Felonu
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Felonu
-
-
Sorry if anybody has an issue with me snipping parts. I'm trying to keep in the context of everything I'm responding to, but don't want my posts to be massive.
7 minutes ago, ostris said:So i guess im just reading a lot of these comments different then you. I see several comments about how pvp is a small part of the game/not the purpose of the game:
-snip-
Those were actually the posts I was talking about when I agreed that some people might be saying PvP was less important. I disagree with that stance also.
10 minutes ago, ostris said:And my point isn't really if DU should or should not be pvp focused. My post is about the amount of pvp focus should reflect the level of effort to implement. Since NQ has currently chosen what amounts to one of the hardest and most divisive forms of pvp, the amount of time in game spent on it should be very high, since the time to implement is very high. If NQ wants the game to be much more about building or community as compared to pvp, it might be better to move off such a hardcore pvp system.
-snip-
I don't consider the information they've given so far to be indicative of a "hard-core" PvP style. I think full loot drop/partial looting, with safe money/dacs, and with safe storage of goods not to be that hardcore. Then you add in protection bubbles on some stuff, and entire safe moons, and you have a system that can be balanced and fun for a large population of PvP and non-PvP oriented players.
-
3 hours ago, Veld said:
Should have said this in my post my bad: The primary sensors should not be able to be mounted on ships. Only radar can be used on ships. I agree the fleets should not have to change their sensors constantly - or have all at once as I said before. Either way it would be too demanding.
All ships would end up just having every type of available sensor, because it would be too much of a disadvantage not to. I doubt it ends up being any different gameplay than magic cloaks, and magic see invisibility in the long run.
3 hours ago, Veld said:The problem of there being no incentive other than aesthetic to build anything other than a floating cube is still without solution. Dull designs will be the meta in any case. But, in the case of stealth I've actually come up with a solution:
To prevent thruster bricks all you need to do is set a lower limit on the gravimetric sensors. For instance it can detect everything above 8 ton but not below..
I think adding optimizations to different build ideas has to be very carefully thought about. Any time you make one design over another more optimized you reduce the viability of creativity in design.
-
6 minutes ago, Hades said:
"DU whatever you want" is quite literally why I backed this game. Limitless freedom is why I backed this game.
Protection bubbles being implemented on constructs poses a few hurtles that need to be thought about, but I'm sure NQ will figure a good balance out. It seems like it would be possible to implement bubbles that work on static constructs. This would also allow you to create "garages" for your dynamic constructs, I'd imagine. Perhaps the timer on these should be different than those on a TCU bubble... but who knows
However, what happens when someone places a TCU down on a tile that contains a static construct + bubble? Does the TCU owner automatically gain acquisition? It would sure seem so, as they gain RDMS rights of the area. There are issues involved, is all I'm saying.
I agree with you that there are hurdles and that NQ will find a good balance. As far as laying a TCU down, I don't think it would work that way. I would assume it would be the same as someone flying a dynamic construct into an area - The area owner can allow/disallow new constructs from being added, but the original owner still has ownership of his construct as long as it's there. The TCU owner would be able to destroy the construct however because they have rights to do so in their own territory.
-
@maxxuser Using profanity is against the forum rules. I understand you are frustrated, but game developers have to make decisions about what areas they want to specifically handle. This means a company that is in France might decide to handle most places in their common format, and then handle specific other places in ways that work for them. In this case the only place they seem to have specifically handled was the US. Constructive debate and discussion of whether that is a good practice, or other areas should be handled is much more effective at getting something changed than just rage-leaving.
-
46 minutes ago, ostris said:
having read through most of this thread at this point it seems to me that two sides have kind of developed. Those who think pvp is core to the game, one of the primary features of the game and those who dont. I honestly cannot understand the position of those who think PvP is not core to the game or how you could think that NQ has a position that pvp is a small, non core feature. In my eyes the highest level of effort for the devs in this game will be implementing combat(exclusively pvp), and how that implementation impacts everything else(ship building, territories etc).
This entire thread is about the impacts of the Full loot, open pvp system and what should be safe or not safe. If you have the opinion that PvP is not a core part of the game you should be working hard to have NQ completely rethink its position on PvP. We should implement pvp areas not safe areas etc. Right now the amount of work the devs will have to put in to balance the currently defined PvP, the combat systems around it and the rules to control it (protection bubbles etc) is HUGE. If pvp is implemented poorly it will probably be one of the primary reasons this game will fail. They should not be investing that amount of time and energy in a minor, non core system. Nor risk destroying the core pve gameplay for the non core pvp, which is likely if pvp is not balanced properly. The fact that they have chosen a pvp system that has already scared off a large portion of my PvE oriented friends should be proof enough that NQ views pvp as the highest importance. Why would they alienate the players they want(pve) for the players that aren't the primary purpose of the game(pvp)?
