carijay766
-
Posts
156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by carijay766
-
-
The timeframe isn't fixed and can be easily adjusted later on, its a acceptable temporary solution compared to landing pads. Hopefully it will be replaced by something that works better with concept persistence and maybe naturally adds some content. 30 days is pretty generous but its a good compromise as a first measure to get people used to the idea of not leaving their constructs everywhere or taking some responsibility in a living world.
-
transparency
-
Yes seems like "dev-time" isn't so precious after all when its for the french.
- le_souriceau and IvanGrozniy
-
2
-
Quote
there is no wider orchestration from upper level game designers and producers who truly can conceive DU as an ecosystem
Seconded. This sums it up very well, while NQ certainly means well, it seems like they have very "sterile" approaches to how things should be implemented.
This "game"/metaverse is indeed an ecosystem or should be, so you need to approach it with economical, social and gaming expertise - not just purely assuming one or two "cool features" make a great game or great content.
-
Because its the first time it was implemented.
-
-
Its the forum "upgrade" thats causing this I would assume.
-
18 minutes ago, GraXXoR said:
problem with NQ quickpatching stuff like this is that due to the thoughtless shallow nature of their "fixes" they inevitably end up with another bug that is exploitable...
i love this bug because it would (completely theoretically of course) allow me to do the following... (were I so inclined to cheat in a game like this, which I wouldnt't, of course ? )
say (hypothetically) that i fly an xs construct at 1000kph straight down and log off with Alt-F4...
this becomes a landmine for anyone touching it.
instadeath.
a more interesting (theoretical of course I would never abuse this ? ) use case is take off with a tiny construct with nothing but a bunch of empty L containers and enough rocket power to quickly reach 15k velocity and make sure that are you are linked as primary to the container... 10 L or 10 XL should do...
as soon as you reach the top of the atmosphere press b... boost to 10 ot 15k speed and respawn at your base.
now you have a stationary ship about 10 km or 12km up that you can load with 20kT of stuff so long as you dont touch the ship...once loaded get someone to fly you within build distance.. BUT DONT TOUCH THE SHIP...
then press B and move over to the ship... as soon as you touch it, the ship will blast away at 15k kph... basically escape velocity...
fuel used: hardly any...
of course, this is completely theoretical, i was told how to do this by a friend.
NQ would probably then rename this purposeful feature an exploit, language selected to shift the blame from the devs onto the players...
Yes damn you for thinking about creative use of mechanics in a sandbox! Playing around with stuff to come up with unusual solutions. Im really disappointed you even dare to think of an creative approach.
Clearly its for the players to guess the developers intention and 100% and only follow this intention. If you think outside the box its on you and its perfectly fine for the developer to shame you publically instead of being thankful for your creative and unique way of showing possible flaws in the mechanic.
I had some really weird projects in the past where developers actually learned from this, were thankful - especially in a beta which is meant for testing and pushing limits - and considered similiar cases their responsibility not blameshifting those situations onto the playerbase, cant explain why someone would do such a thing tho.
-
That would be flawless logic yes, especially considering the game mechanic intends to avoid people from artificially stopping ships in place and intends to force their trajectory/movement to continue.
Not long ago logging out to make your ship stop was deemed an exploit even, now it seems there has been a 180° turn on "common sense" as this seems to be considered the baseline now and people that counteract the "feature" are deemed exploiters - even tho acting perfectly within the intended game mechanics.
-
27 minutes ago, XKentX said:
The point is that the ship IS moving, it's not the player that made it move. IT IS MOVING ON IT'S OWN. The owner sets the trajectory not the passenger.
If I, as a passenger, board a plane that flies into a mountain because the pilot set the course into a mountain and jumped off the plane. Am I responsible for it colliding ?
What would your common sense say?
-
2 hours ago, W1zard said:
Yeah i get that. But this mechanics was implemented to stop players from stopping their ships via log out. So while it's technically stays in place, it's still not "stopped" and have speed.
So if you not "stop" your ship in safe zone, it's quite obvious it can travel outside of safe zone with time. It's just realization of this mechanics, that for construct to CONTINUE moving it requires someone onboard.
But how is unfreezing ship can be treated as exploit and be forbidden, if it was intended. I think that if restoring constructs speed is forbidden and counts as an exploit, then this mechanics should be removed.Yes "in theory" your ship should be flying on and on, its just a server limitation that it doesnt not a mechanic to avoid your ship from moving, the intended mechanic is exactly opposite. If they could they would make the move constantly. That wass the idea about the change.
-
49 minutes ago, W1zard said:
If you jump on a moving a train with the purpose of moving it, are you moving the train?
Will we ban now for purpose others think we have, or for the actual actions?Its not quite correct its a theoretically moving train that is stopped due to server limitations, not due to game mechanics, and picks up movement as soon as you jump on it. Which would make it pick up the initial movement and thats within the intended game mechanics.
So theyre in a somewhat quantum state of existence when not rendered, moving but also staying in place.
But again the much more crucial part here is that the safe some was declared a responsiblity free zone and that the safe in safe zone has to be interpreted literally as its common sense. Even if this was due to covering up some favoritism, we now have to work from here.
