Jump to content

blazemonger

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    4788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About blazemonger

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • backer_title
    Sapphire Founder
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

3405 profile views
  1. I'm pretty sure we'll starting seeing the real JC now.. with no inhibitions about sharing his dream. And with it more clarity about why NQ is where they are.. in more detail than the recent blogposts.. Biggest problem I see is while JC no longer call the shots, there is JC fans still inside who carry the torch, believing their fallen leader was just "misunderstood" Some of the things said by JC or confirmed by him from what the interviewer asks or says here puts an interesting spin on things.
  2. Yeah.. I found myself getting very annoyed by NQ's overall attitude and general avoidance of any real ownership or willingness to actually use the many resources they have here and on Discord to their benefit.. They seem to think they know best and I think the last 3.5 years have shown that to not be the case. This last spat in the continuing "we heard you" saga to me just means they do not get it and will probably never will until they find themselves with a dead game wondering where it all went wrong. So, it's better to not bother anymore and move on as why should I continue to
  3. So I finally make the choice to leave the game behind me for now. I really do not see how the current company will be able to make this work and I feel their attitude and overall outlook on what they are doing will help any chance of a revival of the viability of the project. And no amount of pushing the buttons to try and see some movement will have any effect I believe. Maybe I'm wrong but I do not think so.. I see no reason to spend more time supporting a company when I do not see much of anything to make me believe they can and will support the game. So there, all you haters ca
  4. @Gangolf Ovaert I'd agree with your thoughts. It seems NQ is not realizing that many existing and a potentially much larger future number of their player base would not be able to afford the kind of system needed to run DU comfortably but can (and do) use Shadow as a viable alternative to owning a decent spec gaming PC. It's just very unfortunate they appear to just brush this aside as "not a high priority". And that means they ignore a potential problem in the code that may at any time trigger a much broader problem. It really is part of the bigger issue with NQ, having a ver
  5. Subscriptions going up in cost is not a matter of if, just when IMO. €7/mo is silly for a game this scale, even $10 is on the low end and I really expect to see the sub at release go back to the initially planned $15. Putting such a low cost on subs is IMO just another short term choice that works against you over time. Had NQ gone with $10 on "beta" the player number would not have been much different but the revenue from that would have been massively more. I doubt the difference would have been enough to prevent where we now are but it would have been more for sure.
  6. While I do not think this is or should be hard at all, any of the points you raise should be pretty straight forward database queries which are being run ar frequent intervals several times a day, at least once an hour. The point here is that it would be great if NQ actually engaged with us on such suggestions and provide us with feedback as to why they believe something may or may not be feasible. It is well possible there are actual reasons for not choosing an option like this.
  7. Of course you are right here and I can only agree that (and I'm just sticking with the example here but it applies in general) exploration needs to bring a sense of danger and risk for the reward it can deliver in return. And a big part of that risk should be the PVP player base, that is certainly true. BUT For PVP to work in this context, what needs to be in place first is the exploration mechanic. If that sux and no one engages in it then there is nothing feeding into PVP. And that is why I will always agree with the idea that, while important as part of the whole, PV
  8. Oh, that is certain. What would be interesting to hear is what challenges NQ sees in this regard an how they view some of the solutions that have been brought up here. For me an impound system would be good. It keeps the markets with an "in use" vibe while removing the clutter that just lays around. I'm not a fan of the "squeeky clean" way SC does it for instance where your ship get yanked of the pad in a few minutes. The suggestion of impounding constructs after say 48 hours, which are then retrievable from for instance the ARK ship (for a fee) as a one time spawn in
  9. If NQ would push in ways to maintain resource supply while they work on the problem of the database load from voxel manipulation I can see that and would be fine with it as long as it is a temporary change. All of this really drives the fact that a wipe will be coming eventually though. I just hope NQ chooses the right moment for that as I think they will only get one chance. A big factor for this would be improvement of placing static blueprints especially. If NQ manages to get that sorted, as said earlier, if a wipe comes with retaining blueprints and the accrued talent point bac
  10. It took me a whole 5 minutes to get the information how NQ can request priority access to a Shadow for development purposes.
  11. While I question a lot of answers given in this post, especially the two I posted on above, I do see first signs of some things that are really needed but at the same time it's a shame NQ stops short of actually taking ownership of these and come out clean and clear. Also, the complete absence of anything related to the change in leadership is .. well.. questionable. I'd expect all of this is still up ion the air until the final word comes doen from the investors on the viability for NQ to continue and fresh investment to be made available. Yes, it is good to see
  12. No, that is what NQ thinks, and we're well aware of this misconception by NQ on what communication is expected/desired/needed. It's unfortunate that this only affirms no changes in this regard anytime soon.
  13. And what is preventing you from asking any of the many who have reported this issue to help test by installing additional tools or gather data from their Shadow PC? Frankly, from the answer it seems that NQ does not actually understand what Shadow is of how it functions especially in relation to other platforms. The issue is very distinct, has a 100% reproduction rate at a very much specific point in the load in phase, so what happens around the 75-78% point when loading the game as that is where the crash occurs. The answer really evades the question. And the answer re
  14. This is probably one of the, if not he top issue voiced around here. Unfortunately NQ is dead silent on this and has not shown any interest in addressing the issue beyond silly changes like making the available surface area bigger which only led to more junk being spread in a wider area. Not that we told them this would happen...
  15. I'd agree, in EVE the attacker does initiate the engagement in a vulnerability window set by the owner and from there the defender gets to set the time for the actual attack to happen within a specified timeframe. On paper that hardly sounds engaging and fun but in reality for a global /multi timezone game, this is really the only fair way to set this up. It wil be interesting to see how NQ will solve this, I hope they more or less follow CCP's lead as it makes sense but I fear they may only take parts of it and try to "reinvent" the rest. We'll know by the end of the y
×
×
  • Create New...