Jump to content

Koruzarius

Member
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Koruzarius

  1. It makes absolute sense. The majority of people aren't willing to put decorative items in their ships because repairing them and lugging the weight around isn't worth having them. But it would be nice to have prettier ships.
  2. Ooof. Hope it's simple to get this set up for 4 different accounts =S
  3. Thanks for the feedback NQ-AntiGravitas! I think the new FTUE managed a good balance of guidance and freedom, I was really impressed with it, the few bugs notwithstanding!
  4. If a full wipe with some assistance for previous players is the route you want to go with. I would suggest this approach: 1) Assign a quanta value to every element, schematic, and material in the game, based on recent market values, or the value of their core components if no market data is present (like for some lesser used honeycombs) 2) Assign each entity (player and org) a quanta value based on the sum of all elements owned, be it on a construct or in a container, and the cost of all of the schematics in their industry, and their wallet. 3) Either give that quanta value to each of said entities, or map that value to a smaller range in some way (possibly on a normal curve?) so that those who have invested time and effort into preparing materials for launch have something proportional to show for it. In the end, there is no fair way to do a wipe, I'm still not really sure why you are even considering it. I presume it is to remove the whales before new players arrive, but that seems like a poor justification to me... But whatever the cause, we have all been working to varying degrees, for up to years to acquire the resources we have in this game... Making it all go up in smoke feels very dismissive to the effort players have put into the game. And everyone has approached it differently... Ship designers vs. factory workers vs. miners vs. mission runners have built up their wealth in different ways, and I feel like this is one of the fairest approaches to compensate everyone for their effort. Anyone who has material wealth will be compensated for it, to a degree, and the designers get to keep their blueprints. One of the problems I am really struggling with with all of the wipe discussions is that many of us are here actively playing to prepare for full launch, and right now it is completely unclear what actually moves us towards that goal. I personally feel a little listless regarding how to proceed when I don't know what I will get to actually keep... I have ship designs in progress (that I may no longer be able to build), mission running to do for quanta (that I may not keep), mining fields that could use expansion (to get ore that I may not keep), Lua projects I want to work on (which I get to keep... But don't help me progress as much on the other end)... And to cap it all off, if there is going to be a full wipe (except BP's), there's many things I can do to prepare for that too, once I know what that looks like. So... I guess, let me(/us) know?
  5. Juvenius Drakonius made this suggestion on the Discord: Can we get some kind of static URL to an image that we can upload a replacement for, or that we can use as a redirect to a different approved image? The idea is that we can do things like news banners or event notices where we just update the source image, and the screen code across the verse stays the same. So we could have people put a screen with a quick image on their ship to Juvenius's news site, and every time he uploads a new edition, he could just update the static link and everyone's screens would be updated. Or if AngryDad wanted to have an image that showed some details about a race night prize, or some upcoming event, or a running tally of how much money has been won in that death sphere thing of his, one link could always show the most up to date info. Seems like a good simple low-hanging fruit change that would give some cool abilities to spread information in game, and given that the images would still have to go through the approval process, it wouldn't be a bypass for the approval process.
  6. Even if player markets are too much to code in, if we had: 1) a Lua API for dispensers (activate/inactivate, set price/batch size, etc.), which also applied to... 2) Reverse dispensers (giving quanta in exchange for items) 3) An API for RDMS (less important than the first two, but still very good. Would allow us to have extra dispensers with auxiliary parts that unlock for players once they buy from one dispenser) That would basically allow the players to build our own markets very effectively. If we can't get player markets, at least getting that would really open the doors to better stable player run markets.
  7. Welcome welcome! Glad to have you on board, hope you enjoy being here with us!
  8. You can't really though if the entire encounter is happening at max speed... Dropping weight doesn't let you go faster if you are already going fastest =D with the new max speed limit and stasis stuff though, 100% haulers should definitely dump all cargo immediately upon being engaged. It's the only hope of escape if the cargo is limiting both your acceleration and your max speed, you'll need to shed as much weight as possible to stay ahead. Also this further disincentivizes mega-haulers. Better to have a lighter weight hauler that can go faster. The one possible positive I can see here is if a hauler can outfit itself with 100% stasis weapons to slow pursuers. If I can load up my hauler with enough stasis weapons to slow down the person hunting me so they can't get within target lock range for long, that could actually be a viable defensive measure.
