wizardoftrash
-
Posts
777 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by wizardoftrash
-
-
Even if the trade and contract mechanics are pretty solid, the scum of the community whll find a way. Sweet deal dor some cargo? Gotta fo to a spooky planet to pick it up? Ambush!
Plus there may be orgs that do everything by handshake..... Lol
-
Seems good, but this poll is kind of a trap. There has already been a poll, people voted majority to not have these be stealable items. I won't allow this thread to become a justification for a conceptual free-for-all on DAC's dropping on death.
-
Claiming territories will require TU's (territory units) which as described so far, will be very challenging to construct. Ideally it would take a while before a TU could be built and placed, as some of the prerequisite material for them may be offword.
The hierarchy may be...
-planetary ship
-extraplanetary shup
-advanced refinery
-TU
-defensable colony
Leaving atleast one vulnerable stage (ship to TU). No idea what the in-between will look like, but I'm hoping claiming territory will not happen in the first few hours.
-
They talked about finding blueprints and such. I love to have maybe some the top selling blueprints from alpha/beta that are submitted maybe a special box they can check that can be used once the game goes live as rare drops and such.
Seconded, it would be very neat to see really popular structures and ships to appear in the full release as leftovers. Not at a 1-1 ratio, but as a neat procedurally generated treat
-
More importantly.
Why... powercores. Powercores are specifically for controlling, not powering.
And making cores have different values and stuffs is just... overpowered. If you want a better weapon, upgrade it.
Without seeing how the balance works at all, no judgement can be made as to what is overpowered
-
As suggested in another post, I believe that this is a good compromise ->
Kickstarter DAC's received non-lootable protection + The mechanics of PLEX from Eve Online for DAC's purchased after launch == A Good Compromise
In this way, the concerns about Kickstarter backers losing their DAC's are addressed, and people who purchase DAC's after launch do not get the same benefits. This could also be a bonus for backing via Kickstarter, and in a way would create DAC's that are more valuable simply because they cannot be looted (but are rarer because they only came through kickstarter).
A reasonable comprimise. I agree (here and in the other thread).
-
I agree.
I would have no issue the original buyer being protected, but NOT for DAC to be a Premium Currency. If it's bought and needs to be hauled, it should be fair-game, the original buyer got their money's worth of in-game currency, the DAC is sold after that point and lootable.
Woopse I accidentally agreed with you! I change my vote!
Lol JK it is actually a reasonable proposal. Doubt this discussion will have a real impact, but who knows
-
Since I've spent all my likes today, I at least verbally agree with this very much
I too would agree with this comprimise, despite that I disagree with theft of DACs more or less unilaterally: especially since new players aren't going to accidentally end up with DACs.
As long as the game cautions players that purchase DACs that they can be lost, and that the kickstarter DACs (which there will be a glut of and no good way to protect) are untouchable.
-
Um, because the Devs have been telling us all along that they are listening to us and that things could change depending on what the community wants?
I thought that part was pretty clear.
If it were a democracy, sure. Even then I'm glad the apocalypic option is the minority
-
Well, NQ have been really awesome with the community so far, so we hope that they keep listening to us, because the community is what in the end will make or break this game
I would agree that a community could break a game, especially if they beg for a feature that will be detrimental to it.
-
People are debating almost as if the dev's haven't already decided.
This reminds me of the debate that emerged when Gaia Online had released details of the RPG, and people lost their minds when the RPG would have nothing to do with their avatar items. There was a debate, however the devs were already mostly done with the game.
So what's the goal here, is there some plan to mass-withdraw unless they change this? Because I'm not seeing that either
-
I find these "We need to steal real money from other people" saying too much... DAC is not the main part of the game... They say about no risk in the game, but players still have chances to lose ships, bases and other. Stop LIE and pull everything on your side. Your EGO is too high!
If you see that as "P2W" - "Bye Bye, go play your EVE and steal money there!", same as you "say" to those who will be upset and will leave after real money lose
P/S: I don't really like to say what to do, but some overEGO start cross the line.
Thanks,
Archonious
I'm willing to bet that there are going to be some assets worth more than a DAC eventually. Not sure how intense building a Territory Unit will be, but if someone's got a TU on a very rare material, mining rights on that spot will probably be worth more than a DAC. As long as there are some worthy scarce tech and material in the game, there will be plenty worth stealing.
-
But a sandbox game cannot survive with those elements of the game.
There are always going to be those types of players in the game, so trying to go out of the way to stop them will always be an endless battle and would go directly against the principles of emergent gameplay.
Emergent gameplay is not making the game safe for you to play so that nothing ever goes wrong and nobody ever griefs you, emergent gameplay is getting griefed and then coming back with a vengeance.
Yes because my comment about this specific decision to make real money not stealable means I don't think players should be able to greif at all
-
Go play Landmark, where you are safe 24/7.
You represent the carebear masses. You are the kind of guy that will ask for scammers who expolited your lack of cerebral higher functions and ripped you off to be banned. You are the guy who will ask for pirates to be banned. And the game will die. /clap.
Thanks for the advice, I might have to check that game out for now
Pirates make things interesting, but I'm not really up for griefing for the sake of griefing. I think its enough to set people back by blowing up their creations, stealing their real money is a bit much.
-
Pretty sure the main supporters od stealable DAC's are the kind of greifer scumbags who make any gaming community a more toxic environment, motivated by making the game more miserable for other players, and aren't satesfied with just blowing up their stuff and killing them, but by pushing them out od the take entirely.
