Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Penwith

  1. Actually, if/when I make an investment in something, I do not spend money that I cannot afford to lose or to lose my shit over should it go bust. I've done many Kickstarters, someone of which I canceled after I did more research, but that is only due diligence on my part. It's just the way I happen to look at life and how I spend money outside of necessities.
  2. Do try to keep up. The primary consideration is the for the long-term, but short-term considerations must also be accounted and, if possible, resolved before they become an issue that will require a larger response in the future. One only need look at the shift in industry from 0.23 and see that had it been dealt with from the start of beta, the resultant anger and rage would have been much less. As this game grows, presumably with full release, there will be new players who venture off into pvp space, not fully realizing the hazards. There will be knowledgeable who, for whatever reasons, feel they need to or just want to hazard the risks anyways, and then there will be times that warp is just not on the table; I did mention that this could be in the form of flying through a gas cloud, but there are other possible reasons. Do I need to fully explain that the direction this game is going, or that at least JC is hinting at, will include more resources than just the solid ores and two gases that are currently in the game? But we do not even need to speculate as to that as the possibilities for why one is slowboating already exist. So, how is the disparity between an attacker and defender to be addressed? Which is where this suggestion presumably originated. Warp exists, without any real counter presently. However, reading dev comments throughout the forums, one can expect a counter to be added at some point. Thus, this takes the argument back to, how does a defender deal with being attacked when warp is out of the picture. Why it is out of the picture does not matter...at all...for this question. If an unarmed defender is in this above stated circumstance, should the only option left to them is to allow their ship to be destroyed/capture and their cargo looted? The argument of many, not just that of myself or the OP, is no. There should be various defensive mechanisms that would help increase survivability, to allow for the possibility of escape. There may be a need for a final resort to self-destruction, to deny resources that would fund the pirate who is currently attacking. In this case, should this self-destruct mechanism be free of interference and therefore unstoppable? I'm arguing to the contrary. The amount of financial loss from losing a ship and cargo is immaterial. It's the property of the player, losing any percentage, especially a continuing loss, is bad for business. The fact that warp engines are relatively cheap is also immaterial, because the argument revolves around situations where combat cannot be avoided. As it stands, right now, no defensive element exists that adds to the survivability of a ship in combat, except weapons, for which a dedicated freighter has little mass to spare. If the freighter is armed, giving up a portion of mass that would otherwise generate profits (ideally), that still does not add to its survivability when facing a ship designed to attack another ship. Where does that leave us as far as a balanced combat system for pvp? With all the advantages to an attacker. Now, if you have two players who consensually enter into combat, then that's fine.as they both understand the situation before battle. When combat occurs between two parties where one does not consent, that leaves a player feeling helpless (with the odd exception) and frustrated that there's nothing they can do...at all, except hope their opponent makes a serious mistake. Put in other terms, it's seal clubbing in an MMO. The attacker gets great joy, entertainment, and wealth from the activity, but the victim has no recourse and no choice, end of story.
  3. Whereas ED was boring to me. You willing to sell off your industry and a discount? I'm building an industrial park for the purpose of helping new players get a start.
  4. Thank you! Bookmarked and will be referenced almost daily.
  5. It is a basic human right to keep the fruits of one's labor. So, having a similar expectation as a result of potentially thousands of hours of effort is not unexpected nor unreasonable, even within a game. Were this Rust, then there would be grounds for a totally different expectation, but after repeated "no more wipes before launch", sets the stage for the expectations that I and many others have. This was not a conditional statement on NQ's part, "no wipes between August 2020 until full release," btw. It is to be expected that during a beta, gameplay will change, but restarting the world is not a gameplay change. That said, there are several ways in which the economic imbalance can be addressed without eliminating everything. One of which is a progressively costly energy system which escalates based on the amount of elements one deploys in a base. There are more ways in which to do this, including a progressive tax on what is in our wallets. Or a tax based on our many hexes we've claimed. In the latter case, I'd be happy to pay that, given enough warning to prepare for it. The thousands of hours spent in total on designing ships, would be gone. Well, they can keep the BPs, then, is the counter-claim, but that's not a true wipe, now is it? So, those people with BPs of good ships will start with a tremendous advantage over others, as they will know exactly what works, ship-wise, etc., etc., etc. My personal sense of loss will be just that, and shared by a great many other players. Not a few, but a very large number. The reaction to 0.23 would be small beans in comparison.
  6. Except people do, to get away from the mess on Alioth. There's no invincible mechanism. I did not refer to such, whether it apply to new players or salty veteran players. No one in this thread has asked for such. If you paid any attention to what I actually wrote, you'd see the argument more clearly.
