unown
-
Posts
368 -
Joined
Posts posted by unown
-
-
22 hours ago, Circles said:
I hope that all resources on your ship and person would be up for grabs from the opponent. If you have a territory all resources stored there would be vulnerable after 48 hours and a successful attack. It is likely you will be able to store valuables in an ark city that can never be influenced or lost, but perhaps there would be maximum weight or capacity in that ark city.
I really do not belive in the whole time displacement systym like the sheild genorator 24-48h wait after you hit it once for some to come online and same with loot It should be governed by a health bar by how much reasorces you choose to put in to protect your land rather than a shoot a laser come back in 24h profit
-
On 4/10/2018 at 3:20 AM, Kurock said:
When you die in DU you lose your inventory (half disappears and half is lootable) but keep your quanta and your master blueprints. (At least that was the original plan from NQ)
Lootablilty of DACs is a sticky topic. Originally NQ said they would *not* be lootable and there was a loud disproportional stink about it. So this has been discussed before...at length. You can wade though that topic here:
A point that was raised is that someone paid real money for the DAC and then it got stolen. Let's repeat that: A player paid for something and got no return for it. NQ is ethically and morally bound not to allow that. And no, crying "git good noob" does not somehow make that OK.
Solutions:
The EvE system to bank PLEX is one solution but will take precious dev time. Another that was suggested is that DACs are unlootable until they are sold for the first time. The effect of this is that hoarding in-game bought DACs carry an inherent risk which I have no issue with. A player can pop them immediately for time or accept the risk of keeping them.
This also drags my concern of support packs NQ promised like Resurrection Nodes and Sanctuary Territory Unit (STU) will they be lootable or inpossible to steal?
-
57 minutes ago, Caesares said:
Nono I get that, but I mean like really powerful static defenses, ones that could make it so that a player wouldn't have to organize players to rule a planet but just use a massive series of fortifications. Something like that sounds a bit extreme
That is the end goal with time a org might be able to do that
-
9 minutes ago, Normandy7 said:
Sorry for the poorly worded question!
What I'm trying to find is how multiple people insides ships in flight interact with each other. For example; Say I flying a spaceship with an inside area and there are other guys in there too. Will they be able to move around freely during flight? And what can they do besides from what I understand; mounting turrets etc? Can they build stuff when in flight? And also can I myself be joining them, leaving the cockpit and going into the inner parts of the ship? The best comparison I can think of right now is something similar to the interstellar rift game, where someone is steering the ship while other move freely around and do various things instead of sitting locked in place.
Thanks in advance!
This would defiantly make DU unique I think it should be a thing but The NDA may have to fall before we will know.
-
21 hours ago, Veld said:
Not necessarily a specific meta. Tactics are only as effective as the enemy allows them to be. Meta is a term that applies to FPS games where balance is a major goal imo. Not like in DU where the diverse gameplay is not in the weapons used but in the players' stratagem.
There are meta's to everything you can take eve rust or ark as examples or even SE
-
23 hours ago, Takao said:
NQ has already confirmed that there are protection bubbles, like in EVE.
As for the underground bases:
One way to solve (or reduce) the problem would be to allow mining on enemy tiles (enemy = corp that is at war with you). That way you can just dig out the base.The problem here would be, that you need to build large walls all around...
Beeing able to build underground bases is maybe the only way for smaller corps or players to build a base at all. If the base would be above ground, you would really easily be able to spot and attack it.
Yes an underground base is very hard to conquer, however what do you want to do there if you can't get out or in, because it's beeing sieged?
And if it's not beeing sieged: If you want to use it as a hangar, you need a big hangar doors -> Good way in for the enemy, too.
Build a lot of internal turrets for protection -> High energy costs.
The problem with digging is its op
19 hours ago, CalenLoki said:Those are two completely different things.
TCU prevents enemy from using nanoformer to attack your base, thus forcing them to use weapons/explosives to break stuff.
FFU (force field unit) makes sure that you have 24-48h warning period to gather friends for proper PvP fight. And hopefully gives you the right to set time of the battle so it's not in the middle of the night/work/school. As @Takao said.
Both are artificial. Both are needed.
The thing I'm against is combining protection from digging (TCU) combined with protection from war-fleet (underground) and ability to totally dictate which way enemy needs to come (kill-box)
I'm mostly concern about ability for small org with limited time to attack another small org in a fair fight. But it applys to large orgs too.
Of course defending side should have some advantage, but not that huge.
How did you get to that conclusion? I'm really curious.
Or is it another onion joke with many layers?
That's indeed a way. But it would have to be tied to warning period, so defenders (also those of conventional surface base) can react. So not "at war with you" but "in battle with you".
