Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Gender
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

1502 profile views

SGCamera_Beta's Achievements

  1. This is a planned feature via buying DAC as an ingame item. It is planned to work almost identically to Eve's PLEX system. Its just not in the game yet. More its a game for people without kids. You can still work a full-time job and hit a 6 hr/day average if you play the game as your primary hobby.
  2. The voxel meta is driven by the fact that every voxel type has the same HP per kg of material, which makes the densest materials with the most resists the best for armor. Which is garbage because the value of a lot of materials is that they are stronger for less mass (ie titanium).
  3. This is the number one issue actually. In general I agree that there needs to be ways to create more detail (texture painter when?), but large amounts of elements have serious performance issues. Even non-functional elements (ie, decorations) produce CPU load just by existing; so if you encourage people to use sub-voxel sized elements to decorate, they WILL end up with a 10 billion rivet warship, and they WILL complain about having terrible performance. Also, having to repair a whole bunch of miniature elements when you crash would be awful.
  4. If it was implemented as an element, then you could just turn the element off when you don't want it to operate. I had this idea because of that specific gameplay. The number one problem is that there is no way to detect if someone is logged off on your construct, and even if you did know they were there you have no way to remove them. My suggestion is the simplest implementation to solve both of those problems, however I do agree it potentially detracts from emergent gameplay. If another solution resolved both problems such that as the construct owner if I could spend some time working to find and remove players from my construct, then I would be all for it. Personally the most annoying thing is that characters totally disappearing from the world is very unrealistic, and the fact that people can use it to their advantage and there is no counter-play makes for a frustrating game mechanic.
  5. The XL and expanded XL containers are not efficient from a volume, mass, or cost standpoint. Where they are useful however is that due to the linking limitations, they produce the largest volume 10-stack of containers possible. Basically, they are only useful for simplifying warehouses.
  6. I guess its not popular with NQ since they deleted the upvote suggestion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  7. The simple answer to the problem is that its a game and the scaling is different from real life. Therefore people's expectations are too high. The better answer is that we don't have large enough wing elements in order to support heavy-lift aircraft. We really need Large and XL wing elements. Thrust doesn't define the carry capacity of an aircraft, lift from it's airfoils does. Yes, you do need thrust to move forward and counteract the drag from the airfoils, but thrust does not directly cause lift.
  8. I added this to the Upvote site, but I will also post it here for discussion: Players logging off on other people's constructs is a problem, for numerous reasons. Players that log off on someone else's construct should be "kicked off" the construct. When a character logs out of the game on a construct that they do not have permissions for (defined either by a construct-wide RDMS right similar to Board Construct, or by applying Use rights on a "Security System" element), their character should be moved outside the build area of the construct and their physics should be de-parented. There should be a way for the player to know their right status on a construct before logging off to avoid confusion. When not in the safe zone, the security system could become lethal instead.
  9. With the talent refund and the bonus 1 million points, there are a lot of people sitting on large amounts of talent points. I think if it was the only way to access schematics, those people would spend those points to get access immediately. Overall though, the idea of using talent points to buy schematics is really just a roundabout way of locking every recipe behind a skill. I don't think its a terrible solution, as it would encourage specialization even more, but I can understand why a lot of people wouldn't like it.
  10. DAC prices will be determined based on how much quanta people are willing to spend to buy one, and how little people are willing to get for their money when selling one. NQ shouldn't have anything to do with DAC prices. Also, the Kickstarter/Supporter packs have so many DAC's in them, that I expect the in-game DAC market to be garbage for the first 6 months to a year after release.
  11. I am 100% in favor of letting scripting do nice things, whether its hard to write or not. I was simply pointing out that letting scripts access things that would allow PvP autopilots is a bad idea. There is a reason NASA uses MechJeb - in a full 6 DoF environment, computers are better than humans. They can take all the variables and compute an optimal course and orientation to maximize weapon time on target, minimize enemy hit chance, or even just have a perfect intercept. That may be realistic, but it doesn't make for a fun game. The issue isn't that PvP mechanics are too simple, its that Newtonian Physics is a solved problem. You would be surprised at how much you can do in 1000 lines of Lua script. I agree that the outcome of the engagement should typically be decided ahead of time - logistics, how much gun your side brought, how good your ships are, etc. But in an otherwise equal 1v1 engagement, the ship with the PvP autopilot will win 9 times out of 10. And since the script would increase the combat effectiveness of the ship so much, allowing them basically makes them mandatory.
  12. Oh...right. I was all excited about the talent reset but had forgotten how terrible buying them back is...
  13. While I agree that it seems like the ideal meta and its not the optimal solution, I think it is better than what we had, as there are some drawbacks to it. Large Cores (the element) are very big and very heavy, which will reduce the usable volume and the mass budget of a "small L ship". Also, they are VERY expensive now, and if it gets destroyed you have to entirely replace it.
  14. I'd expect something along the lines of "If you haven't been online in 60 days, everything you own gets compacted into your inventory and you lose all your territory units. Organizations with no members online in 60 days will have everything compacted into the super-legate's inventory. Anything in a PvP area will not be compacted, and will be left for other players to find." Personally, I would prefer to see everything become abandoned and salvageable instead of compacted, but I think compacting things in safe zones is a reasonable compromise.
  15. I think having a "global market" would detract from player choice. If there is only one market, then trading becomes a much less interesting thing. Not to mention that hauling would cease to be a job. There is also the side effect of it being easier to manipulate for large groups, and the general increase in prices from being able to monopolize all points of sale. The lag of markets mostly is due to the number of constructs there... many of which are containers, junk/abandoned, damaged and smoking (bonus lag), or all of the above. I think having player run markets would actually FIX some of the performance issues. It will be a service the market host would provide: creating a low-lag environment by towing constructs - something that NQ generally has refused to do, thus the current market lag situation. Global markets would drive DU towards being a theme-park MMO, and that's not the direction the game should go.
  • Create New...