Jump to content


Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NanoDot

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Location:
    South Africa
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

898 profile views
  1. discordauth:fDr8-T-OnuPQ9OmDOumO66EzT702LLXPoLv4p-wqh5A=

  2. NanoDot

    EVE Invasion

    I haven't played EVE in a very long time, I didn't realise that high-sec ore belts had become so insignificant. I stand corrected !
  3. NanoDot

    EVE Invasion

    No, it's not the same thing. In EVE, the asteroid belts start regrowing after the next maintenance cycle. The resources always respawn, and always in the same place. Whether you collect them or someone else doesn't matter, it's a steady and endless supply of resources with a relatively short respawn timer. EVE's high-sec space doesn't have any ores of great value, but it has thousands of asteroid belts. None of them ever get very fat... To keep things balanced, that high rate of ore supply must be countered with a high rate of asset destruction, otherwise the bottom will fall out of the ore market, and the economy will grind to a halt. In EVE, the average player doesn't build personal bases, cities or roads. There's no lavish mansions, no furniture and no "corporate boardrooms"... or bathrooms. The vast bulk of EVE's daily mined ores go into military production, i.e. ships, modules and ammo. In DU, infrastructure projects will soak up tons of ore. Entire space stations will have to be built from scratch, as will stargates and cities and personal bases. Additionally, we'll be selling ore to NQ's buy orders, which will be the only way of generating new money in the game. So DU will have many "ore sinks", which means the intensity of combat will probably be lower than in EVE, because military production won't be getting ALL the ore.
  4. Yup, the implementation of PVP will be a "watershed moment" for DU, because that's when everyone will find out how viable their intended play style will be. Hard decisions will have to be made, either adapt or find a new game to play...
  5. Tbh, the whole "bumping" thing may be a storm in a teacup. Antigrav's are not intended to be the only propulsion for a ship. They are a temporary "high altitude hover engine", expensive to operate, but still cheaper and easier than getting the same effect via vertical atmo engines. So dropping below 1000m will at most be an irritant for the average dreadnought using antigrav's, because the ship's main engines will kick-in once the antigrav switches off.
  6. Once PVP implementation starts, we''ll see what NQ's ultimate aim is for DU, i.e. how viable they want to make life for small groups and solo operators. The easier it is to find "hidden bases", the fewer the game play options will be...
  7. Sure, but no amount of "alignment bumping" will damage the target. You still need to bring tacklers and enough firepower to do the job. "Bumping" an antigrav platform to below 1000m altitude will have the potential to make it crash, without the "attackers" needing to fire a single shot. So the whole intended design of combat (knocking out the Pulsors) will be circumvented. The solution is as simple and cheesy as the "bumping" tactic: make antigrav platforms immune to bumping !
  8. I did not miss your point at all. If the intention is to prevent damage (direct or indirect) resulting from ramming, then repeated "bumping" to force an antigrav platform below 1000m is just a workaround to circumvent the intended design. There's a fine line between "emergent gameplay" and "exploit"... If you're employing repeated "bumping", then you're exploiting the fact that ramming causes no direct damage to either vehicle. It's also my contention that "bumping" should have almost zero effect unless the mass of the two objects is fairly equal. Gnats don't bump your vehicle when they hit the windscreen, they become a smear.
  9. Given that NQ have already stated that "ramming" will not be a viable option to cause damage, I doubt that "ramming" will be a way to bring antigrav platforms down. It would invalidate NQ's policy.
  10. Well, we can only hope so, lol
  11. DU is billed as "The Civilisation Building Game" on the promotional material put out by NQ. Should we add nukes and change that to "The Civilisation Destroying Game" ?
  12. I think this is a great idea, but it would require so much "heavy lifting" in terms of development time that it's probably a whole expansion's worth of content. Something like EVE's expansion that added the modular T3 ships the first time...
  13. The Container Hub (when fully implemented) will possibly make an excellent refueling point ! According to the notes on the Trello, the Container Hub will ultimately also be able to link fuel tanks together. All that is needed is to make it possible to use that Hub panel as a refuel point, seeing as it's small, flat and can be placed anywhere.
  14. Getting those resources together is probably going to be the hardest part of this plan, because almost everybody will be doing the same thing ! Leaving Alioth (the starter planet) will probably be everyone's top priority, because competition there will be fierce initially, due to the high population levels. Resources close to the safe zone will be rapidly mined-out, requiring longer and longer trips into the PVP area, which will slow down the rate of mining, because providing security for those missions eats up time and money... Building a ship capable of interstellar travel will quite possibly take a small org a few months, because crafting skills will also need to be trained, so that the higher-level engines needed for such a ship can be built. It's a great adventure indeed !
  15. The "Hostile Zone" you refer to is the entire DU game world outside of the safe zones. Every inch of the game world (excluding safezones) is potential combat territory, including those hexes claimed by you or your org. "Hostile" is the default, the handful of official safe zones are the exception...
  • Create New...