Oxyorum
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Oxyorum
-
-
6 hours ago, Helediron said:
This is NOT the situation the blog describes. Now i am nasty: this is why the cheat works. We don't anticipate it. We trust the UI and don't even realize we got scammed. This is a common cheat in some other MMOs.
Did you read my edit?
-
45 minutes ago, Helediron said:
I suspect there is a flaw in barter UI. Of course I have not yet used it, but I have seen same flaw being abused elsewhere. Looks like the UI allows common cheat where the other use can quickly change their offer.
- Other user places e.g. 5000000 ducks as their offer.
- I place my stuff.
- They click confirm, wait one second, take a zero away and reconfirm.
- On my side I see their first confirmation and click my own. Because i have to momentarily concentrate to my own UI, there is a good chance I don't notice their change and second verification until too late.
The flaw in the UI is that I can't freeze their offer for review before acceptance. A simple fix would be that I could do it with "Looks good" button. My accept button stays disabled until I clicked the "Looks good". Any change from other side before I manage click the acceptance would disable accept and resets "Looks good". I need to re-verify their new offer. And if their change comes after my acceptance it would reset it (as described in the blog).
This two-stage acceptance should be rather simple change in client UI only. It does not need any change in the server protocol.
This is already accounted for:
6 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:At any point during this confirmation, should either player change anything in their basket (remove an item, add an item, change quanta, etc.) all activated confirmations will be deselected. For example, if I am Bartering an engine for 100 Quanta and I confirm this exchange, my partner may decide to change 100 Quanta to 50, which will automatically deselect my initial offer.
It describes the exact scenario you are concerned about.
EDIT: I realize you are talking about the ability to miss the change even after the offer is automatically deselected. Although I would personally chalk that to lack of care by the player in question, it wouldn't hurt to add in some sort of pop-up window that will indicate that one of the parties changed their offer, in addition to the automatic deselect. That way, players have a visual queue and are more likely to double check their offer before accepting it a second time.
-
23 minutes ago, Venstix said:
- going from m3 to liters doesn't make any sense, liters are used for liquids. Except fuels, everything is solid. Even some fuel might be solid irl. Plus, more control than 0.001 unit? what's the use even...
I mean, liters (L) are just a measurement of volume. Yes, its most commonly used for liquids, but I don't see that as a reason for them not being able to use this unit. Just look at Space Engineers, which bases its volume measurements in liters (L).
-
3 hours ago, Dinkledash said:
You made fuel weigh MORE?
3 hours ago, DaphneJones said:I had the same reaction, lol. Should be interesting.
This is not going to be an easy change for us.
I guess they want us to actually put thought into how much fuel we are going to need for things, rather than just running around with full tanks at every occasion.
We will probably have to calculate how much fuel we can bring with us based on how much mass we are moving on our ships. Also, keep into account that they are increasing fuel efficiency, so as to ensure that fuel consumption per distance traveled stays the same after the changes.
Only thing I want clarification on is this:
4 hours ago, DaphneJones said:So a large container still holds the same volume, but what about mass? Does iron still mass 8kg per liter when it's in the container, i.e. L container full of iron masses 1024 tons? If so, I don't see how this solves the cargo problem unless you can make more with the same amount of mined material.
Someone said on discord that mass is reduced by a factor of 16, but I don't see that in the devblog.
-
6 hours ago, DaphneJones said:
Why don't you stay out of my thread unless you have something to contribute? Damned stalker
In his defense, that's literally what the red "2" means. It means you have 2 unread messages.
-
-
Welcome to Dual Universe!
-
2 hours ago, brannonsweet said:
Hello all. So if I pay 120 for Access to Alpha 1, when will I be able to play it? Am I understanding that the developers only permit playing the game a few hours per week at certain times?
For now, yes. You can be sure that test times will be much longer as we get closer to release, and eventually the servers will be up 24/7.
If you pay the $120, you will have access starting with next week's test, which will last 48 hours. You can always check the test schedule at the server status page.
