Jump to content

blazemonger

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    5505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by blazemonger

  1. Fair enough but at the same time I learnt from a number of different sources, including from inside NQ, that JC was not very willing to consider the cost of his vision and generally pushed that ahead while he inserted the next "cool" idea. And we've seen him wave of concerns by the community in that same vein as well so it's certainly a believable situation for me. His "you do not understand" attitude was real and litterally on display at several times. I do agree that his vision was a good starting point for the game but him wearing the visionair and CEO cap while he really had no understanding ro knowledge of managing a project like this was not a good plan.. Had he stepped aside for an "actual" CEO much earlier on, things might have been very different. He was never showing willingness to compromise on his vision even when reality really demanded it and as he _was_ CEO and as such the responible person, the string of mistakes leading up to and including the public beta as well as the mess that was exposed after that are what he should be (and eventually was) held accountable for.
  2. In the current plans it takes 17 players to group together to cap at 1625 cores for an org.. I really do not see anything in this plan that is not reasonable or fair. If you plan a big project you have ways to get the cores you need, and if NQ plays this smart they can justifiably capitalize on this as well.
  3. It would also have created a fairly easy way to script copying 3D models into the game with a fairly high precision. Something NQ seems to want to avoid if at all possible
  4. I really do not think this has anything to do with that at all. NQ has started to prepare for launch, and part of that process is to have what a player has/can use balance out against what they pay as a subscriber. What is in game now is really not relevant, especially when you now consider that a wipe closer to launch really becomes more and more obvious as an inevitable event. And yes, it fits completely with the "oblivious to reality" attitude JC had for him to downplay such a wipe when reality honestly dictates you'll need one. Current leadership left a wipe very firmly on the table but so far has not really shown their hand as to why, even when it's pretty obvious and self-explanatory if you look at this objecively and logically. There is no need to concern yourself about what is in game now on accounts that may not be around post launch when you know you will erase it all anyway. All you need to concern yourself with is how many paying accounts you will need post launch to stay alive and making sure that that revenue coming from those covers the expenses in running cost with enough left over to pay for offices and staff.
  5. From what both Deckard and Nyzaltar said on this, I get that this is far more a long term correction to not run into the crazy cost overruns they did after beta started. The inactive players. issue, I still expect, will be dealt with through a wipe closer to launch. I'd say the new mechanic does exactly that, since you assign org cores to a specific org as a player, you bypass the exploit entirely
  6. ofc not, asteroids outside of PVP sone are not worth the risk for anyone not looking to be or get engaged in PVP. The rewards are just not there and the are pretty much a big fat arrow with "pewpew here" written on them, easily and conveniently publically bradcast, first showing someone is there and then just fly straight there.. Mining the valuables on a a T5 asteroids takes more time than what it takes for a pirate to trace the route using a DSAT.. So they are mostly left alone.
  7. Fair, the lack of content in game and the reinforcement of the idea that NQ expects players to create the content really is a potential issue.. outside of maybe the idea that NQ should really accomomodate "special projects" outside the player/org core counts, this is mostly something for a different thread/discussion
  8. That the initial numbers were way lower than NQ would end up at was rerally never in question I'd say. It only makes sense that you set up a change like this below where you feel you should be and then balance upwards because that sets exoectations towards where you would want/need to be. For me the "fun" part was how NQ justified the initial numbers and than massively swung the other way. Had they just acknowledged the number were estimated too low and moved to somewhere in between where they were and are now, it would have probably had the same result. I am pretty sure that had they ended up at 50/75 for instance, the response and reaction would have been the same and when multiplied by the project numbr of players post launch, the change would have been massive from what they committed to now. If at a future date it turns out the 100/100was too much, it wil lbe MUCH harder to dial it back, if it turned out there was more room from 50/75 it would have looked very good for NQ if they upped the numbers a bit again. As I still expect NQ is goint to shoot for a December launch, they will need to start solidifying balance passes like this to be able to complete and freeze the game featureset by end of Q3 with only polish and bugfixes left until release during Q4.
  9. Thank you for this, a clear and open answer that addresses some of the concerns some of us have head on. I'm actually verry happy to see more of this now coming to the surface. If this is the start of what was diascussed in the Panacea devblog in tone and direct responses, I like it and it's appreciated.
