KlatuSatori
-
Posts
331 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by KlatuSatori
-
-
"Not a no-go zone, dear friend. Not a no-go zone. Think of it as an attrition zone. If your ship has enough armour and shield, you won't have to bother about the dangers of entering such zones. However, if it doesn't, it will slowly and steadily reduce your structure's integrity."
This is exactly what I mean. Terrain should restrict travellers in some way. It could be completely impassable, or it might just restrict your top speed or could be that you need heavy armour, or a low mass, or maintain a high speed, or have special sensors, etc.Why would stargates be the end-all of strategy if they were the only(useful) way to travel between stars?environmental conditions apply without freeform interstellar travel as well.A nebula or radiation cloud affects you the same when you are in orbit around a star as it does when you are in deep space.(And the effects of black holes and asteroid fields make more sense in interplanetar ranges as well lol)And without freeform travel NQ doesnt have to design a second balancing framework around detection and movement impairment whichs constraints are completely different than the ones for in-system gameplay.For effective deep space interdiction you need sensors with light hours to light months or even years.But for in system gameplay you definitely dont want sensors that can keep an eye over the whole system on its own.Same for FTL disruptors and the like.I personally dont see a way to reconcile one of those problems without completely breaking the other thing.And honestly also see no reason to open that can of worms in the first place.Why bother with building all those extra systems to prevent freeform interstellar travel from breaking the rest of the game when most of the gameplay works the same without it?I know its cool and would be a nice thing to have (i actually want it myself). But it opens up such a huge can of worms that i'd rather have it not in the game (at release) than to make the rest of the game suffer for it because of the diverted resources.Honestly I don't see any real issues here. So you have close, medium, and long range sensors where the respective ranges do not overlap (i.e the long range sensor can't detect anything that the shorter range sensors can). Similarly you can have close, medium and long range interdictors, where the medium range one can't interdict anything at x distance from a star and the long range one can't interdict anything within 10x (or some other suitable multiplier) of a star (distance to star restrictions could also be placed on sensors if necessary).There will definitely be issues of some kind, as there are with all game mechanics, but I think they are small especially when compared with the gameplay options that open up. The gains far outweigh the costs. And I certainly don't see anything game breaking... it is stargates that require a bunch of restrictions in order to prevent them from breaking the game, not normal travel. -
That pretty much just sounds like you don't think certain shapes can be consistently created. The devs can write any algorithm they like for the procedural generation of different environments. Any shapes you like can be common, uncommon, or rare, it's just a matter of writing the right algorithm to create the desired effect and testing it to see what kind of universes are created.i dont disagree that terrain effects create gameplay, they can create a lot of gameplay.
but i dont think that nebula and asteroid fields could consistently create choke points which arent just statistical oddities but influence the game as a whole.
if the system creates one choke point and then doesnt for long distances. making the choke point an oddity thats mostly circumventable and not something you always have to think about strategically.
But again, choke points aren't just about shapes, canals and bottlenecks, they're about interacting environments and what players do with them. Bottlenecks are pretty uncommon even on land and sea, and rare in oceans.
My point is that it's variety that makes for interesting wars and battle grounds. Stargates are a part of that, but only a small part. They certainly should not be the whole story as that would be disappointingly restricting.
-
Duplicate post, sorry.
-
Really, chokepoints are relative to the size, speed, and strength of the fleets that command them. You could say that a chokepoint has to be a "certain size" to really be a chokepoint, but in reality it simply depends upon the capability of a fleet, and the creativity of the person captaining that fleet. If someone were to have, say, a large AI fleet to go along with their player based one, they could create an "artificial chokepoint"; a wall of drones to drive the enemy fleet in a certain direction, which would push them into an ambush.
You're absolutely right. I was just giving an example of a particular type of choke point in 3D. And 10 minutes was just plucked out of the air but in reality, 1 hour or even more could be sufficient. When terrain is complex and mixed inventive leaders can utilise it to their advantage in any number of ways.
-
And 30 AU are very very very narrow over interstellar distances.
Thats about 0.0005 lightyears.
