mrjacobean
-
Posts
452 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mrjacobean
-
-
Yes, sorry for the confusion, I used voxels and meters interchangeably. I meant 6.1m by 6.1m by 6.1m. Okay, probably enough to do some useful stuff, but I hope NQ gives starting players enough cash to buy themselves a ticket off-world.
You are still off by two orders of magnitude though. Players start with a bit of cash, and there are market bots at the arkship that are used to keep the economy afloat (maintain the credit-to-player ratio). You should be able to afford a ticket off-world.
-
Also, your org may have 300 million people in it, but they may be all from the Magical Stupid-Units-Using-Land Ruled By An Orange who are within 4 hours in terms of timezone of each other. Timezone is an issue...
Which is why an org made of people from across the globe will be easier to defend than one from one county only.
-
Why you heff to tell them that. I would've made millions
Because then I will make millions selling mine at what they assume to be reduced price
-
It means planets CAN have orbital defenses. How costly that may be, it's up for debate.
I wonder what the maximum possible effective range on a weapon is. I bet someone will attempt to create a security net around an entire planetoid (probably a moon) to prevent anyone else from getting through (and they will most likely learn that it does not work).
-
Yeah, many players, like myself, aren't too excited to be mining all day. I'll be entering the game with some extra DACs so, provided I can sell some early on, I'll have plenty of quanta to buy what I need from both players and bots.
I also expect the density of standard ores will be higher than 1%.
I would not recommend 'selling' DACs early on, since the price will be WILD. If you find them at a really low price, buy them (their value only increases with time/player count)
-
Uhm. No, why would it? There would be more veins. And please do tell me how skills will affect mining, since you seem to know more than me there.
Oh and it would be better if you'd stayed in one unit and not change from km^3 to voxels.
NQ knows about this "problem", really can't see it though, and I'm sure they did their math homework there
I love how this ore debate is happening on two threads at the same time...
Yeah, each of his 'voxels' is actually a cube 100m in length. Did the maths myself, remembering that 1km^3 is 1,000,000,000m^3.
-
-
I think the current plan (last I heard) was that someone had to own a certain amount of the available TUs on the planet to have 'control' of the space around it (don't know how far that extends). This is also the same with renaming planets.
-
Obviously, ore is going to run out fairly quick assuming people actually play this game.
Assuming everyone will mine for days on the same planet. This flat up wont happen, since there are people who will just wait and kill miners, and those who will be paid to protect said miners. Also keep in mind that wood, dirt and stone are probably going to be building materials, or at least sell-able to the bots at spawn for cash. Since your estimates don't account for nearly as many variables as it should, don't take them as gospel.
Something more accurate is to assume only half of the players (which still might be an overestimate) will be (effective) miners to begin with, so doubling your numbers gives us about 0.28-0.46km^3 of ore per person, which you didn't convert properly or didn't use metric units and went for voxels (because that makes sense?). Either way, thats a cube with dimensions between 654m and 772m. Now, we could change the ore density to something a bit higher, but we don't have any figures to go on, so we'll keep your numbers for now. But as you can see, this ore will last a while, because the number of miners on Alioth will reduce over time (increasing the amount of ore per miner) and not many people would be willing to mine out a 654x654x654m cube of ore, let alone that amount spread out across the planet.
-
Player count matters because you will eventually hit a point where the amount of players just becomes noise and adds no net value. if its no 200k its 500k or 1 million. Eventually you will hit a point where having a certain amount of players in a 20km safe zone to start the game will just look and feel like a complete mess.
You do realise that a city with that amount of players is less than the 20KM safe zone in surface area, yes? Also remember that there are timezones, so not everyone will spawn in at once. It is going to be chaos to begin with, but it would be the same when these hundreds of thousands of people have just woken up after they have left their planet of birth.
Lets say the servers can handle all the load no problem. You still have the issue of forcing huge player density on players computers. Some computers may have trouble handling this, in fact most will. Once again if there is a purpose to it like some giant fight, people can lower settings to compensate or w/e but forcing this on everyone all the time on the start planet safe zone for no reason is just a bad way to handle the situation.
