Razorwire
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Razorwire
-
-
-
-
7 hours ago, Felonu said:
@Ravenskysong Currently you cannot purchase one of the new support packages for an account that is already connected to a founder pack. I started a thread asking NQ if they will allow us to add the perks of the new packs in the future. You can follow and see if they respond here:
That link or quote is hidden. Is it from a Restricted forum area?
7 hours ago, Hades said:At the moment it’s not possible to buy a secondary pack. You could maybe ask NQ to upgrade your pack to a supporter pack
7 hours ago, DarkHorizon said:Based on my understanding of things, you can upgrade to a supporters pack if you are an iron, bronze or silver founder to the patron supporter pack which is the equivalent of the gold founder's pack which is why gold+ cannot purchase the support packs.
Nope.
Been talking to Support; the only way you can buy a supporter pack when you already own any founder pack is to make a seperate second account.
The two accounts would be totally seperate, with each getting it's own rewards.
Upgrades and merging accounts are not possible.I'm starting to get a little frustrated with it all, tbh. I wanted Ruby, but they closed upgrades before I could save the cash. Now I want Patron, but I lose what I currently have and have to make a new forum account if I buy Patron now.
-
6 hours ago, AzureSkye said:
...the general concept, that NQ should do something to help prevent people from hurting themselves (like putting labels on a pill bottle or warning on a power saw), is very important.
Then just stick a label on it, as in your two examples there.
If I want to play 20 hours straight on a Saturday because I can't get on in the week due to work, why should I be punished? I shouldn't, is the answer.
A warning on the initial load screen is enough. If an informed adult hurts themselves, that's on them; don't restrict my service because they might ignore the warning.
- NanoDot, Nebenfigur, Lethys and 1 other
-
4
-
25 minutes ago, Lethys said:
it's just to make sure others who read this are aware of that too - "I will be very surprised when... " could be a maybe to others while NQ clearly and obviously said no.
To avoid a nonexistant hypetrain and to get ppl back on facts you have to use exact terms
That's why I didn't write "I will be surprised when...", I wrote "I'll be very surprised if...", which to me does not even imply a little hope.
Just to be... exact:
- I think there will be no life-subs available in the new packs.
- I think there will be no pre-alpha access available in the new packs.- I'm truly disappointed that I didn't have the money back when I could have upgraded to Ruby for the life-sub.
- I can afford Ruby twice-over now, which just makes it feel worse that I missed my only chance, just because my car blew up. -
I know, Lethys.
I keep forgetting that these forums seem incapable of processing anything less than exact terms. Sadly, my normal mode of speech rarely uses absolutes.
"Those kinds of offers are expensive for the devs over time; they effectively remove a player from the funding stream once their package cost is exceeded by whatever the subs would have cost to that point. They are a reward for very early backers with deep pockets who take a chance on an early concept. Once early backing is done, the life-sub offers always vanish, and never return. " - Me, on life-subs, late last year. -
15 minutes ago, Omfgreenhair said:
looking forward to when it does, though. Didn't have the financial assets to purchase the gold thingy, but now that I do I can't. That's an old unfortunate situation. So I hope I get another shot at gold.
I'm in the same situation; I wanted ruby for the life subscription but could only afford Iron at the time. I could buy Ruby now.
Sadly, the new supporter packs will almost certainly be very weak compared to the kickstarter pledges, second-round crowd-funding always is. There might not even be any alpha-access, and I'll be very surprised if there are any life subs. -
Ok, I'll try again.
I was offering counter-points to an artificial 7 day timer between knocking out a TU and being able to place a new one, if it's merely to stimulate a ground war. I don't think you need to, I think it'll happen anyway if both sides are prepared.
It should take as long as it takes to take the ground. If one side is throwing heavy resources at the fight or is very clever about it and the other isn't, or if one side doesn't even show up, it should be over very quickly one way or the other.Remember that a TU is likely not the same as an area protection device; say knocking down the shield sets off a siege timer to give the owner time to respond, the TU is still inside the siege-shield. It'll all be settled only once both sides have been given time to muster, and that's when your war starts, mixed forces and complex ground defences and all. And *that* bit should take as long as it takes.
I guess all I'm saying is that I don't want to knock down a shield, wait the 24hr (or whatever) siege-timer out, flatten the defences, kill all the defenders and destroy their spawn-room, blow up their TU and then *still* have to wait a long arbitrary time before I can drop my own TU. Nor do I want to destroy a TU only to have a hidden defender on the other side of the hex instantly drop another one.
