Nayropux
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nayropux
-
-
Locking shields to core sizes won't even accomplish anything. I can build the exact same S core on an M core and the only difference is a slightly heavier core element. S ships need to be fast to survive; I don't think voxel is out of the question on them but you really need to think about it and, more importantly, judge what other people are flying. If you want to force voxel on ships there would need to be some amount of shield bleed. Scaling the probability of a shot bleeding through a shield based on the current HP of the shield could also add interesting gameplay around venting early to keep the shield in a better state for longer. It would also let you add small passive regeneration to shields without being obnoxious.
I do think we should see where the current changes go, however, before something like that is added.
-
3 hours ago, Distinct Mint said:
Seemingly several people here disagree with me - which is fine, as I invited you all to do so 🙂
I played daily since beta, used the discord daily (I ignored the forums as the cess-pool that they generally are - present company excepted ofc!), and only heard about it when it was over. My 60+ member Org had no clue either. Most players I spoke to were non the wiser either. Of course this is circumstantial and easy to counter with "all my friends knew about it".
But most people did not, and all "evidence" to the contrary won't change that.
Anyway, this discussion is just going in circles, so please enjoy your deleted thoramine, and I hope you give it a fond farewell while you can
There are two issues I have with the Thoramine event, and the Thoramine itself.
1. While it was bad enough the event was hidden to 99% of players, it is even worse than that. The event was started in alpha, so naturally the alpha players already knew about it before beta launched, and so alpha players were the ones who completed it.
2. A significant portion of the Thoramine was real world traded. In fact, one of the players in this thread who doesn't want it to disappear was involved in that transaction.
Hopefully this resource doesn't return in the same fashion. Maybe as some rare spawn in exotic asteroids would be fine, but making it a limited spawn in a hidden event is just asking for it to be found by someone with inside knowledge, and just asking for the reward to be RMT'd.
-
Cross section should not be removed. It does it's job perfectly. It encourages you to engineer ships correctly, and to fly them correctly, with one mechanic. Removing it would remove a lot of depth from both building and piloting. It is possible to make good looking ships that are optimized for cross section, they just need to be original designs suitable for the game mechanics, and not an .obj file you grabbed off Sketchfab.
I think the voxel changes will help with giving some more leeway for design, but it needs to be accompanied by increases to exterior element HP, and perhaps a more gradual decrease to top speed from mass.
- TobiwanKenobi and Wyndle
-
2
-
27 minutes ago, RugesV said:
If your going to change them I would go more along the lines of something like this:
FYI, the numbers in your sheets have been completely wrong. I would suggest fixing your old sheets before suggesting improvements.
-
20 minutes ago, Cobqlt said:
Next change:
delete the cross section
re-add the old system of lock per core size (XS lockable at 40km, S at 80, M 150 or more, I don't remember the old values)
hp of weapons/elements or weapon dmg
And we will got a cool PVP systemThere is no reason to remove cross section. In encourages engineering tradeoffs. Keep in mind that hit chance scales with the square root of the cross section, but CCS/HP scales with the volume of the ship. That means as you scale up, you gain more EHP in ccs/hp than you lose from increased hit chance.
Changing the lock ranges would not be good for the game as it removes options like upsized radars, and makes smaller ships essentially unkillable.
-
I have not looked at the exact numbers, but increasing honeycomb EHP is something I have been asking for for a while, so I'm excited for this change. That said, please do not forget to increase the health of weapons smaller than L (and some other exterior elements)! They get one shot by the weakest viable weapon, small cannons. As long as this is the case, voxel tanking will not be that popular.
-
12 hours ago, TobiwanKenobi said:
I don't think we should want the old school 'engineer' as a necessary role in battles. People are playing for fun, and the number of people who want to play hold-left-click whackamole will be few. So unless the way people repair elements changes, the shield tanking meta is more fun for everyone. But NQ has already hinted at the addition of a repair weapon, so I can see that being the answer to voxel tanking. If these repair weapons have variants that can either recharge shields or restore voxel and element hp, they would do the job and be more fun.
