NanoDot
-
Posts
1025 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NanoDot
-
-
After years of playing DU (started Day 1 of pre-alpha), crash-on-login is the "new normal" for me, lol
After 4-6 crashes on login, it stabilises and runs fine for the rest of my session... -
10 hours ago, Alectrisity said:
these weapons should require an immense amount of resources to construct and fire
Sounds similar to the early description of Titans in EVE, lol
Except as time passed, Titans became a dime a dozen, relatively speaking.
NQ have said they're not planning "super-weapons" at all. -
-
On 12/5/2019 at 8:09 AM, Fenrave said:
I was speaking in reference to Aarons post, where he posed a situation that everyone at the launch, would get roughly 5k quanta to begin with.
We have no idea whether a newly created character will get "free quanta".
It's obviously something that's wide open to possible exploits and abuse, which will be extremely hard to counter. The more difficult it is for players to get quanta in a game, the more likely it will be that players will try to "game the system".
-
6 hours ago, Fenrave said:
Just to add insult to injury, we have to consider how many people may just stop playing on day 1 for whatever reason. In addition to the more wealthy playerbase just eventually leaving. Both of those just further reduces the available quanta as a whole. Not just widening the wealth gap, but making "trickle down" economics impossible.
People who "leave the game on Day 1" will have no effect on the economy, because they'll have no quanta.
People that stop playing (or take a break) after playing for a few months will affect things though, because all their accumulated quanta goes out of circulation.
NQ will probably monitor the money supply, and reactivate their buy-orders whenever the "active quanta" falls below a certain threshold.
-
On 6/12/2019 at 11:50 AM, Aaron Cain said:
Is this system still in place for development? and how about the automatized defense that is writen about here?
Unless NQ says otherwise, we have to assume that design concepts (even those in old blogs) remain valid for implementation.
Automated defense systems for bases have been suggested by NQ on several occasions, but little to no details were ever given. Until NQ says more, we have to assume that they will be in the game in some form...
-
The idea in DU is that new money will only be created by selling ore to NQ's buy orders on the market. Once NQ feels there's "enough" money in circulation, the buy orders will be temporarily withdrawn, until the point is reached where they are needed again.
Having a single faucet that can be shut down at will, removes the need for "money sinks". The faucet is also independent of game play, no need to remove or suspend missions or loot tables, etc.
Instead of things like paying rents or taxes to NPC's to drain excess money from the system, those payments in DU are made to actual players, which moves the money around in the game. As long as the dependency between players is high, money should keep circulating. You can only hoard money if you don't need to buy anything from anyone else, whilst they will have to need something from YOU.
You can't take money from other players by force, because quanta is not lootable (it's in a digital wallet). So the only way to "forcefully liberate" the funds in someone's wallet is via asset destruction. However, that doesn't mean the person doing the destruction gets the funds, the money will go to those involved in replacing the assets. It's a complex web, but the money moves...
-
On 9/1/2019 at 11:34 AM, spaceforger said:
it is no wonder that so many players choose to play alone
If they REALLY preferred playing grouped, they would CHOOSE grouped play, lol
None of the "convenience" features you listed prevent group play...
- Novarkian and Murmandamus
-
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"...
-
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).
-
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...
-
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 minutes ago, Miamato said:
First of all the only source of 'out of nowhere' ore are regular ore belts. They re-spawn twice a week. Regular belts don't contain much ore, they have small stones and not so convenient to mine in huge amounts.
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 !
-
37 minutes ago, Miamato said:
The static spawn point of resources in EvE is not always that good. It means pvp dudes can easily predict where miners are located. Also it means if you leave on heavily populated areas - you may not be able to mine for few days in row just because someone already cleared belts/anomalies and respawn is out of your personal prime-time.
In DU even if you need to scan each time, you will be independent from spawn period. So it's just the same thing from another angle.
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.
-
58 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:
I expect the smaller orgs will disappear rather fast after implementation of PvP but that depends on the crafting system, if a person can go out and build an entire base out of nothing with only his/her character then they are viable, if anything from a market is needed or to get out in the open they will have a hard time unless they group, but then again, why go solo and group as solo player orgs
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...
- Ben Fargo and Anaximander
-
2
-
6 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
I've got no qualms with having an antigrav platform immune to bumping IF it is not moving - remember those platforms can be massive ships too, and such a hard and fast "cant be bumped cause i got my antigrav engines on' wouldnt be fair either - hence it cant be moving, and if it is moving then it is able to be bumped and potentially have it crash to the ground.
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.
-
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...
-
9 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
For example, in Eve online, bumping is used as a way to disrupt ships trying to align to get away, and can be used effectively.
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 !
-
1 hour ago, CoreVamore said:
This form of attack would not invalidate NQ's policy, if anything it adds to emergent game play.
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.
-
On 10/31/2018 at 10:37 AM, CoreVamore said:
It does make me wonder how badly an anti grav platform would react when rammed by one or more high velocity ship impacts.... would it be enough to bump the platform below the engines minimum hight threshold resulting in the platform/ship/city hurtling towards the ground......
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.
-
On 10/6/2018 at 8:31 PM, Kuritho said:
The other revolutionary idea is called a shield, which they will implement.
Well, we can only hope so, lol
-
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" ?
-
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...
-
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.
DEVBLOG: MINING UNITS 101 - Discussion Thread
in General Discussions
Posted
NQ next time you announce a decision that affects current game play, please keep in mind that players will act on that decision, sometimes immediately.
When the first decision was announced that scans would be kept, players were faced with a difficult decision: either go out scanning or use the remaining time before Demeter to mine as much as possible. It was a choice available to everyone.
Many of us chose to forego the short-term benefit of mining and went out scanning instead (which would give a long-term benefit).
The subsequent decision to reverse the original decision invalidated all the work we had done since the first decision, and we also lost the opportunity to do something productive with that time we'd spent. Effectively delivering a double blow...
A decision to delete scans made before the first announcement would have been perfectly justifiable.
However, including the scans made after the first announcement is not justifiable. Everybody had the same info at that point, there was no pre-existing advantage.
Please consider excluding the post-announcement scans from the deletion that's coming...