Nayropux
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nayropux
-
-
10 hours ago, blazemonger said:
I'd say "40 DACs (value:720€ post-release)" is pretty specific ...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, CousinSal said:
How ships die. Keep the 3 lives DURING COMBAT. but if you get cored, everything should blow up and all 3 lives lost. Later on develop a way to use the recycler to salvage completely destroyed parts. This creates a great sink and keeps production logistics up for BOTH sides of a battle. The winning side of a battle should not always get their ships back, but also the enemies ships back, and fully functional after using 200 scrap.
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.
- Omukuumi and Waffle Boy
-
2
-
Completely agree, with the caveat that if missions are appropriately nerfed the game 100% needs wiped.
-
19 hours ago, Taelessael said:
Please explain how a single wipe will stop someone from having 20 alt accounts.
Also, I appreciate that you are so in to solo/small org so hard as to believe that larger orgs can only be just a few guys and their army of alts, but 20 actual people aren't that hard to get in one org (one of my orgs has more officers than that, never mind the rank-and-file guys, and we are far from the biggest), and 20 actual competent people will handily out-perform 1 guy with 20 alts.
Procedural generation to prevent alt-mission-stacking would be nice in that it would get all the "missions are OP" people to find something new to complain about, but someone (or some org) will always have more money than everyone else (more or less like I already said in point 4), and nothing short of entirely removing money and resources from the game will change that for more than a few minutes.
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_.
-
6 hours ago, Taelessael said:
This whole wipe/no wipe thing is just absurd, and fundamentally seems to revolve around a few things:
1) New players trying to get good hexes.-If you are here to champion having a monthly wipe so new players always have access to market-side hexes and t5 hexes and the like, please say so. For the rest of you, please explain to me how having just 1 more wipe is going to allow new players access to the best hexes after people have a month or two to claim them all again.
Everyone can see where the markets are, if someone wants to claim a market-adjacent tile, they don't need to scan it don't, they'll just take it.
I can solo-run 19 scanners at a time off an S core quite easily. Setup, scan, takedown, move to the next area to scan, all in less than 30 mins per cycle. I am not any sort of scan-maniac, I play with guys that pull twice as many scans as I do in the same amount of time, and my org would gladly make good use of teamwork get us all those scanners asap. People won't claim all the best ore-tiles instantly, but give it a couple months and DU will be right back to where it is now for claimed hexes.
2) New players trying to compete in manufacturing.
-If you are here to champion having a monthly wipe so new players always have the ability to compete in industry with their ability to manufacture things, please say so. For the rest of you, please explain to me how having just 1 more wipe is going to allow new players to compete in the market a month and a half after the wipe when some org's industrial-guys have gone and collectively maxed their industrial skills again while their non-indy guys have gone and amassed the wealth to rebuild their mega-factory.
3) New players trying to compete with money/resources.
-If you are here to champion having a weekly wipe so new players always have the ability to compete in the market with their available resources, please say so. For the rest of you, please explain how a new player will be able to compete monetarily a day after the wipe when an org of old players have used their pre-existing knowledge of the game's mechanics to blow through the tutorials to collect all the money there, then combined it all to slap together a factory for territory scanners, claim/mining units, and group mission-haulers?
I was on Symeon 4 hours after beta was live (delayed by download speed), while new people were still trying to get the hang of stopping their speeder without crashing on Alioth. My org was making hauling runs between the different planets on day 2 while the new players were still trying to get their constructs to fly. This isn't WoW, the learning curve will cripple a new guy's ability to compete with old players no matter how often you wipe. It may technically take a few months to max certain skills, but it isn't hard for experienced players working together to divide the work when trying to get something done. And while it will take solo players a bit to get back to where they are now, this is an MMO, and there are in fact large groups of people out there that trust and cooperate with each other, and they will always out-pace all the new guys.
...
Oh, and...
4) Old players with exploit-money.NQ should have done something about this a while ago back when they were dealing with said exploits, but now its had too much time to get distributed. That said, if you seriously think we need to nuke the entire universe and take out all the non-exploiter's stuff alongside the exploiter's stuff to get rid of some extra cash... Well, that debate tends to circle around to point 3 above, so I'm just going to point you back to it. We'll lose old players if the game wipes, people don't like getting punished for someone else's transgressions, especially if they didn't actually have a way to prevent the transgressor from doing what they did. But in spite of that we wont lose all the old players, someone will still have more money than the new guys, and someone will still be upset that conservation of ninjutsu doesn't apply in a way that lets their new solo-ness effectively compete with a large old org.