As for incentivizing multicrew, this shield stability mechanic does do that in part. It rewards the extra mass and volume of more sets of guns. But having all these gunners on one ship still won't be an efficient use of avatars. It will still be better to divide up into separate ships. And it will stay that way until a single avatar can have an equal amount of power as part a multicrew ship as they would by being in a solo ship. The only way that will happen is by making it so that extra players can power up the shield in some way. Because there are only two ways a player can contribute a significant amount of potential to a fight - by manning a gunner seat or by carrying a shield.The engineer role wasn't just "hold left click" though. In fact a lot of the PvP players in that time (me included) thought it was the most fun role. You had to actively triage to address the most damaged spots and actively plug holes. I think a point and click repair weapon from another ship will be less fun; gunning is already the most braindead role and this is just the same thing.
I do not think we should make the extra players power up the shield. Otherwise I'm just going to dump 10 alts on my solo ship.
I think all your suggestions are too focused on shield strength. There are other parts to tanking that are underpowered and need addressed. You say there are only 2 ways to contribute, but that is only the state of the current balance. There needs to be more ways to contribute.
-
23 minutes ago, TobiwanKenobi said:
For sure - this doesn't solve the problem of multicrew being an inefficient use of players. I'm hoping an energy system or something will solve that.
Even though shield stability is a shield-centric mechanic, it actually shifts the meta more towards voxel tanking with L-cores. It makes voxel more viable by giving bonuses for having lots of voxel, rather than having to stick to the 'nano' meta.
I see certain people wanting for L-cores to mainly voxel tank, and I agree there need to be some adjustments to voxel as armor in terms of stats and mechanics(and a complete overhaul of element hp), but I think it's never going to be desirable to rely on voxel to absorb incoming fire. It will always be a bad situation to have your shield go down, because regardless of how tough your voxel is, your exposed elements are still going to get damaged and destroyed.For the first year of the game there were no shields. This actually forced multicrew ships as every person you have repairing is not someone you have in a gunner seat. It was much more efficient to have 4 gunners and 1 engineer on a ship instead of 1 gunner and 1 engineer, so ships tended towards larger sizes. By putting the focus of tanking on shields, you are incentivizing large solo battleships since you still do not want to take voxel/element damage and have an engineer, and you are still in the mindset of one, now super tanky, shield per person.
You get multicrew by making roles that are not offensive but also mandatory. This makes you want to increase ship size to increase the ratio of gunners to support. This is one of the biggest reasons I have been continually pushing for a more active shield tanking meta in balance discussions. More voxel HP + more element HP means you are more likely and more willing to tank on voxel, and now you need an engineer to keep your damaged elements healthy. Larger ships naturally follow from this.
-
I don't like this because it puts all the focus of tanking on the shield. Large ships should be tanking on a combination of their voxel and venting the shield as needed. The main barrier to this is how paper thin voxels are, and how low element HP is. I don't see this suggestion making battleships stronger, but only chunky M cores stronger.
-
27 minutes ago, Centcom said:
why is this not sustainable. here in America that's how things work. I'm guessing you don't come from a place where capitalism is appreciated. since you made that statement as a matter of fact with no supporting evidence. a lot of games try tied to force their version of an economy on the player and they suffered for it. that's why you don't see games developers bragging about it. NQ from the beginning used a few catch phrases open sand box (lie) player-based economy (lie) and they promised us a pet (maybe a lie). they fix those 2 things, and they will have a game they can make money at ( I can wait on my Dekker pet)
It's not sustainable because it's a video game. If the goal is to have some % of the population work on factories, that means given a fixed number of elements, a single player cannot be able to supply enough to meet demand. Otherwise if there were only 10 elements, then only 10 players could reasonably work on factory whether the population was 100 or 100k.
Trying to link this mechanic change to a (lack of a) love for capitalism is hilarious, by the way. A capitalist would realize this change doesn't matter. The cost of the schematic runs only gets passed on to the consumer in the end. If you love capitalism so much, maybe buy the schematics off the market. Complaining your self sufficient commune can no longer be self sufficient, and then talking about how the change is anti-capitalist, is just... yeah.
