Ripper
-
Posts
630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ripper
-
-
I've played several WWII flight sims with multiplayer planes. What I've found is very few people wanted to fill the role of a gunner on B-17s. Everyone wants to be the pilot.
I dont see this changing in DU, unless the player is forced into a role they really dont want to play. If NQ decides to go this direction with the game, they will be fighting human nature.
-
Derek Smart
LOL!
-
Cool!
Can a LUA script create and assign a tag to a player?
-
Bear in mind,
This entire tread boils down to "Should we NERF LUA scripts because of the POSSIBILITY that they won't be balanced?"
It doesn't matter what the construct is. Large ships, multiplayer ships, territory defense, roulette tables, or a Coffee Maker...
I'm coming to the defense of LUA. My concern is to not limit LUA until it has been demonstrated to be too powerful. Otherwise we're responding in Hysteria, Ignorance, and Fear.
From my perspective, this game is interesting from a coding and building perspective. When you talk about limiting LUA, you're making assumptions before all the facts are in, that will directly impact gameplay. We ALL want balanced gameplay.
Just don't start nerfing things before we have an opportunity to test it. Who here has heard of "Interactive Mode" in Star Citizen? Chris Roberts completely screwed up his game and pissed off a TON of backers because of the misperception that a joystick was more effective at flying a ship than a mouse. There are tons of examples where the mouse can be just as effective as the joystick if modeled properly. My point is... Don't start limiting things until they prove to be a problem.
I'm not really interested in PvP, and my ship will most likely not have ANY weapons. (I'd prefer to outrun, outsmart, and outmaneuver you)
-
Secondly, I don't want to play a game that's all about "who has the better code."
I'm pretty sure JC has been very clear that there WILL be a market for constructs built and programmed by players. This means there will be competition between builders for "who has the better code".
And I'm sure that you Vorengard, would be willing to purchase the new "Ripper Technologies LUA Superturret Mark I", if it gives you a leg up on your competition.
Otherwise...
Every player would be expected to build their own ships and constructs. The market would ONLY exist to get rid of the scrap and junk you weren't interested in. This is definitely NOT what has been described by JC and the dev blogs.
-
Please site a quote of me advocating "AI controlled ships".
And if this game isn't going to be all things to YOU... Are you going to rage quit?
I've explained multiple times in this thread why multiplayer ships will be more effective than ANY single player ship. Even if its a death star.
Yet some of you are terrified of LUA coders...
-
So...
You'd alienate everyone that wants to play as a lone wolf?
"Fleet of robot ships" that's a GIGANTIC leap from customization of controls. My understanding is the LUA scripts run on the players local PC, and the player can only run one at a time. I doubt ONE LUA script could control a "Fleet of Killer AI Ships".
Then you have people saying "AI has been banned in the lore". I'd respond banned on EARTH, 10,000 years ago.
It seems to me, that ANY LUA script could be labled "AI", "Nazi", "Fascist", "Racist", or any other derogatory term in order to ban it. It's what happens EVERY DAY in govenment and politics.
All this does is force one persons opinion and beliefs upon another person.
How about we allow NovaQuark to provide the elements and tools. And allow the players to use those elements and tools however they want to build whatever they want.
Isn't this JC's vision?
MMO != PVP gank fest
-
-
I think the BIGGEST advantage to multiplayer ships is that you can have multiple LUA scripts running simultaneously. All on multiple players client PCs.
You can attempt the same thing with one script, but your PC has limited resources to execute the function/loop. Multiplayer ships will be running LUA in parallel, and will be naturally faster.
Im assuming we can only run one script at a time.
-
If a script can control two thrusters or two turrets, why couldnt it control one thruster and one turret?
-
There hasnt been any details on LUA "nerfed" weapons. You cant confirm the existence of a nerf at this time and whether the nerf is "less damage" vs decreased accuracy.
All we know is that it will be less effective.
Make way for my spinal mounted super railgun attached to my phalic shaped ship.
You're gonna see all sorts of builds. And I would say "Biggest gun on the smallest ship" is a valid strategy.
-
Yeah!
Easy Peasy!
-
A lone wolf will never be able to beat a multi-crew for many reasons:
- each turret needs a player (GDC meetup video)
- LUA scripted turrets/things have reduced (~60%? Or something) efficiency
- more crew means you can do stuff simultaneously
- solo players should be able to fly small vessels best but should fail in trying to fly a battleship
It's JC's game, but I believe the GDC meetup quote was spoken off the cuff, and not completely thought through. Yeah, I know... That sounds pretty arrogant. From my understanding of the devblogs, that quote wouldn't mesh with elements, their DPUs, and LUA scripting. Given the interaction described in the devblogs, I could envision an LUA script controlling two turrets, just like a script could control two thrusters.
