Semproser
-
Posts
61 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Semproser
-
-
I've had another idea! How about the world generated a truly boring name for each planet, for example "Planet-001", "Planet-002"...etc. This would obviously mean people want to give the planets their own personal touch, as no one wants boring planet names.
Then, the game then gives each user the ability to name the planet for themselves. Each person calls the planet what they want.
However! (This is the good bit)When you go to name the planet for yourself, there is a list of what EVERYONE ELSE has named the planet, with the most frequently used names nearer the top and showing next to each name how many others have named it so.
This means that the best name would become the most popular, it is decided by the people with a strange type of open democracy, the stupid names will always die out, and a planet will almost always get a definitive name. I can't think of anything else that would work anywhere near as well as this. What do you guys think?
-
That's not a bad idea actually. Seems fairly useful for rough designs. Good thinking
-
Nicely pointed out, I hadn't considered that option:
*Avatar specific gravity*
It would be certainly perfect for the things I'm suggesting building wise. The only downside really is that occasionally while working in your office building someone might just casually walk up the wall and through your 80th floor window. haha.
As for your problem AccuNut with other gravity sources nearby, somehow I doubt their engine will actually employ a universal gravity field. It will probably be more in the sense of "if within X Radius of planet, affected by gravity of planet" for people and constructs, and a different model entirely for the space stations as they are supposed to just orbit the nearest large cosmic entity (or so someone said, I've got no sources on that). This would mean that on ships it would be likely gravity is handled in a way similar to "Everything inside this cuboid is affected by construct Y's gravity", where the cuboid is just big enough to encapsulate the construct. This is the most likely, as pretty much every other free roam space game does it like this. This would also mean that the cuboid gravity of the construct overrides the gravity of the planet entirely, otherwise things would become extremely strange in orbit.
However "gravity emitters" like I suggest wouldn't use a cuboid that by default encapsulates the entire construct, but would give the user the ability to put a shape somewhere and anything inside that shape is affected by a certain gravity simulating force. Thing is, if this shape is a square (like in Space Engineers) my cuboid city idea still couldnt be employed perfectly as the corners wouldn't be covered properly without extra, diagonal facing gravity emitters. Which would be rather strange. This is what that would look like: http://www.printablee.com/postpic/2014/04/square-box-template-printable_116047.png - the important part here is the lack of gravity at the corners.
However if the shape of the gravity emitters would be customisable, that would lead to a lot more fun. For example, gravity parcour maps, multidimensional command stations/bridges (which I have several concepts for), and of course cuboid city ships. However actually doing that even with the given tools might be hard, as the "correct" gravity field shape for a cuboid would be what I can only describe as an inverted square based & topped trapezoid sided pyramid. Like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/B3D/2/JPG/figure19.jpg
Specifically 6 of them, one for each face, this allows for no gaps in between, and would look like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/dimension/JPG/figure28.jpg
So in the end (and TL;DR) :
Although it would lead to quite a lot of creative outlet to have customization of shapes from gravity emitters I imagine, it would probably be a great deal simpler and easier for the developers to just have user-set gravity, allowing any client to orient themselves however they want when off-planet. Probably locking this to 6 axis or so would be advisable.
-
This game is not for kids and children.
If an adult can't read what is clearly stated all over the place and then he rates this game badly, he's just an idiot and should go to school instead playing DU
For example in the most recent AMA video he answers questions about the damage model and how its related to voxels. Specifically about how damage actually breaks voxels and makes realistic type damage to blocks and systems. He doesn't mention there that this is something they aren't planning on doing before launch. We've seen ships with gun, and statements like those about how damage affects voxels. Unless you really read into it, you'd think CvC would be in this game. Hence it is misleading and should be addressed.
-
This game is not for kids and children.
If an adult can't read what is clearly stated all over the place and then he rates this game badly, he's just an idiot and should go to school instead playing DU
But it isn't very clearly plastered everywhere. Its in a single drop down box at the very very bottom of a huge long kickstarter page.
-
Both of these are interesting suggestions, but have some previously mentioned pitfalls.
Mainly, it allows the planet name to change multiple times, and almost continually if the right conditions are met. This could become very confusing to players as they travel the known universe. It would also wreak havoc on any type of industry that delivers goods, since "Lot 98 on Planet Zorg" just became "Lot 98 on Planet Whatcha-ma-call-it".
Especially if a particular name is popular, any given planet could receive the same name at different times.
For example: let's say 5 different planets are to be named. On those five planets, the majority of the people like the name, "Asgard". Only one of them can be named Asgard, and the rest find different names.