-snip for brevity-
There have been multiple posts (most of the posts you seem to be taking as saying PVP is a small part of the game) saying that having a balance is important. I see no posts saying they want safety everywhere. I do agree with you that some people seem to think PvP is less important than PvE, and NQ says that isn't right. I kinda get the impression you think the opposite, and that would be wrong too. According to NQ there is a balance between PVP, and PVE that has to exist in the game. This balance is the common debate on this subject. You talk about bringing PvP into the safezones, and some people are talking about safety measures being brought outside of them. I believe this is a valid debate, and if your PvE focused friends left then it means the balance may not be in the proper place for them. I personally find it more worthwhile to stick around and make my voice heard on where I would like to see the balance, and see where NQ actually goes with the balance before making any hard decisions.
3 hours ago, Lethys said:Well to me the Post from supermega does say indeed that He doesn't want FFA PvP. But hey, that's just me.
And yes, there are means to protect yourself in UA. See the devblog. We're talking since 2,5 years now about protection bubbles.
I specifically called out protections outside of safezones and TCUs. It is the belief of some that protection bubbles will only exist on TCUs since they released the information about those. I don't believe that was what they meant, but I think that is the point of discussions like this. Personally I think that if protection bubbles can be applied to ships and if they are not too expensive they would help the PvP/PvE balance quite a bit. I know there has to be limits on it, though, so that the PvP leaning customers are served properly also. I want to wait on NQ's ideas on the subject before getting too into the specifics though.
-
3 hours ago, Lethys said:
I beg to differ (and yes, I'm well aware that some quotes lack the general context - see end of post)
Those 3 quotes alone suggest exactly that. It may be out of context a bit but in this discussion every word of explanation is needed (especially when dealing with different nationalities and non-native speakers).
The three quotes you pointed out were all saying very specifically that it doesn’t need to be 100% one way or the other. You quoted people saying they are against 100% pvp as an example of people being 100% against pvp. The person you responded to was talking about how there is granularity that can be taken into account and it doesn’t have to be a for/against debate.
I just wanted to point out the fallacy of the all or nothing context of your response to the idea of moderation.
In some ways I can agree with nanoman and some others here. I think that 100% protection inside the bubbles doesn’t necessarily mean that we need 0% protection outside. If that is the case anyone who wants to avoid pvp only gets to experience a very small (<1%) percentage of the game. I’m hoping there will be some protections outside of safe zones and tcu, and am waiting for more information from NQ.
- Supermega, Atmosph3rik and blazemonger
-
3
-
1 hour ago, Orius said:
Will there be some kind of food levels in DID? If so, what about water? I don't think it is a good idea, just more of a nuciance.
Information on what survival mechanics will exist has not been released as far as I know. As long as we don't have to log in every day, or eat/drink more than every few hours of game play I think it would add some nice agricultural aspects. There are already threads about whether people want this mechanic or not.
-
6 minutes ago, Sander496 said:
-snipping for brevity -
I came up with the idea of a spectator mode. First players who have a construct they like to show off, needs to be marked or tagged in some way by the owner to opt it in for display in a gallery. Other players can then open the gallery and either travel to the location of that construct as a spectator or open a "construct viewer" where they can then view the construct without element interaction rights.
-snip-
You could take control of an area (possibly within a protected area) and try to create a "Museum" of sorts where you could congregate interesting designs. You would be able to allow people to place a BPed design down (you could give them access to place, and then remove it after done). That way you could create a place for people to show off their creations without having a special mechanism for it. This wouldn't be perfect (designs that are dependent on the landscape would be difficult/impossible to do justice), but should be possible.
That doesn't mean I dislike your idea. I am just trying to explain 1 way it could be implemented without special mechanisms outside what has already been said would be in the game.
-
2 minutes ago, Hades said:
If there's anything this poll shows us, it's how much of a minority we (the forum users) are. For how active the forums are, that's pretty interesting. IMHO.
I imagine there are less than 70% with access to the pre-alpha. Puts things in perspective I suppose.
A lot of people just ignore polls like this too. I, personally, don't see the point in voting.
-
13 hours ago, unown006 said:
I also was informed via forum browsing that ftl will be very limited
Remember not to take everything said on the forums as fact. People regularly treat their expectations and interpretations of NQs statements as fact, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm not speaking to the limitations of FTL. I don't remember any specific details about the rarity of them, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-
Not enough options
-
You are turning your post away from DU Ports, and toward Win vs Linux debate. There are plenty of places that debate can be made, but this game forum probably isn't the best place.
- VVV_GLORY_VVV, Mod-Merwyn and vylqun
-
3
-
Please be careful of NDA conversations about your gameplay experiences in the game. Your experience with using WINE could be considered covered by NDA.
-
1 hour ago, NanoDot said:
The general opinion is that those force-field bubbles are going to be out of reach of single players and small orgs, due to their cost. The same applies to TCU's (territory control units).
I don't think that's the general opinion. Some people seem to think that, but according to NQ force-fields are intended to protect items while players are offline. Big organizations aren't going to need these defenses as much because they're likely to have people online more often, and better defensive abilities.
-
13 minutes ago, Hades said:
See, this is something I can support. Because it’s a defensive mechanic with an effective counter: hacking.
There was already a way to counter it. Attack the base.
