0something0
-
Posts
447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 0something0
-
-
Also will all bodies have atmospheres? That I find just unconvincing. More variety in planet types will be needed to make the game more interesting in the long run and part of that are planets/moons without atmospheres.
-
I think a good compromise is "one target per player" and pilots can't use turrets. So, if you got a ship with 1000 turrets bombarding a planet or something, one player can sneak up on your blind spot and start wrecking you. Besides, turrets are complex espacially when its the future so it would be good to have advanced heat and powet managment which gets increasingly difficult to take controover the more turrets you have. I also talked about maintenance costs before in another thread and turrets could have particularly high costs and break down easily, requiring lots of engineers on han for larger ships.
-
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
So.....use your standard nanoformer on a bulky, fuel eating, non-nimble entity rather than using it without fuel, on person (nimble and fast) on a small person?
Yup, that makes sense....
On the other hand, doing it from a construct gives the user more protection, and the nanoprojector could potentially be hooked up to a storage unit.
-
*gulps salt*
I'm sick of World War II but IN SPAAAACE!!!!! This isn't WWII anymore - there are technologies to electrically link togather turrets by sending electric impulses to motors on multiple turrets at the same time from 1 control station - no computers required. Of course, the problem with this setup is that if two turrets are 5 meters apart, the shells/laser/etc (in an ideal setting with no recoil) will be travelling parallel to each other so they won't hit the same spot. This means 1 person aiming can't perfectly aim both turrets at once unless this inaccuracy is compensated for by a computer modifying the electric signals. This should be left up to the players.
Besides, at realistic space combat distances, computer aided fine-controles will be required since your target will be a rapidly moving dot. And there is a pretty fine line between computer-assisted and computer-controlled. All I want is for turrets to be able to be controlled by logic gates and such as well as computers being able to relay basic instructions(point a certain direction, fire, reload, etc) to the turret, nothing too fancy.
-
15 hours ago, Lethys said:
And that's not the same as drills because.....?
Because you sre still limited to the power of 1 nanoformer per person.
-
NQ said that there are no plans of adding vocel editor elements like drills in-game because a big org could make a massive drilling ship and outmine everyone else in the market. My idea is that ther would be a nanoprojector. Nanoprojectors would function as nanoformers but they are attached to a construct that you control and all the nanoforming would happen from there. It would be like if your nanoformer was somewhere else.
For instance, you could place a nanoprojector on a front of a ship. You would still need to be sitting in the ship but you could use the ship for mining.
-
The problem with interdictors in DU is that most travel will be sublight so you can't really interdict a moving hunk of matter accelerating by Newton. Unless you call "putting a hunk of metal in front of the ship" interdiction.
-
Now somebody needs to do this in DU.
-
24 minutes ago, Lethys said:
Wait - so you want multiple coding languages (because it adds freedom) and let players literally program everything from ground up (No predefined electric system for example - because it adds freedom). But you're against letting players handle griefers and scammers? Whoa, that's some bias there.
I was like "If this game is about player made society and whatnot then why not go all in?"
This argument seems to be a particularly strong one in the community so I was simply taking advantage of it.
Aldo, Minecraft in space? You mean 2b2t?
-
There is a difference between *can do* and *should do*. Like I said, there seems to be little willingness in the community to prevent griefing/ganking/etc. but rather a mentality of "somebody else do it"....
I'm going to be frank here and say that it was a good decision for me to not fund the game.
-
1 hour ago, Zamarus said:
You are making a fine strawman out of this topic. Why should we be limited to "blow em' up" when theres a million ways to deal with people. Stop thinking inside that tiny box of yours, you know better. What you find is your interpretation and it seems to me like not many share it.
I don't know, but you are the person trying to distract from the main argument that pvp is not emergent gameplay. "Blow em' up was just an expression. Certain aspects of pvp can be emergent but pvp itself isn't when its something that is going to be a well-established game mechanic.
But ultimately, its going to be up to the community to keep the peace, and from what I've seen here, most players doesn't seem to be willing to do so, but do the opposite. I suspect that is because of EVE Online's "do-whatever you want" mentality.
-
11 hours ago, Zamarus said:
That is not how it works. By your logic anything that has already been around in other games cannot be emergent in DU. BS if you ask me. The very definition of it is creative solutions, complex situations that emerge from simple mechanics. There's even something called intentional emergence such as similar situations intended by devs. Either way we've been given the tools. And if people find unexpected ways to do PvP or literally anything else it is very much emergent gameplay, you can't just dismiss it pointing at another game. See, other games does not set the standard for what will be emergent in DU since it's a new game in itself that comes with its own complexity and player solutions to problems.
I don't find "blow em' up" as "creative solutions [and] complex situations that emerge from simple mechanics." I find it as something that is obvious and simple and has been made clear by the devs as something straightforward to do. Find someone you don't like? Blow em' up.
-
-
1 hour ago, ShioriStein said:
Also i think it can even hold 10000 player without the feeling of crowd.
But what about 10000 people and their constructs? As I understand it, the arkship will have a radius of around 25 km. Thats 625 (pi) km^2 or around 1900 km^2. So if there are 10000 people living in the safezone, each player will get around 500 m^2. Kinda getting crowded...
-
-
34 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
The more it hard, the more it value lol. If you bad at combat, bad at building, bad at mining, bad at scaning, bad at pilot a ship, bad at manning a gun on ship, bad at trader, bad at commander, bad at 'follow a team', ... you may choose coder. The more hard code is, the more value of the coder :))
Yes, but we shouldn't be locked to 1 language. People should have the freedom of choice between different languages whether it be python, lua, c, etc- its something thats touted so much in the community.
