Wilks Checkov
-
Posts
401 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wilks Checkov
-
-
Almost forgot to state as well: we will be hosting a 100 slot team-speak and a website as soon as we can finish the html coding.
{Placeholder post for constitution} & {Other assorted information}
-
Sums up my line of thought exactly, after reading this post.
Let me see if i remember how this was quoted from yet another similar post. = This is not meant to be WOW with dungeons and multiple shards, this is a freaking sandbox. Not a care bear daisy simulator. Which amazing as it is, what most of the younger school of MMO players are used to, and believe the norm is.
-
Also on another side note, we will be releasing our full constitution here on the forums in a few days, so stay tuned for more information.
If you have any questions feel free to ask, we will do our best to reply to them in a prompt and orderly manner.
- Wilks Checkov, Cybrex, Halo381 and 3 others
-
6
-
well, If I was a developer and was going to take a suggestion seriously. I would want to know a lot of information on its play-ability and what else it might impact.
For us the start of figuring out these weapons will probably lay in balancing averages, not everything will be balanced, but it will be balanced within its technical capacity.
A maximum lock on range for weapons.
A max firing range for each weapon type.
Different bullet types?
Different energy types?
You can get technical about the ability of each gun with science, but in the end its just statistics for calculating damage. The game probably isnt going to actually think about the shell in the firing chamber, a hammer hitting it, the explosive gases propelling a bullet down the barrel, the spin of the bullet. All of that is over the top, maybe you use it in your mind in the calculation of how many meters the weapon should fire in the game, but we just need to think of finding a balanced feel.
I believe as far as we know, well be in first person. So perhaps a maximum range for infantry is in order. 64-128 meters upper limit, for balancing purposes.
Planetary Section:
Infantry:
Pistol
Carbine
Assault Rifle
Thrown Explosives (Grenades, sticky bombs)
Shoulder fired rockets
Power Armor / Exo suit mech (Space marine, or like D.VA)
(Access to the infantry weapons)
Gatling / Auto Canon
Light Artillery - Mortar, Grenade Launchers
Radar or other support modules
Hovercraft - (Tanks, Armored Personnel Carriers, etc)
( access to the Power armor weapons)
Light canons (faster single target damage)
Heavy Battle tank turret (slower alpha damage, or aoe)
Small ship and Space Section:
Ran out of time and ideas, but OP started a good list. be back later pals.
I get back from work today I will work it into the list if I can. For now just trying to get everything in line to bring our Alliance page up and running. - Curse HTML coding.
-
I'm not quite so fond of segregating weapons into specific early or late game types of weapons, but I do understand perhaps you are just getting at that not every weapon is made equally.
I'm in love with gatling guns, is that similar enough to be in the auto-cannon type. Nothing like unloading thousands of incendiary shells into things
I could try to help with balancing a complete weapon system idea, maybe in coordination with twerk and his knowledge of theoretical game physics.
I'm not much else except for making sure it feels good in the game, which sometimes isn't always accurate to science.
The forums could use a theoretical system to suggest to the devs. we haven't had a strong idea thread like that for a while.
Feel free to take a Crack at it, it's the purpose of these "Debate" threads. To draw attention to the devs. potential ideas. If you know you can expand and use my base concept to expand further on the idea go right on and do it. No need to even ask me.
Anyway night all. . .
-
After reading this topic - I feel like I need to wash my eyes out. This is a sandbox, not a freaking linear story play MMO.
The only thing we need to worry about is the ability to create our own characters, I know if done right I would love to see something on the scale of Eve Online's character editor for Dual universe, although to pull that off would take a fair amount of time and coding knowledge.
-
Please do not remind me about Dust 514 - I already miss it. Cant wait for the revamped Project Legion alpha to release later in the year.
-
Was figuring the more you upgrade yourself, the better stats you may have, but loosing the upgrades on death could be expensive as hell, like the implants in Eve Online - they make a considerable difference in combat.
-
Cant agree with you more. . .
Marines it is, and with you bringing up cybernetics, wonder what else will be available to us? Limbs, Augments? Makes you wonder. . .
-
How I hope to see, groups will start to bind together, I know when we come into the game our organization "may" accidentally step on some toes, with a nearly 500 man Reddit following behind us, not all will join but some will. We are always open to form relations with groups and other alliances, we are after all a group of engineers, but we are also fairly expedient at combat.
We will begin working on a planetary capitol, setting up refining facilities, small scale shipyards, trade markets, then start selling our goods on the starting planet, maybe even ships capable of leaving planetary atmo?
Once that is all done we will be building our corporate counsel and begin inviting participating member organizations to send their delegates to participate. Setting in place the first laws and regulations of the new world.
Issues born will be crushed by the mind of many a politician. . .
Then when the time is right, we will build a massive colony ship, and head unto the stars, never to return. . .
- at least for a while. . .
