NanoDot
-
Posts
1025 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by NanoDot
-
How will AvC combat be balanced ?
NanoDot replied to NanoDot's topic in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
In the promotional video's released up until now, the size of some of the ships that we see flying in the atmosphere of Alioth seems... truly huge ! If that is not a reflection of what's possible in the game, NQ better start adding disclaimers, otherwise we'll be in NMS territory... It's an MMO, if it's remotely possible to do X, it will be done. If there's an advantage to be gained, "a ton of extra resources" is just a speedbump. As for whether bases should or should not have active static defenses, that's a topic for a different discussion. In this post, I'm only interested in speculating how they will be handled if they do exist. Keep in mind that "static" does not imply "automated". It simply describes an immobile installation, which could be either a heavy weapon or a 20m-thick ferro-concrete wall. That heavy weapon may need a human gunner OR could have automated options (or even both). -
AvA (avatar vs avatar) combat is a basic feature of DU. CvC (construct vs construct) was added when the KS stretch goal was reached. But once ships became "shooty", it automatically opened up the possibility of AvC (avatar vs construct) combat, which is inherently imbalanced. A handheld weapon cannot match the power of a ship-mounted weapon. Infantry will need man-portable anti-construct weapons to defend themselves, otherwise they will be "farmed" by construct pilots. In PS2 that's covered by shoulder-launched missiles and by mounting AAA guns on mech suits, because that calibre of weapon is not practical for a human unless they're wearing an exosuit. Alternatively, infantry will have to operate under the cover of assault hovercraft that have anti-ship weapons. Target-locking further complicates things, because it devalues evasive maneuvers. The effectiveness of running in a zig-zag pattern to throw-off a fighter's aim in a strafe attack is difficult to model in a target-lock environment. Same with "dodge" moves or jetpack bursts. Bombardment from space has been ruled-out, but it's presumably possible to make your dreadnought atmosphere-capable. That would imply that a base will have to have defenses (both passive and active) that can cope with capital ship-sized targets and associated weapons damage. But what are the implications of that for infantry small arms ? Will they be utterly useless against base fortifications ? EVE uses target-lock timers and traverse speed limits to make large guns ineffective against small, fast-moving targets. Works fine for ship combat, but infantry are really slow in comparison to a fighter-class ship...
-
and the target-locking combat mechanics... And the deep politics... and the focus on orgs and alliances... and the territory control mechanisms... and the player-driven markets... There's a great many similar features shared between EVE and DU. How those features are implemented in DU is what will give DU its uniqueness. DU has two truly unique features, and that's the voxel-based building and the Lua scripting. Neither of those have been seen in any full-featured MMO before AFAIK. Landmark had voxel-based building, but very little else. But due to the many superficial similarities, DU will most probably always be labeled as "EVE on steroids" by the general gaming public, simply because there's no other MMO to compare it to.
-
We know that NQ will generate fake buy orders on the market, and that selling to those buy orders will be the only way to inject Quanta into the game. We don't know which resources will be bought by the fake buy orders. Logically, the first buy orders will be for ores that can easily be mined on Alioth, i.e. "common" ores. We don't know what the prices offered will be. Will they be artificially high at launch, to accelerate the pace of money creation ? Will they change over time ? We don't know if there will also be fake buy orders for manufactured items, but it's unlikely, because that will be large-scale interference in the "player-driven" market. We don't know if there will also be fake sell orders, but it's unlikely, because the only reason for removing currency from the game will be if the population shrinks significantly. We also know that NQ plan to remove the fake buy orders from time to time, so that the amount of currency in circulation ("active Quanta") stays within a target range. Players will leave the game at various points, or stop playing for a few months. That removes all the currency in their wallets from circulation, and reduces the pool of "active Quanta" in the economy. The fake buy orders will have to be reactivated every time the amount of "active Quanta" drops below a certain threshold. If the overall population increases, the fake buy orders will have to be reactivated, to adjust the "active Quanta" to reflect the new total population. So it's obvious that the fake buy orders will be a permanent feature in DU, even though they will temporarily disappear from the market from time to time.
