wizardoftrash

Casually overlooked that the main features of DU are all pretty much there so far, and the main features of LM was an MMO that got canceled

Just that I can build a ship with voxels that will fly blows LM in its current state away, let alone in Alpha. 

The trouble with a game company trying to be really transparent, is that sometimes the unfinished pre-alpha looks like an unfinished pre-alpha.
 
This video is pretty much what I expected, except I wasn't expecting multi-player-construction to even be in their pre-alpha. It isn't pretty, but very effective.

The trouble with a game company trying to be really transparent, is that sometimes the unfinished pre-alpha looks like an unfinished pre-alpha.
 
This video is pretty much what I expected, except I wasn't expecting multi-player-construction to even be in their pre-alpha. It isn't pretty, but very effective.

The trouble with a game company trying to be really transparent, is that sometimes the unfinished pre-alpha looks like an unfinished pre-alpha.
 
This video is pretty much what I expected, except I wasn't expecting multi-player-construction to even be in their pre-alpha. It isn't pretty, but very effective.

The trouble with a game company trying to be really transparent, is that sometimes the unfinished pre-alpha looks like an unfinished pre-alpha.
 
This video is pretty much what I expected, except I wasn't expecting multi-player-construction to even be in their pre-alpha. It isn't pretty, but very effective.

The trouble with a game company trying to be really transparent, is that sometimes the unfinished pre-alpha looks like an unfinished pre-alpha.
 
This video is pretty much what I expected, except I wasn't expecting multi-player-construction to even be in their pre-alpha. It isn't pretty, but very effective.

Could we get an open-topped cockpit for planetary travel?
 
Yeah, I'm talking hover-bike style cockpit, not unlike a speeder or motorcycle. Here are the potential benefits:
 
-It would look totally sick!
 
-Less resources and lighter weight means easier to build and easier to propel ~faster
 
-The exposed nature would allow players to shoot you dead, despite being in a construct. Since Construct vs Construct combat won't be there at launch, this would allow lower-level play to include some sort-of vehicular combat.
 
-Can't go into space with it
 
-This would allow players to have a low-tier transportation system for traveling across a planet surface that is easy to steal/lose but easy to replace
 
-Organize SWEET hover-races
 
Plus who doesn't love speeders?

Did I hurt your fee-fees? My comment addressed the whole thread, including myself. It is common for people who lack coding and game design experience to expect it to be easy, and many suggestion threads fly under the assumption that their request is simple. I addressed that no one who has commented thus far was qualified to make that judgement call, including myself. Am I wrong?
 
Also, I'm seeing a great deal of "I know you are but what am I" style arguments, and I fully expect a response to the tune of "if you don't posses the knowledge, then how do you know this isn't feasible?" I've presented the closest thing to evidence that I could (i.e. comparisons to other games, with large budgets and brilliant minds, that either took for ever to make a much simpler version of this mechanic work, or that still can't get this right). Just rolling out "this isn't the same game" doesn't actually refute my examples, your statement is accurate, but I presented them as examples of how hard these mechanics are to design.
 
I can look at those examples and imagine how hard it could be to make ship crashes not suck for everyone, and if what we lose by not having that mechanic in the game is a bit of immersion, that is a very easy design decision. The actual developers have commented on collision damage, and they commented on it in the context of sacrificed that they needed to make for multiplayer to work smoothly (i.e. it is not feasible to have collision damage and stable multiplayer).
 
This is not OP presenting a novel idea and users rushing in to stomp on it for funzies. OP is trying to make the case that a mechanic should be added that the devs already have plans not to add. If the goal is to pressure the devs to consider adding collision damage with user feedback and requests, expect to see the other side of the coin. A mechanic like this can have disastrous consequences even if it works perfectly (griefing), and can cripple the game if it does not work perfectly (and it likely won't). What you have to lose here way outstrips what you have to gain.

Hi everyone,
 
As the topic is derivating seriously in the last pages, it's going to be closed.
To all those who are wondering if the current level of funding already include the pledge withdrawal, the answer is yes: The pledge amount is updated in real time. If someone unpledge, it's immediately reflected to the amount pledged on the Kickstarter page. 
 
