Jump to content

le_souriceau

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to blazemonger in So, what JC is doing now?   
    I'm pretty sure we'll starting seeing the real JC now.. with no inhibitions about sharing his dream.
    And with it more clarity about why NQ is  where they are.. in more detail than the recent blogposts..
     
    Biggest problem I see is while JC no longer call the shots, there is JC fans still inside who carry the torch, believing their fallen leader was just "misunderstood"
     
    Some of the things said by JC or confirmed by him from what the interviewer asks or says here puts an interesting spin on things.
  2. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to carijay766 in So, what JC is doing now?   
    Yes seems like "dev-time" isn't so precious after all when its for the french.
  3. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from JohnnyTazer in Time to move on..   
    I think not much of "haters" left to enjoy too : )
     
    Anyway, stay in relative touch, Blaze, there is other space game around and their worlds not that big to not meet again.

    I myself kinda in limbo state myself with trust crisis, realisation how JC shamelessly lied playing with generaly empty hand as now revealed when going to release and even later "no red flags" (while he perfectly knew real situation), grows on me everyday. 
  4. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to blazemonger in Time to move on..   
    So I finally make the choice to leave the game behind me for now. I really do not see how the current company will be able to make this work and I feel their attitude and overall outlook on what they are doing will help any chance of a revival of the viability of the project. And no amount of pushing the buttons to try and see some movement will have any effect I believe. Maybe I'm wrong but I do not think so.. I see no reason to spend more time supporting a company when I do not see much of anything to make me believe they can and will support the game.
     
    So there, all you haters can rejoice as I'm out.. been a good few years but unless things change drastically, this game will not make it.
     
    And no, you can't have my stuff..
     

  5. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to IvanGrozniy in Why PVP is important to the game.   
    I see what you mean. That depends of course...
     
    if we're talking pvp meta ships, no, this statement is not true. Those things are really expensive to build. And they are expensive to repair. I'm not sure people comprehend how much mining and man hours it takes to build one of the golden ships from Boo's Gold Armada. I'm not sure people understand how much it takes to repair them after a "battle". No one wants to lose one of those, so pvp battles tend to be more about whoever gets pushed out into the safezone first, battle of attrition. Additionally, if we talk about piracy as an easy win card, it's not like piracy is profitable, it mostly does not exist and the "piracy" you can do is very aids if you ask me, you'll spend more on fuel and waste more time and quanta pirating than if you were digging holes in the ground and selling to bots. I don't think it makes much sense to divide people into pvpers and builders... pvpers are also builders, whereas you're probably talking about a subset of players that are purely builders I'm assuming. PvP builders are just more specifically focused on indy buildings, ship building for pvp, and station building rather than purely builders who want to avoid pvp. Have you looked at the Foundry for example? That is a station built by a pvp group. There are also others, some really fancy. Talents don't matter too much in meta pvp, again it's mostly about ship stamina rather than who can shoot further. Repair talents help though, repair engineers are really important in fights. Smart pvp ship builders make ships that last longer and take more shots.... but they also mine a lot in order to repair.  
     
    I see. And I agree. If that's where the conversation headed before I mentioned this was a civilization building game then no comment. If it was the case though... then... I think games should (and they do) take inspiration from real life but they should not mimic real life. And I'm mainly talking about the fact that in real life things are cohesive, there are causes and effects, stuff just doesn't appear out of thin air. In a game, this happens all the time, but it only makes sense if it is cohesive within the world it is trying to build. The cohesion is where I make the parallel between real life and games. I do not like that some games mimic real life where it becomes a second job. In terms of DU and civilization mechanics, this is why I already mentioned elsewhere on this forum that before you set out to make such a game with such "grandiose visions", maybe you should start with first principles and ask what civilization is, what are its characteristics, what are its causes. Once you have the key ingredients, then you think about choosing a few important ones that you can actually gamify and make a cohesive yet fun system out of. And I'm simply saying this never happened. It doesn't feel like it did anyway, since the game exhibits absolutely no civilization building mechanics or progressions. NQ should probably rethink that "vision"  
  6. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to blazemonger in DU crashes on Shadow PC since 0.24   
    @Gangolf Ovaert
    I'd agree with your thoughts. It seems NQ is not realizing that many existing and a potentially much larger future number of their player base would not be able to afford the kind of system needed to run DU comfortably but can (and do) use Shadow as a viable alternative to owning a decent spec gaming PC.
     
