Jump to content

Vorengard

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vorengard

  1. ATMLVE did a great job explaining the limits of LUA, but I'd like to offer some clarity about the intent of the system. LUA scripting is designed to help you do things that would be very time-consuming or obnoxious to do manually, but that don't enhance the gameplay experience, like manually connecting things to control systems. For example, default LUA scripts in the cockpit module automatically connect your flight controls to your engines, so you don't have to wire them all individually. We can expect the same thing from other types of control panels for factory units or markets. So you can build a factory or market warehouse, add a control panel, and the panel will automatically hook itself up to all the relevant objects, rather than you running around clicking buttons on a thousand different things. As for LUA scripts you write yourself, here's a possible example. Assuming any of these elements are in the game, you could write a LUA script into an in-game computer screen that automatically connects the screen to any cameras attached to the structure you attach the screen to. That way, you can make a security camera system without having to run around your base connecting wires to all the cameras you had placed previously. However, LUA scripts will NOT allow you to automate ANY type of gameplay. So, no automated mining, flying, shooting, scanning, building, or scripting. The LUA system is designed to make annoying things easier, not to play the game for you in any way. Hope that helps.
  2. Weapons in DU are not free fire, like in most space games. In DU, all weapons, even handguns, will only fire at targeted objects, like in EVE. So you can't just point your guns at something (like the ground) and fire. As for targeting objects on the ground, we don't know yet. I think it would be an interesting mechanic, and I'd like to see it in the game, but I imagine there are multiple potential balance and gameplay issues with doing this. As has been mentioned twice already, no planet destruction ever. JC has said this specifically, because it would be super imbalanced and would negatively impact the gameplay of too many people.
  3. I'm sorry Twerk, but I really don't see how your argument is relevant. Of course all major alliances have spies, and of course groups like PL know what Goons are bringing to a party before they even undock. That's all completely besides the point. From playing EVE, you should be aware of just how incompetent and uninformed people can be. You should also know that groups like PL and NC. still manage to lose fleets to an enemy fleet comp they saw coming for any one of a dozen reasons. It doesn't matter whether or not the information is available or easily attainable. What matters is whether or not people will bother to go out and get it, or whether they'll use it properly once they have it. Having played EVE, you should know that most groups are too lazy or incompetent to do proper spying, and even a lot of those that do don't use that intel properly. Knowing that, why would I make watching me easier for the significant number of groups and FCs that just couldn't care less? I appreciate the idea. I really do. But at the end of the day what you're suggesting is only going to make fights boil down to blue-balls and numbers games, like they already do in EVE, and that's a bad thing.
  4. 1) No, because "neutral alt" is just a euphemism for Spy But seriously, I would accept individuals from trusted and verified organizations so long as they had a record of being unbiased (at least towards me lol), and were considered stand-up guys in the community. Otherwise, take a hike bro, assuming I don't just blow you up myself. 2) Of course I would help out community projects, because they're awesome and that's half the fun of having a community. But again, screw people who use those things as fronts for their own gain. In other news, the problem I see with your rules and regulations for these individuals is that you assume there'll be an easy way to tell what's fitted on a ship, or what's in someone's inventory, or what skills a character has trained. That may very well be the case, but I haven't seen any concrete examples of that yet, so I'm withholding judgement till then (yes, I know it's been *mentioned* by JC at one point, but that's not the same as a confirmed feature).
  5. So you're strait admitting that owning territory to rent to others wont be a thing in DU because people shouldn't ever do it.... or something. Even in EVE this is a major part of the Null Sec experience and gameplay, and you're in favor of a totally unnecessary mechanic that would seriously damage that experience because... reasons?
  6. Thanks for being all condescending bro, but I played EVE for 7 years. I don't think you should be able to put people in cages instantly and beyond their control either way. That's not fun or interesting gameplay. Also, of course you can suicide to get out of it, but in a game where the loot on your body drops that's exactly what the people imprisoning you want. For someone who's supposedly played EVE, you clearly didn't learn anything. (Nice sec status BTW)
  7. I'm talking about someone doing this *to you* as a form of greifing. Can you seriously not think of a single way in which this is exploitable? Because I just listed like 7.
  8. Right, so what happens if I walk into someone's territory where they allow public access but not public editing, and they dump a bunch of dirt around me? Now I'm literally entombed in dirt that I can't move. Same can be said for allowing people in to mine with access rights, and then removing those rights and trapping them in a hole, or a building, or what have you. As immersive as this feature would be, there's simply too many possible exploits to make it a viable mechanic.
