Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Stratio5's Achievements

  1. Yes, SOMETHING to improve the map experience. In most of the terrain I can't see my claimed or scanned territories without zooming in all the way, and even them my eyes....
  2. NPCs to shoot at? YES! Couple of changes I'd make to your idea: It does not de-spawn, have it collect parts from destroyed ships that are effectively added to its loot pool Ensure that said NPCs also roam some parts of safe space, so PVE-only players/orgs can get their feet wet - and also lose ships in a manner they don't feel so bad about.
  3. The ore pools in this game need to shift around, they should not be permanent. Perhaps once per month they'll move around by a few tiles? The amount they shift, direction, frequency is all programmable. Such a change will accomplish several things: It will mean new players won't be locked out of all the best ore pools It will force more active game play Less people holding onto tiles, even if they're not mining it Less people willing to scale like crazy with alts (yes NQ, some of your subs will go away, but the health of the game improves) If you wanted to take this feature even further you could change mining units to only work on dynamic constructs, have the ores shift around VERY frequently and allow for better territory scanners that work more quickly (or talents impacting them). And don't allow players to restrict running mining units on their territory (since it shifting constantly).
  4. We have an abundance of AFK mobile games if that's what we wanted to play.... The reason people DO put up with DU's AFK mechanics is because it gives them an easy and scalable (with alts) means of quanta generation. Features that are too AFK in my opinion: Long range missions can take 4+ hours, what do you do while your ship is flying? Mining units should not be so passive Industry is largely set and forget
  5. Do you honestly think that's a good idea? That would screw up the economy and wealth even harder than it is now. From day 1 of your plan, the wealthy and established players will make a mad rush to claim everything they currently own and then some. And all the players were were playing casually and all new players are screwed. I know you want to keep what you believe you've worked hard for... but that plan is FAR worse than just not wiping at all.
  6. Agreed with both points. NQ has had multiple opportunities and justification to test backup/rollback mechanisms due to exploits - and chose not to. They were either scared their system wouldn't work or there would be more fallout due a day of rollback than it was worth. Either way, they're unable or afraid to use these mechanisms and here we are.... wiping to "solve issues". Not a good sign. What happens at the next major exploit -- and there will be one, as there are in every MMO. I cannot fathom how we'll NOT be right back to where we're at today within a year. And as soon as that happens, another chunk of the player base gets fed up and quits.
  7. FULL wipe or no wipe, those are your only good options. People who can come into the game with their blueprints will have an income source that requires NO resources during a time that everyone else is scrambling to get established. These "builders" will have a good income source straight away with which they'll use to capture important tiles on remote planets. And since the ore pools don't rotate/change, they'll be locked down forever (where we are now). Regardless of the actual long-term affect on the economy we'll NEVER hear the end of "haves vs have-nots" because they didn't do a full wipe. So please. Full wipe or no wipe.
  8. I don't want to trample on anyone's larger public projects but the numbers do seem a tad high. I think a compromise between proposal #1 and proposal #2 would be best (closer to #2) The right number should be one that the average player doesn't have to worry but the power player would have to slim down or at least be conscientious about their core usage -- and the public projects should be exactly that, require cores from the community to progress.
  9. What happens to core slots that are provided from a subscribed account and then said account goes unsubscribed?
  10. What happens to core slots that are given to an org and said account is unsubscribed from the game?
  11. Most of the changes happening recently have been about cost saving: reduce server costs (mining units) reduce server costs (taxes > requisition > fewer constructs) reduce server costs (core limits > fewer constructs) And after all this is done they can slap the "release" sticker on the game and then start charging a normal monthly subscription fee. /face-palm
  12. The core limits of this change are due to 1 of 2 things: 1) NQ wants to monetize the core limits at some point in the future. So making this feature in a rational way goes out the window since it's only about the $$. 2) The decision makers are woefully uninformed by the number of cores the average player needs; let alone the serious players and content creators. ------------------------ I consider myself a power gamer - i'm playing constantly.... let me catalogue quickly how many cores I use: Ships, not a lot - maybe 12 - dramatically lower than most people i'd say A factory - 4 cores A landing pad - 12 cores Space station - 1 core Mining Units - around 100 cores All of these cores are in an org so that my accounts don't to deal with the nightmare that would be RDMS and personal cores. These I feel are the VERY light side of things compared to many others and already at 129 cores. --------------------- If this feature goes ahead we need a few things: 1) People need a way to compact their cores so they can retain constructs they paid considerable sums for, or a means of retaining a blueprint copy they can deploy again in the future. 2) We need to be able to SEE what our current core count is and what our max core count is. Getting yet another garbled and poorly worded notification *after* the limit is already reached isn't sufficient. 3) Picking a construct at RANDOM if the core limit is exceeded is a terrible, terrible idea. Oops, the random core was your main factory. 4) What will happen if you're donated cores but then people decide to rescind those cores? And you're on vacation for a few weeks. Too bad, you lose a bunch of random cores. Or worse, yet, nefarious players could game people using this system.
  13. So you'd propose NQ spend years implementing all proposed features, fixing PVP, balancing the economy, and make the game super fun. And then, risk it all with a wipe that will solve nothing. Sure, uh huh, fat chance.
  14. I'm weary of what exactly this means... if it's a new way to allow non-legates to deploy and limit constructs in an org then that's cool. If this is going to be a system by which I can use my personal core slots for my org then that's going to be a disaster. The average person with a private org uses a ton of cores for landing pads, a factory or two, "fun" buildings, ships with different purposes, ship showroom/garage, pvp stuff if they participate it that, etc. Personal core limits are not even CLOSE to enough for anyone taking this game seriously. Not only that, but serious players have 2 or more accounts and leverage an org to allow easy sharing/rights between accounts. PLEASE don't approach this feature with a sledge hammer.
  • Create New...