Maxim Kammerer
-
Posts
372 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maxim Kammerer
-
-
-
6 hours ago, ShippyLongstalking said:
As for restoring terrain to save cost, there's no way to differentiate between terrain dug out for base construction and terrain dug out for mining. If they started to fill it, there'd definitely be some buried bases.
It is actually quite easy to detect terrain dug outs for base construction. Just don't touch caves with constructs inside (maybe with a reasonable safety margin around the building grid) and underground facilities would ba safe.
-
How about implementing new ways to inject cash into the game other than removing ore by market bots? That would stop the excessive mining grind.
-
13 minutes ago, WildBunny said:
- Too many planets on the system. Those IG are less than 10% populated, and I'm being nice. And you're woring on a new system? That's a loss of ressources that would be helpful somewhere else. Shrink that system to 3/4 planets right now and ride with it, that will force interaction between players. Right now you can spend months without seeing somebody else. You don't have an MMO in players do not interacts.
The world is empty because NQ nerfed the industry to force player interactions. Fixing it with another big nerf to force player interactions doesn't sound like a good idea.
19 minutes ago, WildBunny said:- Stop going straight and shoot 400kms away. Go back to basics, like X-Wing vs Tie Fighter, and add joystick control.
I agree to joystick control. But turning DU into just another shooter with WWII dogfight mechanics would be quite unoriginal. NQ at least tried to implement half-way realistic space combat. The problem is not going straight and shoot 400kms away but JC's lack of sense for fun gameply. It wouldn't get better with someting like X-Wing vs Tie Fighter.
-
That depends on the quality of the code. If it can be turned into something profitable in short-term they will go with B otherwise with C. Anyway, the developement of the DU we are waiting for will be cancelled or at least put on hold until return of investment.
-
2 hours ago, blazemonger said:
JC the visionary could and did dream of his game and how it would all come together while JC the CEO of NQ needed to temper expectations and bring that vision down to a manageable and viable level. And that IMO is where things went wrong.
Indeed! I got the impression that JC the CEO was pretty much non-existent and JC the visionary pushed his idas with brute force, not considering what is possible with the available time, budget and technology and what the players are willing to accept. The new CEO now needs to catch up on everything that JC failed to do. He needs to analyse what has been done and what can be done and how to use it to save as much of the investment as possible.
This is actually the good part. Canceling the project would mean that the investment is gone. But it doesn't have to be that way. There are parts of the game that work quite well (e.g. building, industry or lua-scripting) and many problems can easily be fixed (e.g. littered markets). Putting the available pices together and turning them into a game that can be marketed in short-term could at least save a part of the money. That will not be the DU we dream of or maybe not even DU at all. But it could still be fun and give JC the chance to gain the experience he needs for the next attempt to make his vision reality.
-
The major flaw reather seems to be the lack of game-play loops. The only working part of DU was building pretty constructs and complex industries, but even that has been ruined with 0.23. Now there is nothing left but mining.
For the matter of civilization building - how was that supposed to work without corresponding game mechanics? There is nothing in DU that encourages this kind of cooperation. It is just about big fishes growing at the expense of the small ones. That works in the real world (as long as the small fishes don't get too angry) but not in a game.
-
4 hours ago, Revelcro said:
A wipe won't fix any of their core issues.
No, but a whipe makes sense after fixing the core issues. Otherwise the final game would inherit the problems resulting from the current issues. Of course it's a pain to start from scratch once a gain and many players might prefer starting with a different game instead. However, that's not much of a problem considering that after fixing the core issues DU will be a different game as well.
-
7 hours ago, GraXXoR said:
In my comment.
I read it again and didn't found it. There is just a lot of pseudoscience about thermodynamics, something about T5 in nullsec and T1 and T2 in safe zones and finally whining about T3+ beeing made deeper and slow to mine. I just give up trying to understand how that is supposed to answer my question.
-
4 hours ago, GraXXoR said:
Yes
Where is the part about the markets?
-
2 hours ago, BlackFalcon375 said:
just implement pvp missions in space for a good reward. and remove all bots for buying the game.
With other words, replace pointless mining by pointless pvp? This is not how DU is intended to work. There shouldn't be mining just for the sake of mining or pvp just for the sake of pvp. The vision of the game is civilisation building (and it is quite obvious that JC is not going to change that - even at the risk of losing the entire player base). In a game like DU pvp should result from player interactions and not be forced by bots. If everything works as intended players with conflicting interests (e.g. mining the same spot of rare resources) would communicate and either come to an agreement and cooperate or fight each other. Of course that can't work without the required mechanics. The lack of such mechanics has been mentioned often enough. I don't need to stress that again. I just say that we don't solve this problem by asking for mechanics that would push the game even further away from the original vision.
-
7 hours ago, GraXXoR said:
What? Srsly? Have you ever studied dynamics? Or even just Physics?
the laws of thermodynamics also pretty much control games.
make everything homogenous and random with no differences anywhere and you have zero impetus to move or evolve… entropy is maxed out and there is nothing left to be done.
like a bowl of lukewarm water in a room of the same temperature.
nothing changes. Nothing moves.