-
Was the fact that I like space based games, building and engineering games like space engineers, and then combine it with the potential political mindset of Eve Online - of which I have been a proud member of for over 13 years nearly.
That is what draws "me" here.
-
Yes, but an RPG-ish counter-balance on such power would be the hinderence of such abilities if the player using said skills wears heavy armor, or any armor at all, making them the "mages" of the game. They won't be throwing fireballs, but they would be the kind of sneaky gameplay that ttrades armor or damage for sabotage.
And yes, it would be something that actually requires people having their eyes open on the battlefield. Just because a guy wears a cloak with the same colors as yours, doesn't mean he's your friend. It's a kind of tactic used in medieval times as well to take out enemy generals in a hectic battlefield. And it's a tactic many used to sneak in and sabotage their enemies.
It's a story here in Greece, of a bunker near a wide river in WW2, that the germans could not take over during the winter. So, they devised a plant to get greek soldier clothes, get on a boat and sneak in the small bunker and take out everyone in a blitzkrieg. From a far, they looked like common greek soldiers and the lieutenant gave the order for the artilleries to not fire, until a streetwise guy went like :
"Wait a friggin' minute... why the heck are they shaved clean?" Which was a thing back then, that german soldiers had an etiquette and upheld standards when it came to their appearence, which the greek soldiers had no time for. So, everyone clicked and fired the artillery on them. Funny thing, next day the armored german division came over, everyone on the bunker surrendered, none of them were executed due to them being smart enough to see through the infiltration. So, there's a somewhat "happy" ending to that whole thing.
But not everyone has a clear mind to see through such trickery. The thing in the game is, if you ACTUALLY look at the ship in questio, you can tell it's not your side's design. But, let's face it, tunnel vision is a thing
Just had another even far more intimidating thought. What if said infiltrator and IFF applies to the beacons built into the space suits, and the person is able to infiltrate inside your ship. In theory they can just walk up and shoot the commander. Guess it leaves me to figure out security on board a ship, and then fleet training on to be wary of suspicious behavior.
-
Personally I am thinking of one specific component in many many different various forms - and I am quite sure most of you will agree with me.
Doors. . .
Double Doors. . .
Hidden Hatches. . .
Hidden Doors. . .
Really Large Doors. . .
Hangar Gates. . .
and the list goes on and on. . .
Essentially what I mean by this, is I am quite sure most of us do not want to stare at the same type of door every day. It will be a object we will most likely be interacting with on a daily basis many many times. So when you do the game, at least give us quite a few varied choices on which doorway / hatch / entryway to use.
- Toecutter, Steven Reeves, Ghoster and 1 other
-
4
-
Just with me the idea behind a find able token - it does not exactly seem fair at all - at least by security means. With the declaration of war system you would be generally safe, so to speak. The only time being is when a sizable force declares war upon you, and you are unable to defend your Sov unit.
I think somewhere is mentioned that you use a core unit on any construct, that ties it and makes you the owner, which makes the construct immune to people of no authority over it to build upon it, but destruction via explosives or other means, are fair game.
A Territorial Claim Unit, follows a Capture the Point type of logic. It takes 24 hours to be built, ala RTS games, BUT the owner can be persuasded to transfer the rights over to another, via... ahem... Mass Driver morse code? Which in my opinion, is the quintessential part of the Emergent Gameplay the game goes for and the reason I'm paranoid and I'm gonna build an underground bunker for me self.
The IFF beacon is a real hard debate on this. Will we be able to build a sort "encryption" that a faction may utilise in an IFF module on their ship? Cause if so, anyone who gets a look in the inner workings of a DPU may be able to recreate the IFF signal and fool an enemy's Stargate, or god forbid, automated turrets. But, tying the IFF to a ship's "assigned owner" let's say, the Commander, could solve that issue altogether, as the Commander will be the one to be read and identified immediately. Remember, the humans in DUAL have cybernetic implants in their cerebrum. Cybernetics, the easy way out of all tough decisions
But this gives birth to "cyborg magic" as I like to call it, players who can "hack" other players brain with a deep sinking of points into specialisation, possibly, on E-Warfare and infiltration, making people around them not realising they are not of their faction, unles they actually take he time to read their names. Same concept can be applied to a ship's IFF. The IFF will read a vessel as "friendly", but when you look at it "wait... we got no Fully McUnderpants in our navy roster". Boom, perception on the player's part = the skill on E-Warfare PvP, similar to how actual internet security works. Take a ninja to catch a ninja after all.Or luck, but that's another topic .
Since constructs like buildings and ship have virtually no difference except a Core Unit that simply makes the whole construct be "claimed" by a particular person or organisation, I think the same IFF logic can be applied on buildings with security, when it comes to automated defenses.
So yeah, IFFs should be tied to the construct's "appointed owner", or the Commander, on a specially scripted seat on board the bridge. If someone else is sitting there, the IFF won't work as intended.Now your idea of using the IFF Beacon / Hacking does intrigue me - its a concept I did not think of when I was writing this. I can imagine someone flying under your nose in the middle of a fight under a fake IFF signal to hit you in a soft spot. It would take a very keenly aware commander to notice something is not right and catch it before its too late. I personally think it would be a nice addition to the game.