  7. Hell, the way pvp is right now, I am surprised there are as many as happen to claim to be, atm. As I mentioned, there needs to be a near-balance, and in the case of a self-destruct element, I provided some examples of how that could be overcome. Neither side of a contest should have an "I win" button. Whether it is good ship design and good game playing to have a warp drive is immaterial, it will happen, regardless. People will make poor choices, but beyond that as I stated, there may well be, and I expect there to be, situations where a warp drive simply cannot function. In such cases, there must be further consideration as to a balance between both attacker and defender, freighter vs pirate. Again, by looking at the issues now, we can avoid similar reactions in the future, and also make good suggestions for NQ to consider about how pvp would best work for this game. I can tell you, I've not done pvp here, I don't need to, to understand how terrible it is.
  8. That was true for people back in November, and October, and September, each not starting in with the same situation as those who began earlier. You can cheaply make a space capable ship. In fact, you can take the basic speeder that you get for free, and within a matter of about two hours, maybe less, have ship capable of reaching any planet or moon. Will it have warp? Depends on how long you want to work for the money. A player can enter the game for the first time, run through those tutorials that work (some are not finished yet), do a bit of mining, the buy the parts for a ship that can go into space. Will it be a massive freighter? Of course not, but it's a start that is easily achievable. Or a player can enter the game, run through the tutorials, and declare it to be unfair and impossible. Your choice. I know of more than one player who started since the patch and is now running to other planets in order to buy and sell schematics for a profit. Again, the wall that is stopping you is in your mind, not in the game.
  9. It is an anecdote. It is one result out of many thousands, currently, of possible. Gathering the results from multiple hundreds of individual cases of hauling freight from thousands of players, without cherry picking, is valid data. Within the entire context of this argument is risk vs reward. Elements of risk, including crashing with a fully loaded (or empty for that matter) freighter is a part of the risk. That same risk is not borne by a space-only pirate. Therefore, including that is not off topic, but rather an inclusion of what should be obvious. There are extremes to this measurement, and they need to be accounted for when looking at options for game mechanisms, at least to see whether or not they are game-breaking or far too rewarding. It is within these two bounds that the vast majority of player experiences should fall. My argument applies not only to the now, but also the future of the game, given that pvp is due for an overhaul, or at least an expansion, and people are advocating for something to be done in the now, such as self-destruction on the one end and prevention of players from dumping cargo on the other. This isn't even an argument over whether or not a player must warp to avoid combat, while it is a smarter move, not everyone now nor in the future will be able to make that choice. Slowboating does bear a much greater measure of risk, given that warping to a safe zone (that currently exists) around the other planets is guaranteed to work. Except, there's no avoidance mechanism on the other end and more than one ship has ended up severely damaged from a collision they could not know about or avoid in time. But that's another discussion. Given that warp engines are 100% successful, why then do pirates exist, knowing that they cannot intercept a warping ship? Because not everyone can or is able to do so, and thus leave themselves open to attack. If players ONLY warped, then we're going to get even more demands for webbers or warp disruptors by wannabe-pirates who feel that life is very unfair in that they cannot find easy victims, which leads us precisely back to this same argument. It is here that the issue of attack and defense comes into play. If resolved sooner, rather than at some distant point when things are even more set in stone, it is better for us all. With that said, I can see where you and I have overlapping areas of agreement, but then their remains this vast chasm, also. I am a firm believer in a nearly-balanced pvp system. I state nearly because I think true balance is either not achievable or ultimately far too boring to contemplate. Given this, there must always be tweaks, here and there, to fine-tune the systems which lay at the heart of combat. My primary pvp experience, in space combat, is EVE, which is probably the best iteration of a working system around, but even then it gets tweaked and adjusted and there are some problems that have cropped up over the years. Yet, I am not calling for that system to be put into place here, one reason being that the scales are different, another being the method of ship construction and design. Were I attacked and to decide to dump my cargo, it's not because I am making a dick-move, it's because I know that the loot will not only encourage the pirate to remain a pirate (and I loath pirates everywhere), but also would actively support them in maintain, refueling, and rearming their ship. Denying pirates these resources benefits all other haulers, as a result. Additionally, warping being 100% safe may well become a thing of the past, eventually, should the safe zone around planets disappear or new planets/solar systems be added that do not have them. Do we await that time to address the issue or do we discuss it now, find a workable and acceptable solution and then promote that to NQ in the form of suggestions that other players can vote on. I'd really like to see a far more robust combat system, one which requires actual skill from the trigger-pullers, but which gives the defenders something to work with to assist in survivabiilty, beyond the avoidance of combat entirely. It should be obvious that there may well be something down that road that limits the use and functioning of warp drives, such as flying through a gas cloud, and again we return to this very issue if not already addressed and resolved. Your repeated calls for doing the maths is meaningless in this case, because again, that is not at the heart of the argument. Some will find it unaffordable to them and others will find it extremely so. Great. This argument comes down to those times when combat is unavoidable, what options exist for both sides, and what mechanisms are available to the attacker and what are available to the defender. Again, again, and again, when combat cannot otherwise be avoided, regardless of the reason, the attacker has all of the mechanisms and the defender only two real options, to try to run or to die, because fighting it out is a false option for a true freighter vs true pirate/pvper encounter. Because of the speed limit, outrunning a pirate can only be done if that pilot makes a grievous error. So the only other current option is surrender or die, which amounts to the same thing due to the lack of a comms system. Even did such exist, one would have to rely on the mercy of pirates, which is laughable. Bringing us back to...this game needs defensive mechanisms that players can then elect to use for self-defense and/or preservation. A self-destruct mechanism is one of denial of resources that go to feed piracy. I am not saying that such would simply work when a button was pushed. Rather, I would like to see it where, if the pirate acts quickly enough, they can thwart the self-destruct command, either by destroying that element when in combat or by boarding in enough time to shut it off after repairing the core. There are a great many possibilities, but all are prevented if we knee-jerkingly react with "unfair to pirates."