I'd go for a 5 min timer before you can place a TU on a territory that has recently lost one, and a 15 min timer on placing a TU where *you* have recently lost one. Gives both sides some reaction time and prevents ninja TU replacement.
We'll see what we get, and we'll poke it until it breaks and they fix it. Then we'll poke it again.
And don't worry about opportunist griefers, Devs have said that TUs are going to be expensive, and that there will be some kind of offline protection; greifers won't likely spend all that cash on a TU in the first place, and if they do, you'll get warning and time to react.
-
4 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
U might have to get accsess to the centre of the territory to place the new TU. That could be behind many fortifications etc. (Im assuming TUs need to be at ground level or lower).
Hence 7 days os skirmishes
47 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:I dont know how TU placement currently works but my idea is to destroy current tu before new one can be placed. This ends up a bit like a capture the flag type situation and could draw out to be multiple days of gameplay itself.
Still don't see it.
If me and mine can't take it in one battle, then the extra 6 days are likely worthless; if I threw everything at it, I have no reserves, and if I kept reserves wouldn't they have helped in the first push?And if I *can* take it on day one, I can wait and take it on day 6 to reduce the opportunity for reprisals.
You want a proper ground war? You need to have layers of shielding that defenders can reinforce and attackers can knock down, turn it into a tug-of-war mechanic with a delay timer between each stage. And you need to provide defence vs air assault from either side. Anything less could be brute-forced or ninja'd.
This would give you your week's worth of ground fighting, but at the expense of making it really hard to take territory without a huge effort, and more than a little game-y.I rather like the idea that if I'm clever, or part of a strong Org, I can take a territory fairly quickly. Lot of folk won't have the time in RL to commit to a multi-day assault.
-
36 minutes ago, Hades said:
Unfortunately, I have a feeling people will take out the shield and just wait for that 7th day.
Isn't the optimal strategy at that point: drop the shield, go elsewhere for 6 and a bit days, come back, smash your way through whatever conflicts there are to a pre-scouted hiding spot, and start spamming your TU as the timer runs out?
I mean, what's the point in fighting a ground war for a week if it makes no difference on the claim? I'd also worry about bot-claims if it was a simple timer.
-
Love the idea
It's have to be done in such a way that I couldn't claim an entire huge starship, or the mats to build one, by just tripping over some ex-player's stuff though.
Would be pretty cool if it could be made into a long-ish project of refinishing, refurbishing and recommissioning a construct though.
-
Quote
@Setzar Different gear from where we have been going. But I just realized that the FFU is said to protect the construct it is placed on....ships are constructs.....is a 24-48hr bubble placed on the ship then? and if so can the ship then move?
There is a difference between static and dynamic constructs, I believe, depending on the the initial placed core.
Protection bubble generators therefore could only be deployable on static constructs..
-
JC did kinda hint at some material-properties-based soft limits when asked about space-elevators, so we could still see *some* limits...
-
We can hope for both.
Variants of baseline elements with the mods baked into the blueprint, all of which can be further 'rigged by those with the skills on an individual construct basis.
My favourite kind of PVP is where I know what I'm doing but am undergeared vs a clueless but gucci snob
-
Fair enough.
I'd still like to see some baked-in variety of elements though.
If a T2 small thruster is a straight upgrade over the T1, you'd pretty much always choose the T2, right? The only reason not to would be if you were building a power-constrained construct or had material/skill/blueprint shortages preventing you from building the T2.
If you have multiple standard variants of the T1 instead, at the design stage you'd get to choose between lightweight-but-fragile, economic-but-low-output, heavy-but-high-output, etc. You're not increasing the number of elements in a construct, and you're not having to store a whole bunch of customisation numbers from jury-rigging, but you are making the design process more fun, the construct market more diverse, and the game richer as a result. Downside is of course more artwork and bigger game files.
As an added benefit, though, it would make it easier to tweak my own copy of the Twerkmotorworks (TM) Super-Death-Interceptor Mkii (c) by swapping out the ridiculously thirsty T1D Performance thruster elements for some T1B Lightweight thrusters
-
18 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
...Yes, but all those technologies DU has are grounded on aspects of physics we already know. Fuel compression is not something crazy. Flying is supersonic (you can check the tutorials about this, you do get more speed with higher altitudes, it's 200 m/s cap on SEA level only and I can't say more cause NDA on Pre-Alpha tests). As for the automation, that's just the lore, with the humans inventing AI which almost took over every aspect of their lives but - lucky for humanity - the AI didn't go Skynet and humans imposed a "no AI" on anything. Although, there needs to be a disambiguation, there's no autonomous constructs (which is a Robot), but there is automation, it's what Lua was and is still used primarily for (even if you can define objects in its programming, but that's a very unrelated topic for this discussion ). So, scripting autopilot to fly the ship while you walk around the ship, yes, but scripting guns that fire when you are not online, no
...
