Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by robert131997

  1. im not talking about losing skills to get the next level skill im talking about branches like mining level 123 and scanning level 123 and your transfering all of your skill levels in mining into scanning levels regardless of time to complete, mastery of all skills would still somewhere down the line create a class of people for which the skill system has no meaning. they can drop in and out of jobs with ease and there is no challenge left at that point. its unfair to other job candidates from a skills perspective and these people will be extremely attractive to an employer, not to mention how the complete mastery of all skills will affect your decision to team up with others. why seek the skills of another when you have mastered them all. they have nothing to offer you expertise wise and if everyone ultimately ends up a master of everything people will drift apart, organisations crumble and what about the pvp aspect. for example 2 ships, one fully crewed with masters of all skills and one with specialised people. losing crew members on the mastery ship isnt nearly as much a problem as it would be on the specialist ship that seems unbalanced.
  2. this is nice i understand most of your points now please continue if you have more to discuss after this reply skills are not lost they would be transferred into another skill at the expense of a related skill like 2 sides of the same coin with the intent of preventing the player from achieving mastery of all skills as this would kill the job market with no demand for specialised people it would not be an instant respec of points in order to respec your character you would need to work with the tool or task it has abilities for this would transfer the points passively at a standard rate but the rate of transfer is increased when you are actively working with the tool or task
  3. if im understanding this correctly i dont like the idea of getting a new tool id prefer that you are granted the ability to buy it i also dont like the idea of passively gaining sp/bonuses if you are not actively using the tool, at least gain more points under active use of the tool im concerned about engagement i would prefer that the skill points are specific to that skill branch and can not be respeced to completely different abilities also and that certain skills that are related cannibalise each other say for example mining and scanning they share points so if you increase mining you end up decreasing scanning
  4. when i think of game 'grind' im thinking of repeating a simple action over and over again to progress towards getting a reward at the end of it the reason it often boils down to this is because the tool with which you are practising often has a narrow use case and there are limited ways to effectively train with it. as for when the player gets the tool i think you are right but it would be better if it was something you could just buy or learn how to make it and proficiency levels in that tool require its use and are specific to the class of tool you wouldn't have to master the previous class of tool. and if the player does not use the tool the proficiency level would erode very slowly over time or if using a equivalent tool from a separate field the EXP for the proficiency in that tool would gradually move over to the new tool with use for example like using dark magic would sap EXP from your light magic skills. what im opposed to in short is a system where you click train and sit there for hours doing nothing waiting for the ability to be granted to you. timers. i would prefer that if you want to get better at something you have to do that something. and that you can buy all the equipment you need regardless of the complexity of the equipment with the only barrier to entry being price and availability. theres nothing you cant go and try to do, fail, and gain skill in.
  5. clarify what you mean by 'real time to train' if your referring to actual hours minutes and so on i dont doubt they will do that but does this training time take real effort or do you just press the train button then come back in a few hours also as regards the genuine knowledge of how to use a high end tool versus just getting the tool with no knowledge of how to use it, i am concerned that if people can just press the train button and come back in a few hours and get a new ability, they haven't earned that because they haven't worked for it, and perhaps most importantly they have not worked with it so they will not be able to use it effectively. not to mention the potential damage could be caused by those who do not respect their new found abilities because they have not worked for them and as such have no understanding of how to use them safely and responsibly.
  6. time based? please tell me we dont just pick a skill then sit back and relax for 200 hours or something until it has finished cooking, at which point you are just handed an ability? if so i am struggling to think of the merits of such a system. as it allows anyone with enough will to click a button once, to progress with no real effort, true understanding or learning in the capability that would be handed to them in 200 hours. (hypothetical figure) this i feel is equivalent to training pets on mobile games this in stark contrast to the 'grind' method where, put simply, abilities are earned with effort, complete with the knowledge and understanding that comes with genuine experience gained putting effort into something. now that im looking at it i can see a couple of pros and cons to each system. maybe with the time based system progression and abilities are afforded to everyone regardless of 'work' ethic and the system is much simpler, no partial progression, you either have the ability or you dont. but i think that lacks meaning and substance, granted partial progression is much more fiddly prospect. do they have some access to the rewards of the ability even if they have not completed training? and how do you service that in game? its more complex to allow partial control or access to things that require full training in an ability to work at their best. and what would that partial control or access look like? aside from this with the grind method its also more susceptible to exploitation, positive feedback loops and the like. then there is the societal impact of this method will player actions differ from the aspirations of the developers? for example diverse cities giving way to sprawling training camps or pit mines, players locked in the positive feedback loop of repeating one simple action for hours because it is the most effective way to acquire the ability. how do you offer a more effective and engaging alternative? and then there is the issue of EXP distribution. can you, having accrued enough EXP, respec your character at will or worse yet on the fly? or will there be a max achievable EXP number, upon reaching which all abilities are fully trained? what happens when everyone is fully trained in everything? i dont think that is desirable, it will put a damper on the value of cooperation. why get someone else to do it when you can do it yourself? just re spec your character. or will they go for a system where you cannot achieve mastery of all things at once and EXP gained in activity contributing towards an ability in a particular field erodes the EXP level in another ability? they could also have all EXP erode naturally over time without continued activity in those fields, this i think is a more organic approach similar to learning in life. you put time into something you will get better at it, at the expense of eroding or forgetting a few other skills. given that JC-Baillie has stated in the past he would like the accumulated skills and knowledge the player gathers to matter and have value, im surprised that Novaquark have gone for what seems to me like a very limited system, that is as i understand it not nearly as representative of true learning as the 'grind' method.
  7. eternal i agree with the majority of what you outlined except however in the case of the close in weapons system which for me in game id only like to see it used as a hard kill anti missile system i still feel that such systems should be automatic given that they would be shooting at incredibly fast and maneuverable projectiles and the examples of the weapons systems you gave looked to me like medium caliber secondary point defense guns and i was talking about gun crews being required for large primary main weapon systems such as the 16in guns given in my example
  8. robert131997

