seennotheard
-
Posts
165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by seennotheard
-
-
8 hours ago, Lethys said:
NQ already said somewhere that interdiction bubbles will be there in DU.
Glad to know that this will be possible. Interplanetary travel and space pirating would be boring without being able to interdict others.
- Lethys and Anaximander
-
2
-
2 minutes ago, Hades said:
Haven’t visited a territory in a safezone in x period? Axed. Obviously with emails and in game messages going out to notify the person at certain intervals.
I don't think that would work well with DU. Interplanetary travel takes days, so visiting all your territories regularly could be a problem even for an active player.
-
1 minute ago, NanoDot said:
That would largely defeat their purpose in the case of MSA's...
Safe zones are not aimed at large orgs or organised groups, they're there to protect the assets of the solo/small group player. Making their protection unaffordable means the feature will not be utilised widely by its intended audience.
Okay, maybe not expensive to maintain, but they will definitely be expensive at launch.
"We want the Territory Unit to be hard to make because we don’t want a sort of gold rush at the start the game, that would favor early players and reduce the gameplay to “get as much TU as possible before it’s too late”." -
8 minutes ago, Shadows said:
Just want to get my opinion on the subject in quickly;
-
Having safe zones around the Arkship is great - we need somewhere where all players can play. My only real concern is the possible abuse of ownership. Lets say I build up enough and quickly claim as many zones as possible. I then either quit the game or troll players (perhaps trap bases, wall around the Arkship itself, etc). I think there should be additional requirements placed on anyone who wishes to own and continue ownership of a safe zone. Some examples below...
- Required login (perhaps monthly?)
- Cost of ownership (to maintain the territory unit, run it, etc)
-
I think a tiered system of safety would be better. This in specific regards to territory unit/protection itself. Each tier obviously becoming much more expensive to operate and create. Again, examples below.
- Territory Unit - Claims the territory, allows RDMS management (excluding certain features).
- Level 1 PU - Includes protection of all structures on the territory.
- Level 2 PU - Protection of surrounding territories increased by one tier (if owned by org or allies).
- Level 3 PU - Increases the duration of protection of the zone by X hours. Any further upgrades to the Protection Unit only increse duration up to a maximum.
Territory units will be expensive to maintain.
-
Having safe zones around the Arkship is great - we need somewhere where all players can play. My only real concern is the possible abuse of ownership. Lets say I build up enough and quickly claim as many zones as possible. I then either quit the game or troll players (perhaps trap bases, wall around the Arkship itself, etc). I think there should be additional requirements placed on anyone who wishes to own and continue ownership of a safe zone. Some examples below...
-
11 hours ago, Armedwithwings said:
Hey,it's been a while but i didn't forget about you)
Truth is i would have delivered sooner but got caught up in a different project...
I tried to keep myself as close to your guidelines as possible.
Please don't be shy to inform me if something is not to your liking and i will make the necessary improvements!
Damn, that looks nice.
- Davis and Armedwithwings
-
2
-
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
Probably:
Sending codes for landing Access, opening hangar doors, sending Data to other ships, sharing maps, sharing targets, ... Stuff I certainly can't script.
Luckily we have lua slaves
I aspire to be one of those Lua slaves.
-
In the most recent update, NQ announced the introduction of emitter and receiver elements for inter-construct communication. What are your ideas for it?
-
11 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
We just have to give our money to NQ and then enjoy the game.
NQ, give us the new backer packs!
-
1 minute ago, Falstaf said:
I don't think that applies.
Let's say you transport Kyrium from its source to a far of planet.
If you can change price on every market at the same time why would you work with the local price at all?
You would just make 1 unit price for all locations.
Because you won't be the only one who can transport kyrium to that certain planet. If you charge too high of a price, no one will buy your goods. A competitor will charge a lower price, leaving you with no sales.
-
2 minutes ago, Falstaf said:
Fair enough, but wouldn't that destroy the idea and benefits from local markets if you can unify the prices on every market in game?
Prices won't be unified even if you can change prices remotely because the supply and demand of a resource is region-specific.
-
1 minute ago, Falstaf said:
Yup, it would.
Its one of those convenience or gameplay questions.
If you allow a trader to change his prices on a whim from planet to planet or through an Api, then why have localized markets at all?
Let's just make 1 auctionhouse and be done with it.
I prefer the local markets and the inconvenience it brings.
Local markets are important because planets and regions in a planet might have specialized goods. Iron would be cheaper to buy near an iron mine than at a shipyard, which consumes iron. Local markets aren't there to just cause inconvenience, but for immersion. Also, allowing people to change their market orders remotely would increase market liquidity.
-
2 minutes ago, Dwarf3d said:
I may not understand exactly what you want, if you're saying you should be able to login to the game and through some process change the price on an order you have already placed somewhere else, I don't think that's outside the realm of possibility (although I could see it going either way). However a lot of talk in this thread is about the ability to place orders programmatically even potentially when not online which is what I am very against, since long travel time is a major market factor that I think it should definitely be preserved so those people willing to make those runs can make something out of it.