Hate to be the one making a strawman argument here, but I don't think we want that kind of player. Rust is a (hilarious) hellhole, and I'd rather not have that kind of experience here too.
-
You think the DAC decision was influenced by him or people like him?
I think I prefer to believe NQ had this decided before the kickstarter. If you understand what I mean...
Seems reasonable to me, I would have made a similar decision
-
Hate to spoil the fun, but currently resource collection is exclusively by hand, with no indication that it will change. Also, the scripts that the robots will rely on to run will only run if players, probably just the owner, is close by. Also we have no idea if grid construction can be automated or scriptet.
So apart from the fact that each mechanic that this will require to work has either been confirmed to not be a part of the game, or has had no mention at all, great work!
-
Pretty sure NQ is aiming for a more physically based system, like Cornflakes says.
If you want your ship to go faster, add more engines.
If you want more protection, add more shield units.
If you want to deal more damage, add more weapons.
Then you add in power generators as needed. Seems pretty simple to me.
Much like an MMO however, you might find that you need faster engines, not just more engines. Stronger guns, not just more guns. Otherwize the tier 1 ships will look just like the Space Engineers cube of death ships that are just tiled with turrets.
-
I mean, if a script will run if ANY player is close enough, that would be kind-of necessary for any kind of automated trade boxes to work, so I'm guessing it'll work that way.
Now i just have to hope that there is a robust enough contracting system to allow scripts to put a bounty on a player with an expiraton date lol
-
Yeah well if the 'good guys' let the scammer be then there will be anarchy. So in fact it's up to YOU to stop scammers and show them, that they shouldn't mess with you. You really should see both sides and not always cry about bad boyz
The existance of contracts would not make handshake deals impossible either, you are welcome to work outside of contracts even if such a system is present.
see how it works out -
A contract system might not work so well for rather vague deals, i.e. a privateer. A privateer might get hired to "harass" another corporation. It would be impossible for a computer to say when that was accomplished.
I would suggest that verification be a third party system. Whenever a trade or deal is made, all the information about the deal is contained in a parcel of information called a "trade packet." With a trade packet you get a unique ID generated. Call it the trade ID. NQ would be the third party responsible for storing the packet and the ID.
The two players making the trade get tagged behind the scenes with the trade ID. Anyone with the trade ID tag can look up the trade packet from NQ. Using this, it would be then possible to independently verify details of a trade. You could tag your boss and say "Yes I did deliver, look here." The boss could then use an in-game lookup function to look at the trade packet. Using a system like this would enable you to verify, but not enforce contracts.
Sounds like it could work, alternatively someone looking to harras another org could just create a sleu of bounties for unilaterally taking out various aligned ships and players, effectively paying privateers per-head by allowing multiple players to take-on the same contract and having it pay out to the first to accomplish a given task.
Wipe out the starship Kerebos: 1,500spacebux
Kill snipeguy: 750spacebux
Destroy lootcrate A on planet X: 25,0000spacebux
Etc
-
I think this thread has confused two elements of the game:
The Core Unit, which is what determines the size and type of construct (small ship, large building, etc) provides the max build area and the ID of the physical object
And Power Unit, which serves as a fuel tank or battery for player and construct systems.
For now, we have only seen one power unit deployed in a demo, and it was deployed in the sample ship. We may find out that there are different strengths of power units, different classes meant doe each size of construct, and we may even be able to place more than one in the same construct.
As it stands though, there is no specifics on how it works, but we may find that it is not the power unit that determines the ship's stats, but what elements are on the ship.
It might be that for a 100% speed ship, you've just got to have high-tier engines, but that a common Power Unit won't power high tier engines. Balance and specialization may determine what combinations of power units and elements will translate to ship stat blocks.
-
Yes there will be trends but I wouldnt say it will be stable. Because wealth will increase so will the price of DAC.
At day one 200 spacebucks could be a fortune but at day 30, 200 spacebucks wont buy you much because there will be more currency circulating. Inflation will apply.
Unless somehow the economy is fixed on a system with a limited supply of currency but that creates a whole other set of problems.
'A pirate buying DAC = stealing from someone else.' Is stretching it I think.
I am not saying the exchange will not ever change, but by "stable" i'm thinking more that after 6 months, DAC might exchange for a similar price at 7 months. Players are more willing to part with something if its value is fairly stable, so an unstable exchange rate = people being afraid to trade them = turning stolen goods into DAC not being feasible.
And agreed, it is a stretch, but it is as close to theft id DAC as the system will allow.
-
Well pirates want both: harass that person, steal his stuff and get the tears. If you can't understand the difference between buying DACs because you sold other carp and actually stealing dacs, then I have nothing further to say to you
Guess you'll just be dissapointed!
If you want to deprive someone of their DAC's or close to it, the best way I can think of is to waste their time. This all boils to time, time IRL at our real jobs earning money, time in game building stuff, time in game actually having fun. If you can waste enough of someone's time, its almost the same. Stealing their stuff, killing them in game, gaining control of their territory, any action you take to un-do what someone has done robs them of their time, but nothing else.
I think a game company making a decision to prevent people from stealing tangible IRL money in their game is just fine.
The Great DAC Compromise Poll [Please Read Before Voting]
in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
Posted
This discussion is being continued in private
i think this is a good time to let this topic wither away.