MookMcMook
-
Posts
268 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MookMcMook
-
-
-
3 hours ago, 0something0 said:
Also will all bodies have atmospheres? That I find just unconvincing. More variety in planet types will be needed to make the game more interesting in the long run and part of that are planets/moons without atmospheres.
I did not notice any "atmosphere" in the other planets in the above type of videos. The only visible effect of atmosphere I've seen is:-
Alioth:-
1. In the flight seamless from "moon" to Alioth there's some "atmospheric entry" effects.
2. There's clearly swirling cloud effects* at various angles on the "3 letter acronym for graphics at distance thingy" arrgh "draw distance thing!"
Did you see something else? There's chemical suits in the twitter additionally...
* JC mentions in one vid that because they simulate things, then those weather effects are not just pictures but would be actual climate/weather across an entire planet (!) so a challenge to consider and add (but exciting too).
-
On 14/02/2018 at 6:48 PM, DarkTemplar said:
Eventually, orgs will be able to 'control' planets and maybe even a system. All they need is enough presence/manpower/resources to push all contendors off the planet. They don't need to cover the whole planet in TUnits. And I don't see NQ stepping in at all because someone complaint that its unfair that an org owns x planet.
Agree, can't add more than this. For example a very large org that "finds" an entire solar system: It will work to ensure it keeps not only "first dibs" but "all dibs" after constructing a Star Gate.
That said, the power of encouraging a colonizing players who LOVE building may throw another layer of complexity to that initial simple picture.
- Dhara, DarkTemplar and Armedwithwings
-
3
-
52 minutes ago, NanakotheNarcface said:
I get what you're saying and, to clarify, when I say 'capital ship combat' I mean more like 'anything that has 1 or more turrets on it'; I'm not necessarily envisioning Star Destroyers duking it out!
That said, when I say I'm worried that tab-targeted turrets would 'kill capital ship combat' I mean it more in the sense of "what is the point of having a ship with, say, two gunners who would have a boring time (in my opinion) with tab-based targeting when you could have 3 small 'fighter'-type ships that have much more engaging gameplay?" Hence why I'm unsure about the idea of tab-based targeting and mandatory manned turrets.
To be honest, I'm just worrying about something that I have no idea about so I guess there's no point in debating hypotheticals. Still, though, I'd like to see a comprehensive explanation from Novaquark explaining how they envision combat working in DU since it's going to be a pretty important part of the game.
This are all good questioning, given we do not know for sure but can try to form general impressions. It should boil down to being out-gunned.
3 solo-crew ships might be restricted in how many weapons they can fire, how effective their shields are, how large they can be without more crew and so on. So against a larger crew ship with say 20 guns (and much bigger guns and different types) the battle will be short. That's my guess: Significant advantage for crew ships. I see this as a consequence of: Voxel building Activity being a collaboration activity to build useful constructs then running these things and using them continuing to be a collaboration activity: Humanity pulling together to achieve great things in space, seems the tag line NQ are aiming for with DU?
The most important thing is the Social Interaction between players. So building and using are continuing that it seems is the ethos?
@Zamarus provides a realistic perspective I think. These big ships are like the big wandering sharks or orcas... most of the action will involve smaller fish against other small fish. Even avatar pew-pew planetside: Troop carrier ships etc. As above, "grunts are cheap(est)!"
-
I think solo fighters will be more fun the for the individual - yes.
But I think when large orgs are gunning for power then the solution is large crews for larger ships.
It means there's a bottleneck or vulnerability: Those orgs have to be organized with larger ships and members working together to keep their dominance.
Bear in mind then it won't be the only combat, but the more powerful: Imagine lots of little ships and a huge ship with 50 different large guns or other weapons firing on these little ships. Even if the individual action is not as fun, then collectively I feel it will be immensely satisfying being the larger fish eating the little fish. And the reward for good teamwork. That's just my vision not how it will happen or how that will be better.