    It's just very unfortunate they appear to just brush this aside as "not a high priority". And that means they ignore a potential problem in the code that may at any time trigger a much broader problem. It really is part of the bigger issue with NQ, having a very short term outlook on development of the game and not really setting the priorities which will allow them to move forward faster over time. If it's not a quick fix, it's not a priority it seems.
  7. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to JohnnyTazer in THE FUTURE OF DU COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Q&A - Discussion Thread   
    How many players are logged in at once. Why are you afraid to tell us? Is it because it's that bad? Eve tells us who is in the launcher, and that game Is considered small and niche.  Just tell us how many people are logged in at once during primetime.
  8. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to joaocordeiro in THE FUTURE OF DU COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Q&A - Discussion Thread   
    You have zero means to actually come to that %. 
     
    So this comment is totally your uninformed opinion, or worse, your attenpt to manipulate the argument with a clear lie. 
     
    I also talk to ppl that play the game from new players to old alpha backers. None agree that the current situation is fair or that they should not wipe. 
     
    But even if your % was true. NQ needs to do what is best for the game. Not what the majority of the players wany. 
  9. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to psyKodad in THE FUTURE OF DU COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Q&A - Discussion Thread   
    I have the strong feeling, that if you realy wanted to avoid a wipe, even a partial one.. you should have (re)acted accordingly to the bugs/ flawed mechanics you introduced over the time.
    E.g. giving away schematics for a tiny fraction of their price..and now you probably even 'compensate' the abuser, making them provit twice. You could have done a rollback to an earlier backup immediately. (i hope there are backups at all..)
    Or the mechanic that chars can use infinite territory scanners simultaniously, enabling orgs to scan and claim whole moons in short time. There should be a limit, probably skillable to an higher ammount of scanners..like 6-9..IMO.
     
    But overall the existing world now just leaves the taste of growing imbalance.
    I know that the no-wipe-promise is still high valued at NQ, but i honestly dont see how you want to correct the 'system' in a meaningfull fair way..specially for player that come way later, if you aim for a release mid 2022, and all they'll find claimed tiles and billionaires.
     
    On a side note..i don't feel that mining units will do any good to that situation.
  10. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to HangerHangar in What's the deal with Asteroids NQ?   
    Hopefully the devs already learn from the last event how crap they are.
  11. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from JohnnyTazer in current player count / statistics ?   
    Because coming from years of MC, I can say, that builders stamina is relativly finite resource.
     
    For sure, DU has very mature audience with hugely superior attention spans, then MC youngsters (on average), but even they have some soft-cap limits on how long they can be occupied with building. Obviously resting and revigoration occures, but general trajectory is to some sort of creative end, when you done all you wanted/tired doing it/catched "priority" interests somewhere else.
     
    It was discusussed I think ad nauseam here, that while builders are very convinient part of community to use in pseudo-marketing NQ so adores, they not demographic who can really "carry" game financialy.
  12. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from JohnnyTazer in current player count / statistics ?   
    Its I kinda messed with logic of my post/was in hurry, making MC example that was used against me in way : )
     
    Let me throw some clarifications.
     
    1) Defining builders. Most of MC players (statisticly -- over this millions upon millions) surely built something, fooled around with blocks, but generaly what can be called "builders" both in MC and in DU -- its same minority who go into it really serious (at least for some time).  MC just allows enter more causualy, but for most people it stops somewhere before building cities or giant fancy statues in creative for 1000s of hours. 
     
    2) Yes, I spend several years playing very activly (doing also some admin stuff), but its more of expection. 99% people I ever seen playing around me gone. So retention is not that fantastic, but flow of new ones was massive (hype).
     