I dont think that any structures stretching over 5+ lightyears would somewhat consistently form 3D choke points.
Because its so incredibly unlikely that multiple such structures would come so close and not overlap some distance, forming even denser hazards
They could be all kinds of sizes and shapes, and there could be any kind of suitable equations governing how they are procedurally generated to create the desired effect.
-
im not saying that those things arent navigational hazards, im saying they arent capable of consistently creating choke points where people have to get through to get fom A to B.
because at least three or more such structures have to form a canal thats existent and not too wide to be an effective choke point (without opening other balancing cans full of worms)
3D environments make much more unlikely that something is an actual choke point compared to the 2d surfaces of earth.
and even then those constrictions have to be small enough to matter for any interception/blockading gameplay.
Let's think about how narrow the narrowest part of a long canal has to be in order for it to be an effective choke point. Let's say that your fleet is hiding in the surrounding terrain and needs to get to the central part of the canal in 10 minutes in order to effectively intercept an enemy fleet. I'll use 10C as the top speed of the fleet as that seems like a reasonable number considering what JC has said and the numbers in my last post. At 10C you can travel 12AU in 10 minutes. So any canal that is less than around 25AU at it's narrowest point could be considered a choke point. For comparison, Neptune is about 30AU from the sun.
-
I agree with NQ on Stargates.
1. The vastness of empty space necessitates them. Travel at the speed of light is difficult, some would say impossible. Travel at 70,000+ times the speed of light to get interstellar travel to be within months of real time is only plausible within a game.
2. Travel AT the speed of light takes 11 REAL hours to get from one side of Pluto's orbit to the other. Nyzaltar has already indicated that you will be able to travel at "multiples of the speed of light" with a FTL drive. (just not multiples in the range of 70,000) This will allow you to visit anywhere within the solar system.
3. Look at No Man's Sky. There's nothing to do. It's almost impossible to find other players. Stargates are also a way for NQ to manage player density. This will provide greater gameplay depth.
4. I don't think most players even comprehend the SCALE of a single Solar System. A single solar system should have plenty of "content" to keep the average player busy.
Ultimately its a great tool to manage player density.
I agree with almost all of NQ's positions on stargates too.
1. Actually, to travel 5 light years in 6 months you'd only need to achieve 10C; 20C for 3 months. Solar systems don't have to be as far apart as 5LY either, they could be 1-2LY apart, or anything NQ decide. (FYI with 70kC you'd go 5LY in about 38 minutes.)
2. Yes and just to illustrate the point, light takes over 8 hours to get from one end of Neptune's orbit to the other. At 10C that is 50 minutes, at 20C it's 25 minutes.
3. Yes, I agree. Though it is just one thing that can control population densities. I've not played No Man's Sky but I'm guessing you can travel between solar systems extremely quickly (virtually instantaneously?). That's a completely different type of game. I don't think anyone wants that for DU.
4. Absolutely. In fact I'd go further and say people are underestimating the scale of a single planet - I'm sure there'll be some players who spend almost all of their time on land.
-
[...]
Of course they could create navigational problems that matter. In fact they could create interesting navigational problems that can either be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what is there, what you bring, what you do in the area (forests can create choke points on land but that doesn't mean you can't travel through them and use them to your advantage). But to speculate down to the point that you are here is not worthwhile or meaningful because it all depends on a host of other factors. It all depends on implementation and context.
erm... thats not how gravity works.
not even for black holes.
gravity doesnt work differently for black holes than it does for the stars they are born out of.
It might not be specifically how gravity works but it is close enough for the purpose of a game. Gravitation is stronger between heavier masses that are closer together and you need to reach a particular velocity to escape a large body's gravitational pull. The exact physics beyond that are not important. This is not a simulation. It is highly unlikely they'll be implementing real gravity physics.
lets do a calculation how unlikely it is that such formations exist on scales that would matter to interstellar travel.
lets assume a modest 1 one-gram-pebble in every cubic kilometer of space. (1e-12kg/m³)
in a volume equivalent to a cube with 1 lightyear edge length (9.4607e15 m) (equal to a sphere with about two thirds of a lightyear radius)
makes 846e33kg of rubble in that volume.
our sun has a mass of ~2e30kg.
so that 1ly cube has the mass of 400000 suns. unlikely that it hasnt collapsed into a sun/black hole by the time of the game :V
I'm sorry, did I give the impression that I was postulating that these formations actually exist? I wasn't. I was giving an idea for space terrain in a game.