Also, as a crew member I quite enjoy chilling out. I can do some lua scripting in downtime and be working and playing atst. Some like making houses but I can do that already on this Earth, being a crew in a large ship is something for games and imagination for me. I mean looking at the vids of DU with the full planets and the scale of everything, that will be fun just gawping at and presumably being remunerated by someone for such important duties in quanta! Soldiering: "It's a good life for some." ~ real quote from my own life.
People can still have fun pew-pewing Han SOLO style all the same and in large fleets hunting prospectors. Large teams take a lot of social maintenance afterall.
-
As above I see Food, O2 etc merely as commodities to insert into the DU Economic system, thus providing new "industries" for players such as Agriculture and Air production or some such (!). Also such a system might increase the value of BIOME planets where those are simply kept simple and abstracted as a component in powering/energy provision of ships, spacestations, planet bases adding an extra power/energy component/cost... though that obviously has ripple implications that may become too substantial.
I think the granular stuff might become feature bloat too quickly for too little wider gameplay space increase. Not discounting just think it needs adapting to scale as another resource type on the markets that some planets produce and others do not produce.
Eg Forests could be encouraged to grow for O2 harvesting?
-
I don't think Alioth star system is binary: In one of the dev interviews with JC, in god-mode they fly to the sun (it's not scaled corrected for game and other reasons) to demonstrate it's also a 3D object light-source thus leading to actual sunrise/set effects depending on angle of planet and sun with each other.
Who knows maybe we'll see a binary star system in another system? But then maybe the orbit effects might be a bit "heavy" to simulate?
edit: Here you go: at 10m40s :-
-
Lol, it's an old joke, I remember Notch making it about Minecraft add an "i" before the "s" (being polite). One of those internet laws of games or something.
Emptiness is valid: A lot of MMOs design the world to ensure it does not feel empty! It fits space especially when the planets are truly 3D and so large too and modifiable (oh my!) so maybe less of a problem and in fact will reduce pressure and pvp initially probably (a good thing). Also it's a problem if the playing population is too small and never takes off. Whereas I guess building will be very enticing...
-
I've tried to record a few major criticism of DU:-
1. Sub
2. PvP
3. Empty
4. Crews
5. Voxel "flying pens" (!)
There's been enough discussion on 1 and 2 so no need to cover them again. On 3 not much so far. I think actually the gameplay on offer will entice a larger number of people along with the prospect of constant improvements from the current already decent state (for pre-alpha) to the server performance. Also the seamless world-space transitions and SCALE, it think will make higher immersion, like the cinema big screen feeling. So I'm comfortable on that (add in the minecraft fever of "just one more brick")...
Onto Crews, yes constructive criticms: What is "fun"? Single person sitting in a chair every 5sec pressing a red button. THAT is not fun. So how do we have large crews and the crews have fun?
1. Results
If the larger ships can transport more stuff or are superior in pvp, then they will be rewarding.
2. Connectivity
If the larger ships require interesting team work and communication ; are part of a larger organization coordinating
3. Interactivity
If the larger ships have multiple systems and different players coordinate those to out-gun and out-move and out-defend other ships, I think it will be very rewarding being technologically superior and kicking ass in PvP. I listed a lot of potential roles a ship might have with a larger size above... I did some siege gameplay in other mmorpgs, that was ALWAYS FUN! Just not as dynamic as a large ship with lots of crew attacking other such I imagine at the moment!
4. Frequency
Plenty of down-time to fly solo ships and mess around or rotate crews. Also large ships, what other things can they do. What other things can players do on large ships?
On botting. I do not know. All mmos have botting issues. That's a lot of a/cs to try to fill up with bots... gluck.
The question of fun is important but I cannot make head or tail of the above communication attempt: It's not constructing an argument as opposed to saying "I already know it's not fun". I think as a means to scale up PvP with more impressive ships and player numbers it is innovative. I do agree the question of fun remains unknown I would not agree that it is known yet. Is it for everyone? No. But for some it could be brilliant fun.
-
21 hours ago, ShioriStein said:
But we still Pre-Alpha isn't it ?