    3) Also, its was not question of subs or even for most people bying of legit copy (in my country) back then. Changes things too a bit.
     
    So, to re-iterate (and also correct it to bit softer form) -- I doubt, they building (as primary thing) can carry niche hardrore eve-like mmo with sub. Or something like that. Usualy such things carried by PvP.
  13. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from fourteen in current player count / statistics ?   
    Well, its not that hard "guessing" math.
     
    Currently like 38 k Sanctuary claims. Its safe to assume, that 99% of legit new players put their TCU on. Some obviously just alt placings, but they are hard to pinpoint, so lets be super generous and just ignore them (this also balance some cases, when people not placed TCU for some reason intentionaly or just quited at start).
     
    So, we had 38 k "players" (both from KS era and new ones, some alts) who achieved stage of placing TCU.
     
    This brings 2 questions.
     
    1) How much of this number can be considered "active" (and to what extent), because obviously, there is a lot of "dead" ones.
    2) What is concurrency ratio for numbers left.
     
    My guess, that we have several thousands players still reasonably "active" (loggin in regulary, even if for short time) and they form several hundreds concurrent (at least in prime time).
     
    In short, game not totaly empty, but population is very low for healthy MMO.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
  14. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to CptLoRes in What's the deal with Asteroids NQ?   
    An asteroid puzzle race is just another race to the bottom for this game.
     
    It should be obvious that anything puzzle or time based will translate into gain for big org's and the 0.1% of most dedicated players, at the expense of new players and the larger average player base that don't have the time or interest to live and breath DU 24/7.
     
    Same with broadcasting asteroid locations. Org's already have the advantage in numbers increasing their chances for finding asteroids worth mining, and now they are also going to be told where to travel to kick out any smaller group of players that worked hard to find a good asteroid?
     
    Why does NQ keep making these basic fundamental mistakes over and over again?
  15. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from SpiceRub in What's the deal with Asteroids NQ?   
    Yeah just buy guy who proposing this puzzles all the time some 300 pages sudoku book and incancereate him in toiled cabin with it. Enough of this crap.
     
    What we need is physcial (persistant) asteroid belt with some randomization and regen cabability (per exemple by zone updating when there is no players present around) + ore scanner. No warp around in big radius.
     
     
  16. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to CptLoRes in Changes to Lua screen units   
    Exactly. Incremental HTML DOM updates is one of the fundamental techniques that makes modern interactive web pages possible with reasonable resource drain on smartphones etc.
    So the current LUA Screen implementation is fundamentally flawed. And now NQ is blaming the technology (that works great for billions of users btw.), instead of their own bad implementation that probably was some early "just make it work as quickly as possible so we have something to show, and then we fix it later" deal that ended up being the 'final' version.
     
    And now they want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and start over using classic "Not Invented Here" reasoning to try and fix already solved problems.
    This makes my blood boil, since this type of reasoning and reinvention for the sake on reinventing, is exactly why this game is where it is today..
     
  17. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to Bazzy_505 in A response to the recent devblog series from an ex DU player.   
    At current state of affairs, the most sensible thing NQ can do with DU is what  Square Enix did with FF XIV, which to this date is considered the biggest and probably only truly succesful comeback of a mmo in history. For those who are not familiar with the situation, the initial release in 2010 was an utter broken mess despite 5 years of development, In 2012 Square shut down all the servers. After complete redesign and another year in closed alpha testing they came back in 2013 with what had become as the most successful mmo besides wow (22 mil copies sold)
     
    If NQ is as commited to the DU project as they're declaring they are, and if NQ can secure sufficient funding,  instead of patching a one hole to have two more sprout in its place, give the current iteration a closure in a grand world ending event and close this current technical alpha test.
     
    In followup to that, spend whatever time you need to parse and process all the feedback us, dedicated customers have been giving you for the past 2 years.  There are some great ideas there, they really bad ones, and even some that are truly out there.  That please take you time to research those that came before you such as Freespace, Elite, Earth and Beyond and Eve just to name a few. See what made them great as well as what made them fail in their respective ambitions.
     
