Cheith

Or it would suggest I came after 0.23 - just saying. I guess the point was that, at some point, one needs to move on whatever that looks like for you. New players don't care about 0.23 and why should they. Like it or not the future of the game is not about the players that have left it is about the players to come. If the game is not interesting to the significantly larger community out there that have not tried the game then none of this matters.

For those of us who came after 0.23 we frankly are not too fussed about what was there before as it did no damage to us! Personally happy with the schematics which seems to be one of the big gripes. My only quibble with them would be that I can't make my own duplicates and have to re-purchase for a second assembler. Apart from that the schematics seem sensible. What the hell else would I be spending money on?

EVE had/has extensive PvE, its own lore, back stories, etc - shit there were even books. I would argue the only reason the PvP space survived was because there were so many PvE players in safe space. While, technically, you can PvP anywhere in EVE if it gets too out of control then the PvE crowd just leave - that is why it never lasts all that long or is very targeted on the very rich.

I loved it when I played - totally a one off though in terms of success. Nothing else like it. Plus it had lore, PvE, stories and an economist!! The biggest populations were still in safe space essentially funding the PvP.

Visionary - "a person with original ideas about what the future will or could be like" - note the 'could'. I did not say vision I said visionary, not the same thing. So, it actually is how it works. You also may notice the point that it can work, but more often it doesn't. Just because you can name a couple of successful companies doesn't mean there are not many, many more failures. Also note Apple was nearly dead many times. It was lucky - but as they say "better lucky than good". As to the rest - what? - so they made decisions. It is what you do as a company. If you make good ones it works if not it often doesn't. And, yes, it is likely the investors are looking to see if the project can be salvaged or not. That would be perfectly normal if something is not proceeding to plan for an extended period of time. As to the 'successful MMO' - well if you are going to throw that phrase around you'd better ditch the concept of non-consensual PvP, add in a whole bunch of PvE and move on. Where is the lore? Where are the stories? Historically that all of that is what has made a successful MMO. Something for people to grasp onto and play along with. Maybe even give common purpose. Exactly what is not talked about by the original players. And now we even have the spectre of non-combat MMOs popping up, what next! May actually be better suited to a civilization/building/exploring MMO in some ways.

Well, I have to say, if you expected a 'visionary' not to stick to their vision until the bitter end then you were missing something. The visionary plows ahead for good or ill trying to fulfill that vision as that is what drives them. It is why, when it works, the visionary can produce breakthroughs against all the odds and why, when it doesn't work, they bring calamity and utter failure. Part and parcel of heading down that route. Now we, may, have a realistic management team trying to salvage parts of the vision. I don't believe the 100% voxel universe is likely achievable with any level of deformation at the scale it is being attempted. Anything and everything they do to scale the voxel worlds back to a more sensible level probably makes sense. I also don't believe a 100% player run system 'content' system is viable. Especially not with the current control systems and no overarching goal (see ECO for a clue on what kind of things you would need). Now, it also should be said, that with the planetary scales involved (assuming no one was fibbing with Alioth having 250K hexes) NPCs/animals could be a challenge - the sheer number of creatures needed just to populate Alioth is mind-boggling - even of you exclude oceans. None of this means that conceptually it all can't be salvaged, but the challenges are pretty big. There are some good, interesting elements - it just needs other things simplified and more engaging game play in others. As to listening to players - apart from in the abstract it is usually a bad idea. Too many divergent opinions from too many camps. Players suck at designing games - otherwise they would be designers - and in my experience the most messed up games are those who take player feedback in the detail rather than the aggregate. The feedback should only be there to assist (or maybe validate) the game's direction not to shape it. If the designers don't have a clear goal of where they are going it will be a train wreck.

You may be right, you may be wrong, it also maybe that DU shows up an edge issue in the Shadow platform because of how it is used - maybe shadow has an iffy sound driver. Impossible to tell without being able to debug it. Same argument as Linux really for the dev team - how many people and what revenue. Lots of people, lots of revenue then do it now - little and little then leave it until you have time and nothing more pressing to do. No fun for Shadow users, I admit, but an unsurprising result.

You know how a rocket engine works, right? It is on or off. Massive thrust when on, not so much when off

rofl - nice.

Now that is funny - you have no decent argument so the player base is toxic. Nice.

Um write software for Linux servers each and every day. They are still NOT THE SAME. Close doesn't cut it - I have different distributions for database servers for different Linux platforms as an example. As soon as you get different distributions then you have extra testing. For a desktop system that has a small user base already it is just not worth it. Linux is an after the fact effort for already released and successful games - so when DU is released and successful it may make sense. It is also still going to come after OS/X. Dumb logic on the last point, and you know it. It is not like Linux is shiny new. It is not like all the same mistakes were not made before. Linux suppliers just have not learned from the Unix debacle. What you really need is Google to decide to do it - gNix - and then maybe it has a chance with the right driver support, tools, GUI, no command line required, etc. Right now unless it is pre-packed tightly it is a solid super geek platform for a desktop OS.

Sorry - um - wrong. Java 'binaries' are compiled to the JVM. You can run any language that produces JVM binaries on it. Scala and Kotlin both come to mind. Don't get me wrong. not a big fan of the JVM, but you need to get your facts straight. Any other 'binaries' still require either a 'different' VM sitting on top of the processor or a single unified processor architecture. There also is not really a Linux 'standard'. There is a subset of stuff for Linux that is adopted and then the rest is up to RedHat, etc to implement. Same issue as Unix. Never learned their lesson. Also, hate to tell you this, but a single company providing something is not a 'standard'. That is a product. Standards (to be really picky) are defined by standards organizations such as ISO and are adopted by entire industries not individual companies. As to crappy programmers - there are crappy, average and good programmers in every language under the sun. It is not the language that is the issue. Having worked in a good number of languages I can confidently tell you the language is never the issue.

