unown
-
Posts
368 -
Joined
Posts posted by unown
-
-
On 1/7/2019 at 8:18 AM, Lethys said:
Even with them, they don't (And shouldn't) stand a chance. First because balancing and second because one player!=100
Ah But this balancing isnt a huge problem as one these deffences can not move And the whole point of this is to create a way to defend your base so long as you put the time and reasorces to do so this way large groups do not have free will blowing up everything also this works bolth ways a large group can also fortify there base as well. Another note on balance when the NDA is lifted I can talk much more about how that can be implemented
-
On 1/8/2019 at 11:53 PM, Sparktacus said:
Absolutely agree there.
What I want to avoid is there being no cost or risk to attacking a ship.
An unarmed ship is basically a pinata, no risk to hitting it on the off chance something good falls out.
If there is some form of defense on the target, you need to weigh up whether the loot you get from attacking is worth the damage you get in return, however minimal. Sure, a dedicated combat ship vs a freighter, 1 on 1, you should still win, but youll take a few hits in return, and that will cost a bit to repair.
With that in mind, if there is no automated option, you have 2 choices
1 - fit a manned turret, and only ever fly when youve got a friend willing to sit in your ship waiting to use it on the offchance something happens
2 - go unarmed entirely, and accept youre a going to be a pinata for anyone who fancies it.
I really dont see it as likely that we'll have large groups of players flying around hunting down lone ships. I think its much more likely that we'll see lone players or small groups of 2 to 3 doing that, and thats what im talking about these defenses being for - not to win the fight, but to give the attackers some form of consequence for attacking so they at least have to consider if attacking a target is worth it.
-
Just now, unown006 said:
Ok so is it possible to do Yes
Can the game handle it According to how the NQ servers work yes
Your problem is not can or if but how as you are only limited by time and reasorces if you have these then I guess you don"t have a problem anymore
- ah forgot about gravity however to fix this Redacted NDA
-
Ok so is it possible to do Yes
Can the game handle it According to how the NQ servers work yes
Your problem is not can or if but how as you are only limited by time and reasorces if you have these then I guess you don"t have a problem anymore
-
On 1/29/2019 at 9:13 PM, AtlasCS said:
Situations like this are a perfect chance for landscaping orgs/construction orgs to be valid. Want to build somewhere but don't want to clean it up? Pay someone else to do it.
I like it this is done in minecraft all the time
-
A few solutions to a few problems
Building decay yes it should be a thing however There are 2 ways this will work side by side constructs outside of a TU owned by players not a part of a org or a org structure will decay after one month if no player of any relation enters a zone this can be adjusted say on the spawn planet of Alioth this is one month but in space this can be one year whitch should satisfy exploration
Building decay however for players who are a part of a org could have extended times due to somthing like org upgrades or a skill systym similar to eves systym whitch could increse this Also say you are in a larger org this timer you get could be extended or decreased based on your size and how NQ wants the org system to play out
Org owned structures (new mecanic) in whitch orgs can have large citys preserved overtime with incresed timers for lone objects. Outside of a TU.
Inside of a TU Instead of a timer There should simply be a TU upkeep say fuel blocks whitch it consumes every set amount of time. If it runs out the TU shuts down and the timer begins as mentioned above.
This idea mostly would be for static structures only mobile structures would have to have a different systym so a salvaging mechanic can exist.( no idea how this would be done either)
However instead of having a decay systym instead change how a server loads things in the game having servers only active where players are and when they leave the server stops loading the area whitch fixes this problem also with NQ being able to split the work and multiple servers even if you fit the max amount of things a player can load in everthing will still run smoothly.
-
So cool you have over 100 players in your org but how are you going to manage what they can and cannot do? Also a few related uttilys that would be helpfull.
Org Management
I suggest using a system similar to ark where you can make ranks put members in them whitch controlls things such as there ability to build,destroy,mine and use constructs that the org owns the one thing however that would be problematic is that the structure of the systym is only a one way systym for example you can have the ranks lead,co lead, and member but say you want to add somthing like a builder that has access to co lead things or only have access to certain things from co lead while still having member acess to fix this problem incorporate a pyramid thats very similar but allows you to set ranks to be more specific.
Org tax
This will allow orgs to make cash to use on the org and keep it running (see below) this tax will be applied to any sale of goods simlar to eves corp tax systym. Also it gives a org a way to be centralised economically.