    I believe you convinced most of us you can make the technology work.
     
    Now is the time to convince us all you can actually design and make a game.
     
    And please, please for the love of Spock, hire actual Producer, and a Creative lead that has shipped at least one game in the last 10 years.
     
    If you can credibly show us you can do that, i'm pretty sure most of us who stuck around would not hesitate to throw another 60 bucks your way at the right side of the tunel
  18. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from JohnnyTazer in Why PVP is important to the game.   
    Without avid PvP scene (despite all difficulties to establish it) this game is good as dead.
     
    Because hardcore peaceful players (who can do their thing for years) are serious minority, more casual peaceful players have generaly "lifespan" of several months, they grind, do all what they wanted (or have patience to) and quit, often forever, because story is exausted for their short attention span.
     
    So, its mostly up to more or less involved PvP players to pay big chunk of "keeping game alive" money, with draggin in buddies, alts, ocasional returns to "check new combat balance", etc.
  19. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from IvanGrozniy in A response to the recent devblog series from an ex DU player.   
    Game will be better eventualy, sure, to level of quite (solo/coop) enjoyable bastard of Landmark and space simulator with some pvp for entusiasts. Yet bigger train of initial ambition likely missed forever.
     
    I wanted to be wannabe journalist in dynamic, war-torn eve-like world, but ended up on some used cars shitty catalogue dump with all this amazing creations and impossibly boring nerds. 
  20. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to Olmeca_Gold in A response to the recent devblog series from an ex DU player.   
    About a year ago I fell in love with DU's tech and the promise. Launched my organization (DIA) with the beta. I have grown it to a relevant proportion. I then left the game due to what's basically a lack of content. This devblog series does not rekindle my hopes for the game. Here is what I think about the game's current state and my open letter to NQ and response to the devblogs.
     
    Is DU a Tech Demo, a Beta, or a Full Launch?
     
    Dear NQ,
     
    A fundamental thing about why this game is losing so much momentum is you calling a tech demo a beta, then expecting players to actually play it like a fully launched game.
     
    From a game mechanics perspective, Dual Universe is a tech demo. The only sustainably enjoyable and interesting gameplay has been construct building. Most playstyles this game should have been featuring are out of balance, boring, or nonexistent. Player support is a nightmare. The game regularly experiences bugs and exploits most of which affect the universe and enjoyment of all players, not just the ones who interact with the bugs.
     
    From the your official perspective, DU is a beta, because you wanted to be able to charge the players for the game, yet make drastic changes to the game without angering the playerbase.
     
    But from the player perspective, DU is a fully launched game, because you are letting players accumulate wealth, experiences, organizational structures; and carry it over to the actual launch. Let me explain why this matters so much.
     
    Why Would People Play DU?
     
    Your failure to recognize the fact that this game isn't a beta for the player showcases a fundamental lack of appreciation on why people play single shard sandbox games. People do not and will not play DU for the immediate experiences of mining, building, industry, ship flying, or PvP.  Your main problem isn't the immediate "gameplay loops" that the players are put into. These are not the primarily outstanding features of DU gameplay. There are much better games out there for each. I could play Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous if I was super into spaceship flying. I could play Satisfactory for a way better version of DU's experience of industry. Literally any game has better PvP than DU. 
     
    [I exclude construct building from the above list of activities as it is pretty high level compared to games of similar nature, such as Minecraft. And guess what; it's your most time-invested and early-developed feature.]
     
    We are early adopters of this game, because we want to play a game which we don't just log in and do our favorite activities, but we also want a game in which doing these activities matter in the context of the greater sandbox universe. The ore I collect could fuel a war. The PvP I do could save or collapse an organization. The ship or LUA I designed can be adopted by thousands of players, ultimately be used to tremendous ends. The factories I build could be the backbone of my space empire. We are here waiting for this emergent content to emerge. We are want to get ahead, be relevant, be famous, be helpful in our different ways in this universe. We want to be a part of something greater. That's what a single shard sandbox is about. The fact that whatever you are doing matters in a greater scheme of things, is why we are playing this game. This is also why game changes, exploits, lack of support and lack of content matters so much.
     