  10. I am entertained by what exists now, not by the promise of what might exist in the future. I am excited by that promise, but that's it. I'll be neither angry nor giddy with the future of the game, regardless of which direction it goes. If the game folds up tomorrow, I will have still received more entertainment value than I could have hoped for. If it lasts for 20 years more, with millions of happy subscribers, great, but if I find a greater source of entertainment or fulfillment elsewhere, I won't be here.
  11. Please, tell me how many newer players can do this from the start? Just how many of those can recover the loss of their only warp capable ship? They need T3+ cargo to make it as profitable as you claim, assuming the prices of T3 ores remain constant or go higher, and not lower. You also assume they make multiple successful runs before losing their ship. Yet, this cannot be assumed as it does not fit reality. Some will be as successful, many will not. It is the nature of the game. Some will lose their ships on the very run they were counting on earning enough to buy a warp engine and the warp cells. So, they'll need at least one scanner to have a good chance at finding a hex with T3 ore in it, likely two or three for the sake of their time, but we can assume just one. They lose that ship to a pirate, before they have warp, then what? This not a presentation of valid data, it is an anecdote. Did you slam into something at the end of your warp and have to repair most of your ship before mining? Did you suffer a lag crash which led to a ship crash and again have expensive repairs to make? A best case scenario is nothing to base a sound pvp system from; ending up with offensive only elements and a cap on the maximum speed a freighter can use to generate a shorter engagement window. It would be equally unfair to limit pvp using the best case scenario for a pirate, who after just a few minutes of waiting happens to score an easy kill and millions worth of loot. Should the ammo containers then be made carry less because it is not needed? How about that awesome pirate who is very good with xs weapons, should we just go with those and get rid of the other weapon sizes as they are not needed? Such would be absurd. I am advocating a balanced system, but in the time spanning now and then, the freighters should not be forced by the game to just give up their cargo and ship when shot at. It is perfectly legitimate for them to reduce the gain their attacker stands to win and a magical "no!" button or other limitation on their doing so is fundamentally imbalanced. If you one-shot me, you deserve everything you stand to gain. If you don't, I reserve the right to thumb my nose at you as I push all of the more expensive items out the airlock, minus what will fit in my nanopack. Notice, that these same defensive mechanisms as I and others advocate for would also work for pirates, too, giving them some measure of additional survivability in that very rare situation where they are outmatched, whether by numerous defenders or other, large, pirates/pvpers. I am not whining, but you blind yourself to it. If you bothered to comprehend what I wrote, you'd see that I already accept that pvp exists and look forward to having a complete, and somewhat balanced, pvp system, which does not yet exist in this game. If you can't pull your head out, then we can never expect you to see anything but what you want to see. I have clearly stated the situation as it exists, not how I think it exists, but how it is. I have offered suggestions that would provide some measure of balance, but not at all remove pvp from the game. On the contrary, I think that by adding such mechanism, there'd be far more pvp and the experience for all involved would only improve. And no, just because you put the time in it does not guarantee a return on your investment. There's generally risk involved, and currently, aside from wasting time, there's really no risk to be had for pirates/gankers, except getting jumped by other pirates/gankers. So, stop whining about freighters who'd rather dump their cargo and/or self-destruct when faced with a combat situation they cannot possibly win or hope to survive, because the very necessary defensive measures have not been added to the game. If you cannot kill the target before they rid themselves of the loot you want, then that is because you are bad at it. You deserve nothing and should only earn what you can gain from the use of better tactics and piloting skill, not because you think that once you point your weapons at someone they should lose all rights to carry on as they are able.
  12. And yet you are here, like a bad penny. Go play SC or SG and bid the game you love to hate farewell.
  13. Ah, so now we get to your real argument. Thank you, but no. I am not interested in the game being leveled just in time for full release because "fair." I care nothing for how much or how little others have. I do care about the hundreds of hours, expanding to thousands of hours, put into building a rather large ground base, spanning more than one hex. Life is inherently not fair. When we are born, some have more and some have less, how they acquired or lost their wealth is immaterial to my success or failure. Anyone can choose to join the paid beta. If they delay, it's on them, not me.