-
2 hours ago, rothbardian said:
You don't need to trust, but analysis and a bit research is required to understand what's goin' on.
The only thing we require now is a believable, not completely vague and misleading, statement from the company that secretly replaced the head figure of the project.
-
The safe zone was never declared as mistake free zone (before). It was purely declared as zone with no PVP and that was it. Everyone
knowsknew if youre in whatever way negligent you have to bear the consequences, safe zone or pvp zone. This is still a sandbox game right?QuoteGenerally speaking, fix the game mechanics. Written rules are going to be broken, there will never be enough case-by-case manpower in order to judge these things. Game mechanics should dictate what is feasible and what is not. Otherwise the devs are fighting their own sanbox because of broken mechanics to the point where the sandbox is not a sandbox anymore.
For this situation there is also a very clear game mechanic: Its called space core docking, its common knowledge that this
iswas the way to protect your constructs in space in the safe zone. Its a perfect way to regulate the mechanic and theft, just like RDMS. Negligent about your RDMS? Bear the consequences. Leave your construct floating in space? Bear the consequences. - At least in the past, but now as has been clarified any kind of action that would put you in an unsafe situation (per definition bearing consequences of your actions) in the safe zone is deemed illegal. -
This will allow for easy ban bait when I offer free taxi and log out 500m before the safe zone with passengers on board and they "transport" my ship by regular game mechanics outside of the safezone and they or someone else captures it. Yes safe zone is supposed to be safe (from PVP, not mistakes!) but as there is a perfect counter for any kind of theft (docking to space cores), everything else is pure negligence and wasnt be covered by the safe zone (before), because this opens every door to more issues. Especially considering other game mechanics and situations which allow transition between safe zone and PVP space will be affected by the changed situation. So since the safe zone is now completely safe from any responsibility and negligence logically (and by common sense) I wonder: Does that also mean any kind of roleplay/ingame scamming is forbidden in the safe zone? Any kind of miner slavery? Any kind of luring people into the pvp zone? RDMS theft protected? etc. etc. This opens a lot of questions for me here, since these things would make the safe zone incredibly unsafe.
- Aleksandr, IvanGrozniy, W1zard and 2 others
-
5
-
Thats the difference between a privat friendship circle and a professional endeavour. Even if you have favorites you act upon it equally if youre in an professional environment. We as private customers are in a different position than the service provider and professional part in this. Certainly some rules can be extended/stretched for some constructivism and goodwill, but favoritism that directly punishes one/another side is not the way to go in any case. Being professional doesnt automatically entail being soulless and coldhearted - you can still keep a friendly communication with your customerbase, but you should certainly keep favoritism out of the business when this is very harmful for the business model and concept of the project.
-
Youre also somewhat forgetting NQ has been holding the holy grail of no interference in the game by them very high and made it a promise to themselfs and the whole community. To me it seems there is quite a lot of interference even in regular gameplay/player events (I'm not talking about NQ organized events - even tho also there they should keep true to their "no interference in gameplay" maxim they set themselfs). This makes me wonder how much of this holy grail is actually left...
-
1 hour ago, blazemonger said:
Pretty much the case for most "features" at this time.
I'd expect NQ will not do anything to recover the code. There is only one person responsible for not having a backup of the code and NQ can't "accommodate a rescue" of the code as they would set a precedent with potential consequence they are not going to want to take ownership of.
Well you are very much out of the loop then my friend. Because exactly that happened.
Not only did they fully cater to Elias's requests they also did so with several attempts and a lot of devtime involved as le_souriceau stated. His ticket was forwarded to the highest ranks in the team it appears, in the fastest manner I've ever seen such a ticket being forwarded and processed. Elias discontent about the situation even triggered a somewhat official statement concerning that case by NQ (in the end no clearing up the siuation tho). In context of absolutely no reaction during or even after the schem sale this is a very interesting development indeed.
-
Sorry everyone I will not continue this project
-
thats not a bugtracker/overview its a suggestion overview
-
link plox?
-
4 hours ago, blazemonger said:
I could get Mantis up in 10 minutes ..;)
trello is nicer not so nerdy
-
So what made them change their ways? The influence of CCP? Most of the earlier ideas seem to make absolute sense for civilization building.
Also later on I realized NQ is already is planning something similiar to my concept concerning blueprint - it was one of their kickstarter promises. Funny coincidence that our concepts were so similiar, I only found this recently.
-
Added another concept line: ACCOUNTS and CHARACTERS
DEVBLOG: DOCKING AND BOARDING REVAMP - Discussion Thread
in General Discussions
Posted
a) Will there be a visual indicator about something being docked? So when hover over the construct you can see a (docked) added to the name without having to go into build mode or the seat.
b) Can I land on another ship without bouncing off like rubberized cardboard now?
c) Do I have to be always inside my static construct to use the repulsor and prevent people from getting inside? Is this even meant for static constructs aswell?
D) Can I still dock my own constructs to other owned constructs with the maneuver tool?