But fuel compression *is* crazy unless you invoke superscience. Technically you *can* compress liquids, but in practice you need huge pressures for very little compression. It's the basis of hydraulic systems that liquids are incompressible for practical purposes, after all.
Are you saying the ships *can't* fly sub-sonic..? Hovering, and flying slowly, on thrusters/jets uses insane amounts of fuel as you can't leverage aerodynamic lift, is all I meant.
I read the AI ban, but there's a big range between manual, through automated and autonomous, on up to AI. I'm not in game, so I don't know exactly what's script-able, but from what I've read, I'm not getting decent auto turrets on an avatar-following drone, for example, even if I'm aiming the hand-held targeting laser personally.18 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:...Also, yes, they have spoken of Tiers and the such on the GDC2017 AMA event JC given. There is a thread where people provided a transcript of the interview, if I can find it, I will post it here. And by Tiers, I mean "tier-1 small fuel tank" and "tier-2 small fuel tank" (possibly, better compression rate on fuel ,who knows)...
Really? That's a shame. I was hoping for actual variety in parts and being forced to make design choices rather than just always fitting best-in-slot. I'd much rather have to chose between A is lighter but weaker, B is extra strong but really heavy, C is a middle ground, D has extra thrust but is less fuel efficient, etc. Much better than "always fit T3 because it outperforms T2 and T1 in every way".
18 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Dual_Universe_Wiki:Archive/Q%26A_-_February_28th_2017&A_-_February_28th_2017=
The Transcript from the GDC 2017. Although, the actual part where he speaks of the tiered system is on the interview part as I was informed, which is not included on the wiki entry.Cheers for that, I'll have a read over lunch.
.
-
500 years is huge at this point in time. You can't look back for pointers either, since technological progress is not linear, it's exponential. Citing the crossbow is a bit disingenuous, as it's pretty good at doing what it does. Better to think about something we can only just do, and see how that worked 500 years ago, like getting me to listen to your favourite band/composer's latest piece in seconds from my car compared to going out and finding a performance and waiting weeks or months to both physically attend it. On top of that, we've not got a huge drive for survival and space technologies right now, not like a "cataclysm threatening the entire Earth" kind of drive anyway. It is most likely that thrusters, ship systems and life support all got a huge boost in both scientific interest and funding in the run up to the evacuation.
I disagree that the DU tech is grounded; millennia-long cryo-sleep, ships that fly sub-sonic and hover in atmosphere and gravity using only thrusters with (relatively) tiny fuel tanks, nano-tech, ultra-miniaturization and re-expansion, plus we've got FTL and jump-gates on the horizon... At the same time, you've got little automation, manually controlled turrets, restricted telepresence etc. In short, we have a whole bunch of stuff we can't see a way to get to from here, and a lack of a bunch of stuff we can do right now.
Not my definition of grounded, but, and this is the important bit, it doesn't have to be in order to be fun.
As for EM drives in DU, yeah, they could work as expensive stealth engines, or as alternatives to other types to keep your fuel requirements down at the cost of seriously reduced thrust, or low thrust for low weight, or... Balance it how you like, plenty of niches it could fill.
Writing this I realise that I actually only care that we have a choice between variants of parts, and reasons to make those choices. Do I want to keep the fuel cost down, or keep high acceleration? Frankly it doesn't matter to me at that point whether I'm choosing between conventional or EM drives, or whether the choice is between H2O2 or Hydrazine propellants, or even between Variant-A and Variant-B. As long as the choice is there and I'm not just stuck with Small, Medium and Large versions of the same engine.
- huschhusch and Felonu
-
2
-
2 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
... Saying "EM Drive has something going for it cause NASA done tests on it" is like saying "I was mugged, called the police, thus the criminals are caught already"
...
I was more saying "NASA wouldn't spend huge money testing something that has zero chances of working", which is more like "I was mugged, called the police, thus the criminals have a non-zero chance of getting caught". I'll try and be clearer
As I understand it (I have an engineering background rather than a scientific one, forgive me) the EMdrive engine appears to work but produces only µN thrusts for kW inputs, it has a large uncertainty about it's test results and may not work after all, and it has operating principles based on physics that are not perfectly understood.
