Jump to content

Ben Fargo

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ben Fargo

  1. I was thinking there could be some kind of warning in the info box for the construct. It would also be nice if the ghost helped us to know how and why the voxels will be deformed. In this case, I thought the deformation would occur because the part being added both slopes down and tapers inward, while the first example only had the slope. I expected the voxels along the outside edges to deform, since those would be affected by both the slope and the tapering. This means I do not understand why they are deforming, but I would like to have more information to help me learn why they deform the way they do. Maybe there could be some indicator in the ghost to show how each voxel is contoured as the overall shape changes. This should be an option we would need to turn on, since not everyone would want that much information, but for those who really want to understand what is happening to the voxels, it would be very useful.
  2. I like the blue, yellow and red ghosts that were shown in the August dev diary. It will be very helpful to know if there will be some voxel distortion or the intended operation is not permitted, but I was wondering if there will be an alternate indicator for someone who is colorblind and not able to distinguish them.
  3. I consider a good character creator to be an essential part of a good MMO. I want to be able to make a character with the image that I want to present in the game. However, I think having only helmets available was a good choice at this stage of development. This way, our faces can remain hidden until there is time to develop a character creator that gives us a lot of flexibility in choosing our appearance. I prefer this to starting with one that would only allow us to pick from a number of preset faces, and then have people associate that look with our characters.
  4. I would prefer to not have any teleportation, except for the very limited purposes Nyzalter mentioned. I do think there should be elevators and other transportation systems for large areas, but I would like them to be the kind where we build a platform that follows some kind of track or path. That would be much more interesting to build and we would still have the experience of moving from one place to another. I have been in several games where teleportation was introduced as a later feature, which makes it easier to compare the effect it has, and to me it has always diminished my enjoyment of that game. Places which previously seemed very real, which gave me the sensation of actually moving through them, began to feel like little more than menu entries. It was click and do this, click and do that, which was much quicker, but not nearly as much fun. For me, the kind of experiences I have while playing a game are my primary concern. If I am in a huge base, I want it to feel huge. I want it to take a long time to get through it. If it is a busy place, I want to see the crowds, not go through deserted corridors because everyone else is teleporting. Of course, not everyone wants the same thing from a game, but those are my preferences.
  5. I would prefer to not have any teleportation at all. Getting around a large base or ship will be a problem, but I feel having problems to solve is what makes a game interesting. One of the challenges of building any large construct will be designing it to be as convenient as possible. The way it is designed should matter. If a teleporter allows someone to instantly go from one place to another, then where those places are located becomes nearly irrelevant and much of the challenge of designing them is lost.
  6. I would like to compliment the artists who are designing the elements. I thought the early placeholders where good, but when I see the recent designs, I am impressed that they have become even better. In a science fiction setting, it seems easy to make things appear either too mundane or too fantastic, but I feel the artists are getting the balance just right and giving the elements a strong sense of believably. These are obviously very talented people who put a large amount of care into their work and I thank them for their contribution to DU.
  7. Repositioning weapons and engines is a useful purpose I was not thinking of. A ship that did it well could definitely have an advantage, but I do not see that as a problem of automation. It gives a ship more abilities, but it is not replacing work players would otherwise be doing manually.
  8. There are other considerations, but if we focus only on what would make DU a more realistic simulation of a civilization, then I think a certain amount of censorship by the developers would be good. Ideally, what happens in a simulation, should not be affected by what occurs outside of it. For example, a program that simulates weather systems should not produce different results depending on whether it is raining or sunny where the computer it runs on is located. In a civilization simulation, the actions of the people should only be influenced by events in the simulation. In DU, where the people are players in a game, that is not possible. Their actions are influenced not just what happens in the game but also by events in the real world and by their knowledge that they are playing a game. It is not possible to eliminate the knowledge the players have of the world outside the game, but if the developers prohibit content that does not fit the setting, they make it a more accurate simulation. This would be more apparent in a game which had a historical setting. Then if players were allowed to build things that did not yet exist, it would clearly be a poor simulation of that time. Since DU is set in our own future, there are not as many limitations. There would probably be still be some people who knew about anything we are familiar with today and it would be reasonable for them to recreate things from their past. This means most things will not be a problem in DU's setting. However, when anyone makes something in the game just to offend other players, those players will tend to react to it as a real world aggression. Prohibiting such things will let the players focus on events that have meaning in the game and make it a better simulation.
