Lethys
-
Posts
5686 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Lethys
-
-
Nothing else to add. Simply, there are people who say like it would happen with 100% guarantee and create disinformation in the community.
If to speak about the crew. How big should it be in your vision? How many players need to be in "sub" to cover possible DC/RL (if to make heavy requirements to have a multi crew)? Finally how big should be a ship? Maybe I find 30m ship as huge, but you speak about 3km ship.
Future. Automatic systems. Even nowadays crew become obsolete more and more. That if to speak about realism.
If to speak about game side, re-read ATMLVE messages, don't want to re-write his words.
Thanks,
Archonious
Well if people take information in an IDEA forum for granted - that's their problem
Depends on the ship - as you said, perhaps you only have a 30m ship. Depends also what will be in the game and how many positions can be manned.
Automatic systems will be possible (yes also stated by NQ - but that's no argument for you) but they will not work as good as a player (also said by NQ) - because that would diminish the MMO part
Thanks,
YourPersonalGriefer
-
Not 100% safe, but verry very much safer than outside.
If a person is 100% safe in a safezone, it would make it impossible for wars to have conculsions. A faction would be barricaded inside a safezone, wih wals built around them in it and just wait till reinforcements come.
I only expect the original Arkship Safezone to be safe. Any other safezone will run on power-cells of some kind, quite possibly being able to be sieged as well.
And in my opinion, only the starting Safezone should be 100% safe, as it's a place for newbros to experience the game before heading out into the post-apocalyptic wasteland
yes I was talking about the ark ship safe zone.
In the protection bubbles you can create yourself you have to be raidable by various means (as talked about in the shield timer thread)
-
Just started reading the story but just for science: neutron stars are no remnants of a black hole. If a star has several times the mass of our sun (above Chandrasekhar's limit) and collapses, it turns into a neutron star/magnetar/blazar/other type. Only the most heavy ones turn into black holes.
I'll edit this post once I finish reading in order to keep your thread clean
NINJAEDIT:
I like the conclusion of the story and the implied explanations with that, but I think this is very dangerous terrain - NQ said that Aphelia shouldn't be mentioned that much. And that IDA is a nice idea for a story, but imho not true for the game.
-
-
To me the point is to make a game where it's almost impossible for griefers to cause their grief.
Griefing is something that is sort of hard to define. But to me it is when one player stops another player from enjoying the game. And there is nothing that player can do about it. That last part is important.
In Dual the idea is that there will be safe zones provided by arcships for you to hang out in and build your base. As long as you stay inside the safe zone you should be 100% safe. It will also be possible to create safe zones or combat free zones outside the arcship safe zone, but i think these will have vulnerabilities that will need to be protected.
Yes you are 100% safe in the safezone, but outside you are forced to interact with other players as they wish. Consent not needed.
Griefers and pirates are avoided with ease if you know how, plus there will be some mechanics to stop griefing in particular. But if someone wants to ruin your day by killing you repeatedly and puts effort in that (like a spy network, paying people to tell him where you are, getting to know your location of the resurrection node, getting a team together to search for you, ....) it should be possible - albeit at a high price.
-
Too much theory without facts at all.
We will know how good/bad/possible to do that only in alpha/beta. All the rest is just guessing, personal opinions and possible plans. Even "NQ said" does not mean it won't be changed in future.
BTW, crew is not that great thing. If somebody has important role, it can be failed and everything could be failed as result (reasons - internet, lag, somebody knocking the door, bad reaction or any other). If there are two similar shios with 2-3 members and with 20 members, it does not mean 20ppl ship has advantage.
Question about roles in game is open as well, till alpha/beta. There are too much dreams shown as truth. What about lock on system and what kind of control then? What about destruction model and what about repair then?
So yeah, it cool to discuss "How it could be", "How you see/think about that", but how it will be nobody knows, I'm sure, not even NQ.
P.S: I would agree with ATMLVE more, over complex structures will have possible negative effect (if it would be requirement). It must not be "Black or White", there must be balance. Possible, but not same. Advantage, but not critical (if speak about same level knowledge players with same other factors).
Thanks,
Archonious
This is an idea subforum and such discussions are enforced by NQ - because they want players to get involved and think about the game.
If we would follow your mindset: why bother AT ALL with ideas/critical thinking about some statements from NQ - because they do what they want anyway. That would be the worst thing to do
The question in this specific topic was: I'm very curious to know what the direction is for crewing ships in DU especially large ships.