Org upkeep
This puts a nice money sink in the game and limits large orgs instead of putting a member limit instead for every member a certain amount of money will have to be paid every month This will also reqire a org vault as well (see below)
Org vaults
This is a vault systym for orgs in whitch there upkeep can be deducted however There should not be just one per org and heres the reason why Taking from the game eve online a certain player was able to steal and wreck a entire alligence due to having access to everything (google it if you havent heard of the story) Now having multiple org vaults allows the org to diversify there cash and have vaults dedicated to certain things.
-
On 1/3/2019 at 8:06 PM, CoreVamore said:
You bring the cloak and I'll bring the dagger
lol https://steamcommunity.com/market/ this?
-
On 1/20/2019 at 9:57 AM, SirWillyLongShank said:
I don't think I share your confidence in the gaming public @ShioriStein. I think that relying on organizations to police and control the flow of weapons, or "drugs", or any type of cargo or data, will be lackluster at best. It will simply won't happen, or at best won't stick around. Us hardcore gamers sometimes forget this isn't real life and the consequences just aren't high enough to invoke that kind of fear. If an organization bans something that the players want they will just leave to get it, and those that will stick around won't want whatever "IT" is. I just don't see the long standing motivating force behind bans as the game stands...
I do agree with you though on that theft and hacking point. Theft and betrayal will be a very real aspect of the game. I was just thinking out loud, maybe trying to find a way to enhance the game. By creating an actual component that needs to be manufactured (possibly in several steps) it adds a whole illegal infrastructure that can be combated by the good guys, or accelerated by the bad guys. Resources gathering, manufacturing, transporting, LUA coding, selling, implementing, fencing the stolen goods. It would create a lot of jobs. Think of it as a criminal stimulus package! ?
It could lead to an epic back and forth.
I can see large orgs putting a limit on exports and imports in areas they controll but otherwise smuggling will just be transportation with high end security
-
This depend on how the eve market systym will be broken up. This idea would work well in somthing like individual planetary markets. Unless NQ are going for major market hubs that people have to go for either way would work
-
On 5/13/2018 at 11:41 AM, Kregon_Tempestus said:
Plz, no just No! I hated cloaked ganker ships in EVE Online , it was cancer and we really not need that here!
If anyone want to be a badass pirate then they will need to work hard for my hard earned cargo!
But this could allow a very good pilot to take out a entire fleet (so long as they do not have the proper s to defend themselves vs this type of tech
On 5/14/2018 at 11:22 AM, Thainz said:IT seems to me that cloaking devices are in the works, they are listed on the elements page of the wiki.
However I think that cloaking should be like what @Lethys said, done with separate blocks/ generators.
For example having a thermo shielding would protect against heat source detection, however it would take energy so the ship would be more susceptible to energy scanners. If a ship is radar jamming it would also have a large energy footprint. If a ship is energy jamming then it puts out a large magnetic field and so on. If a ships goal is to be very/completely stealthy, and block all scanning equipment, it could require an huge amount of fuel/ power and require little to no movement.
the same goes for those who want to be able to scan for everything, it will take an enormous amount of power, and or require little movement for clear detection, making them sitting ducks.
This could make cloaking much more balanced, and will force more tactical and planning as well as team oriented Approaches to battles, as far as sneaking around goes.
Yes I think that would still be viable as you still could have all cloaky ships they would be just a lot more expensive and for general use would cloak your weakness in the ship you are flying
-
On 5/15/2018 at 4:48 PM, OrpheusClayBlades said:
In the idea section I was asking about it before I noticed this one. But by static I am thinking not auto turret more trip sensor gun shots where it was aimed. Auto defenses should need a insanely convoluted creation time frame/system and manual programming to make them only for people that put in the extreme effort to have a extreme weapon system. This game makes me dream about playing a game like the anime Overlord. Well the game the character played before where his guild built a empire in game with npc guards and all sorts of player programmed things Although I would prefer support to use turrets via a phone for defense than a auto turret.
I could very easily see traps becoming a thing
On 5/15/2018 at 5:19 PM, Felonu said:The specific purpose that I quoted was to protect your bases while you are offline for periods of time throughout the day. My statement when applied in context was that automated turrets could be used for other purposes (Like increasing the defensive capabilities while you are active), but should not be needed to keep you from getting attacked when offline.