    The Frustrations
     
    We cared about playing in the context of a greater, living universe. So we sucked up the broken mechanics and the lack of content, and started seriously investing our time in DU. This is because if we didn't, we'd have fallen behind. In other words, we had no choice but to treat this game as a full launch in our time investment decision, because otherwise we'd be punished with respect to why we are playing the game. You basically forced yourself into a position which you constantly frustrate players, because you gave them a tech demo but pushed them to play as if it was a full game. Let me elaborate on concrete examples.
     
    The vast majority of specific frustration cases in DU can be categorized into three.
     
    Firstly, there are game design changes that invalidate people's hours. The industry patch, screen updates, and every other perhaps much-needed change that would invalidate hundreds of hours of people's time. Now since the game is mechanically a tech demo, you want to be able to make drastic changes. But since people play it as a fully launched game, they commit their full selves and do become frustrated when major changes that are very much necessary invalidate hundreds of hours of their time.
     
    Secondly, there are bugs, exploits, and lack of support. People derived truckloads of money and benefits off them (e.g. the blueprint market bug, the initial T4-T5 bot ore purchases, old broken industry, and lots more). People who didn't get support fell behind (even in DIA we lost a warp beacon, and we didn't have DRM ownership of our factories due to the lack of support). These exploits and broken gameplay elements aren't things that you can shrug off when you fix them, because their repercussions in the DU universe (aka the illegitimate wealth people acquired, etc.) carry over even into the actual launch. And you didn't (in most cases couldn't) address that in most cases. You didn't remove the profits earned by the exploiters of the blueprint bot order fiasco, for example. When players earn billions off bugs and exploits, that makes the rest of us who has to do legitimate work to earn that income invalidated. That's game-breaking, because again, most of our enjoyment of DU derives from our activities in the context of the greater DU universe than just the activities themselves. Again, you launched a tech demo in which you didn't have the manpower to do cleanups (e.g. deleting the income) after exploits, and players playing it as a full game pay the price.
     
    Thirdly, there is the lack of content because the game is underdeveloped. The path from a tech demo to boredom is pretty self explanatory with this category of frustration.
     
    The truth is many players wouldn't have invested that much time and effort in trying to do things that matter in this sandbox, if the game reset once it's properly launched at an acceptable quality. And no, it obviously isn't enough to argue that "players knew that they were going into a beta" because you committed to not wiping the game, including designs. Because, again, people mainly play DU to matter and to be relevant in a universe, and you left them a choice of either falling behind of that goal, or playing a semi-working tech demo.
     
    Emergent Content
     
    The second big picture issue I see with your decisions is about your views and predictions of how emergent content emerges. Emergent content does not emerge unless the game creates the right conditions for it to emerge. The lack of conflict and content driving mechanics mostly made it impossible for it emerge in DU.
     
    [I am saying "mostly", because the one playstyle which is an exception to this is construct building. Great construct creations (although only in looks, not as much in functionality) are the only emergent content this game provides so far. And guess what, the content around this playstyle (ships, stations, expos) are the only thing NQ Twitter can mention daily.]
     
    For even a beta, DU should have emerged as many stories in war, piracy, theft, great empires, great trade deals, and so on. These are the kinds of things Eve players should be familiar with. The fact of the matter is that for any other single player experience, there is a better game. But for the emergent sandbox-wide content, DU could have been the best game. Meanwhile, we got JC's "puzzles" which were badly envisioned attempts to generate that content. They were one-time events generating one-time content. They were pretty exclusive in terms of the ratio of DU players engaging with it. They were probably a waste of your devtime. An elaborate "puzzle" is an example of how not to introduce emergent content to your sandbox. True sandbox content is typically unintended, unplanned. 
     
    Here are some immediate choke points on the game design which makes it non-conducive to emergent content.
     