I'll happily scratch the last if I'm wrong, but if this thing does work, it appears to violate Conservation of Momentum (and probably one or two other Laws), which would argue strongly that there is some improperly understood physics in there somewhere.My point was really that we're poking around with this stuff currently, therefore we could conceivably have useful reaction-less drives existing in a fictional technological epoch that includes wrist-mounted blackhole storage, nano-assemblers and resurrection machines.
-
On 12/29/2017 at 5:12 AM, 0something0 said:
Well, thermodynamics is a thing unlike reactionless drives.(the EMDrive probably doesn't work)
Don't write off Repulsors/cavity drives etc too early; EMDrive may be relying on currently unknown physics. There's enough interest that NASA and China have both built testbeds for it at no small expense.
As for realism in game; trying to suck hundreds of tonnes of ore into your wrist doesn't work in real life either, and that's going to be in... -
11 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:
...All i'm saying is that once [elements] are created, the individual elements or even the entire construct could have a progression path. So there is an incentive to keep it in one piece.
That progression could be based completely on upgrades that are tied to character progression. I'm assuming that a more skilled player will be able to create better or more powerful elements already in some way.
I just like the idea of incentivising keeping your ship in one piece. It seems fun.
Why, out of interest? Surely it's incentive enough to not have to repair/rebuild, or to not lose a ship?
Personally I love to tinker; in other voxel games, I'm rarely ever actually finished with a vehicle. Would that not put me at a huge disadvantage to those who buy a complete vehicle and never change a single aspect of it? If I can change a progressed ship, where's the limit? Can I turn my groundcar into a battleship and keep the progress?
Upgrading by swapping out elements for better ones I can live with, as long as those better elements come from crafting via some player's skill tree, at a fixed cost with fixed stats, knowable in advance. The RNG part of ED's 'engineers' was bobbins.
I also really hope I won't be able to buy flat-out upgrades. I don't want to see a purple-con Epic Railgun that's all-round better than a normal one, I'd much rather see -Damage/+FireRate kind of trade-offs. Side-grades are better for games than upgrades, imo.I strongly suspect that progression for a construct is going to be mostly the crew learning it's quirks or redesigning them out. Or maybe better scripts.
-
Released game example - Elite: Dangerous ran into instance-stuffing as well. People could, and would, abuse the (low) instancing limits to get safe (or overwhelming) fleets in Open for PVP, and for blocking reinforcements.
I easily can see it being a problem for SC as well, no matter how hard the fanboys deny even the possibility. -
Shooting mechanics and time-based skill training aside, Mastering a ship and/or ship XP etc are going to be problematic in DU purely because the ships are voxel constructs and can physically change over time.
What happens if I level an atmospheric interceptor, or master it or whatever, then transform it into a huge destroyer? Does the ship keep it's XP and I effectively get a pre-levelled Capital ship? What happens if I level an interceptor and just stick an extra gun on it? Have I lost the Mastery progress? Is there going to have to be a set of rules that defines how much a ship can change and still be the same ship? Does it become impossible or impractical to modify or repair or even paint a ship once it starts levelling? What if I have two identical ships, does my mastery skill transfer?Ships and Orgs are going to get a reputation, by actually getting a reputation. You know, actual people actually talking about actual events in game.
I'll take "people are genuinely terrified of the famous pirate ship The Black Pearl and it affects the opposing player's decisions in combat" over "the Black Pearl has +10 armour because it's survived ten fights", any day. -
16 minutes ago, Costanius said:
... Probably similar offers will come back one day...
Doubt it. Those kinds of offers are expensive for the devs over time; they effectively remove a player from the funding stream once their package cost is exceeded by whatever the subs would have cost to that point. They are a reward for very early backers with deep pockets who take a chance on an early concept. Once early backing is done, the life-sub offers always vanish, and never return.
- Lethys, AzureSkye and MookMcMook
-
3
-
I'm sure I read about a virtual world in-game, where you could design for free.
Means you could do the design, and get the BP ready to sell, but never actually need the mats. Downside is that unless the in-game sim is MP, you'll have to build at least one to show prospective buyers.
Pledges - Error 500
in General Discussions
Posted
You also get a 500 error if you try and purchase a Supporter pack when you already have a Founder pack.
Scout, you have a founder pack, and can't buy a Supporter pack without making a second account for it. The two accounts can't be merged, either. Express your disappointment here -
I'm an Iron Founder looking to upgrade too, for what it's worth.