Having said that haven't you just said that such a formation could exist? Calculate the length of time such a formation would take to collapse into a single body... but not in this thread as it is not relevant.
-
I believe in the most recent dev interview with GrayStillPlays, JC Baillie said that large scale space phenomena such as black holes and nebulae would not be included in the game, at least at launch.
He said they aren't working on anything like that right now, but it's a cool idea, so they'd love to think about it. No time frames given so I guess it all depends on progress and funding, etc.
-
"In the long run, the months-long trips may be shortened to mere days or even minutes. Although, that might take several extension packs down Dual Universe's life line. Not to mention, as the game progresses, so will the technology. Star-gates are not a bad idea, quite the opposite, they are important and needful. I have no idea how the extension packs may come in the future, even less what they might contain. But suffice, it to say that until we reach the level of incredibly fast travel in Dual Universe, Star-gates are the best options for celerity. "
Was that in response to my post? I've already stated in this thread that stargates are necessary and given reasons as to why I think so. As for reducing the months- or weeks-long trips between systems, I wouldn't want that to happen and I don't see it happening under any reasonable foreseeable circumstances. What I would like is for the months/weeks long trips to be both viable and purposeful.
-
There are two assumptions that have been in this thread that I disagree with. The first is that choke points can't exist in space without stargates. That's like saying that they can't exist on planets without roads. Stargates (and roads) obviously contribute to the creation of choke points but they are only one small piece of the puzzle. Choke points on land are created primarily by natural geographical features. Others are created by artificial features - I.e. cities, bridges, roads, mines, houses, etc.
If you expect stargates to be the only type of choke point in space then you are setting your sights far too low. There are a plethora of natural features that could be added to space to create choke points and interesting terrain. Some examples:
- black holes - anything within a certain distance of the hole needs to maintain a minimum speed/mass ratio or else it is pulled in. This distance and ratio can be determined by the size of the hole but could be really large, potentially encompassing multiple nearby star systems.
- a region of space that is dense in tiny rock formations, ships passing through take damage. Maybe the amount of damage taken can be reduced by having dedicated scanners that detect them, and/or by traveling slowly.
- nebulae / molecular clouds, the effects of these could vary depending on the type, but sensors and visibility could be drastically reduced in effectiveness.
- ionised regions of space could have adverse effects on certain types of electronic equipment and/or DPUs
- fresh supernovas could make large regions of space completely impassable for scifi-ey reasons
- black holes eating stars spew out streams of plasma. Exaggerate the effect so that there are streams of plasma flying through space (maybe I'm getting carried away with that one...)
Now imagine these in all shapes and sizes (any of these can be on the scale of a battlefield, on the scale of multiple star systems or anything in between), many overlapping and interacting with one another. Now you have real terrain in space and real choke points. And these are just a few things I came up with while sitting on the train to work, I'm sure there are plenty of other things people could come up with both real and imagined. Then throw in artificial structures - colonies/cities/settlements, stargates, trade routes - the things the players will make. These create strategic points of contention to be fought over. And what you build and where is all the more important when the environment is alive with features.
The other point I saw made is that "free" travel somehow makes the greater force always win, while stargates-only travel makes things more strategic. I'm convinced I've misunderstood this because it is blatantly obvious that, if anything, the opposite is true. Needing to actually travel to an enemy site opens up all kinds of interesting strategic options and difficult decisions. It allows for interceptions, ambushes, diversionary tactics, splitting or concentrating forces, misdirection, and lots of other exciting possibilities. Stargate-only travel on the other hand means you know exactly where the enemy is going to be. So you put everything you've got there and slog it out.
If it was "free" instantaneous travel that was being referred to then I completely agree. That would completely remove all interesting and strategic options. What I'm talking about is real travel that takes time and effort and can be intercepted, not instantaneous travel.