Honestly, I'm not surprised at the reaction this change has received. Half the people in this thread were complaining about how mining units would cause ore shortages because no more mega mining; and talking about how the L/h figures were way too low. It's pretty damn funny in retrospect. Sometimes I do not blame NQ for not interacting as much as they probably should.
-
Believe it or not, L cores are actually still quite good. In fact, for one part of the game they are still easily "the best": large, coordinated, fleet fights where you need an absolute ton of EHP. L weapons are the only kind that have enough HP to sustain fire. Unfortunately, these are extremely rare, and so the opportunity to use them doesn't really take place. Of course, you have been on the receiving end of some of this recently, so you might understand why exactly L cores are so strong.
Personally I think idea 1 will make L cores worse in their role. Idea 2 is interesting and could be quite fun. For idea 3 I don't think this bonus should be only L cores. I really do think all voxel HP needs nearly 10x'd, along with similar improvements in element HP. This is so the meta tends towards active venting gameplay as opposed to dying right after the shield goes down.
-
10 minutes ago, kulkija said:
That is called competition. Same thing happens when player tries to kill another in pvp.
Just need to be clever to win there at competitive markets.
No need to ask for help by restricting competition.
There is no way to "compete" in this game when it comes to industry. There is no way to get any kind of differentiation. All ore is the exact same quality, everyone has access to the same talents, every element output is the exact same. People who claim the current system promotes "competition" simply do not understand how business works. Businesses don't just sell the exact same item as each other, they all sell slightly different items. The only place competition on the PvE side really exists is in ship sales (and to a lesser amount, storefronts like Gottmart and SVEA), not on the actual industry side.
-
I like these changes for the most part. The original implementation of schematics did not solve the core problem of limiting production; it just added a grind before reaching the exact same state the game was already in. These changes will add actual scarcity to factory gameplay; of course that is why so many people are negative about it. The current situation of one player being able to scale up machines until they could completely saturate the market for multiple elements is not sustainable. The new system scales based on accounts, and so no matter the population it should have roughly the same impact.
The one thing I dislike about this system is how much it incentivizes alt accounts. It seems like every game mechanic added is easily abusable by alt accounts. Talents, gunning, missions, mining unit calibrations, and now schematic queues. It's completely insane how many accounts the game wants you to buy. Something really needs done about this; someone with 10h to play the game on 1 accounts should be able to accomplish just as much as another person with 10h to play the game on 20 accounts.
Basically, the game needs to get rid of all the AFK timers and make things based on active gameplay. If you aren't logged in doing something, you should not be progressing.
-
-
The type of event doesn't matter too much (although I do love a good scavenger hunt with clues), but how the event is actually structured is important:
1. Clear start time, announced in advanced.
2. The event is entirely started at the announced time, and not rolled out.
3. Clear end to the event. This can be hidden if it is a scavenger hunt, but for those who get to the end it is somewhat obvious the hunt is over.
4. If it is a competitive event, it is not winner takes all.
5. Players cannot mess with the event; unless it takes place in PvP space.
The game has done a few scavenger type events, and the only one that didn't have issues was the second part of the Great White hunt over a year ago. It was clearly announced, all the ships were in place, the end was somewhat obvious (although could be better), and while the first people there got a few extra goodies (bonsai, etc), the main reward was the T5 scrap that pretty much everyone had access to.
The Thoramine hunt wasn't very good because the start was hidden. The vast majority of the player base didn't even know the "event" was on, and it was over and solved soon after beta started by alpha players who had a head start. The reward was winner takes all, and the reward itself has been rampantly real world traded. I'm actually going to laugh when this gets wiped.
The first part of the great white hunt had a well defined start, but not a well defined end. People got to the ship and started going on a wild goose chase for weeks trying to find a decryption key or clue that never existed; we just had to wait for the next part of the event to start. That left a ton of people really annoyed.
The easter egg hunt had an announced start, but it actually started earlier. The fact it was rolled out over time meant that people could visit a location, find nothing, and then someone else the next day could visit the exact same location and find a dev egg. This resulted in a lot of wasted effort, and made the hunt feel more like a lottery. Many people did not take part because of this. To make things worse, players could leave fake eggs or clues, and by modifying an egg already in place there was no way to tell.
