Cheith
-
Posts
182 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cheith
-
-
3 hours ago, Zarcata said:
Then it would have been quite sufficient to take away the right of the sub-organisations to have more tiles or to orientate them to the current limit of the main organisation.
But at the same time they reduced the core limit of each organisation and lowered the number of organisations per player from 5 to 1.You can run through life as positively as you like, but then with your eyes wide open.
Seriously, what is left in the game for content that keeps us players occupied in the masses for a long time? I'm not talking about permanently grinding, but about game content that can really be fun for years, in order to bind players to the game and thus generate long-term revenue?
The building in itself is a very great content and has contained endless fun or occupation - unfortunately, however, this was so strongly limited by core limitation that one would not even be occupied with it for a year and the players become bored. By the way, destroying what already exists has a negative effect on many who want to build up an entire society.It is about cost - the main reason you have sub orgs when soloing is to get around the escalating territory costs. Simple as that.
-
Or - instead of all the conspiracy theories it could be that the auto mining would be too profitable for someone creating lots of orgs as a solo player and claiming territories. I was figuring I could easily have 30ish territories for very little outlay with only one layer of organizations (also only on one planet). I suspect that was not the plan!
- blundertwink and CoyoteNZ
-
2
-
7 hours ago, SirJohn85 said:
Was postponed and 29 July as the new target. Is that a bummer? Yes, of course. Nobody likes postponements. But they can be forgiven for not charging and opening the game to people yet and continuing to maintain a communication. On discord and their YT channel they explain why and what is coming in the next months. They care about a first impression, you only have one of those.
mid May, then June, now end July .... this is a familiar software pattern for problematic developments with poor management. It is actually a really bad sign, but hopefully they will figure it out as I am certainly interested in taking a look. Options are never a bad thing.
-
Just as well you didn't rage quit to play Starbase .... on the never ending month delay spiral!!
-
13 hours ago, MoriarTheChosen said:
Or... Just saying... OR...
You could be a double retiree middle age guy who is physically disabled and now get's to enjoy some time for himself where his "day job" is to have fun here on DU...
Yeah I've made some money doing exactly what SillyBilly is crying about... But oh well, he profited off the backs of new players scamming them... So yeah "he's a moral compass of society"... in the waste bucket.
He has the same opportunity to make money.. but he doesn't put the effort in... except constantly banter in general chat like 9 year old schoolchildren...
Now to address you Cheith, Could I go to other games? Yes... I come from EFT / Star Citizen... Star Citizen I have pretty much every ship in the game and then some.. Am I in massive debt cause of this? No, I manage my finances and don't really have any hobbies outside of PC gaming due to my disabilities... The game is soo underpriced for it's current value that honestly... NQ if you are reading this... up your price... 15$ a month! (I'll still be subbed with all my accounts).Fair enough - no life was certainly a bad choice of words.
To me the multiple accounts is what it is. There is almost nothing you can realistically do about it so you may as well accept it. I was also, I guess badly, trying to make the point that not that many people are in a position to do this so it really isn't that big of an issue.
-
This is true in pretty much every MMO - the more accounts you have the more you can do IF you have no life. The one thing is, though, that most people with money don't have time so it is not a big issue if it is a time sink - which it would be unless you have 20 computers. At that point if they are that well off they could hire 20 people for the same result. Frankly there is only so much you can actually do.
-
Hmm, this will mess up those who have a bunch of territories claimed under sub-orgs because it was cheaper - and of course you could claim a lot more territories this way.
I have to wonder if this is about the mining changes as if they don't do this one could have a lot of territories to auto mine on fairly easily.
-
1 hour ago, Knight-Sevy said:
They are NOT REMOVING any current gameplay elements.
If planetary underground mining is not removed all that will happen is the auto-miners will auto-mine away and the miners will find other plots to manually mine. Voila new devices added and no lag reduction. It will be an amazingly 'interesting' decision.
-
23 hours ago, ShippyLongstalking said:
The fault is on NQ's board and investors, too. Don't throw money at random PhDs with a tech prototype and hope that it will translate to commercial success.
While I understand what you are saying this is still a perfectly acceptable investment strategy if you like taking big gambles. It is how, if you get one right, you make outrageous amounts of money.
-
31 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
The truth?rofl
-
Just now, joaocordeiro said:
Its not?
