wizardoftrash
-
Posts
777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by wizardoftrash
-
-
The original creator could be protected. We have a chance to build a player run Crime, Law and Punishment system from the ground up. Strangling a simulation from the beginning just limits creativity and puts artificial and immersion breaking limits on Suspended Disbelief.
There are plenty of games where crime and fraud are a big part of the genre. This is no one of those games.
At least give and explanation why, so that we can have a conversation. A pithy comment does nothing.
Like we have to prove to you why an off-genre feature that isn't planned shouldn't be included?
There will be plenty of "crime" as it is, since it is a sandbox game. Players will have plenty of chances to attempt to scam other players, you have the "just-like" method that I described, plus nothing will stop a player from placing something dirt cheap on the market, and ambushing any player that tries to travel to claim it.
This isn't a crime simulator, the focus is on building. We don't need the devs to go out of the way to create tools for players to use to counterfeit blueprints.
-
Currently there are no plans to include swords or other melee weapons. The way JC answered it sounded like an artistic decision.
However, pistols, shotguns, or sumachine guns would make excellent close range weapons for a scifi game. no need for a sword if you've got a scatter lazer (unless you wanna relive Star Wars or Xenogears)
-
To further explain, my understanding is that once a shot is locked and fired an algorithm will calculate what damage is done. So if there is a shot the system will calculate things such as weapon fired, structure hit, distances, and result in specific damage from zero to the maximum damage depending on the luck of roll (somewhat random chosen value within the range). Once the shot is fired; it's just math.
How I see this working, ideally, is that a firing ships client sends a string through the server that a shot has been locked and fired. The string could include the location of the firing ship, the weapon used, and the location of the target. This string can pass through the server to the targeted ship's client which will initially calculate when that shot will reach the target ship based on the weapon used and locations of the ships. The target client then waits the required time to impact and at the time of impact makes the final damage calculation taking into account the end location of the target ship and whether any defensive elements were used (like flares or interception laser or projectiles). It's all just math.
So nothing "in-game" on the server side actually affects the shot. This also shouldn't effect server load too much since the server only sends the shot string one time between the clients. It really only adds extra load to the target ship client since it now has to make two separate calculations (when will the shot hit?... then how much damage?). I suppose an extra string may be required by the server registering weapon and defense numbers to complete the final calculation if there is a concern that players will hack their client and change the values of weapons and defenses.
Then again, I don't really know where the combat calculations are made. Maybe they have to be done completely server side because of connection issues?
We've got to be careful with assumptions about server load, a change that will double the number of calculations per-shot could turn a battle that causes a bit of lag into a battle that brings the server to it's knees.
Since the server won't be actually tracking projectiles, the only weapons I see time to reach target mattering here is missiles and torpedoes, since they would be slow enough for countermeasures. Rather than making it as complex as the server needing to decide on time to reach target, I might propose the following.
non-missile/torpedo weapons - no time to reach target, all calculations made at start, distance between shooter and target affects accuracy.
missile/torpedo weapons - Delay based on distance between shooter and target, no calculations made at start, all calculations made on impact (if hit).
As far as non-missile and torpedo countermeasures and reactions, it might be fair to assume you would deploy said countermeasures after the first impact or impacts, and the countermeasure would take effect on subsequent impacts.
The bulkier the combat system is, the longer it will take to be added, and the more strain large space battles will cause. Eve Online suffers tremendous strain when it has large space battles, and it's combat mechanics are less complex than the ones you are suggesting, and will probably still be less complex than a very very simple system because of voxel destruction and deformation (which should be pretty taxing).
-
How about plastic surgery/body shops later on?
I would pay money to switch hairstyles and such when I feel like it. Wouldnt be out of place in a game like DU.
Seconded.
Perhaps a construct element like a Market Unit where a character could have this done? or perhaps it could be part of being resurrected at a node?
I'd also like to see more options get added during expansions/updates
-
Provide example of being wrong. You seem to receive Opinions as Assertions and Assessments as Assertions. You make no sense good sir, no sense at all :V .
And no, theoretical physics discussions with Cornflakes don't count, as me and him have a problem in communication for a long time now. We can't keep it straight on if we talk physics or gameplay mechanics. :V
And every time I was proven wrong, I admitted it. It's my saving grace as many tell me.
So yeah, your arguements are fuller than a constupant intestinal track.
Cheers :V
We don't collectively have time to shoot down every little thing you decide is true.
http://www.slideshare.net/ziobrando/bulshit-asymmetry-principle-lightning-talk
-
Many good points were raised, but I don't think this has anything to do with the topic at hand. Could we move this hijack to another thread?
