Zamarus
-
Posts
677 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zamarus
-
-
Dunno if it belongs in this sub but it was funny +1.
-
1 hour ago, Dorlas said:
Well, this could bring something else: Planets that are deliberately sparsely populated.
Factions will need major bases of operations. Places where ships are constructed, headquarters of government, army, navy, housing for citizens and so on. These places will require tons of players to take care of, so naturally more and more citizens of that organization will flock to that city.
Now let´s say there will be resource on another planet in the system that this faction needs. They will build mining outposts there and start mining the resource. Most of the planet will be unused, but the faction certainly won´t like if some small organization starts building on that planet and draining its resources. So they may destroy them simply to keep that planet for themselves to use in the future.
If we magnify this and put two or three organizations into that solar system, we can end up with all of solar system divided between them, while only three planets are actually inhabited, with others being claimed and used for various purposes...or just left unused as sort of buffer zone.
Of course, this can change and we may end up seeing organizations that are spread out throughout dozens of planets, with smaller settlements on each of them, with every organization controlling only a portion of each planet (although how could security even work in such organization is beyond me). But I really see DU being similar to The Expanse as the most plausible option, simply because it is far easier to have one planet as "Earth" and then have multiple colonies in the same system, while also preventing anyone with the exception of other major factions in the system to do anything (or maybe even union between those factions, where they can be in state of cold war, but when someone from the outside universe dares to do anything in their system, they band together and kick their butts).
I've thought these exact same things. And for all you know some people could already be planning divides like that ;^)
-
I'm excited for:
-markets crashing
-factions clashing
-construct-smashing
-and a whole lot of political head-bashing
- Lethys, MookMcMook, SirJohn85 and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, Kurock said:
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher HitchensJudging from the latest AMA, I believe it is too soon to tell.
Lazy boys both of you https://www.dualthegame.com/en/news/2018/01/30/our-toughts-on-territory-protection-mechanics/ "The owner of a territory located outside of a Secure Area will be able to set up a Force Field Unit to protect their Normal Territories. (Force Field Unit is a temporary name."
-
2 minutes ago, Lights said:
he also said tho that peopel would be able to use multiple turrets using AI at the expense of viability
On static constructs (bases) not AI (automation) on dynamic constructs (ships)
-
46 minutes ago, Lights said:
amazing, every word in that sentence was wrong.
It really isn't though. You need gunners for your guns on your gunships and JC has said that in multiple interviews
-
1 minute ago, DylTheRipper13 said:
cool beans thanks. My team is currently like 5 people, so this information is really helpful
No worries. It's best for everyone that there's no false hope or false promises creeping around. People need to know what they are going to deal with
-
15 minutes ago, DylTheRipper13 said:
Yeah but the thirty ship crew could have that many guns on their ship too. If it doesn't take one man per gun, solo players can use money (time, skill) to make up for man power they lack, while 30 man crews can still take advantage of this change as well, adding more guns to their ship.
If it wasnt one man per gun, the ship w 30 people could focus on other things, still allowing the solo player to contend yet allowing the 30 ship crew to also have benefit from the mechanic.
If its 1 man per gun, man power becomes vastly the largest component in combat, which I disagree with a lot.
Also, people have said there will be automated weapons that will be much less powerful. Are we only talking about the full power guns? because if thats the case, then yeah I see no problem with that. But I really think players should be able to put work into their ship to make up for man power, DPS wise. If this means having to use auto turrets that arent as powerful, that would be a really good solution in my opinion.
NQ has said time after time that the game is about people working together in large groups. While you will be able to do a lot solo you wont be able to do everything larger groups can do together. Manpower should and does count and if you disagree with that tough luck.
Regarding automated weapons, not happening for ships (dynamic constructs) they said. It will be limited to static constructs (bases and such) and not have full power.
- Armedwithwings and Lethys
-
2
-
1 minute ago, DylTheRipper13 said:
I really hope this isnt the case
It is and thank fuck its the case imo. This way you wont see solo players flying around in battleships destroying 30 man crews
Build your ships in proportion to the men you have, that is whats gonna happen mostly. And if you want to solo fly a jumbo, then you wont get to arm it that much
-
I mean it's already stated by devs that you need a man for every cannon on a ship. If you smack on 30 of them on a ship you better have 30 men to man them
-
1 minute ago, Hades said:
Then stasis barrier is a bad choice unfortunately. You're probably right. Still better than a lot that I've seen here.
Shield Generator/Shield barrier is honestly probably the most straight forward.
Honestly, my vote (if I get one) goes for something as simple as shield generator.
Yeah, shield barrier would be the failproof choice if you want everyone to know what it is. I do like the sound of stasis barrier i just don't think its THE straight forward choice if that's what people think is important.