What outside its scope ?I think the devs (rightly) have taken the approach that:-
1. They build a solar system of voxels
2. Any of the actual planetary bodies are effectively interchangeable land for players to build their territories over (for game play reasons)
3. The only major difference in these bodies of voxels is the resource types, their sizes and distances from each: It's all very physical for all the subsequent physics: Volume, Mass, Spaceship Thrust, Transportation Time and Capacity which then feeds into:
4. Economy itself very complex as well: Prices, trades, manufacturing and so on...
5. That feeds into the politics and combat eventually.
Biological factors; idk...Commodies and/or consumables? Only thing I can think of is that Biome planets look more habitable and probably feel better even if it makes no difference in actual gameplay. Alioth for example clearly is more attractive than other planets to sight-see around for eg.
edit: yeah as per the alpha-game-play-ideas link above: Food may be a consumable to h(eat) your body to power your nanoformer (builder/terraformer/punch to the face) tool. So presumably in the future: Alioth might turn into a huge exporter of food consumable types?
-
4 hours ago, Warden said:
You don't solely have to look at "static" documents, on another note.
I hear various players here have some professional background or relation to city planning and comparable areas of expertise.
Sounds good... that said I wonder what will be considered functional and decorative? I guess we'll have to see. I hope we'll see both.
-
Sure boss, I do appreciate your "wider considerations here" at "this early stage" to "set the record straight".
I guess my example to replace the OP's theorycrafting with a game space with wide interactivity already set to be in the game, has not been an apt one. Hm disappointing I could not help with a constructive alternative suggestion.
But -
hehe, only joking !
@Jegleebow20 I know what you mean about sci-fi interest in "The Other". I do like the idea of some AI-sentient like things which seemed at least possible via our own creative work in-game. But the extra dev work would even for this as @Lethys says is too pregnant with high-level game altering implications.
-
1 minute ago, Lethys said:
Basic behavior != AI
Even attacking/defending is quite a task and Not verified if that's even possible.
PPL should just use the correct terms and not sell smth as fact. Because Others might believe that and then jump on a non existant Hype train
I posed a "?" to elicit a response, so no need to hail me down officer!
There will be no "decision trees", "behaviour trees" or "FSM" or other Game AI capacities?
I remember watching a video of JC controlling a ship construct... remotely. So I thought there was capacity for some basic commands and from that what limit on other game AI is possible/not possible? So it is possible to:-
1. Animate them
2. Move them.
3. Behaviour = ?being asked here?
What can drones be made to do usefully, I am wondering? Could a large drone be a sort of "Donkey/Mule" for extra transport of goods?
-
Well that's the thing isn't it: BIOTIC/BIOME planets resources might be "BIOLOGICAL VALUE"... So I agree @ShioriStein but I'm stumped as to know how that could be integrated without adding too much to the current design that's outside of it's scope.
-
1 minute ago, ShioriStein said:
Well so bad DU is not the "most mmorpg" . There will be pet for founder donation but they are pure cosmetic .
Well automation attack/defend via LUA script from a dynamic construct from i hear isnt possible. You may can only give basic command like : Go there, Follow me, Stay.
If you have basic commands to script, then it does beg the question of more complex commands: Where does one finish and the other end?
I'm more focusing on my own interest in spending in-game time LUA scripting than the actual consequences game-wide of drones and AI or bots which I understand may require server-restrictions.
-
1 minute ago, Tsyolin said:
Just going to interject here quickly and say that I think it's important that everything have some sort of value, obviously we're not really talking about hundreds of dollars worth of stuff necessarily, but everything having some sort of value means that there is some weight behind it. Flying a ship that I built or sunk a lot of resources into getting, with the risk of losing it, makes it that much more interesting. And that's sort of a dangerous tipping point to deal with in terms of market stability. If a resource or ship becomes effectively worthless it takes away a level of depth that was there before.
Yes, agree with this. The main enquiry I was making is that Real Value should not be major issue: (Then just compare bank accounts and call it victory or loss), but also the logistics via distance and gates and the organization (crew of larger ships demonstrating greater oganizational ability and hence superiority reflecting this in-game performance).
PvP should be "expensive" and that demand fuelling Building et al.