-
I agree that the documentation should be better, but before that point:
keepForceCollinearity: if true this forces the resulting acceleration to be in the same direction as the requested acceleration, even if it is less. If it is false the actual acceleration given can be in a slightly different direction, but at the requested magnitude. This is handy for fixed engines with a long warmup, since they can start warming up sooner even if they are not pointed in exactly the correct direction. Basically, you set this true if you need precise movement, and false if you just need a lot of engine power in roughly the correct direction.
toleranceRatioToStopCommand: it's a ratio, so it is unitless, and it is 0-1.
-
15 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
OK, in that case no, I would not expect that to happen. SImple fact isthat the majority of the playerbase was, is and will be not too interested in or averse to combat PVP. And a lot of these people will effectively accomodate you to go and engage in it.
A server which has no safezones and no options for people not interested in combat PVP will ba far more expensive to run and there is several videos on YT which research this to the point where it is clear that PVP only servers are showing much lower retention numbers and generally tend to bleed to death once they get "visited" by gankers who just go around and destroy whateever for no reaosn but that they can. And many actually good games have pretty much died for that very reason, RUST being a good example.DU is very clearly not a game which has PVP at its core, it is not designed to revolve around it.
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?
-
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?
-
21 hours ago, blazemonger said:
From a combat PVP player's perspective I guess your comments are fair @Taelessael..
What's not right with it from my perspective though is that is puts everything in the combat PVP basket and it assumes that PVPplayers should "do it all" themselves, which IMO is precisely why I do not agree. The content should incentivize players NOT interested in combat PVP to venture out for the rewards as they are worth the risk. ANd yes, that woudl then in turn open up opportunity for combat PVP players.
I honestly believe that the compare with EVE does apply here. In EVE, the PVP players do not go out and run high tier relic and data sites or combat sites to get the loot that is needed for industry to produce the components that are used to build the modules they need for their ships to go fight. They may hunt the players that do, but those are two entirely separate loops which generally do not meet until he puts the modules on his ship. If you translates these sites to DU, it woudl be like there is a legion fleet at every superior sleeper cache waiting to kill the specialized ship to run that site.
This is not meant as a dig against the PVP contingent in DU, it is basically saying that I feel DU is way to shallow and lacks the meat on te bones to be called a MMO at this point.
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.
-
-
5 hours ago, Walter said:
I like to be able to be productive in the game just be keeping an eye on radar and do others things while flying missions. Got plenty of combat already out of running missions, hauling myself or intercepting others. Hauling its a valid gameplay not that afk how many want you belive and other games have this like SC or Archeage. But God forbid DU gets running missions and its lucrative then the ones not willing to take the risk to haul go full outcry. What are we supposed to do then ? Just stand by a MU and calibrate all day? Some people like that its their gameplay and its how they generate income. Let us also have our way to generate income how we like then.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Knight-Sevy said:
Relevant things have already been advanced by many other players for a better system than the cross section in PvP.
A signature of the ship could be determined according to the elements and voxel present on the core.
We give a value for each and you have your chance of hitting.
It will also be much easier to balance in the future and will avoid many setbacks.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.
-
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.
-
12 hours ago, Kurosawa said:
The vids of the battle looked very boring though, even more boring then EvE vids
. never the less glad you had fun
- can you disable the shield effect (looks ugly as f...)
No.
Quote- can you changammo effect
If you change your ammo type or weapon type.
Quote- does everyone have modded huds
Yes.
Quote- how possible is it to battle with a standard ship/lua/hud
Not really, you need a script to gun in third person.
Mission Running - Quanta Explosion again
in General Discussions
Posted
Is it probably too much? Yeah. Can you fix it now? No. If you fix it now you just close the door behind everyone who already benefitted from it, and you no longer have the option to wipe to remove the divide. The reality is the game now needs to be balanced around this income, and underperforming missions need to be brought up to be similar to the most popular.