-
4 hours ago, Hades said:
Stasis barrier implies equilibrium, and it’s short and sweet. Many of the names proposed are long and overly scientific imho. They need to be called something that everyone can recognize what it is. Stasis barrier accomplishes this.
I'm actually gonna have to disagree with the part that everyone can recognize what it is. I know plenty of people that will either
1) Not get what stasis means
2) Not see any reference to what the barrier covers
and possibly both
-
-
7 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:
Except you can't if they hang out in a safe zone.
In the simplest of terms, Player A kills Player B. Player B catches up with Player A some time later and finds that he has made a home for himself in non-pvp space. How is player B going to wrong Player A back?
I hope you read Lethys answer.
Also there's many things to account for in a game like this
1. Not everyone is gonna come out equal in every trade, people WILL get away with things and if you were unprepared thats on you
2. You don't have to immediately punish someone, not everything requires instant karma you could get back at them later.
3. If people create reputation systems in game or you happen to have other means you can still affect people in safezones by hindering them from getting resources from outside if there's people you can give them bad rep to or if you can keep them inside out of fear.
Any of these 3 outcomes will happen and are legitimate alternatives you will never return completely equal on things in this game and it really shouldn't be so. Use your brain as a player to figure out what you want to do about it.
-
20 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:
How will a player organization or individual player for that matter, counter a PvPer that has wronged them, when that PvPer can just hang out in a safe zone? I don't know how the game will handle it, which is why I asked.
That is up to the org or player to figure out. If someone can wrong you, you sure as hell can wrong them back
-
Just now, 0something0 said:
I don't know, but you are the person trying to distract from the main argument that pvp is not emergent gameplay. Certain aspects of pvp can be emergent but pvp itself isn't when its something that is going to be a well-established game mechanic.
You are literally refuting your own point here. If aspects of pvp can be emergent that means pvp can be emergent
-
19 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:
Do you guys think that PvP thugs and gankers should be allowed to have safe harbor in the safe zones? That one is tricky as not all PvPers are mean people, but providing PvPers the same protections as non PvPers, doesn't seem right either.
Not exactly sure what you are getting at. Everyone has the opportunity to utilise the exact same stuff in the game, how are you gonna do that
-
9 hours ago, 0something0 said:
Yeah, because anything can be justified by the term "emergent gameplay"
That isn't emergent gameplay. Emergent gameplay is when players define the game mechanics, not the devs. PvP/griefing/piracy/ganking isn't emergent gameplay when it has been around forever in places like EVE and 2b2t and when the devs expressly allow such actions.
That is not how it works. By your logic anything that has already been around in other games cannot be emergent in DU. BS if you ask me. The very definition of it is creative solutions, complex situations that emerge from simple mechanics. There's even something called intentional emergence such as similar situations intended by devs. Either way we've been given the tools. And if people find unexpected ways to do PvP or literally anything else it is very much emergent gameplay, you can't just dismiss it pointing at another game. See, other games does not set the standard for what will be emergent in DU since it's a new game in itself that comes with its own complexity and player solutions to problems.
-
2 hours ago, Dr_Rhino55 said:
The main DU website mentions the word noveans as the name for the players, so therefore I believe that the name for the DU citizens should be noveans. And also because the arkship is called Novark, so it makes sense.
While true keep in mind that the official name (Noveans) hasnt been out for long as for this thread is even the second part in a discussion that is far older
-
Why not both and more?
- AzureSkye, Armedwithwings and Lethys
-
3
-
Just now, Lethys said:
Since it spans a whole territory, it should sound great....big... uhm.... U know what i mean xD
Territorial Shield-Dome?
- Lethys and Armedwithwings
-
2
-
5 hours ago, Lethys said:
Such shields with 48h timers were public knowledge now for a year or so, that info wasn't smth new.
https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/10496-timer-on-shields/&
Shield domes
Honestly Shield Domes sounds great
-
Construct Protection Device
-
Great, much needed with the latest forum trends!
Only question i have is if this means that non-PvPers have a space to be but its empty on resources which makes them have to get outside in the wild if they want to compete at all. In which case i think its an excellent solution, with some things about sanctuary areas still a little unsure to me but acceptable.
how will the large crew that large ship may have work in a game like this
in General Discussions
Posted
Disagree honestly. As it's not the sole attraction for the game by far.
Also remember that it probably has to do with targeting and no automation, maybe you can make a ship with multiple small guns but they are all firing where you aim. Maybe its about the tiers(size) of cannons. Either way if you want a big ship and big guns you need a crew with gunners. They've stated this and its because the game is formed for players cooperating in numbers. If you are solo you'll have to settle for a smaller ship, as easy as that and not unfair really.