-
2 hours ago, ShioriStein said:
Well you will got basic survival factor here like : Food, maybe water, and may even disease, or maybe oxygen factor too.
But dont hope that will appear when the game launch, they say they will implement it but dont know when because it isn't their priority. Maybe they add food first then ?You can imagine a city in siege and people got starve to die, it is consider in strategic move lmao.
I love sim stuff, but for DU I'd guess most if not all of that will be abstracted out: One of the biggest reason is that people's real lives mean when they are logged in for their game session, that session's quality of fun has to ramp up to make the game successful, so too much minutae or "maintenance" stuff is just not viable as you'd attempt for a survival game.
What currently bugs me a little bit atm, is that BIOTIC/BIOME planets don't seem very differentiated from "dead planets" apart from looking prettier and being different resource points.
If biome planets are much less costly for avatars to be parked, then suddenly finding "livable planets" changes their value... idk on the sim side of things that feels good to me, even if it's not practical for game play design purposes: Planets = Resources = Territory = Networks of Space Links = Virtual Economy and Spaceship goodness = DU. It's a sound and simple formula to focus on for NQ.
-
44 minutes ago, Lethys said:
NO, we won't have AI, nor intelligent drones. Lua ist there to give players some sort of freedom but with limits. And intelligent drones are NOT part of the vision.
Isn't it a "pet class" as per most mmorpgs? That's what I meant: You could script basic behaviours:-
* Attack Target X
* Defend ME
* Guard Position Y
? That seems reasonable... also I have a LUA AI book I was thinking of using :-(((
-
8 hours ago, DoxieDoc said:
In such a system you could add, remove, and adjust levels of zones to fit balance. It would also make incentives for city building, and giving organizations control over ordinances etc (pay your taxes) would add some depth to organizations. It also makes sense thematically (frontier more dangerous than interior). It's also (vaguely) similar to how cities actually get built.
The Imgur Link https://imgur.com/a/WfhX5 is an example of a city built using such principles.
Dark blue is city safe zone
Light blue is metropolis
Dark Green is urban
Light Green is suburban
Light Orange is frontier
Urban planning is really interesting and the general question you're asking here, which is a good one, is:-
Q: "How can NQ SIMULATE such Urban Planning in DU via either game design (devs) and/or game play (players) so such principles "emerge" in the game?"
iirc, the devs did mention they want to see cities emerge as opposed to underground Nuclear Winter Mega-Bunkers due to protection from above. It's a fluid area atm and won't settle until we see more in-game play from players for the devs to adjust their game design around I'd guess.
Well, for starters, we could assume at some point in the game via "hook or crook" we do get safe zones for building according to centralized planning? In that case, when that happens, we could just "borrow from the real world": Here's a document on zoning regulations used in Japan:-
http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000234477.pdf
Knock yourself out. Someone, somewhere is going to be an architectural GENIUS in DU.
-
Yeah I come to this conclusion to: It's either ECONOMIC DESIGN scale or SURVIVAL and NQ have wisely chosen Economic.
DU is already probably shifted off "mainstream" towards "hardcore" though pointing in that direction as opposed to being there, Survival stuff is way too much GRANULAR DESIGN in excess of ECONOMIC DESIGN which itself is very ambitious already considering volumes that can be transported, masses of ships that interact with thrusters and of course the algorithms with which resource frequency and quality and type are created for the economy! ECONOMY is the big one that needs to scale up to make the game successful via these sub-components and the devs obviously know that as per it being on the front page as a core design Virtual Economy.
There have been other so-called sandbox mmos but they're in fact survival simulation mmos Xyson being one I vaguely remember: They don't scale easily or indeed look at Life Is Feudal, great designs there, and implementation is impressive: But a lot of players find the grind and survival emphasis too much effort and input for too little reward and output stimulation - as well as that ending making PvP that must more sugary... but then combat system is under pressure to be high quality system too soon.
I do like the economic idea of terraforming at large scale and adding some sort of value, but I guess that's future fancies for now.
-
Yes, remember we'll have Drones which we have immense power to shape via building and scripting their behaviours (in-game AI?) I believe?