  14. No, actually, there's not, not in the case of defense, which I clearly noted. There are tactics, which avoiding combat altogether being one. There is another, less successful, tactic of speeding right at the destination and hoping a pirate isn't there or that they are badly out of position, but that is not a mechanism. A pure form of defense with every effort made towards one's survival and not spending anything (time, energy, material) to defeating the attacker. Generally, it is thought to be more effective in many circumstances where killing the opponent is impractical, if not impossible. Clearly, you did not read or comprehend my words here: I never said that defense should make one invincible and it most certainly does not in this game, primarily because there's no real defense once under attack except to rely on time as a means to gain safety. All forms of defensive mechanisms which I have advocated for in these forms (as wells as from many others), all seek to insure survival by manipulating the variables that effect time in combat. A effective damage shield or armor is a method of delaying damage (obviously) and with enough speed and a short enough distance, the defender avoids fatal damage prior to gaining safety. ECM and ECCM would do the same thing, in different ways to be sure. Increasing the current maximum speed would also shorten the time outside of safety. Yet, none of these exist, apart from honeycomb HP. And its relative effectiveness is arguable, especially as it relates to haulers. It may well be more feasible to just use other elements as ablative shields, where they provide a form of damage but are considered acceptable to lose and their loss will not negatively impact the functioning of the ship. Looking at the elements within the game, they are categorized. When examining the combat and defense elements, it's only weapons. a non-functioning repair unit, and a transponder. It should never be the case that a dedicated pvp ship is outclassed by a dedicated hauler with some weapons attached. Well, you might argue, there shouldn't be dedicated haulers. Which flies in the face of any form of logical reasoning. Of course the hauler should be dedicated to that purpose, to be the most efficient at delivering goods as quickly and least expense as possible. The argument here isn't that the freighter should win a fight against a pirate, but that since there's so few options available to the freighter (these generally being, avoid combat, hope that warp engages before it's too late, hope the pirate has a crappy pilot who turns the wrong way, die), that destruction of one's own cargo and ship should be allowed and not prohibited. If the pirate cannot kill his/her victim quickly, then that's their bust and it's not the responsibility of the freighter to just accept their fate and the loss of ship and cargo to their antagonist. I've ready more than one wannabe-Blackbeard exclaim something along the lines of, "It's not fair! I couldn't kill them before they were able to destroy their cargo! They shouldn't be allowed to DO that! I waited a long time, waiting for someone to come to me so I can take their stuff that they worked hard to accumulate! Waaaaaa! Boo Hoo! Sob Sob!" Okay, maybe they didn't say the last part aloud, but it was between the lines. Of course, I kept the list of defensive mechanisms low, but there's a plethora of counter-measures that could be considered, especially for countering specific weapon systems. For example, chaff vs missiles, ablative armor for lasers, and so on. A cogent and exciting pvp system would not support a single ship-type meta at all. Instead, it would provide the foundation for differently purposed ships, which, when working together, creates a far more threatening environment against their opponents or when used in a balanced way, would perform better than non-combat ships, but be far less effective against ships specialized in their various tasks. So, until such time, if ever, defensive systems and mechanisms are added to the game, it's not unfair for freighter captains to want to destroy their own ship and cargo in order to deny them to their attackers. The pirate may not like it, but the freighter captain isn't all that excited about being attack, either. It's best that both are equally happy and/or equally miserable, and not that one side is favored over the other. And right not, in a combat, the pirate is highly favored.
  15. And? This is not a counter point.
  16. Except I've played SC/SQ42 far longer and had less to see from it, than DU has provided me. And while DU has its problems, it's not a pile of crap, but rather the foundation of what will likely be an excellent game.
  17. No, it's bitching as a result of limited thinking by players. How you cannot make money other than 1the daily reward is beyond me. You can 1) sell ores to bots (not ideal, but you can make millions in a short amount of time) 2) If you have a space-capable ship, run to other plants/moons in the safe zone for players who want the higher tier schematics, but don't want to run to those places themselves. I've paid out over a million to people to do this very thing, on top of paying for the schematics and I've only bought about two dozen through others, buying another three dozen schematics myself. 3) produce honeycombs that people want, but don't want to do the industry for. I've seen several people ask for certain t1 and t2 honeycombs, asking if any was for sale. 4) Produce atmospheric fuel and sell it for a profit. You can find a market that has too high a price and sell it for slightly less. 5) make quality ships and sell the BPs. You don't need to have all of the schematics for all of the tiers of elements, just make some nice looking ships that have some functionality or purpose behind them. You can even make ships that are interesting and people may buy them. Once you've made a ship, Core BP it and then take it apart and reuse the elements for your next ship construction. If your voxelmancy skills are low, watch some videos on it and practice. Don't expect people to throw money at you just because. This is not brain surgery, you can and should be figuring this out, not having it handed to you on a silver platter. This applies to everyone. I've not been hurt at all since the patch, in fact I'd say it has helped me narrow my focus to concentrate on what I REALLY want to do, instead of moving from one thing to another because I can. I've never had more than 9 million at once, and usually it is well under 1 million, but that is because I claimed a number of hexes, not because I bought things from the market. I could sell what I am using and make an easy 30-40 million, right now, but money is not my object, it is only one stepping stone on the path to my goals in the game.