-
Within the quantum immortality theory the devs are going by, (more info here) all players have essentially achieved immortality due to the advanced tech of Resurrection Nodes. If this is possible then it also makes sense that you could go to an alternate universe where the person bearing your former name and body is dead, but your consciousness exists in a new body.
Here's how I'd imagine working optional perma-death in. After you die you are prompted with these options:
>Resurrect at nearest RN
>Resurrect at Arkship RN
>Awaken as new Arkship pioneer (Permadeath)
So essentially, you can resurrect as a new player, but as long as you are that new player, your old character is dead and will stay dead. (making their name unusable)
Just a thought, wouldn't hurt anything and would be a good mechanic if a player simply wants to get a fresh start.
Well, the middle option shouldn't exist. There's no choice about which RN you respawn at.
However, a good way to implement permadeath would be to have the Arkship RN require a recharge time just like all other RNs. So if you die when none of your RNs are charged it's permadeath. Really easy to avoid since the Arkship RN is in the safe area, so just wait around until at least one is recharged. I'm not sure this is hardcore enough for OP though.
-
1: The 40 hours includes time designing, gathering materials and... testing Lua scripting as will likely be the case for ships.
Rebuilding won't take as long designing, but gathering building materials will take hours. And gathering fuel for ships will likely take hours.
2: "Fact of life" is irrelevant. Dual Universe is a game; not real life. The devs are going to design the game for what's fun for Builders as well as what's fun for Fighters. The balance of gameplay is not going to be the same it is for games where you can simply purchase a new ship from an NPC vendor. The solution will not be simple, but it will need to be fair. Otherwise, Builders will stop building - and then there's no point in having a voxel game.
3: At this time, we don't need a new thread for players to devise "solutions". We need to play the game first to see if the devs' design strategies feel fair and then we can help tweak whatever they've already implemented.
1: Time designing and testing constructs and scripts shouldn't really be a factor in what happens in PvP, at least not directly. Only in terms of how effective that construct is in PvP. If you spend 300 hours designing a gigantic glass building and fail to surround it with an infrastructure of defenses, both military and political, an invulnerability timer is the most you should expect.
2: It is true that game balance and fun gameplay are the most important factors when designing game mechanics, but that does not make "fact of life" irrelevant. JC Baillie himself has said in a few places that he likes to look at the real life for inspiration when trying to find solutions to game mechanics.
3: I didn't suggest a new thread to devise solutions. I suggested an idea to put in the ideas section. NQ put that section there for players to put their ideas and discuss with the rest of the community. NQ want to engage with their community and take ideas that they think are good.
-
I'm a "he" yo xD
I was talking about Pantydraco
-
Erm... why not use the RDMS which is already going to be in the game?
The original blueprint owner has all the initial rights.
Exchanging royalities for a blueprint would be a general contract which exchanges blueprint read/execute access for a duty in an arbitary form, recurring payment, access to something, having to sing once a day for the blueprint owner...
A change in royalities would be a change in the duties, which the owner of the blueprint can do through the RDMS interface.
No arbitary npcs or timers required, no fixed currency required
The RDMS system works around powers associated with elements. Blueprints would have to have certain powers (e.g. the power to copy it) inherent to them in order to be used in conjunction with the RDMS system, so her/his post is perfectly relevant.
-
And yes, building a citadel around your TU would be wise. You can't build a citadel and want it to be pretty. PvP is war, and war is messy, war needs function over form. And building defenses should be not a call to fashion. It should be something that means business.
Absolutely, completely agree. I'm just talking about non-defensive structures though. NQ have said in the past that players can seek fame by building awesome landmarks. Those are about form over function.
And if you make buildings indestructibe or take 36 hours to take down, that would simply make PvP and invading other planets the but-end of a joke. Build a a kilometer wide structure around your TU. Another org comes and tries to take your planet. They have to wait 2000 hours to take down its HP. THAT is silly.
Having different voxels have different durability though is organic. You take your fleet, and focus fire on a point over the TU unit to break through, then your guys go in.
