Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frenotx

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

487 profile views
  1. It's a neat idea, but would really cut into the dev revenue. It would also add a larger degree of variability to their income flow. Considering we're paying their wages (presumably a petty static cost) and their server costs (again presumably fairly static, with the exception of player growth), are more stable method seems appropriate.
  2. I like the idea of DAC being lootable, but I think there needs to be a way to store them safely. Without that, you run into problems in situations like with the backers: you're given a bunch of DAC, but don't know what you're going to do with them. You don't necessarily want to use them to extend your game time way into the future, nor do you necessarily want to sell them for quanta right off the bat. You're left with this valuable resource without an immediate use (that you paid money for), that could be stolen away before it's utilized. Really, it's just a can of worms. It may ultimately be better to make them non-lootable. You miss out on the possibly of video game heists involving items bought with real money (which is neat), but it avoids a lot of awkward situations. As long as you make sure other things ARE lootable in the supply chain needed to trade for DAC, then you minimize the loss of gameplay. So you might not be able to steal DAC directly, but you can still steal the gold bars someone's hauling to trade for DAC. Edit: you need to make sure the game has some high value-density items worth hauling if you want piracy to be a thing. If people do lots of little trades of relatively low-value things to afford their DAC, then there's never a worthwhile big-score target for pirates to go after. Similar situation with mega-freighters hauling massive quantities of low-value stuff. The whole load might be worth a lot, but it's highly impractical to steal. You need items that are relatively small, but worth a lot and are easy to sell / use for piracy to be worth the risk.
  3. Thank you for saying you are "hyped", instead of that you are "hype". That particular lingo trend grates on my nerves. "I am so excitement!"
  4. Strictly speaking, bullet-proof vests are petty poor at blocking damage in the same spot more than once. Obviously there comes a point at which a an attack is too weak to do any damage at all (nerf gun, for example), but chances are a people won't be fitting a nerf gun on a space ship. A weak gun on a spaceship is still a spaceship-scale gun. It being able to wear down even a tough shield isn't much of a stretch, imo. As far as the, "shields are just [insert sci-fi explanation here], they should be able to recharge while under fire" goes, well, this is a video game dealing with stuff that doesn't exist. Coming up with an in-lore explanation of why shields work a given way is trivial. What's important is GAMEPLAY, and how fun the system is. I'm of the opinion that absolute shields lead to overly-binary combat, and situations where both parties tend to leave unscathed (or one party trounces the other, and leaves unscathed). Damage reduction shields, instead of absolute protection shields, mean every fight will have excitement. Even a lopsided fight will still see the victor with some battle scars. It makes getting into a fight a serious decision no matter what, unless you think you can outright one-shot your opponent. A fight is almost never completely "free". I personally think that's best for gameplay.
  5. Is that how it works in Eve, now? I remember shields being absolute, at least unless they'd already been depleted enough that the ship's tank had been broken. That's something I really didn't like about Eve: if your ship had below a certain DPS, it was impossible for you to do any damage to the target ship. Felt way too absolute. That's something I think Elite did correctly: your shield only regenerates if it hasn't been been hit for a moment. This makes it technically possible for even the weakest weapons to EVENTUALLY wear down any shield. Edit: I DID like Eve's non-linear shield regeneration, though. Relatively quick to fill up the first good bit, then slowly topping off.
  6. One thing I know for sure is that I don't want shields to provide absolute protection. I think it's important that no matter how ballin' your shields are, it should be possible for a little bit of damage to still get through. Think of Star Trek. How boring would it be of they were 100% safe while their shields were up? If shields are absolute, then fights ultimately turn into this: fight with the other person until the shields are about to fail. If you get to that point, you run. If they get to that point, they run. Nobody takes any damage, and nobody dies. Not very exciting.
  7. It's entirely possible that a memory element may be unnecessary, if the lua scripting can just have variables. Same thing with the more advanced timers. That said, I would like to see some sort of wireless antenna for allowing communication between disparate constructs. Just set the set them both to the same frequency, and they'd allow the transmission of information. Even if it was only a simple "they mirror each other's state, 1 or 0", that could have a lot of utility. It would also allow for some nasty stuff for nasty people that managed to acquire the frequency of your wireless relays. >:3
  8. I am excited to test the pre-alpha, but I'm looking forward to alpha 1, too.
  9. I think it would be neat if a given gate could "dial in" to s miner of gates, but only ones it has a connection set up with. Setting up that initial connection would take a good bit of time, and require some special access code / "frequency" being exchanged between both gates. Gate A has to enter Gate B's frequency into its registry, and Gate B must enter Gate A's. This way a given gate can act as a hub to several places (important and valuable if the owner wants to make a trade hub, or something), but gates can only be linked if both parties wish them to. This could lead to some interesting politics. For instance, let's say my org owns and runs a major trading outpost, which is equipped with a star gate. Other star gate owners would very much like a connection to said trade hub, due to the obvious economic opportunities of quick access to such a place. To get that link though, they need to "make friends" with my org. This could mean taxes, required protecting services, required doctrines to follow, etc. If that org stops following the requirements, my org could revoke access. It also leads to interesting espionage / sabotage opportunities. Let's say some big organisation is at war with mine. I might try to get someone to infiltrate the hostile organisation, and work their way up the ranks. If they successfully get high enough to access the start gate controls, they could link to MY gate, allowing for a brutal surprise invasion. If the fight goes south, I could revoke access from my end, and prevent them from getting to come through and retaliate.
  10. Thanks for the info. I'm pretty interested to see how this plays out, especially when it comes to vehicle v. vehicle. For instance, I wonder how hit chance will be calculated? If I have a gun with mediocre accuracy, but I'm firing against ship shaped like a huge wall (broad side of a barn), I'd expect to hit it. Likewise, if that wall-shaped ship turned sideways relative to me thus only presenting a thin target (edge of a piece of paper), I'd expect it to be quite hard to hit. I'm interested to see how the devs handle that case of relative cross sectional area, as it will potentially have major ramifications on ship design. If cross section matters, I'd probably design fighters that are very flat, so as to present a minimal target when facing the enemy. If it DOESN'T matter, then it would make sense to shape the front of the fighter more like a wall- acts like a physical shield protecting the rest of the ship, and gives you a lot of surface area for forward-facing guns.
  11. The idea is to have a skill training system similar to Eve's, right? Something passively going in the background, based on the passage of real time?
  12. Strictly speaking, you will still make a profit. I know- I did it. Was part of a 2-man corp. We mined enough to manufacture more than all the ammunition and PoS fuel we needed, and sold the surplus on the market. It wasn't our biggest income source, but it was reliable. Made decent money mining gas in my... Venture, I think, in wormholes. Again, nothing crazy, but since all I was spending was time, it was still profit. Yes prices will go down as supply increases, but all a new player needs to spend is time (pulling the ore up by hand), so ANY amount of credits earned from selling said ore is profit. Will it be as many credits per hour as a major mining operation? No, but it's still profit, and thus income. If there were no benefit to big mining operations, then people wouldn't do them. Why invest all the time and resources setting one up when you can make just as much, just as quickly, solo?
  13. I'd love if they added some rotating elements, or at least engines that can rotate (but you can't attach stuff to them). It would be cool to be able to make something like a firefly-class ship, a keelback (elite: dangerous), or an osprey (irl aircraft).
  14. Frenotx


    One thing I'm really hoping for is the ability to bind to joysticks.
  15. I haven't seen anything indicating one way or the other. Did you just run into a tough financial situation, or something?
  • Create New...