  9. I absolutely support the idea of materials being consistent, and not something that just vanishes after you mine it. That being said, I think there serious tech and gameplay consequences for including this feature. What's going to happen when you drop a bunch of dirt? Does it vanish? Does it mold into holes in the ground? Or does it stack into piles next to you like it would if you dumped it out of a dump truck? Any of these solutions pose significant tech and performance issues.... Which is fine, but there's also a lot for exploits to worry about. For example, what happens when a player fills their inventory with dirt, and dumps it all on the ground next to a building? If several people do this, now you've got a building completely buried in dirt. Do the same thing to someone's mine and either it's now gone, or they're buried at the bottom. What happens if you go onto someone's space station and dump a ton of dirt in the hallways? Same argument for a spaceship. None of these things is necessarily game-breaking because anyone can mine it, but it's obnoxious and troll-y. I don't think the game benefits from this at all, simply because of all the shenanigans that would result.
  10. The swastika example is actually an easy one. There are several nations, most notably Germany, that ban the depiction of the swastika in all non-historical, research, or teaching contexts, including making it "publicly accessible through data storage..." So, NQ would have to forcibly remove Swastikas from the game, or face penalties under German law. Now, a more interesting question (and one that'll cause a lot of debate in the community) is their policy on other types of content. The most notable example being those people who just can't seem to resist drawing penises on everything. I predict it'll take approximately 6.2 seconds before someone loads the game for the first time, sprints outside, looks strait down, and draws a penis on the ground right outside the Arkship. Are we just going to have to live with penises carved into the sides of mountains everywhere? I'm curious what NQ will do once this starts happening.
  11. The problem here is that if you hide the members list of orgs, but you don't hide the current employment of players in their profile, then you're not really accomplishing much. Sure, you've made it more difficult for people to find out who's in what orgs, but you haven't really made anything secret, you've just made a common service more difficult, to the benefit of only the very, very small number of players in secret organizations. A better solution, and one that doesn't require Dev resources, is that you just make your own website to run this org from. Heck, just a Discord server will do, and those are free. I get what you're thinking, but in reality this is an out of game problem with an out of game solution.
  12. ... Do you... do you not understand how secret organizations work? Have you perhaps considered that the *best* way to make a secret society is to, in fact, not tell anyone? Maybe it's just me, but it seems that advertising, having designated mechanics, and posting about a secret on public forums are all really bad ways to have a secret society.
  13. Great stuff here. The shipbuilder is looking like it's shaping into exactly what I hoped for. Huge props. I get that a timelapse would be pretty boring at this state (i.e. 5 strait minutes of motionless black), but with the level of skepticism around a game like DU I'm afraid it's necessary. The biggest concern I hear from the people I pitch the game to is "I'm not getting fooled like I was with NMS" and the lack of continuity in the video will trigger them so hard lol
  14. Ok, everyone, let's get back to the point of the discussion instead of the personal attacks. I understand the desire to want to do everything in a game, solo and multiplayer, as that's the type of gameplay you enjoy the most. That being said, you *can't* have everything in a game and do it all well. That's a simple fact of reality, especially with the size Dev team NQ has. Personally, I want a game that requires multiple people to fly effectively above a certain size, because there's a dozen other games that do the solo thing well, EVE chief among them. Now Ripper, Twerk and the other solo LUA advocates in this thread can make their arguments about how scripts work, and you're not inherently wrong. But you're forgetting a very critical point. NQ can simply disable the ability to attach LUA scripts to turrets. The end. Personally, I think they should, and screw realism, because the issue isn't "can a 1 man LUA ship beat a 10 man full-control ship," it's "can 10 one-man LUA ships beat 1 ten-man full control ship." If 10 people in 10 LUA ships can beat 10 players in 1 ship then no one will ever fly multi-player ships. Not only would it be less efficient, but who would choose sitting behind a single turret over flying their own ship? Nobody, that's who. If I wanted that game I'd go elsewhere.
  15. Yeah, ok guy. That makes so much sense... except for a single teeny tiny detail you've apparently forgotten. You know, the one where JC said fully automating ships will not happen. So you can take your condescension and unbelievably arrogant attitude and shove it.
  16. I completely agree that much of this forum has become that, but that's not what I made this thread for. My intention was to do what these forums were really designed for: discuss what we would like to see in the game so that the Devs understand that. That helps all of us. So, what is your ideal system for handling multiple people on a ship? Should that even be a thing?
  17. No, actually, that's not what I was saying in the OP at all, but you chose to interpret it that way because reasons. There are a thousand ways to simply code the game so that a single person can do everything. Example: every other space game out there. How many of them use player-moddable LUA code? None of them. This is exactly my point. I'm asking WHAT DO WE WANT IT TO BE LIKE, not "oh em gee nerf Lua plox". So, please contribute to the actual conversation here instead of going off on a completely unnecessary Pro-LUA crusade. If you want to do that, make a new post about it and I'll talk to you about it all day.
