Jump to content

StaticAstraeus

Member
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

StaticAstraeus's Achievements

  1. And this is where your argument falls apart, at least as far as I'm concerned. The only limits on "what you can become" in real life, is your ambition, hard work and determination. Every time you tell yourself "I could never do that", you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Disclaimer: this obviously does not extent to achievements that are not within your biological abilities, but anything other than that is fair game.
  2. It could do, I'm honestly not sure. The first time I came across the term was during the EVE beta, so you should take my definition with a "pinch of salt" It's almost like trying to figure out where "lol" first came from
  3. That's just how PvP works though. You can't paint a bullseye on your backside and expect not to get shot. There are plenty of people out there that get their jollies from hunting/hurting others, especially those who can't fight back. If you think this is unfair, you would have loved Jumpgate
  4. It's a term that originated in the early Eve days (as far as I'm aware). Where you go out and blow the stuffing out of npc pirate ships. Ratting was the act of destroying ships that were in the act of piRatting. Personally, it always sounded weird to me.
  5. While I would not class myself as a pure programmer/developer, it is one of the tasks I often have to delve into. As such, I do not believe the endeavour is beyond the capabilities of developers that work for NQ. Is it beyond managerial aspirations? More than likely, but it could be done. At the end of the day, in the engineering world, anything is possible... as long as the person in control wants to put in the effort.
  6. It would have a better chance against Empyrion, and I'm afraid even that would be a losing proposition at this point in time. Against SC? The words "statistically insignificant" would be a major understatement.
  7. You could make an entire game around the R&D aspect of stuff... but here's my simplified suggestion. You build/buy a "research" unit/station. This unit is tied to the Ark ship's mainframe (for lore purposes) You can run research jobs that take a set amount of time and resources plus require access to the mainframe (this access can be monetised, since you are using a service) To research the more exotic stuff you need existing tech to already be known. And as a stretch goal, you can run projects to try and improve the statistics of the parts at the cost of something else (I'm thinking SWG crafting system now, that was ace)
  8. They could just add a power supply mechanism (which has been suggested before add nauseum). It's weird how everything just magically works. Not only would this add to the realism, and limit how much you can support before you add more generating capacity, you could tie in the reactor fuel to use some "catalyst" that is only sold by our AI overlord: As in, you can craft your own fuel, but you need this "special" add on. Basic reactors could run on standard fuel, but you can only have so many. You want a full on power plant to support your mega factory/strip-mining operation? Pay up! That would drain some quanta from the economy, and introduce something new for a change.
  9. Let me design and build a ship I can have fun PVping in and I'll go PvP all the way (my first online game was Jumpgate - hello to anyone that knows what that is) Unfortunately, what we have here is a mockery of PvP. I can't built a single decent small ship without having to resort to using the remote control, and that has always felt like a cheat to me. A standard seat should be able to support at least 2 guns, radar(s) and whatever other basic systems are needed. Add more seats for more stuff, by all means. But let me build at least a basic ship. Also, it would be nice to have booster modules to give more processing capacity to ships; wants more weapons (or whatever) add more tech to support it. It's not like the game can't support it. It's just a weird design decision. What exists at the moment is too restrictive. Not everyone wants or has the benefit of multi-crewing a ship. The feature is nice to have, but it should not be the default option.
  10. I was talking more from a technical stand point (like the tunnel issues), but yes I can see how having old inactive accounts hogging tiles is an issue. It's more about gameplay than infrastructure? Taxation seems like an uninspired way to go about it though: anyone that's been at it long enough won't even notice it (deep pockets) and it isn't very lore friendly (not that there is a lot of that to go around) Adding a cap to how many territories you can hold would be easier. You could play it off as some sort of administration "skill" that only lets you handle so much bureaucracy. You want more tiles past a certain number? Pay up for the training to increase your cap. Cost rises exponentially, or something like that. Now the fun bit would be if you had power mechanics associated with the TCU's. (a long standing dream at this point) Loss of power due to inactivity doesn't lose the territory, but the protection. So wildcat miners can swoop in.