At first I was going to agree with this but then I thought that there is no reason why the two systems can't work together. Let's use your example of a kilometre radius defensive structure around the TU. You focus fire on a single point and break through that point. You don't actually need to destroy the entire wall, just breach it.
NQ have said that they aspire to having hulls breachable, so as you say, the same should be true of static constructs. The total "health" of a construct then relates to the health of the individual voxels that make it up, some of which might be completely destroyed. Then just make auto-repairing a construct much quicker than auto-building one from scratch.
I'm just saying, making a siege last 40 hours via actual gameplay and actively participating and putting a 40 hours timer on a siege has A LOT of difference.
Yes, I agree, it's just reconciling the time it takes to create/destroy PvP constructs with the time it takes to create/destroy non-PvP constructs such as landmarks and dwellings and also ensuring that people don't wake up to find all their buildings destroyed over night.
-
Territorial Units can be an improptu "Force Field" over a city. (visually at least). Which would make sense that damanging the force field, would bring down the invulnerability. Perhaps, having Personal Claims in a Territory would act the same, with a force field that has to be taken down to destroy the building.
But my idea on materials playing and architecture playing a part on the building's durability is more organic I believe, instead of a an RPG idea of HP. Which would make sense, since the ships can be partially damaged, why shouldn't buildings act the same way as ships? I mean, NQ also confirmed that there are "Constructs", they don't recognise a ship made out of voxels differently than a building made out of vocels. So it's safe to assume that building a scyscraper should take into account its endurance on an attack.
Nothing is mentioned in the Territory Control devblog of TU's providing any kind of protective force field over a region and I would very much hope that that is not the case (for reasons you and I discussed in another thread https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/937-territory-claim-unit-function-suggestion/). EDIT: This suggests that TU's will not provide automatic force field protection "You can get control over a territory by "convincing" its owner or administrator to give a delegation to you, or, more traditionally, you can enter it, find the territory unit, destroy it and plant your own, or simply hack it. Expect it to be well hidden and well defended."
I completely agree about materials and structure playing a part in how durable and resistant to attack a building is. But that is a PvP balance issue rather than a building time issue. What if you value form over function and want to build a construct that is a work of art rather than a sturdy shelter? Such a thing might take a long time to build or auto-build but only take a few minutes to destroy. I think that is where some people have concerns.
-
"However, rebuilding after destruction is costly, as neither the materials nor the time required by the auto-rebuilder can be avoided. It would be better to lose a bit of time and money, rather than losing your magnificent neo-renaissance imperial castle on top of the mountain."
I do not believe anyone here has issues with spending the cost or time to build things, the topic at hand is more about the time required to destroy that item. Given all the other stats being balanced, skills, etc, we are seeking a balance of construction vs destruction when the creation skill and destruction skill is on the same level. If that balance is not there, the builders side of the game will be more likely to leave because it isn't worth their effort to waste their time. This game will not be much of a game, especially when the devs keeps using "Minecraft" in their promotions and all you have is trigger-happy PvP players.
EG: If it takes a player 40 hours to build a building that is rated at 100 armor, it should take just as long for an attacker with 100 armor destruction power to take that building down, not 5 mins, 1 hour, or 5 hours.
First let me state that I do agree there needs to be a careful balance between destruction and construction. With that...
Are you talking about 40 hours of real time waiting, i.e. automated building time, not actual playing time? You cannot equate automated building time with active playing time.
Destruction is always quicker and easier than creation, that is a fact of life. There does need to be a balance, but you cannot sum it up to a simple equation of 100 armor vs 100 bullets, or 40 hours vs 40 hours. Things are never that simple.
Here's an idea. NQ have already said that there will be invulnerability timers for Territory Units, similar to reinforcement timers in Eve Online. Let's say a building takes 40 hours for an auto-rebuilder to build assuming it has all the resources it needs. That building will have an invulnerability timer of up to 40 hours. If attackers reduce the building's health down to 50%, the building becomes completely impervious to harm for 40 hours (during this time it also cannot be healed so it stays exactly at 50%). This gives the defenders a chance to negotiate with the attackers, call in reinforcements or allies, rearm/repair defensive structures, or move their most valuable items to a safe place. After 40 hours the attackers can come back to finish the building off. The actual time spent by the attackers to destroy the building could be 100 hours, it could be 10 minutes, it depends on PvP balance factors, not on building time.