Fast forward six months, and the vote to retain the name Asgard doesn't pass, or another organization takes over and renames the planet. Meanwhile, on the neighboring planet of Sardis, (which originally wanted the name Asgard,) the controlling organization/majority of citizens realize that the name is no longer being used, and hastily rename their own planet Asgard.
We now have two planets in the same system, in the same general area, (yes, I realize they will still be light-years from each other,) that have been named the same thing at some point. And this could keep happening until a new fad name surfaces, then the cycle starts all over.
I see this becoming very disorienting to anyone who is trying to find a certain planet, and just plain annoying for everyone else. It would be the equivalent of being given an address to go to, and getting to the area only to find that all the streets, even the name of the town has changed! You would be totally lost.
That seems to be one of the major concerns of non-permanent planet names, and I think it is quite valid.
Obviously nothing is perfect. But what I was really trying to avoid is some idiot coming along, being the first to a planet because he happened to drift there first, and naming is "RANDOM LOLOLO XD XD" and that being one of the 5 core important planets. Then with that name stuck forever, the rest of the community has to deal with the immaturity of a single person who just got there first. Also if there are 4 or 5 big corporations on a planet, if my first suggestion is used then the biggest of them will probably name is "Star Conferdacy Planet 3" or something as it puts their factions name in the planet, asserting their very slight dominance. But if my second suggestion is used, it would be a lot more community focused and hence a lot less likely to be named after the richest lot there and more what the people of the planet want.
Actually come to think of it, a better solution would be to only be able to rename a prefix, postfix or infix, for example the most they could do would be "Star Confederacy controlled Yavin-XI" Where the generated name for the planet was Yavin-IX. By having a name checker that requires the original name to be in the new name somewhere? That way people can be creative about it and have it in a more appropriate part of the name. So even "The Peoples Republic of Yaxin-IX and Star Alliance" would be acceptable to the system. I reckon that would get good results.
-
How about this? I've got 2 suggestions.
1) Planets are all given a randomly generated name, its a fairly easy thing to do using a few set parameters.
THEN
The person/organisation with the most territorial power on the planet gets to OVERWITE the existing name. This would only be true for as long as they hold the majority power. If someone else comes along and obtains a higher power level on the planet, then they can then rename it. If everyone leaves, it defaults. This is a more power oriented approach, but would certainly work in at least some capacity.
However I think there's another way that can work, but probably not as well but would give a better outcome:
2) Once there is a certain presence on the planet (perhaps amount of claimed territory, or people visited) then a planetary vote ensues. Anyone can put forward their naming suggestions, and after a period of time, the votes are opened and anyone currently on the planet gets to vote on any of those names put forward. Of course the original name is always part of the naming pool too. Every 6 months or so there is a revote, with the current name starting with a fair deal of votes as to reduce bad name changes by people making random rash decision.
-
us old time veterans will be sitting in the tavern looking at these war mad newbies with their 1000 player cvc battles in years to come, reminiscing about the good old days when you had to get your lazy ass out of the ship to avatar vs avatar to destroy the ship. "They don't even know how good they have it" we'll say!
"But granpa, how did you bring down the megalith cruiser of the killsquad clan?"
"With THIS KNIFE...and some damned good whiskey"
- Vorengard, Grimm Liberty and Kurock
-
3
-
Fricken ALL OF THE YES.
-
Just to be clear, I was aware that that voxel gravity physics were supposed to be like Minecraft, where if you undermine a tree it will float, and I'm entirely fine with that. So far everything else I've seen try to go further and have falling buildings and things just never works realistically at all, and generally just detracts from the game as opposed to adding a cool new level. For example if you took out all the walls of a large building, it would simply become 1 floor shorter and stand at an awkward angle while taking a huge amount of processing power to calculate and spaz around a bit and just be an unfix-able nuisance, as opposed to an impressive pile of rubble.
I'm more focused on the non-voxel physics, e.g. Cups, small ships near space stations with their own gravity, and people.
-
So obviously gravity onboard ships/space stations is going to be handled somehow within this game. I want to know the specifics:
Will gravity always be locked to the "Down" direction from the starting core?
if not:
Will there be "Gravity machines" of some kind that will allow us to give custom gravity to certain areas?
Really I'm asking because I want to build large ships designed to essentially be cities, and for most designs I want to build, having gravity in a different direction to the rest of the ship would be incredibly useful. For example, a cube city. With unidirectional gravity, the city would be forced to be only inside and ontop of the cube. With multi-directional gravity, I could build outwards on all faces. Cyclindrical cities (like the Citadel in Mass Effect but with the gaps in between the arms filled). Jupiter station from Interstellar.