You know they already did that, right, its called Java!! Sadly (relatively speaking) it doesn't perform all that well.

And which OS would you favor? Linux is still not a great choice anyway. Should we fund Apple to promote MacOS? Or lets give Google some more market share by funding a desktop Google OS. Seriously, have you even thought about this? Linux is NOT a standard in any way and apart from developers no one else gives a zot about it. So, what is the alternative? GovOS - one per country of trading bloc?

0.2% - sorry, but the testing alone is not worth it. Should work and do work, as you know, are not exactly the same things. Ubuntu also isn't all of Linux and all Linux clients are not the same. I also have a feeling that the DU client might be a tiny little bit more complex than your average Steam game. Once you get into threading and the like it usually gets harder to move between the platforms as their models are different. If it is a single event queue type game not so much. Frankly Linux is still ultra niche in the desktop world and this is a reflection of that. Also, why would developers push Linux over Windows if it gives them what they want? As a game developer why would you care? Indeed as a developer a single platform monopoly makes your life easier. It would be one thing if we have one version of Linux but we don't even have that. So the order goes Win, Mac, and then maybe Linux.

What utter nonsense - there are many issues with multi-platform development. One of the biggest is testing - you now have multiple platforms to test everything on. It is a significant investment and for a small team not usually practical. You also need knowledge and skills in all the platforms. The other hard part of multi-platform is that you end up with lowest common denominator development, coding to the weakest platform. Just not an easy option. As to Steam - like it or not it is predominantly a Windows platform - the 2020 survey had over 95% Windows, a few percent Mac and I didn't even see Linux mentioned. Bad example. Shadow has the same issue - if it is not out of the box Windows compatible then it is essentially a separate platform that requires its own testing at a minimum. As there are 'thousands' not tens or hundreds of thousands of user then it is perfectly reasonable that it is not a priority until they get the mainstream system up and fully working. Sad for those on the platform but true. I also suspect you have not seen the last of the price rises.

Were you standing on top, jetpacking up and adding a blob? I've certainly gone above 100 feet - not tried above 100 meters though.

Yah don't need concrete - matte grey brick honeycomb looks almost exactly the same and is cheap and easy to do. And of course we would have advanced concrete - plus in this game limestone is a T2 material so .... yeah. As to the lack of game play - it is a sandbox, remember - you could argue about the lack of extra mechanics to play with such as farming, also the assembly stuff is a bit basic in many ways, damn I would more complain about the terrain this procedurally generated crap is pretty bad and unrealistic, or the lack of animals/birds etc anywhere. Lots of real things to moan about.

Interestingly enough cement is not as simple as you think it is .... "calcium, silicon, aluminum, iron and other ingredients. Common materials used to manufacture cement include limestone, shells, and chalk or marl combined with shale, clay, slate, blast furnace slag, silica sand, and iron ore." from the Portland Cement Assoc. ... be careful of what you wish for, you might get realism!!!

For 20 whatevers ($ for me) it is worth a pop. Building and flying your own stuff. Building your own base, city, whatever. Some mildly complex industry/selling of products. Mining (too much, but that is likely to change soonish). Its not bad, not great. Hopefully will get better - there is promise there. There are also a bunch of bitter vets lurking on these forums who seem to have lost feature 'X' that they loved, or its not the right shade of pink, or whatever and now seem to want everything to fall apart. Take a bunch of the comments you see with a pinch of salt (including this one).

I understand - I was more thinking of going to the moons, etc. While I am sure that is possible with rockets it would be a lot harder would it not? You kind of need the space engines to do anything more than just reach orbit do you not? Or at least do it manageably. I accept I may be totally wrong on this, but that was my concern.

I think my only quibble with that is T3 for space engines if only because space is such a big part of the game for many (not me yet because I am lazy, but others).

So, I don't think the ship has sailed for DU. One of the huge issues is the amount of Voxel stuff going on because people are constantly digging. That is a lot of updates for, in reality, very little purpose. No one else has succeed at this level of voxel deformation in an MMO either - in fact no one has succeeded with less on a planetary scale. The mining units may solve many of the issues with server DB performance just by reducing the activity - but we shall see. I would certainly suggest they cap the digging possible also to further reduce the possible damage and just the overall number of Voxels. Going down a couple of hundred meters should be more than enough before we hit an artificial 'bedrock' (yes I used a Minecraft term ) We should also decouple the PVE argument from this. I think the world needs at least some 'life' even if we don't have PvE. Currently there isn't even enough 'E' in the game with no creatures or birds just wandering around on the planets that would support it. Personally I don't believe in the 'player made experience' BS that is touted. I have not seen a working example and at best I have seen player enhanced experiences with the game supporting the core elements with some PvE basics. Just my x cents worth.

Except it ain't an MMO (or at least it wasn't when I played it) and frankly has all sorts of other issues. Multiplayer on dedicated servers if you wish, but not an MMO. The building is also tragic compared to DU, It does, though, have missions and other such things.

Totally variable for me - sometimes I get a few in a row sometimes hardly any.