[Persistent Storage Elements]

Scenarios?

 

You build a game and want to display a leaderboad.

 

If the bounty stretch goal isnt met, possibly a bounty kiosk.

[Persistent Storage Elements]

I dont want to argue, but if server side maintenance wipes your data, then it would also wipe your characters.

 

We're not hooking up usb drives or even RAM drives. The strings ARE stored in a db table. They're just presented to the player as an element

 

1Gb of server storage has the capacity to store 1 to 4 MILLION Persistent Storage Elements as described.

[Persistent Storage Elements]

DDoS mitigation is handled by their network code. If that vulnerability exists, then their network engineer isn't up to par. For a proper primer on networking code, see gafferongames.com.

 

I need to review my sources, but I believe LUA can query RDMS and return a list of tags. This wouldn't be any different. LUA would query the element, and it would return a STRING. It would be up to the coder to take that string and do something on the client PC via LUA. Then, if needed, update the string with new data.

 

All scripting client side.

[Persistent Storage Elements]

Of course to discourage abuse, they should be fairly expensive. I think most constructs wouldnt require them.

 

But an upper level scripter could do some interesting things with it

[Persistent Storage Elements]

We know that LUA scripts run on the players PC. But there may be times that a construct would need to retain information between uses by different players. This information would need to be kept on the NQ servers.

 

I would like to suggest:

 

256byte

512byte

1024byte

 

Persistent Storage Elements

 

This would allow builders to save lists of names, or organizations, or any variable for any length of time and make that variable available to anyone who uses the construct.

[Taking loot to the cleaners]

Except that RDMS is the core component that would define possession.  

 

So, if a builder wants to build something and sell it on the market, there would need to be RDMS rights.   If they sold a "Limited Use Blueprint", that would be done under RDMS.

 

So there needs to be some sort of a compromise from the granular element level to the macroscopic "container level"  

[Taking loot to the cleaners]

Yeah,  Don't want to hack 10,000 items in a container, but at this time we don't know the hacking mechanic.   Maybe an inheritance, or area effect.

 

This would be the same issue as having a multi-core ship.  You wouldn't want your pirate hacker to have to go to every core in order to make the ship functional.

[What rules will be implemented into the game?]

#1 Rule - You only "own" what you can successfully defend. 

[Taking loot to the cleaners]

Since RDMS is a core component that defines ownership, I think its going to be on everything.

 

But I agree with the pirates. Thats why hacking will be so important.

 

But even in reality, most thieves take their loot to a fence such as a pawn shop. I see no reason this couldnt happen in game.

 

Either sell your loot to a fence, or pay them a fee to clean it.

 

Look... an industry created!

[Taking loot to the cleaners]

I really like this idea.

 

Or the pirates can sell the loot to the shop at a discount, and have the shop hack the item and resell it for profit.  The pirates can also purchase "clean" items at the shop as well.

 

This creates an entire market for hacking skills.  Excellent idea.

[Construct Mining or drills for ships.]

I need to jump in here.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Then maybe Dual Universe isn't the game you envision.

 

Btw,

 

Im having a heck of a good time debating you guys.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Ridiculing an example provided by NovaQuark, certainly proves your points.

 

And intelligent readers can read that thread for themselves.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Search for a thread on the pythagorean theorem to see who's more mathematically capable.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Instead of reading in a bunch of bullshit,

 

I read:

 

Element emits value

Script filters on value and returns true

DPU executes function (specifically 'fire()' )

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

The radar emits an event enemyAt(11,42,66).

The script filters on enemyAt(x,42,z)

The customizable control unit emits setPower(45) && fire().

 

Looks pretty automated to me.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Naw.. There's a reason I have 3 warnings.

 

Its best I avoid certain people.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Im actively ignoring you and Lethys.

 

 

And you know why. It's not because I can't debate my point with the two of you.

 

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

The "latest" version isn't always the most accurate. Especially when answering a question off the cuff, as in the livestream.

 

It would be nice if NQ could provide some clarification.

 

Hey NQ.. Please consider that a request. Maybe the clarification could be in your April update?

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

I think one of the big differences between our points is how we view the game.

 

Several of you have admittedly a great depth in playing Eve, and view it from that perspective.

 

I'm viewing the game from more of a Minecraft/Starmade perspective. I'm seeing it from what I can build with the base elements and LUA functions.

 

The LUA devblog provides an example of a combat script. Has anyone bothered to look at it and think about the implications?

 

enemyAt(x,y,z)

setPower(45)

fire()

 

If I can plug in multiple elements (which we already know we can) whats to stop me from plugging in multiple weapons?

 

Our conflict here is that JC's quote doesn't exactly line up with the documented LUA script devblog.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Here's a quote from your original post.

 

Overall, the difference seems to be the degree to which we want to force people into playing as a group. Thoughts?

It's quite obvious which keyword we should be focusing on.

 

You want to "force" people to behave a certain way.

 

I don't.

 

As far as what JC said, he also said construct vs construct combat wasnt completely developed, and was subject to change.

 

I'm open to whatever NovaQuark produces.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Your point is based upon some preconceived notion on how things work. How will you respond when the final product doesn't look like your presuppositions?

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Compensation?

 

Poor argument. I could give 10 million DAC in exchange for a single resource.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

This thread is about the pro's and con's of playing multiplayer.

 

However, much like certain political groups you're shouted down, if you express an alternative viewpoint.

[Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?]

Why are you trying to force single players being able to do EVERYTHING on their own?

Giving people the option to play single or multiplayer is "forcing" them.

 

For the reader who is intelligent enough to stay out of this discussion, how does this comment help Zamarus' argument?