Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by QuantumInc

  1. I would definitely hope for an ingame mechanism for renting out chunks of land within your claim territory; even something resembling an ingame real estate market. It should have a way of locking out other players, ideally a slightly simplified RDMS for that area; the ability to build your own stuff within it but also connect with outside constructs. Players inside of the claimed territory would be safe from the outside and also each other (until someone takes down the 48hour shield). I think that the game code itself should enforce certain laws. Crime might be interesting, but inside of a claimed territory vandalism, murder, and theft should be simply impossible. The ability to rent or sell specific chunks of land within a claimed territory could allow for the building of diverse cities. Players could come together without having to learn to trust each other first. Many people coming together each for the their own reasons. If only people in the same faction, or who trust each other, can build within the same claimed territory then that will nearly prevent the appearance of true cities. When you move to a city in the real world, you don't need to gain the trust of everyone who was there before you right? Most people move because of the opportunities present at their destination. All you would need is the money to buy the land, materials to build your home, and the willingness to obey local laws.
  2. Naturally...internet flame war. Everyone here has high hopes for this game, everyone has a remarkably specific vision for the game and feels remarkably defensive when that vision is challenged in any way. Who am I kidding? "EVE Online" has been out for over a decade and people still argue about what kind of game it should be. EVE has room for BOTH pirates and carebears and SOMEHOW that fact makes the forum flame wars even hotter. Many important game mechanics are still undecided. It is important to put your ideas out there for people to see, but it is also important to avoid getting attached to them. The developers will peruse the boards and pick up the ones THEY like. I think it is fair to assert that in a game: A fair fight is better than an unfair fight, also the fight is better when it is more convenient for everyone. Thus I think that mechanics that allow the side with superior numbers, resources, and prior strategy to have an advantage that is neither too great nor too small. In terms of the 48 hour shield, there should obviously be some sort mechanism for both attackers and defenders to influence when the main battle occurs, i.e. when the shield does down the the attackers can actually attack inside the territory. Of course the attackers will get to decide when the attack, and the timer, starts. I suggest that the defender be allowed to change the length of the time for their shield, but lock it in place after the attackers appear. Possibly the attacker may also change the time in some way, but generally have a smaller influence.
  3. 1. Diverse and interesting process for collecting and refining resources 2. Contract System for performing tasks/quests for other players 3. System for un-associated players to build a city 4. Survival game-play, resources and logistics
  4. I have to agree with the devs, having a singular currency woven into the code of the game is the better option. People need to trust the currency, and having it in the game code and controlled by the devs makes it more trustworthy. People trust the code of the game and the developers more than their fellow players. Player run governments will not be as trustworthy nor as competent as real world governments. We can't have players fearing for their wallets every time there is drama among the leadership. We can't have people finding they can't make a deal because they happen to have the wrong currency. We can't have currency made from gold because a gold rush will cause inflation, and a use for gold will cause deflation. People will be obsessed with mining gold too. Again, we need a single currency hard-coded into the game, managed by the developers BECAUSE of the trust factor.
  5. I think players should be able to build farms and grow plants at launch, but probably not livestock. Adding in livestock is a good idea, but it isn't worth it compared to plants. Plants are easier to program, easier for the servers, and easier for new players to understand. DU is about spaceships. It has huge ambition and a small budget, so probably shouldn't have to worry about cows. Though I think farming plants could be done, and with discussion in these forums, should be done.
  6. I think in the real world it benefits most people to live near to existing human activity. Employers want to set up where the workers are, workers need to go where the jobs are, people want to live near where they can buy things, sellers need to go where there are people who will buy things. People are also attracted to cultural centers and a dozen other reasons to live where there are already people. Most cities are not suddenly or deliberately established, but rather grow steadily over time if the conditions are right. The kickstarter video mentioned the ability to establish trade centers and make money from commissions, (and that the defensive shield strength would be based on the amount of trade somehow). Some players will want to establish themselves nearby such trade centers, to build their own base, storage, manufacturing, hangar, close to the established trade centers, and every else's base, storage, etc. In addition each group of players will probably build a central HQ base, for a particularly group that central HQ could resemble a city. One thing that could prevent city building is if the claim system makes it undesirable to build within some one else's claim.
  7. I agree that this could be a problem, depending on how difficult it is the claim a chunk of territory.
  8. Unfortunately the OP and a few others are equating the level of resources players have access to and the quality of the player experience. Even in the real world, a person's access to physical resources and their happiness do not correspond perfectly, there are even people who take a vow of poverty to grant more meaning to their life. Games need challenge. Poverty presents a challenge. Colonists struggling to survive is itself a good game challenge. (To be fair, so is figuring out a automation scheme) Cheap resources could easily result in a situation where fewer tasks feel like a challenge. This would make our fictional colonists happy, but our real world players bored. Capitalism is bad for balance between players. The player without capital cannot compete against the player with capital, and may feel more frustration than fun. This could play out a dozen different ways, the most obvious being a big ship fighting a small ship. The player without could also be frustrated they they simply cannot contribute much the economy, jealous the rich player, or feel forced to join up with the rich player. Players with capital might be forced essentially hire others, but the fact that they would have so much power over their employees could make things incredibly frustrating for said employees. Having a boss inside the game is terrible.
  9. It seems Shynras is worried about a scenario where a player or group builds enough panels/farms/crystals/renewable sources of whatever, that they transcend the need to go out and gather certain resources. Even with renewable energy like solar panels, they could sit tight in their base forever. Someone could be self-sustaining and no longer need to interact with other players or the wider world. Depending on how they are implemented, renewable resources could introduce the problem where a rich player could produce vastly more than a poor player, knocking many people out of that market. In general there should be a certain ratio between how much time you spend doing something and how much you get out of it. Personally I am okay with certain resources being renewable or even fully automated, but they should be very very limited.
  10. I have to agree with violet banana that allowing some players to mine on an epic scale but not others would be a big problem. I can't imagine they would implement mining at long range either.
  11. It's early enough that the developers haven't decided yet. Though personally I think it would be a good idea. Eve Online does not simulate the collision of individual shots, but like any RPG it does have a formula that determines if an attack hits or misses. It is absolutely "lock and fire" but a big gun can't hit a small fast ship (if the ship is moving perpendicular to the line of fire. Two other things to keep in mind: For the sake of balance a long range weapon must deal less damage over time than a short range weapon. Also the developers have already said that bases will have special shields that will prevent attackers from destroying anything the moment they arrive. It is implied to be similar, again, to Eve online where a base can become invulnerable for several hours or days, long enough for the defenders to log on and then organize a defense. The defenders control how long the countdown to battle is (with enough resources), and the attackers determine when it starts ticking. I like the idea of it, but a long range defensive cannon would be pretty annoying to anyone trying to conduct a siege.
  12. Building constructs is too essential to the game concept to completely prevent their construction. I think it could be a serious problem, but it would require a different solution. The ability to distance yourself seems like it would be more important for a player or group of player that are just starting, and less important for an established group. However the way it has been stated, everyone starts in the same exact spot, and only have their own two legs to get away from that spot. Ironically, the established and wealthy groups will have more ability to distance themselves than the poor newbies. Another solution would be multiple arkships, and the ability to respawn at a different arkship if absolutely necessary. To balance this you may be forced to abandon everything you have built so far, (but of course that wouldn't be such a loss if pirates blew up your base). Of course a larger safe zone that allows people to gather and build enough to gain the reach the point where they can migrate a long distance the moment they leave is a solution. (The aggressive player group probably cannot maintain an absolute blockade.)
  • Create New...