Veln
-
Posts
259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Veln
-
-
If they added like, a parachute or glider element you could put on a construct, I think that would be fine. But I don't think players should have vehicles that aren't constructs.
If they added an element that was a bicycle seat with pedals, and you could link it to power a wheel, I think it would be hilarious to see a dude in a space suit bicycling down the street XDDDD
-
Names are just a branding tool to sell your construct / accurately describe it.
The standard will emerge naturally. Trying to sell a small fast ship with close range guns as a "Battle-cruiser" probably won't go over so well for the person selling it.
-
27 minutes ago, Lethys said:
I obviously didn't mean you
Sorry XD my bad
-
10 hours ago, Lethys said:
I just love the fact that NQ already does groundbreaking stuff with their technology which was never used before.....and still some people are like "yo dawg, you could do that too, but I'm no programmer, I ain't know shit".
Hilarious
1. I am a programmer and I've made a collision system from scratch before, I understand the process.
2. Adding simple collision damage (as in just a health bar for the ship and do damage just based on speed and mass) would be easy to implement, but what Nyz was talking about was calculated damage and destruction to specific parts of the construct, depending on exactly how the construct was hit. You're completely mis-representing him and using what he said incorrectly. If we're talking about what Nyz said, yeah we don't have the tech for that yet. Give it another 10 years.
If we're talking about implementing "ship health" and dealing damage based on speed and mass only, that's something that's realistic to achieve. Personally, like I said earlier, I don't think we should have collision damage anyway. I think it should be "bump collision" like in Eve, which is even easier to implement but still requires basic collision detection between constructs, which as I've pointed out several times, appears to already be implemented. -
16 hours ago, Vorengard said:
I can't properly refute your argument without breaking the NDA, so I'll just say that -redacted-
Well technically just saying that (the part I redacted in the quote) is breaking the NDA so you may want to remove that.
Send me a DM if you need to tell me something regarding the pre-alpha
-
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
Which we're arguing the whole time, thus it's NOT implemented as you suggested cause that what you mean hasby NOTHING to do with colliding ships that take damage (which is the while point of this thread)
As Vorengard said earlier
On 10/27/2017 at 4:09 PM, Vorengard said:Collision with the environment works, but not with other constructs.
Which isn't true, because collision against the environment and constructs work in exactly the same way.
Clearly we arn't talking about 'voxel to voxel collision' and 'dynamic modification of voxels on collision' here.
Even if Vorengard meant to say that 'voxel to voxel collision is occurring against the environment but not against other constructs', that also isn't true; not only did Nyz say that they wern't doing that, but there's no evidence to support that that's how it works. -
10 hours ago, Vorengard said:
Yes, that's what this entire conversation is about. Perhaps I'm not the one who needs to read more carefully.
Well “collision” as in checking “are these two things touching? If they are, make them bounce off of eachother based on mass” is already done, as you can see in some of their videos with ships.
What Nyz was talking about was “where exactly are these two things touching down to the voxel, and having every voxel have it’s own health, and dynamically breaking the voxels off when their health hits 0, modifying the physical shape of the construct”, which would take up a lot more reaources, and probably wouldn’t be realistic to implement by the time the game releases.
-
3 hours ago, Vorengard said:
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?
That was in regards to collision damaging specific parts of a ship. Also that was more than a year ago.
Please read more carefully and consider the context.
-
13 minutes ago, Vorengard said:
Collision with the environment works, but not with other constructs.
Like I said earlier, you can clearly see in a video from E3 2016 that they have construct to construct collision.
It's already done.
-
-
NQ is already doing the physics collisions for constructs. They have a video of a spaceship landing on a space station from 2016.
Adding in a flat damage calculation wouldn't require any more physics calculations to be done, because it's already happening. So the load of adding collision damage would be pretty negligible.
Personally I don't care one way or the other if they decide to add damage to collisions or not, but it wouldn't create a performance issue for the server.
-
3 minutes ago, NanoDot said:
"scripts only run when the owner is near them"
I think they said scripts just need someone nearby to be run, not specifically the owner, right?
The reason behind that being that scripts are run client side to divide the load, because if the server ran all the scripts it would be too much work.
-
-
-
I think they intend for all code to exist in constructs, which would mean you won't be able to use dofile()
But I'm pretty sure they intend to allow scripts to communicate between constructs that are linked together. If that's the case, having a "library" construct that contains functions that you want other constructs linked to the "library" construct to run, would be possible.
-
I sure hope they implement some type of attach/detach mechanics between constructs XD my Cheshire ship kinda needs it.
-
3 hours ago, Miamato said:
But that safety would be just a kind of agreement within community as I understand, isn't it? So there won't be direct pvp restrictions, just possible player response for aggression acts.
That's how it works in EVE Online in Null Security space (player owned space), and it works out pretty well. Generally "neutral" people are treated with hostility, and the only people allowed in are the people who either own the area, or allies of the people who own the area.
Also from my understanding, if a TCU is placed, people will only be able to mess with things in the area if the owner of the area allows it using the permissions system. The only thing you would have to worry about, is another organization taking over the area and kicking you out.
-
Orgs will create their own "safe zones" in the form of cities with security. If you want in on it, you're gonna have to join up with one of them.
-
[Redacted]
-
Make it like real drugs
Have it give you +5 strength, but then when it wears off you have -10 strength from the withdrawal for the next 3 days unless you get more.
(EDIT: I just realized ShadowLordAlpha mentioned this earlier XD woops)
If that isn't how it works, it won't really make sense. The only reason EVE Online gets away with it is because there are "customs" npcs that can check you for drugs and fine you, so there's still risk to moving them.
-
On 10/3/2017 at 4:27 PM, Miamato said:
Once again, it's not only about building trains, but also for smaller mechanisms that would be just a part of your ship or base, and will be able to move part of that ship or base without braking the integrity.
One of examples is kind of small carrier ship, that moves it back part on rails to clear place for smaller ship to be docked on it.
So the idea is to have small scale mechanism that won't be counted as a separate vehicle, so in theory you will be able to change shapes of your creation according to your needs without rebuilding it. Example above is just the simplest version of what may be done.
I like the idea, but the mechanism for that wouldn't really be the rail would it?
I know in "Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts" (yeah i know no one likes this game, but it had a building system that works similar to what NQ is proposing) they had a component that you could use to attach multiple vehicles together. The main vehicle would gain the functionality of whatever was connected to it.For example, if you made a train that was linked together with these "vehicle attaching component" things, and you ran out of fuel, and the fuel tank was on it's own section of the train, you could detach that section and attach a full fuel tank and be good to go. (The same concept works with cargo / a train car with weapons on it)
TLDR: I think the actual component for connecting trains should be a "connector" in this case, and the rails would just be voxels that are there to stabilize whatever is attached.
-
Technically you can already make rails. Just make them out of voxels. The hard part is making a vehicle that can use them properly.
-
NQ has already provided what we would need to make casino games, the only thing missing is a module that accepts/dispenses money, but there are ways to work around that as long as there is a person-to-person trading system.
Also my understanding was that money will not be a physical object, but will already be in credit form, so banking would only make sense for protecting physical assets.
-
I feel like creative mode would kind of spit on the spirit of the game being single shard : /
- devu, Haunty and wizardoftrash
-
3
Forget the space war, we should make an amusement park!
in Builder Forum
Posted
I'll make a safer version of the WhirlyDooptm and we can make the spinning teacups ride XD