  9. It was a total cores in game / total active players count. Who owns what core, person or org, doesn't play into that math. It's mostly a fair analysis, though I personally think that anyone with only 1 or 2 cores who isn't a legate of an org should not have been counted as "active".
  10. Question though: can you dismantle 400 ships in 14 days? A well coordinated attack could lead to a situation where it is this or start losing things randomly, with little ability to defend against it. We really do need a quick method to get rid of our constructs without losing the contents on them.
  11. Get 170 people to give 10 cores to the org. For instance, Empire could ask for just 1 from each member, and hit that cap.
  12. Also, the 100 core count does really open the door for malicious usage of core counts against an org. I like the idea, but with the possibility (and in fact, certainty) of losing a massive amount of possible cores across the game, and the hours upon hours of effort it takes to tear down those cores, people are going to lose constructs because they literally do not have the person-power to dismantle them fast enough after a massive shift. A small group of infiltrators could boost an orgs core limit by a few hundred, and then remove them on the day before a two week period begins, leaving an org to scramble to dismantle literally hundreds of constructs in 14 days. I'm gonna get on my soap box again and reiterate that the ability to compactify constructs, and/or the ability to dismantle them with a single click (even if it takes a few minutes on a large many element core) would do a *lot* to alleviate this risk.
  13. Good update, but I feel there should still be more. Not necessarily more cores, I think the total slots make a lot of sense (though I am concerned about my ability to get my core count high enough to not lose constructs in the first month post-release...) Was there any thought into the ideas proposed yesterday by the community? Like the ability to compactify a larger variety of constructs in a way that retains their mass and volume, so you can basically box away ships (or even buildings) not currently in use to avoid the core count cost? Also I'm gonna keep preaching the one-button deconstruct feature that I think would save almost everyone time (including the GM's)
  14. Can we please keep the personal attacks to the Duscussion channel on Discord? (Which I have muted)
  15. I try to avoid being a doom-sayer, and haven't made that claim of any of the changes made before now, but this one... I'm not sure. I think it will force the closure of many of the things that actually draw people to the game.
  16. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that now each player can be responsible for 17 constructs base, with up to 25 more with training, distributed between personal slots and orgs. So if this goes through as is, each sub will be able to support <= 42 constructs. 1600 is a pipe dream only the biggest of orgs will be able to manage. As stated that would require 64 players to give all of their org slots to attain. Or to put it more economically $640/month of subscriptions, absolute best case. If you still think we are blowing this out of proportion, I respect your opinion, but I want to make sure it is grounded in the actual facts, and from that comment I don't think it is.
  17. I have a few points I'd like to add and reinforce. First and foremost: We NEED a better RDMS system for this to fly. I have a few alts and I just don't use their personal slots at all because it is too much of a pain. I made them all legates of my personal org, and just put every construct on that. We need to be able to make a blanket "share everything" policy to enable the ability to have personal slots used for collective projects. Second: As Dimencia stated: we need a full talent reset. I understand the idea that you only want to reset related talents, but the fact of the matter is you have changed the meta for the whole game. I'm a ship-builder, that is my main goal, and I use Mining Units to support that. I have invested millions of talent points across multiple characters to that goal, but with this change, I will probably not be able to support the mining empire that I have built. One consolation there is I could decide that given the changing meta, it might be time to try something else, maybe do some PvP? But I don't want to wait months to train up a whole second skill set because the changes have ruined the practicality of my current skill-set... Third: We need a one-button "deconstruct this construct into a container" button. I have 4 cores that I have salvaged that have nothing on them, and have gotten GM help to reclaim 6 more in the past 2 months. I am planning on getting help with the other ones too, but it is a waste of GM time, and if I have to tear down hundred's of cores, it will be a serious problem for me if I have to spend hours upon hours tearing them all down. And if I don't and we end up with a solar system full of abandoned cores that have nothing on them, it wastes a ton of player time investigating cores that have nothing on them. Other points to consider: - The obvious: increase the number. Even double would be a huge difference and make a lot more viable for me and I presume many like me. - Let me mine multiple tiles off of one core. That would make a huge difference in my core count. - Give us larger, and more importantly differently shaped cores. If we could have an XL static core that is the same height as an L, but waaaaaaay wider. This would allow for large show-rooms or factories on one core only. - Let us copy a whole construct into another one. If I could have one XL static core, and paste copies of my ships for the showroom into that static core, I could have the show-room models for dozens of ships all in one core. Edited to add: Give me an RDMS to let others see the location of my constructs on their map please. If someone else is the primary user of one of my personal cores, I want them to be able to find it easier. And lastly, I don't know how to handle major community projects like race-ways and cities... They are a major driver for player engagement and I simply don't see how they will be viable short of NQ granted exemptions, and at that point it's not really player driven anymore.