At least add assembly or something to makr our own interpreter.
-
The USDoD has working on laser weaponry for quite a bit now. The SKiD is first alerted to in the 2030s. With the re-emerging threat of ICBMs and projects such as Project Starshot before that, laser systems are here to stay. In fact, lasers might be vitial to evacuation of the solar system: high powered lasers pushing laser sail powered starship to near lightspeed.
-
4 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
And if you get shot at - thats emergent game play, not griefers, maybe pirates,
Yeah, because anything can be justified by the term "emergent gameplay"
That isn't emergent gameplay. Emergent gameplay is when players define the game mechanics, not the devs. PvP/griefing/piracy/ganking isn't emergent gameplay when it has been around forever in places like EVE and 2b2t and when the devs expressly allow such actions.
4 hours ago, MookMcMook said:I do think sending a clear message to builder players that they can find a huge area to build in game might be a sensible move
I think that is false advertising(unless by "huge area to build in" you mean "huge area to build in that is unprotected to destruction"). The safezone might seem huge but when there are 1000s of players trying to take their own section of the safezone the amount of space that is actually useable won't be very large.
-
3 hours ago, Lethys said:
And again: being able to attack someone outside the safezone is NOT unfair. nor unbalanced
I wonder why people would say that.... *cough cough they wanna gank cuz day can doo so reeeee cough cough*
In hindsight it was a good choice for me to not donate to the kickstarter....
Besides, what if the safezone becomes unviable like the aforementioned lack of profit or overcrowding in general and people have no choice but to leave. rhe premise of the whole "pvp is fair" seems to be coming from the safezone offering the right to not pvp. Being under constant threat of being killed while practically defenseless is equal to or worse then being forced into pvp. Whats to stop someone from coming in with a big ship and 1shotting me? ("Other players is not a valid answer. Said other players might also kill me. Or unwilling to destroy the shop, Or also get 1shotted.) Do I really have to play cat&mouse with the gankers?
-
NQ stated that both PvP and non-PvP will be possible. I believe that is inherently false in a player driven game. If people can just start PvP whenever, non-PvPers will either get wiped out due to lack of self-defense or them becoming PvPers to defend themselved. PvP is inevitable unless NQ cuts back on RDM (Random DeathMatch) rights but then we will have people going REEEE over it.
-
The big problem is that destruction is so much easier then construction or protection. You(an individual or group) have to spend countless hours building and pay mercs(which I suspect will be costly due to the high demand) or guard it yourself 24/7, which may not be possible, while all it takes is a few people to just log in and open fire to destroy.
And it seems like some people here are fine with this. I won't say any names but the real problem it seems like is the community's attitude towards the issue which potentially stems from NQ's *marketing* of DU as a "do-whatever-you-want" MMO (at least before the website change).
- MarrrV, Supermega, MookMcMook and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
DU is a game. As that, the devs set certain boundaries to it as you can't please anyone. You can't have a single shard mmo where everyone can do whatever he wants, anytime, anywhere.
Yes, you can't have a single shard with people being able to run free killing others
1 hour ago, Lethys said:"we pvpers" don't force anything on ppl - we play the game.
Dom't force anything except for your will to harm other players. That is the definition of conflict: forcing your will on others when the parties have conflicting wills.
1 hour ago, Lethys said:Anyone believing that NQ will deliberately and intentionally unbalance the game - killing is easier than building thus shifting the favor to the attacker - is a moron. It's common sense to balance it.
Destruction is inherently easier then construction. Its called entropy. And balancing it contridicts:
1 hour ago, Lethys said:but in the long run it's harder for everyone then to evict those pesky pirates. They will heavily fortify their den.
Which will apply not only to cheaper armour but a shift in balance to favor defence.
1 hour ago, Lethys said:If you know the mechanics the game gives you, you can counter nearly everything - that's called balance
Unless the mechanics make it so you can't counter them.
1 hour ago, Lethys said:That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules at all - it's the internet after all... that's why there are bounties. That's why there is RDMS.
The real question here is: will thesw rules be strong enough?
-
5 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:
I'm afraid you're asking too much here
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.
Or is it? I bet we can make the safezones marked with unicorns using HTML.
-
The idea that im proposing here is that elements have a chance of breaking down the more they get used. So, every (arbitrary time) the machine gets used the chance of the machine stopping to function increases by a very small amount, but over time, the machine would become very unreliable, and it takes people with skills requirw to create the element to fix. Some benefits of this system would be:
Nerfed automation: Due to parts breaking down, you cant just leave your fully automated factory alone 24/7 and "self contained" systems that tries to do everything will need large amounts of skilled personal to maintain. This allows expanded programming/automation capablities without disruption of balance. (And yes, I want to make Skynet, CaptainTwerkMotor)
Jobs: Spacecraft mechanics!
Logistics: Militaries and companies will need logistics trains to maintain their equipment. With logistics comes a entirely new aspect of operations. This also can be used as a substitute to survival mechanics. "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics."
- ShioriStein, Armedwithwings, sMax and 3 others
-
6
Can a Organization control a complete planet
in General Discussions
Posted
I imagine an org controlling a planet not with TCUs but by controlling the orbital space around it. If they can manage who can get in and out that grants them enormous power around a planet.
EDIT: am I giving people ideas?