So you have 3 operating systems running on the same cpu architecture (x86-64) using the same PCIe devices. all 3 OS use a screen, a mouse and a keyboard. All are desktop oriented. All have an X to close the window. All minimize to some kind of tray bar.So what is the big showstopper for having a standard here?
Huh? I think I'll stop this now as we have officially reached a strange place that I have no desire to go to.
-
1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:
For the same reason that Samsung Smart phones have to work with Huawei's antennas.
That is one of the wildest and likely deliberate misunderstanding of software architecture I have ever seen. I don't even know what to do with that, it is beyond comprehension why you would compare the two. There is exactly 100% no way to compare them - it is like not even close.
If you are doing that type of comparison then if an ethernet card in a PC would not work in the same network as an ethernet card in a Linux server then you would have a point. As far as I can tell I can hook a Windows PC up to a Linux server without any issues - again maybe a relevant comparison. Dev tools, not so much.
-
2 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Yes. Me and others considered. Then we found MS spending extra money, in doing extra code, and paying fines just to make sure things stayed incompatible.So, yes we considered it. And we found it to be false.
Still not sure why you think MS has to build their tools to work on Linux or generate Linux compatible software. They don't have a monopoly on dev tools and there are plenty of other tools out there. Also, if I remember correctly, Linux is most definitely an option in their Azure cloud offering (yep it is - just checked).
-
1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:
Here is an article with interesting quotes.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/judge-rules-that-microsoft-must-be-split-in-two/
Here is an interesting one: 'Chief antitrust lawyer Joel Klein hailed the ruling. "When the remedy is implemented, customers and consumers will decide for themselves what software they want to purchase ... Neither a monopolist nor the government can dictate that choice.'Are you really quoting an article from 2000? Seriously?
You do know that no one makes you buy a PC or Windows, right? You can go right ahead and purchase something else. Also most sane software development companies are in this to make money and have the right to only publish for the platforms they think will be profitable. Maybe. just maybe, this is business doing business?
Have you ever considered that MS don't do much Linux stuff because they just won't make enough money? Also there are a whole slew of Linux developers who are anti-MS so why would they buy it anyway! What is the point for MS from a business perspective.
If you want Linux tools buy them from a Linux tools vendor - or use open source tools. It is not that they don't exist it is just that they are not that good, but you gets what you pays for.
Did you know you have to buy an Apple PC to write and certify iPhone apps? Should we split Apple in two as well? What about Google with search and Android, never mind their hardware - in three?
Look, in the end, it is Linux. Almost no one cares who is not running a server. Even the Linux OS companies don't care. If they can't or more likely wont come up with a set of appropriate standards then it is their problem no one else's. All this monopoly stuff is a smoke screen to try and divert blame away from where it belongs - Linux and its creators/maintainers.
-
1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:
But "incompetence" is a lot more unforgiving when facing a monopoly.
To a point where "valid design choices" can become "incompetence".
I get that - and if that was the case when the die was cast I would agree - but when this all went down Microsoft were far from the juggernaut they are now. This was all long before the EU got involved or anyone started suing anyone. It could have been very different but we got what we got. Of course if this had turned out differently IBM might have stayed the monopoly they were and your desktop OS would have been something else. The one thing it would never have been was Unix or any variant thereof. You could herd cats more easily than get the Unix (aka hardware) vendors at the time to agree on anything that would remove differentiation and help them lock in their hardware.
I also don't think Apple were ever seriously at the races - their visionary had a vision and it never included what would have been necessary for any level of dominant adoption.
-
8 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:
This is even a bigger BS...
Its like MS was never put in court for screwing compatibility.
Like EU never passed daily fines on the millions on MS for breaking MS file standards or forcing a browser into its users.
Never said that - I said the reason the others lost was incompetence.
Microsoft are evil, always thought so, but so are Apple, IBM and Google. The rest are inconsequential.
-
1 hour ago, joaocordeiro said:
But it is not by design.
It's because of a crappy 30 years old monopoly.
It is also poor design choices - Apple being a hardware company does not favor third party hardware anything and thus has pretty mediocre hardware for the price point (and yet you talk monopoly - Apple made its bed).
Unix (back in the day) had horrible UI, vendor specific architectures and was generally not seriously considered as a desktop OS - again Unix vendors shot themselves in the foot.