-
1 hour ago, DaphneJones said:
Am I unable to see the Alpha forum section because the forum thinks I'm a Silver Founder when I'm really a Sliver Kickstarter? (At least I think I'm a Silver Kickstarter)
No. You are good. You just need to contact support at Novaquark Support or send them an email at support@novaquark.com asking for access to the alpha section.
-
Welcome to DU!
-
Hello, MisterDoge.
Welcome to Dual Universe.
-
Welcome to Dual Universe!
glad to have you with us
-
Welcome to Dual Universe!
-
Welcome to Dual Universe!
glad to see we have some celebrities taking interest in the game
-
Yeah, lets not make wild speculations about things that are not public knowledge. I am positive that we will have alpha 1 by the end of the month as stated by NQ and if there is any reason to change the schedule, we will know ahead of time.
Another thing to mention is that Novaquark has not stipulated which founders will be let in at which time, something which they said would be stated before Alpha 1 was released.
-
Welcome to Dual Universe!
glad to have you on board
-
-
Welcome to Dual Universe!
glad to have you
-
1 hour ago, MaltoSigma said:
Why can rdms deny someone access to stuff but can't prevent them from destroying the stuff?
Its a permissions system to control who can interact with your things, not a shield.
It can't stop someome from destroying your stuff - use a TCU or build in a safezone.
-
I've been wanting to write down some ideas on RDMS for some time, but I've been too busy with other stuff.
So here goes, before I forget.
I am going to be using the same language as the original devblog on RDMS, so here are some terms you will see and what they mean in layman's terms:
Functions: roles (member, mod, admin)
Powers: permissions (opening a container, accessing a computer, etc.)
Tags: a grouping of permissions under a given name (ex: tag "containers" has "open" powers for all containers, so you can open all containers)
warranty: a tag that will expire after a stipulated amount of time, or after a certain amount of money is paid
Ok. So, I was about to make a thread about time-based roles for RDMS, but decided to search the forums and found the original devblog on the role management and duties system. There, I found the concept of warranties, which basically did exactly what I was going to propose in the original thread.
Then, I thought: "What if someone doesn't just want to have a tag expire off someone after a certain amount of time, but they want the tag itself to be deleted after the time has passed?"
I think it would be very helpful if there we're some sort of temporary tag, not temporary in the sense of the tag being removed from someone its assigned to after X amount of time, but deleted instead, such that all those that currently have the tag assigned would lose it. This functionality could be added to warranties, or be its own type of tag.
Such functionality would have several benefits:
- Neatness: The less tags you need to accomplish the organizational structure you are looking for, the better. You don't want it to be 2022 and still have tags you made back in 2020 because you were too lazy to look or they got forgotten in the sea of tags you actually use, especially if those tags were only to be used for a one-time thing.
- Convenience: This functionality would make it easy to create temporary tags for one-time situations. Just make the tag, give it the abilities you want the user to have and walk away, knowing that in X amount of time the tag will be gone and you won't have to do it manually.
Another thing I thought about was negation powers, specifically, special powers that can be assigned to a tag which, if assigned to a player, will negate previously assigned powers for as long as the tag is attached. Ideally, there will be a separate power that has to be assigned to an individual so that they can add negation powers to tags they make, and another power for assigning tags with negation powers to people (and also what powers they can negate). Such powers should be given out wisely, to prevent abuse by bad actors within the organization.
This may look counter-intuitive. Why not just remove the powers from the tag? Flexibility. Let's say that your organization has a member function, which assigns some basic powers to the members of your organization (access to containers, certain ships and areas, etc). You find that a member took items from containers where you kept items intended for new members, and sold them in the market for some quick bucks. Assuming that a) he doesn't leave or b) you don't kick him for doing this, you can greatly restrict his access without affecting the other members of the organization. You can create a special tag, let's call it "thief", and assign negation powers to the tag for access to any containers or ships, or anything else that is common access. You can then personally assign him that tag and he will effectively be restricted from taking anything for as long as you want. You can even add a warranty where he can get the tag removed if he returns the amount of money the items he stole was worth! This is just an example, by the way. I would kick the crap out of that guy and then kick him from the org, and you would too. You might say: "this is stupid. just take member function from him and assign him a function that has the same restrictions, then delete it when you are done, or not." This is true. The point of adding the ability to negate powers in this way is primarily for variety. It's about having multiple ways to accomplish the same goal, that you can choose depending on your preference.
