Anomaly
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Anomaly
-
-
-
I would love to see tree collision come back - but they shouldn't be the immovable invincible objects they were. An impact with a starter speeder at 200kph should kill both the tree and the speeder. A 4KT hauler should plow through a forest and only loose a bit of speed (and mass).
-
Good points. XS and S cores would ideally have a role in fleet combat, even when L cores are on the field. While I don't think a smaller core should be able to 1 v 1 a larger core, it should be able to harass or cripple the larger ship. It would be cool to see smaller cores getting in close and disrupting engines or weapons.
-
1 hour ago, NQ-Naunet said:
Hi again!
I'd like to put together a list of official tags, and since you're interested in this I would love your input.
Are there any you feel we absolutely need? (A special "NQ Dev" tag to assist you in finding their responses is on the list.)
Good to hear from you again. Hopefully we will see a number of people contributing to create a robust list.
I think a list of tags could allow for combinations to further narrow down a search. For starters: PVP, Construction, Mining, Industry, Market, Vehicles, Planets, Space, Tools, Weapons.
Combine PVP with planets to look for planetary PVP ,construction with planets for planet side base building or vehicles with construction to talk ship building.
-
You are trying to reinvent shorthand that is not in need of reinventing.
Every video gamer in the world recognizes that the letters PVP next to a game's description means they can compete against other players. If it is a racing game, you race against other players. If it is a shooting game, you shoot other players.
Games like DU and Eve allow other forms of PVP but things like market competition are rare enough within games that they should be spelled out rather than abbreviated. If you want to specify combat PVP, then its best to say ship vs ship PVP or PVP ground combat. If someone were to tell me a game had combat, I would want to know what I'm fighting against.
-
-
3 minutes ago, NQ-Naunet said:
You raise a great point in favor of keeping the Idea Box.
Being able to discuss ideas at length is often critical for their development.
Do you have any thoughts to help revitalize the Idea Box, here? Anything missing that you'd like to see included in a future iteration?As far as forum features go, a standard set of tags or a clickable list of the most common tags would be a handy way to sort ideas and prevent reposts.
Quick links to dev responses would be great as well - though for that we need the most important bit - Dev responses
I understand its no fun to read ideas that might be different from or even critical of what you have planned but the biggest reason the idea box has fallen silent is that players do not believe their ideas are being seen.
-
Welcome Naunet
I hope your arrival signals the beginning of better communication between NQ and the players. We need you.
I wanted to mention one area in particular - the Idea Box. Rather than phasing out that section of the forum, it needs to be revived. Upvotes are a nice way to gauge player interest but its a poor format for discussion and not all ideas make it to voting.
An idea I had to make PVP the resource sink the game needs never made the list. Instead a dev proposition for wear and tear as a sink is on the list - and not gaining much traction. It isn't nearly enough IMO.
I made the following post explaining my concerns and within a few posts another player made a suggestion that would fix the wear and tear idea and add a nice twist to combat on top of that. You don't get that kind of discussion on the voting page.
The devs need to see ideas and opinions coming from the players, even if they are not enthusiastic about it. Players saw the market issues coming. We saw borg cubes coming and we knew the planets would run out of resources much faster than planned. The dev team needs help.
-
The point about borders is a good one. Dual doesn't have nearly enough to prevent them from being locked down should PVP come to the planets. Control of the only source of certain resources and the current 100% loot system is a recipe for PVP stagnation.
The game needs more systems and more features within each system. Asteroids could make up for the small number of planets within each system - especially if they move. I could imagine resource filled rocks starting from the edge of a system and looping around the star. They could even pass through safe zones to allow newer players a chance to clean up what remains.
-
4 hours ago, michaelk said:
They'll likely launch in 2021 as their current "roadmap" indicates. It'll be a catastrophe, but they can't stay in pre-release bleeding subs forever.
This is looking more and more likely. Its sad because the game could still be amazing but they need someone new handling game design - someone who understands why Eve worked or ,at the very least, someone willing to listen to players.
