Jump to content

W1zard

Member
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by W1zard

  1. With linear honeycomb HP based on mass what's the reason to use lighter materials? They have same HP for mass added on ship, but adds much more cross-section, which results in less total ship's survivability. I think with hit-prob based on cross-section only viable option of voxels on ships with linear HP are heaviest possible materials with as much res as possible Haven't run any calculations yet, but it could be possible that Niobium (pure) is better than Mangalloy (product) just because of lower cross-section
  2. Will this gift be wiped on launch? Should I bother receiving it?
  3. W1zard

    RGB windows

    Colored glass voxels when? 😅
  4. Is it just me, or it seems like foilage being highlighted by some mystery?
  5. We need some kind of system to allow us to sell our scripts without actually exposing their source code to the buyer. I think this would encourage people to write more awesome scripts as they will be able to reliably earn quanta with it. Blueprint creation mechanic can be reused to create copies of a script. And we need an inventory-slot (possibly something like schematic bank in industry) to store and select scripts in control units. Or even simpler mechanics as one-time-use scripts that can be applied as custom autoconf on use on control unit. This requires almost no additional UI.
  6. It would be nice to have an Element Replace Tool which would allow us to replace elements with same elements different tier/modification. Some elements on ships are placed on wierd positions/angles or in very tight, precision spots, and it's very hard to replace them with higher tier analogs by removing and placing new one. This tool would allow very simple tier progression for ship, so you can upgrade it easily when have access to more powerfull elements.
  7. Actually now you mentioned it, you can turn it off in jetpack mode (not for the whole station, but for yourself). It seems like we just need some similar mechanic for ships
  8. I have a ship designed such a way, that it can take off from any planet and moon with some load. It's a combination of vertical boosters and hovers calculated specificly that way to optimize fuel usage and effectiveness. But this ship can't take off from a space station! 😟 Because space stations have 1g gravity, pulling ship as hard as Alioth, and much harder, than any of moons out there. I would suggest changing space station gravity for something like the max moon gravity, or even entirely disable it when you are trying to take off using vertical boosters.
  9. Now, that we have missions nerfed, they are not really adding any pvp gameplay to the game. (At least I don't see that it can) To intercept a mission hauler, you would need to camp for who know how many hours to gain that very little profit of few mission packs. I don't think anyone currently does that. Besides, now that missions are nerfer, and generated daily, you can just make them work as "daily quests". Just remove the warp restriction (and maybe lower rewards), and it will be a great way to earn some quanta each day, with something to do (actually fly and land, an active gameplay, not an 6-hour afk gameplay)
  10. One thing I would also love to see is something like: controlUnit.enableEngineTorque(taglist, state) as we now have engine.enableTorque(state) but this is not really useful due to links limitations.
  11. Other thing could be is reworking the repair unit. If repair unit was capable of repairing elements with scrap, not just replacing them, it would be much less tedious to repair all that decorative parts.
  12. Oh.. right... so 64 slots would be enough if there will be 10k+ active players at release? 😅
  13. For me it's sounds a bit strage how is the first words in this devblog is: In the devblog about NQ-driven solution. For me NQ-driven and player-driven is quite opposite terms, and I don't see how this concept supports it. Also 16 slots seems like way too little, do you think that at release, if there will be 10k+ active players 16 slots will be enough to promoting player-made content? How much of these exchanges will be needed at release to satisfy all the players who want promote something? Is this concept even scalable to reasonable amount? Why not just integrate a player-driven shop system for constructs BPs and scripts ingame, the one that would replicate DU-Creators, but actually inside the game, with the ability to purchase a BP from there directly? What if some players use this exchange for promoting their org, and there are much more orgs that would like to promote themselves, than just 16. Would that mean that these NQ-selected 16 orgs would be dominant in player-counts, because NQ desided so? How is that a player-driven?
  14. The only reason I paid for this game before release is talent points, as they were supposed to be persistent. As you guys a lot of times said, wipe would be very unlikely event, and only if something is really broken. There is nothing broken with talents. A lot of people payed real money only to continue training their talents. If you wipe it - it's just straight money scam.
  15. I feel like voxels is still useless. Venting any ships I fly while under attack is not possible at all Look at this ship for example. It was before Athena, but this design is still usable I believe for some cases (But for most of PvP I'll probably use lighter ships) This is an M core with an L shield, around 12g acceleration after Athena weight changes and 6 mounted M weapons (probably will switch to 4 rails + 2 stasis as we can link 4 rails to one seat now) This is a great example because it's fully (I mean literally, there is only small cockpit carved out for gunner seats) filled with tier 4 voxels (fluorine) (Thats something around 1600m3) Even though its tier 4 voxels, this have zero chance of venting or even surviving more than few hits after shield is down, so those voxels are much more cosmetics than actual armor. Adding more voxels will only make this ship weaker because it will increase cross section and lower the effectiveness of shield HP (which is still huge if you count in resistances, compared to voxels) And that's a ship with an L shield, a heavy one! This and anything smaller have zero benefits from voxels in actual pvp engagement. And I still don't see any reason to use big bulky slow ships that are much more expensive, than to use 10 small cheap M railgun fighters that I can lose every day and don't care about them.
  16. This, and a possibility to replace an element with it's variant on an already deployed ship (in case you bought one with basic elements and want to upgrade for example) would be a really nice QOL features in wipe scenario.