  10. True to a point, which is in the details as the number they will probably shoot for as far as "what will allow the game to exit based on number of paying monthly subs" is more halfway your min and max there. 50K consistently paying subs will probably sustain the game enough to let it stand on its own and leave enough after running cost to continue development. But to even be able to get there, NQ will need to bring the "per player" cost down to where a $10 sub will do that when you account for 50K paying subs and add some overhead on top of that to account for any number of situations including future sustained development. And I think we are getting close to that point. It is where NQ has a MVP from where they can start building out the game to retain and grow player pop. I also think that they will not be able to get around items in the cash shop which will support that. I really believe that the "magic number" which will make the game work is a spend of $15 per player per month. And that can be people buying DAC in game too as that DAC has to be bought for RL$ in the first place. The same can be true for player using DAC to buy additional core slots sometime in the future. Again, the DAC has to be paid for before it gets into the game. The racing tracks we now have in game could use contributions and entry fees for races to buy DAC and with that maintain their track (cores).. Same goes for large scale stations, serving larger groups of players. If the owner can add taxes to using the stations facilities, those again can go towards a solution like that. And in the end the DAC used means $$ spent and in NQ's pocket which can then accommodate all of that in game goodness. I agree completely with what @Atmosph3rik says above, some seem to miss the point of this and may not see the logic in it, but it is really sensible and the whole reason why I made the post here is because for the first time in quite a while, if ever, someone from within NQ pretty much spelled this out and I greatly appreciate this and hope they continue to do so as it's needed to drive this home.. repeatedly. NQ is not a philanthropic institution, they are a business and should behave like it. For me what Deckard did was just showing they are not quite there yet, but may now have a better grasp of where they need to go while they lack the will or ability to show it and be open about it for some reason until "pressured" to do so.
  11. Not really, what they are saying is: you can have 80m2 of personal space and aid your company with 80m2 per employee, the office manager can allocate up to a total of 1500m2 using the office space provided by the employees. Reads different already right? It seems you do not quite understand the concept here. EACH member of the org can assigne UPTO 100 cores to the org, the org legate can then train to be able to have upto 1625 slot cores available which can be filled using assigned cores by players. So between the two of you, you can have 100 cores for yourself each AND assign 100 cores each to the org, which then has 200 cores to use. If you get your inactive org members to come in and assign their org cores too you can increase that number further or you can ask friends or regular customers outside of the org to assign some of their org cores to your org, in exchange for discounts on ships for instance.. Org leadership will need to get creative and start marketing their org in this respect whcih frankly, is a good thing as it will in turn drive interaction between players.. While in general the idea is not a bad one, a stored ship in such a meechanic still takes up the space on the servers, that does not change.
  12. I agree that Deckars pst clearly made the point that these "limitations" as they are lovingly called really are more NQ adjusting your "allowance" in relation to what a subscription contributes to the server cost which really is completely sensible. I mean, you want 1Gbit internet, you pay more for your connection than when you onlyneed 250Mbit. You want higher quality GFX on GFN? you pay the premium sub. There is _many_ in game with only a few ships and constructs. As an org leader, you would start seeking these out and offering a deal in exchange for their org cores to be assigned to yoru available slots. And that.. is also gameplay.. While true, blame JC who never did because of not realizing or not caring at the time. Whatever the reason, he did not mange this at all and it is why he is gone. And with his departure we've certainly seen a more business focussed approach from NQ, I'd assume both out of nessesity and bascially as good business practice. They have to deal with the mess left behind first though and it seems they still are catching up on that.