  18. Then, It is surprising that people ever made it out of the stone age. These are diametrically opposed positions, from the overall tone of your argument. They are either destructive or not so much, as long as they are only selling schematics. Since you already allow that they are not destructive, or at least not as destructive when purchase from bots (you use 'AI" but it is the same), then you've just weakened your prior argument, if unintentionally. Which is really a non-argument as anyone who joins the game later is already starting from a position behind the progress everyone else has made and you are thus arguing that a wipe MUST occur for the game to be fair to everyone on the day of release, even if that is not your intent. If it is your intent, then are you prepared to further argue for repeated wipes to continually make the game fair? At some point in time, we're going to have to accept that fairness only works to a point and after that, it become detrimental to everything else that we might place value in, i.e., entertainment here at the expense of entertainment received elsewhere. I would disagree that this is their focus for game, instead it is civilization building, which by necessity requires that pvp be included as conflict and its resolution is a part of any civilization. TW is, from what has been officially said, going to be a balance for high-end play; if you want the good stuff, you will need to be prepared to defend it against those who'd rather take it. So far, it has very little effect on those who are not after the top tier stuff, as many players simply will not need that in order to achieve their personal goals for the game. So, while I agree that I want to see bots go away, I disagree that having them now will utterly destroy the game, and all the other horrible and horrid things that you imagine would happen. This is not all that much different from receiving income from completing missions, it is merely in a different form, which happens to be more or less lucrative depending upon player choices. Where it causes problems is when it interferes or affects players who do not want to mine endlessly, but would rather buy and sell via the markets (which is what NQ wants from us, granted). However, there has to be some money the hands of others in order to ease the player to player transactions, given that it is far to inconvenient to hand 20kl of a good to someone who does not have the storage for it. There's a level of abstraction here, which serves to limit player options instead of impose RL considersations on similar choices (i.e., you can put goods in the open, on your property in RL, although that can be harmful to your goods, but you can choose to do that. You cannot do so in game). While the resources are finite, in the cases of T1 ores, it is closer to infinite than not, given that there's just SO MUCH of it that the current player base (before .23 that is) would take quite a long while of daily mining, everywhere, to grab it all. Where it has a greater effect is when it higher tier ores were being bought by bots, because the rare ores are much more rare and could conceivably be mined out in a matter of months, not years. It could be argued that t1 ores are truly infinite in that the game will be gone before they can be fully mined out. Except, as I pointed out at the start, you've already established that you accept that at least some part it not to be entirely player-driven. That the economy was failing pre-0.23 was partly due to bots, and partly due to other variables. I sold very little ore to bots and basically even that was an unrealized error at the time. Once I realized I was doing so, I stopped selling to the market and relied on the daily 100k (one of the other variables). Instead, I built what I needed/wanted. I built my three scanners, my 30 L cores, three of my four ships (I purchased a BP for a ship from a player, so I really built all four that I own). I built my 50,000m3 of honeycomb that I have put into my base, so far and I've even built the decorations that I have, included nearly 4 dozen signs and screens. And I'm just a moderately small fish in a very large ocean filled with whales. I did purchase 7 elevators as the ores were out of my reach for personal mining, but whether they were from players or bots I could not say. Beyond that, I had no reason to buy from or interact with any other player beyond my personal choice to chat with them. NQ was spot on about that. And this is another reason why that economy was crap, because when there's little to no player-to-player transactions due to self-sufficiency, there's no need for an economy. If you can grow your own food from seeds you've found, build your own shelter, make your own clothes, and use your feet for transportation, what do you need to exchange with someone else that isn't actually just a want? So again, there's a middle ground, but it has not been realized yet. Probably because people keep insisting that there can't be, when they inadvertently prove that there's some area of it that does. As it is, this is just going around in circles and nothing positive is the result, and certainly NQ believes that bots have a purpose, at least in the short-term, so they're currently here until NQ decides their purpose has been achieved. Arguing against them does not make them disappear any more quickly than just accepting that they are here for the now and trying to help come up with suggestions as to how they can go away much sooner rather than later...the middle ground.