  18. Hmmm, respectfully I completely disagree. It's not about punishment, it's about consequences. You leave your ship cluttering up someone else's space, you lose your ship. Done deal. The construct owner is *very often* not the DRM holder. I build all my own ships, but I also sell them. There's dozens of my ships floating around out there that people have paid me millions to be able to fly... Releasing the DRM means that anyone could just copy my design and sell it as their own... Pretty much defeats the purpose of DRM in the first place then if anyone can just take a ship they bought, get it's DRM unlocked and copy it. As I said previously, that is already going to be an issue with this system due to handing out BP's and handing out the ship. Every time a ship expires, its design has been duplicated. That I understand as a natural consequence, it has a large time and risk investment in the method for each individual payout, but just unlocking the DRM opens the door for as many copies as are desired.
  19. If they are randomly distributed through space I think the chances of hitting them are slim. Also if you hit a construct at 30,000 kph, do you even hit it, or just clip right through it?
  20. To be fair you can't pilot a ship in VR, so if they require you to pilot it you will have to *go* there. I share your concern though, overall.
  21. Overall this is a really cool idea! I was kind of hoping for something tile-owner specific so you could claim the wrecks ahead of time, but c'est la vie, this is still awesome. Out of curiosity, what type of sips will be randomly spawning? Will they be ships from the ship shop, or will you get some designs from users to use? Or new things entirely? Also, was there consideration to the fact that giving a BP of the ship that is lost will provide a duplicate of the original design? If someone bought a 30 million quanta blueprint, built the ship, parked it on an Aphelia tile, had a friend camp it for the exact mark where it pops and reclaims it, then they can now rebuild a second copy of the ship... I'm not objecting, even as a ship designer myself, but I'm just curious if that was something that was considered and if there were any thoughts on remediating that case. Lastly and most importantly, you say on Sanctuary tiles, but distinctly *not* on HQ tiles. Is that a relevant distinction? Also what if you share your Sanctuary tile with another, will your ship be safe there? At least from everyone who is not that tile's owner?
  22. I mean... By that argument... wouldn't just seeing people's names around you also be breaching that? If a player ID is a problem, surely a unique name is as well? I will admit I haven't read up on the law in question, but it just seems like a weird argument that an MMO shouldn't allow players to know... that other players also play the game? I can't imagine the game would function if we were never allowed to know that particular people exist in the game world with us.
  23. Requiring an explicit run would resolve that issue. I can't think of any malicious behaviour possible while an explicit run is required... They almost certainly exist, but I can't think of them.
  24. Is it possible for there to be some way for the screen to know who is looking at it, or get the camera information? I've been working on some fun HUD code but a major limiting factor is not actually knowing who is looking at the screen, or more importantly, where from. I'm working on some work-arounds, but they're clunky. All I would need is getCameraPos, the rest isn't needed for my use case, and I think it would allow some cool stuff for screens to be able to react to the angle they are being observed from.
×
×
  • Create New...