All static, fixed constructs can have an invulnerability timer based on the time it takes an auto-rebuilder to build it. If it is a tiny hut that can be built by an autorebuilder in 5 minutes, its invulnerability timer is 5 minutes. If it is a large house that takes 20 hours to be auto-built, its invulnerability timer is 20 hours. What I'm unsure about is whether there should be a maximum time. I mean if there is a truly gigantic structure that takes 3 months of real time to be auto-built, should its invulnerability timer be 3 months? I don't know... maybe?
Any thoughts on this idea? If this post gets a few likes then I'll post it as its own idea thread.
-
The same cannot be said for the attacker because both Builders and Fighters will have to spend time acquiring gear and upgrading skills.
If it takes Builders 40 hours to build contstructs and Fighters 5 minutes to destroy those contrsucts - Builders will stop building. It's not worth the effort.
Blatantly unfair for Fighters to have their fun in a handful of minutes while it takes builders tens of hours to have their fun.
The devs will definitely balance that since they've stated that Dual Universe is as much a building game as it is a PvP combat game.
Remember though, that you will only have to design the building once, and that is the only part that takes active playing time. After that rebuilding a destroyed construct can be automated if you have a construct snapshot or blueprint.
I will put this here again https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/18-devblog-arkship-security-or-where-does-pvp-start/:
Strategically, a secondary arkship-like defense tower and safe zone will obviously be a target of choice, either for military purposes or simply by griefers eager to set the world on fire. The first type of attack could in principle be settled without much damage for the inhabitants of the zone, if they consent to transfer territory control to the attacker when he has proven to be stronger than the existing defenses. In the second case, ultimate destruction could be the goal of the hostile forces. Players will always be encouraged to take electronic snapshots of their constructions, if not blueprints when appropriate (the difference is that a snapshot cannot be traded, it's a personal asset), together with insurances, in order to be able to rebuild if necessary. However, rebuilding after destruction is costly, as neither the materials nor the time required by the auto-rebuilder can be avoided. It would be better to lose a bit of time and money, rather than losing your magnificent neo-renaissance imperial castle on top of the mountain.
-
NQ shared some thoughts on slavery a while back.
https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/43-a-take-on-gathering-interaction/?hl=slaves
Hi Kongou,
Several interesting ideas in your topic:
- Yes, we are currently discussing about the possibility of having scripted droids (obtainable by crafting) to do some automated work (but not everything).
- Slavery won't be a "hardcoded" game mechanic, for a few reasons:
1) While this can be a logical concept in some SciFi games due to the background storyline, it's not really the case in Dual Universe: before Mankind leave Earth, some concepts like Slavery were considered barbaric and therefore, wasn't something brought along on new planets. However, nothing prevent that, at some point, slavery start to reappear.
2) With the technology available in Dual Universe, slavery will most probably seen as some archaic and inefficient concept. Mechanical AIs will look like the ideal manual workers: never tired, never bored of repetitive tasks, never complaining, no need to eat or to be paid, etc... Why bother with slaves in this situation?
3) To see any kind of slavery in game, it will only be up to players (some taking the role of masters and others taking the role of slaves willingly). This will be part of the emergent gameplay we're talking about. But this will be more about roleplay than efficiency purpose.
- Having an evolving system, especially for industry, is something we are thinking about
First your character will start with a simple tool (the nanoformer) to do the manual work, then you will be able to build semi-automated elements (3D Printer, Assembly Unit), then you will be able to craft mechanical workers programmed to bring resources to these semi-automated elements and activate them, etc... So yes, at some point, we plan to automatize at least a part of the repetitive work. But that won't be something available from the start.
- Yes, we are currently discussing about the possibility of having scripted droids (obtainable by crafting) to do some automated work (but not everything).