-
4 hours ago, CalenLoki said:
-snip-
And there is no reason for anyone else to build stuff around, because that base handle all the trade, storage, refuelling, repairing and respawning.
-snip-
One reason to build would be to compete. If another org wants to hurt this orgs bottom line ( and hopefully there will be enough competition that this will always be true). They’ll set up a competitive market across the street. Or if there isn’t as much business there a smaller outfit could build a smaller market base with less overhead to compete by having less expensive trade fees.
-
11 minutes ago, Lethys said:
The DAC hoarder is the only one profiting....?
Actually everyone who buys them is profiting. The people that are hurt are the other dac hoarders that have to sell dacs at the lower price. This is basic market economics, and I don't think is a problem.
- NanoDot and blazemonger
-
2
-
10 hours ago, GunDeva said:
Well I'm a Gold Founder and I would have loved getting a Patron Supporters pack for more Dac , cosmetics and pets added to my account but at least we get something ! You just cant upgrade your account I guess ?
Not yet, but possibly in the future.
-
This sounds like something that could be built by players. I don’t know that we would need anything special for this purpose.
-
16 minutes ago, KoshiHoshin said:
Planet spin will not affect the gravity field. About the use of anti-gravity generators, in my opinion, they use it to solve the problem of space stations. Indeed as it is a building, it will require a static core unit as said in this video where JC also says "don't use that[speaking of the static core units] if you want to build anything that moves" so the velocity of constructions made with a static core unit will be zero from how i understand it. Then a problem arises. How can you make space stations (created from static core units) that requires velocity to stay on a given altitude in presence of a gravity field when by definition, you stated contructions made by these units will have no velocity. The solution is anti-gravity generators.
-snip-
Actually it seems like the antigravity units will be needed by the new flight mechanisms they mentioned in the recent news release . Also, if static constructs by definition don’t have velocity, then gravity can’t move the construct. This would mean that antigravity units would be more of a rp device on these structures than a necessity.
-
1 hour ago, Sofernius said:
Given how LUA works here.
I doubt you could communicate with other ships and structures without linking something from your construct to they'res.
Migh tbe possible for a fleet, if they have an fleet coridnation UI LUA script and every ship has an Screen + programming board linked to a central one at an flagship.
But the question is ... are intership/construct links even possible?
Or can you make LUA push out an chat message on an channel, where other LUA script picks it up and uses it.
I don’t think your questions can be answered without breaking the NDA.
-
1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:
I stated that such "tunnel digging weapons" would make any surface base require under-side protection. Doesn't matter if it deal damage to constructs or not, all earth parts of fortifications became decorations: block line of sight for stationary guns, and you can just dig tunnel around defences. Thus removing it's only combat advantage advantage over hovering or space bases.
What would be the problem with that? I don't see any issues with the land not being a viable defense.
1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:It also means that you can quickly destroy matter, which is really bad idea for persistent world.
As long as it doesn't destroy any faster than mining would in an unprotected area it wouldn't change anything significant.
1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:Bunker busters doesn't dig - they send shock-wave that make tunnels ceiling break. And even when they are powerful enough to throw rocks out of the hole, they still make it conical shaped crater - thus you need depth^3 of explosives to reach something underground.
The don't "dig", but they have a delayed blast so they don't go off until they are underground. They penetrate much further than the blast pattern. This was only an example using what we have today that makes sense for the way the real world works though. A weapon that is even more effective could exist in the game.
1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:And if there is no way to implement such matter-preservation system, I'd rather have terrain that is invulnerable to explosions.
We'll have to see where it goes for this. I would expect that the physics of preserving the matter would be too complex to have, and invulnerable terrain would be even worse than disappearing terrain for realism in my opinion.
-
@CalenLoki I think you are making a couple of assumptions about weapons that I think keeps you from accepting how they will likely solve the deep base problem. The main assumption is that if a weapon is strong enough to dig easily then it must go through all built structures easily as well. I don't think you will be right about this. This goes back to the idea that if a nanoformer can mine hard materials quickly, then it should be able to atomize other people immediately. It makes no sense to allow that for gameplay, and so won't likely be the way it works. Sometimes reality would impede gameplay and you need to separate the game to make it more fun.
2 easy solutions are giving dirt and low value rock less armor values than basic building materials so that it can be easily removed by weapons, or making weapons designed for this purpose. A weapon example would be an explosive that when placed are positioned some distance underground before exploding (again would go through natural resources easily, but would be stopped by man-made defenses). I mentioned before bunker buster missiles that exist today as an example of this second option before. No weapon used in these examples should drop collectible resources however, so that mining is not affected.
Redesigning the protection systems seems like a much more dramatic change to solve a problem that could easily be solved in simple ways.
-
Well, it's all speculative currently. I don't think having underground bases will make you invulnerable, and stated my reason why. You think they would be and stated your reasons. When we have more information about the mechanics of these things the debate will actually have some level of accuracy.
Canadian
in General Discussions
Posted
@maxxuser Blaze is right here. It is actually cheaper for you than it would be for someone in the US based on exchange rates.
282.43 CAD = 220.23 USD ; 230 USD = 295.03 CAD