We will not even talk about IBM and OS/2 and the mess they ended up making of that.
MS was handed it all pretty much on a plate and no one else has really recovered. Apple is still a monopolistic mess, Linux still doesn't have a consumer friendly offering - like Unix the focus is servers.
Historically it had nothing to do with monopoly - I even got to watch the train wreck as it unfolded.
-
33 minutes ago, Bobbie said:
@Cheith I totally agree, I'm not saying they should take everyone's opinions at face value. The vocal minority is currently complaining how NQ has stuck to a flawed vision, two years ago those same people were urging NQ not to stray from that vision.
I don't know or care who is "right". When it comes to thinking, we're all stupid. But when it comes to observing, we're all capable of discernment. I never said old players are an advisory board, I said they are a mirror.
NQ can learn from the past and avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over again, if they LOOK at what's been going wrong all this time. Which also means looking at themselves. And if you have blind spots, as you inevitably do, then you'll need a mirror to see them.
This should be (and is) standard business practice, it's part and parcel of strategic leadership.
NQ needs to find out how they keep driving away their own supporters year after year. Because it's not incidental, and you can't keep dismissing it as "just tired old players" when it's everyone. And you can't pin your hopes on the fresh new players if they'll just end up the exact same way.
If you keep finding yourself in the same situation over and over again, it means that you haven't been looking at yourself and have been in denial of all the signs. Signs that some old players (and employees) saw coming from miles away. And that many more saw by simply sticking around long enough until it finally dawned on them.
Fair enough, not a lot I would disagree with.
I must admit, though, I have not seen much in the player base comments that is particularly reflective or helpful. Most are opinions of the game they would like to see or think they were promised (depending on who it is). Plus, of course, the hostility and pettiness that comes with feeling that one is not getting what one feels is necessary - which of course heads the comment straight to the circular filing drawer.
Not been around long enough with DU to know if NQ have been here over and over again. In the end, though, I tend not to get invested in games the way some people do. I am not emotionally attached and likely never will be to any game I play. Not even my multi-year sojourns in some. I pay my money, play, and eventually move on. Some after a good number of years, others after about 60 minutes (that was BDO - shortest time for me ever). But everyone is different.
Anyway I'll still come back to the point that, in the end, NQ will either figure out something that works for enough people to keep the company afloat or they won't. It will be a shame if they don't because there are good aspects to all this that keep me tinkering but it is certainly missing a certain "je ne sais quoi" or a "rasion d'etre". The original premise of player made content and "civilizations" is all just too fluffy - but the flexibility of the platform is intriguing. The scale is also great if maybe over-ambitious.
We shall see - I shall certainly leave my whole pint of beer a month there for the time being and see what happens. If it all works out I'll be happy and if it doesn't, oh well.
-
1 hour ago, Bobbie said:
Not unless NQ is happy with the current churn rate.
Old players were once new players, and then they left. Why did they leave? Why is Porco leaving? This is the point. NQ doesn't need to look to new players, they need to learn their lessons about why the old ones left. Or else it will just be the same thing over and over again.
You don't agree yet, no new player ever agrees. Just give it a few months. Maybe you can't imagine it yet. But you don't know how many times I've seen this happen on this very forum.
Old players are the ones who learned what NQ needs to learn. Not new players. New players are the pandering yes-men, NQ will not learn anything new from them that old players haven't already tried.
Old players are watching new players go through all the same phases as they themselves once did. Have all the same ideas and initiatives and conversations as they themselves once did, including this one. Submit all the same tickets as they themselves once did. Start all the same threads they themselves once did, including this one. And then leave the game as they themselves once did.
That is not ticket to success. NQ can't survive on the mere hope that maybe the next wave will be different. Or the next wave. Or the next wave. Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Instead of waiting for the results of future experiments to learn from, NQ needs to start extracting the lessons from the past they already have, if they want things to change.
And the one thing that needs to change first and foremost, is NQ themselves. What NQ needs is some good old self-reflection. Old players are the mirror that NQ needs.
Or else all the new players they are hoping for will soon just be more old players getting ignored.
There is new and new - seen this all before - nothing new, nothing original. 'Old players' always think they know what will 'save' the game they thought they bought. Understandable but not unusual or original or different. They may or may not be right, but time is unlikely to tell us as their wishes are unlikely to be fulfilled.