  17. The only reason I paid for this game before release is talent points, as they were supposed to be persistent. As you guys a lot of times said, wipe would be very unlikely event, and only if something is really broken. I get it why you would want to wipe the economy, but there is nothing wrong with talents, this mechanics didn't change, and there were no exploits of it. A lot of people payed real money only to continue training their talents. If you wipe it - it's just straight money scam. Suggestion: If you want a `fair` start, just freeze those points for a few months, and then give them back to players who paid for them.
  18. Not only did they forgot, they made even worse. This is what I most likely will fly in when Athena is out...
  19. Okay, so single player can maintain around 40 MUs simultaniously, but only 25 construct slots? So I can't even use the full potantial of my account, that sounds bad for me.
  20. Make it depending only on a core size is bad idea, as it would lead to a "As big as I can fit in a core grid" ships. A year ago we had lock-distance based on solely core size, and all of us were flying in as big as possible XS cubes packed with L missiles. We still have to use some kind of smaller-better mechanics, just not related fully on a cross-section, to allow some creative in building ships. As is said above, I don't thing that adding a relation to a core size is good, even if it's partial. I think it can and should be balanced without that. Also I really hope that their new max speed mechanics would not relate on a core size, I would prefer it be dependant on a ships total mass, otherwise we would have XS or S heavy haulers packed with containers on a full grid. That's why I added a few suggestion how we can replace cross-section to still have a dependecy, but which would not limit our creative voxelmancy. I would really love to see shield bleed mechanics, as I it would return on-board engineer gameplay back in the game. But shields was added for a reason of servers not handling voxel damage properly, so I bet we won't see that in the game until something changes dramatically in voxel-damage processing. Well, it's not that massive, and if not hit-probability penalties we all would fly in a 120 mil ccs boxes. So we still need some kind of mechanics preventing us from flying in "as big as possible" ships. Currently we are flying in "as small as possible", and that's why we need to add some tradeoffs and balance things out. I would disagree that the idea itself is terrible. Yes, we have technical limitations not making it possible at the moment, but if they get to fix that, I see nothing wrong in shield bleed as a mechanics itself. I think that depends on how it would be balanced. As venting can give 50% of your shield back in 100 seconds, it's very beneficial to have some CCS to be able to survive at least one venting procedure. So if amount of voxels required to do so will not increas hit probability by more than 1.5 times, it should be ok. Also I just though about your point a bit more. We have voxels on our ships right now, because we can place voxels inside elements, so maybe it should not be a sum of volume, but rather max(voxel_volume, elements_volume)?
  21. Currently, hit probabilty depends only on a cross-section of targeted ship. In my opinion, this is pretty bad for making pvp ships look pretty, this is how my ship currently looks like: It's done like that because it was the smallest cross-section I managed to achive with 6 M railguns + L shield + good amount of thrust. This is a good example of a beautiful ship by Metsys: But this one have x1.5 frontal cross section, and I'm not talking about other two (which can make a difference in a fleet fight) The box design will have at least 20% less hit-probably compared to pretty-looking ship (which makes it 20% more tanky) and 20% is in my opinion a very big difference in survivability to make a choice towards using a box. For me, creative aspect of DU is one of the best compared to every other voxel-building games, and i want to be able to use this aspect of the game in pvp as well. Because PvP is a competetive aspect of the game, and if we want to min/max our builds, we have to use boxes =( Here are some of my thoughs that can help improve this situation: Make hit probability based not on a cross-section, but based on: a) total elements+voxel volume (that will give full freedom on ship design while keeping the smaller-better trend) b) total ship mass (don't really know how this can make any sense, but that can be pretty balanced i think) c) heat emission (amount of thrust / gun shots produced) d) any other parameter you can think of except cross-section
  22. If I understand correctly, you need the ability to create custom currency in game to be able to handle that without external DB? I would really love to see custom currencies in DU, this will add so much to "civ building" aspect of the game.
  23. There are already some ship related sounds in game like `Shield activated` and so on. I would suggest moving them to the audio folder and use your new audio framework to call those sounds from default script. Or at least the ability to disable the default ship voice sounds. This would allow us to make fully customizable "Ship Voice Assistants".
  24. About a month if playing solo with only 1 account? Let me provide some calculations to you. One mining unit provides 230 l/h with maxed handling talents. With good recharging talents 1 player can maintain around 30 mining units running simultaneously. That being said, that's 165kl daily, so it's around 23 days to fill 20L containers. So if you are playing in an org with, let's say, 3 players, you would need to use such a hauler once a week.
  25. Have you done any calculations on this topic? Currently if you are using tier 5 alloy, they have more than x5 multiplier on CCS per HP, you would need at least 120mil of voxels HP to even have a chance to hit your CCS limit and not die by the core explosion. That is around 30,000m^3 of voxels. How is that limiting your creativeness? Elements HP are negligible compared to voxels if you have at least 20-30 mils of HP, and with current curve and multipliers you will have much more CCS than that HP amount, so I don't really get your point here, why would you want to increase your CCS if it's hardly noticable before 120-150+ mil of HP, and that's what it's main reason, to make invicible ships not possible to make. There are already counterplays and fleet compositions, if you don't see a counter to your ship, that doesn't mean that there is none. If you have low cross-section L laser ship, it will die to low cross-section M rail ship. If you have low cross-section M rail ship, it will die to 50mil+ CCS L laser/Cannon ship. 3Lasers+2Missiles+M radar are viable too (will have 4 types of damage and very hight DPS, but not very long range), And there is more, that's just an on-surface example. Weapon percs depending only on size? I strongly agains this. Addition of other percs in current `heavy`, `precision` etc.. I'm ok with. This is a good one, but not based on weapon type, or size. Just make it 80% shield, 20% to ship, this will return the mid-fight repairing gameplay
×
×
  • Create New...