I'm saying that scripting and being able to change your own market orders benefits everyone, if its easily accessible.
-
4 minutes ago, Dwarf3d said:
Yep. Handling that sort of thing is what could separate the good interplanetary weapons seller and some random person who visits a station once then manages his stocks from his safe zone home. I plan on focusing heavily on using the scripting to its fullest but this is something I think should not be possible (the auto changing/placing of orders) especially remotely.
By a long time, I mean going to another planet within a system will take days, if not weeks.
-
17 hours ago, Falstaf said:
Personally I think if you want to interact with the market you should log in and play the game.
An api to look at prices would be something many people would enjoy. But I'm strongly against being able to use it to buy or sell items without logging in.
Or automate actions, that smells too much like botting.
As far as I understand it.
But what if you're an interplanetary weapons seller, and you need to raise all of your prices at the same time? You would have to physically go to each market on each planet that sells your weapons, and change the order. That would take a long time.
-
4 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:
It stands for Application Programming Interface.
It's how NQ would enable people to create programs that interact directly with data from the game. Like a marketplace app.
I think. I really have no idea what that means though.
Yeah, pretty much. With an API, you would be able to get market data from NQ servers.
-
2 minutes ago, Lethys said:
ofc - which doesn't help most ppl as
1) you need to train ingame skills to set those (which most ppl don't do as they just want to buy their stuff quickly)
2) someone needs to fulfil that order, which can take days to weeks
3) doesn't help the fact that a trader can't sell his items
Well, I hope you can freely set market orders in DU O.O
Ideally, markets should have enough volume so that buy and sell orders are within a single unit of currency of each other. -
2 minutes ago, Lethys said:
that's the problem: it's not - as the script instantly always outbids anyone who tries to put work into his trading. You won't be able to sell your stuff. Ever.
Eves system automatically displays you the cheapest price too - and ppl always only see that one pricetag. When they click buy now, they ALWAYS buy from the bot. Only traders bother to actually use the market interface -
everyone else:
herp derps into the system
dock
"need. weapon. now"
searches
clicks buy
undock
As a customer you always get the cheapest price - at the cost of a real human trader who can't sell his products as he's not able to outbid everyone else. This also creates cascades of failure which I will happily abuse to manipulate the market to my needs if this is ever implemented
Since I don't know anything about EVE, are there buy orders?
-
4 hours ago, blazemonger said:
An example of botting/scripting we see frequently in EVE (and is dealt with swiftly when discovered):
Player has 100 pcs of an item and uses a script to put up a sell order for one at the lowest price. If someone buys the item the bot immediately puts up another single item for the same price. This influences the market because you may have a couple of the same items as well but choose to put it on the market for a bit higher price because there is only one item at a lower price and you know the item sells well. No need to outbid a single item right?
I think that's justified, since that player is willing to sell his goods at a lower price.
In the end, the buyer benefits.
-
4 hours ago, blazemonger said:
There really is only one other game with an economy model in place similar to what DU is planning and that's EVE. CCP will permaban almost immediately if you are found to be scripting/botting the markets with no warning or questions asked, it's down with the hammer and your account is blocked.
Rightly so TBH..
Could you tell me more about that? I don't have any experience with EVE.
Edit: I found this thread: https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/topic/221568
It seems that CCP doesn't really care? -
5 hours ago, Lethys said:
An API would be very handy for different reasons but markets would probably benefit most of it. I could live without an API and get that data via other means, but I think that's not rly neccessary.
I'm not sure about the scripting part though. It's probably possible to script something like that but to me it would be pretty much botting.
People do that in EVE all the time and those guys just let their program handle everything.
I'm not against such a thing per se but it should be looked at carefully as this could easily lead to bots and an explosion in alts
Im imagining that you wouldn't use alts, but instead you would write a Lua script.
-
I'm not sure how the scripting system works, but I think it would be interesting if people could profit from buying and selling using Lua.
-
Without an API, I think interplanetary trading would just be impossible.
What do you think about scripts though? Should we let people do HFT but in a game?
-
Hey guys,
Do you think that players should be able to run scripts for trading on the market, as well as have access to an API outside of the game to check on prices? -
6 hours ago, NanoDot said:
A wide variety of traded goods stimulates the economy and spreads money around.
My concern with this is that having a larger variety of goods would reduce the market of each individual good. While I do agree with you that using components in the crafting process could stimulate player interactions if skill specializations are involved, components that are easily craftable won't bring anything to the game. For example, if you need a component called copper wire to create most elements, and it can be created with copper alone and an easily attainable skill, then it would only dilute the market for refined resources. Especially in a situation like this, I think that the game would be better off if uninvolving components were to be replaced with their refined resource equivalents.
Remove Free Speeders?
in General Discussions
Posted
Yup, all gone.