@ChipPatton:
 
To sum up your point of view:
1) Our communication is canned because we didn't reply directly to your community's experience.
2) You didn't try to discuss with us because the previous reply was canned in your opinion.
3) You said the PLEX is inefficient against goldfarming.
4) You assume that I'm convinced DAC is the perfect too and that, apparently, only my opinion counts in the Novaquark Team.
5) You consider that globally we are non-caring.
 
So to address this (very) subjective declaration:
 
1) We read your community experience and we understand that your experience with PLEX hasn't been fun. However, just looking by the prism of one experience, and refusing to look at the bigger picture is something we can't do as game developers: The problem you encountered is something that you would have encountered sooner or later even without the PLEX existence. Why? If unfair players want to harass a specific group and they have money for it, yes, the official staff can close as many accounts as possible if those use gold farming sites to get a lot of in-game money, but the unfair players will come back again and again, as money is not a problem for them. This is a neverending story. As an EVE veteran player, you probably won't refute the fact that you can harass anyone with fresh new toons, only a few hours old, in Tech1 ships in EVE Online. Again, even without the PLEX/DAC system, the problem remains as a whole, only less visible. So what you consider as a "canned reply" is just a different opinion from yours.
 
2) Avoiding to start a discussion just because we have a different opinion from yours, and that there are chances it wouldn't go your way... It has indeed no chance to convince the Novaquark Team. Self fulfilling Prophecy here. But you have no right to complain if you didn't even try.
 
3) Three big developers/publishers seem to disagree: CCP, Blizzard and NCSoft (Carabine studios).
Beside that, as gamers, we didn't experience the consistent huge amount of PLEX/gold selling you're mentionning in EVE (Yes, we have EVE players in the team). Do you have something to back your declaration about PLEX system being inefficient beside your own words? If it's the case, we are interested in this data.
 
4) The Community Manager status seems to have been misunderstood here: having a personal opinion and making the communication (both ways) between players and the Novaquark team are two different things. Whether or not I'm convinced of something is irrelevant in this case: If players have concerns about one aspect, I transmit the message to the team. If the team has an official stance on a topic, I transmit it to the players (the reason why you received twice globally the same answer). Now, while the team won't change a feature as important as the DAC system on a whim, if some solid concerns followed by facts are given in a well-argued discussion, everything is possible (except coming on what has been already promised to other players such as Kickstarter DACs). However, loud voices and threats of unpledging without solid reasons will not affect game design decisions. 
 
5) Just because we have a different opinion doesn't mean we are non-caring. We care about every opinion. However, we are also realistic about the fact that we cannot satisfy everyone. Nobody can.
 
If you have something else to discuss with us that are not: 
- Your (unfortunate) experience on EvE Online.
- Assumptions of the real intents of the Novaquark Team (like implying the DAC system has been chosen by greediness, when the game is free, the expansions will be free and there will be a free trial period when starting the game... not really a good way to start a reasonable discussion with a developer).
 
Then by all means, send me a private message on this forum and I will transmit the message to the team for discussion.
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

One of these would be cool..
 

So you think it is a problem then for the game to assume that your character in the game is a skilled enough pilot to avoid crashing. The game does not expect you as the player to know anything about how to refine ore into materials, nor does the game expect you as the player to know how to build a jet engine from parts. However you think the game should expect the player to be an expert pilot to avoid crashing?
 
This seems a bit silly to me for the game to potentially aim for you, but not avoid crashing for you. I'd be happy to see this compromise from the prospective of "one of the many things the game assumes you character is smart enough to do", mainly fly without crashing.
 
Also, have we considered not crashing as a potential extension of shield systems? It it impossible to imagine a science fiction universe where tech is advanced enough that no one crashes accidentally? or is this still a covert scheme to get ramming into the game as a griefer tactic.

I'm pretty sure we need to let this thread die

Space Engineers already has this as a basic model. Calculating the mass of the ship and the amount of thrust and power consumption at any given point.

Could we get an open-topped cockpit for planetary travel?
 
Yeah, I'm talking hover-bike style cockpit, not unlike a speeder or motorcycle. Here are the potential benefits:
 
-It would look totally sick!
 
-Less resources and lighter weight means easier to build and easier to propel ~faster
 
-The exposed nature would allow players to shoot you dead, despite being in a construct. Since Construct vs Construct combat won't be there at launch, this would allow lower-level play to include some sort-of vehicular combat.
 