Now the efficacy, of LUA over an actual person isn't in doubt. A person has much more control. But I also don't believe there needs to be an LUA "nerf". At least not until testing proves that its overpowered.
More crew DOES mean you can do more stuff simultaneously. So, the Lone Wolf is most definitely at a disadvantage.
In my opinion, a player should be able to attempt to build a one man ship as big as they want. If they can pull off a one man battleship (not likely), then go for it.
-
Im of the opposite opinion.
If I can script it, I should be able to fly it. Yeah... maybe not as effectively as a multi-player ship.
-
These are some great and thought provoking ideas.
No matter what is provided to the player, Pirates are bound to find ways to exploit certain aspects of the game.
-
Thing is.. Why would I be stupid enough to EVER go directly from point A to point B?
And 5 million kilometers?
Volume of a sphere = 4/3(Pi * R^3)
Volume = 4/3 (Pi * 5,000,000^3)
VOLUME = 5.23 * 10^20 cubic KILOMETERS!!!
Thats a heck of a lot of space to cover with some energy field of some sort. Imagine the size ot the Reactor that would be need to power the thing. You're essentially creating a gravity well equivalent to that of a planet.
And I would think that technology will eventually exist to make the trek from the center of the star system to its Kuiper belt in an hour.
But yeah, there will probably be some down time.
My point is the Destination is the bottle neck. A pirate should hang out on the outskirts of a planet's gravity well, and gank people before they get close to any help.
And the opposite is true, they shouldnt be able to FTL until outside of the planets gravity well. Let them make it far enough into the gravity well, that they shouldnt be able to escape, then gank them.
-
Once again. SCALE!
So you think you can place a warp interdiction bubble / mini black hole in a space lane?
Ok.... Go for it.
I'll FTL travel at a 90 degree angle for THREE SECONDS and miss your bubble by ONE MILLION KILOMETERS. (Simple dog leg maneuver hardly an inconvenience at 3 seconds)
I would be extremely unlucky to hit your bubble. Unless you think you can extend the radius of your bubble by a MILLION KILOMETRES in all directions.
-
Scale is an issue.
If it takes less than a second to move 300,000km then imagine the size a warp bubble would need to be to be effective.
We're talking about billions of cubic meters.
-
A lightsecond is 300,000km.
Traveling at multiples of C increases that distance by said multiple.
If you're subluminal, and IF you were able to detect the an FTL ship, by the time you could react, they would already be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of kilometers away.
Now take into account what JC said about player coordinates updating less frequently the farther away you are, and you can see that any updated coordinate would be WAY too old to be of any use.
-
It would be easy to argue here.
But since nobody knows how long range sensors work, or FTL will be implemented, this is all speculation.
I can say in order for FTL to be worth it the expected speeds will be multiples of C. That, coupled with what JC has indicated regarding player coordinate updates, I can deduce that its not likely to happen.
At least not anytime soon.
-
Im the skeptic with multiplayer ships.
Sure, you could get 5-6 players to jump in a ship, but I dont believe you will find huge ships with hundreds of players. There are too many egos involved, and nobody wants to fill my open "Janitor" position.
Btw... "Cleanup in men's room 1"
-
I see disengagement as simple as being able to outrun the other player.
Is your ship built to be faster than the other guys?
Have you disabled their systems via damage, jammimg or hacking?
If you're slower than them, you're toast. No additional functionality is needed.
I see no reason to have FTL interdiction.
-
Hey Everyone,
I wanted to post that there's a new Space Sim Kickstarter.
Starfighter, Inc.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/impellerstudios/starfighter-inc-0/
I don't believe posting other kickstarters is against the rules, but if they are feel free to remove the thread.
-
Scripts and constructs will be downloaded when you reach a yet to be determined and balanced range. It doesn't matter whether they activate via proximity or not. They all download to your client, because they are all physically represented within the game.
JC has indicated that some contructs may activate by proximity based upon a yet to be determined and balanced range.
No information has been provided on sensors or ranges.
Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?
in General Discussions
Posted
There's a lot to my analogy that went over your heads.
How did these flight sims man those B-17s?
They created "auto-gunners", that would work when people weren't manning those guns. This allowed for single player B-17s AND multiplayer B-17s.
Imagine that...
Both playing styles.. And YES! Multiplayer B-17s were more effective than single player.
The different here is that I dont want to force people into a specific playing style, while other people here do.