Felonu
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Felonu
-
-
2 hours ago, Xsarec said:
Are we able to upgrade the package we buy? If I buy the $60 package and decide later I want the $120 can I upgrade it?
Yes you can update your pledge if you purchase a lower tier and want to later.
-
There is no definite answer of whether survival mechanics will be implemented. Make sure to check out the trello, news/devblogs, and the other posts in the idea box here to see if your other ideas have already been suggested.
-
1 minute ago, huschhusch said:For example, diagrams of the thrust curve in Newton per time and atmospheric density and the power consumption of the engines would be more meaningful.
I would expect that changes to these would be too common for them to keep something like this updated for now. This is something that can be generated by the playerbase (though it wouldn't be shared outside of pre-alpha members)
-
1 minute ago, musicianmadness said:
Having gone through pilot training in real life, and having toured and been involved in multiple airports, I have a decent background in avionics. Recently an idea for Dual Universe came to mind as I was considering flight in real life. The idea I thought of was implementing an Air Traffic Control (ATC) concept into the game. However, I do not know if this is possible with just LUA or if it would need extra help and features from the game developers. My idea was that a player could have a computer screen and it would show a similar layout to real life ATC windows (the stereotypical screen of multiple circles on the display with dots and callsigns symbolizing the various aircraft in that airspace [e.g. : pictured below]). One major issue with the concept is that, in space, one would have to consider 3 dimensions of movement/approach of air/space vessels. This led me to the dea that maybe instead of a computer screen, a hologram would be more efficient. The hologram would project a center marked at the projector's position and other constructs would be marked relative to the center mark depending on where they are in space. However the latter implementation of the idea would require LUA editable holograms (which would be really cool).
I beleive Lethys has mentioned some people already working on a 3d positioning system. They wouldn't be able to share how it works, or access the the system itself because of the NDA.
-
On 5/26/2018 at 9:31 AM, Lethys said:
Just keep in mind that there won't be a creative mode for a long time and it won't be a single player instance or something nor will it be using free resources (as stated there). It's a delicate subject which needs to be implemented carefully (NQ certainly doesn't want to kill the game by giving everyone free and unlimited resources to play with) - and we might see it in some patch, or not at all.
Actually he said it won't give free resources in the real game. So it will have free resources, but they will only be usable for prototyping.
-
47 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:
Is not the default org favoring dictatorship? Even if one indents to create a democracy, currently there are no tools to do this.
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.
-
1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:
Because unlike manual turrets, those are not hard limited by the amount of players. And that's huge advantage when your firepower can grow linearly over time, theoretically infinitely.
If we're able to control more than single weapon, then the same problem would apply to manual weapons as well. But fighting against real players is fun at least.
Limiting range would be some way to balance that, but that would just force all the attacking forces to always use only long range weapons. Quite boring and freedom-limiting IMO. Same apply for limiting penetration to make them effective only against light crafts and infantry.Using upkeep system won't help either, as you can just design the base with designated spots for them, and place them in matter of minutes after spotting enemies/waiting for shields to go down.
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.
-
31 minutes ago, unown006 said:
What purpose besides defending something you put time into would that be?
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.
-
19 hours ago, Kregon_Tempestus said:
I voted Yes we need auto-defence systems for balance in the game!
People cant be online all day awriday and also will keep that pesky raiders at bay ,at least for a time!
But I think that auto-deffence systems of buildings will need to be somewhat balanced on powergrid and balistic auto-turrets will need also to depend of amount of ammo!
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.
-
On 5/4/2018 at 4:10 PM, mgwalk said:
I would play like once a week. Would pvp people take my land like in Ark?
If your land is in a protected area it can't be taken.
-
1 hour ago, 0something0 said:
So, it is currently known that turrets will be lock-and-fire and have to be controlled manually by a person for each turret.
-snip-
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.
-
2 hours ago, NanoDot said:
How that "balance" will be achieved is a mystery to me. I'm genuinely interested to see how it all plays out.
Unless by "balance" we're talking about non-PVP'ers playing in 5% of the game world (safezones) and PVP'ers owning the other 95%...