To add to that idea, NQ has talked about scripts being run on local machines so automated defenses probably won't work when there is no active user online anyway.
Potentially as there are ways around that
On 5/15/2018 at 5:31 PM, Felonu said:There will need to be balancing done by NQ in accordance with their vision of the game. If you make anything both expensive and ineffective then it loses any point in existing (Not that they won't exist at all, you can find evidence of that in any sky mall magazine). There are ways of limiting things without pushing them into the not worth it part of the value chart. I think automated defenses should be somewhere above the cost of normal turrets (could be same cost + cost of buying/effort of making a script to run them), and have max effectiveness below the average user manually using a turret.
How much cost above, and effectiveness below I'll leave up to NQ to find the balance that is in line with their vision. The balance of these things will be much easier to debate when we have working functionality in place, because balancing any game in relation to another game never works. Every game needs to adjust until the right balance is maintained.
Its always up to NQ all we can do is trust them to make the best decision for the game.
-
On 5/21/2018 at 1:29 PM, virtuozzo said:
For one, I'm hardly going to be alone
Teamwork takes care of a lot of things. On top of that, I sincerely doubt it'll be 6 months on the ground. I will be very surprised if we spend more than 6 days there, then having one day of rest and taking off the morning after that.
Serious though, in a sandbox a huge part of getting things done comes down to economies of scale and optimisation. Even if getting up in the air might take a bit longer, there's both a development and an efficiency curve to it, offsetting ground / water based infrastructural requirements or mobility alternatives. Especially as for a lot of us the point will be to get up in orbit and take it from there.
Keep in mind that a lot of experimentation can already be done in alpha and beta stages. The learning curves aren't that big a part of challenges.
Sorry This was before we had a survival mode in DU (Pre Alpha) so yea I can see people moving out very quickly now that we are in alpha 1 however I still think even when you move out if you go somewhere else these vehicles will still come in play.
-
On 7/21/2018 at 1:31 AM, Gonk said:
Does it though? I agree with what your saying that it will make the game easier for smaller groups using them, but it would also allow larger orgs to expand more. Secondly the main problem with mining robots is that they would be able to gather huge amounts of resources 24/7, whereas any automated ship will be weaker than player ships ("Weapons, when scripted, will be extremely inefficient or underpowered compared to unscripted weapons used by players (for example by limiting number of actions per second achieved by the script). This is to make the game more balanced" Dual Universe Wiki on LAU scripting). But it would allow smaller organisations who don't have members of larger organisations to defend their territory 24/7 to have some protection from pirate raids. In addition while they would be able to build structures quicker with construction bots, they would still need the resources to do so, hence they would not be able to build the same structures as larger organisations.
In my previous comment I probably should've specified this, as while these wouldn't make smaller organisations equal to larger organisations, they could still compete in the sense of being able to complete projects like building a space station at least near to the speed in which larger organisations can.
Lastly, life of a larger organisation will not be made worse by additions of battlebot, construction bot, etc. Considering the large amount of resources they have to deal with, these would be very useful as battlebot's could be used as fighters like vulture droids, transport bots would help these larger organisations manage and transport their enormous quantities of resources a lot easier, and construction bots would allow them to complete huge projects a lot easier.
In summary I probably shouldn't have said that small organisations will be able to compete with larger organisations, just that it would certainly benefit smaller organisations a lot.
I was thinking about this perhaps a Mechanic can be introduced where the larger the org is the harder this workforce is to be viable This will allow small orgs to compete with the large ones something that no other current survival game that I know of has done.
On 4/25/2018 at 12:12 PM, Alsan Teamaro said:It's inevitable.... both things: robots in DU and this song...
I love this music
On 7/21/2018 at 2:22 AM, NanoDot said:One problem I see with the idea of "automated bots" is that it will massively increase server load, because each player can then control multiple constructs simultaneously. Each active construct will be a mobile core, and will have to be tracked by the servers so that they can be displayed in the game world and be shown on radar scans, etc. The amount of mobile constructs in a battle or player city will potentially double or triple (or more).
I suspect the server load implications are possibly a significant reason why NQ is against automated drones and bots...