-
Not to sound a bit abnoxious, but it's "vacuum of space" for a reason
There's pretty much nothing between systems. What content could exist, away from a possible habbitat? What would "rich content" if not a new star system. I mean, I hardly think many people will bother leaving the starting planet if they find a nice spot by the sea and begin building non-stop. Especailly players who expected Landmark to not be so much of a turd. (We all know it's true tho).
Freeform travel should be in the game, yes, absolutely, it's part of the whole "single shard, dynamic splitting" idea tthe game got going for it, but not freeform for FTL is my point, for all the gameplay reasons I explained on jump-points being like gates on a castle. If someone wants to go over your wall, they'll have to work for it hard. That's my case on the subject.
And please do clarify on "rich content" between stars, cause I can only think of comets with rare resources only. :/
The outer reaches of our solar system are populated with dwarf planets, icy rocks (which incidentally are where comets come from), possibly even a brown dwarf. These are theorised to extend out to at least a light year from the sun, possibly much further. That is a significant portion of the distance to the next star. If all solar systems are surrounded by such an assortment of rocks, small planets, and other bodies they can provide stepping stones between systems.
It is thought that there are more rogue planets in the milky way than there are stars. The space in between systems can be populated with these rogue planets. Other possibilities are vast asteroid clusters, dense gas clouds, alien ship wrecks, other cosmic phenomenon, and anything else you can think of. TBH this is not the first time I've brought this up https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/499-interstellar-space/?hl=interstellar And I shared a cool article about rogue planets a while ago too https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/547-rogue-planets/?hl=%2Brogue+%2Bplanets.
Having this kind of content in interstellar space would make the DU universe truly unique and "continuous".
- Atmosph3rik and Halo381
-
2
-
You know what would be really cynical on the devs part?
To let us travel the first time with normal speed to the next system and then instantly grant us the knowledge of building STargates, with an in game mail saying "this is why you don't go the slow way from system to system" xD
I think what the devs have planned is good. I just think the initial journeys to new systems should be done by actual players, not probes, and that the space in between systems should be rich with content.
-
they already said it will take weeks to get off the planet we start in, it's safe to assume players will spread on the four winds after the first system by building stargates, or the arkship "crew" having built stargates for us to leave the first system (somehow). I know that I for example, will plunge myself on a star to see my face melt for starters.
I am pretty sure there are no premade stargates planned. I understand what DU are planning for expansion beyond the first planet. I am just asking about this "no freeform travel" idea.
-
If interstellar travel is limited to stargates only, how would you ever get out of the first solar system? Are you advocating for pre-made stargates? I would be strongly against that.
Furthermore, what is the point in a continuous single shard universe if you can't actually go to the space in between star systems? You may as well forget the continuous part and make separate shards for each system like in Eve.
Am I alone in thinking that Stargate Probes are a bad idea?
in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
Posted
Stargates are a superweapon. You can't seriously think they're simple to implement. They have to be extremely difficult to build in order to stop them from being game breaking. That difficulty has to involve multiple game mechanics and be fairly complex. There also needs to be some way to stop warfare revolving entirely around them. That is not an easy problem to solve. I'm not saying stargates shouldn't be in the game. On the contrary, I think they're necessary, but they need to be a piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing.
"Different forms of interactions"? Different forms of interactions are a good thing, not bad, but I don't get what interactions you're referring to.
Regarding sensors, my point was it's an easy issue to solve. But they can easily make sense with a suitable lore explanation. Another idea is to have longer range sensors have a decreased resolution and so can't detect ships that are near stars.
No one is more strongly against instant travel than me. I've never once said that I want instant travel. In fact the instantaneous nature of stargates doesn't sit well with me, but I understand that it is a necessary evil. I'm only speaking against the idea that stargates should be the only form of interstellar travel, and I'm not convinced about stargate probes. I think it would be better if the journeys were made by real players. But I've explained this idea at least twice before. As long as that is at least a viable option in the game I'll be happy. Which hopefully it will be. If DU is a continuous single shard universe then there won't be anything stopping you from traveling between systems normally. The only question is whether the journeys are eventful and can provide interesting cooperative gameplay.