Jump to content

Metsys

Member
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Alpha
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Metsys's Achievements

  1. The slowing forums is people realizing their words fall onto deaf ears that say "we hear your concerns" all the same. We can complain and talk about all the issues here and suggest whatever we want, it just doesn't make a difference. This thread here alone is people voicing and talking about the wipe issue for a month now, making suggestions or stating opinions and observations on specific problems around the wipe. And NQ has not said a thing about it all this time, despite players begging for any word on the matter. So here we are, talking to eachother and at eachother without the power to make it change anything. And with that realization comes apathy and activity slows down.
  2. And with that you add extra weight to your ship, making it perform worse. At least it wont turn any worse, since your ships turns like shiet if it is above 1.75kt mass, same as a ship with 40kt mass does. Because that makes sense. But that's a whole other story...
  3. NQ is just in over their heads. They made some server tech that splits the main server frame into smaller sub-grids and splits those again and again, should increased activity or density in those grids require more performance that justifies its own shard. And with that tech-demo, they should have refined and sold it to a proper game studio that knows what it's doing and might actually properly apply it to a game. Instead, NQ vowed to take this tech and use it themselves to make their own game: Dual Universe. And here we are, years later, with a half-baked, issue-ridden game with bare-bones gameplay loops, a fancy tech demo at best. And funny enough, it already shows that their tech isn't as holy-grail as they'd want it to be, severe server issues have plagued us recently more than usual and desync has been an issue since the beginning. New features are always half-baked, not properly tested, more often than not break something, feedback apparently not taken. And the lack of communication takes the piss on all that. Just look at all the issues posted on diverse discord servers with just the obstruction and placement of the radars with this change. Free-floating radars, some meters away from their constructs, still show obstructions in some cases. This wasn't tested on a PTS or anything.
  4. 1 week for 4 questions answered. Wow! Totally worth the wait...
  5. Well, Hello Games created insane amounts of hype through social media and interviews which fell flat drastically upon launch of No Man's Sky. Despite that, they still made lots of cash from pre-orders and all the shabang even if MANY, MANY people refunded. It gave the studio a cushion of funds upon which they could sit to rework their game and actually make it something resembling a functioning game to the decent game it is now, with people warming up again to it after it could only have gotten better with the state it was in at launch. DU does not have that kinda hype, not that kinda cushion. I predict the launch will see an increase in player numbers compared to now, but that wouldn't be hard to achieve. But generally it wont be that many new players that will also stick (especially since it's a sub-based MMO compared to buy once, play forever). A sub-fee alone deters players. Best case, just like EVE, it will have a dedicated, but in the grand scheme of MMOs, small playerbase that will be enough to keep it running, with occasional updates but nothing that will ever lift it into such numbers that it would fund any drastic overhauls or reworks.
  6. So you complain you cannot make another beacon but then at the end come to the conclusion that a wipe would delete a beacon you'd have produced anyway. I don't quite understand what you complain about... And NQ seems to see beacons as a very late-game item that orgs will have to work towards so, just like all exotic elements, they locked it behind alien cores which require cooperation of orgs to extract plasma from. The reason no plasma is available at the markets yet is simply because the very little plasma the PvP orgs currently in control of the alien cores could extract they need for themselves first. Once control has been held over these alien cores for longer (now possible since first space base shields finished production today), we might see possible surplus plasma on the market in the future weeks. But don't count on it.