  13. Where do you get this 15+10 limit from @CptLoRes The original change was 17+25 which was based on what NQ thought was a general 25 core count per player.. That general count was probably an average which was obtained by [total cores in game]/[number of accounts] just like I expect the 1M tax original used was obtained through [amount of ore seeded on alioth]/[number of tiles on alioth]}*25/2 And as it is, starting off there is not really bad, but when you find that calculation is really not adequately representing what's going on, then gradually tweak the numbers to get to where it's balanced. Instead of that, NQ just swings from one extreme to the one opposite and leave no room to balance further. It will be MUCH harder now for NQ to reduce core count if they'd find they need to withough creating another storm. Had they gone for say 25 personal/50 org cores and not change anything just yet, they might have found a good portion of the noise would have died down already. IMO an synonym for negotiating in this context is finding a balance and you generally find the balance by small adjustements towards the middle until you meet up somewhere in that area, not by a massive swing to the other side. The big change also creates the idea of NQ holding back (on purpose) for some as we saw quite clearly. I really do not think that is the case, I think NQ just has an odd way of calculating their numbers in these matters and then overreacts when they encounter resistance. In the case of the cores, I expect NQ ended up at twice the amount they could have balanced out on. 50/50 woud have been fine, it's plenty for a solo player and an org woudl need 33 members to hit the cap which is a reasonable member count IMO.
  14. Yes, it is.. For one, the person who pretty much hammerd his "vision" through with no regard for what is and/or was feasible is gone, he was fired for good reason. As you joined at the start of Beta all you have seen is the fallout of his (lack of) actions and management of the project, leading to his removal and the company scrambling to save what hey can in an attempt to try and build up what's possibel towards a release and beyond. Ignoring all that happened before you joined, simple because "you were not there" is what I feel is not helpful and pretty much judging those who were and now see NQ tryuing to make this work and then seeing a sign of actually standing up to the whims of the community, however well intended that may hav ebeen, for us is liek a breath of fresh air. I also do not agree that I am saying (as I am OP here) that NQ is now suddenly doing great and all is well, far from it. But I do believe that IF NQ were to show us more of what we saw come from Deckard this wekeend, there is hope yet. This was the first time really I've seen someone at NQ stand up and pretty much say "enough" and I appreciat that as I feel NQ needs to take ownership and show leadership more and not blow in every which way the majority of noise in the community blows them. NQ needs to put their own goals first and creat ethe game they feel they should create. Only then is it for us to say whether we are willing to play that game. The devlopment of DU is not a democratic process between us and NQ, we can voice our opinion and provide feedback. And while NQ should listen to that and consider it if it makes sense, NQ has to call what goes and what does not, and that is what they did here, clearly and directly. If you want to tell NQ what they should do, write them a check for acouple of million and you can..
  15. Player: Can train three talents to have 100 cores available to assign to orgs Org legate: can train three talents which will allow the org to have up to 1625 core slots available which would be filled using cores assigned by players. So best case, org has 17 members, al lhave their org talent trained to max and legate has the org core talents trained to max.. 16 members assign 100 cores to the org, one assigns 25 ..
  16. Let me just say that you simply do not have enough information to judge what those of us who have been here for 5+ years and logged for the first time 29 September 2017 know, leearnt or have seen NQ do. You also do not know of the level and amnout of feedback we, as early backers, provided NQ early on and what NQ did or did not do with that. You really only know about the tailend of it and the fallout that followed. So I can't blame you for not knowing, I can question the ease with which you seem to dismiss that you may not have all the information others have. That is just ignorance and makes your comment on this fairly meaningless. Ask JC..
  17. Which I guess is a great first tep towards an eventual proper API for these things..
  18. I think the intent of the post got lost in translation and the (slight) frustration on the part of Deckard with some of the (similar) comments may have caused him to overlook that. I could see dynamic cores be up for a P2W argument for many, even when I'd agree with you that this is not the case. What could be a possibility would be to make such an option payable with DAC only, that way you can open up the opportunity to buy DAC in game and then use that DAC to buy slots which in turn removes the whole P2W argument as it becomes an advantage available to anyone, regardleess of whether you can spend RL$$ on it or not. The problem with this though is that it would need to be a recurring payment and the logistics around that may make it too complicated to implement in a feasible way. I do not dislike the idea thouhg and it may be something for NQ to consider.