Only a few 'chunks' radius will be rendered on the client, so the more people/activity nearby, the lower your view distance (due to smaller chunks)
Remember that the devs can learn from alpha/beta world start, so they will have accurate models for how to approach the problem.
-
This would split the playerbase and only effect the players at launch (both bad things in an MMO). Imagine the frustration on finding that you and your friend have started on different planets when you were going to work from the start. In the long run it wouldn't achieve much either. There are already factions in the game (see the top 20-ish orgs). Remember it would also take several months in order to have common transport between neighboring systems (the few months to get the stargate expansion and then a few more months to build and deploy enough of them).
-
NQ SHOULD NOT CATER TO YOUR SOLO PLAYER, RP, PVP-AVOIDING DEMOGRAPHIC.
... Further than they already have over everyone else. You already have a safezone where you can avoid combat, you already have the depth of space to solo-roam around (if you can survive) and there are many opportunities to RP (in fact, you can RP all the time).
The open bounty system does the same function as the one that Lynkx suggested, but instead of only being a select group of players and funded from the hunters themselves (via the tax, which would not work anyway), anyone can be the target and its from your own money: the way it should be. You want that PKer to get hurt back, you are going to need to pay for it. The bounty system is what is supposed to be the deterrent against pirates, griefers and scammers, but it won't be if it only targets those who kill.
-
Inside a MMO morality can be simple with a Player rate system (i think i will open a new topic about that)
but for short answer, if you go thr and kill a random peaceful miner or other random PC that was living his life, you got a PK status, if you have PK status enough you are a criminal..... and other ppl (maybe the one you killed or his friends) or any Org can put a prize on your head, using the bounty system. if you have a very high PK score, the system open a bounty on you automatically, thats make the bounty system aways running even if no player goes there pay for no one's head.
Here is the thing though, aren't players supposed to place bounties on PKers? If you managed to scan/identify who that PKer is before death, you should get the ability to put a bounty on them. What if the PKer in question is actually a very good commando, operating behind enemy lines without being detected? Wouldn't they just get a massive automated bounty on them, making it easier to track? Also, there is no overarching law in the game which applies to everyone, so they can only be a criminal when looked at from a player/org perspective (at which point, they put a bounty on them).
In addition, I feel that since the hunter has already wasted time if they fail the contract, they shouldn't then lose money. A monetary loss combined with deadlines and the random assignment of contracts means that you might be unlucky enough that your target is piloting one of the most feared ships in the galaxy and since it would take too long to work your way up into being a crew member of that ship and getting close enough to the target to kill them, its just a failed contract when you identify who your target is. What they should lose is hunter reputation (the thing that is used to determine what bounty you would be assigned) which they would have to build back up.
-
Bu i think there must be a tax, payed at moment you accept the contract ... Like you choose to accept a contract for $Un 10.000 you must pay 10% of it, as a tax to subscribe on this hunt.... All other hunters that accept this contract must pay the same, (and you must be informed by the system how much hunters are already chasing this target).
Who does the tax go to? Wouldn't this remove money from the economy if it goes down a drain (since we have a fixed-ish amount of money in the economy)?
Surely you don't lose a contract unless a target is terminated or you abandon it. Also having the number of other hunters hidden would make it so that the hunters are cautious about how leisurely they would hunt their target.
Once any hunter gets the target, all other hunters automatically receive a message informing that this hunt is over and he loses the 10% he payed before. the same occurs if he pass to long time after the target, when the time is up, consider that the criminal has scaped and the hunters are automatically removed from this contract and he doesn't get refund of that 10% he has payed before.
But the hunters already lose out by not getting the bounty, meaning it was a waste of time. Why would you take more from them?! There is no penalty from having more hunters, so why penalise having more of them?
I believe that this would drastically reduce the amount of 'official' bounty hunters in game and therefore make the official bounty system useless, people would just do it through unofficial channels which would have no guidelines or enforcement.
