Stratio5
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Stratio5
-
-
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.
-
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).
-
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 minutes ago, Jeronimo said:
Voting for Full Wipe
excluding BPs, talent points and quantas
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.
-
28 minutes ago, CptCabalsky said:
I am against to a full wipe or half wipe or quarter wipe or 12% wipe and so on. Reasons?
Reason 1: You say that new players are in disatvantage because there are well established players and huge orgs which have bilions of quanta.
Guess what?
that will be case in max 1 year after the wipe and the situation will be exactly the same like now with huge orgs and fresh starters, what you gonna do? wipe again because big ones have advatanges?Reason 2: You say that the game is unbalance.
Guess what?
this game will continuously evolving ( if it stays alive) and more larger feature will come with time. Those huge feature will cast imbalances in other places of the game. You will have to learn how to make changes on the go to the game WITHOUT wiping every now and then
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.
-
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.
-
30 minutes ago, DraphK said:
i like these numbers proposed. i think that cores donated to orgs should have a 14 day cooldown before the player can take it back
why 14 days, do you think their proposed 30 days is too long?
-
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.
-
What happens to core slots that are provided from a subscribed account and then said account goes unsubscribed?
-
What happens to core slots that are given to an org and said account is unsubscribed from the game?
-
6 minutes ago, Candoran said:
One last thing: some players think this may be connected to the costs of running the servers- you dont want to charge more, but cant afford to keep letting players create massive-scale projects that eat up the server capacity. If this is the case, JUST CHARGE US MORE. If we want to do this stuff and you guys cant afford to provide it at current rates, we would complain much less about rate increases than about these reductions to our freedom of play. That's why a lot of people are here, and losing it will probably just make a big chunk of the playerbase leave, leaving you guys with less income to run the servers. Cutting corners on costs is fine, but it cannot affect gameplay in major ways like this, or itll have the opposite effect by lowering income.
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
-
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.
-
On 1/15/2022 at 8:22 AM, Maxim Kammerer said:
Yes it does, but only after it is feature complete and balanced. That is many years away. No need to talk about it now.
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.
-
Quote
Organization construct ownership (construct slots): a new way of assigning available construct limits to organizations.
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.
-
Quote
During the unsubscribe process, players will be reminded that their constructs will be in danger of becoming abandoned. When the constructs lose ownership, a blueprint will be placed in the owner’s inventory should they choose to return to Helios at a later date.
Some builders create constructs that are of a limited run. If I'm interpreting this correctly, this could allow more copies of a construct to exist than the builder originally intended.
QuoteSPECIAL RULES FOR MARKETS
A modified version of IAR will be used on Aphelia territories, including all market zones.
Please don't back down from implementing this - some people have been pushing to keep their constructs in perpetuity because it makes the game "feel alive" -- I think it's the opposite, when i visit the market and it's the same ships parked there week after week and eventually shoved to the side by a GM it looks more dead than alive. I want a game where ALL ships parked somewhere means an actual person has been there recently.
QuoteEach time a construct is unclaimed, whether due to an owner’s inactive game account or if abandoned via PvP, a one-month countdown to decay is set and is visible to everyone. If no one salvages the construct, it will be permanently removed from the game.
Love it. Finally a way to get rid of all these constructs with broken res pads, micro voxels, 0-element-lives cores that no one can fix or find. Also, screw those damn AGG towers.
-
11 minutes ago, Torsten said:
This is incorrect. If you're making a Tier 2 element you need tier 2 parts. Tier 3 parts for tier 3 elements. You can however assemble the part in a machine that is one tier below. The equivalent for mining units would be to allow T2 mining units to mine T3 ore
You're right. NQ wanted so badly to add more uses for exotic ores they messed up their own manufacturing progression system.
-
1 hour ago, Doombad said:
I tried to like your post more than once because it deserved it. Didn’t let me
Wiping the scan results would have been an ok decision if they had made that in the first place. Listening to the whining community and changing their mind was not.
- eCris21 and MukkBarovian
-
2
-
I'm pissed about the scan results being wiped - not because I don't think it's a good idea but because they stated VERY convincingly that they would remain. People went out of their way to complete more scans (me included) and even buying scans from other folks. But NQ taking back what they said at this point leads me to believe you cannot trust them. They WILL give in to the loudest whiners and ultimately change whatever they want. No spine.
- balestrino and Megabosslord
-
2
-
Why is the ore pool shared across territories? A neighboring territory can setup mining units and take ore from my pool -- tell me how this is not territory warfare.
-
Demeter feedback:
- Dropping the atmo-brake obstruction on us at this point is ridiculous. It should have been announced when you brought up element stacking. Let all the corrections happen at once. Also, why was there no obstruction on the brakes in the first place? What was the logic at the time and why the change of heart?
- Mining Units are TERRITORY WARFARE. The ore pools are spread across multiple territories and as such someone in a neighboring tile can set up a bunch of mining units and take all the ore out of the pool. What determines which mining unit gets access to the ore: First started? Highest concentration? Random? This is DISTRESSING as hell. Not only is there going to be mad rush to find tiles, claim them, pay EXORBITANT taxes, but someone else will see very clearly there's something good to mine, plop down their own TCU and start stealing from your pool. NO. I AM NOT PLAYING THIS GAME.
- Mining Units are BROKEN. I started a unit, performed the mini-game, and it was mining some ore -- it even ran an hour and put some ore in a container. Now I tested stopping it and starting it again.... and this is wear it broke. It's now producing 0L/hr. All the units in this pool are producing 0L/hr.
- Mining Units are a POOR subtitle for ground mining - the income that's possible for active game play is NOTHING -- compile that with the fact that missions running is still broken and crazy profitable as ever pretty much leaves the majority of the player base at an even LARGER DISADVANTAGE than before.
- Performance in general doesn't seem to have improved - but in fact, gotten worse.
- RyanMudric and Xarius
-
2
Default color of Scan results (Active containers) should change from Yellow to anything Darker.
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Stratio5
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....