Koruzarius
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Koruzarius
-
-
1 minute ago, B4nd1t said:
Thx.
Just 1 Point:
>>"Following internal research, we determined that currently per active player there are approximately 25 constructs in the game at the present time."<<That's because it is much easier to push the org core limit (atm) as the players core limit. Thats the point why most (active) player got less than 25 constructs - there are all in a own org with 1 shared character with feats for the org core cap.
Rest: good trade. First a pure no-go and now a downgrade that dont feel like that
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".
-
1 minute ago, LosNopales said:
It's an MMO. It's all part of the Fun. Nobody is forcing you to accept people that you dont thrust in your Corp. Nobody is forcing you either to use all of the Slots that are donated. You can build a buffer of unused cores for cases like this. Yep sometimes people will remove their support and move their slot to other group/ better causes. You still have 14 days to fix you lack of cores. You can always take some building / dynamic cores away.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Briggenti said:
"Organization Construct Management
Organization Construct Management Specialization
Advanced Organization Construct Management Specialization
These talents will be buffed to collectively increase the maximum ceiling for the organization's construct limit to 1625."
I'm still confused on the mechanics of how we get can get to that number?
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.
-
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.
- RetnuhRellik, Namcigam, Taelessael and 2 others
-
5
-
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)
-
2 minutes ago, Thunderblaze said:
Luckily your vote doesn't matter in more ways than one.
Can we please keep the personal attacks to the Duscussion channel on Discord? (Which I have muted)
-
1 minute ago, OrionSteed said:
SWG folks, remember when NGE killed that game? This core decision would be the same. Please don't do it NQ....
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.
- expiredone, DecoyGoatBomb and CMDRTaco
-
3
-
11 minutes ago, choxie said:
So you don't even know if this is the case and yet everyone is losing their mind? Absolutely ridiculous playerbase.
Please NQ do not listen to these 1%ers who somehow can't get along with 1600 cores
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.
-
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.
- expiredone and fridaywitch
-
2
-
6 minutes ago, Samoht_Yreva said:
Maybe I missed it, but what about DRM? Will that be released when the construct is abandoned and then claimed by another player? Should be! You fail to refile your renewal paperwork with the US Patent and Trademark Office you lose your ownership rights. Shouldn't be different here.
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.
- OrionSteed, CptLoRes and Merzie
-
3
-
20 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
I'm not sure about any of this.
The space wrecks seem more of a hazard than an asset for the game, especially in space. Unless these show up on radar regardless of what filters you have set, with the terrible spawnranges the game has, the risk of running into one and wrecking your own ship in the process is real IMO.
The whole IAR idea, once more, seems massively over engineerd with timers that really make no sense. It really feels like a mechanic to try and convince someone to not let their subscription expire or lose their stuff first and create "gameplay" second.
Then, imagine I have a construct I bought the BP for at 25M .. Now transfer the construct to an alt, let him unsub and l capture the construct as it gets unclaimed. My alt now resubs and I have a free blueprint which basically steals 25M from the original seller of the BP. And yes, this wil be exploited to no end I am certain. Also, I sure hope the blueprints that are put in the unsubbed player's inventory is a regular one, not a magic one as otherwise this is an even better mechanic to exploit and dup entire constructs using Alts.
IMO markets should simply have an impound system.. You leave your construct there for 24 hours and it goes to impount at the ARK ship, where you can recover it for an increaisng fee. After it has been in impound for 4 weeks it gets deleted.
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 minutes ago, Koriandah said:
Great Devblog!
One Question: How will the game check if the construct on the Aphelia tile has been interacted with? Is the requirement for the owner to get into their seat and move it or is the requirement to remove it from the tile and then put it back in?
The only issue I see with the first method I mentioned is that people can just VR in and build mode or simply get into the seat of the construct to "update" the abandonment timer, which in my opinion bypasses the system that will be introduced.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.
-
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?
-
7 minutes ago, Wolfram said:
If NQ wanted to be 100% GDPR compliant the changes would do minimal if any change. Take for example the "Birds" people used to place on markets that tracked what players got close to them, they did that by combining Detection Zones with Lua's function to get the master player's ID (the ID currently running the unit) and saved it into a databank, probably. If NQ really wanted to prevent this sort of issue they would have limited that function to only ever return the player ID if they ran the PB directly, instead of being able to do it when running indirectly (via DZ, button, etc).
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.
-
1 minute ago, Metsys said:
What immediately comes to mind is a "maliscious" move someone could do with that, namely we already have auto-triggering scripts that go off when anybody comes close at the markets. If anyone can "force" my camera view to look at their "ad" on the markets, then I would very much hate any such change.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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, vylqun said:
so, basically the tax system killed the DU racing league and only a few selected tracks will remain, is it really your wish to reduce the already lacking content of DU even further?
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?
-
2 hours ago, Jake Arver said:
You are saying that it's fine if orgs can amass or at aleast have full access to hundreds of tiles where they only need to pay tax when the situation calls for it, including locking down tiles with specific ores or quantities of ores and only pay the tax if they need to mine these?
IC could run their massive spaceport and never have to pay a cent in tax for the tile(s) they occupy with it and that goes for any large org infrastructure..
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.
-
On 11/15/2021 at 5:44 AM, Celestis said:
Flying to and from my HQ bases on the outer planets through unsafe space is half the fun.
I don't often have much of value on board, just materials the artist needs to do some home improvements or decoration... I guess I won't be doing that anymore.
Losing a couple of ships and the elements I was transporting around didn't stop me, that just added to the challenge, it's the threat of taxes on all my single tiles on all of the planets and moons that has completely changed the way I'll play until the taxes finally defeat me.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Cergorach said:
I have no issue with it happening so much as that was stuff from the past, people will have profited from most of it (or not). The problem I have with it is, they first say one thing, then they do a 180... People have been preparing for the Demeter changes since the announcement, including scanning. They've created expectations and that is what bothers me.
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?
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, Orth_Tanic said:
Yea I agree I hope they see it as just that a failure. The good news its only being tested right now.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, RA Nemesis said:
OMG THANK GOD
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.
- Eviltek2099 and Peabody
-
2
ROADMAP UPDATE: PREPARE FOR WAR WITH THE COMING OF 0.29 "ATHENA" - discussion thread
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Koruzarius
Had an additional addendum
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.