If the things stay as they are now they won't be a thing as players have huge inventories and they can store materials there, why would they need cargo space?
 
Well, of course i'm not saying that inventory space should be realistic in size but i think the player shouldn't be able to carry more than around 300-400 m3. The excess should be stored in crates that would still compress the material and things.
 
Crates should be only moved one by one or two by two.
Yes i know it sounds stupid and boring but i know a few people that like taking things from A to B in games.
 
As i said earlier there wouldn't be any need for starship size if there wouldn't be a need for cargo.
 
It would be a minor annoyance to builders of course but i don't think it would make it unplayably hard.

While i can somehow agree about in-game comms and tutorials, when i talk about newspaper and radio, i mean giving us the possibility, as mentioned, by players, for player, simply allowing us to create a newspaper and sell it in game, NQ wouldnt write it, they only would have to add a possibility to do it, same with civilian radios, they would be a nice addition to the game.
I know we're talking theory, but if this game DOES kick off, such things will be in relatively high demand, because politics, policies and conflicts will influence economy and by that, everyone. And forums in this case won't cut it, it's simply ain't gonna be good enough or fast enough.