Jump to content

Koruzarius

Member
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Koruzarius

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Can you explain the mechanic behind the resource pool in mining units? Specifically, it seems like a mining unit will allocate itself as much of the pool as possible, even if that leaves a later mining unit with almost nothing to mine, which will end up losing ore as soon as the first MU drops below 100% efficiency, even if there is a second MU running with an optimal efficiency of 20% that will never draw more than that. As far as I can tell, there is no mechanic to mitigate this effect. For example, let's crunch some numbers, if I have a tile with 150 L/hr of a resource, one of my MU's will be bringing up 126 L/hr with my skills, and the other only 24 L/hr. 24 hours later the first one will start losing calibration below it's optimal efficiency, and I am no longer getting 150 L/hr unless I can be there right at the mark to recalibrate it, however the second MU will run for 74 hours straight before I start losing ore. I'd much rather have each doing 75 L/hr, running with an optimal efficiency of 59%, thus giving me some slack on both MU's, rather than a ton of slack on one, and none on the other. If I could choose it, I could go for 49 hours between calibrations while running at above optimal efficiency, but as it is I can never go more than 24 without losing ore.
  9. Not arguing your point, but I'm curious how this is? Are you expecting racing league tiles aren't going to be kept up for some reason?
  10. I am in an org with a small handful of players who all share public resources in one place where we all work on building ships, together and independently. There's no *need* for industry or mining here, but shared access is a requirement. I see no good reason why one of us should be disallowed from owning it and sharing it with the group. We may end up just moving to space or something for simplicities sake of having the industry operating on hand, but I still think it makes sense to have it as an option. And if everyone in IC is willing to spare their HQ tiles to IC to build up a cool space port... That kind of building is what the game is about, no? And each individual owning a tile could at some point decide they want to reclaim the tile for themselves, and start trying to reclaim the static constructs which would throw a serious wrench in the Org and there's nothing the Org could do about it other than retrieve their materials and leave a big hole in their structure... And if they are just locking down resources that they might need later... Then that's their lost income opportunity, and not super different from people currently claiming and then sitting on mega-nodes, no? They still only have 5 tiles per player to do this with, and that player has final say on who gets to do what there, not the org. This change requires there to be a high level of trust between the participants for large scale projects like these, and I think that's not just reasonable, but ideal. Admittedly, single players with large numbers of alt's still have a bit of an edge there, but that's a really difficult problem to solve across the board.
  11. I personally avoid flying in PvP space like the plague. My game time isn't such that I can commit 3-4 hours of sitting at my computer watching for trouble, so I pretty much only warp from planet to planet. I'm infamous in my org for constantly having an avatar somewhere just standing there, because I have stood up from my computer to go do something at home I need to do, and I can't do that in PvP space. That said, the thing that you were responding to here I think you misunderstood: the intention from the beginning is that eventually non-safe-zone planets will not be safe, at all. Atmospheric combat and territory warfare and destruction has been "in the works" from the beginning. So people are hesitant to set up large operations on the outer worlds because some day NQ is intending to flip a switch that says "Everything not in the safe triangle can be destroyed, at any time" and at that point all of our outer world bases will get leveled by pirates unless we can defend them... A day I am not looking forward to, and has limited my drive to build anything of value outside the core. My crew has a few outposts where we make fuel for outer-world operations, but that's pretty much it. (Edited to add) I see now from a later post of yours that I think you understand that coming mechanic, but I'm leaving this here in case anyone else doesn't know that is coming.
  12. Agreed. I had thousands of scans from before, and I get wiping that, but I've spent as much time as possible scanning since the announcement and it hurts that after being promised them, now I will lose them. Can we at least get a release date for Demeter so we can plan accordingly?
  13. Am I able to change to an annual subscription now to get that price until the end of beta? I recently created an alt on a 6-month sub, but I would like to go annual and maintain that price for as long as possible, but I'm afraid if I cancel it it won't let me re-establish it and instead I'll get stuck having to renew post Demeter and pay the higher price tag.
  14. True... But this is the test server, everything here is just being tested. That doesn't imply to me that it won't still get rolled out with Demeter. @NQ-Deckard, any insight on that? Is this test intended for Demeter, and is the change in the obstruction face intentional and seriously being considered? This is going to make a lot of ship designs that were intended to be future-proofed completely unflyable.
  15. Well I hope they consider the test a failure, because this ship has 38 brakes all stacked such that the flare on the front is open to the air as the icon has always shown. 2 of them are functioning at 35% because the top ones of each of the two stacks are only *partially* blocked.
  16. No, they changed it... Now the *top* needs to be clear, like retro-rocket brakes. So anyone who futureproofed their designs are completely out of luck.
  17. Yeah, I *immediately* cratered my ship that I thought was in good flying form...
  18. Can we get the getPlayerPosition and direction vectors available *on a screen*? I've been trying to implement some AR features for many months now, and the quaternions stymied me, but now with the screens all rendering for each player individually it feels like all the pieces are in place to do some basic AR work, but the screen doesn't actually have the player location, and basing it off of a programming board means that it will only apply properly for one person, when there's no reason each person couldn't have their own proper view. I'm going to try to implement it anyway, but it will be clunky by comparison...
  19. Looks great! I'm glad it won't be removing old constructs that are too complicated, though a bit worried about people who may want to update an old ship and are no longer able to =S Hopefully they can update it during the period where we have the numbers but they aren't enforced.
  20. While I would enjoy some AvA combat, I don't see that coming for some time, and it will probably require a lot of mechanical rework, so I'm not thinking too heavily on that right now. I'm wondering how maneuver tool mechanics will work... One of the major weaknesses of docking as I've seen it is that if you are in someone else's tile, they can rip your docked constructs off of your ship, and that can cause some brutal headaches. With this new system, can the maneuver tool affect the whole group of constructs, not individual ones? Force separation of docked constructs to happen through one of those UI options, maybe?
  21. Simpler, quite probably! This was quite a lot of work =D But faster? I honestly really doubt it. This is some very very basic level stuff, there's very few operations involved in each of these steps, and the amount of data being transferred over the server is also minimal, just the 50 kb (45kb of which is the teapot itself) one time, then the client's computer handles all of the processing. That said, it's also pretty limited in its ability, I kept the code pretty tight and efficient, but the trade-off is it isn't super versatile. It can handle any OBJ file that has faces that only have 3 vertices each. I'll expand it out later (probably) but the more versatile you get the slower and more bulky it becomes. The loading step at the beginning could probably go 10-100x faster, I seriously lowballed how much processing to do at each step, I may optimize that later, I just wanted to be absolutely certain it wouldn't overload!
  22. Hey all! So I've been playing around with the new screen tech on the PTS, and decided to try to create a basic 3D renderer. It was a bit of a pain because there's a 50,000 character limit, and no vector libraries in place (yet?) but it was a fun challenge, and it runs fairly well! Anyone else playing around with the new screens yet?
×
×
  • Create New...