Jump to content

Muttley

Alpha Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    71

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Muttley

  1. Muttley
    I must say I'm mightily disappointed to learn of this. In my stupidity, I had thought that sub-system tab-targeting only applied to larger vessels as this is what they were talking about in the Kickstarter video. By larger vessels, I was thinking corvette class and above. (How NQ drew distinction was something for them to figure out). My assumption was that smaller ships (like the one in the video) and FP would have the ability to turn into a traditional FPS shooter. I just hate the idea of spamming the F keys. It's one reason I could never get into EVE or WOW.
  2. Muttley
    That has got to be worth a few €€€
  3. Muttley
    Youtube - specifically the recommended videos that run down the side. I'm rarely on it but I guess they know what I like!
  4. Muttley
    Yeah, that and continued development costs. Think about what it must cost to pay 30+ staff their salaries, not to mention all the other mundane bills. Still, I'll be truthful and say that I'm a little disappointed that it's subscription based. I've become accustomed to games like Elite and Star Citizen adopting different payment models. A sub based model has never sat well with me. This said, Elite isn't a traditional MMO and I think their server costs must be relatively low. And Star Citizen is just a funding juggernaut. If they ever manage to produce a playable game then I think people will continue to throw silly money their way.
  5. Muttley
    Thanks for the answers folks. I just had a quick look at the Kickstarter page and just a few minutes ago NQ answered many of the same questions that I was asking. Many of the following answers are subject to changes as the game development evolves. Keep in mind all this is just "Work in Progress". - When your character die, you'll lose what your character was wearing/carrying on him. - When you build a house or ship outside of a safezone, yes, someone will be able to destroy it. However, when you build for example an outpost outside a safe zone, you will have protection measures when you're offline: when attacked your outpost will be able to enter in a temporary invulnerability mode (for 24 or 48h), to give you the time of reacting and calling your friends to help defend your base. - Yes, you will be able to build inside the safe zone. - No, no one else will be able to destroy your ship when you are in a safe zone. - how to avoid the safe zone getting littered by left over stuff from other players: we have currently several ideas, but until we've made a clear choice between them, we won't enter into details. Note: There won't be only one safe zone. It will be possible to discover other places on other planets where it will be possible to activate a Safe Zone. But we can't tell you more than that at the moment. - What happens when you dig a hole: at the moment, yes it stays forever, unless another player comes and modify the landscape or fill the hole with some materials.
  6. Muttley
    I have three questions. The first is a general question about the limitation of mining. The second is a question about the persistence of player changes to the environment. And the third is a question about limits on mining around important or permanent constructs such as the Arkship. Question one: is there any indication how far into a planet one can mine? Question two: do changes tot eh environment have a time limit? By this, I mean will the environment return to its initial state over time? Question three (It sort of ties into the above question): what is the nature of the limits on mining (or any changes to the environment) around vital constructs like the Arkship? If you've ever been to a music festival you will know that it's never good when 1000's of people hang out around the same area for a few days. It's not long before the place is trashed. How much worse would it be if they can destroy/ create with a click of a mouse button? I have an image of the area around the Arkship being a mess of potholes, near bottomless fissures, walls, and penises shaped structures that reach far into the sky. None of that is appealing to me least not because it would make movement very difficult to move around on foot. My assumption here is that NQ must have something in mind to keep important areas clean.
  7. Muttley
    Such a fine example of a loaded question. For your next trick I suspect you will be asking me, "Yes or no - do you still beat your wife?" Now do you have anything constructive to say about my post? Call me biased but I thought it contained a couple of interesting ideas on how to enhance gameplay.
  8. Muttley
    Is there any response from the dev on an NPC security force and/or a bounty system? Both are implemented in Elite Dangerous and overall I think that they are positive additions. An NPC security force might help keep some of the griefers at bay and also introduce an exciting dynamic. For example, what if a security force was automatically established on a planet over time when certain prerequisites were met (perhaps after reaching a sufficient number of player built bases or some such). NPCs would maintain order and act accordingly if illegal activity was detected. What might be really interesting is if the base of the security forces could be made to be destructible but only given a sufficiently powerful force of players made an assault and then the region devolves into chaos. Or perhaps the security forces need taxes to function. No taxes, no security forces and then it's a free for all. I'm just brainstorming, The bounty system (while potentially be open to abuse - e.g. a bunch of players purposely griefing each other to get rewards) could also add a really nice dynamic. In Elite Dangerous there are people who play as dedicated pirates and bounty hunters. This makes for some really interesting dynamic. For example, I've been mugged by pirates who could have destroyed me but left me alone after they got my cargo. Now that was thrilling because I was sure I was dead. But if I am to be obliterated then I'd rather it be a person role-playing as a pirate (I don't expect an eyepatch and a space parrot, just the mentality) than a griefer. The distinction is that the first person is presumably doing it for some gain while the second is just being a jerk.
  9. Muttley
    I hope it stays like this. Is there any indication on how many stars, planets etc will be in the early releases? I initially bought into Elite Dangerous because of its massive scale but I now see the size of the in-game universe as a negative. Not to be overly critical on what I think is a good game, but it wasn't long before I found myself wanting to interact with real players (even if the are gnakers and trolls). Instead, I found a pretty barren universe occasionally populated by interactions with low-level NPCs that in truth don't do much. If I'm to understand the approach Star Citizen is taking they will still be using procedural generation to create a limited number of planets and they will then add some bespoke features to these. I think I prefer this halfway house approach to the route that Eliter Dangerous and NMS took.
  10. Muttley
    No problem
  11. Muttley
    I said nor implied nothing of the sort
  12. Muttley
    I missed your post originally. Good points.
  13. Muttley
    I gave an example of a game that as part of a major update introduced a similar dynamic (user created blueprints that are traded on a marketplace) and how this has damaged the balance of the game. This has made for a poorer game and I've raised this as a potential problem for DU. What I'm not suggesting is that DU removes all competitive advantage.
  14. Muttley

    Pets!