I agree, the unrelated discussion should be moved.
Jazzed about character customization though! It's the kind of thing I really do care about in a game. The fact that female character is an option right out of the gate is a big plus, I hate seeing devs push it to an "add later" zone
-
I can't imagine how i feel when Building those Ships, Cities & Space Station with VR experience
that will be Extremely Awesome !
But i think there is a small chance the Dev's will put VR support on the Initial Release
Real small, a simple version of it perhaps.
It would make for a great expansion however!
-
Your are 10 clusters away, you zoom in, your POV is now 3 Clusters away from the target, thus, you update faster on their position. And if ou are on a ship, you would want to remain still for an orbital strike, as motion causes loss of accuracy (lateral motion in other words).
JC could zoom around in god mode and the loading didn't even happen that slowlly on a single machine that ran 200 clients and the server hosting at the same time.
It IS possible for a Zoom-In to be implemented, both for Avatars and Constructs, to make snipers more viable. Sure, locking on should take longer given the distance you elected to fire at.
JC's "zoom" may have simply been rapildy changing his position (position in the pre-alpha may be nothing more than viewpoint). If a feature like that makes it into the game (I doubt it), and it is implemented by changing your client's position (like I think it was) you are going to have some very strange situations. If I'm zoomed far in somewhere, and try to have my ship fire from it's position, my ship won't be loaded because I'm no longer there.
But again, I'm not pretending to know how this is going to work, and its a little early for you to pretend to know.
-
Yes but the dynamic area splitting should be able to handle combat across areas or big space battles wouldnt work.
Its a very interesting question in my opinion.
It works by subdividing large spaces into smaller spaces, which works fine if the opposing ships are in clusters of mixed Force A and Force B by subdividing the battle into chunks.
It would not work well if long range weapons pushed the limits of what could be loaded, you have a large cluster of Force A, a large cluster of Force B, and each cluster is far away using long-range weapons on each other. The game would see a volume of players on each end, and restrict their areas of influence putting each force too far away for their areas of influence despite being within weapons range.
This should be just fine for big space battles provided "long range" weapons are only long compared to other weapon ranges. "long" might be "I can still see that ship" instead of "at x20 zoom I can see the ship". Alternatively, manipulating area splitting could just be a mechanic of space battles. If i were to make the long-range cannons on your battleship less effective by harrassing it with fighters and restricting your area of influence with player density, it could be kinda fun!
-
Digging may work because it is "destroying" ground if mining restriction only restricts collecting ore, while digging.
Digging probably falls under the category of "editing". Since TU's will be able to restrict edits, this will include subtracting voxels from the terrain (digging).
-
But... it should be possible to counterfeit blueprints. I'd want it be skill based and very much frowned on, but possible.
It will be possible, but it won't be easy.
You'll need to see what the thing your trying to copy looks like, possibly even own one.
Then you'll need to build something that looks enough like it to fool people, and name it the same. (or a similar and misleading name if construct names are uniquely enforced). Then hope people can't tell the difference.
-
Good point, hacking will make that work.
But if the base is walled of you really need to be able to damage constructs. Digging wont work because of the no mining restriction.
If their base is walled off, the people that own it wouldn't be able to get in or out. If they used ships to get in or out, in theory an attacker could do the same.
The real trick would be whether or not they could Bury or Wall-off just their TU. If the org needed to have access to the TU on a regular basis (for upkeep or to adjust permissions) then they would need to not wall it off or bury it, but if they maintained build permissions, they could simply remove the panel that protects it, do their needed upkeep, and replace the panel.
We are on the same page that Avatars damaging constructs is kind of a must.
-
Zooming in is a thing that will happen. It's like they said DACs won't be lootable, onlly they meant "won't be lootable for the moment until we introduce lootability". You also stated you knew the intentions of the Devs there, while I'm only saying aiming at a target 10 kilometers away will be impossible without a zoom-in function.
I don't think our disagreement on the DAC's issue is relevant here
If there is a technical limitation to how far you can engage a target, I think it will come from the way the server technology distributes it's resources.
<-- I'm sure you've seen this video before, the part I'll be using starts at 0:48You see how it is split up into boxes, and those boxes get smaller based on player density? Those boxes will determine what elements and assets will be updated in/near real time for your character.
What do you think will happen if you are trying to shoot at something beyond your box? What will your target look like? will you even be able to lock onto it?
Your idea that zooming in will load assets further away is interesting, however neither of us know if we can zoom with the way this server technology is configured.