  7. I am not too sure how to read this post, since it's been a no-brainer to run L shields and lots of voxels on the large ships to retain tankiness. By nerfing the shield and introducing max speed limitation to 20.000 km/h for the heavy ships all they did is cement this: You get voxel tanky with a big bulky ship and keep your L shield on it, the more voxel HP and thus core stress, the more venting processes you can survive once your shields are depleted. Smaller shields like M or S shields only come into consideration if you want to retain any sort of max speed or push your max speed as high as you can get it, since you will want to aim for as low ship mass as possible. But that includes a completely different playstyle of utilizing the advantage of being faster than the enemy and disengaging at a speed at which the enemy cannot keep up, which allows you to safely vent and basicly weave in and out of the fight, taking advantage of your superior speed. With that in mind, tankiness from voxels becomes kinda irrelevant on those smaller, faster ships though, unless you wanna survive a few shots after losing your shields on those kinda ships too
  8. So if I understand this thread right you want the people to not have max speed if they cancel their warps but instead come to a full stop if they do. In practice this would only screw you over even more if you were the slowboater and the guy is warping past you and then cancels the warp. Now with Athena they will likely be faster than you anyway, reaching higher top speeds than your hauler above 1.5kt total weight could go, which is about 20.000 km/h. If you have the warper immediately stop and drop to 0km/h at canceling warp, they wont have to slowly decelerate and turn around and whatnot but your 20.000 km/h slowboating speed would basicly push you into their range and drop you back onto their radar pretty much immediately because they already warped ahead of you anyway. Even if they dropped the opposite direction, you practically going 20k km/h into the opposite direction, them now being at 0km/h means they can turn around and catch you a lot easier since, again, their ship will likely go something like 32.000 km/h max speed with high G forces of thrust compard to your 20.000 km/h slowboating hauler. So you're asking to get buttfk'd harder? I am not sure where you're going with this...
  9. any of your green posts I have to read on topics of pvp have more than questionable content. The game's engine already struggles as is, dynamic real-time action combat is not an option. Small ships buzzing around big ships taking out subsystems or something like in star wars wont ever be a thing. Also as soon as you implement kamikaze as a viable strat it will become the only strat. You will have people strap their alts onto xs cores with just a rocket engine to ram into other ships. That is no tactic and it feels unfair at most. What purpose is there in building a thought-out ship if any moron can strap an engine to a core and ram it into you. We currently already have the issue of certain pvpers spamming XS cores (currently to mainly spam enemy radars), we certainly don't need these people to weaponize those cores into ramming them into us. Also, again, there is engine restrictions. We already have severe rubberbanding, chances you would actually manage to line up a ramming are slim because your target will rubberband 20km back and forth. All that aside, you missed the topic. This post was to kick loose a discussion about the importance of cross section with a look into current pvp meta reflecting it. Not about the delusional hopes and dreams of how you want pvp to reflect star wars
  10. I spent some time thinking about this issue, especially since I am actually an advocate for the importance of cross section (even if, ironically, my ships as shown above only conform to small cross section along 1 axis). The idea I came up with would be to limit cross section effectiveness to a threshold, to create a sort-of "deminishing return". Say you have an L core. The lowest cross section "effectiveness" you'd reach with that idea would be if you get, say, 800m² of cross section. No matter how much smaller you manage to build than that, it wont lower the hit probs anyone gets against you any further than they'd have if you had 800m² flat. I would apply the same to the other cores, M for example I would say 400m² and smaller. So if you have 180m², 250m² or 390m², you'd have the same hit probs against you and would only INCREASE hit probs against that M core when you start going beyond 400m² cross section. Cross-core-size you already have penalties and bonuses to your hits probs and that should remain. NOW you would say: "BUT Metsys, that would just mean people build 800x800x800 voxel boxes!" to which I say that you'd add quite some weight at that point, even if you choose relatively light voxel, but that you are kinda correct. Also those stats aren't set in stone, I was just giving example numbers. But the build zone would still be a lot smaller than the full core and should, to a degree, still affect the chances of getting hit. But just large enough to allow some creative freedom to fashion something that is more than just a box. A similar idea that was given here before that I think might overall be a better way to prevent the "box" is a calculation on volume. I would still maintain a sort of deminishing return on effectiveness, but calculate the threshold with the VOLUME of the ship. In fact, this might be an even better idea. Let's do an example: Let's take the M core numbers I gave and go 400x400x400 vs a rough estimation of a "stick-like" ship like the one shown by OP, 180x600x560 (this would be small frontal, but a long ship so the other 2 would be bigger). The result: 400x400x400 = 64.000.000m³ vs 180x600x560 = 60.480.000m³ If you go by volume then, the sticky ship would look better, be within the "volume threshold" for deminishing return and even be a bit under it, so you could even add a bit onto the ship. We'd just need a method to see the volume of the ship too, to be able to build ships to remain inside the volume threshold on purpose. TL;DR: I suggest an effectiveness threshold into a deminishing return for hit probs on small cross section, but that alone might still result in boxes. So I also suggest doing this threshold calculation on volume instead of surface orientation, giving some made-up example numbers.