-Can't go into space with it
 
-This would allow players to have a low-tier transportation system for traveling across a planet surface that is easy to steal/lose but easy to replace
 
-Organize SWEET hover-races
 
Plus who doesn't love speeders?

Considering space elevators have a lot of challenges that will make them not feasible in this game, I got to thinking why not have an electromagnetic launch pad style element, that propels mobile constructs in a specific direction when powered. This will allow for hover trains, boost pads for hover racing, and a Launch ramp that could allow a ship whout atmospheric flight elements to be launched ino space.
 
In space these could also be used to allow for long-ish distance AFK travel by having a series of space stations that each propell you to the next, so you can AFK for a couple hours while your ship frictonlessly hurdles through the void to your destination.

Would you be opposed to EXP loss when a player dies repeatedly in a short time? It seems to me that a system where EXP penalties only kick in when a player dies many times in a short period of time would only penalize players that are doing suicide runs.

Interested. On another note, consider having a part of it go beyond the safe zone. Perhaps for the more seedier or risky types.
 
Or a "slums section".

The city of Emberstone is planned as a neutral city for newcomers and experienced players alike. It is currently planned to be on the edge, but still inside, of the safe zone, so it will be safe from pirate raids in that sense. It will have a presence of any major organisations that are interested as well as markets selling their wares and advertising their quests.  Interested? Drop me a PM.
 
Kurock
CSYN, Chief of Development

There are currently no plans for any digging elements. This means mining will be an activity that players will have to do by-hand. Mining and exploration is intended to be a social and engaging activity in this game, and as such the devs have opted to make digging machines not an option (atleast at release, this may change with later expansions).

Proud to say as of last night I'm officially a backer. I pledged for a gold package and don't regret it for a second. Can't wait to see how this all progresses and to help the Dev see their vision come to light.

A user or org that sets up a TU will be able to control building plivlages. I've got a guess on how "lot management" will work.
 
We already know that Core Unit elements are what makes somehing a construct, and also restricts the size of that construct. I'm willing to bet the owner of a TU can effectively create lots by placing Core Units spaced out from each other (allowing room for roads) of various sizes. The owner of the TU can sell the Construct (consisting of just the Core Unit for the lot) along with the rights to modify that construct, without surrendering general build privlages within the TU.
 
This would allow a player to purchase a lot within the territory that would restrict how large their structure can be. I could buy a lot and build a shop there, maybe even a parking garage if I had enough space. The same permissions that prevent a player from building in-between lots could also prevent players from building additional cores in their lot to increase its size (though a clever TU owner could build vertical lots that have multiple cores linked together hidden in a centeal column for a skyscraper lot).
 
On the flip side, the owner of the TU might ALSO have blanked building rights for the city as a whole, and can modify the structures (despite being owned by other players) through the TU's permissions to connect roads and sidewalks to people's structures, and to endforce the rules of the city.

CAN WE STOP FEEDING THIS KIND OF TOPICS

I'm fairly certain that in their description of the Construct vs Construct stretch goal, they discussed that a ship could have a Repair Element installed that when powered, repairs damaged elements and voxels on the ship. This is sort of like having nanites repair the ship, or having fields reinforce the structural integrity of the damaged areas.
 
We don't have much info on how effective these repair elements will be, but in theory a large-ish ship with a tough hull, ample power, and good shields could withstand a non-stop attach from a couple of small ships. Since attacks will sometimes partially penetrate shields, having a repair module running 24/7 could negate that penetration.
 
However this element repairs the ship that it's on. We don't have any info yet if there are plans for a module that can repair other ships. It would be pretty sick if you could script the functionality of a group of ships to continuously repair each other provided they are at full health, thus a swarm of linked fighters running the script would allow the fighters that have been unscathed to loan out some repair capability.
 
But it also sounds like this might be a tricky capability to code, and probably a high-tier tech to build and install. We'll see.

You can expect that if players are mining by hand, that the process will probably go pretty fast and it'll be something like a 1-1 ratio of mined volume to usable volume.
 
People build some huge stuff in Minecraft mining by hand. I play on a SMALL private server (total population of 10) and we built cities, in vanilla. A full MMO game will have cities in a week.