  9. While war is obviously good for players who enjoy fighting, what about those who do not? I happen to be someone who is neither very good at nor very interested in combat. It is something I like to avoid if I can. If I am that kind of person, why am I going to play DU, where there will be a lot of combat? If I prefer designing and building to fighting, why am I planning to be a wanderer on an independent freighter instead of staying in the Arkzone where I could design and build safely? While I do want to avoid fighting, I also want avoiding it to feel like an accomplishment. It would not feel that way if fighting was not possible. However, if my organization can deal with other ones peacefully in a game where attacking each other is common, if we can succeed by being helpful where others use force and intimidation, I will be very happy with what we have achieved. Of course, there is no guarantee that we will be able to do that and I do not think there should be. So, for me at least, war is good for being avoided.
  10. I was watching the June DevDiary again and it made me think of some questions about the brush shapes. We will be able to stretch the cylinder, but will we also be able to change the diameter of it? If we can, will we be able change the diameter of both ends independently, to make a shape that tapers in or out? Similarly, can we change the different dimensions of the sphere to create oval shapes, or must it remain circular? I would like to have these abilities. Cubes can easily be combined to make larger cubes, but that can not be done with curved shapes. Finally, will there be a shape that is a cube with the pyramid corner cut out of it? I am not sure what to call that shape, but it is useful because it can be combined with the pyramid corner to build a sloping wall.
  11. Trade is often beneficial to everyone involved. However, unless they want to limit themselves to tossing goods across the border, it means an organization must allow outsiders into their territory. Some organizations may be reluctant to open their territory to everyone without restriction, so the Blue Moon Crew would like to introduce a concept we call the transient license for trade and transport. We are not talking about a trade organization or either organization becoming a member of the other. The license is simply an agreement between two organizations that allows one to conduct a trade and transport business in territory that belongs to the other. Since this is a transient license, their presence for that business would only be temporary. Both to illustrate our idea and to serve as a first step toward what we hope will become a common practice, the Blue Moon Crew proposes the following agreement to any organization that would like to grant us such a license. Of course, we are willing to consider any modifications to the terms of this agreement that the licensing organization suggests. For now these will only be verbal agreements, but we hope to use the RDMS as much as possible to implement them when it becomes available. Please, contact us if your organization would like to grant the Blue Moon Crew a license. We hope to post a list in the Community Portal of organizations that do. ---Transient License for Trade and Transport--- This is an agreement between the Blue Moon Crew (BMC) and the __________ organization (ORG). The ORG agrees to allow the BMC, their ship and any support vehicles to enter and travel through their territory. The ORG agrees that none of their members will attack any member of the BMC, nor will they damage or steal their property or any goods they are transporting. The ORG agrees to allow the BMC to sell goods and provide transport services to members of the ORG and any other individuals permitted in the ORG's territory. This does not obligate the BMC to provide any specific goods or services. The ORG agrees to allow the BMC to purchase goods or services offered by members of the ORG and any other individuals permitted in the ORG's territory. This does not obligate the ORG to provide any specific goods or services. The ORG agrees to allow the BMC to leave their territory whenever the BMC chooses to. The BMC agrees to remain in those areas of ORG's territory that the ORG designates as accessible and stay out of those areas the ORG designates as restricted. The ORG must inform the BMC of these designations before the BMC enters the ORG's territory. The BMC agrees its members will not attack any members of the ORG or any other individuals the ORG permits in their territory, nor will the BMC members damage or steal their property or any goods they are transporting. The BMC agrees to pay any fees the ORG has established for entering, travelling through or remaining in their territory, for transporting goods in or out of their territory and for buying or selling goods or services within their territory. The ORG must inform the BMC of these fees before the BMC enters the ORG's territory. The BMC agrees to not transport any goods in or out of the ORG's territory that the ORG has forbidden. The ORG must inform the BMC what goods are forbidden before the BMC enters the ORG's territory. The BMC agrees to not buy or sell any goods or services in the ORG's territory that the