I think you get the point. Anyone know? If not, can someone ask the devs if they get a chance? Or if this get popular enough, maybe a poll?
-
I have been a proponent of the "harder is better" philosophy from the beginning.
I think that things in the game will be more rewarding if you have to work to get them.
Wurm Online was 99% grind and it was still super rewarding after you built something massive, even if it took months to do it. I'm not saying DU should be grind, but it should at least be difficult.
Getting into space should be a rewarding feeling, like you managed some huge accomplishment. Going to another planet should feel the same way, putting a space station into orbit, etc. All of those grand things should require a massive amount of logistics to accomplish, and will then feel that much more rewarding.
I also like the idea of having survival mechanics like food and weather/temperature. I know that food has generally not been a well received suggestion on the forums, but I still would like to have food/beverages in the game, at the very least for RP sake.
You and I can be in the "everything difficult" club because I feel like this suggestion won't be well received
Can I join?
-
There have been some topics around this area, particularly with building ships, but I feel that the this is a concept valid for the entire game. In a huge civilization-building, player-interactions-driven game, I feel that having people skilled in just certain areas will eventually lead to a more enjoyable experience for players. And this is something that many people may disagree with upon first hearing it, but find in the long run that they think it works really well. Or maybe they'll hate it! I want to share my opinion on it though, and I ask that those reading, who may think it's stupid, give it a chance. Also remember that there are two sides to this, neither are correct, and both are valid. It's just opinion based.
If anyone is familiar with the game series LittleBigPlanet, the first and second iterations for the PS3 played a huge role in a season of my life. They were the main games I played for months, and I had a friend who was into it as I was. Anyway if you don't know the game, it's not important. Basically, you use some basic tools to make little minigame-ish things (I'll refer to them as levels).
Anyway, in the first game, there were a few levels and creators that stood out significantly from all the rest, because they were fantastic (anyone that knows the name "Lockstitch" off the top of their head is a freaking awesome person). Me and my friend, we knew exactly what tools were available, and what you could and "couldn't" do. But some few levels stood out to us because, as people who knew the game inside and out, we had no clue how they some of these things were accomplished. A fair few levels were outstanding and amazing due to their mechanics and visuals.
When LittleBigPlanet 2 arrived, there were tons and tons of new tools added. These were fun and great to be sure, but they made everything that made the old levels special, not special. Because, all of the fantastic things that had been done before (in the first game) were now basic and easy because there were tools to do them (in the second game). This made a lot of great content a lot more common. Which of course was a good thing. And there were certainly levels that still pushed the boundaries. But overall, by making cool and unique things easy, it made great content a lot more common and thereby a lot less special.
If Dual Universe makes building easy, and mining easy, and combat easy, and exploration easy... Well, then there are going to be lots of amazing ships, and lots of miners, and lots of warriors and lots of explorers. You may say, "that sounds great!" But, remember my exceedingly dramatic and emotional story. When you make it easy, it stops being special.
In a game like Dual Universe, where player interactions and jobs and organizations are such a key factor, it shouldn't be easy to do anything. It shouldn't be easy to switch from a being an efficient miner working for a large corporation to a stupendous explorer finding rare resources on hostile worlds at the edge of the known galaxy. Sure, you can switch job titles and do whatever you want whenever you want, because it's a game! I'm just saying you shouldn't be able to switch from being outstanding at one thing, to suddenly outstanding at another. This allows individuals the opportunity to stand out, and be known for something. "Hey he's that guy that makes that line of super efficient yet powerful ships. I don't know how he comes up with that stuff." "What, you want to send Xx_M8_SLAYR_xX to go hunting for that anomaly? He's an architect, someone else will find it way sooner!" If someone wants to be known for something, then they go for that something and only that and they end up being great at it, and known for it. Lots of people will choose to not do this, which allows the few that do to stand out.
I can't really say much else that I haven't said already. I believe I've gotten my point across. Regarding designing ships or stations, it's easier to see how an individual could be better at it than most others. Mining or exploration expertise could be accomplished, not just by having better equipment or skills, but also by there being hidden techniques that people just have to learn by doing it. Thank you for reading and please try and be civil in your response, as, once again, both opinions are valid!
When everyone's special, no one is...
And if you're good at something, never do it for free!
I agree entirely, nicely put. Although I do think that the tools introduced in LBP2 allowed a greater deal of freedom in creation which then ultimately lead to bigger and better creations than were at all possible even though exploits in LBP1. Sure it made those things less special, but sometimes we want things to be more common. Clean water for example
-
Ok, I'll bite.
