Jump to content

Nayropux

Member
  • Posts

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nayropux

  1. Rust is currently the 8th most played game on Steam... Why do the PvP-adverse crowd always try to gaslight people into believing the PvP community is small and niche?
  2. Will slots be regularly reassigned to people who don't make the initial cut, or new shop owners come along? Edit: This was mentioned in the support post for the Exchange, so I guess my question is: how often is the exchange refreshed?
  3. The PvE-content-with-risk is meant to be high tier asteroids in the PvP zone. Unfortunately they are completely worthless as t4-t5 still pop up on safe zone asteroids, and even if it did not they are also mined passively in the safe zone. This is further compounded by the bad spawning algorithm, which regularly spawns exotics within radar distance of the safe zone. Removing t4/t5 from the safe zone would give the content you seek; especially t4, since it is in higher demand. Removing t3 from planets and distributing it between safe and PvP zone asteroids would also go a long way; only T1 and T2 should really be automined.
  4. This episode was much better than the last ones. I like how you were willing to discuss features that may come in the future, since those questions were usually banned in previous Q&As. The additional depth in the answers is also appreciated.
  5. The outcry was not because missions were lucrative. The outcry was because missions were primarily lucrative with alt accounts. It has nothing to do with not being willing to take this risk, especially since there was essentially none.
  6. That only addresses cross section at build time. But the other thing cross section does is change how you pilot your ship. I have not seen a single suggestion that retains the piloting aspect of cross section, i.e. you want to orient your ship a certain way to minimize it. In every other suggestion I have seen, the orientation of your ship no longer matters, and so that gameplay depth is removed.
  7. The best way to address this is to massively increase both voxel and element HP, while leaving CCS the same. Removing or changing cross section is not a good idea. It is one of the few engineering limitations in the game, and it does double duty of both providing a constraint to optimize around, and something you need to take into account when piloting. If it is changed to something like ship max speed, you no longer need to care about correctly piloting your ship, and the game loses a lot of depth.
  8. No. If you change your ammo type or weapon type. Yes. Not really, you need a script to gun in third person.
  9. This needs addressed immediately. The game is actually unplayable right now.
  10. Exactly, they say you get 40 DACs, and give an estimated value. Values can change, that doesn't change the fact you get 40 DACs.
  11. Reading the kickstarter, they explicitly state how many DACs you get. There are a few places they state the expected value of DACs, but I don't see why that would matter. At no point do they say you get "$50 worth of DACs". They state you get, say, "7 DACs", and in a few places give the expected value of that. Values can change over time, I don't see why that would requite the number of DACs to change. e.g. "you get, among other things, 10 DACs, which gives you access to 10 months of play time after launch." Note that their kickstarter also explicitly states that the price of a subscription and the price of DAC will be different.
  12. I have two issues with this, but they are the same two issues I have with most of the arguments from the no wipe camp. 1. I can find far more instances, both before and after beta launched, of NQ saying that a launch wipe was possible, and that they would try to avoid it. Given that, I do not think the one or two mentions of no wipe constitutes any kind of promise of not wiping; at best you could say they were incredibly inconsistent in their messaging. 2. The objective is not to wipe because players are too far ahead. Obviously that would require a yearly wipe, since people will always be ahead. No, the point is how the players got ahead, even ignoring the exploits. Two major income sources are being removed or nerfed for launch that were in during beta: meganode mining, and alt mission running. The reality is that players who used these features are not just ahead, but are ahead in such a way that it is not feasible for anyone who comes after to even come close. New players cannot join and repeat the same methods older player used to get rich, and are in for a much, much, longer grind. Otherwise, good post. People are being way too negative about this.
  13. I support a full wipe. I'll be sad to see my talents go, but I would prefer to lose them instead of not wiping at all. It would be nice if beta accounts got accelerated talent growth until they hit their previous cap, but not a deal breaker.
  14. Blanket wipe/no wipe is not something I would select. My desire for a wipe hinges on if missions are fixed or not. If they are appropriately nerfed, the game needs wiped. If they are not, there is no reason to wipe.