  19. You all do realize, don't you, that this is just a rehash of the gold standard vs fiat argument that has gone on for nearly two centuries? The bots are just on the extreme end of fiat money, with a value equal to whatever the government says it is. Yes, it a bit more complicated than that, but if you look at out the CCP manipulates their currency (not bashing, it is just the reality), then my previous statement is true. The gold standard requires a relatively free market, but it does not have to be thoroughly so, to give money its value, the value largely determined by its relative rarity. Why this matters in game, is that the RL argument never has been resolved, or rather those decided the fiat course of action chose to make things easier for their governments to spend money to whatever extent they were willing to risk serious harm to their economies. How then to proceed? Well, if time = money, then those who have more time to play this game will naturally have more money (well wealth, really). While some may jump up to point out that this is, of course, a fair system, then that begs the question of "what about the casual players?" If a casual player feels the game is completely closed off to them, because they have no means of earning money or even competing for it, relative to the others whose actions are causing inflation (because their extra time = printing money for them), then we have a problem. The game will soon not have new players (after release) and will die from attrition alone. NQ tried to partially address this with valuing schematics based on time to create the item, as well as its tier, but they failed to fully account for the items' utility or more especially the need for more than a few of them to exist, relative to other items that take an equal amount of time to build (or a collection of items that take less time). For example, how many of you need 12 territory scanners on your ship versus how many need 12 L engines? So, although not a hard limit, a more natural limit to scanners, per person, is 3. But, with each and every scan, it has diminishing utility, whereas the engines continue to maintain the same measure of utility (usefulness) as when they were used the first time as when they are used for the 10,000th time. If you disagree, then think of it this way, there's only so many hexes for you to scan, once you scan a hex, you have one less hex to scan for its current state of ore (unless the ore is reseeded, this will remain true, even when other planets/moons are added, the utility will increase on the NEXT scan, and then diminish again from that now higher level of utility). How is this conundrum to be resolved? Sure, we could attempt to allow a free market to decide this. But, there's no such thing in this game or any other computer game. Why? Because the same considerations of a free market in the real world do not exist in the game. We have some very basic daily needs in RL, such as food, clothing, shelter, etc., that MUST be met for us to exist for more any length of time (yes, even the homeless have a form of shelter, else they die of exposure). It is that selection of RL concerns that underlay the foundations of a free market, are you willing to go hungry in order to buy that iphone? Are you willing to not pay rent and get kicked out of your apartment so that you can buy that really cool big screen TV with all the bells and whistles? These considerations cannot exist with the game, else it would cease to be entertainment and merely a droll second life that few would want to experience for long. As such, demands for a true free market are based on a faulty set of assumptions, that what works in RL will work here, to the extent that it has been tried and proven. It simply cannot. For the sake of brevity, I left out other RL considerations that go into this, namely those mechanisms and institutions that insure our basic needs can be met, such as fire, police, etc., which require us to pay taxes, in some form to be sure. We also do not pay those taxes in game, but merely a fee for market exchanges that are not collected in player to player trades. So, obviously some form of compromise between the two systems or fiscal ideologies must emerge, instead of demands of exclusivity for one or the other. Therefore, I think the best way forward is to leave it as it is, provided that NQ follows through on its intent to withdraw the bots from the game, presumably at least by full release. Schematics as a whole should not be in the hands of the players alone, especially as it will just lead to the same problem as before, without a huge change and subsequent uproar, because we will all just make the schematics we decide we need and then not rely on others for such transactions. Yes, they could be exclusive to some function of research, but that again rewards people either linearly or exponentially (boom or bust kind of luck), and I doubt many will want to solely rely on that one individual who successfully researched the t5 super-duper cannon of doom, just before he/she had a kid and quit playing the game. Instead of trying to beat each side's argument down, let's find something in the middle we can all live with.
  20. There current is no defense, only offense. That is his primary point. If players had defensive mechanisms available to them, in order to try to thwart a pirate/ganker, they'd use that. When and if I am attacked by a pirate, under the current circumstances, the cargo is going out the airlock. That's my sole defensive ability. People moan about that, but allowing that cargo to be taken is just giving more power and incentive to the pirate to keep at it. One of the few disincentives is the lack of cargo to seize. If I get one-shotted or I am unable to dump the cargo before dying, then the pirate has earned what they are able to loot and salvage. Except that losing the freighter is a 100% ship loss, not a partial one. In sheer terms of money, the investment in that freighter are likely tremendous and replacing that without being able to haul freight with requires a much greater investment in time and money than replenishing ammo for the pirate. Right now, beyond being able to avoid combat completely, time is the most crucial factor in determining whether or not a freighter survives an attack. Does the pirate have enough time to kill his victim before it reaches a safe-zone? If not, the freighter captain has to decide, very quickly, what has to be done to make the loss either let painful for himself or the victory less rewarding for the attacker. Adding weapons to the freighter does nothing to save the freighter, especially if attacked by multiple bogies, barring near-miraculous kills on the attacker (which would be more due to the