You were literally asking the devs to give you, personally, a reason to back their kickstarter. Do I need to point out how radically different our positions are? You, asking for personal justification with no investment; me pointing out a perceived future problem with the game having already pledged my support for the game.
Either way, it makes no difference. We both agree with elements of both posts. So perhaps we can both go back to discussing the merits of this particular problem instead of attacking each other?
The point is that I disagree with this approach. NQ can go forward in whatever way they choose. I neither need nor expect a reply, but the whole point of this forums, or a community in general, is to express their opinions about the game. I have expressed mine because I know 2 other backers (both Ruby supporters) whose plans for this game revolve entirely around combat. I doubt they would continue their support if they knew combat was not going to be a part of the game at launch, which it will not be unless we find another $210,000 in 18 days. This is justifiable skepticism, not arm-flailing panic.
I personally think that forums like these for a pre-alpha game should be in some way useful for the developers, which is exactly why agree with you here. It's a post that shows a concern about the game that the devs might not know about, that I agree is a potential problem that they have the ability to change. Therefore it is, at least in intention, constructive. And yes I'll reply, as i'm not here just to throw a hissy fit, I'm here to be constructive.
I think we actually have very similar positions here: I wanted to highlight what I thought was a current gap in their PR that if filled might GAIN popularity for the game, you wanted to highlight a flaw in their current direction with the game as to prevent LOSS of popularity for the game. In the end its the same outcome, we want more people to like this game. So please don't think I just made my post because I wanted to be a special snowflake that bossed around developers. Even if I'm a blithering moron like you seem to think of me, just like everyone else I am in fact NOT a special snowflake. Therefore no matter how stupid or mislead a thought process might be you can bet someone else will have had the same thought process. Therefore by saying why I personally haven't donated yet, this should highlight why others might not have done so too. And that information should be useful for the devs.
And yes, I'd like to think this is a discussion rather than an argument, so I'd also like to keep things civil.
Back to the real subject here, what would you personally say is your lowest level of combat to keep you interested? I think that's a good point to progress to. As for myself I'd like for the combat to be more advanced than the ship acting as one unbreakable entity with a health bar that just explodes when it hits 0, but I'd settle for something only slightly more advanced than that.
-
If they released a slimmed out version of the voxel build system, you could have hundreds of "players" playing around with it and seeing what kinds of neat stuff they could make. Problem is, in the wrong hands it could just be a bottomless supply of materual for a youtuber bash-fest like the stuff bluedrake42 keeps kicking out.
On the flip side though, that is how you ignight a community. Kick out an offline version with one planet, and the voxel tools that are already available and we would be posting pictures of buildings and ship components like crazy. If there was even a way to save creations that could be turned into blueprints on the incoming alpha that would be HUGE, but not a realistic thing to expect.
All good points dear sir.
-
Well if you can't be asked to contribute based on what you see then I see no reason why the dev team should bend over backwards to make you happy.
I agree, the Devs should be doing more to show off their game. I would like to see some footage, I would like to see some examples of what you can build beyond the three things from the videos. But I don't need to have those things to back the game because I'm not a horrible cynic.
Also, coming onto the forums essentially trying to bait the devs into pandering to you is in rather poor form.
Despite agreeing with you here, you said this to me on my post earlier, and cant help but think that your last line in that post is hypocritical.
-
Gotta agree with OP here.
as stated on the kickstarter:
"Construct vs Construct" combat is a the first stretch goal. If it's not reached during the Kickstarter campaign, it might be added later, after official release.Personally, I think that's fairly ridiculous. Without this, avatar vs avatar combat will be the only alternative, and therefore boarding will be the only real combat. And any fight fought between two warrior groups with their warships will resemble old fashioned galleon boarding. Cool as that may sound, that being the only option really isn't favourable at all. CvC really is essential here. It can't just be an afterthought.
(edited because of extreme format failures)
-
Following the lore - there was no human on this starting planet.
Then this could give extra advantage to alpha team members. They can easily create hiden treasures.
Overall idea is nice, but not that simple to say "Yes"
Thanks,
Archonious
Bro I wrote a whole section about how the builds would be converted to be useless and purely decorative.
-
This is good news! Thanks for the post.
-
Keep in mind the game's official launch is planned to be by the end of 2018. I imagine your friends may own better and more futuristic potatoes by then which may be able to run the game.
