Jump to content


Pre-Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Felonu

  • Rank
    Novark Citizen

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • backer_title
    Gold Founder
  1. Politics, Government and Player Voting Power

    As the specifics of whether or not the rdms system will have tools to allow popular voting systems of an org have not yet been released this statement is inherently false or NDA breaking. I will consider the terms organization, government, tribe, corporation, coop, commune, party, etc to be interchangeable. They all have the same basic meaning with only variance in experiential association (different feelings based on your experience). I believe it would benefit the final game to have tools to allow for any type of governance the devs can find a way to accommodate. However the idea that all members of the game have to belong to any specific type of organization is absolutism, and tyrannical no matter what type of governance that organization has. I agree with a number of the other people here who do not want any rules outside of those necessary as decided by NQ to be applied to everyone. All types/sizes of organization/government are sets of rules that are set in place and ways to enforce those rules on the members. Whoever is in charge (whether it be 1 person, a board, or all the members) make rules, need some means to enforce them (police/elders/enforcers/HR department/Boss), and a way to punish offenders (imprisoned/cast out/beat up/fired). All rules take away liberty from people. By default all people have as much liberty as they possibly can have. When you start making rules you might protect people from each other's actions, but you have placed boundaries on every persons liberty as well. The idea of making every person be a part of an org/gov by default means that you are reducing the baseline of how much freedom people have by default. I hope this helps you to understand why some others, and myself are against the idea of a government that all people are made a part of by default.
  2. There will need to be balancing done by NQ in accordance with their vision of the game. If you make anything both expensive and ineffective then it loses any point in existing (Not that they won't exist at all, you can find evidence of that in any sky mall magazine). There are ways of limiting things without pushing them into the not worth it part of the value chart. I think automated defenses should be somewhere above the cost of normal turrets (could be same cost + cost of buying/effort of making a script to run them), and have max effectiveness below the average user manually using a turret. How much cost above, and effectiveness below I'll leave up to NQ to find the balance that is in line with their vision. The balance of these things will be much easier to debate when we have working functionality in place, because balancing any game in relation to another game never works. Every game needs to adjust until the right balance is maintained.
  3. The specific purpose that I quoted was to protect your bases while you are offline for periods of time throughout the day. My statement when applied in context was that automated turrets could be used for other purposes (Like increasing the defensive capabilities while you are active), but should not be needed to keep you from getting attacked when offline. To add to that idea, NQ has talked about scripts being run on local machines so automated defenses probably won't work when there is no active user online anyway.
  4. The defense bubbles are intended for this purpose as stated by NQ. They have a 24-48 hour duration (Which I hope is able to be ended by the defender) so that offline owners can’t be raided without time to prepare for defense. That doesn’t mean I don’t think some automated defenses are needed, but just not for this purpose.
  5. If your land is in a protected area it can't be taken.
  6. Tedious Turreting

    This is believed to be true by some people, but is an interpretation of JC's words. Some of us still think this may not actually be the intention of his words.
  7. Cloaking Tech

    To tie the idea back to the OP, cloaking technology is one aspect that can be use in this balance by limiting the PvP exposure for those individuals. We don't know how all the protections will be implemented, or how that will balance the different playstyles yet. We can only take NQ at it's word that they intend to do so. This is why I believe these discussions about the different ways to implement these technologies are important, and you see me commenting as much as I do on them. I, personally, have little interest in the PvP gameplay, but see the value in it. I want the game to be fun for me, because the building aspect in a single shard universe is a dream come true. For that to be true there does need to be a balance between more and less aggressive play styles.
  8. Cloaking Tech

    I believe that is a misconception of the PvP discussions on this forum. Most discussions turn at one point to balance between PvP, and Non-PvP. If you take the forums as an indicator of what people want (which would not be an effective measure) then there are probably just as many people wanting non-PvP activities as wanting PvP. To be fair it is probably a lot of people that want to do some of both (but with a preference one way or other) and a small amount that want only one or the other. We need balance as NQ has pointed out so that all play styles are represented.
  9. Based on the tone of their comments about it I think they believe they can make the safe area last a while. I don't know how they plan to do so, but they don't seem to be worried about it. The fact that they seem to have thought out other systems so well gives me confidence that they have a good plan in place.
  10. Resources are expected to be finite. I don't have time to look up the reference right now, but if someone else doesn't I'll add one later.
  11. Cloaking Tech

    Why can you only have radar on moving ships? That is the king of artificial limit I'm talking about. A movable object and a not movable object (if there are any differences after release) are actually the same thing, if you aren't moving. Why couldn't a ship have all the sensors work if it isn't moving? If you are going to use that mechanic, why not a mechanic that just says you have an X% chance to see an enemy at Y range, and adjust those by the stealthers stealth skill, and the detectors scanning skill. That goes back to adjusting the possibility of being seen based on different factors. The test could just as effectively be done based on the quality of the detection system vs the quality of the stealth system and further adjusted by things like the profile of the stealth ship, etc. This doesn't require complex systems of 5 different sensors that detect different types of effects from the stealth ship. Why couldn't you just have a jammer on your ship? Radar is very sensitive to jamming, and because of the way jamming would likely work it would basically blind the sensor. Again the idea that you have to place something beforehand, and then go pick it up doesn't make sense. Again this would require mechanics that don't make sense to me to limit the behavior of these devices in this way. All of this also is based on the limitation that other types of sensors can not be on your ship..... because. It might be one way to enforce balance, but is unnecessarily complex. It relies on limitations that don't make sense, at least to me, and could all be wrapped up in a nice format as a scanner unit, and a some stealth technologies. If you make them both have reliability factors, and allow skill to play a part in whether they are implemented properly the mechanic ends up being fairly balanced.
  12. Cloaking Tech

    The point is that everyone will just have all the sensors. It doesn't matter how many different types are created. And all ships will either not be able to stealth, or will have all the types of stealth possible. If you make it so that you can't hide from 1 sensor if you are hiding from a different type, then stealth just ends up not being possible. If you make some kind of limit to what kinds of sensors that can be combined on a ship, people will just find ways to work around it. It ends up working so all ships that want to stealth have all types of stealth technology available and all ships that need to be able to detect them have all types of sensors. It ends up being the same functionality as the "Magic Cloaks" just with different fluff. The only way to keep people from putting all the different sensors on probably every ship would be to create artificial limits on the sensors so that they just can't be put on the ships, and even then people will just make small cores with the different sensors and permanantly "dock" them on the ship. My point is that all these rules, and complexities don't end up changing anything. They are mechanics that are easily gotten around and end up just costing more money to accomplish the same function as the "magic cloak" or a single sensor type.
  13. Cloaking Tech

    You misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying the detection and stealth are unnecessary. I was pointing out that having multiple types of detection and ways around them doesn't benefit the game play. If people need that to feel immersed in the game I don't have any problem with it, but to me it is added complexity for no real benefit. I wasn't saying the detection and stealth are unnecessary.
  14. Cloaking Tech

    All of this discussion is just fluff for how stealth/detection works. None of it is needed for actual game play. If you have different sensors, and different types of stealth it will simply require adding all of them to every ship to be able to perform that function. It will add nothing to the gameplay except cost unless there is some "magical" limit of not having certain types of mechanics on the ship together.
  15. Canadian

    You are acting like it's a canadian thing.... Austrailia, Asia, africa, south america, even antarctica are all getting treated the exact same way.