My guess is that lock on distances will be longer when player density in your are is lower, but probably not long enough to shoot at something on the surface from orbit. That box will probably determine the limits of what we can interact with, like a sphere of influence. To be able to zoom we would have to be able to be in two boxes at once, or stretch the box in a given direction. We don't know what kind of load that would put on a server, so I just wouldn't count on being able to attack from long range.
-
There is still no information about how the Dev's will develop their game expansion, but i think they will need some or a few players to test the expansion first before they open it for public
From what i remember from Elite: Dangerous, only players that own Lifetime Subscription that have access to the newest expansion before anyone else [CMIIW].
Maybe NQ will invite players that own Alpha & Beta access to test their new expansion, or only players with Alpha access, or just only players that own specific pledges ?
who knows & let's wait
Heck, i think it would be OK to allow players to "buy" test tokens to test expansions, but that kind of defeats the idea of "each expansion is free for subscribed players" if certain players get to access it before everyone else.
This is definitely a wait-and-see kind of thing.
-
I think it was mentioned that players will be able to damage constructs from the beginning. Avatar vs Construct in other words. If its not then taking over territory is not going to happen right?
If a hacking system is implemented prior to Avatars damaging Constructs, then it would be possible to take over a territory.
You would need an assault force and at least one player with a high hacking skill, and this would be under the assumption that a player wouldn't be able to literally bury their TU.
If the TU was located in a secure building, the player with a high hacking skill would be needed to open "locked" doors. The assault team would have to defend the hacker during the process of breaking into the secure building, room-by-room, until the hacker reaches the TU. At that point, the hacker would need to effectively need to change the TU ownership, and bingo territory taken.
The more likely scenario is that Avatar weapon damage on constructs will happen first, in which case the doors can be destroyed, the TU can be destroyed, and the attacking faction would simply need to deploy their own.
-
Projection of the Gunner's POV via zooming in => Rendering targets on the ground => Orbital strikes.
I guess FOV + location projection have not been invented-- oh wait... it's what every other sniper scope mechanism actually uses to render targets in the distance while scoped in, unless it's some ultra super realistic simulator like Squad or Project Reality, which DUAL is NOT, therefore your arguements have no merit, we know it's not Battlefield realistic in bullet drops, that doesn't mean stats can't emulate bullet drop effects as of damage / hit chance ratios.
They specified in a DEV interview that objects will not render at long distances, and for performance reasons sniping will not be possible. I'm not making an argument, just stating the intention of the devs.
-> it is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding what I'm referencing, since the "long distance sniping" was in reference to not having FPS elements. The devs were however clear that causing massive damage from a distant location (orbit) would not be possible, as it would be unfair to builders to lose their structures to an attacker they could not see. This was in reference to the possibility of WMD's and deathstar cannons.
-
I agree but i fear this will scare off new players from joining.
A space sci-fi game without space combat sounds crazy even if it has advantages.
There will still be Avatar vs Avatar combat, and there is a strong likelihood that avatar weapons will be able to damage constructs. Combat is going to be very STRANGE, but there will be combat.
The biggest implication this has for me, is that as a builder we won't be able to really develop fighters until after the game has already been released. If avatar weapons can damage constructs, we may be able to build ships and structures that allow players to shoot from them at other constructs. For example, a fighter with a machine gun nest built in, where a 2nd player fires through gaps in the fighter's armor at other ships, or a bunker with firing slits.
If avatar weapons can damage constructs, than a ship could have its weapons disabled, and be subject to a boarding action if it is a large enough construct for it to have a control center.
But when proper CVC gets implemented, there will be a development frenzy of builders retrofitting existing constructs to allow for weapons. It will prevent alpha and beta players from having an advantage in holding military blueprints through wipe, and will dramatically alter player behavior at launch. There won't be an arms race (apart from avatar weapons), instead each org will be racing to get infrastructure in-place for producing military constructs, stockpiling resources, TU's, etc.
That notion is kind of exciting and could be used to build hype for release. Everyone will have an opportunity to get "set up" before it all hits the fan.
But again, they might raise enough funds through paypal to hit that goal post-kickstarter regardless.
-
It might be possible to have "test zones" within the server, where it captures data on your ship, inventory, and location before you enter, and can revert you to that state and location if something goes wrong or if they have to re-set the test zone.
-
Now, if you were to aim from orbit to a guy on the ground, that goes without saying, a weapon from orbit, no matter what it is, will have a vast area of effect at range, not to mention, that if a players was to be hit by weaponry meant to pienetrate ship hulls, that player would die on the spot, no questions as of why. Even a glancing blow from a 50mm cannon can kill you, and we're talking of a rain of half a meter wide slugs dropping on your from the sky. The mere AoE damage volume will kill you and yes, the combat system in DUAL will be AoE based, similar to how AoE spells work in WoW, you cast a spell, it takes time to fully cast, then if 1, 2 or 50 guys were in its area of effect, will get the damage.
