Jump to content

Rahzi

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rahzi

  1. Since we now have a confirmation of a wipe at launch, how about a contest for new UEF ships. Give us some parameters, and let us submit our creations.
  2. I get the impression that they would refund the schematics that we purchased from the market, not what we actually own, like they did before. I really hope that "very soon" is not this week.
  3. Thank you for the information about core Blueprints. However, I do believe that most construct Blueprints will become unviable with future changes (brakes, power systems, ect). Because of these changes, I would like to ask for a " Deploy voxels only " checkbox on the deploy window where we set the construct name, so that we don't have to have all of the elements to rebuild the construct.
  4. I am beginning to believe that NQ, knows what they are doing in not making a " decision" about a wipe. I think they want to wipe. The longer they take with the announcement that they are going to wipe, they more players will have the mindset of " I don't care about a wipe anymore, just get it over with". As for me, I have stopped building, and have started looking into other aspects of the game that I have not explored yet(pvp, lua).
  5. At this point, I think NQ's fence sitting is going to cost them more subs between now and launch, than if they had said that they were going do a full wipe.
  6. My 2 cents. A wipe should not even be considered until NQ has the ability to do a roll back, full roll back at the least, a targeted roll back would be best. As for BPs, no magic BPs, or only compactable pocket ships in inventory allowed to be magic. BPs with drm should only go to the creators, drm free BP should remain in inventory .Please give us the ability to create a voxel only BP from a core BP. I think we need to be compensated for our subs in some other way than DACs. NQ needs the cash from subs.
  7. You forgot a couple of things, sec status and standings as consequences, which DU doesn't have. Would you be ok with players being able to shoot you in the safe zone because you blew up too many ships in the pvp zone? As for your real life comparison, yes a tank can destroy a semi easily, but some government will make sure to destroy the tank and imprison or kill the the tank driver. DU should have consequences for actions.
  8. The problem is the middle column, as soon as you land it shows up there, and they just track that asteroid, if it hadn't already been pre-scanned and not landed on. It is somewhat safe if you only stay there as long as the time it takes to get to the asteroid from the closest warpable( I usually stay for the time to the first waypoint - 5 minutes) or go to asteroids that have been discovered for several days.
  9. If you hit tab and hover the mouse over the colliding element(s) in that list, then hit tab, the colliding element will remain red.
  10. It was hard to tell from the video, but is there any kind of numerical position indicator for the vertex in relation to the true position ? IE (x.5, y.2, z.125).
  11. I just want to say, thank you NQ for the continued stream of information. EDIT As a ship builder, I like to have examples of my ships next to the BP dispenser so that a potential customer can examine the ship. As a solo player with no alts, this change will make that impossible.
  12. Unless they have changed it, the requisition process continues even if the tiles go inactive. I had a few tiles that I claimed and never paid tax on, and had no problem with the requisition of those static constructs. You just need to complete the requisition after the requisition timer is up, and before the tile goes abandoned( 3 days ). You may be able to complete the requisition after the tile goes abandoned , but I haven't tried that.
  13. If this goes forward, it will require most constructs to be modified to remain functional. With the upcoming brake changes, constructs will have to be modified again. Please wait to implement this collision change until the brake change is ready.
  14. I get the same, but only just tried to log in, I didn't have a crash. Edit, server maintenance now.
  15. Another option is to contact a GM in the help channel to move your cores up out of the ground, it shouldn't be a problem unless you have a large number of cores. A GM elevated my L core factory out of the ground for me.
  16. I believe that the pts obstruction on brakes is for clearance for an upcoming animation. The reason I said the way the brakes "should" work is because when they add the animation, I don't want them to change the obstruction direction again. But I am just guessing what they are planning. I don't want them to change brakes now, only to change them again later.
  17. While I do agree that we should have something more "futuristic" than modern airplane mechanics, if you want to use that logic, why have ships at all, we have teleporters. They can, and have decided. For me, I play the game for the challenge of achieving a goal within a set of limitations. As long as the limitations are reasonable to me, and the current ones are, I'm ok with it.
  18. In my mind, this is the way the thrust vector obstruction should be, assuming that there will be an animation for brakes. I used two brakes to show how one brake might be in the activated state. They just need to have the brakes activated in build mode to check for collision.
  19. Are there any other planned changes to atmospheric brakes (adding animation, thrust cone must be facing the direction of travel, ect)? If so, please don't make incremental changes, change everything at one time. I don't want to have to keep rebuilding the same ship.
  20. These scan results look like the ones that were accidentally pushed to live. I would bet that they are the same, and only place holders. They did not mention having a pool of finite ore that I have seen. As for the brakes, well, that is disappointing. I tried to have the thrust vector exposed on the ships I built. Looking at the icon for air brakes, it looks like they may have an animation in the future, so they may have to face the direction of travel, and have clearance above them so the brake can pop up.
  21. I have put a lot of time into this game, but I really think it needs a wipe, however, a wipe really wouldn't achieve much considering the games current state.
  22. More options would be nice. While I don't find the new FX distracting, one of the changes I really dislike is the removal of the grid inside the build box. Could we please get a check box to turn the grid on/off?
  23. Would it be possible to get a length setting for force fields. Currently the force fields will sometimes extend to full length on a dynamic construct traveling at speeds greater than 2000.
  24. They should disable dispensers and screens on the market hex, I think that would help a lot. Maybe put it in rdms so future player markets can do the same.
×
×
  • Create New...