ORG has forbidden. The ORG must inform the BMC what goods and services are forbidden before the BMC enters the ORG's territory. The BMC agrees to leave the ORG's territory whenever the ORG requests them to. The ORG must allow the BMC to leave peacefully if BMC does so within a reasonable time. The BMC agrees to follow any other regulations the ORG has established for individuals in their territory. The ORG must inform the BMC of these regulations before the BMC enters the ORG's territory. The BMC may benefit from the ORG's efforts to protect their territory while the BMC is in that territory, but the ORG is not obligated to specifically protect the BMC from outsiders, nor will the ORG be responsible for any damage done by individuals who are not members of the ORG to members of the BMC, their property or goods they are transporting while the BMC is in the ORG's territory. The ORG may provide protection services if they choose, but they are not required by this license. The BMC is not required to participate in any efforts to protect the ORG or its territory from any attack. Either BMC or the ORG may end this agreement at any time by informing the other party. If the BMC is in the ORG's territory when the agreement ends, the ORG must allow the BMC to leave peacefully if the BMC does so within a reasonable time. This license is a non-exclusive agreement. Both the BMC and ORG are free to establish similar agreements with any other organizations.
  12. There will be times when the developers will need to change things outside the rules of the game. For example, suppose there was an error in the software that under some unusual conditions caused your entire inventory to disappear. If that happened, I think you would want the developers to check that it was a software error that deleted it and then restore what you lost. To do that they would need access to information ordinary players can not see and they would need to be able to make changes players can not make. There is the possibility that someone who has that ability will abuse it. Companies normally have policies and practices in place to try to prevent that. The ability to make those changes is usually limited to a very small number of people. It is generally not something every developer can do. There are typically approval processes that must be followed before the changes can be made and review processes that must be followed after. So yes, there need to be rules controlling what is change, but they are the rules of the company, not the rules of the game. Trying to build them into the game is impossible, because developers can not predict what errors will occur. If they could predict them, they could prevent them and the software would always work flawlessly, but that is not what happens. They really need the ability to change anything.
  13. Limiting the developers to the same rules the players have would be impossible. They need to create the game and manage it. They need to fix problems, whether they are caused by the software or how the players use it. They simply could not do their job if they were limited that way.
  14. I think other players will make the game feel much more alive than NPC's possibly could. And while DU will extend over a huge space, parts of it will probably be very crowded, so I do not think it will be difficult to find other players to interact with. Introducing aliens would tend to shift the focus of the game away from the players. If the effect they have is too inconsequential to do that, then they probably would not worth the effort it took to develop them. While some people may want them, to me aliens would only detract from the game I want to play.
  15. Personally, I would not want to see any aliens in DU that are portrayed as intelligent enough to have a civilization, whether that civilization is primitive or advanced. I am attracted to DU because the game is about interacting with other players instead of NPC's. The problem with NPC's is they can only react to what the developers foresee players doing. Even with well designed NPC's, I often feel frustrated by how limiting they make the game feel.
  16. The problem in Space Engineers is the way they implemented collision damage. The moving parts keep colliding with each other and when they are damaged enough they explode. DU will not be handling voxel to voxel collisions the same way Space Engineers does, so it should be possible to avoid that problem. I am curious how moving parts could be used to automate anything. They could definitely make a more interesting experience for players, but I do not see how they would actually contribute to anything we would be concerned about automating, like mining, crafting, building or fighting. Moving parts might no increase the strain on the game that much. If it can already handle a large number number of moving constructs, would connecting some of them be worse? It might actually be less of a load, because the movements of the parts relative to each other would be more predictable. Without the in-depth knowledge of how the software works that the developers have, it is difficult so say what will or will not be practical. If moving parts are practical, I really hope they are implemented some time.