-
It's always interesting to see the wide variety of opinions players have in alpha regarding "how the game will be after launch". Players look at a generalised statement like we see on DU's KS page "Both PvP and non-PvP will be possible.", and then they extrapolate from there, depending on their own preference. To those that don't like PVP, that phrase tells them they can play DU without engaging in PVP. But that's where it all starts to sound like a Bill Clinton testimony transcript: "Well, it all depends on what your definition of "play" is..."
-
"Twerk Logic" at its best, lol Make up your mind, do we need food or not ? If not, how do you propose to synthesize the cellular nutrients from the pure energy stored in the batteries ?
-
Turning organic matter into energy is easy, we mastered that concept aeons ago. However, turning pure energy into anything (let alone complex organic structures) has so far utterly defied us. Hence my reference to a "miraculous energy to cellular nutrient converter". Of course, once we've mastered the art of atomic manipulation, the sky's the limit... But wait... why stop at synthesizing cellular nutrients ? If we can turn energy into matter, we can make minerals too ! Who needs mining then ?
-
This is a fundamental and common error amongst MMO players. PVP is NOT "griefing" ! PVP in any area of a game that allows it is playing the game as intended. An example of "griefing" is when a player goes AFK in a doorway of a building in a non-PVP area, and exploits collision-detection mechanisms to inconvenience other players. A slightly more fuzzy example is when someone breaks into your base and just deletes all of your items, instead of carrying them away (i.e. stealing them). That would exploiting the ability to make things "vanish from the game world" with the simple click of a button, rather than via weapons damage or physical relocation (i.e. theft).
-
That's all very interesting, but what relevance does it have to my post ? I raised no objection to the idea of mining tools themselves, so a lengthy defence of the concept is unnecessary. As for the nature of avatars in DU, we're either 100% machine and powered by batteries, or we're "cyborg" (part machine, part organic). Unless DU's lore contains a miraculous "energy to cellular nutrient converter", the organic part of the cyborg will still need conventional nutrients, i.e. food in solid or liquid form...
-
Why would mining equipment need to be "weaponised" ? Why not just carry a pistol or rifle in your inventory ? You're going to be on foot while mining anyway. Anyone that attacks you with a ranged weapon will in all likelihood be out of range of your nanoformer or jackhammer or whatever. It certainly looks like NQ want to keep mining as a "up-close-and-personal" activity, so even if mining tools are added, they will most probably be "melee range". I have no objection to mining tools being weaponised, but I just don't think they'll be very useful as a deterrent at all. In fact, the nanoformer looks like it's attached to your right arm, so what would stop you from holding a pistol in your left hand ? Unless NQ decide to impose the standard MMO trope, where your "off-hand" gets a 50% damage penalty, etc.
-
In EVE, related skills are divided into categories. Within a category, each individual skill has 5 levels. Each level of skill takes an increasing amount of time to train. The first level is typically very quick (e.g. 15mins), but the next level takes a few multiples of the previous one. So it could be: L1=15mins, L2=1 day, L3=1 week, L4=3 weeks, L5= 8 weeks. Training times are cumulative, so to get to L5 in that example would take a total of 12 weeks + 1 day + 15mins. Skills are trained continuously in real time, regardless of whether you're logged-in or not. You can switch training freely at any time, time spent is never lost, it just picks up from where you stopped last. Each level of a skill typically gives a small % increase (e.g. 5% per level). So if you have "Gunnery" at L1, it gives +5% accuracy. Every consecutive level adds another 5%. That's why I'm asking the question. I'm not asking for your suggestion of what's good for the game, I'm interested in what's good for you ! Because your own definition is what will ultimately inform your opinion of the game. Judged against your standards, the game will be either "too easy", "about right" or even "too hard" for YOU. "Hard" is subjective, until we know people's definitions, discussion is meaningless. We can all agree it must be "hard", but it's only when the numbers are quoted that people will say things like: "Wait... Are you joking ?"
