CMDRTaco
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CMDRTaco
-
-
After the dev Discord Q&A a few days ago, it's clear the devs don't even play this game. They are completely out of touch of how much this update has turned this "GAME" into a 2nd job. The taxes are too high for the effort required. NQ admitted they set the tax to be 50% of what you could mine at 100% efficiency. No society flourishes when everything is taxed at a 50% rate. On top of this, many of the miners we put down are bugged and will not pull at the rate they are suppose to. It's like other miners are already pulling the vast majority of the available pool, but there are no other miners on the territory.
- hdparm, Zarcata, VandelayIndustries and 1 other
-
4
-
On 11/6/2021 at 4:45 PM, sHuRuLuNi said:
Ditch Atmo brakes. Make an AGG Brake Generator. Then set it so that you can use a max of 1 per XS Core, 4 for S Core, 8 for M Core and 16 for L Core.
This way, you cannot keep slapping more and more Brake Generators for heavier ships. There is a limit, so for the L-Core ships you can have a max of 16 Brake Generators which you also don't have to stick on the outside, but anywhere inside (since they work as an AGG, so they create a "brake bubble" around the ship).
So, if 1 Brake Generator generates say 10MN, then 16 of them, which is a max you can have on an L Core, will generate a max of 160MN - and that's it - this way you cannot keep making the ship heavier and heavier because at one point it will simply not be able to brake in the atmosphere.
The same goes for Engines, Wings, Ailerons, etc - get rid of the 19th Century technology - and use some Electromagnetic Engines or the like which make it possible (like the AGG) for the ship to float and fly based on the power of the ELMAG Engines. The same here with the limitation per Core.
So, again, you cannot just keep slapping engine walls to the ship - but you have a max of ELMAG Engines you can have on a particular core size - and that's it.
As I pointed out in several posts already - this would make it possible to build actual, era-appropriate, beautiful sci-fi ships with real sci-fi looks and not have to plaster them with engines, wings and brakes.I agree an element like this is needed, but I don't think it should completely replace wings, engines, and Ailerons. Those elements should stay in for smaller ships and an AGG brake generator can be a more expensive option for larger ships. NQ will need to address the element lag at some point in the near future, so one element like this replacing hundreds of wings and brakes could drastically reduce element lag.
-
3 hours ago, Nayropux said:
If they just increase the power of brakes, people will keep using the same amount of brakes and just build even bigger ships. The same thing happened with rare military engines; it didn't stop engine walls, it just made them stronger.
They're not going to stop players from adding the elements. It will only drive people to make even more ridiculous looking ships. If this goes live, the next meta will be a giant box with atmo brakes on three sides. If they find a happy medium, then people will continue to make visually appealing ships.
-
In addition to the excellent points made by LordVlad, this change as it's currently on PTS will not only render a vast majority of ships useless, but it unfairly punishes those that created their ships with the proper obstruction placement as currently on the live server. Please see the image below that demonstrates the radical change in the airflow from front-to-back to sides-top.
Even the DU shipbuilders are confused about the intended airflow obstruction changes. Several of the MK2 editions have the top of the atmospheric brake blocked. Please see the four examples below.
-
The L/hr seem too low even with talent and adjacency bonus for the 1 mil/week tax. Either the rate needs to go up or the tax drastically reduced. The brake change is horrible. I know the current implementation was temporary, but requiring the entire brake to be exposed is going to usher in the golden age of freaking ugly ships. Please change the requirement to be only the front surface to be exposed.
- CaptainGnome, Selena, Bazzy_505 and 7 others
-
10
-
4 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
So, what could they not predict?
The amount of ore they placed?
The amount of ore each player mined?
By how much did they fail to calculate?
PS: "Servers don't always scale linearly" What? When did the server scale? They could have calculated this 2 years ago... the world was the same as it is and players were mining like crazy like they are now.This is my last reply to you since you are just pissy and not actually reading my response. The problem is the amount of tunnels dug out, not how much ore there is to mine. They had no way of knowing that people would have dug near the amount of tunnels they have.
-
1 minute ago, joaocordeiro said:
LOL
So they could not calculate an average if meters of digging per ore node? And then calculate the amount of changed voxels per meter? And then multiply by the number of nodes in the game?Servers don't always scale linearly and if you saw the video with the massive amounts of tunnels, they didn't predict how nuts players would have went with mining.
-
46 minutes ago, ShippyLongstalking said:
How could any professional game studio not understand something as basic as how the game's costs would scale...?
They talk about cost like it's some unknowable thing that snuck up on them. The pricing for AWS is not some mystery. You'd think at least once over the past 7 years they would have...I don't know, run some projections?
No one bothered to do any math as they were designing the game to understand the cost of their product...?
No one tested their prototype to understand how costs would scale?
No one cared about cost when they created their subscription model? How did they even understand what to charge players if they didn't bother doing projections?
Beyond the change itself....it shows that NQ's dev philosophy is still 100% reactionary -- they don't test or plan in advance. They don't design in advance. They throw things into production then figure out what to change. There's a reason it's taken them 7+ years to not even finish a beta...they have to keep going back and changing things because they don't have a design.
No one really believes that NQ really understands what this change will do.
They'll throw it into production then figure out the next problem...
I'd be really surprised if this game ever approached anything near "feature-complete".
Because they have built something no other game studio has created before. They also were not able to predict how players would exploit the game. Almost all traditional MMOs take 5+ years to develop, so 7+ for a groundbreaking game like DU is not surprising. Would you have preferred that they just keep an unsustainable system in or fix it like they have. I for one think this system is a good solution. The only change I would have made would be to make the ore resources shift once a month like SWG did.
DEVBLOG: CONSTRUCTION SLOTS AND STACKED ELEMENTS - discussion thread
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by CMDRTaco
Added point about personal core slots.
I would like to propose a solution that most that I've talked to agree is a workable solution.
Problem Statement: Too many cores as a result of unlimited nested orgs. Players previously rejected the idea of removing nested orgs due to limited RDMS.
NQ proposed solution is flawed for several reasons. Loaning cores to orgs has too much potential for abuse and turns managing org shared infrastructure into a nightmare to manage long term. 25 cores per player is simply too little especially after the Demeter update requiring cores for mining.
Before I get into my proposed solution, it's important for NQ to understand how most players use orgs. Due to the limited RDMS capabilities, players create their own personal/small group org for players they trust 100%. They then join a larger org for the community and larger shared resources. The larger org typically maintains org member store, factory, space stations, etc. The primary org relying on "loaned cores" is an unnecessary problem for the legates to manage. The "personal" core slots are rarely used by players due to the RDMS mess. When my two friends and I started playing, the first thing we did was to create our own org so that we can easily share constructs without having to deal with RDMS hell, so until RDMS becomes much more robust, continuing to use the 17 personal cores to boost the total cores is pointless, hardly anyone other than solo players who don't do much beyond a very limited set of game features uses them.
Short term:
My proposed solution is to remove nested orgs from having cores slots and create a two-tier organization model. Orgs with less than 10 players would have a hard limit of 150 cores while orgs with more than 10 members retain the current 275 core limit. This would allow the larger primary org to maintain the necessary infrastructure without having to worry about what they will need to delete when a handful of players decide to leave. This also allows the solo/small group org to have enough cores to maintain their own constructs.
Long term:
There still needs to be a more robust system for alliances and networks such as the Utopia network. I believe using the nested org feature is not the right mechanism for this to work properly. There needs to be a separate system to manage alliances for future capabilities.
The current RDMS is sorely lacking in features to properly manage an organization and could potentially reduce the need for players to join more than two orgs.