    Industry: All processes in DU leading up to construct building are fully vertically-integrateable solo (if not with a small organization). If you have 10 people, no reason to not to everything in-house. The game should have been designed from very early on in a way which deep specializations are needed to prevent self-sufficiency. Instead, your "gameplay loop" and "DU shouldn't feel like work" worries pushes you to introduce even more self-sufficiency (aka mining units). In a true sandbox people who don't want to mine would have other opportunities of value generation to buy the ore. Moreover, this is a bad case of "listening to players". Most players have no idea what makes an overall high quality sandbox. A builder will just want free materials to build. That doesn't mean that's a good implementation for a sandbox MMO.
     
    Trade: JC's allergy to API, ESI and such removes huge depth from trading for the sake of trading.
     
    Organization-Building: There is no value organizations can provide to members which they couldn't have gotten elsewhere. There is no service and value-generator members couldn't have gotten elsewhere unless they join. And inversely, there is no reason why members should pay "taxes" or invest in their organizations. Thus, there is no point in creating a deeply structured organization. Anything can be done better as 1 or 2 dedicated players, without all the hassle of people management.
     
    Consensual PvP:  There is no structure in which players can find PvP. Solo PvP isn't even viable (at least to most who don't use remote controllers) when 2 players can man an L core that can one-shot your ship. It is a huge deal-breaker for a sandbox game if one can't hop on their ship and find daily PvP at their small time window. Frankly I don't see how you will be able to circumvent this problem in the next year or years. The devblog certainly does not provide an answer here.
     
    Organizational PvP: Can be summed up as "nothing to fight over". Even if you introduce territory warfare, huge mining and resource distributions revamps will ne required to make territories worth fighting over.
     
    Non-Consensual and Asymmetric PvP: Piracy is near-impossible because avoiding potential pirates is easy. There is no mechanical depth to generate a meaningful risk/reward space in which some players die to pirates, but not in a game-disabling fashion. Similarly, there are no asymmetric (big org vs. small org) opportunities for the same lack of depth. 
     
    No PvE Content:  You don't seem to have money for any.
     
    No Exploration Content: You don't seem to have interest for much. One can do construct and planet exploration, but it gets old pretty fast without any reward. Moreover, exploration gameplay was a very low hanging fruit to generate right at the beta launch. Just sprinkle some exclusive rewards in a manner which someone roaming regularly would find these rewards at least once half an hour (and this is how you botched shipwrecks).
     
    The Trajectory of the Game and DU as an Ecosystem
     
    Reading the devblog does not excite me about the future of the game and on whether you learned meaningful lessons. Emergent content will not emerge unless you begin thinking about Dual Universe as an ecosystem. In a single shard sandbox, playstyles and activities should be interconnected in an ecosystem of relations. Yes, you do seem to realize that there is a lack of content, conflict driving mechanics, and more "sand in the sandbox". You don't however, seem to appreciate the role this interconnectedness plays in generating content. 
     
    For example, you want to implement space mining, but you don't think about the demand-side. Ore itself is only valuable if there is demand for it. The lack of PvP losses, the availability of ore in safe-zone players, in the market, and in people's long term stashes won't make ore worth fighting over. So you need new things with demand. And even when you meet this challenge, you have to solve the n+1 problem. For players, the optimized way of engaging with big-reward mechanics is creating consortiums and monopolies. Good conflict drivers involve inherent game designs against these. There is nothing for example, that yields advantages to smaller fleets of ships over larger fleets in DU PvP. This example illustrates how sandbox conflict drivers are supposed to be grounded on mindful and deep PvP mechanics, as well as meaningful balance of risk/reward to drive the conflict and the fun. It is unfortunately predictable that you will put some ore (or new items) to PvP space, and wait for people to sustainably fight over them, which won't happen. The nature of the reward and the nature of the PvP to obtain the reward are as much inherent to content emergence as the placement of the reward.
     