  17. The Blue Moon Crew are wanderers, so we do not intend to own any territory, but we would allow these neutral alts on our ship. We consider recording the history of Dual Universe a valuable activity, so we would like to help the DUHS if we can. While it is planned for these historians to have their own ships, there may be situations when they do not and need transportation. If they do and we are going in the right direction, we would like to offer these historians free passage on the Blue Moon.
  18. The building aspect of DU could help organizations last longer than in games without it. I expect many organizations will develop a distinctive style of building and they will almost certainly have unique structures everyone associates with them. Those could give the organizations a stronger sense of identity that enable them to persist. Good leadership would still be as important as ever, but if people have a stronger identification with their organization, they might tend to try to oust bad leaders, instead of forming new organizations. That is, of course, just my speculation.
  19. Funneling consciousness sounds like what switching universes would mean. However, that means the consciousnesses of the people in each universe must be different, even if they are otherwise indistinguishable. If consciousness were the same, there would be nothing to transfer from one universe to another and no need for the resurrection nodes. Since everyone else sees the person reappear that the resurrection node, the node must funnel the consciousness of all the people, not just the one who died,
  20. I assume NQ has a reason for choosing the many worlds explanation for the resurrection nodes, but personally, I like the replicator explanation much better. It fits the same gameplay and it is a much easier concept to grasp. Even though I first read it months ago, I still do not know what "switching universes" is supposed to mean. It seems to imply the node is changing which universe is "real" or "active", but according to the many worlds interpretation, all the worlds are real.
  21. This is a quote from the wiki about jetpacks and building. "Within a building zone, a special jetpack mode can be entered whereby the player has very precise control of their position. Their motion is exact (no drifting), and they can reach all parts of the construct." A player has to place a core to use the building mode for a jetpack and they will be limited by the size of construct that could be built for that core. I think that would generally make it impractical to use the building mode for anything but building. An important thing to consider is that DU or any game can not make a player better at building than they actually are. There are many other things were the player's character could do things the player would not be able to do, so limits need to be put in the game. For example, a character could mine a whole planet at once or travel anywhere in the galaxy in an instant, but allowing that would make the game pointless. Building does not need the same kind of artificial limits. Building depends on how creative the player is, so I do not think there is any reason to make it more difficult. To me, the satisfaction from building is seeing how well I can create something that is hopefully both beautiful and functional. Making the process of building more tedious does not add to that satisfaction.
  22. I agree DU should be designed to avoid isolating designers as much as possible, but I also do not want that to hamper people's ability to design in it. The advantage of designing in DU, instead of separate 3D modeling software, is that it would be immediately apparent if someone tried to design something that was not possible to build. In real life, designing and building tend to be distinct, but in a game like DU, they can blur together, since the methods we use for building in a game are often very much like those we use for designing in real life. Being limited to scaffolding could make building more interesting, but it would just be a frustration when designing, when a person wants to express their ideas as easily as possible. One way of preventing people from always using factories to build constructs would be to have a relatively high set-up cost for loading a new blueprint. That would make it very expensive to use a factory to build a one of a kind construct, while it would still be advantageous to use it to produce a large number from the same blueprint.
  23. I was very happy to see the Building Helper. By giving instant feedback as changes are made, it means designing ships will be very accessible, even though the the propulsion system is complex.
  24. There is a cost to uploading and storing images, so I would not mind a reasonable charge for that. However, I would not like permitting only certain players to upload logos or making the charge so high it discourages people from having even a sensible amount of them.
  25. The most harm a damaged heat sink could do should depend on how the script that runs the reactor is coded. It should be able to either lower the output (partially or completely) if it starts to overheat or let it run normally and possibly explode. That would let the player choose what risk to take.
×
×
  • Create New...