Jump to content

Maxim Kammerer

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

526 profile views

Maxim Kammerer's Achievements

  1. It's not as easy as it sounds like. There are static constructs placed undergound, surface flattened for runways and so on. Imagine the rage if all that gets lost in the dirt. Terraforming is one of the basic features that make DU what it is. Removing it would be a very bad idea. A possible compromise could be a limitation of terraforming to the building grid of static constructs, together with sufficient communuication in advance in order to give players a chance to stabalize existing terraforming by placing cores (as long as they didn't reached their core limit).
  2. It stopped working. That's pretty much the same. Given the prices of schematics that's even worse than erasing all industries and buying it again. The quanta required to run the industries is not anywhere near enough to buy the schematics. It was sufficient to make a small fraction of the industries running and that's it. It was not possible to use them to make money for the rest because the markets collapsed due to schematics. Everybody just sold ores to bots and nobody was buying. For the same reason it was not even possible to get quanta by selling most of the factories because everybody tried to do that and the markets have been flooded with industries. The industry guys who didn't horde enough money to do that left the game. Which ever way you look at it - "wanted a freebie and everything at once" is an insult. They just didn't want to lose everthing at once.
  3. That's a very unfair comment. For industry players schematics was the equivalent of a full wipe.
  4. Yes, it would not be bad in principle. But that also applies to schematics. The problem is how they are implemented. I hope for the best but I'm afraid NQ will find a way to make energy management just as bad as schematics.
  5. That's intended. JC's last vision of industrial gameplay was mass production of a single product. There is no reason to open the factory again if it just turns ore into screws. Complex factories that can be adjusted to changing demands have been mostly hit by schematics. That's why many industrial players left after 0.23
  6. The main problem with schematics is not the price but the way they are implemented. If you are happy with manually moving schematics in and out of industries everytime you switch to another product, than 35 million might be enough (I didn't check that). My factories are designed to make as many products as possible without moving stuff between containers. In order to make that working again I would need to buy much more schematics than I ever use at once. That makes no sense. A single schematics container for all industries within a construct would solve that problem. If you have N schematics for a specific receipt, than N factories could run it once without moving them around. And that is just one problem I have with this 'feature'. If players are asking to remove schematics than they are talking about schematics as currently implemented and not about hypothetical schematics without such design faults.
  7. Better don't play it right now. The last patch is full of game-breaking bugs. Yes, it's not just DU. But CIG is at least honest about SC beeing alpha.
  8. Your examples above have been hyperinflations. A moderate inflation is good for the economy. Deflation is much worse. We had that after 0.23 when everybody pushed stuff on the market to get cash for schematics.
  9. For different reasons - for example to have "a limit on how many industry machines a player can have running at once" (something you seem to agree with).
  10. Energy management is one of the most requested features. Nobody asked for schematics.
  11. There will always be players who circumvent such restrictions or exploit loopholes. But it would still be better than nothing.
  12. Energy management could do the job. But it is not on the roadmap.
  13. A main problem with the EU is that it failed to develope with growing size and influence. A prime example is the veto right for all member states. That made sense with the 6 founding members. But how is that going to work with 27 member states with very different economical, political and cultural background as well as contradicting national and geopolitical interests? I don't think that the EU will fail. But its global political and military power will always lack behind its economic strength. It is a bureaucratic monster and a lesson of how not to build a large organisation (irl or in game).
  14. Communism has never been achieved on that scale because it doesn't work. It's a nice idea to make all people equal. The problem is that they don't want to be equal. That does not fit the human behaviour. Our natural social structure is a hirearchy with an alpha on the top. That is hard-wired in our brains and very hard to overcome - especially in large organisations (in real life or in game) which needs to be hierarchic in order to be effective.
  15. They wanted to build a game engine and hoped that the players will use it to build the game. Neither of them turned out all right.
  • Create New...