mrjacobean

This is less debating and more closed minded arguing.

Might not be what he wants, but thats what it will turn into...

Change bullshit for MATHS, the stuff games are calculated in. If you do not read that, then any reply you make is of little merit game dev wise, since you are going up against those who use it. Game DESIGN however, now thats a different story...

If you mean by that 'win', then you misunderstand the point of this. If you want an impartial judge, know that there are none in the universe. Everyone has preferences, everyone has their preferred politics, you can only debate if you are open to changing your mind, else this just gets messy

Well, you could, but not on the scale where this argument happens.

Because the never should. The time between that quote and the devblog is large enough to warrant, or even force, there to be a difference. As always, use the latest data, but keep in mind the past design ideas for later.

No need to deal in absolutes here (you Sith), because it could be different from what you envision it

I will build a wall around a planet and make... erm... 'Them' pay for it

There don't need to be incentives. This is what is called 'the Meta'. Whatever fleet loadout is better for a certain job is what people will choose. An effective solo crewed combat ship should only be as big as a corvette, since a bigger ship would be less effective (due to less scripts being able to be run) and easily boarded. For example, if there is a capital ships thats very good against other capital ships, it wouldn't have decent point defence. To counter it, you could build bombers to overrun its point defence and tear it apart. To counter that, you could build a capital ship focused on point defence that would have countermeasures against their bombs and be able to utterly destroy any strikefighter that gets in range. To counter this new capital ship, just use the old one since it is very good at destroying other capital ships. The same goes for solo player capital ships. Yes, they would destroy other fleets with similar man power, but they would not hold up against boarders. So, you build up a squadron of shuttles to board and capture their ships one by one. Since they would be losing expensive ships very easily, the solo ships would have to rethink. They could either place interior turrets that would use up power or have multi crew ships without needing the retrofit.

I do now. I don't know what came over me, I usually hate RNG due to the amount of times I have had to farm something on Warframe. And shooting on XCOM.

Shouldn't they be told this by the victim or whoever was with them? Having it automated would not be good for complex/long term espionage.

I would say that there is a chance that the implant will fail rather than a fixed amount. The fail chance starts at zero and increases for every action. Some skill training could decrease the starting value or reduce the chance increase per action. This would lead to more of a risk and reward game, where you could try to push your luck doing more complex espionage. Also, it should only count for RDMS systems that you don't have access to (i.e. you don't increase chance of detection by activating something your own implant would have access to, such as a door or a sniper rifle).

You're not the only one

I would get it ASAP, but I use a desktop Instead, I need a tower skin... which is more expensive.

Since your body is still there when you 'die' (you don't really, but a body is left behind), people would be able to loot your implant (you know, the thing used to define to RDMS who you are and what you 'know' skills wise). With this looted implant, you could retrieve the bit that broadcasts your signature, along with RDMS data. A quick reverse engineer later would allow you to have (maybe temporarily) the ability to impersonate the implant's last owner (i.e. the guy you salvaged it from), at least from a computer's perspective. How the impersonation would be limited is that it would only last for a limited amount of time once activated, due to the degrading remnants of the implant. It would also not change your appearance, so other people would recognise you as an impostor (unless you have that field covered). It would also not change your DNA, so a DNA test (like at a high security bank) would not work, instantly throwing up red flags whilst that guard next to you pulls out his gun on you (this is, unless you can fool that too, Mr Bond). Are you Yay or Nay? Did I miss anything? Any other suggestions? Well then, get to it!

Not everyone is a game designer. It requires seeing the big picture, seeing how one change affects everything else. However, I think he was referring to the refined implant rather than the freshly looted one Just remember that the implant holds the rights of the person it belonged to, not just a get out of jail free card. I'll create a new thread for this so that things can get back on topic.

A: "Simple! Just make alts to inflate your numbers."

The thing is, they would need to kill their leader without being associated with the act, otherwise they will be on the sharp end of a "throw them out the airlock" command. Another limitation (read: feature) is that it would only work temporarily, or that the rights given to them won't update anymore.

Instead of skill boosts, maybe the ability to impersonate them (since you have their implant). RDMS would see you as what it sees the recently deceased.

Advertisements EVERYWHERE. On facebook, on twitter, on youtube, EVERYWHERE.

What about the reality where Hitler cured cancer? The answer is: don't think about it. Other than that, it also means that every fictional universe/multiverse also exists, because parallel universes can have different laws of physics (see vacuum decay and its ability to change the laws of physics), which includes every super hero universe, every story and that one dream you had where you were a katana wielding sci-fi hacker.

Not against a swarm of fighters its not, even when the fighter fleet is half the cost of the battleship

From a lore perspective, the LUA scripting is limited as to not recreate AI that can kill us. It makes no sense for someone to create an automated battleship when combat automation is prohibited by the society. Maybe you could link multiple turrets together so that they can all be fired by one person, but can only fire in one direction or at one target.

Might be everything but your nanoformer and maybe your armour (depending on how light it is). I would be fine with losing everything on death, because your avatar is not the thing that will carry around the most valuable stuff, that would be your construct. From a looter's perspective, you get the ship (or whats left of it) so you shouldn't care if the enemy lost his avatar's items or not, you have his ship. Maybe later we could have some sort of pocket dimension bag (like a bag of holding) that could store some items that persist across bags, but only for your character (like an ender chest in minecraft). When you die, you would still need to get access to another bag, but the items there would still be 'yours'.