Ripper
-
Posts
630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ripper
-
-
Where's the difference?
They're both constructs, with mobile core units.
-
Hey CaptainKingz,
Bear in mind.
ALL posters on this forum are Luddites. ALL automation is labled 'AI', and therefore it must not be allowed to exist. These citizens of Alioth still cling to the short sighted laws of a lifeless planet that's been dead for 10,000 years.
Any discussion otherwise will make you a 'Pariah'.
-
I believe the "paint job" IS part of the US stealth technology.
But agreed on the turret models.
One of the things I liked about Star Citizen was the different "ship manufactures" had distinctly different designs and feel to them. It would be nice to have management give the same project to three different designers and accept the models as being from 3 different manufacturers. Unfortunately, that's trippling their work, and doesn't add anything but aesthetics.
But it would be cool to have the same elements that look industrial, biological, retro, and contemporary...
-
I think FTL drives up to a maximum of 15-20C would be great.
Given the scale of a star system, and distances between star systems, this would allow players to travel between planets in minutes, and possibly a month to travel to another star system.
IF NovaQuark decides to keep distances between stars realistic.
If FTL drives are much faster than that, they allow the player to jump between planets almost instantly.
If they are slower, it will take too long to get to another star.
Gravity wells should force players into subluminal speeds, and this is the sweet spot for ship interdiction. So, at a certain distance, ships should be forced out of FTL speeds.
-
"The only thing NovaQuark will add later is Stargates"
Really?
No active development after launch?
Thats disappointing..
-
Im going to disagree with Twerk.
10,000 players...
Billions of star systems...
Thats a recipe for NMS player density, which is the key concern of the OP.
I'm certain NovaQuark WILL limit expansion via a variety of methods.
Procedural generation is just a mathematical formula to populate space. It could also be used to create every blade of grass on Alioth. That doesnt mean every blade of grass will actually seen by players, even though its possible . YES its possible to visit every planet, but only after NovaQuark has made it accessible.
The key concern is to encourage player interaction and player conflict. And I believe NQ has a plan for that.
The area I agree with Twerk is the player community. You will need to make friends and start an Org to be successful. This will also promote slower expansion. There's safety in numbers. And economic interaction between Orgs will keep them relatively close to each other.
-
Procedural generation of a universe doesn't mean that NQ will allow its players to visit every planet.
NQ can restrict travel with technology.
1. Players will be planet bound until escape velocity engines are given to the players by NQ.
2. Initial travel would be to the moons surrounding the planet.
2. Non FTL engines will keep players within a handful of planets.
3. FTL engines will keep everyone within a star system. (light takes 5.3 hours to travel from the Sun to Pluto & 4.3 YEARS from Alpha Centauri to Earth)
4. Finally, Stargate's and Stargate Probes
NQ can delay technological advancement according to THEIR timeline. They can also delay Stargate Probe arrival (even indefinitely). This allows them to limit player expansion to a rate that will keep player interaction and conflict at the forefront of gameplay.
I personally see FTL travel limited to about 10*C, which would allow you to get from the Sun to Pluto in a half hour. At that same speed, Stargate Probes could get to the closest star system in 6 months from launch. I guess its feasible for a player to do that with a ship at 10*C, but I'd rather do something with the game, than spend 6 months traveling between stars.
I honestly don't want ships traveling faster than that.
IF NQ ever decides to populate planets with NPCs, is when I could see a much quicker expansion. Otherwise, you have NMS.
-
-
Ugh!
Novaquark has told us which payment model they intend to use, and have ALSO said they will NOT be changing it.
This entire discussion has been re-rashed hundreds of times.
And BleepBloop brings NOTHING new to the table.
- wizardoftrash and Lord_Void
-
2
-
Great post Kurock,
Agreed on the difference between radiators and heat sinks.
But it would be cool if there were both. Radiators to vent heat into space, which would be detectable by other players, and the heat sinks to store heat for a very short time while the player is in "stealth mode"
- Lethys and Anaximander
-
2
-
Given time, players find the optimal build / loadout. So you will eventually see very similar ships.
The best way to combat this is provide variety in your elements. Restricting creativity only encourages the building of similar ships.
Take "level 1 engines" for example..
There should be multiple engines that essentially perform the same way, but have different unique characteristics. Each of those characteristics would necessitate certain design decisions. (Proximity to other elements could be one of those traits)
Ship maneuverability is an arguement for interior space. A solid cube will have much more mass than a hollow cube. This means it wont fly as well.
Esthetics is another arguement. Functionality isn't EYERYTHING. So players will build cool looking ships that ALSO have good performance.
Everyone wants to be a bad ass, but they want to look good doing it.
-
I love threads about forcing players to do things a certain way.
I think there SHOULD be heat sinks, but not to force a certain behaviour. Heat sinks should be the opposite of fuel pods. Instead of providing a substance such as fuel, they take heat away from the element.
Next, you'll be telling me I cant fly a giant penis. (Or I'll need to add a scrotum for my heat sinks)
-
There are static and mobile core units. Each CU has a build grid that will allow you to build within an area of space. The size of the unit determines the size of the build grid.