    I have a pessimist prediction, because any earlier game design decisions involving ore distribution to planets and hexes, territory scanning, bot orders, industry flows, etc; indicate a similar lack in conceiving Dual Universe as a single interconnected ecosystem. Earlier decisions could have easily generated a more meaningful distribution of value to territories (the most valuable hex is cleared in a day, which is also connected to mining mechanics), things to fight over (if we would have construct PvP on asteroids, there is no reason why we didn't have construct PvP on some planets), exploration (for example, it's not costly to add 10 valuable NPC ships with sub-par AI at a given time to orbits of planets), and so on. Similarly, some future plans show the same lack of appreciation to DU as an ecosystem; such as mining units which will predictably devalue mining by underestimating how much effort players (and botters/RMT'ers) would spend to create big passive income setups.
     
    Overall this all just feels like different teams at NQ are given different aspects of the game and they are all implementing their individual designs. There is no wider orchestration from upper level game designers and producers who truly can conceive DU as an ecosystem, and who can appreciate the interconnectedness different systems in the game should exhibit. JC looks like a person who has a great big picture vision, who wants his metaverse, but who does not have the necessary specific visions and approaches to sandbox/ecosystemic game design and development to get there.
     
    DU's Project Management and Finances
     
    As a final remark, it seems that most of this "lack of content" and the launch decisions could be due to high level decision-making for financial or technological reasons. Perhaps you heavily needed the subscription revenue. Or you needed players to truly commit to the game so you can test the tech. Even if so, the plan seems to have failed. The people who pitched the game to investors should have conducted better expectation management and better financial/business planning. 
     
    I am speculating JC was put on the bench for related reasons. If so, then that's perhaps a good call depending on who replaces him. If this is the most you could deliver given the money you have, I don't see how using the same money better would have delivered a timely product. The game might have just needed more money and several years more of development to reach a workable design and launch track. If so, then the responsibility is with those who planned DU and NQ as a business and project model.
     
    That said, I hope the investors keep up with it, because I think the initial promise of the game (provided good future game design) is pretty sound. It might need two years more development and a bigger team though.
     
    I'll keep following how the game progresses and I hope it succeeds. I don't find the money I spent on it a waste as I already played hundreds of hours.
     
    o7
     
    EDIT: Corrected some grammar and sentencing.
  21. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from Shaman in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread   
    Overall good, realistic. Likely meaning new Roadmap and 2022 release.
     
    Still, as I said before in Discord, we badly needed such clarity 2 years ago (this why in terms of disign direction this time feels wasted), then now we all be in bit better spot. But better late then never, right.
     
    Looks like JC "retirement" was beneficial thing for process.
  22. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from BlackFalcon375 in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread   
    Overall good, realistic. Likely meaning new Roadmap and 2022 release.
     
    Still, as I said before in Discord, we badly needed such clarity 2 years ago (this why in terms of disign direction this time feels wasted), then now we all be in bit better spot. But better late then never, right.
     
    Looks like JC "retirement" was beneficial thing for process.
  23. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from SpacemanSpiff in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread   
    Overall good, realistic. Likely meaning new Roadmap and 2022 release.
     
    Still, as I said before in Discord, we badly needed such clarity 2 years ago (this why in terms of disign direction this time feels wasted), then now we all be in bit better spot. But better late then never, right.
     
    Looks like JC "retirement" was beneficial thing for process.
  24. Like
    le_souriceau got a reaction from Noddles in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread   
    Overall good, realistic. Likely meaning new Roadmap and 2022 release.
     
    Still, as I said before in Discord, we badly needed such clarity 2 years ago (this why in terms of disign direction this time feels wasted), then now we all be in bit better spot. But better late then never, right.
     
    Looks like JC "retirement" was beneficial thing for process.
  25. Like
    le_souriceau reacted to Noddles in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread   
    I mean everything sounds good, except for one small part. 
     
    We're delaying atmo pvp/territory warfare again?
     
    First it was gonna be the first big thing in 2021. Then it was gonna be after the pvp revamp. Now its gonna be after space territory warfare? There is no risk for players if they can just keep warping from safe zone to safe zone. Hopefully space territories have good bonuses or it won't be worth it to hold them for more than a few days at best.
×
×
  • Create New...