Jump to content

Maxim Kammerer

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maxim Kammerer

  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.
  16. I would silently cry into my pillow. When I manage to pick up courage I would ask the developers what they have and how to turn it into something that has a chance on the market. That's not what I want as a player but what the investors expect from a CEO. If that is successful enough for a return of investment there might be a chance to get additional funding for a second attempt to realise DU (many years in the future and with new technology).
  17. That is the new industry standard - complete with game-breaking bugs at release.
  18. How about moving all parts of the ship into the linked container, making it your primary container and than to deploy the blueprint?
  19. That would be no problem if tunnels would have a limited lifespan. They should be removed unless cores are placed to keep them open. That would solve a major part of the data problems with minimum impact on the gameplay. But this has already been suggested before and nobody listened.
  20. You can mine the environment. In return, the environment can bore you. Interactivity confirmed.
  21. I never understood why it has been implemented that way. It makes no sense. The core limit for an org should depend on its size and not on the talents of a single member. A possible limit would be the sum of the org core limits of all members (which of course would need to be adjusted accordingly). This way the upper limit for the number of cores (and corresponding server resources) in the entire DU would scale linear with the number of subscriptions. There could be no single-player orgs with hundreds of cores and we would have no reason to speculate about the possible exploit above.
  22. That's what happed to my personal cores when the talents got lost with the last talent reset. It seems the limit is checked when you try to place a core. I expect the same logic for org cores (not tested).
  23. You seem to assume that automining will be way faster than manual mining. But it will most probably the other way around. As you already mentioned it is NQ that defines the speed and we know that they deem the current mining speed as to high. Thus, I expect them to set the automining speed so low that additional balacing becomes obsolete.
  24. That's indeed a basic problem. There should be more restrictive rules for static and dynamic constructs (e.g. no floating voxels or elements or even complete static constructs, no flight elements completely covered with voxels but still being functional, no asymmetric lift or thrust without resulting torque and so on). Maybe it could even be possible to implement simple rules for structural analysis (as far as possible without decrerasing performance too much) making weak structures collapse or brake apart. That would open a market for those who are specialised in designing and optimising specific types of constructs. However, implementing such rules would brake most existing constructs. That would be even worse than a full whipe and is therefore not going to happen in DU.
  25. How about connecting the market with all tiles that are directly or indirectly joined with the market tile and providing the possibility to trade with connected markets without physically going there (maybe with a fee or time delay)? That would reduce the traffic on the markets, encourage players to get closer together (instead of claiming tiles as far a away from other players as possible) and in the long term connect all markets on a planet. That should even be acceptable for JC because - together with other cooperative mechanics (like common defence or boost of production, automining, energy or research for connected tiles) - it might result in cities.
  • Create New...