Anopheles
-
Posts
715 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Anopheles
-
-
3 hours ago, Underhook said:
25kl. That's nothing .... Just kidding, that's a lot of weight
I feel sorry for newer players having to shuffle 3 or 4kl a trip in a small core ship, especially if they didn't grab a tile close to a market. I'm lucky enough to be only 20 km from M6 and it's still a grind.
-
Surprisingly not (although I have spare elements to sell if it gets tight). I still have to spend 3 or 4 sessions a week getting a months worth of joy time by selling ore, more if I total a ship.
Luckily I retooled a ship to take 25kl of weight, so it's come down.
-
Prioritising non players over existing and active players is madness and preserving materials and killing a gameplay loop (salvaging) on the off chance non players might be disadvantaged is antithetical to "a living dynamic universe".
If I leave for a year in a dynamic universe I should expect to be rolled over.
And who knew "a million players in one shard" would include large numbers of not-players?
-
19 minutes ago, Belorion said:
The PVP zone is simply not intended for solo players. Find an organization, then you can mine there as well.
Well...it's because the size of the game area is too small. In larger games, there's more space (aha!) to hide or get lucky in. In DU's already tiny playing area, the asteroids are in one small part of it and there aren't enough to get lost in.
- Aaron Cain and OrionSteed
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:
What does the word mean though? PVE already means destroying NPC ships. I can't be the only one who's never heard that term before
I
Ah, it means hunting rats in the real world with dogs or .22 rifles.. In EVE rats were npcs ships that turned up in asteroid mining fields every so often to keep miners from afk mining.
-
Only with laughter.
-
5 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:
ok, what's ratting?
Destroying NPC ships.
-
57 minutes ago, Physics said:
Be carful what you wish for because that logic suggests the HQ tile system should be removed completely. Soon as you decide / need to take a break you fall in to the former player category.
As it should be. If the game is to be a representation of a dynamic universe, things need to be able to change. If I fail to play, the world should roll over me.
and the hq system is fine - if confined to actually playing players.
-
13 hours ago, Physics said:
Apologies if I come across harsh but sometimes I get annoyed also.
Yes NQ makes an Annual roadmap but throughout the year stuff happens, QA blows devs timelines out the window, feedback comes in and plans change. It will be an extreme rarity a plan follows through so such is life.
People are crying about NQ listening to feedback etc.
I hate to break it down to facts but this topic is based on NQ making a change after listening to feedback from players defending people who are on their breaks away from the game not mattering if their reason for the break is anything from being burned out to IRL circumstances such as military deployment. These players maybe out the communication loop and unable to secure their own time and efforts they had put in to the game for the day they decide to return.
Now the OP disagrees with this change maybe because of a personal grudge with a structure near his base on Alioth what is absolutely fine and more than welcome to his views and opinions.
However sadly rather than trying to give feedback and make his case on why NQ is making a wrong decision in attempting to save some of the inactive player personal assets he decided to go down the protest route. Making a post firstly stating all his in-game work in an attempt to make his departure look as impactful as possible and then saying he’s leaving and spinning up some trust speech to greater the impact of a smaller base issue. He disagreed with a decision and is throwing his toys out.
Prioritising the needs of non/ex players over players is not good and shouldn't be done. This is not complicated thinking.
-
The number of players claim may have been right - as long as no one did anything.
-
I think unsubbed hqs eventually lapse, but it's still a horrible, top down solution that puts non/former-players of the game ahead of actually playing players
-
7 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:
Nope. You wanted an easy (defenseless) kill to loot. NQ said No, now you are frustrated.
it's a normal reaction.
But you should encourage NQ to add actual fun stuff to do in the game.
Except no. I wanted the responsibility put in the player in a, gosh, player run game. Play the game (for ex subs), pay insurance, or a parking fee or think about where you are landing your construct. Don't put awkward top down restrictions on free play.
-
DU was sold as a player run simulation where you could work as anything from a CEO of s megacorp right down to a space bum or security guard in a multisystem universe.
In truth, after many clawbacks and shrinkings of ambition we're stuck in one small system and what else?
We have taxes imposed in us from the Devs, but we can't set taxes on our own hexes.
The Devs are auto HQing tiles from above because non players who don't understand "dynamic universe" might not want to build some constructs again if they ever come back.
Top down and huge safe zones implemented for people who didn't understand that "a dynamic universe with PvP" game might be dynamic and have PvP in it.
The refusal of NQ to allow any sort of player implemented rules or allow players to take responsibility for their own safety or the safety of their constructs mean the game is nothing more than Minecraft with less sense of existential dread (and much less to do).
-
6 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Maybe they can reactivate random spanning of abandoned ships, so this mechanic can exist without any dependence from player's assets.
And technically, if some player has to lose his ship for you to get it, its PvPNo risk gameplay is not gameplay. The auto HQ'ng nonsense is taking responsibility away from players to protect their own stuff in a game that was sold as a player run experience.
Things like this, and top down imposed tax rates and making salvaging of long abandoned constructs near impossible is antithetical to "player run".
-
8 minutes ago, Anopheles said:
Replied to wrong person. I blame my partner's lack of an inner monologue.
