Jump to content

GrimReaper

Member
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Ghoster in How hard (or easy) will it be to earn DAC?   
    Seems like you can just turn DACs into digital coupons ala digital currency in the game.
     
    Weak argument is weak.  I stand by my argument that if DACs are lost, so should currency.
     
    I also understand the argument that hoarding DACs is a lot like hoarding a commodity, so I do see where you're coming from.  Just don't think it warrants being lootable on death.  
     
    Ultimately, I don't see it being much of an issue either way.  What's to stop someone from just hoarding their DACs in a safezone?  Just don't see the point of lootable DACs is all ^^
  2. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Archonious in How hard (or easy) will it be to earn DAC?   
    Seems like you can just turn DACs into digital coupons ala digital currency in the game.
     
    Weak argument is weak.  I stand by my argument that if DACs are lost, so should currency.
     
    I also understand the argument that hoarding DACs is a lot like hoarding a commodity, so I do see where you're coming from.  Just don't think it warrants being lootable on death.  
     
    Ultimately, I don't see it being much of an issue either way.  What's to stop someone from just hoarding their DACs in a safezone?  Just don't see the point of lootable DACs is all ^^
  3. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from DaSchiz in Remember, remember ...   
    It was the fifth of November.  Doesn't seem that confusing ;P
     
    It's from the movie V for Vendetta if I recall correctly.
  4. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Ghoster in How hard (or easy) will it be to earn DAC?   
    If DACs are lootable, then so should regular currency.
  5. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Novark in Questions About The Upcoming Pledge Packages   
    Precisely, it's just how it goes sometimes.  Sorry for derailing your thread for a bit there
     
    We will have to see how it's handled, perhaps they will be able to get everyone in the first time around.
  6. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from yamamushi in Questions About The Upcoming Pledge Packages   
    1.)  It appears alpha access will be available.  At least temporarily for phase 1.
    2.) The pets will be something new, if I'm reading that correctly.  The Kickstarter pets will remain exclusive.
  7. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Dygz_Briarthorn in Questions About The Upcoming Pledge Packages   
    1.)  It appears alpha access will be available.  At least temporarily for phase 1.
    2.) The pets will be something new, if I'm reading that correctly.  The Kickstarter pets will remain exclusive.
  8. Like
    GrimReaper reacted to Hotwingz in Weekly Update & Minor Site Improvements   
    Hey guys I tweeted @dualuniverse asking if we could get a little update so we had something new to discuss.
     
    And the answer I got was; "You should have something new to discuss today ;)"
     
    So depending on time zones....
     
    They really are awesome as a compagny in my opinion.
  9. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Archonious in captured ships and selfdestruct   
    What I'm saying is, rather than spending a bunch of time making an overly complex self destruct system... why not spend some time developing actual components that can create actual constructs that act as mines and other traps?
     
    I do not disagree though, I think everyone would like to see a big ship overload... and I'm sure we will!
     
    I'm also of the personal opinion that there shouldn't be a timer... if you hit the big red button, it should blow up at that instant.  Incurring death on yourself, and whatever penalties that are involved in death.
  10. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Archonious in captured ships and selfdestruct   
    If they want to put the work into it, by all means...  Doesn't seem worth it IMHO, lots of work for not much payoff gameplay wise.  Besides, if you self destruct... it's pretty hard to bounce back from being spaced
     
    I imagine we will end up purely with a system that uses the size of the power core to determine destruction levels.
     
    However, I vehemently defend the fact that self destruct should destroy any blueprints you have saved related to that ship ^^
     
    As this is where the discussion is heading, what's to stop someone from just building a bunch of power cores and using them as "mines".  Shouldn't there be a specific weapon set to work as mines?  Why should we have to use derelict ships and unfinished ships for this emergent gameplay?
     
    All of this development you guys are asking for should be directed towards an actual subset of weapons, mines and other sneaky traps.
  11. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from DaSchiz in captured ships and selfdestruct   
    This actually makes a lot of sense, why have a designated self destruct mechanism when it would impact the game so detrimentally. 
     
    If you want to "self destruct" why not find a way to carry a bunch of explosives, that can act as a self destruct mechanism?  There would be a tradeoff of course... being that, if you a stray shot punctures the wrong case...
     
    Or perhaps it could be possible to create a self destruct system, but it could be expensive in resources and time to create.  Such that, it's more hassle than it's worth to implement on any ol' constructs.  They would only be used for very important organizational assets that cannot fall into the wrong hands.
     
    Furthermore, it would always be in place... there wouldn't be any confirmation before the system goes up in flame.  This implies, that if someone were able to hack past the safeguards and infiltrate an area rigged for self destruction... they could indeed cause some serious damages to a rival organization.
     
    Basically, if you implement a self destruct system it would be possible for enemies to infiltrate and blow up the asset.  This would be done in a situation where the enemy organization could not feasibly steal the assets, but wants to cause as much harm as possible.
     
    I see interesting uses for self destruct, as long as it's not wired into every construct that's around.
     
    As an aside, this would also play into selling information in game.  If a corporation/organization solely deals in information gathering, and determining which assets have a self destruct mechanism in place... they would be able to sell this information to those who would use it for more nefarious reasons
     
    This is all assuming that there will be assets that are worth destroying over allowing them to get in the wrong hands.  If that isn't the case, there's really no need for a self destruct IMHO.  I almost imagine it would rarely be used on ships, I'm thinking important planetary installations and such.
     