-
And fortunately, it's also quantifiable. Except that nobody seems to want to put numbers to their definition of "hard"... To me, waiting a week for a skill timer to tick down to zero is not hard. But waiting for a month for that training to finish will be hard. Mining for an hour is not hard, but mining for 6 hours is... Things like skill training, R&D and designing are one-off time costs. Those can be used to initially gate access to space. But keep in mind that a co-ordinated effort by an org will reduce that time cost to a fraction of what it would be for a single player, unless the activities cannot be divided amongst multiple players. So, if you want to prevent spaceships from hitting the market in the first month after launch, there will have to be some component that takes 1 player a whole month to do. Like training 3 levels of a specific skill. because if it's 4 skills at 1 week each, an org will have those covered in a week.
-
Sure, but "hard" is a subjective concept. You have to define what you mean by "hard", in terms of hours mined or hours trained or whatever measure you are thinking of. How many hours of mining should one player expect to do to gather all the resources for building that single-seater spaceship ?
-
What is the definition of "hard" ? When people say it should take "a few weeks" to get to space, what does mean in game play terms ? Does it mean that it should require 2 or 3 weeks of realtime skill training to have the required build skills to build space-capable craft ? Training time would be the only hard limit I can think of. And that would imply that a large org cannot get the training done quicker by splitting-up the specialisation between different org members. Scanning and mining will not be a significant factor in delaying access to space. I can scan and mine 14 hours a day every day. I cannot imagine that a basic ship will require 14 hours of resource collection. If it does, that would mean that anyone who plays 2 hours a day would need a week of play to gather the resources for building a basic spaceship. And every time they lose that ship, they have to mine for a week to replace it...
-
I think it's very important to keep the Devblogs coming, because it projects a positive impression to the outside world, and will build confidence in any prospective player. The group that already has access to the pre-alpha are (hopefully) just a tiny sample of the eventual player base. The other million players must still be won over !
-
Unless that interpretation of how the TCU works is actually wrong ? Perhaps it's possible to violate the TCU rules, but that automatically flags you as a "criminal" in that territory, which means all defenses will automatically engage you. What if the TCU also has a rule as to who may enter a given hex ? If the game enforces those rules (i.e. invisible barrier along the edge of the hex), how can you ever attack the TCU ?
-
On the Kickstarter page of DU, NQ claims the following: Emergent gameplay : economy, trade, territories, politics and warfare are all player-driven. Both PvP and non-PvP will be possible. Are you saying that "non-PVP will be possible" is somewhat misleading ? Perhaps it should say: "...and extremely limited non-PVP will be possible" ?
-
AFAIK, the TCU will "enforce" the RDMS rules for a given territory hex. We also know that the hex borders exist all the way from the surface to the core of the planet. If the RDMS rules deny mining rights in a hex, does that imply that the entire underground area of the hex becomes effectively impenetrable, unless you enter it via an existing doorway/tunnel ?
-
There's the binary state again: "If you don't want to be within constant eyesight of all other players, then you obviously want to be self-sufficient, anti-social and avoid all contact with other players". Nothing else makes sense, eh ? What if I want to build a cabin in the woods, and go to market three times a week to buy and sell stuff ? What if I agree to go mining with 10 other players every Saturday ? And hunting with another group of 5 every Wednesday ? I don't mind the extra travel times, it gives me an opportunity to see what others have been up to across the landscape... A civilisation is not defined by the proximity or size of its population, nor by its market activity. It's defined by shared goals, culture, laws, norms, etc.. People have to actively co-operate and agree to bring all those things into being. It doesn't spontaneously happen because a group of disparate individuals are concentrated in a certain area. You have to BUILD a civilisation, it doesn't build itself. It is my contention that you cannot build a civilisation without being part of a formal group (org or alliance). That's because a civilisation is an organised entity which has clearly defined attributes that all members are required to adhere to. Each formal group is a community, and has the potential to evolve into a civilisation. The population of the safe zone is not a "civilisation" by default, it's simply a temporary concentration of players. If people don't WANT to build a civilisation or abide by its conventions, they will leave that area and/or group at the first opportunity. No amount of roadblocks will change someone's preferred play style, but those roadblocks will have a direct impact on their decision to continue playing... Making it "hard" to get to space is just a roadblock.