Potentially but there new form of servers respond very well to huge loads however there may have to be caps per person to do/get around this? The problem with that is it alone can favor large orgs as they have more players it could work with the above mentioned mechanic
-
On 5/11/2018 at 6:27 PM, unown006 said:
Discord link updated
Discord link updated for the second time
-
5 hours ago, OrpheusClayBlades said:
This would probably be a long time after launch but kinda think it would be cool. If say a attacker hits your city but you cant be on a comp you could use your phone to operate a defense system like a turret to defend your cities and bases.
Not a bad idea There were rumors of notifications that way...
-
On 5/14/2018 at 7:28 AM, Felonu said:
The defense bubbles are intended for this purpose as stated by NQ. They have a 24-48 hour duration (Which I hope is able to be ended by the defender) so that offline owners can’t be raided without time to prepare for defense. That doesn’t mean I don’t think some automated defenses are needed, but just not for this purpose.
What purpose besides defending something you put time into would that be?
45 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:Because unlike manual turrets, those are not hard limited by the amount of players. And that's huge advantage when your firepower can grow linearly over time, theoretically infinitely.
If we're able to control more than single weapon, then the same problem would apply to manual weapons as well. But fighting against real players is fun at least.
Limiting range would be some way to balance that, but that would just force all the attacking forces to always use only long range weapons. Quite boring and freedom-limiting IMO. Same apply for limiting penetration to make them effective only against light crafts and infantry.Using upkeep system won't help either, as you can just design the base with designated spots for them, and place them in matter of minutes after spotting enemies/waiting for shields to go down.
You could make certain things like siege engines a mechanic to specifically siege bases while fleets collide and such I think it wouldn't be very boring for this reason. Also They shouldn't be overly under powered just simply make them cost more
1 minute ago, OrpheusClayBlades said:Yes For underground trap mazes.
Another thread I need to make later :
-
13 hours ago, Kuritho said:
Uh... Cool.
We don't care about politics when we're blowing shit up and cloaking.
---
How to do cloaks in 7 EZ STEPZ:
Won: Base it off stealth bombers, with them paint 'n stuffs.
Too: Less energy and heat emissions or equalizing it with the background.
Tree: Or just say "haha no" and just make them POOFERINOS out of existance.
For: Blow up the baddie's ship before th3y see you. Easily the best option.
:/
-
-
-
13 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
Im going to be in my hover vehicle for a start,.....
which Im thinking will only take me a few days to be able to resource up and build Then a hover vehicle is just an added couple atmospheric engines to get airspeed up..... so thats by around day 7, then about a week or so after that I will whack a rocket engine on the thing and then go exploring "out there"
Naturally my friends will help in all of the above endeavors
I will be crying if I am still on the ground six months into the game!
Still I am going with the worst case scenario as NQ said space would be hard to reach
-
2 hours ago, vylqun said:
was said by the devs several times. I'm to lazy to search the forum for evidence tho.
Well then?
-
On 5/5/2018 at 6:15 AM, virtuozzo said:
This thing strikes me as a classic case of "but I want to drive around / wear my captain's hat" versus technology paths in game.
Considering the baseline tech available within DU any kind of planetary transportation is by default more efficient by air unless there is a treshold in regards to volume, and even that is theoretical.
Why build a road when you can land anywhere. Why build a railroad when you can land anywhere. Why build a port when you can land anywhere. At each location of hub logistics there's an advantage in combining said hub with air/space based capabilities. One might argue that moving stupid amounts of resources would require a mechanism capable of moving such large volumes, traditionally the domain of sea / rail networks. Still nothing that can't just as easily go by air though.
I'd say that land/sea elements are not needed. But people may want them and thus should be able to build them.
I'd also say that efficiency arguments lean towards air elements. But people may want to rely on afk mechanisms we currently know nothing about so those might provide for land/sea options.
A main reason I bring this up is because on release space is going to be a hard thing to get so what will you do for six or so months you are on the ground?
-
Just now, CoreVamore said:
But, you dont need two subs. One sub can have up to three characters on it from what I understand, so you can specialise three separate characters and potentially allowing a person to run two ( or more) instances at one time - though that will depend on how NQ implements things.
That's what I am arguing for yes
Should automated static defences be added to duel universe?
in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
Posted
And thats what this idea is suppose to help with I am not saying it should be easy Nor am I saying you can do this with little time put in but I am saying it should be possible to act as a deterrent for the big boys