     
    Just ramblings and possibilities.  If there is one thing you take from this post, realize that we need to consider how implementations of various systems affect the game as a whole, not just how it impacts combat per se.  Err, maybe two things you should take from this post... We also need to realize that there needs to be cost/benefit analysis implementation done on many aspects of the game.  We can't simply put self destruct everywhere, because that would be game breaking. 
  12. Like
    GrimReaper reacted to DaSchiz in captured ships and selfdestruct   
    You can't steal a ship if there is an easy self destruct ... everyone will have it which would make stealing a ship impossible.  This is Grand Theft Spaceship/Space Station/ Planet Base/Hovercraft/Territory since JC has talked about taking over cores both in space and on planets. He has actually said that capturing a ship mechanic will probably be in game before ship v ship combat.
     
    You are assuming game mechanics like EMP weapons in your post that don't exist yet or even have been discussed by JC/NQ  If you can EMP electronic systems that itself would be OP. He has discussed hacking but to hack you can't have a self destruct. You said so in your post it won't be easy to hack/take a ship over so why even add a mechanic like this.  You want to scuttle your ship so the enemy doesn't get it ...  then do it the old fashion way ... shoot it to bits.
     
    If you have a game mechanic like this that in effect doesn't become a choice and a counter that then in effect doesn't become a choice then the mechanic becomes tedious.   If the end result always comes out the same .... BOOM .... then people won't even attempt to take over a ship.  There is nothing emergent about that.
     
    You are assuming I would want to capture to reverse engineer.  I do want to have the choice to steal ships from those who are aggressive towards others.  I have in mind a trophy hanger and has nothing to do with building capabilities. If I captured it then why in the hell would I want to make a fleet of them since I already beat it with what I had.
     
    I am talking in more general terms because we do not know the details of these things yet.  They have not been created or even decided.  You talk about very specific details which may end up just being only in your imagination at the end of the day. 
  13. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from DaSchiz in Road map for Alpha and Beta......   
    Just make sure to leave off the year ;D
     
    Then, you will NEVER be disappointed. 
  14. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from DaSchiz in captured ships and selfdestruct   
    What I'm saying is, rather than spending a bunch of time making an overly complex self destruct system... why not spend some time developing actual components that can create actual constructs that act as mines and other traps?
     
    I do not disagree though, I think everyone would like to see a big ship overload... and I'm sure we will!
     
    I'm also of the personal opinion that there shouldn't be a timer... if you hit the big red button, it should blow up at that instant.  Incurring death on yourself, and whatever penalties that are involved in death.
  15. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from DaSchiz in captured ships and selfdestruct   
    If they want to put the work into it, by all means...  Doesn't seem worth it IMHO, lots of work for not much payoff gameplay wise.  Besides, if you self destruct... it's pretty hard to bounce back from being spaced
     
    I imagine we will end up purely with a system that uses the size of the power core to determine destruction levels.
     
    However, I vehemently defend the fact that self destruct should destroy any blueprints you have saved related to that ship ^^
     
    As this is where the discussion is heading, what's to stop someone from just building a bunch of power cores and using them as "mines".  Shouldn't there be a specific weapon set to work as mines?  Why should we have to use derelict ships and unfinished ships for this emergent gameplay?
     
    All of this development you guys are asking for should be directed towards an actual subset of weapons, mines and other sneaky traps.
  16. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from Kuritho in captured ships and selfdestruct   
    I think this option would work best:
     
    Criteria:
    You must be alive to destruct your ship.
     
    What happens:
    When you self destruct, your ship obviously incinerates... killing anyone on board including yourself.
    Your saved blueprint/design for the ship is deleted.
     
    End product:
    1.) Everyone inside of the ship is dead.
    2.) Your blueprint has been destroyed.
    3.) You have to recreate the design based on memory alone.
     
    No time limits, nothing so arbitrary and limiting.  Purely punishing behavior that can be employed based on whether or not it's "worth" it to the user, or not.
  17. Like
    GrimReaper got a reaction from guttertrash in Removal of monthly fee with a solution.   
    Perhaps there should be a sticky on this topic.  An official post as to why they chose the subscription model, why it's the correct decision, and how a player could potentially play the game entirely for free.
     
    I know NQ has made official statements over and over, but perhaps a sticky that transcends all boards would be beneficial.  What I mean by this, is I know that other forums I have visited have the ability to make a "global" sticky, where it shows up in every section of the forums.
     
    Although it's annoying to have to answer the same gripes over and over, there is no need to belittle them.  Best to just let someone else with more patience answer the question.
     
     
     
     
    As an aside, if you haven't figured it out yet... as Tumeden put it keeps the servers running.  Now, depending on how many lifetime subs they sell... they may lose a large margin of that dedicated cash flow which is disappointing.  Furthermore, having a subscription model helps with keeping the integrity of the game as well.  If we were to delve into a b2p with micro transactions, it would most likely negatively impact the integrity of the game.  This could happen through multiple avenues, depending on which microtransaction pathway was taken.  If it were purely cosmetics, then people could potentially be flying around as unicorns.  On the same line, if they added pets there would be unnecessary clutter.  (Now, you're probably thinking they already added pets... however, this was in a limited fashion and it looks like they won't be selling pets later).  On a different pathway, if they followed a system similar to Star Citizen and sold blueprints... obviously the game would be completely different.  It is no doubt that Star Citizen would be a completely different game if they didn't sell ships, and that is disregarding the hit in funding they would take if they didn't.  Granted, the argument there is SC is "supposed" to be 90% NPCs.  But does that really matter?  I'm not saying CIG has done anything wrong, just that it would be a different game with a different atmosphere otherwise.
     
    tldr; the atmosphere of the game could take negative hits depending on the funding model.  One of the major reasons I backed DU is because it has subscription models.
     
    *sorry for any typos or grammatical errors, typed this up in a jiffy.
×
×
  • Create New...