Yet another thing I thought about was the possibility for lua to be used to read tags and permissions from players. One of the things that the devblog talked about was how one way you could think about powers is written down as: "power/tree1/military". I found this interesting, because this format makes it easy to expose a player's tags through lua. A rough example of the way the information can be compiled is below:
{ ["org1"] = power1/tree1/military, power2/tree2/administration ["org2"] = power/tree/logistics, power/tree3/spy ["orgName"] = power/tagTree/nameOfTagTree -- this is an example ... }
You can then add lua code that can query the game about the permissions in any way you like. The best use for something like this would be to create very specific access mechanism where just RDMS is not enough. Let's say that you have a storage area that is shared between multiple organizations. Each organization can access the storage area on certain days of the week. Let's call then org A, org B and org C. Let's say org A actually owns the building the storage area is in. Org A designs the storage area such that it can be accessed via a button press. Since they can only set permissions on the button for their own organization (or perhaps alliance) and orgs B and C are not directly allied with them, they set the button so that anyone can press the button. Once the button is pressed, code will run on a nearby programming board that will check the tags of the person that pressed the button. If he/she is from one of the organizations that is allowed to enter the storage area, and it is their turn to enter, then they will have access.
The last thing I thought about, which has been discussed in the forums previously, is invisible tags. The way I see it, invisible tags should not be more than a tag that cannot be seen by the person or people it is assigned to, used for internal purposes within an organization. That being said, I have no issue with them being added to the game.
Let me know what you guys think.
-
Welcome to Dual Universe, Kartam!
glad you could join us
-
2 minutes ago, MaltoSigma said:
By "ways of dealing with possible conflicts", I mean maybe finding compromises or kicking someone out.
Altough it's not very common in online games, people could maybe learn to interact and maybe cooperate with each other more. When the game has many mechanics, that make the oranization of communities easier, it actually limits the social aspect of the game.I understand where you are coming from. I would not favor things that affect the social aspect of the game negatively. However, I don't believe that having RDMS in the game will decrease player interaction. It is necessary, especially when handling large organizations with hundreds of members (see the first page on the community portal) of which there could be a number of spies or other bad actors. Trust me, there will be plenty of player/org cooperation, with or without RDMS.
-
2 minutes ago, MaltoSigma said:
I think this would be too much complicated game mechanics.
People should assign properties or whatever to each other by communication with each other. And if there is conflict, they would have to find their own ways of dealing with it.Well, Novaquark is going to implement a way to handle stuff like this in a comprehensive way. So, why not use it?
I mean, you could do it just by mutual trust and without using RDMS. However, this would probably only work with real life friends/family, in my opinion. -
24 minutes ago, Sophia ❤ Foxy said:
Yeah, I am hoping that when it come to release they could maybe at least have things like radiation, body temperature, hunger and thirst that it would add some gameplay dimensions, don't need to capture anything if you can just say gather meat on a creature and cook them
Eh, I don't know about that. The most NQ said they may be adding is wildlife as far as I can remember, but nothing like what you are saying. Then again, they could change their minds. Personally, I would do just fine without having to worry about actually starving to death. I mean, we're in the far future. You would imagine that our suits take care of all of these needs without us having to worry about them. Different strokes for different folks.
Yo
in Org Updates & Announcements
Posted
You can just buy the pledge you want to upgrade to.
You should be charged the difference between your current pledge and the one you are buying.
This is assuming you bought your first pledge on the website and it wasnt a kickstarter pledge. I am not sure you can upgrade those.
Contact support@novaquark.com to ask them if you can and how.