Of course NQ should understand why people leave - but these forums are not the place you learn. Too disorganized, too piecemeal and too small a set of loud voices. If they read why people leave they still may do nothing about it as it is not in their future plans. For all we know the future could be radically different and it has just not been shared yet. In the end this is NQs game that they are making for people to play and if it fails or succeeds it is their deal.
This all doesn't change the fact that everyone stops playing eventually. If you have been chugging along with this since pre-Alpha started you would be tired anyway - it is a long time to be playing anything and most people just don't last that long. This is one of the huge issues with the fad for Kickstarter and pre-alpha adoptions before the devs even know what the game will really be. Your most ardent supporters are likely to be worn out by release time!
-
1 hour ago, Sycopata said:
Game offert a nice 3 weeks experience, first ship, first serius ship, first space fly, first no crash landing, first mega node, first industry, first lua code, first pvp encounter, but at some point, you feel you are just a hamster in a weel. And the game is just grind to make biggest hauler, bigger industry or big pvp ship and exploit pvp borders why lose this ship mean so much grind. The original problem are game no offert real end content, just a basic mechanics to interact with the game, and yes are all planned... But hell we are now here waiting this come, and we have no true objectives.
Can't disagree with that - I would add, though, it is not 'end' content that is missing yet it is more ongoing content - what is going to keep me playing after I have started these things. Why build bigger, why write more LUA, etc. Some is just interest - and I would say it is more than a three week journey if you explore everything you can do - but at some point you are definitely left wanting more ongoing variety and reasons.
-
1 hour ago, Bobbie said:
New players are just players that haven't left yet... ?♂️
Anyone playing a game is someone who hasn't stopped playing it yet. Eventually we all stop playing the games we are currently playing for one reason or another.
-
3 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:
This applies to other areas.
In physics we have a theorical possibility.
It is great to do papers about it and test it in very controlled environments.
But if we want to implement it in a device, a "theorical possibility" is not what we need.
We need a "easy and cheap to reproduce effect"
Back to DU
JC's vision was a pack of "theorical possibilities" :
Player only content.
1 shard for the entire world.
Voxel based massive world.
Player driven civilization.
All of those were possible.
But were those "easy" or "cheap" to implement?
No.
So a good visionary is one that the main core of theories used are practical.
So should visionary change its vision after it has been shown to fail?
Yes and no.
No, the vision should not change. It should be discarted as "failed"
Can a project with a failed vision get another new vision? Sure.
So the status of JC's vision: Failed.
Does DU currently have a vision? Dont know.
Does DU need a new vision? Probably yes.
I will happily agree with that - it certainly needs a modified vision at the very least.
-
4 hours ago, CptLoRes said:
A visionary (in this context) is someone who looks at trends in technology to extrapolate their vision.
But, here is the important part. Such visionaries must always be ready to modify their vision adapting to changes in technology etc.
If not, then the 'vision' will be the first thing that goes out the window when reality hits. This is knowledge that should be ingrained into every experienced software developer out there. Key word being experienced with regard to NQ..
Interesting twist to make it fit what you want it to fit and not meet the reality of what visionaries are like and how they behave.
Your definition is just another corporate CEO who has a 'vision' of how they want things to proceed but are certainly not visionaries.
Still, your definition of it explains a lot about the lack of understanding of why things are as they are. Always be careful what you wish for.
-
6 hours ago, GraXXoR said:
I spend money on Materials, Materials, Materials. Our base doesn't build itself... We have a couple of miners who fill a bunch of containers for us and allow our group to buy with a discount... the rest they sell on the open market. In exchange they have use of our knowhow, L5 skilled avatars for buffing builds, as well as our "at cost" private dispensers.
Landing strips, train lines, factories for different types of goods. Parking areas for all our vessels. Massive tall towers to annoy flyers (j/k)
These take a LOT of matierials to make since we can't use material such as rock and sand to make stone, concrete and glass.Fair enough - I don't quite have your level of ambition in my build so I just mine my own stuff and sell some of it on.
The org changes, what do they mean?
in General Discussions
Posted
Are you allowed on the DU forums if you are not a cynic?
Also, one shouldn't really call org members simple - just saying ?
I tend to go with the simplest explanation - largely because most corporations are stupid as a collective, even if they have smart people. You may, though, be right but we will likely never know. It will be interesting to see how many hexes free up after this (if any).