I have never seen a MMO with FFA-PVP that was able to sustain a significant community of non-PVP'ers for very long. EVE comes closest, I'd say, but EVE has considerably more protections than DU appears to have, and it has a large amount of PVE content for those that are PVE-focused. Even so, EVE does not have a huge community of non-PVP'ers, but it IS possible to play the game that way. At least it was when I played it...
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.
-
2 hours ago, NanoDot said:
That's a noble theory, but DU is a game, not RL.
A significant proportion of DU's players will be here because they want to wage war, not because they want to maintain peace.
Most of the discussions around PVP mechanics on these boards are not on how to avoid combat, but rather on how to effectively kill other players in fun and interesting ways...
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.
-
51 minutes ago, Caldakar said:
Thanks for the replies. Wondering now how NQ will keep beginning zone available for new players coming in to the game later on ? I mean if we strip it bare in the first couple of weeks. I do expect that safe area to be picked over pretty fast .. What will new players have to mine ? Also wondering on the safe area, how big is it ?
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.
-
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.
-
4 hours ago, Veld said:
No they wont. You can only have radar on moving ships. You can have all sensors on bases. But they are not needed. Why would tiny cloakers try and make a bee line for a base out in the open? Why would you need to detect reentry in space? Why would you need to detect massive fleets in areas where there is a lot of debris? Even if you had all of them on your base: it doesn't matter at all. Any craft constructed outside of the lower limits of the sensors can't be seen. Which brings me on to your next point:
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.
4 hours ago, Veld said:Do you want big fat effortlessly stealthed battlefleet gank squads that spam all their nukes on you as soon as you're in range? Do you want your ultra nimble bare bones ninja craft to be effortlessly detected and shot down by some random guy with an omniscient radar? Do either of your opponents want to engage in gameplay as boring and one dimensional as that?
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.
4 hours ago, Veld said:With the idea in discussion there is an incentive to make ninja ships but they are not totally invulnerable. And thus we move on to the next point:
Not true. I said radar can detect you all the time. You need a scrambler to mess it up. But the scramblers can be destroyed provided they find it. The element of stratagem is in:
- Where you place your scrambler
- When you place it
- Where you hide
- When you react
- If you bail out or retaliate.
Yes it's called strategy. You strategise that making a ninja ship invulnerable to everything but radar is the best option. You can scramble radar but it requires thought as I said before.
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.
4 hours ago, Veld said:It's not the only form of limitation. You can limit the nature of your equipment as well as the placement. Radar is unlimited in detecting capability while the others are limited. The point of the idea in discussion is to eliminate the I win/trap card problem. With one detection/stealth system there is no way to stealth or no way to detect. If you don't see him because he's cloaked then you don't see him. But if you see him on radar then you see him. It's obsolete.
The way the idea works is like so: you can perform well in one situation but not the other. And you can perform exceptionally in the former situation if you employ the right techniques. For example:
I pilot my light vessel with little equipment, heat shielding, radar scramblers and a cloaking device as a backup (it's switched off most of the time). It is the meta as it is on the boundaries of mass, ablation and magnetic field strength limits for detection. But I can still get caught by radar if I'm not careful with how I use my scramblers and where I position myself.
It's not futile and it's certainly not easy. It's necessary to stop the obsolescence of detection when faced with stealth vice versa. It's necessary to encourage people to employ more than one technique and git gud. It's necessary to create balance in a game where balance is hard to enforce.
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.
-
40 minutes ago, Veld said:
You have misinterpreted the discussion.
The limits are not magical. They are necessary.
Adding invisibility cloaks, as lethys put it, is an 'I win' button. He's got cloaks; you don't see him coming. Unless you add radar. In that case it's 'I win' and 'You activated my trap card'. That's it. So in this one dimensional system everybody will simply use cloaks and radar. Absolutely everyone. Everyone will effectively be fighting invisible blips. Unless of course we use the 'magical' limitations like in other games. Like cloaks don't work well while moving or you need less armour or they run out of charge etc. But the ships in DU can't be controlled and can't be prescribed as distinct and carefully balanced classes. Players can make whatever they want and there are tons of possibilities. It's emergent gameplay.