Fair's a place where you get cotton-candy. DU's a place where limitless extractable resources, lots of cooperation, and time lets your org buy a moon while all the solos, casuals, and newbs wonder how you ever got that kind of money. If you really want to help the new guys, figure out how to improve the FTUE in a way that doesn't risk giving the game a reputation for pressing the reset button like a child flipping the game-board because they were losing. "Hard" is already enough to turn off a fair number of people in this age of "easy-is-too-hard gamers". "Randomly deletes all your work" is not something a game that wants to attract people should be known for.
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.
-
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.
-
16 hours ago, Distinct Mint said:
With only a few players having access to this, I don't see it being used for anything at all, unless NQ release a substantial faucet in the future.
Especially since a significant amount of it was RWT'd. It should probably just all be wiped at this point.
-
20 minutes ago, blundertwink said:
Neither of these perspectives are interesting or useful...seems like we're being mean for no reason.
Yes, people care about aesthetics in a building game. Big surprise. It's up to NQ to add function, not players. The cities are empty because people invested the time to make something interesting despite the lack of function provided by NQ...not simply because players decide to focus on aesthetics over function as if there's oh so much "function" in this game to explore.
PvP is a part of the game. Some people like PvP and there's nothing wrong with that. You aren't smarter if you prefer to do activity A in a video game instead of activity B...you'd think that would be super obvious.
If you don't like how people play the game they paid for...there's this thing called "single player" you should Google...otherwise it really isn't any of your business what people enjoy in their game or why.
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.
-
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.
-
I use this website, personally: https://du.w3asel.com/du-mocks/web-codex/index.html
It is much better than the in game documentation.
-
-
On 12/1/2021 at 1:51 PM, MaxxOfReplayableGames said:
Heh. About 3 months ago you destroyed a ship I spent like a week and a half meticulously making. I was so pissed I stopped playing completely. Well done.
Just got back into the game with the latest update. Pretty excited about all the changes to the economy. Built a brand new ship with the last of my money (didn't even make a blueprint cause I can't afford the parts anyway) and you destroyed it when I got called away for a minute after watching the radar for 4 hours straight. I feel pretty stupid, but good job. You're really good at the PvP in this game and you seem like you have all the best toys too. I'm sure even if I was paying attention, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. I just wouldn't have been so surprised to find myself 400su+ away when I got back. Anyway, it sucks, but fair is fair. Nice pirating. Hope you give the Dingus and her contents a good home.
Don't worry, your ship is safely nestled in the All Father's Grave Yard. You can even visit it in VR!
-
-
On 11/13/2021 at 8:14 AM, Jake Arver said:
Another cost cutting operation which IMO is counterproductive to progressing.. 6 month internships in rather key positions fo ractually development work.https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/companies/novaquark/jobs
Interesting bit is these are 23 days old and still open .. I guess NQ's reputation precedes them as in a high profile region like Monteal, the low quality positions/openings are well known. Getting interns on board for cheap for 6 months can't be a productive means to progress your game. Also seems the project manager they hired in Paris a few months ago already left again and a new posting posting has been up for a few days now.
The ads for the internships are still up because the internships don't start until January, and they likely want multiple applications for each position. This is totally normal.
-
16 hours ago, Aviator1280 said:
Hello, I was surprised when I started to use the DSAT.
I may understand that to give some gamplay the discovered of an asteroid will be, for some strange and not realistic reason, broadcasted after 2 hours since the player approach it. What I can't really appreciate is why has to be announced immediately to everyone that a particular asteroid has been approached. In this way in very short time you may have company. Who is coming to look for you don't even need to fly all the 5 WPs because at a distance of 2 Su can already detect you with a radar which means jumping probably the last 2 WPs.
I find this really unpleasent above all for the solo players.
With Demeter the asteroids will be probably very populated and you are pushing people to be in PVP to get resources (unless you are fine with the basics in the safe zone). Not only pushing people to be in PVP but also to be attacked within 20 minutes from the moment he/she touches the asteroid. In 20 minutes you can get a ridiculous little amount of ores even more if mining the higher tier which are pretty slow to extract. This will make the asteroids out of the Safe Zone not accessible and not convinient for players that are not interested in PVP. In this way you are reducing their capability in getting better resources which will be available only getting territories on outer planets.