  18. Alienate? No. Restrict? Yes absolutely. No game can be all things for all people. I have no problem with one-person ships, but, beyond a certain point, those ships should have limited capabilities as a result. You want to fly the death star all by yourself? Great. Go right ahead. But you shouldn't be able to use more than one system at a time. I will take an effective team-based game over a system that makes everyone sacrifice a bunch to make everyone happy. If you want predominantly lone-wolf, go play Elite:Dangerous. Might I remind you that you are the one that suggested an AI that controls ships. I think that's a bad idea in every regard because what's to stop people from permanently logging in alts to run those AI? The use of programs like ISBoxer to do something similar was already destroying segments of the gameplay in EVE, and I believe it would be even worse in DU.
  19. I have several problems with this. Firstly, it removes people from the act of space combat, which is bad because this is an MMO, and the entire point of an MMO is fighting other people. Secondly, I don't want to play a game that's all about "who has the better code." The point of the LUA code is to allow us to customize our experience, not to build a game that's automated. Not only does that defeat the purpose of an MMO, it's not even fun. Sure, setting my fleet of robot ships on someone would be great... the first few times. But if I want that I'll go play an RTS, not a game that's supposed to be about player interaction like DU. Sure, scripting could be limited and less efficient, but in terms of anything beyond the most basic setups (press button go forward) what does that add to the gameplay? I want a space combat system that's about piloting skill, not coding skill.
  20. Sure, but with LUA scripted guns doing less damage, that's a disadvantage. Generally speaking, I think controlling more than one gun at a time is more fun, up to a certain point of course. That being said, I think 1 gun per person is a mistake because of what it will do to the meta. I'm afraid of a meta where the most effective combat method is strapping the largest gun you can find to as small a ship as will carry it, because those ships would be faster, more maneuverable, and more flexible than a large ship with the same number of guns. There needs to be something that makes having a big ship with lots of guns viable, but not the only option.
  21. Yes, "effectively", but what exactly does that mean. Or, more importantly for our purposes, what should it mean? That being said, I don't entirely agree that each player should only having access to one gun. I would prefer that players control batteries of guns (say 3-4?), just so you can have tons of guns on every ship, because more lasers flying around hitting things is better, am I right? Something akin to the EVE POS gunner system, where higher skill levels let you use more guns, would be great. That would also increase the necessity for specialization, which is something NQ has said they want.
  22. I know this topic has come up before, JC has mentioned the idea, and as far as I know a final decision hasn't been made. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, this thread is for discussing the pros and cons of multi-player ship piloting/fighting, and whether or not this type of system would be fun in the context of Dual Universe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I love the idea, and would really like to see it in DU. The added combat depth, teamwork, and strategy would make the game much more fun and immersive. It would make spaceships feel more like an actual ship you're piloting than a character skin or suit of armor you happen to be wearing, like in EVE. It would also place a power curve on individuals, so one guy in a super epic battleship can't take out an entire fleet himself. That being said, I'm sure some people will be understandably annoyed that they can't fly the Enterprise around the galaxy all by themselves. It also gives large entities an advantage over smaller entities in some regards. For example: In EVE, I was in a scrappy Low-Sec pirate corp, but we still had a Titan to bridge us around places. In DU, I would hope that something like a Titan would require a bunch of people to fly properly, but that would prevent small groups from using that type of ship effectively... which may or may not be a bad thing. Overall, the difference seems to be the degree to which we want to force people into playing as a group. Thoughts?
  23. I love the idea of being a damage control crew on a large spaceship in the middle of a battle. Having to repair critical systems under fire and scrambling not to get blown away in the carnage just sounds amazing. Not to mention being a captain in that situation. I'm really hoping that large ships are impossible for a single person to control effectively, because that would be so much cooler. I'm dying for a space game that requires specialization and defined roles like you would need in a real navy on an actual space ship.
  24. Why do you even care? How does this effect your life? Stop letting insignificant things bother you.
  25. I'm all for skepticism, because its the best way you avoid people getting all hyped, and then rage-quitting and writing a dozen negative reviews when things don't go according to their imagination. I'd much rather be pleasantly surprised by a game than disappointed. So, in that spirit, let's be realistic here. DU is not going to launch with a thousand features and all kinds of super deep gameplay. That takes years and years to develop, and if you come into this expecting a game as deep and intricate as EVE or as filled with content as WoW, you're going to be disappointed. But I'm totally fine with that, because I never played EVE for the gameplay, as weird as that sounds. I played EVE for the relationships and the conflicts, and neither of those things can be manufactured. All I ask of Novaquark is that we be given a game worth fighting over, and the stories will take care of themselves.
×
×
  • Create New...