-
What if the target wants to pay off the bounty? Yeah they could just ask, pay the bounty amount to the contractor and then hope they pull the bounty down, but this could be used to scam people out of their money (put a bounty on them, get them to pay up, don't take the bounty down). You could place a bounty on them, but they already have your money.
I would suggest an 'official' method. The target puts forward money to the contractor (held in escrow) inside a request, where the contractor can then either accept (taking the money and the bounty being pulled down automatically) or deny (in which the money goes back to the target). If no option is chosen in a set time-frame or the target is killed, the money is automatically returned to the target.
However, this then gives us the problem of what happens to the bounty hunter if the contract is terminated. Do they get a small portion of the money, or are they left with nothing?
-
What about skill-based buffs that don't affect speed of advancement, but just add temporary modifiers (slightly increased engineering skill while equipped, but otherwise natural skill is unaffected)?
It would technically be the same for the level/specialisation of tool your using. Some tools may increase efficiency, others may decrease crafting time. Try to make a crafting profession as deep as a combat profession. Have not just skill level but factors like material quality, crafting precision, build speed and power drain all a part of things to consider when crafting.
For example, when creating a warp drive component, you could either make as many as possible at an average quality (faster to build and less power drain when building) or focus on making a few/one precisely (which will take longer and consume more power to make). Each of these circumstances would be better with specialist tools built for the task, and these tools would include workstations, suits, specialist nanoformers, etc., which are also made of components which themselves could be built to give variable bonuses.
- Lethys and Saul Retav
-
2
-
Woo, it made it into the Newsletter today!
Great success!
-
I prefer building things in a survival setting, makes everything feel more purposeful...
-
About the last part.
After disabling one ship you would figure it out. So that's kinda a stupid point
I would say it would take a few tries to narrow down what the weak spot of that ship design is (and thats when you are actively trying to find it. It would take too long with trial and error to get an effective set of weak points for each objective (disable engines, command, gunners, hangar, etc.), hence the overall point of not having the ship magically turn into a loot box when it is destroyed so that people can board, capture and reverse engineer the ship to both find out how to build it and how to destroy it.
-
P.S. : You can't stabilise a fuel tank
Depends on the fuel being contained. I'm pretty sure an antimatter fuel tank would do some very nasty stuff if containment failed due to low power...
-
Nothing official, but my guess is, if you blow the core you blow the build grid and RDMS ownership.
So most likely the entire construct is lost in a spectacular explosion with a voxel/element loot drop from the list of vowels and elements that comprised the construct.
Surely what remains of the construct is then just left there, floating with no acceleration due to thrust? Also, as said above, CPU's don't explode. A necessary step into capturing an enemy vessel is replacing their ship cores, so having the core explode or vaporise the entire ship into a loot box would be counter productive (not to mention it gets rid of the salvaging gameplay).
I imagine that anything that could explode, like fuel tanks, that are also stabilised (directly or indirectly) by computing power would be prone to exploding as a downside to something better (in the case of the fuel tank, storing antimatter).
-
It seems so, it is just bad gameplay as you can just focus fire the core and win, even if the ship has only minimal damage.
If you take out the ship's central computer, it can't do anything. It can't stabilise the reactor so that goes offline. You could have multiple ship cores so that you cant be focus fired down, but people need to know where the core is in order to focus fire (and they usually don't).
-
I had kinda assumed you would slowly lose speed despite. To stop ships from drifting into infinity when you logoff.
Just have ships stop accelerating due to thrust, and they will enter an orbit around the nearest body (or be at zero, depending on how the sun is done)
-
I got the perfect song https://goo.gl/hxQmlr
God damn it
Planets running out of resources?
in General Discussions
Posted
I believe you are over-stating things. Whilst this design decision can be exploited, it is not by any means all bad. First off, there needs to be a unique email address for each account. Second, NQ could restrict the amount of accounts registered from one household each [insert period of time]. Third, the amount of money given at the start should be enough to get you a cheap ride to somewhere nearby, but not enough to get you off planet (you would have to sell something or do a contract in order to do so). It should also be enough that you can start playing with the market (albeit in the low margin section) from the get-go.