-
7 hours ago, NQ-Pann said:
Following last Tuesday's maintenance, we monitored the effect of territory upkeep as it was applied for the first time to the live server. Our findings were that the culmination of all the upkeep caused an issue in a specific subsystem. To prevent this from happening again, we have staggered territory upkeep. This means that the upkeep period this week for all territories will be extended by up to three days.
For example, if your territory tax was originally scheduled to be due on Tuesday, it could now be due on Friday.
Following up on the release note regarding that territories without assigned headquarters, we want to clarify it in response to players’ questions. Auto-assignment is done as follows for each player who had 0 headquarters assigned. For each territory they own, starting with the highest number of static constructs owned by that player on that territory, we set the territory to be flagged as headquarters, with up to a maximum of five territories per player. This only applies to player-owned territories; organization-owned territories cannot become headquarters and do not receive that benefit.
Please note that our data indicates that even with auto-assigned HQs, there will still be plenty of abandoned territories opening up for claiming and requisitioning. While a player-owned territory flagged as HQ still owes taxes and will go into an offline state if taxes are not paid, meaning that mining units and factories will not be operational, it will not go into an abandoned state that would make it vulnerable to claiming and requisitioning by another player.
For more information about Territory Upkeep, see this devblog.
This is the place for questions and comments!You managed to make salvaging as a valid pve experience even more unlikely. Well done. Again.
Why are Yiu making it impossible to salvage long, and even medium long, abandoned constructs impossible.
-
This thread is full of epically bad takes.
Tall structures. Take responsibility for yourself. Take notes, warn others. Asking Nq to set artificial limits is just awful. As bad as them setting arbitrary taxes which you people are also against.
Salvaging could be a fun pve experience but you guys also want stupid artificial and top down restrictions on salvaging for the sake of the microscopic amount of players who can't get in for two weeks plus. Instead, ask for proactive measures like parking fees for tiles or an insurance payment that prevents salvaging (still top down, yes, but with the possibility of being ported over to players at some time). Neither of these are better than taking responsibility for where you leave your damn ships.
-
12 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:
This is a simplification of the parking fee solution. And while this version would solve the specific problem with district spam, I still think they should implement a more complete parking fee system instead. And the reason for that is that we need a system that not not only works for districts, but for player tiles also.
You should also be able to levy parking fees (oh let's be nice and give a 48hr window after issuing to remove Constructs) on your own hex. Maybe even ley players compete with market parking for an income stream.
After 48 hrs, you own the construct on your hex. This is an easy alternative to players insuring their ships against salvaging
-
I have. I agree. NQ wants a "player controlled" space but doesn't allow players to much affect said space. Even terraforming on any kind of large scale is frowned upon because of out game costs.
- sHuRuLuNi and Sabretooth
-
2
-
On 12/5/2021 at 6:34 PM, Zeddrick said:
OK, so moving on collision would only apply to ships not in contact with the ground.
Although 'district 6 bowling' would be a hilarious way to keep it clean of junk.Actually sweeping the constructs off a market's forecourts at midnight every 48 hours is a beautifully simple and elegant solution, if paired with a naturalistic scavenging system. Jawa economics?
-
What is with space games and grind as gameplay? Elite Dangerous is just as bad and even Eve has only about four game loops of various grindiness.
I suppose it's the natural consequence of having engineers create a story, which works as well as a bunch of artists building a practical engine.
The writing in the wall came way back when they decided to limit the game to one solar system killing, at a stroke, any exploration and discovery gameplay ("we've hidden a...oh you found it already?)
And it's bad for newbies AND older players who spent money on doing what they enjoyed (which in DU is building things). I ddn't play to make money.
So, I can make the money to keep my modest four hex area active if I sacrifice one session (of my spotty amount of game sessions) a week hauling ore to the market and checking in my mu's.
This isn't play, it's work. Every time I log on, the urge to play something quicker rewarding gets stronger.
Improvements?
More more planets, with more geography
allow planet features to be named by whoever holds the most hexes on it
allow free for all scavenging on unprotected ships (and allow protection)
Build NPC cities run by npcs to begin with, replacing them with players with enough vicious ambition to do it and hold onto it
Pay (variable) taxes to those cities that control your hex
Allow PC cities to set their own tax
Allow independent hexes (with a downside because choices)
Rename everything with actual names for the sake of immersion.
Allow players to hold the reins more and not just be fleas on the horse
---
Just off the top of my head. Nothing above is difficult to implement.
-
My MUs went from 100% to 88% in three days. That's not having to nanny every day.
-
Manning your mining units is tedious... until you max out your talents. I didn't log in for three days and I only lost 12% off my totals. I was surprised. I understand I was lucky enough to come back with enough points though and it will suck to be a new player or even a player who wants to keep 1 tile for industry/crafting and not have to focus on mining.
-
Why I'm Leaving DU...
in General Discussions
Posted
It's a terrible decision, favouring not actually playing players over actually playing players. For the fourth and hopefully final time, in a dynamic universe you should expect to be rolled over if you don't play. Sure some may not come back, but there's no guarantee they would anyway even with this artificial and top down intervention in a "player run" game.
There are also the knock on effects like excluding new players from travelling to market to auto sell because new tiles are not freeing up.