  11. I started up a month before 0.23 hit... I had a blast, but then I had to walk away; looking at my workshop and knowing how much effort it would take to get the blueprints needed to do my designs was just heart-breaking. But that's in the past. My sub stopped that day, but I've kept an eye on the forums since. When I saw the announcement about the changes there was one thought that went through my head: so they fixed one issue that spelled doom for the long term prosperity of the game (resource depletion) and replaced it with a new problem that threatens the short term life of the game? (taxation... now don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed in principle, but it doesn't make much sense lore wise, especially on the fringe planets) The bit about the massive overhead of all the tunnels made me chuckle a little; I figured that one out 5 minutes into the game; It must have been a facepalm moment when the realisation finally hit home, but they could have fixed it easily by just having a process that runs at set intervals on the dataset and "collapses" tunnels. After all, you wouldn't open up a mineshaft in real life and expect it to stay open without reinforcing the tunnel system, it would just collapse. The rules are simple: "x" distance from surface collapses after certain time; If a player construct is close by then do not collapse. I don't really understand what the taxation is supposed to fix, so I won't comment further on that. Most of my stuff was on sanctuary anyway. I did build a house on a nice beach property that I'll miss if it goes. the tile was hollowed out before I ever got there, but the view was fantastic 😆 /Just another observer... for now
  12. Edit failure, meh... Additional point: any server intensive checks during the editing process could, in theory, be scheduled to run only at the end, when one "compiles" the design. Any errors would be highlighted before you can complete the process. Potentially alleviating any ongoing server strain the design process inflicts. Though this last point is speculative since I don't know what checks are carried out in real time.
  13. We have those pods that let us play tourist. Could just be a spin-off from that to start with. It should not be a separate game mode though. I'm certainly not advocating for anything of the sort. Ideally it would be launched and managed from within the normal game session. Furthermore, it will be an absolute requirement if/when the concept of structural integrity is introduced and ships stop being a collection of parts stuck together with spit and good intentions. Floating voxels may be fine in a simulated design environment, but its down right immersion breaking to see that when gravity is supposed to be a thing
  14. Q: What do you need for any economy to flourish? A: Product, and lots of it. And I mean diversity, not just quantity. The more people that can design stuff, the better the economy will be. Depending on where the designers are, you even end up forcing trade to happen, because people will either need to get their backside to the market selling stuff or have it shipped. You don't design an economy solely around the supply of parts, you design it around end products that people want/need to buy, even if they already have something that does the same thing. You want the economy to succeed? You need designers wiling to put in the time to create stuff you will want to buy. Do you really think everyone who can do that (and do it well) will want to grind so that you can feel better about yourself? Or, will they want to immerse themselves in the creative process as much as possible? I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I can lose entire days/weeks while in "the creative zone"... and mining or other activities are not in my creative zone. Just because a designer is not flying around does [not mean] he/she does not contribute... unless they have no interest in selling their creations, in which case they still pay a sub, so no loss there as far as NQ is concerned (not optimal in any way, but not the end of the world either).
  15. As someone who designs stuff for a living (using a plethora or very expensive design and simulation tools) I support the idea of creative mode. In fact, at this point it's probably the only thing that will bring me back to the game. People who enjoy to play creatively (and only creatively) will not pay to play this game, period. So, not adding it simply deprives the game of subscribers. It's similar to the piracy argument, that if you stop people pirating, they will buy the product instead... they won't. People who enjoy a mix of playstyles (raises hand) need a good mixture of balanced game system (which are currently missing), so this makes little [difference] and is only a bonus for them. You get more selection of stuff to play with without burning through scarce resources during the design phase, and you don't have to mine until you are ready to build it. Sounds great to me.
×
×
  • Create New...