So for LARGE SHIPS you NEED crew and it's the ONLY WAY of dealing with a LARGE SHIP that has to be EFFECTIVE
DCs/RL can happen at all time so in your little example it means the ship with more crew wins. Because there are backup people there who can take over from a disconnected player
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
OFC you discuss IDEAS in a subforum like this - that's what it's meant for
-
Perfect
-
Lethys sez no
-
-
*snip*
I agree on some points. What you're saying is absolutely true, but for real life. The US Navy does indeed put more than one person on board their battleships. However, within a game, a lot will be automated, or enhanced by having the properties that a video game has. Things like weapons firing can be automated. Put your bridge at the center of the ship, then go into 3rd person mode and you can see where and how far away the enemy is. This is many things all in one; this person can drive the ship, see other enemies and gauge their relative distance, see how much damage they have, and also they can see how much damage they themself are taking. Monitoring systems like fuel, energy, and ammo wouldn't be a huge problem if you take more than you need, although having someone regulate things where they need to go could certainly help.
Your thoughts are indeed valid for real-world applications, where loss means the literal loss of your life and the weakening of the forces fighting those trying to hurt what you have. There could, too, be a one-man battleship in the real world. But the risk associated with something like that, the cost of the loss, makes it not applicable. But within this game, which absolutely wishes to be in-depth, I still don't think it will always need to be necessary to have so much insurance at every possible post.
NQ already said that they want this game to be immersive and hard to master. So as already discussed several times:
- yes you can solo a battleship
- no it won't be as good as if you manned it with People. In fact, it sucks.
So for the sake of that Argument alone you want to man your ships.
All of your points are rendered useless as arguments if NQ just doesn't implement them or not as you said (no 3rd Person, Special skills for Navigation/targeting/Shooting/driving/Engineering,.......).
So yes, imho you really want to man your bigger ships. You CAN fly them alone if you need to, but you're fucked when pirates show up
-
#drivebyshooting
-
-
what the fuck means wtf ?
-
I vote Lord_Void too!
-
Safe space, I demand a safe space!
-
Doorknobs
-
Shit happens
Give it a friend and get some money
-
Buying gametime (sub) will be around 10-13€ per month.
One DAC will be around 15-18€. You can either use that as one month of game time or sell it for ingame credits on the markets ingame. That's why they are more expensive.
It's cheaper to just buy a sub. People who want more in-game credits can buy DACs and sell them to you. So you can play for free if you earn enough in-game money
- Saul Retav and Pang_Dread
-
2
-
Uh that one would be nice to lick
-
Even that is bad gameplay.A full reset is exagerated, you're right with this. Maybe something like a percentage chance of loosing some learned skills and reseting progress on the currently learning one? The problem with many online games is that many features don't work right because death doesn't have consequences. For example, on my old Minecraft server everybody comitted suicide if they were hungry because it was easier than actually search food.
Combine the death with more power needed from that res-node and eventually killing it, with some death penalties that increase the more often you die or some similar method.
Losing skillpoints will drive people to safe gameplay and avoiding others for the most part because they could die and lose skills. I wouldn't care much for that, but 90% of players don't want to risk anything as precious as skillpoints
-
I was all in at first for skill loss when you die but thinking of it again with eve in my mind it just doesn't work out well. The only progression you make in DU is skilltime since there is no level. Taking that away from players is just the easy way out to prevent players fRom doing something stupid.
A complete reset is just the worst option and completely useless. I will break your idea with just one single statement: I will make alts and just troll people by killing them. They lose everything and the alt nothing. Just an utterly bad idea
-
Well done guys *slow clapping* well done
-
the game hasn't even come out yet, how do you expect "war reports" I will continue to add action to each chapter so it won't be boring, but no one can give "war reports" on a game that still hasn't come out yet.
That's why I said: IF.
You asked for opinions and mine is just that simple: I can't really enjoy stories about something which aims at playing in the future when the game hits and will most likely not happen as this story suggest.
-
Ships and the crew required
in Builder Forum
Posted
no one ever said anything about balance or that large ships should be better than small ones
Again: this is about LARGE ships. And for them you certainly need crew - that's just natural. You can automate it, yes, but an automated ship will ALWAYS be worse than the worst player - otherwise you never ever gonna need a team. And it would not make sense to advertise DU as multicrew ship and then don't implement any other stations for players to interact with.
Well it's not the OPs or the poster's problem when people misunderstand information or deliberately forget that this is an idea board - yup that's really not my problem