  11. 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.
  12. If you could read you'd see it's 138m² for an M core. As far as I know most currently aim their L cores at ~400m². Again, LOGIC! IT MAKES SENSE Also if with that M core I target an L core nano I still get at least 40% hit probs, if not more. An L core trying to hit said small cross section M core will have a difficult time, which gives M core the niche to be able to counter L nanos. If my M core would max out the space of an M core construct it might become larger than the INTENTIONALLY SMALL L core and SHOULD get hit equally as easily or take even more hits. In return a 2seater L core with cannons (and maybe some voxel) will shred the M core regardless, as the far higher dps and rate of fire of cannons at same/similar range as M rails will completely obliterate any advantage the small M core cross section ship might have. There is a system in this and asking for the removal defies any sense of logic.
  13. That sounds more like a voxel problem rather than a cross section issue. Speaking of Scifi, Expanse ship designs play SPECIFICALLY into that cross section niche. Military vessels are sleek, longer and thin. Reason for that is obviously that you want to give as little surface to get shot at as possible. A difference in that show is haulers, big carrier-style war ships (even those go with a sleek design) and guerilla style pirating vessels (because realistically if you don't expect to be shot back then your ship can be as clunky and big as you want, you wont have to worry about taking shots). Even in star wars, if you wanna go more with a space opera kinda scifi, the big ships have a hard time hitting the smaller, nimble vessels. They need to deploy small ships of their own that get pretty close in a dog fight to be able to hit eachother. From a military standpoint it makes sense to put as much functionality and firepower into a small-as-possible frame. I am not sure what you expect here. Anything else defies logic. Like, yes, you CAN build a big L core ship but unless you intentionally want to bathe yourself in enemy fire to act as a sort of "tank" in a fleet fight then you always SHOULD try to give as little surface for enemy hits as possible. Also, again, main reason we don't see that in action frequently right now is the added weight adds warp cell cost and makes it very expensive and difficult to move such a heavy tanky ship into a spontaneous combat situation on the fly. But if you do bring a ship that can also voxel tank when the shields are down, then said ship can vent the shields to bring them back at 50% (10mil HP), even possibly multiple times in battle, getting even far more value out of the shield as now effectively your shield has 30mil+ HP in a battle where smaller ships will get cored guaranteed the moment their shields drop
  14. Well, I strongly disagree with you here on multiple points of yours, but I accept people have different views on matters so I only will inquire about the cross section. I am a bit surprised that it suddenly is such a point of discussion and discontent, when cross section has always mattered one way or another and if anything people were happy with the change to cross section importance. What had held the impact of a lower cross section back before was the strength of voxel. You could easily just power through with whatever shape and size simply because a bigger cross section meant more voxel and elements to easily tank shots with. Smaller cross section meant you'd get cored easier once you do get hit. And cross section from a core 1 size smaller is not THAT impactful that you would miss EVERY shot. (Example: we tested targeting my 138m² frontal cross section ship and we would still get a 22% hit chance even at best angle for said ship) When voxel tankiness got nerfed so hard that one direct hit would cause a massive hole in the ship, that is when cross section became more impactful. And now somehow it is twisted so that cross section is the issue and not the change that happened to voxel and the resulting consequence in ship building philosophy. I cannot really follow that train of thought. And I mean realistically it just makes SENSE. If the target is smaller you have a harder time hitting it. Why wouldn't that be a thing...
  15. I think linking and limiting max speed to construct weight is the way to go. Going by core sizes is the easy way, but would also [filtered]-punch L cores completely across the board, as they would not be able to keep up with smaller cores no matter how fast or small you build your L core, you also get a significant hit chance malus with your L weapons against smaller core enemies and L cores and elements are also more expensive and heavier by nature. It would over-shift the balance and ruin any incentive to ever strive to be able to build bigger core ships, making the longer training time requirement of being able to use L cores a ridiculous notion. So going by construct mass seems the way to go here. That way a big and heavy and size-maxed S core would not be able to outrun a super light M or L core. However, I do like the idea of this only coming into effect once pvp is involved. Otherwise any (mission) haulers will have their slowboating times INSANELY increased, making an already 3-5h slowboat to the outter planets into an all-day procedure. That is a no-go
×
×
  • Create New...