pirate attacking with a severely damaged ship). So, what's left. Going faster in order to reach safety? Nope! 29,999kph is the fastest one can go and if already moving at that speed, well, speed is life as they say. Can he use ECM and ECCM to hinder the attacker's targeting? Does not exist in the game. How about installing shields that prevent/limit damage for at least some amount of time? Try again! Armor, what about armor? The thrust to weight ratios and lack of real, effective, armor honeycomb or elements says no. Armored haulers are only really a thing for military transports, if even then. Look at the armor on modern APCs and compare that to the armor on MBTs. One is paper and the other is far, far, superior to 6" of solid steel. Get friends to man the guns or fly escorts? The nature of the internet is such that it is easier to get together a group of people to hunt, destroy, and loot than it is to get people to be space policemen. Unless there is enough motive for them to do so, for example a mission that provided money or perhaps a fame/rating system, or points towards talents, it takes a dedicated org of players to provide this. So, join and Org and get escorts/gunners that way! Again, there is virtually no content to support this beyond someone's willingness to waste, I mean spend a few hours of their precious game time riding herd on a fat hauler. Thus, unless there are some VERY good friends around, that freighter is going to be running a crew of one, who will be repairing, if possible, while making as quickly as they can for a safe-zone. Warp! Expensive to operate and it takes a good number of warp cells to run, especially when there's only outbound freight for a two-way trip. The freighter captain is running freight, hoping to make enough money to buy and operate a warp drive with warp cells. One bad trip, with little profit or even a loss, and that expensive gizmo is put further out of reach. Now, this is the CURRENT situation for cargo carriers. It will, hopefully, change. For the pirate, they spent money on weapons ammo, and their ship. They sit in the travel lanes, hoping for a target they can kill and loot. ... ... ... ... Anyone killing pirates, today? No. There's no incentive to do so and the risk is too high for solo players. ... ... ... The waiting is the cost of being a pirate. No one is really going after you, yet, to any large extent, unless it is someone who just loves ganking people or who really likes this (skill-less) pvp system. So... ... ... And to top it off, should adequate and effective defenses be added to the game, the freighter captains best form of defense...will STILL be to limit the time under which he/she is attacked and to survive just long enough to reach a place they cannot be shot up and killed. Now, I do have hopes for this game and the pvp mechanics of the future. I have a real hankering for engaging pirates and looting their dead bodies, but I am not suicidal and there's got to be some in-game incentive for me to do so. Streaming a few kills on Twitch or YouTube has no interest for me; I don't need to have my ego stroked to have fun. Parasite fighters would be awesome, especially if they could be remotely piloted through surrogate stations. A fame/infamy system that had its own progression of rewards would be good for all parties. Earning a bonus of talent points for running escort missions, from a mission system, would be an excellent reward. Shields and armor to give the freighter some suitability without giving up too much cargo space (ammo takes up weight and space, yes in ammo containers, but that COULD be cargo). ECM and ECCM to mess with the targeting and gunnery effectiveness of the attackers. A speed limit much higher than it is. If am slowboating (sans warp) and want to make sure I can limit the engagement window, I'd rather be at 100,000kph, because my trip will be that much faster too. Then, I can afford to take a crazy dog-legged trip in order to avoid areas infested with pirates, because it won't take 8 consecutive hours to do it. (I've made a 6 hour trip to Teoma, from a tangent, not direct, course, and it sucks at 29,999kph. I'd certainly do it more often if I could go a lot faster). Well, pirates could go 100,000kph too? Yes, but we're talking SPACE here, not an ocean. A pirate traveling that fast is either running orbits or figure-eights to remain in the more-traveled areas, so I'd use a tangential course to hopefully avoid that contact. But, I still need to approach my destination and that is where the window of vulnerability comes into play and the pirates know it. It is at that point where they need to try to hit me hard enough for a quick kill, otherwise I only suffer damage, but not lose the ship or cargo. Which is why I have suggested here, but JC has already mentioned, a pvp system where damage can possibly be plied in a more intentionally targeted manner, say at my engines or command seat location, or even core. And it is here that the true skill in pvp and pirating would emerge, the design of effective ships versus ineffective ships, in the placement of propulsion, core, command, and cargo. I've written enough of a wall, but simply declaring that once a freighter is targeted, it's cargo cannot be deleted, is asinine in a game that already favors the attacker. Such has been repeated throughout these forums, but is an argument that only looks at how a pirate can benefit and not the natural give and take that exists in reality or should exist within a game that wants to have a rational and realistic basis for what it provides for and allows. I've offered to write a full brief to NQ, as I could go on for about 50,000 words on this subject, but so far they've not expressed an interest. And that is fine, as I also do not make any demands that they do so; I am merely making the offer as a way to provide helpful suggestions for the potential betterment of this game that I enjoy playing.
  21. Been there! I went through at least two large ships and an elevator at and near Market 17 on Alioth, but because of lag, I did not crash or take damage. So the moral is, that the lag can giveth and the lag can taketh away.
  22. Wasn't sold as a done game, unless you were riding high on your narcotic of choice when browsing Youtube videos. It is clearly a beta. I subbed for this game in response to an announcement for the paid beta, in October. I have had star citizen since they released the Squadron 42 to the backers. It is currently a $300+ million pile of crap and each time I log in, hoping for something fun, it remains a disappointing pile of crap sprayed with gold paint. Although I still have hopes for it, I'm not holding my breath. I guess their saving grace is that they are still calling it an Alpha.