-
I think we have different interpretations of "solo" play. To me, solo play is simply what happens when I'm not playing as part of an organised group (usually referred to as a guild in older MMO's). That means I'm not subject to the rules, duties, activity schedules, rank privileges, drama, politics, etc. that exist in a formally organised group. My time is my own and I can do what I please whenever I please. A demand for self-sufficiency is not part of my solo play needs in an MMO, in fact, it would detract from my enjoyment of the game. The presence of other players around me makes the game world feel alive and dynamic. I still compete with other players, but the level of that competition is determined by my agenda, not the agenda of some formal group that I belong to. I spent half my time in EVE (3 years) as a "solo" player. During that time, I "interacted" with the markets constantly, but spent comparatively little time interacting directly with other players. I have no idea who supplied the things I bought every day on the market, or how they were made. I had no idea who bought the things I produced. I simply looked at supply and demand, and at the bigger picture of what was happening in the game at any given time (by reading the forums). Sometimes I temporarily co-operated with random other "solo" players for a while to get certain things done. Game play in MMO's is not a binary activity: you don't either play as member of a formally organised group (org) or else try to avoid all contact with other players. There are many shades of grey between those two extremes. Trying to force everyone into formally organised groups is just an attempt to impose a preferred play style on the game.
-
No, a game with structures that "forces people together" via a limited range of game play options is a game with a small population. Interacting with a market terminal doesn't create a "civilisation". Most MMO's I've played have very active Auction Houses, none of them have anything I would call a "civilisation". A civilisation is born when a group of like-minded individuals voluntarily decide to adhere to a set of common goals, laws and cultural norms. If you try to force that co-operation, you're not creating a civilisation, you're creating a PUG, which will disband the moment it is no longer convenient or necessary. Delaying access to space is not going to turn a solo player into an enthusiastic group player. It will at most force them to reluctantly group-up until they can get away.
-
To me, "attaching" and "docking" mean different things. Docking: In the case of a carrier, any fighter docking on it becomes an inert piece of cargo. The only implications are the added mass of the fighter that would have a tiny impact on the flight performance of the carrier. Simple and straightforward: anything docked on your ship is just a piece of deadweight, until such time as it undocks. Attaching: Two constructs are "joined", and become a new construct temporarily. All elements of both constructs remain potentially active, but controlled by the "main" vessel. I see many problems with that idea.
-
Attaching one ship to another would have implications for the flight physics. Which pilot seat will be the one that controls this new unit ? Which CU will govern the attributes of the construct ? If you "attach" 10 fighters to each other, should the resulting mega-fighter still fly and maneuver like a fighter, or should it now perform like a battleship ?
-
You cannot "force" people to interact if they don't want to. Those that are interested in the "civilization-building" aspects will engage in it voluntarily, those that are not interested will engage reluctantly (and minimally) until they can get away from it. If it takes too long to "get away from it", they will just quit the game. I'd rather have a game with 1000 players, of which 500 are enthusiastically building civilizations, than a game with only 500 players. More players means more diversity and more market activity. It makes politics and business more varied and complex. The more diverse the population, the greater the chance for interesting "emergent gameplay".
-
Why not request the creation of a new channel on the unofficial Discord ? It could be something like "DU-Diplomacy" where related discussions and announcements can take place. Perhaps only accredited diplo representatives would be allowed to post, but everyone would have read access.