I'd actually be really interested in required system specs, too. I'm not worried since I own quite a high-end PC, but I'm curious nontheless, as I can't think of much to compare this game to. There are other complex voxel games, yes, but not at this scope. But at the same time a lot of work can and will be offloaded to the servers, so I find I really hard to eyeball how powerful a PC you might need to run this. Everquest Landmark might be the closest thing.
It would be really unusual to give any official information on hardware requirements this early in development though, so I'm not getting my hopes up that we'll find out any time soon.
You'd think they would, but my friends have been "saving for a new PC" for about 5 years, and as far as I can tell...have gone backwards in terms of funding.
-
So Sorry, I was referring to the OP
Considering all the flashy signatures in forums like these, I really didn't really expect any praise for my fairly generic 3 word attempt. Cheers fam
Nice to know there are other W40K fans around. -
As one of the backers invited to their in house event, there was no point in making any footage as it was exactly as the devs depicted it, on the exact same map, with the exact same playable fps that was quite impressive for a pre-alpha.
If you need more than community confirmation, you are not worth the money you may back at this point.
you seem to be a safe goer, those who adopt games that work, and wants its bang for the buck guaranteed.
We backer are riskers. We hope it works, but are willing to make a loss for a far greater gain: an awesome game.
With only a pre rendered video i would have only given a 10th max of what i gave, but here we got active devs giving in game footage every 3-4 days wich is too short notice to make fakes, and i had the chance to play the game, and that was extremely convincing. But the game in its state only has the engine, nothing too fancy, barely enough to showcase the power of their engine. There is no way it is actually playable because the base mechanics werent implemented yet, but the engine is the down face of the iceberg, and the mechanics + design its tip. They showed the bottom of it.
Most hoaxes only ever show the tip.
i think that is the biggest difference there is.
After that, the devs are awesome and competent, far beyond your average dev.
Now this is EXACTLY what I want to hear. As the event only happened yesterday there aren't too many reports of how accurate any of what they've said has been, its been mostly conversations between the attenders of the event and the devs with thoughts on ideas in the game. Now apart from this thread I'd seen maybe 1 or 2 people say the demo was exactly as shown, but with this thread, that makes 4 now. This is exactly the kind of proof I'm looking for, thank you.
If you need more than community confirmation, you are not worth the money you may back at this point.you seem to be a safe goer, those who adopt games that work, and wants its bang for the buck guaranteed.
I feel like this is a fairly unfair statement. You're making assumptions about me based on very little. I am not a man of faith, I need proof before I will believe something. I really don't see whats unfair about asking for proof these devs aren't lying about what they're saying before throwing my money at them. Also, what on earth is "you are not worth the money you may back at this point." meant to mean? By wanting to know that I'm not throwing my money into a bottomless pit that makes me worthless? How rude. Remember that before today we've had no community confirmed proof of anything they've said, but thanks to this event we do now. That also means you've got a hell of a load more clear an idea what this game is really like than me.
with the exact same playable fps that was quite impressive for a pre-alpha.From the footage I've seen, I am impressed outright. However on that note, do you have any idea the specs of the machines they were running it on? And maybe what FPS on average? I've got a few friends that are interested in this but are entirely uninterested as they own potato machines and aren't convinced they'd be able to run it when it comes out.
-
To be honest, if you don't trust in the project now, I don't see why you'd trust in the project after seeing some Youtubers build pretty ships. There are still a million things they can get wrong building this game, so much of the game design is still up in the air, so many important decisions that can make or break the game...
Basically all they've proven by now - if you choose to believe their videos - is that they're capable of building a functional game engine with voxels and that they excel at netcoding. They still have to prove themselves capable of building an actual game around these things.
I'm not hating here, I still agree with you it'd be a smart move to reach out to more Youtubers to get the word out. I guess I'm just wondering about your thought process.
What I'm thinking here is that they haven't shown us much, but what they have shown us looks great. I just want to know if everything they have actually said so far is true before I start believing their promises about the rest of the game. If so, I can then have some trust in them.
Basically all they've proven by now - if you choose to believe their videos - is that they're capable of building a functional game engine with voxels and that they excel at netcoding.Exactly this. I do not trust their videos alone as they are from a bias source. If we have external proof of this, I can start trusting them.
-
I have so many questions.
Why did they make this?
Is this just a joke, a sincere thank you, or sarcasm?
Collision damage - workaround suggestions
in Idea Box
Posted
I completely back NQ decision to have no collision damage in the game. Although cool, it very rarely works well with voxels, and it is never ever cheap in terms of calculations. Just look at the mess that is Space Engineers - any kind of collision and you drop frames like nothing I've ever seen before.