So ok we won't have the full paraphernalia of alien weirdness that some Sci-Fi explores, but we have to be aware of 2 things:-
1. Our design limitations (scope) and stick to that.
2. What is actually already possible and MORE than compensatory to excluded ideas WITHIN that scope.
I'd say we're all in a good place with DU. Though I do find wacky and well-thought out Sci-Fi ideas energizing as much as anyone else does and enjoy reading what others have to say on such subjects. Even though the above applies, people should still feel free to voice their own ideas, albeit sticking to the above 1-2 principles if they can (helps us understand our group input better I'd argue).
Perhaps the OP will be mollified with the Drones possibilities? The lua scripting, I just wonder what wizards will be at work in DU...
-
On 11/02/2018 at 6:55 AM, Lethys said:
Our beloved twerk found it:
AMA pt 2:
"FTL will be handled in a very basic way at release, but we might add the fact that FTL flight happens in a "parallel" hyper universe in a later stage after the initial release. The idea would be then that FTL travel happens in a hyper space, where you could possibly add bubbles that, when intersected, would take you out of FTL space, back into normal space"
From the recent AMA:-
QuoteTsunami: How exactly do you imagine FTL Engines (Faster than Light) and Stargates? How does it works?
NQ-Sophon: It’s a long topic, we will probably shoot a DevBlog on this. But the key idea is that for both, you’ll need anchor points at destination, that you need to setup first. Then you can travel faster between points of your network.So the Anchor Point Network (APN) idea is quite interesting, creating INFRASTRUCTURE in space, perhaps Douglas Adams was right, afterall, about the eventual fate of the Earth?!
This is probably a lot better than my "Engines over a certain size to house FTL/Hyper-Jump Engines" idea.
-
8 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
I didnt know that our ship can despawn ? Can you give me some source about it. If it true it will make a lot of different in my plan.
Well no you are not. In safe zone but with "de-own" system i dont think it perfect safe. Or "de-own" system only target static construct ?
Seems to me, an option (the riskiest one) "you can go for the camouflage option and hope none scan your ship successfully" (assuming you're out in deep space flying your own ship). Being small, in large area, hiding under a rock (even), engines and power off, camo-tech up... seems reasonable risk for risk-takers... [RISKIEST]
Secondly, if out in deep space, maybe a large spaceship with dozens of crew, then if one crew logs out, others are still attending to the current and future fate of the ship, so no biggie? [NORMAL RISK]
Of course safe bases for docking are safe to despawn or park (not sure which it actually is here??) (given it's got a bubble timer). [ZERO RISK]
All this seems reasonable?
-
1 hour ago, Dorlas said:
Not sure about the last part. I read somewhere that Alioth has about 40k square kilometers of surface area. Let´s say water makes half of the surface. We then have 20k square kilometers of surface...that is area of Slovenia, pretty moderately populated country with 2 million inhabitants.
I simply don´t see a way for any organization to claim entire solar systems and then colonize (or even protect) them effectively. Maybe one planet, after years of development and conquest of other orgs out there. In the end, we may end up with situation similar to The Expanse: Few big factions per solar system, with bunch of small ones fighting for scraps in places those huge organizations don´t bother to control (or maybe working for those big orgs to be left at peace).
Hehe, true, a little hyperbole "terror-ific" there. But also a conversation starter as well.
Then and again, with resource type and availability, maybe different planets with different resources being the network that counts most to get those resources to markets, as opposed to an entire planet being somewhat surplus to requirement? You're right, the scales are HUGE and won't necessarily make sense to try to contain or control without profit.
If there is plenty of resources (due to abundance from such HUGE supply in such a HUGE solar system), and different markets used by different orgs, then conflict might end up being very low key to begin with? Perhaps things will only heat up when rarer types of resources are required thereby increasing competition and value?
Alioth Star System
in General Discussions
Posted
Ah forgot about that: Dang those are impressive planets: Seems a bit of variety: Symeon has a trace atmosphere and some variation in the others. Presumably because planets are not to scale atmosphere will be more frequent than otherwise suggested?