  15. Mostly going to just comment on this, since it appears a small part of the player base (i.e. Empire and friends) are trying to make it seem like there is widespread support for this, when there isn't and it's just like, 4 people and their alts. This is not a good idea; it just encourages 10v1 ganking and running instead of fleet combat. A big part of the game is being organized and being able to respond to threats, or remove cored ships from a hot area. When a ship is ganked, they can call for friends to help recover the ship, and many times this results in a fleet fight, and your proposal would remove this completely. Making cored ships worthless just means nobody is going to waste time trying to recover it, and as an element sink it does not work, as most of the elements in the game are not present on PvP ships. I think buffing the hp/resist values of voxel would help a lot for this. It would mean that both elements are more likely to die from non-gamey causes, and it means that ships are not immediately reusable after being cored.
  16. Completely agree, with the caveat that if missions are appropriately nerfed the game 100% needs wiped.
  17. The issue is not 20 alt accounts. The issue is how 20 alt accounts interact with the mission system. 20 different people is completely different, since they are splitting the money 20 different ways, and each has their own goals and needs. Removing money and resources does fix the issue if and only if the mission system is also fixed. Without that, it is pointless. You keep talking about how it's ok for a group to own a moon. The only moon that is owned in the game is being funded _by a single person and their alts_.
  18. You're completely delusional if you think it requires teamwork to buy a moon. Maybe to put down the TUs without going insane, but to actually fund buying a moon takes a single person and 20 alt accounts. No teamwork required. That is why the game needs wiped. Missions need fixed, and the absurd wealth generated from them needs to be removed for the integrity of the game. Nerfing missions only closes the door behind established players who generated 10s of billions using them, with no path to ever achieve the same. A year or two from now, I have zero interest in playing a game where the market is still completely dominated by a handful of people from beta who have effectively unlimited resources.
  19. If mission income is finally fixed, then the game needs wiped. I'm sure from NQs internal metrics they can see it is the most lucrative activity in the game by a few orders of magnitude. It's created a section of the player base with tens of billions each and the ability to buy out a whole moon solo. To not wipe would essentially create a part of the player base who can completely control the economic side of the game, with no feasible way for others to ever catch up. Even the people who like to pretend they made all their money without missions will "forget" to tell you they often times got investments from friends who got that money from missions. If mission income is not fixed, a wipe is pointless. It all hinges on that.
  20. Especially since a significant amount of it was RWT'd. It should probably just all be wiped at this point.
  21. There are two parts to building: aesthetic design, and engineering. Building is not just about making things look good; the engineering part of this game is sorely lacking, and any attempt to add more engineering is heavily resisted by the crowd who only cares about aesthetic design. The game needs more interesting tradeoffs and systems to design around, like power and heat. No structural integrity or center of thrust based torque are also issues with the lack of challenge in building a ship.
  22. I really like cross section as a mechanic since it encourages you to put at the least some thought into your ship engineering and piloting. You are both encouraged to cut the fat on ships AND fly them in a correct way. Scaling hit chance based on total volume is interesting until you realize it removes piloting from the equation. I do think it would be interesting to see some small amount of shield bleeding. Make it both a small fraction of the damage, as well as a probability. The probability of the damage getting through increases as your shields go down. This can give interesting gameplay around venting early to keep your high shield percentage for longer, while also encouraging the use of voxels. I do not think special consideration should be given to the "beauty" of a ship. The game is already too focused on aesthetics only; the game has a huge issue with pretty-but-functionless constructs littered about everywhere. Making a functional ship look nice is far more rewarding than just making a ship with no limitations. Consider cars for instance; people in this thread would be complaining about how they all have 4 wheels, kinda boxy, need to reduce frontal cross section to reduce air resistance, etc. But we can all agree that even with these design constraints that some cars are more beautiful compared than others, and there is still a lot of room for designs to appeal to different tastes.
  23. I use this website, personally: https://du.w3asel.com/du-mocks/web-codex/index.html It is much better than the in game documentation.
  24. This needs fixed. I've seen asteroids spawn in radar range of the safe zone border. It's absolutely absurd.
  25. Don't worry, your ship is safely nestled in the All Father's Grave Yard. You can even visit it in VR!
×
×
  • Create New...