And it would need to be slow. Like 8s/cubic meter. With standard 50+ m3/s any earth/rock defences would just evaporate within first minutes of the battle. So it's something you can't do while under fire.
The thing is: if something is "the only way" that is quite obviously not a creative game mechanics.
That's why I'm for soft-limits: the deeper your TCU is, the more energy you need to use to power it. 5m of rock above will increase energy cost just slightly, and it's enough to hide your base. Let's say +25% (depth^2). 500m underground would make it real problem to feed TCU. I.e. +250 000% power consumption.
I think you are more concerned about it turning into a meta whitch see no problem with as it gives defenders a really big advantage over attackers
-
On 4/6/2018 at 4:17 PM, Veld said:
As I said with regards to underground bastions being accused of being OP:
There is almost always a strategy to defeat stuff like this.
Personally I would just throw a dummy made of very tough material right into the crossfire of all of the defenses causing the auto targeting to freak out and the whole thing to waste their energy and potentially break down. How they counter that is up to them and how I reciprocate in response to their counter is up to me.
That's all if I absolutely had to take it out which isn't the case most of the time.
I really hope NQ does not start hand holding the players as it only encourages reptilian, one dimensional thinking and creates more instances of people saying "but wait this is also OP because I can't kill it"
There will be a meta to take underground bases there aways is a meta
On 4/8/2018 at 11:35 PM, Aaron Cain said:Fully agree on this. I hope NQ keeps all these things in the game, there should be no limitation on what people can build. If others want to take it down/conquer it it is their problem how to overcome all defences and if it is too hard, too deep, to well armored, too fast, too well thought off in design, Hooray to the designer/defender.
Any attacker in DU will need alot more creativity then the defender does if they want to attack any and all available targets. And thats great, nothing better to inspire creativity then pending failure.
I agree
-
On 4/10/2018 at 6:15 AM, NanoDot said:
I have seen several posts claiming that "it's not NQ's intention to allow players to build 100% "safe" bases outside the safezone", and then using that claim to argue against underground bases, for instance.
That's nonsense.
NQ are not opposed to players building impregnable fortresses, but they ARE opposed to providing artificial game mechanics (like enforced arkship safezones) to allow that to be possible.
If players can design and fortify skilfully, it's not NQ's job to step-in and say: "Your design is too good, we can't allow you to make it that difficult for others to attack you"...
Very true
4 hours ago, NanoDot said:The main thing that is "wrong" in any persistent online game is the fact that it's an imperfect simulation of RL, and therefore needs artificial mechanics to compensate for the fact that each player is not playing the game 24 hours per day.
Do you really want a game where the only way to survive is to play as a member of a large org that has 30-40 players active in all major time zones ? Because without "artificial mechanisms", you will need to somehow defend your base when it's attacked at 3:30am or at 2:00pm on a weekday while you're at work, or while you're on summer holidays on the beach somewhere...
Guess what Ark turned into
23 hours ago, CalenLoki said:Artificial game mechanics like.... TU for example?
I have nothing against underground base being really well defended. But if it's protected by magic (that can't be counter-spelled) then something is wrong.
Are you suggesting NQ should limit orgs with a player cap?
-
5 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
NQ has said on several occasions that there will be no gravity for voxels as it places a huge load on the servers, so dont be expecting gravity based voxels for years in the future, or not at all.
Who said the power plant (geothermal or whatever) would be taken out but only a physical/outside attack - it could be done by someone within your org....... spies be everywhere!
If you can kill a space suit then you have no need for gas.... catch 22 there. Effectively in the game world of DU you cant gas someone. Heck, there are no atmosphere physics either so you dont even need to make space ships air tight
I was refuring to a outside attack strictly and as of yet suits are a bit vague ...NDA
-
On 3/21/2018 at 5:00 AM, CalenLoki said:
I've been talking about manning gun in CvC.
Obviously in AvA (boarding) you can at least move, take cover, switch weapons, use some other tools/abilities.
Mass effect is an lock & fire game? I haven't played it, but from videos looks a lot like TPS with manual aiming.
Good to know
-
8 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
Geothermal can still be taken out.... its just another way to boil water..... but bottom line is that tunnels dont collapse in DU as there is no gravity for voxels. So all of this becomes a mute point anyway.
the game is in pre alpha so there are no gravity voxels yet (I can still dream) and as the base is underground without needing power from above ground and if the base is setup corectly the last or second to last thing you will find is the power sorce
8 hours ago, CoreVamore said:Naahhh.... we are in space suits remember?
Space suits are not unkillable and would reqire many things to function
9 hours ago, ShioriStein said:Best solution for any type of bunker.
pretty much
-
1 hour ago, ShioriStein said:
or you can just GAS them.
aways viable
-
1 hour ago, CoreVamore said:
Or have the enemy just cut the power to your base burying it, you, and your colleges deep under ground..... I'll stick to old fashioned structural supports thanks
(Yea, I know, I'm a bastard lol )
geothermal power plus I assume they would have more than one deffence for a structural callopes
-
6 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
WEll you should read his reply, he got his point there, and i think it maybe good. But balance will be another problem lmao.