-
17 hours ago, Anopheles said:
One of those two groups has misunderstood what NQ intended for the game.
At this point, I don't place much weight on what NQ intended for the game.
Developers like NQ know of all the great warfare and drama that takes place in lawless space and think they can have that by only replicating lawless space. In reality, high sec and low sec space are just as important to the longevity of Eve. Those areas are where you start and they allow players to slowly take on more risks as they learn the game and become comfortable with its mechanics. They are where defeated organizations go to regroup and prepare to try again. They are were players can go when they just don't feel up to the stress of lawless space for a while.
Lawless space is fun but it is safe space that maintains the player population. NQ cannot assume that population will stay around while player organizations create some kind of order - if they ever do.
-
Fail thread - I see some good ideas here.
Introduce Eve style lawless space without high sec and low sec areas because player organizations will work fine as a substitute.
-
If the safe zone drops without some sort of security step down in place, the game will die, simple as that. That NQ thought people would be willing to risk ships they spent hours crafting in a lawless zone right after they got away from the starter planet is just one more indication of their poor foresight.
The carebears hiding in the safe zone will not play PVP with you if the safe zone goes away, they will quit and not come back. As is, they might eventually get tired of mining and build a PVP ship. You people wishing for free for all PVP are trying to kill your golden goose.
I for one wont be engaging in PVP until I can do so in something more immersive than a cube and for a reason better than boredom.
The best thing for NQ to do at this point is set up an Eve style security gradient that diminishes with distance from the arkship and let future star systems be lawless. Don't whine about advanced ores, they will be mined out by the time this could happen.
-
I'm not sure NQ will see this let alone use it but at least Ill be able to laugh if what they go with is crap.
So what do we want to accomplish with the implementation of shields? At the top of my list is encouraging ship shapes beyond cubes. If we could make fights more fun as well, that would be a nice bonus.
So lets start.
1: Shields are created by projectors with a S-L size range. They vary in size and strength but they cannot overlap and cannot face each other. They act like large flat voxels when connecting to each other.
With just that you can see that more surface area will allow for more shields so bigger core ships have an advantage at last. Also, while the no facing rule means they cannot be stacked, shield emitters can still be at 90 degree angles to each other so we might see more interesting ship shapes.
Now I am already imagining giant mesh cubes with sides like ruffled potato chips so...
2: As a shield takes damage, an increasing amount of that damage is radiated to the voxels beneath it.
If it is placed on a solid surface of voxels, several thick or of a high tier the voxels should last - especially if auto repair is implemented. Placing shields on a mesh 1 voxel thick would mean an early death for your shield emitters and this is important given the next rule.
3: As long as the emitter itself isn't destroyed, the shield it generates will slowly regain HP.
Now the pilots have an even more active role in combat. As some shields take damage, they will need to turn their ships so that fresh emitters are taking more of the damage. Is it worth your gunners losing lock? Is it worth exposing the engines or bridge?
Battles could be less of a slugfest and more of a dance with ships trying hide their injuries while staying on an enemy's damaged side.
I'm sure there are things I have overlooked so please post your own corrections or rules below.
-
3 hours ago, blazemonger said:
I certainly believe the dev team can pull it off, the performance during the recent EXPO pretty much made that point very well.
They have made great progress as far as server performance goes. That only makes it more tragic that they are fumbling game play and balance. The software is brilliant but the design is lacking.
There were market problems on launch that players had been warning them about for months. It took a game balance disaster to make them see there was a problem. Anyone looking at the way radar and weapons work could have predicted the borg cube infestation yet here we are. Their element wear and tear plan isn't going to create nearly enough of a materials sink when planetary pvp launches. Then as we see here, the game has an easily exploited or overly complex rights management system.
