Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vorengard

  1. Until we know more about the types of resources found in certain biomes, and the extent to which important elements can only be made with rare resources, we can't really judge how complicated colonization will be. However, given that players are capable of constructing most things themselves (or the elements needed to do those things they can't do themselves) then you don't really need much to colonize a planet besides yourself. Just fly there and start scanning down the basic resources necessary to building up a basic infrastructure, just like Minecraft. Major colonization pushes don't seem like a thing that will happen much in DU. However, I'm sure that after a few years there will be big colonization or assault ships stocked full of resources, constructs, and pre-made bases for invading enemy planets, or for colony races to newly opened systems.
  2. To clarify, this is something that has only been mentioned in passing by JC and the dev team, so it may or may not become a feature at some point. My main concern with any type of "stealing" mechanic is how difficult it is to balance in instances of asymmetrical warfare (which will be most pvp situations in DU within a couple months after release), so such a system might not be a good idea. But I trust NQ to make the right decisions.
  3. This is exactly the type of outcome we need to avoid. Gaming as a whole can do better than everyone flying the same thing because that thing is best in the current patch. Thats simply bad game design and balance, and it's the biggest hallmark of EVE. This month it's the Ishtar, next month it's the Machariel, then masses of Whelp-Canes, and on and on. Maybe you're happy with that type of meta, but I find it oppressive. I don't pretend to know how to solve this issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. I only hope NQ can find a way to institute systems that make ship diversity and playstyles competitive without having to institute a constant Nerf merry go round just to stop certain setups from dominating.
  4. @CaptainTwerkmotor as usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and clearly don't know how to read because my kill board clearly shows otherwise. It's also fun to see how your narrative changes as you're consistently proven wrong, but I digress. @Lethys You should know better than to follow Twerks lead. I was only in NC. for like three months and then I quit the game. The other 6 years in game we're spent in low sec as head-FC for a pirate alliance that routinely engaged in Wormhole Merc contracts. So yes, I have seen everything EVE has to offer, and it's still tactically stagnant and shallow. (Note: strategy and tactics are not the same thing). The point is that the vast majority of people in EVE play the game as F1 monkeys. Yes, wormholes can and often are radically different, but having lived there you'll know that they represent a very small aspect of the community, and most people never deal with them at all. Furthermore, DU won't be structured like wormhole space *at all*, so it would be a mistake to follow Eve's example in hopes that you'll get a system that plays like wormhole space. DU won't have spacial modifiers or limited ship mass with which to limit engagements, so you're far more likely to end up with a system that emulates null-sec's absolute uniformity and risk aversion, rather than the free-for-all that is wormhole space. Essentially, if I wanted to play an EVE clone, I'd just play EVE. DU would benefit greatly from learning how EVE succeeded (it's strategic depth and excellent fitting/modual system), and should avoid it's failures (tactical ship positioning being virtually meaningless, clearly stratified ship classes, etc).
  5. https://zkillboard.com/character/329088895/ I know you have trouble reading, so I'll give you the cliff notes: 2,164 kills, all in Low/Null (~85% of them as the FC in gangs of 30 or less), with 97.3% ISK efficiency ................ Yeah, totally never left high sec. That's me, 100% carebear with no imagination and absolutely zero PvP experience. Once again, your ability to put your foot in your mouth is absolutely astounding.
  6. I'm not upset at all. You're mistaking exasperation and sarcasm for anger or frustration. Where I come from excessive sarcasm is an essential part of everyday conversation, not something you only do when you're upset. That being said, I completely agree with everything else in your response.
  7. It's actually a little impressive how many times you're completely and utterly wrong in just this one paragraph. ECM ships tanky? You clearly never actually played EVE. Don't add complexity? You must not have read my post because that's the opposite of what I said. If you primary the command ships then you're a moron or you have so much DPS it doesn't even matter, which brings me back to the simplicity of EVE's warfare. Furthermore, you do love your Bhalgorn example, but it's a very rare ship that only comes out in meta compositions. So, as I said, unless you want actual tactics to be really rare in DU (like the Bhalgorn is in EVE) then you need a better system. Ok, now I KNOW you never actually played EVE. Or maybe you were just a lifetime carebear, because this scenario you describe literally never happens for a thousand different reasons. Any PvPer with enough sense to fit a Drake knows how silly this is. Once again, you clearly didn't read, because I specifically asked for more tactical complexity. But I guess words are hard, right? Congrats