  19. I think that is less an issue here. This is one of those things that should have been implemented a long time ago but with JC in control it was never even considered as NQ never thought ahead more than 3-6 months nor seemed to consider the cost factor much. The argument that a cap of 1400 cores per player, as Deckard now brought up, is certainly a potential problem waiting to happen is fair and whoever thought that this number was fine when it was put in clearly lacked the foresight of multiplying it with tens of thousands of players needed to carry the game. The problem there is probably the lack of a project manager who will question anything that is being done in game against the cost and viability for the company. I think this is more a matter of resource cost in the server design that drives the decision than actual financial impact. That the two use the same word "cost" can get confusing quickly. Regardless of how much money you have, the amount of resources a single player can use/deploy will directly impact your server performance and the amount of financial resources you need to support that. Whether you have the money to pay for that or not, what a player contributes in subscription revenue must be balanced against that. Setting the initial sub at $7 was another mistakes JC made which set him up for failure. By upping the core count now, NQ will need to make further choices down the line to keep that balance and that is the point Deckard made very clearly. Those choice will either be further limiting in game options or increasing subscription cost. To be honest, that NQ offered existing subs the same rate as long as the continue their subscription seems to me to be a good indicator that the current sub count is not all that great and has no real impact on NQ’s bottom line (and they plan another increase at release). And I doubt that whoever subbed or resubbed after that at the current rate will have much of that either. Personally, I really think they should go to $15/month on release, if not sooner, to balance that and to create more headroom in what they can accommodate server side. I really believe that if they can clearly establish how this increase justifies maintaining the existing limits and options in game, this will work out just fine, Deckard may without realizing it, actually have set this up nicely in his response. JC's biggest mistake IMO was he seems to never have done the math for the long term and on top of that, the limited budget NQ has always had to work with really called for very strict budgeting on several fronts, something he clearly did not do. And when he made his final mistake in thinking he could just open up the game at "beta", all of this came crashing down as server cost went through the roof, draining NQ's capital. And JC did not have the skillset to really address this, and I feel panicked and made more mistakes. Only once he left and people who have the skillset to manage this got a chance to do so was NQ able to make the needed corrections but by now, these started affecting gameplay in a way that broke expected abilities and behaviour. And that is where we are now.
  20. I did expect that NQ would adjust the initial numbers but thought it was a bit quick and from there, too much of a correction. I understood where the need for the change comes from, and it makes sense. A lot of the noise and upheaval was caused by a less than well written initial devblog, followed by a rather questionable second one in tone. Much of the "pain" NQ has is inflicted purely by themselves through poor communication and ambiguity in their statements and announcements. This "outburst" by Deckard, while very "rough around the edges" is not that at all. It is clear, lays down both the "law" and explains in a brief but concise way why. There will always be those that still try to argue the point or "reason" with NQ for a better condition towards their interests but I think the way Deckard put is was very clearly "this is what it is, there is nothing more to come". And I also agree the initial numbers were fine, I expected NQ to move a bit to maybe 75 cores in total for a player who plays alone and maybe move it a bit more once implemented, but I’ll take the 200 cores .. And lastly, while yes, this change is clearly rooted in the need to cut (potential future) cost but at the same time, I think this action was always going to happen as it makes sense that the previous cap of 1400 cores as said by Deckard is not sustainable if you run a game with tens of thousands of players which is what NQ must design for if the game will eventually have a chance. So it's actually a change which shows that they are in fact starting to have a more long term outlook on how the game requirements will grow over time and while we're not quite there, that is a sign of progress for me.
  21. Bit late to the party, this has been well discussed. Also, Deckard has already informed us that NQ is well aware of these issues and for now, no consequences until they have this sorted.
  22. All I can say here.. THANK YOU @NQ-Deckard Finally, someone at NQ draws a line and makes it very clear that enough is enough without laying blame, using fluffy or borderline condescending wording. This is the direct and clear communication we have not seen much from NQ AND it has some very defining reasoning in the part I put in bold in the quote. I personally think that the new numbers overhoot even and could have been set lower but is NQ is comfortable with this, even when it already hits their cap in what they can afford, then I'll take it. Whether you like it or not, from what I'm seeing, this is what NQ is willing to give us and they provide what I consider fair reason for the decidion. It's now on you as a player to accept it and move on or not and.. move on. So I suggest we all do that..
  23. FIrst, it's going to be a month before anythinghappens, second, org leeadership should account for shrinkage.
  24. There is no reason to have a HQ tile on each planet. If your operations allowyou to have apresence on eachone, I think it woudl be fair to expect yo can cough up 500K per planet per week at least. Frankly, I think the 5 you have now (and that number may go down in the future) is already rather generous.
×
×
  • Create New...