Also, I dont believe its confirmed, but the intent is to allow players to build and sell constructs to other players, that can be used in construction of other constructs. I believe ownership is assigned with core units. So, this implies that multiple core units can be used in the building of a construct.
This would allow you to extend the build grid, to make larger constructs.
You could use a mobile core unit and design your construct to look like a house. Then slap some engines on it to move it.
Orbits are a function of gravity. Essentially, the object (plant, moon, satellite, or ship) is constantly flying at a 90 degree angle to the gravitational pull of an object. If it flies fast enough to "miss" the object when falling, it is successfully orbiting. Of course, every second it passes by the object and its gravitational pull it must fly perpendicular to gravity. Thus, the object always "misses" the object when falling towards it.
I believe a core unit probably has its own physics grid thats part of the build grid. Ships will have their own "artificial gravity", but the videos have shown build grids to be cubes. Not spheres, like a planet's gravity . My guess is theres a "down" side to a core unit, which determines the direction of artificial gravity.
Could that impact another mobile construct, thereby necessitating the establishment of an orbit? I havent seen it in the videos of flight. When a ship lands on what appears to be a carrier, it stops then settles on the pad. There didnt appear to be gravity. It looked like a controlled movement by the pilot.
But who knows...
-
And I was hoping you had an inside track on something
-
As long as I can mute little kids that are screaming in my ear.
Nothing breaks emersion more than some little kid being stupid.
-
errm well this is not quite the case, because we don't know how much variation there will be in weapon quality. One player in a very advanced/expensive fighter should be able to take on 2,3, even 4 or 5 people in a basic or poorly built frigate. Individual character skill (not just player skill) may also be a key factor here.
It might be that a solo player who has nearly maxed out all of their skills relevant to piloting a fighter, while flying an advanced fighter, will be a good match for a crew of 5 newbies. It might also be that the advanced weapons, armor, and thrusters on the fighter would be enough to close that gap.
We simply don't know how much of an impact raw metrics will have in these encounters.
However if you take a crew of even 3 players, and each is spending time on their own specialization (one on engineering/refining, one on piloting/scanning, one on gunnary) and each player is contributing play time to construct a solid ship, said team should have a colossal advantage over even a theoretically maxed out solo player.
The example of single vs multi player combat should be judged with all other things being equal.
Of course a player who has spent years in a game will be more skilled than a newbie.
Of course a player who has better equipment will be better than someone who has crap.
This is the same as saying "Our three newly created level 1 characters can't kill his level 75 sorcerer. Maybe we should nerf the sorcerer."
I agree with you though. Multiplayer will always be better than single, all other things being equal.
-
NQ has mentioned 1 crew per weapon system on a ship at some point, meaning a 2-crew ship will have potentially twice the firepower of a solo fighter (or more if swivel-mounted turrets are more effective/less limited than forward mounted) and it goes up from there.
This is a key take away. It doesn't matter whether players can control 1 weapon or 100.
A single player ship will only be able to control that number of weapons. A multiplayer ship can have multiples of that "Limit".
Here's an example:
Your game client may be able to support 10 weapons controlled by LUA. A multiplayer ship with 10 users (10 clients) would be able to control 100 weapons (10 weapons batteries running on 10 clients).
Multiplayer will always beat out single player. It doesn't matter whether the players are limited to a single weapon or multiples.
-
Well a subscription service or games that use Plex/DAC would not be "financially viable" if they stop using that method of payment...
I don't consider DAC to be P2W.
The skill system is something I like with DU. It rewards players for the time they've patronized NovaQuark. It doesn't matter how much money you dump into the game, you'll never match the skill level of someone who has been there from the start. (skill wise)
If your definition of "win" is "who has the most stuff" then DAC IS P2W.
It all depends upon how the player defines "WIN".
-
Hey Shyrnras,
Mind if I ask where you got your information?
-
I cant help but think that there'll be a lot of junk orbiting... But Im confident pirate orgs will "clean it up"
-
Real hacking is like what you see in the movies "Tron", "Hackers" & "Johnny Mnemonic"
Actually...
The movie "Sneakers" did a pretty good job.
-
-
-
Hey RS,
Welcome to the forums.
There will be a single server. Although thats a misnomer. The hardware behind the game will be a cluster of servers. Players wont see that in game though.
With billions of stars to explore, it would be easy for players to spread out too fast. Thereby turning Dual Universe into a sparsely populated No Mans Sky.
NQ, is planning on limiting that growth through various methods. One method would be the slow release of technological elements. For example, they could keep players "planet bound" for a period of time by limiting engines. Only releasing escape velocity engines when they're ready.
The same goes for FTL drives. This would keep players in a single solar system.
Finally, to establish a stargate, an FTL Stargate Probe has to make it to another star system. NQ can time the probe's arrival to limit expansion on NQ's timeline.
In doing so, they limit player expansion to acceptable levels and ensure player conflict and interaction.
Robotics/Battle Droid
in Idea Box
Posted
1. A robot is not an avatar. It's a mobile construct like a ship.
2. WHO gets to classify a construct as anything (robot, fighter, battleship, etc.)
3. How do you know the "intent" of the developers? All we know is that they want to encourage multiplayer ships and gameplay.