The devs have only admitted that one of these was a problem and that was after damage was done. This game could be steered in a good direction if they would listen to their player base a bit. This incident of banning those who brought attention to their mistakes (however extreme the method) has solidified my opinion that NQ are too prideful to take advice. -
And so it begins. Was it worth it NQ? You could have admitted you were wrong and turned this into a fun, memorable beta event. Now anyone looking at this game sees a dev team that cant learn from mistakes tying to build a complex game that will require trial and error.
I've told people this game has the potential to be something huge but now? I've logged in a few times since this went down but I'm just not feeling it anymore. I no longer believe this dev team can pull this off. And no, its not because of this event alone.
- Supermega and carijay766
-
2
-
So its fine for players endure this happening to their bases but the ban hammer drops when it means extra work for the devs? As far as I can tell the players robbing bases only did it to fill their pockets and didn't report anything.
-
Whoever did this is a hero. NQ needed a wake up call.
- Anopheles, CptLoRes, blazemonger and 3 others
-
6
-
-
I like the idea in theory but it needs some boundaries. A few suggestions:
The "road" is a bit wider than 2 max size S cores. Only S or XS size ships can travel on it.
If a ship approaches the road at a shallow angle and a set speed, the ship can merge onto the road in the direction it was going. From there no maneuvering is needed. A ship can exit the road at any time.
Roads stretch between hubs with up to three tiles between them. Maximum of two hubs per tile. A player can only build one hub per tile - on tiles they own or unclaimed tiles.
Permission must be granted to attach to another person's hub. A player who owns a tile on a choke point can try to extort money at the risk of loosing potentially valuable traffic.
I was recently thinking about this in terms of a monorail system. I may suggest it for that purpose but I like a road system as well.
-
The trouble here is that the game does not yet have any means of refreshing resources in place. The safe zone should have less than the outer planets but it should have some. As someone who has done this, I can tell you it takes just a few hours to land a hauler, scan and then empty several tiles of everything but the T1s. We are exhausting planets and moons faster than NQ planned.
Ideally, we will have a long term solution that sees moons and planets reseeded from time to time by meteorites or some sort of geological activity.
In the sort term, NQ should just reset unclaimed tiles or tiles that do not border claimed tiles.
-
@Moosegun I think most people realize this is something that needs to happen but , like myself, thought the full loot was just a work in progress an that NQ would have a better system in place before territory warfare is implemented.
I hope someone from NQ will see this thread and realize that their current plan needs some improvement.
-
@Moosegun Now that's an idea what would solve the issue I'm talking about while cutting folks some slack for misjudging the surface height of Thades.
If PVPers want to leave most of their target in repairable condition, they will have much more difficult time as they will have to pick their shots carefully so as little damage as possible bleeds past the 0% percent mark. In a full blown organization vs organization scrap this would very tough to do.
It would also work with what NQ seems to be planning.
-
@Moosegun There is no problem at all with organizations having power or controlling vast amount of territory. But that isn't what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the power imbalance that will grow with every 100% loot victory - gradual wear and tear or not. To be clear - I was in some large organizations in Eve. I might end up joining one of the winning teams in Dual. It would still suck though. Fun in games like this comes from fights where both sides have a chance to win. As planned, the fights will quickly become one sided and will stay that way.
Overdrive - Burn fuel to top max speed.
in Idea Box
Posted
One of the biggest issues with Dual's PVP is the speed limit that is common to all ships regardless of size and configuration. Acceleration matters but if that pirate gets to 30,000 kph before you are out of range, your hauler is done. If that hauler is out of range by the time you reach max speed, you have no hope of catching up.
Therefore I propose that ships be allowed to burn fuel at a greater than normal rate of consumption to increase their speed past the current 30K limit. When the fuel is cut, speed will begin to return to maximum. I know this suggestion and physics do not get along but a speed limit in space is a bit contrary as well.
Smaller core ships would be able to push farther past maximum speed (because core structural integrity or something) creating a niche for interceptors and smaller core blockade runners. With upcoming changes to weapons and shields hopefully on the horizon, an encounter between pirates and a hauler might not be decided at the outset. The hauler might be able to outrun the big guns but it would still need to swat down interceptors.