Compare that to a room with a fire in one corner. The heat from the fire warms the air which flows around the room, warming everything it touches.
the air moves, there’s ‘life’.
the fire itself is dangerous but entirely necessary for the whole system to come alive.
that is the T5 in nullsec.
imo only T1 and mayyybeeee…. A tinsywinsy bit of T2 should be in the safe zone.
the rest should be in places where real risk exists.
as it is now, literally all they do to make T3+ hard to get is to put it deeper and most importantly slooooooooow the mining sphere and sloooooow the refining for god only knows what reason.
I have no idea what you are trying to tell me. Does that even refer to my question?
-
14 hours ago, Musclethorpe said:
No, the fact that this is the only viable gameplay loop is absolutely a problem.
What I am trying to say is that it is currently even worse. "mine, refine, produce, sell/use" has been the only working gameplay loop before 0.23. Now it is reduced to "mine, sell".
-
1 hour ago, XKentX said:
They are a problem because there is only 1 game loop: mine, refine, produce, sell/use.
[...]
If we have NPC missions that give quanta as reward (and remove all the bot buy orders) the problem will be fixed.
The game loop "mine, refine, produce, sell/use" wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that "mine, sell" is more profitable due to overpriced bot buy orders for ores. Additional over- or underpriced bot orders don't fix that problem.
1 hour ago, XKentX said:Transport 10kt of stuff from Alioth to Madis. Reward = 2mil (low risk low reward).
Transport 10kt of stuff from Alioth to Locobus. Reward = 10mil (high risk high reward).
None of these markets are in pvp zone. The surface of planets are safe zones with the possibility for a local economy.
The OP is asking for something completely different. The very idea of a market in pvp zone makes no sense.
-
1 hour ago, XKentX said:
If you can't get T5 without the risk of your ship getting blown to peaces T5 is "high profit".
Why should T5 be obtainable at markets in pvp zones only? That makes no sense.
-
30 minutes ago, BlackFalcon375 said:
this game won't have a player-only economy, let's be honest.
Of course not. But with bots buying and selling at prices that make no sense it will have no economy at all. That's pretty much what you are asking for. Your suggestion only works with bots that buy at high prices and sell at low prices in pvp zones. In a realistic economy it would be the other way around because there is neither supply nor demand in pvp zones. Even you idea of invulnerable market places doesn't fit inito a game where everything works with the same mechanics.
I see two major reasons for the lack of pvp in DU:
1. there is no proper pvp mechanics and
2. artificial save zones have been implemented to compensate for 1.
In order to have more pvp, 1. and 2. need to be fixed (in this order). Instead you are asking for additional artifical placeholder mechanics just to have pvp for the sake of pvp. That would make it even harder to turn DU into something that fits to the original vision.
-
4 minutes ago, BlackFalcon375 said:
Once again, these are all tasks from bots on missions.
Once again, such bots already are a major problem for the economy. You shouldn't ask for more of them.
-
3 hours ago, BlackFalcon375 said:
Pvp always means risks and high profits!
I asked where this profit comes from. I can't see how that works and as you didn't answer this question it seems you don't know it either.
-
37 minutes ago, BlackFalcon375 said:
you can not be stupid and make markets in pvp zones in space, and give out NPC missions there for the delivery of cargo with a good profit from the sale of goods . and allow there full pvp, without safe zones. markets cannot be destroyed. I think this will create the first precindent in pvp zones in the battles for the trade route that is profitable in the money .
How are such trade routes going to be profitable? There can't be industry in pvp zones and even mining would be suicide without a fleet of escort ships. Thus, no player would be stupid enough to sell at low prices or to buy at high prices in such places. In order to make you idea working, there would need to be market bots buying and selling at fancy prices. Such bots already are a major problem for the economy. It doesn't sound like a good idea to ask for even more of them.
-
1 hour ago, EasternGamer said:
I could be mistaken, but an ex-employee shouldn't have access to an account with moderation permissions.
Such as a player with expired sub shouldn't have access to the game? There are a lot of should-haves in DU.
-
1 hour ago, Habitant said:
What about Industry ? Its kind of fun ...
It was kind of fun until 0.23. Now it's mainly grinding for schematics to make the factories running. It would have been OK if there would be some challenging gameplay behind it. But selling ores to and buying schematics from bots is one of the most boring gameplay ever.
-
12 hours ago, FrigoPorco said:
Mining is boring.
Mining and terraforming is the only PVE you can expect in DU. But there is as much of it as you want.
-
I was playing with friends but everybody else left after 0.23. Now I log in once per day just to grab the daily reward, check my talent tree and sometimes have a look at the markets.
-
10 hours ago, Raz334 said:
Star Citizen is up to how many years in development already?
9 years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_CitizenI don't know if CIG is the best example for developers having a list of priorities that they are focusing on first. However, they can get away with some degree of feature creep because they have a growing player base and in the last years an exponentially growing budget. Sometimes they even listen to the community. At least from an economic point of view they got everything right and if they don't mess up with SQ42 that will continue for many years.
NQ on the other hand - well, they reather have a growing list of features that will never be implemented.
It's all about the db
in General Discussions
Posted
External servers have the same downsides and the customer pays for it. That makes sense in short-term (because it saves the initial investment) but not in the long-term (because the owners of the harware want to make profit). In the long-term the game should be based on in-house servers and external servers should be rented for exceptional high traffic only.