I have read it and I am still concerned balance wise unless they did somthing like ark did with its turrents set a hard turent limit for mobile constructs
-
8 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
Ah i totally agree about some automatic defense turret on static building, what i'm talking there is about CalenLoki idea about "some" auto turret on dynamic or we called it ship. He say that it should be limit not to be used in offensive but not so useless in defense against one or a few of weak pirate when the crew not assemble fast enough.
He give me all the proof so i consider that is a good idea, but just wonder how it can be balance enough but his idea is fair and i agree with it.
i forgot it is about auto turret on a statica construct all the time.
I am not really convinced on ship or dynamic constructs as they could be abused in ways static can not
-
It would be really helpfull to have a solor systym radar with a 3d image and projector
-
On 3/21/2018 at 3:30 AM, CalenLoki said:
There is already an solution (confirmed by NQ) for "how to get someone to mann the guns of your cargo ship without forcing them to sit for hour doing nothing when not needed". It's called multiple characters per account. You simply leave your friends mining with their mining characters, while their fighting chars sleep on the ship while you pilot. When someone attacks, they simply switch chars and start manning the guns.
No AI needed.
That being said, IMO it should be possible to manually give commands to more than one gun per person. The game has planned only lock&fire combat mechanics, thus sitting at your single AA gun and from time to time selecting single opponent seems nothing like interesting combat. It's like being commander with only one subordinate (AI gunner) with only one possible order to give (fire at him). Being able to control multiple guns at least let you choose which one to use, which one shoots where, how to distribute power between modules, even driving your ship at the same time, ect.
Only limit should be players ability to manage all of this, and engineering skill to make it easier.
Would this not reqire multiple accounts?
On 3/10/2018 at 9:34 AM, ShioriStein said:fair enough. Make me to consider your idea maybe good.
But why the feeling it will be used to abuse still inside me, make me to argue but i found not thing to say lmao.They may be abused but because we are talking about static deffence auto turrents miners would likly set up a small outpost or a few turent towers to defend them costing time and rs to set up whitch would make them less spamable plus you have to power and supply them with ammo unless lasers become a thing in whitch case only power
On 3/9/2018 at 8:33 AM, Sparktacus said:Hence the idea of the type of automatable turrets being limited. Im literally talking about the small stuff that would be a threat to fighters, but does little more than tickle bigger stuff.
No-one wants to see huge ships with massive automated cannons.
Are you sure I would be all for a very costly ion cannon as shown in star wars battle of hoth able to disable ships in and out of atmosphere however the energy rs cost would be massive and only for citys or space stations most likely
On 3/9/2018 at 8:17 AM, Sparktacus said:Just saw this, looks like we posted at the same time.
Safe is debatable. Safer, is more the point. A single person in a fighter can destroy an unarmed frieghter. An auto turret or 2 to shoot back with, gives the frieghter a fighting chance, or at least the opportunity to bloody the fighters nose a bit.
This thread is for static deffences as NQ has stated no movable auto turents on ships
On 3/9/2018 at 10:32 AM, unown006 said:This Thread was mainly about Base deference auto turrets for city's and anti raiding
I guess it evolved
On 3/9/2018 at 8:33 AM, Sparktacus said:Hence the idea of the type of automatable turrets being limited. Im literally talking about the small stuff that would be a threat to fighters, but does little more than tickle bigger stuff.
No-one wants to see huge ships with massive automated cannons.
I wouldnt say no one but I am aganst it
On 3/9/2018 at 8:15 AM, Sparktacus said:The irritating thing is, ive just read up in the pre-alpha boards, and im no longer worried about it, but cant articulate why without breaching NDA.
I hate leaving conversations like that, sucks for everyone. I'll try and cycle back to this once the NDA lifts so I can wrap up
Love to see it when NDA drops
On 3/9/2018 at 8:14 AM, ShioriStein said:I just wonder how auto turret will make you safe.
It give no good than being a thing for abuseNot teribly as mentioned above they are viable for base deffence whitch defenders will need
-
19 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
i cant see anywhere that artificial gravity would be used to stop a tunnel collapsing, even in an asteriod. tunnel reinforcements always stop a tunnel collapsing in. Extra gravity would make things worse.
As there is no gravity in game for voxels (u can remove an entire support structure of a mountain and the mountain will float) any form of in tunnel gravity device also beomes redundant.
One learned skill i would back however is a depth skill. I.e the higher the skill the deeper one can dig.
