Jump to content

NanoDot

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NanoDot

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Location:
    South Africa
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

963 profile views
  1. If they REALLY preferred playing grouped, they would CHOOSE grouped play, lol None of the "convenience" features you listed prevent group play...
  2. I'm prepared to bet that the vast majority of MMO players actually spend more time playing "solo" than they spend in group activities ! If it was the other way around, MMO design would not have evolved in the way that it did from the days of EQ and UO. When the majority is "doing it wrong", it's only a matter of time before "wrong" becomes the new "right"...
  3. How would "Toughness" help a new player survive ? The attribute is increased by taking damage in combat, so a "vet" will have many times the toughness rating of a newbro, which will make them that much harder to kill. It may well result in a worse outcome for the newbro overall... It works in Kenshi, because your units become more effective over time as their Toughness increases, but the NPC's don't get the same resistance boost. So your units get better, but the NPC's you're fighting don't evolve in parallel (as other players would in a PVP-based MMO).
  4. There's no need for sophisticated rules to remove "abandoned structures" outside the safezone. DU already has the most effective structure-removing mechanic in gaming: FFA-PVP ! Inside the safezone, things get more complicated. NQ have raised the possibility of having "activity timers" to determine whether a structure in a safezone should be removed. If the owner of the structure does not login for a specified amount of time, the structure is removed. This is particularly important for hexes claimed on the sanctuary moons. The idea was that everything in that claimed hex would be "packed-up" and stored by the game until the player returned one day. Losing everything you have because you took a break from the game is a very strong incentive not to return...
  5. There have been several discussions around this topic over the years, and the feedback from NQ was basically "no tree planting in the environment". Apparently, trees and plants have the potential to massively stress the servers if we're allowed to plant them anywhere at will. Someone will go out and plant a forest of 50K trees, because they can... In the short term, the best we can hope for would be "plant elements" that can be deployed in the build space of a static core. There already are a few of those ingame, hopefully more will be added later.
  6. discordauth:fDr8-T-OnuPQ9OmDOumO66EzT702LLXPoLv4p-wqh5A=

  7. 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 !
  8. 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.
  9. 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...
  10. 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.
  11. 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...
  12. 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 !
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Well, we can only hope so, lol
×
×
  • Create New...