  23. I am sure each and every one of their development teams will respond openly and with full disclosure to each of your technical inquiries that you demand they answer. Since it is such a large list, you should probably start now.
  24. Okay, I get the why behind the introduction of the necessity of having higher tier industries to deal with higher tier ores. However, as the higher tier elements are visually the same and they are just really a difference to be different, I'd rather see this aspect of the game handled...differently. My suggestion is this: Since we already have the schematic library for each machine, and it is here to stay, why not make a "controller" slot where a dedicated circuit board, which is common to all industry elements, would be inserted. So, you open the industry element screen, and see the tabs for schematics on the left, this would require a "Controller" tab that has space for one to four circuit boards, so that the same industry element could handle all tiers, but require the proper circuit board to be inserted for it to do so. These circuit boards would, of course, require the higher tiers of ore, like the higher tier elements now do, but instead of having to build industry elements to gain the ability to use the higher tier materials, the circuit boards that the place of that. The basic boards could be built out of the nanopack, but they could all be built from the xs assembler, which would need the proper schematics, of course. This would not put those who are selling these higher tier elements out of business, as they'd simply switch to making the circuit boards. To easy the pain of transition, withdraw the uncommon, advanced, and rare industry elements, replacing them with the basic version AND the appropriate tier of circuit board. For example, if I had 2 uncommon refiners and 1 advanced refiner, when the patch for this occurs, I would end up having 3 basic refiners, 2 uncommon industry circuit boards (or whatever they would be called), and 1 advanced circuit board. Under this version of industry, there's less need of space to perform the same functions, their would still be a differentiation between refiners equipped to handle the higher tier ores, and people would still be needed to provide the "circuit boards" in order to gain this higher tier production. It also would require less hassle, and time, to manage one's factory, as progressing up the tiers would only require adding a new circuit board to the element, instead of re-arranging or expanding the factory. Of course, this also opens up the possibility for potential future development of this mechanic, by allowing research into more efficient controllers that add to the productivity of the industry element, perhaps increasing productivity by some percentage or reducing material costs. This would not replace talents, but instead add enhancements to the current benefits. Talents provide a linear increase, say -3% per level, but my thought on this would be that an uncommon "improved controller" (or whatever the gizmo is called) would be -1%, advanced -3%, and rare -5%, on top of whatever the talent level of the player happens to be, even if currently zero. What brought this about is having to once again rearrange my factory, which is not huge by any margin, but still a PITA. When I expand to include all of the higher tier production, it will become a nightmare to deal with. I did not see anywhere in the development design intent that they wanted the game to become a nightmare for players to have to deal with.
  25. If someone became a trader in schematics, they are not screwed. In fact, they received a partial refund for any that they purchased from the bots. All they need to do is re-list at a lower price appropriate for the latest change. They can still trade in schematics, spending marginally less for the same ones as before, and making marginally less profit (perhaps), due to the lower re-sell price. Those who buy lots of different schematics in the hope that they sell on the market will likely make less profit over those who trade schematics on a made-to-order basis. If I elect not to spend the time to slowboat (because I don't have a warp engine - I'm not that impatient to need one right now) to buy T2 schematics, I just ask someone who is going off-Alioth if they'll buy a list of schematics for me. I tell them what I am wanting and how much I am willing to pay as compensation. It's not outrageous profit, but if they are already heading there and back, I shouldn't be fronting the cost of their entire trip to do so. If they don't like the offer, I ask someone else who might. If none accept, I take the trip on my own, offering to buy for others in the process. It's a fair exchange based on player choices, not something subject to the whims of NQ tinkering with schematic prices or where talent points were allocated. Now, if I have higher talents in skills that make my trip less costly, that's profit for me, but I'd expect no one to pay extra for that and neither should I be expected to pay for that. If players dumped industry because they couldn't afford it, they are not screwed. While it is slightly more affordable, it's not massively so. If they did not take refining and smelting skills, their talent points spent elsewhere are still as useful as they were two days ago. Declaring that others are screwed because of changes you don't like, whether they happen to agree with you or not, or whether your demand de jour is not enacted, is a poison pill. It does not improve anything. However, I happen to believe that spending cash for a reset, at progressively higher amounts of cash, would be good for the game. People come into the game with a set of expectations, realizing (if they are attentive) that queuing up talents to learn is the best way forward, and will not know enough about the game to make a truly informed or sensible decision. If there is a mechanism available to them and everyone, to reset their talents, via a purchase, then that is a much better system than simply hoping for demanding a reset. It should be a low cost for the first one or two resets, but it should get progressively more costly and even prohibitively so as they continue to spend cash for a rest. It would not be amiss for talents to be reset again when the PVP changes are added, because more folks will be inclined to give those a try. This is what should occur, but if it doesn't no one is screwed by it.
  • Create New...