mrjacobean
-
Posts
452 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mrjacobean
-
-
What you want, is an AFK I-Win button.
Might not be what he wants, but thats what it will turn into...
-
Instead of reading in a bunch of bullshit,
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...
-
And you know why. It's not because I can't debate my point with the two of you.
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
-
You won't be able to build ships on your own. You could BUY the different parts and do it, but you WON'T be able to do it on your own, at least, not at first.
Well, you could, but not on the scale where this argument happens.
-
Our conflict here is that JC's quote doesn't exactly line up with the documented LUA script devblog.
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.
-
Your point is based upon some preconceived notion on how things work. How will you respond IF the final product doesn't look like your presuppositions?
No need to deal in absolutes here (you Sith), because it could be different from what you envision it
-
Wow, it's really hard not to mention walls here
I will build a wall around a planet and make... erm... 'Them' pay for it
-
The real issue here is balancing a fully crewed ship verses a gang of solo piloted scripted ships.
For example. If we have a ship that has a crew of 10 people, and it runs in to a gang of ten solo piloted scripted ships of the same type. Which group should win?
There needs to be incentives for fully crewing ships otherwise people will just solo pilot them for numbers.
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.
-
Nobody likes to have randomness involved in a possible investment of time and money. Chances of failure should be deducted out of player interaction, not "lolzies, the server dice rolled on the 0.01%, so screw you, you lose thief".
Detection is a very loose term used. It's the old adage "if a twig falls in the forest and nobody is near to hear it, did it ever make a sound". The answer is yes, but people in-game will hear the noise only when you'll be 100 billions richer and making fun of them for overcoming their security measures.
Having a certain nubmer of maximum uses out of an implant when directly interfacing, only makes it a race between vault designers who will place X amount of RDMS layers to get to a vault and the thieves working their way into the vault through the RDMS by juggling multiiple implants across different people or even using a window of opportunity in a "maintenance" hour, cause them codes need to be manually reset on the La scripts for some Doors.
Also, malware detection IRL, doesn't work with chance, but rather filtering. Same goes for infiltration attempt via co-opted means. The fact an implant may have 10 uses out of its direct interactions, only means that a bank needs 30 layers of defense to get to its vault. That means the thieves need to be 4 at least to get past the security RDMS checkpoints (not including knowing the codes for the job). And they can't drop disguise, cause you know, alarms go off as they are branded as intruders, they need to keep the disguise as long as possible.
And you see the inherit issue with the heist situation at least. In a conspiracy of 3, two are cops, and one is an idiot, let alone in a conspiracy of 4, the clusterfuck only gets wierder.
Let's leave RNG out of such a field that needs planning ahead and anticipating PLAYER obstacles, rather than "oopies, youi planned this for a year, but guess what, RNGesus said you need to F off and die." The RDMS is a means to an end, and there should be very complex ways of circumventing it temporarily.
Sounds fun to have RNG? No, sounds terrible.
But it does sound amazing for certain people that will plan a heist perfectly, by infiltrating a bank as a security. These people are the reason EVE makes news every other month over how people stole 20 Trillion ISK in a heist, after infiltrating a corporation for over a year.
And DU can make a mad marketing on "you play a rogue in WoW, a thief in Final Fantasy, or a ninja in any Korean MMO. But in DU, you can be an actual master thief" then going on about an in-game heist on a marketing trailer.
You know what sounds bad in that mix? "Oh, you may be a 201 IQ person, but RNG is RNG you may fail on your mission you planned over a year cause of RNG".
See what I mean?
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.
-
Perhaps also, if the implant is stolen, then the owners of whatever tags the implant had are notified that an implant has been breached; so they don't know whose it is, they just know they need to 'change the locks'. This would give time for the perpetrator to use the stolen tags, but also give the owners of the tag a chance to react.
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.
-
That being said, for the RDMS department, the implant should have a limit of how many DIRECT INTERACTIONS with an RDMS system a person can have while in disguise before it fails, expanded and limited by the Skill Training system, i.e. "Rterofitted Camouflage V" aalows for 10 DIRECT interactions with RDMS systems, i.e. bypassing a containers RDMS parameters while in disguise, without having to rely on other means, like hacking.
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).
-
-
-
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!
-
And this is the systematic problem with the whole community, not just this comment in particular.
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.
-
Q:"is there any way to gain members now?"
A:"Simple! Just start posting your recruitment links in every known location and orifice possible."A: "Simple! Just make alts to inflate your numbers."
-
Perhaps to help prevent total fucking annihilation of a corp, making only people not associated from the faction cannot impersonate them (to prevent people killing their leaders for loot.)?
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.
-
Now if in DU we could extract skill points or experience from frozen bodies (say 1 days worth per corpse). That simple mechanic alone would likely change gameplay style significantly.
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.
-
If reality is infinite so are the possibilities. Does that imply that somewhere natural death is eliminated. Or what about that reality where earth wasnt destroyed?
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.
-
Still pretty powerful in my opinion.
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.
-
Most items is not all items right?
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'.
-
The guy running the other one has been banning anyone who mentions /r/dualthegame, which kind of goes to show how he really feels about the Devs and the community.
I see that he could be a control freak, but I don't see anything directly hostile about him. Do you have any quotes/links?
Should Larger Ships Require Multiple Players?
in General Discussions
Posted
This is less debating and more closed minded arguing.