    Gun Crews

    if as JC has said previously something along the lines of 'ship weapons will have to be manned' instead of one man controlling some weapon system similar in size to battleship turret perhaps larger weapon systems would require multiple people to operate it such as in this example of a 16in 3 gun mount turret from an iowa class battleship hopefully this will illustrate my idea however i do accept that you could thin out the number of people required and attribute it to 'technology' my meaning being for example now we have an invention called an autoloader and so there is in some circumstances no need for a gun loading man so ultimately in the distant future on Alioth we have antigravity and 'lightbridge' like forcefields you can expect we would have more machinery available to us to mechanize our weapon systems so say what used to take 30 man to operate now takes 3 perhaps also you could take the weapon system further and have a munitions factory onboard the construct to supple the main weapon system with ordnance that may not make very exciting gameplay though sitting in the bowels of a ship doing repetitive tasks so i think something like separating the sensor information from the gun crews might be interesting for example those operating the weapon systems rely on accurate targeting information passed on verbally to them the gun crews themselves would have limited targeting information but im not sure what kind of combat model JC has in mind from what i can remember its a stats thing lock and fire im thinking of final fantasy and that doesnt sound very appealing to me personally id prefer free fire where the ordnance goes where you aim it otherwise i dont understand how or why JC would add human manual control into the mix in conclusion my idea is to have multiple people be required to operate larger weapon systems say one man to rotate the weapon another to elevate the weapon and another to fire it smaller weapon systems would be one man and even smaller still things like CWIS close in weapon systems would be automated CWIS in this sense is only used as a form of active defense system to destroy incoming missiles or shells
  9. would be preferable to having to make your ship Armour out of beetle poo because it is the only thing that has just that shade of purple you want... ?
  10. Are you saying you want to visually represent the strength of territory shielding that has a predefined maximum size by showing it to cover more area on the map the stronger it is this doesn't make sense to me..
  11. clarify? maybe a News Org will step up with mobile reporters and 'billboard/television' ships (like advertising blimps) to dispense the news to citizens or reporters pass news bulletins to the public screen operators of populated areas
  12. im assuming we cant talk in depth about actual dual universe map features and design however that said.. surely we are allowed to speculate based on what information has been legally and publicly shared i will admit now i have not read the NDA but i have no intention to break it this also makes me think about how this affects BOO's mapping system is it in violation of the NDA i hope it is not i like what i saw in that youtube link and it is exactly the resource i was proposing
  13. hadn't considered this but i agree with your prediction
  14. robert131997


    Perhaps we could entertain the possibility of having live footage taken from CCTV available on your mobile device through an app. See who's snooping around. I welcome practical thinking and discussions about feasibility on this idea
  15. Can you clarify what you mean by scope creep I have never head that before I don't know what it means And as for wasting resources I don't think they would be wasting much because the have already created the map they would just need to get it running on the website granted I don't know how the made that map and what coding language it runs on or even if it can be defined in that way so it could be much more difficult to bring to the website However I believe it would be a useful tool for the community and potential interested persons it would show that dual universe is becoming a living breathing universe constantly changing it would showcase emergent gameplay in a more visual way than the text based form currently present in the shape of community organisation pages I also believe it would prove a useful tool for organisations to keep up to date with the dynamic emerging politics of Alioth
  16. Intranet?... ? GTA 5 style?...
  17. could we have the Alioth 3D planetary map available on the dual universe website live updated to show claimed territory organization held territory and held by which org
  18. I'd enjoy some directional hull mounted weapons like a massive cannon you can add more peices to making it longer and more powerful something similar to the UNSC MAC cannon as seen in the game franchise halo Maybe even allow for some creative lua scripting say for example controling the timing of the firing of the weapon
  19. Anyone looking to create and ultimately mass produce their construct would first have to build a prototype by hand a lengthy process drawing in manpower effort and resources the amounts of which would be relative to the size and complexity of the construct This final prototype would be the master construct the factory elements will use in its mass production the prototype would be docked at one of these facilities and its design captured and its blueprint item created This blueprint item is divided into a number of pieces because the factory elements themselves have fixed sizes relative to the dynamic core type they are placed on The arrow is the construct and the blue represents the factory element volumes each volume captures a segment of the construct and creates an item a part of the whole blueprint So for example a medium construct blueprint might have 20 parts 20 blueprints that make up a whole construct these construct segments will have to have their own dynamic core as they will be manufactured individually and welded together by hand all of these sections will have to be welded to a basic skeleton built separately by hand once welded to the basic skeleton the construct segment will lose its dynamic core and adopt the core of the basic skeleton this welding action will only be possible within a friendly territory that contains a friendly factory unit/factory element and cannot be done within the volumes of active factory units as for the elements required for the construct those too will be installed by hand with ghosts of where they should be placed appearing on the construct while it is docked in a factory volume and that factory volume is loaded with the correct blueprint part wiring/linking of elements is to be done by hand and will be the final part of the manufacturing process so to conclude the path to mass production starts with a physical design phase creating and tweaking prototypes until a final prototype production model is settled upon next the design is captured using factory units and a modular construct blueprint is made those blueprint parts are put into factory units manufactured and then welded into place by hand on a separately handmade construct called a basic skeleton the construct elements are then wired/linked up and the process is complete i invite and welcome all constructive criticism
  • Create New...