You'll find that it goes without saying, that you won't be able to attack things on the surface from orbit reliably. Because the game wont' be tracking projectiles, you will only be able to damage assets that are loaded in your area, which will become smaller based on server load (as demonstrated in their server tech demo). For that reason, the devs already stated that sniping someone from a long distance won't be possible. Besides, orbital bombardments fall under that "weapons of mass destruction" category where a player on the surface would be killed and their constructs destroyed without seeing their attacker, which the devs consider unfair.
You'll find that what makes CvC combat hard to implement is the sheer volume of things that will have to be balanced and developed. Some of the mechanics from Avatar vs Avatar combat will carry over, but there is some complexity that CvC will have that will not be present in AvA. The size of a construct will probably have a bearing on how easy it is to hit, in addition to the characteristics of the ship, the flying skills of both pilots, the stats of the ship's weapon, possibly the presence of a targeting system on the ship itself eventually.
The dev's described that the first iteration of CvC combat would be a 1-1 player per weapon mount situation, possibly with an exception for a forward mount weapon/pilot relationship. This compromise is what will make CvC so similar to AvA, since it'll have almost the same variables from the attacker's perspective, and in theory the same variables from the defender's perspective if avatar weapons can damage constructs during launch.
But this is all under the assumption that they really will make avatar weapons and ship weapons almost the same. That would make sense, but I don't know if we have enough info to make that kind of assumption. Ship weapons will probably have their own limitations, mainly mount location, range of movement, how much power the ship has to spend on said weapon, how fast the weapon can rotate/aim, how the ship it is attached to is moving, etc. There could be much more going on there than we are considering.
-
So we've got to wait a while for mankind to reinvent ship weapons
sounds fine to me!This does mean that there will be effectively a construct golden age when everyone is retrofitting existing constructs with weapons when the expansion drops.
In the mean time, we'll be building ships intended to either repel boarding parties, or to launch them!
-
@Archonious Did you use some sort of time machine??
Your prediction was spot on!
Willing to bet he just adjusted his pledge last minute to get the desired result. It would have had to be a narrow margin to begin with.
Good tactic!
-
-
Dude, I'm not saying that we need WMD and CD in the game, I'm saying let's come up with a rational explanation as to why it doesn't exist.
How about this: everything we create will be coming from matter compressed into a K3 manifold. When it is projected into spacetime, it is assembled along a kyrium scaffold, which remains behind after the object is instantiated. This properties of the scaffold include remarkable inertial dampening, to the point where two ships built on kyrium scaffolds could be rammed into one another at near relativistic speeds and they'd simply bounce off one another.
Nuclear weapons won't work because kyrium also serves as a damper to runaway fission reactions. An implosion chamber created using kyrium scaffolds would absorb rather than reflect neutrons. And dropping rocks from space won't work because the AI is actually aware of what we do with the objects we create. The AI is programmed to prevent the use of WMDs, but it does allow other forms of violence, as humans are by nature an aggressive species. And it is entirely possible we could run into another aggressive species out here in the unknown, one who can build and use weapons of mass destruction, a species we will need to be able to counter through violence. Therefore, it is necessary that humans retain the capacity for violence, even though the worst sorts of violence are forbidden by physics and the programming of the arkship godmind.
"because science" is always a good reason. I've been pushing "0 friction shielding" as a reason for collision damage to be a non-thing, but I've seen to many people wine about immersion breaking game mechanics that I made a false assumption about your stance.
Sounds like you've got a good explanation there though
-
Player graphic elements could get rather graphic indeed. I'm sure we want there to be freedom of expression but not to the point of creating a hostile game environment. There should probably be a process by which you submit graphics for approval (perhaps requiring the approval of community mods.) We can't stop people from building flying penises, I suppose, but letting them plaster the sides of those penises with hardcore gifs might be a bit much.
There will be a process by which players can "report" a construct that violates the rules (boob-structures, etc). If it is found to be obscene, it will get deleted. If a player continues making obscene constructs, they can be banned. (This is something that was already discussed in an interview).
So it is true we can't stop people from building flying penises, but they can be deleted if a moderator finds it in violation of the rules, and the player will get banned if it continues. pretty decent solution
Counterfeiting, fraud and fun for all the family
in General Discussions
Posted
Blueprint copies perhaps (that have a limited number of runs) but not blueprints Masers (which won't even clear during wipes from Alpha>beta>release)