on agreeing with me so thoroughly and consistently. Also, everyone doing the exact same thing is the opposite of tactical depth. Have you ever watched an football game (American or European)? Do all of the players on the team do the exact same thing at the exact same time, in the exact same place (like an EVE battle)? No, they don't, they each have their own jobs and roles that are essential to success. That's what real teamwork is. Not F1 monkeying. But, then again, perhaps to you pressing F1 is a complicated and brainpower-intensive act. In summary, not only are you wrong about virtually everything of consequence in this argument, but you manage to do so while agreeing with my overarching point: that we need more tactical complexity in DU than there is in EVE. The fact that you clearly intend to insult me with your argument is even more hilarious. You are hopelessly incompetent at reading, insulting people, understanding EVE, and making coherent arguments.
  8. I would take the Trinity over EVE's static and boring meta any day. Sitting in fleet and following the FCs primary isn't engaging gameplay. It's only fun at all from the grander strategic standpoint of winning vs losing. DU should do more. I'm not a big fan of the trinity either, because it is rather boring and repetitive, but simply making a list of moduals (among which one is always clearly superior) always results in stagnant gameplay. We see this in EVE every day, and don't think it's unreasonable to hope for more. Soooooo, a holy Trinity?
  9. Twerk, your reply is both short-sighted and lacking in imagination. As I just mentioned, there are ways to make a "Holy Trinity" matter other than energy drain (or some other form of utility). This isn't the only option by any means, and it certainly isn't the best option either. Even if NQ did use your proposal as a means of encouraging a psuedo-trinity system, that's an inefficient and un-fun way of going about it. It's not really "tanking" when you force the enemy fleet to shoot you because you're a major utility threat. That's a completely separate matter from tanking and should be regarded as such. Furthermore, real tanking is about forcing the enemy to engage you on your terms, not on theirs, which is what your suggestion would require. NQ can and should institute a system that allows "tanks" to exert influence on enemy fleets by preventing or drawing damage in some way. This is more interesting and engaging, whereas the EVE and WoW systems are purely reactive. You also reference EVE as though it's an example of tactical excellence that should be followed. I could not disagree more. While the strategic depth of EVE is impressive, the tactical depth is extremely lacking. Every fight boils down to 95% of the fleet being in the same ship with the same fit, and everyone shoots the same target at the same time because physical positioning and battle damage are inconsequential. This isn't a good thing. In fact, it's really one-dimensional and empty. NQ should take a step away from EVE when it comes to tactical combat and balance and encourage a system where individual piloting, positioning, and ship capabilities matter for all ships, not just the FC and certain utility ships.
  10. It all depends on the realities of the combat system. We know that combat will revolve around a lock and fire system, so one would think that "tank" ships wouldn't be a practical option. However, if locking requires line of sight on the target (which has at least been mentioned as a possibility) then I see no reason why you couldn't use large ships to block line of sight on whatever you're trying to protect. I could certainly see something like that used to control individual gun turrets, but it wouldn't really make sense for missile systems... That being said, I would prefer a system that requires line of sight to shoot a target with direct weapons like lasers and cannons, because that would add an interesting level of strategy and tactics to combat engagements. But we know virtually nothing about NQ's plans for the CvC system, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
  11. Oh dear. You do not understand the monster you just unleashed on this otherwise quiet and peaceful forum lol But seriously, we don't need a universal naming convention, in no small part because enforcing one will be impossible. People should call their ships what they want, and if that doesn't make sense according to some arbitrary definition then that's too bad. Edit: that being said, I'm sure my organization (along with many others) will have their own internal system for classifying ships. There's nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect me to abide by your personal definition.
  12. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that this topic is about shields. I believe OP is asking about force field walls that allow passage by certain people or constructs, but that keep out others. With that in mind, JC has mentioned this possibility is multiple interviews, videos, and posts, but as far as I'm aware we have never been explicitly told that such elements will be in the game. That being said, I hope they introduce such elements, because it would make several aspects of construct design much easier, especially with no moving parts. Without force fields, making Carriers for fighters would be much more difficult, as enemy fighters could fly inside the launch bays, thus being un-targetable by ship defenses. It would also allow for the construction of private spaces in public constructs.
  13. Vorengard