    Muttley replied to Michael_Arclight's topic in Idea Box

    With a pet themed metaphor, I'm gonna throw the cat amongst the pigeons here and say that I don't want pets - at least not for combat. But if NQ insists on having them then the should be a levitating robotic orb thingy.
  15. Muttley
    Come on Blakjac. If you are going to respond to my comment then respond to what I said - both the spirit and the substance of my words. On several occasions, the OP said that he was trying to start a discussion, which is entirely different to him stating that the 'devs made a douche-bag move'. He even granted in a later post that the DAC as a concept has its merits. So let's all take a step back and realise that this is an extraordinarily early point in the development of the game and just about anything is up for discussion. The value I've taken so far from this thread is to think a little more about in-game scripting and what it could mean. While the concept is cool my concern is that it could compound the disadvantage part-time players will face. No only will they not be able to amass resources at the same rate as others, they may also be at a disadvantage to those gifted enough at scripting (I'm a front-end developer by trade so my idea of scripting is probably completely different from in-game scripting). What do you think Blackjac? Do you see any issues here?
  16. Muttley
    Woah! Easy now. Your post is completely out of order.
  17. Muttley
    I sympathise with the initial complaint. The whole concept of DACs could potentially become meaningless if you are successful enough on the market. At the same time, I wonder if NQ were to translate DACs into real world currency how would that effect the gameplay? My initial thoughts are that in some sense it would impoverish the overall gaming experience. Being pretty new to DU I'm pretty intrigued by the idea of in-game scripting. But perhaps like CodeGlitch0 I'm also a cynic at heart in that I have concerns that scripting will become (intentionally or otherwise) a P2W dynamic. Off the top of my head, I can think of a similar mechanic in the Steam F2P game, Robocraft to the proposed on in DU. Players can create their own vehicles and then choose to sell them on a market and earn cash (I assume just in-game currency but I'm not sure about this). The result is heavily mismatched battles in which you encounter dominant players - sometimes it's genuine skill (no complaints there) but other times it's down to better machines, and here I'm guessing that some of these are bought rather than earned. Additionally, you have people spamming general chat with pleas to buy their latest and greatest machine. It doesn't make for a great gaming experience or a nice community. Now the games are completely different but perhaps it's a good example of what can happen with a blueprint market. I think when you add the possibility of earning real world cash then things begin to get messy and perhaps the gaming community becomes a little crass as you attract people who are convinced that they will make their fortune. Conversely, in-game cash has it's own problems as highlighted by the Robocraft example. All in all, it's going to be a tricky one for NQ to figure out.
  18. Muttley
    That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for posting that GrandMasterApex. I'm glad to hear that a month will not be costing €18.
  19. Muttley
    Thanks for all the responses folks (including the PMs). I really enjoy the early days in Kickstarter communities because there is a real sense of optimism and comradery. I give it a year before it turns poisonous OK, so if I understand correctly it works like this - DACs are one off monthly tokens It will be possible to use cash earned in-game cash to purchase DACs which themselves can be traded There is going an option to subscribe which is more economical than above Some limited F2P dynamic is planned in the game (what this entails no one knows at this point, NQ included) Is that a fair assessment? @le_troll, yeah I totally agree that a sub based game is going to be required to pay for everything. If they manage to pull off what they are claiming WRT a stable single shard server (I say that like I know what it means ), continued game development and all the other bills they have to pay then it's going to cost a helluva lot. I suppose I'm just a little concerned that the subscription model might make the game prohibitively expensive especially if the game lives up to my expectations*. *After being involved in a few early access games I've learned that I should try to manage my expectations when it comes to the end product lest I become yet another opinionated disgruntled customer who is absolutely convinced that if the game isn't perfect they have been personally affronted.
  20. Muttley
    Hey folks, Let's say you buy a Silver Founder Pack and therefore have 10 DACs. (I just bought one, btw). With this in mind, I have two questions: 1) Can you activate each DAC whenever you wish? For instance, maybe you use your first DAC in February and then you choose to take a break until July. Do you still have 9 DACs when you return to the game in July? 2) Once activated are DACs consumed on a monthly basis irrespective of your usage or is there a more subtle usage mechanism planned? For instance, if you activated your DAC on the first day of the month yet only play 1 minute does the DAC expire at the end of the month? Considering a DAC is going to work out at €18 a month I'd love to see some novel approach to how DACs are consumed. I always swore that I'd never I'd never play a subscription based game but I guess the hype got the better of me. Still, I must say that I have major reservations about the concept of subscription based games especially because these days my life is pretty busy and I can easily imagine a scenario in which I can only grab a handful of hours to play per month. At €18 per month that would make those few hours very expensive indeed.
  21. Muttley
    Hmmm, if I'm correct then 20 AUD would not buy you a month in the real game. This assumes that a Dual Access Cupon (DAC) is charged at €18. For example, according to their Kickstarter page, 2 DACs have a value of €36 post-release.
×
×
  • Create New...