Would love to see what others think about it as well.
-
Okay for this debate I thought I would bring up the topic of "Sovereignty and IFF Beacons."
From what I have seen so far they plan on having a singular system that makes claims indestructible? If I am wrong on this feel free to correct me.
Anyway, how I think the sov. and beacon systems should function is along the following lines.
Sovereignty Units:
Sovereignty units define system ownership, mainly the entity that controls the general region. For a sovereignty unit to function it should have a cost entailed or a monthly tax to operate. For instance a single unit would not be expensive to run - but the cost starts multiplying as you claim more and more systems, making you require more resources to keep your network funded and operational, with sov. held in those systems.
Also a sovereignty unit should have a set time to online in which it is vulnerable to attack, so that a person or group of people cant just go system to system claiming systems. Claim units need to be invulnerable to damage unless war is declared on the system owner's group. Only then are the units vulnerable to damage from only those in the active WAR-DEC. Even with an active WAR-DEC a sov unit should have a massive amount of health - enabling a siege to ensue, and time for the owners to mount a defensive.
A sovereignty unit should also make all stations immune to damage. Preventing the usual lone griefer from coming up and just firing off a few rounds at your station. Anything docked at a station should be invulnerable to damage as well. The only counter to the station invulnerability should be the active WAR-DEC system, in which only those who are declared at war should be able to damage the station.
The next thing up for debate is a lot more forward of a system, and it also ties in with the sov units.
IFF Beacons:
These beacons are an object on ships that determine personal / clan / factional / corporate ownership. They broadcast a tag at close ranges for identification purposes. They also prevent unauthorized access to that ship. They do not as far as I see make a ship invulnerable to damage, they are only there for identification measures.
Anyway, I am sure most of you have questions, or have a way or another to expand on this theory/possibility. If so feel free to post below.
And remember to leave a like. . .
-
-
"There is nothing stopping anyone from looting the satellite of its essential production factory. Except it has ample security.
Ample security means that the satellite would be heavier to launch into the atmosphere and if it is launched from space, well, I know some "raid-happy" pirates who will be more than happy to remove the satellite from your list of worries!"
Cant wait to face down the "raid happy" pirates, will make my life "interesting", especially when we get to enjoy "spacing em" at the end of their "trial".
-
Mmmm meat grinders. Blood for the blood god!
Blood thirsty bastard
hahaha -
I personally plan on working on a fully fledge government entity when me and our guys get ingame, this will be covering everything from stations, taxes, laws, a effective police and military force {one in the same}, as well as rights for all members.
So be it if it paints a target on my back, I welcome the challenge that brings, means more people to feed to my meat grinder. . . I mean put in jail.
-
Wish you luck in your endeavors, odds are we all will need it.
-
Ouch - thought does seem worrying
-
You sick lad. Wouldn't you like to be the heavy assault guy, wreckin' scrubs with yo dakka-dakka machinegun?
Think it would be fun to cut ships in half with that plasma beam cannon, now that would be o so enjoyable.
-
i read classes and got a itch
How so :?
-
That is a thing that the game can support. But, there's also a possible counter-play, like a DPU (the in-game CPU in a ship) can be set in a binary rig, so if one Radar DPU is jammed, another can be switched in its place to defeat the radar jam with simple click of the ship's captain. This is more in the aspect of shsip-building and it's a system only really powerful people could implement, due to all the little thing that go into LUA scripting in-game.
An EMP would work, but I can't say for sure due to the Devs using a sort of "lock on" mechanism for combat, which given the game engine, can support geometrical and telemetrical calculations for emulation of accuracy and damage consistency. Further details on a PM on that, I don't want to derail any topic (anymore that is).
I just know for the first few times, there will be idiots that come across an Ewar capable ship thinking they have a easy target - only to find out they may have bitten off more than they can chew - so to say. I imagine that there will be two classes of ship based electronics. One being un-shielded the other being shielded. Un-shielded are vulnerable to even the simplest of systems, but they are significantly cheaper to produce, so would probably be used in mass on civilian and cheap military ships. Now the shielded variant of components would be significantly harder to disrupt. Making them fit to be used on larger fleet ships like frigates cruisers and other line ships. You must remember that a ship can be vulnerable to its on Ewar - especially if its an AOE. So fitting Ewar gear onto a un-prepped ship would be a recipe for disaster the first time you come into a conflict and shut yourself down as well as your opponent.
What caught my eye, What is lacking, and What makes me wary.
in General Discussions
Posted
Nearly similar reasons why I no longer go through Steam Early Access, too many times burned on the proverbial rear.
Anyway enough of yet another troll - attention grabbing post for me - back to writing html code and working on a alliance constitution for me.