    Raming ship

    Boom, proof. (Just in case you don't know how these work, you have to click on the link, which will take you to the relevant post, where you'll see the bold and underlined text that leads to the post by Nyz). Learn to read before you decide to talk about things you don't understand. P.s. the appropriate response here isn't another 500 word post about how amazing you are.
  14. Vorengard

    Raming ship

    I can't properly refute your argument without breaking the NDA, so this conversation is over. Did you actually read the link I sent, or are you just being nasty for the sake of nastiness? Nyzaltar specifically said that they are avoiding making construct collision damage other constructs because the technology isn't good enough yet. I am absolutely certain that the Devs know more about what is possible with their own tech than you do, and to suggest otherwise is monumentally arrogant. Your argument simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.
  15. Vorengard

    Raming ship

    Yes, that's what this entire conversation is about. Perhaps I'm not the one who needs to read more carefully.
  16. Vorengard

    Raming ship

    Oh really? Well then I guess I'll have to go over to this post where Nyzaltar says it's "not happening soon" to tell him that he's totally wrong. Or would you rather be the one to tell him that you know more about the game than he does?
  17. Vorengard

    Raming ship

    Collision with the environment works, but not with other constructs.
  18. Vorengard

    Raming ship

    Thank you, Namco, for that wonderfully condescending explanation. It's good to know that you're a better developer than the people over at NovaQuark. Maybe you should apply for one of their open positions so you'll be able to teach them how real game design is done. /s Ok, seriously, "the server load is too great" isn't our personal opinion, it's the official position of NovaQuark, as told to us by JC himself. He's the Founder and CEO by the way, in case you didn't know. Next time, how about you keep your self-righteous opinions to yourself until you've actually had time to read a thing or two about the game, like just about everyone else in this thread.
  19. This is a fantastic idea. So fantastic, even, that NQ had already stated that they will be including this type of system in the game, as you can see in this devblog. Baring significant changes, this system will be in the game at some point, it simply has not been built yet. Just be patient.
  20. Ok, this is silly guys. Are you here to argue about delta-v, or the placement of the arkship? Furthermore, arguing about the "realism" of this situation is rather pointless and adds nothing to the discussion. If you have legitimate gameplay reasons for why the arkship should be moved, I'd love to hear them, but this silly squabbling about things that don't matter is just a waste of everyone's time.
  21. It's going to take an absurdly long time to completely mine Alioth (the starter planet). NQ did the math, and if you had 1000 people mining at 50m3 per second, 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would take them 19 years to dig up just 1% of the planet. So don't worry, there's plenty of ore on Alioth to go around.
  22. I'm not sure what exactly I'm allowed to say on the subject, and I have no desire to violate the NDA in any way, so I'm going to keep this really vague. I understand your inherent distrust of official trailers, because most companies publish videos that look nothing like their games. However, NovaQuark is not most companies. I have not yet had any experience with them that would lead me to distrust the accuracy of the information they publish.
  23. Definitely a fan of customization of uniforms, especially adding emblems and org colors and flags to uniforms. That would be really cool, especially for militaries and fleets. I can also see other types of clothing being fun and interesting, but I don't think it's something NQ should be focusing on doing at this time. There are so many more important things for the Dev team to be working on right now. Perhaps if and when the game takes off, they can hire some more artists just to make all of these things and add that level of depth to the game, but right now we need a functioning core game before they start adding in that much variety. Just my personal opinion.
  24. Vorengard

    Faster Travel

    Without breaking the NDA, let's just say that your timeframe of 2 days between planets is wildly out of proportion (at least for a small ship). Lethys is more on track with the timeframe, as has been mentioned in multiple interviews and Dev blogs. However, you seem to be suggesting that it shouldn't take that long to travel between planets in any case. While I understand the thought process, that's very contrary to what NQ has in mind for DU. Traveling between planets (and even more so between stars) is supposed to be a time investment. This isn't going to be like EVE, where you can travel across that galaxy at the drop of a hat, so don't expect that amount of freedom of movement.
  25. I wouldn't count on this being a common occurrence, assuming it ever really happens. I wish I could get into a full explanation, but I'm not 100% certain what's covered by an NDA and what isn't, so I'll just say that since atmosphere and space engines are separate entities, it would take a ton of extra resources to make a ship combat-effective in both. I think you're missing some of the better solutions here. There is nothing compelling NQ to provide static defenses (automated or otherwise) that can challenge a capital ship. I agree with you when you say that doing so would be incredibly hard to balance, which is why it would be best not to include them in the first place. Instead, the balance should focus around CvC combat, with bases being primarily defended by other players in piloted constructs. Not only is this inherently more balanced, it also encourages player participation. I know people want static defenses because they think they're cool (a point I thoroughly agree with) or they want shiny skyscrapers that defend themselves, or "realism," or whatever, but the fundamental truth is that static defenses always encourage stagnation and risk-averse gameplay. This is bad for the game, and we would be better off without them.
  • Create New...