-snip for brevity-
- Radar is balanced for dynamic constructs and short range.
- Radar is general use. It can detect anything with form and therefore it's sensible for everyone to have one.
- As radar can detect anything they are consequently debuffed for shorter range.
- Gravimetric, magnetometric and thermal are balanced for static constructs and are long range
- However they are specialised devices and should be used for specialised situations.
- They are rooted to the spot and therefore they are buffed for long range.
- Invisibility cloaks can be used by any ship. But they pop up on a magnetometric sensor.
- Radar can detect anything. But it can be scrambled.
- Scramblers can scramble radar. But they can be destroyed.
-snip-
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.
-
2 minutes ago, unown006 said:
None of it is needed you say I see would you like to fly a ship blind or only have visible view?
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.
-
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.
-
-
18 minutes ago, maxxuser said:
They are selling a product in Canada and the US, NAFTA absolutely applies to them, in that I can drive across the border, purchase the product for USD, drive back across the border, declare what I purchased at the border, and continue on my merry way.
My point was just an example of how... uncommon (there are other words for it) it is to charge Canadians the European price over the american price.
It just shows that they are out of touch with the north american market, and don't really give a -removed profanity- about Canadians.
I would say that it shows they decided to make everywhere outside of the US pay the same price for an item. It has nothing to do with any specific country (edit- other than US). NQ decided a specific thing about the US. Their are no other countries paying any different, whether next to the US, or on the other side of the world.
NAFTA is an agreement made between the countries in North America, and deals with taxes and regulations between the governments. Businesses are not bound to sell the same items or if they do to sell them at the same rate even when they are located in the countries affected. If NQ decided to set aside a different pricing between Ontario, and Quebec they would be within their rights to do so.
You can keep complaining about this, but that doesn't help your case. It would be much more effective to simply ask for support from the forums to have NQ come out and explain their stance on US having a different price. Starting your first thread on a forum and then being as aggressive as you were tends to throw up a wall between yourself and the people you are apparently trying to appeal to.
Also, profanity is still against the forum rules. -
2 minutes ago, maxxuser said:
Forget anywhere else, as much of an ignorant thing that might be.
The Canadian and american markets are in a free trade zone. Aka, I can order things from across the border and not pay a tariff, yet within our free trade zone (NAFTA North american free trade agreement) I am paying a 50$ price difference, due to being required to pay EUROPEAN prices.This is the type of thing market watchdogs are not a big fan of within our free trade zone.
The company is not in the US. The business is in Europe. NAFTA does not apply to them.
- Yezar and blazemonger
-
2
-
3 minutes ago, maxxuser said:
Sorry, just frustrated from hitting a bunch of walls, tried to ask in the discord, reddit, submitted a ticket.
To be frank, it is super easy for me to get the american price, just use a VPN to appear as american, however, I should not have to do this to save 50$ CAD.
So your point is US get's the packages for less expensive than anywhere else, and you don't think it should be that way.
You may be right, but NQ can set prices however they want. However, we can assume they didn't set this up without reason. It could be because of the VAT as brought up before, or some other reason. They don't have to explain the reasons, but it would probably help some people's frustrations.
-
11 minutes ago, Lethys said:
So in the end everyone agrees to safezones and protection bubbles. Which we know now for a year and a half?
Only 4 pages, we're getting better at least....
Don't really know that why some made a fuss about it then
The OP was a very vague start of a discussion about restrictions placed on what people can do outside of safe zones. The rest of the conversation was what generally ends up getting brought up about PvP vs non-PvP play styles. The discussion is still valuable to a point about what should be protect-able, how those protections should be implemented, and where they should be able to be implemented. All types of protection are a restriction of peoples ability to do whatever they want, and so there is a struggle of different protections vs the limitations those protections enforce.
Territories for landing
in Idea Box
Posted
I think having the ability to warn and make people aware of “restrictions” when they enter should be enough. Possibly with a notification system for the owner of the land if the restrictions are broken (if stealth is not utilized effectively). This would allow it to be dealt with in game, and wouldn’t have any artificial sustems. It would simply be a notification, and alert system.