The gravity generator was just a example any kind of reanforcement can be used also the gravity generators would do somthing like push the tunnel to prevent calasping and edit the natral gravity feild balancing it out in your tunnel mine shaft ect
On 4/4/2018 at 12:50 AM, CalenLoki said:Research/leveling is only initial cost, which once achieved can be used forever. So it's not balancing anything.
And it's unnecessary hindrance. If someone plays smart enough to get all the rare resources to craft something, he should be able to do it.
I would argue it would balance things as it would prevent players from spamming "deep" underground structures and would reqire a reserch specalist for the task
8 hours ago, Veld said:On the subject of underground bastions:
People are talking like taking the bunker directly by force is the only option. I don't know if any of you have read 'the art of war' by sun tzu, but in that he talks about weak points and strong points and how it is best to simply avoid the enemy if you don't have the resources to be able to defeat them. The ultimate goal in war is to defeat your enemy with as little fighting as possible. You shouldn't even engage in war in the first place if the odds are against you.
Other than direct means of engaging in battle, you can use many ways to take out a base:
- Traitors/ spies disabling certain functions/ misdirecting the command/ sowing political dissent
- Severing the base's means of acquiring provisions from the outside; cutting off resource supply or trade routes. Not all of the enemy's operations can be underground. There will be mining operations on the surface as well as civilian traffic.
- Employ a "the boy who cried wolf strategy"; feigning an attack on the enemy and suddenly disengaging to waste their ammunition/ supplies, forcing them to establish a pattern where they ignore certain aspects of the characteristics of assault in your feigning behaviours, only meeting such assaults with little or no force. Then you take them by surprise by beginning an attack characteristic of a decoy then following up with full force (i.e. stick a strike team on your 'dummy ballistics' trojan horse style). They either waste all their ammo or take chances. The downside is you too have to take chances on your full attack. Nevertheless this strategy is bound to cause dissent/paranoia in the enemy's command as to decision making.
- As previously mentioned trojan horse style. Infiltrate enemy supply/ reinforcement trains with a strike team and then mobilise them when inside.
- Bargaining. Take something they hold dear or offer them something they desire in return for the base.
- Don't attack it at all. If given the opportunity, just go around it and kill something else. Wait for an opportunity elsewhere to damage your enemy. Cut the head off the snake so his fangs are rendered useless
- Use a combination of all of the above
These are just general tactics you could use. In a real situation the enemy is unique and has their own strengths and weakness/ disposition you can use to your advantage. There are also strategies the enemy can employ to counter you, but I won't go into that. The point is, in war, the smarter, more flexible guy wins
"Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing" - Sun Tzu
The thing is NQ want us to compete with one another in innovative ways. They want us to take control on how we choose to fight only giving small nudges when the going gets stale. Before claiming certain strategies in game are exploits; wait to see how they play out first. If they become meta, NQ will take appropriate action.
I agree there are many ways to take down empires and goverments
13 hours ago, Evil_Porcupine said:We don't even know if they can be placed underground, as NQ might not want them to be *exploited* for near invincible bases.
You did find one, you just ignored it as it didn't suit you. Multiple people have said here that NQ doesn't want totally safe places outside of designated MSAs and other pre placed safe areas, like around the arkship. As an example, this was said in the post you must have read before posting yourself:
You then ignored that and made up your own version of what people were saying, and pretended as if that's their opinion by using quotation marks.
You then went on to, instead of logically continuing a debate, pretend you had 'won' the debate and say you are leaving. I can assure you that's not how to win a debate.
I like this
-
what if as they are adding in a skill tree to build underground you had to spend time reserching underground particular things energy sorce ventilation underground crops artifidial gravity to hold the cave from collapsing and the like.
-
5 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
Said with so much conviction.... I wouldnt rule out the possibility at all.
I agree there is a possibility that a stock exchange or a form of the stock exchange will exist
-
Another thing for power is Geothermal you can farm underground as well (IRL) so that would throw your blockade idea Also the whole intention I fell in underground bases are to make smaller orgs/solo players a chance against big orgs making a huge deffence buff to all so it makes it extremely hard to attack ones base if set up correctly even for large orgs. This in turn would make small players no likely be able to destroy large org bases which I think is fine because ships and stations will be fair game. Really a nice deffence buff cant be controlled with dictating where things should be placed because that is not how DU is advertised. And the DU devs are going to stone wall any auto mining possible in any way possible so don count on it.
-
Resist at all cost
-
This Thread was mainly about Base deference auto turrets for city's and anti raiding
-
Brink of war forevermore...Time to join a side of the war!
How big can we make ships?
in General Discussions
Posted
seems like NQ is advertising that it can be infinite as the servers "Should" be able to handle it so it will be up to a players PC and how much time you want to put in to build something like the size of a death star
Theres a harder answer