If you don't want to PvP, don't go into PvP space. If you want the resources in the PvP zone, get a group together, make some ships, and fight people for the resources.
-
On 11/6/2021 at 2:45 PM, sHuRuLuNi said:
Ditch Atmo brakes. Make an AGG Brake Generator. Then set it so that you can use a max of 1 per XS Core, 4 for S Core, 8 for M Core and 16 for L Core.
This way, you cannot keep slapping more and more Brake Generators for heavier ships. There is a limit, so for the L-Core ships you can have a max of 16 Brake Generators which you also don't have to stick on the outside, but anywhere inside (since they work as an AGG, so they create a "brake bubble" around the ship).
So, if 1 Brake Generator generates say 10MN, then 16 of them, which is a max you can have on an L Core, will generate a max of 160MN - and that's it - this way you cannot keep making the ship heavier and heavier because at one point it will simply not be able to brake in the atmosphere.
The same goes for Engines, Wings, Ailerons, etc - get rid of the 19th Century technology - and use some Electromagnetic Engines or the like which make it possible (like the AGG) for the ship to float and fly based on the power of the ELMAG Engines. The same here with the limitation per Core.
So, again, you cannot just keep slapping engine walls to the ship - but you have a max of ELMAG Engines you can have on a particular core size - and that's it.
As I pointed out in several posts already - this would make it possible to build actual, era-appropriate, beautiful sci-fi ships with real sci-fi looks and not have to plaster them with engines, wings and brakes.I strongly disagree that elements with per element limits like this should exist. The building in this game is already incredibly shallow, and this will just make it worse. I would like to see more interesting limitations a issues to design around. As it stands, there is very little that goes into engineering a ship, and a change like this will only make that worse.
-
6 hours ago, LordVlad said:
1. If your goal is to reduce element lag by reducing the number of brakes on a construct I can understand that. Just increase the braking power of brakes and we will remove them.
2. If your goal is to reduce the amount of ore and packages hauled by ships to extend end game progression, all this will do is cause square ships to be made reducing the aesthetic of the game. This will also impact the payout of PVP. Big haulers with lots of ore or packages make worthwhile PVP targets. Making the targets less worth while will just reduce PVP payout and hurt a much needed dynamic and resource cycle in the game. Also some NQ sold ships have stacked brakes.
I would love to know which of these cases you are moving towards.If they just increase the power of brakes, people will keep using the same amount of brakes and just build even bigger ships. The same thing happened with rare military engines; it didn't stop engine walls, it just made them stronger.
-
The issue with making it a consumable is that it then no longer removes quanta from the economy. I think NQ underestimated how much of a faucet missions were, and now they're trying to correct it.
-
1 hour ago, Starconverter said:
So I am super confused here mate. How is it there is TONS of ore available in these asteroids and yet 4 hours later you are claiming that you have people wasting tons of fuel searching asteroids for nothing to show for it?
They aren't search for ore, but for people mining the asteroids they can shoot at. It was in response to someone asking about the costs of PvP.
-
29 minutes ago, Xarius said:
I see you are quite adept at ignoring any opinion that isn't yours, regardless of how it's displayed. Good to know.
But okay, let's Tax PvE content and hamstring the economy even further by reducing the amount you can earn through mining.
So how about we go further and make it fair. Let's Tax PvP.
Let's levy a flat tax each time you initiate PvP, of course this should be based on the core size you are attacking.How about a tax when you remove an element on a cored ship, and of course if you decide to re-core it, you should be taxed on the value of the ship based on the current market price of the components used to build it. You would of course also need to pay a tax valued on the contents of the ships containers as well.
Of course we also need a weapon tax, scaled per weapon, and tier of weapon.
I mean, you could always place some miners to supplement income, or just find ships to kill to make your loss in profit, or risk getting ganked yourself to run the missions or asteroids.
I mean, it only makes sense.Yeah, I'm very adept at filtering out bad opinions, especially those who dance around their true motives and try to talk down to me.
You should definitely try operating a PvP ship some time. We have people who go through, quite literally, thousands of warp cells and hundreds of kL fuel a day checking asteroids, often with nothing to show for it. In some ways, PvE getting an operational tax is just catching up to the game PvP players have been used to since beta started.
Alien core and PVP bugs don't match
in General Discussions
Posted
This needs addressed immediately. The game is actually unplayable right now.