unown
-
Posts
368 -
Joined
Posts posted by unown
-
-
What about track verticals? or thread tanks?
-
On 4/25/2018 at 7:13 AM, ShioriStein said:
Lock And Fire, is what NQ have confirm.
It will have combat system lock and fire like in EVE. But the damage at where the "hit" impact will left a "hole".In a game like DU where there is no border (except on planet) how we get target coordinate ?
And after read all the idea left it give me some question: Your system maybe good ( with dogfights seem fun) but the question still, can it be done with nowday technology ?! From the dev blog i have see there is many reason for the "lock and fire" will caculate with a formula right ? But what about the idea you say ?
Also from what i'm reading seem like it more about a missile =.=.You can get cords via radar " can it be done by nowadays tec" we are in the future not the past
-
On 4/21/2018 at 9:52 PM, 0something0 said:
Even if orbital bombardment weapons aren't added, I can see hypersonic bombers designed to launch from a spaceship, strike its target in an aerobraking-like maneuver and then go back out like the USAF Dyna Soar from the 1960s.
There could also be CIWS weapons to shoot down projectiles rather then the ships themselves.
I bet many things will be tested I guess it will be added to the list
On 4/28/2018 at 12:35 PM, Veld said:If you're going to call orbital strikes OP then you are going to have to called high altitude air strikes OP as well. It's essentially the same thing. Unless there is some sort of speed bonus.
Before thinking about balancing, take a look at how it would inherently be balanced:
There's two types of bombardment you can use: ballistic and laser
Ballistic
Advantages:
- Suppression capability - you can launch a barrage of rounds one after the other and keep ground troops holed up for a while.
- AOE - you can cover a large zone with explosive rounds
- Acceleration - falling from tens of kilometres up is going to pack a punch in terms of kinetics
Disadvantages:
- Timing - If you are launching the round like a projectile, then you have to time it exactly right or park your orbit in a different place. If you are launching them like missiles then they're going to need propellant/ guidance systems. These systems are going to need heat shielding to get through the atmosphere. A thruster covered in heat shielding is going to overheat and burn out if you're not careful. You can turn off the thruster while slowing to terminal velocity but that makes you vulnerable to counter shots. The design to overcome this is a very streamlined and insulating rocket with a fancy thruster. That won't pack much punch unless you've got some good explosives or it's really long. If it's too long you won't be able to dodge counter shots. I don't know if they are going to add actual heating effects in game though. I know you can see the hot air on screen but I don't know if it actually heats up.
- Collateral - you're going to be destroying a lot. Be it your own ground troops, civilians or valuable enemy infrastructure. If you want to be selective it is very limiting.
- Delay - anyone can snipe your projectiles out of the sky while they fall. Missiles however could theoretically dodge this.
- Burning up - unless you're shooting super dense cannonballs, streamlined rods or heat shielded rounds you'll be hitting them with jelly
Laser
Advanatages:
- Accuracy - low collateral. Very selective
- Instantaneous - no need to time anything. Just point and click
Disadvantages:
- Cost - the technology is advanced. The power is demanding. Especially if you want a decent diameter, high energy beam over a large period of time
- Low suppression - you can't just spam them along. you have to hold a controlled beam.
There's half way types of ammunition like rail gun and plasma but I won't go in to those. They basically combine the best/worst of both worlds.
In general, orbital strikes are good as a last resort in a defending scenario or when you have carefully prepared for an offence
With this in mind I think they'd be pretty balanced as they stand.
I agree
-
4 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
DU isnt ARK.....
How so because what I can see DU will be very much like ark
-
5 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
I said there should be NO limits, which is the case, as its a sandbox game.
Your idea limits the game to something you believe is viable, it may be, however it wont be for everyone and will fail to be global, and hence will fail.
My only issue would be if DU orgs turned into ark mega tribes which for many is not fun
-
6 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
Which is what I said....
Then I must have misunderstood sorry about that
-
On 4/23/2018 at 5:01 AM, Lethys said:
-1, bad idea
You split the playerbase with that (maybe even early on) - not a good idea imho. Especially when NQ always said that they want to enforce player interaction (that's why different systems like skilltime, engines, velocity are in place to ensure that player's stay together for a long time).
Plus what to with the fixed RN in the arkzone for EVERY PLAYER ? Overtake ark -> noone can spawn there. GG, when you die you respawn at the new ark - possibly hours and hours away from your homebase on a sanctuary moon of alioth - thanks game.....
Arkships and safezone should NEVER be in the hands of players - and I think that NQ said that somewhere too.
I agree that is a bad idea however I dont think you should try to limit orgs on teritory but claiming a arkship would be OP in itself what about everyones stuff in the safzone or new player spawn points and the like
-
3 hours ago, virtuozzo said:
Thing is, DU provides one organisation type, corporation. This is a form of organised economic activity and interaction. If DU were to provide a more generic type of player organisation it would be simpler to follow along your exploration. Now it is still possible within a corporation, even between corporations. But it will require a degree of roleplay, so to speak.
DU puts a lot of emphasis on economics. Primarily because in terms of game constructs without some sort of guiding concept it is hard to kickstart a meaningful array of human interactions. In an ideal virtual world you wouldn't need that based on emergent gameplay, but a game is also a product so it has to make a profit. Also, it's very close to the most common / median average type of behaviour people are familiar with. Everybody's got to feed, every system is an exchange of energy, thus economics. Once this is established, room becomes available for different types of organisation, different forms, different goals. In a way it's a little bit of a catch22, since it doesn't fully match with human social psychology. But as I said, it's still a game and a product.
From what you've written here, two types of mechanisms can be observed which independant of type, form or focus of organisation have merit to translate into game features & mechanisms because these are things which are commonly shared across at minimum the types of organisation.
Voting
Jobs
We don't yet know how NQ will approach these things, but it is good to point out that there will be a demand among players for a mechanism which facilitates decision processes in a meaningful in game manner, and a mechanism players can use to assign/exchange tasks. Maybe they have already put this kind of thing on an internal roadmap. Maybe not. Part of me wonders whether the Lua scripting features will be restricted to voxel tech, or whether it'll allow or enable customisation of in game mechanisms.
But it's all still within player organisations. There's no magic government or oversight construct other than NQ that would not break the sandbox.
Here's a thought: what happens when people from one country find new land and are stimulated to explore it? Look at human history. They leave the old place, carve out their own niche, create their own systems. The old is marginalised, supplanted, ignored, and so forth. It'll take a bit of time, but the moment people start to build beyond their starting points is the moment those starting points, and anything connected with them (be it magical governance or anything else) becomes pretty much powerless. The people who stay in the old world end up equally powerless in the long run.
In a sandbox construct the baseline is a selection of very very basic mechanisms. Because a sandbox doesn't provide meaningful gameplay unless the customers build up and organise the place
Or choose to burn it down, this also works. Key concept: activity. Organisation isn't magic or self sustaining either
Civilisation building? Let's look at human history on that as well. Civilisations are built on the ashes of previous iterations. By people. Not by a deus ex machina.
No matter from what angle we approach the topic, it keeps coming back to the sandbox concept. Sandbox games succeed or fail by the activity of its players - introduce said deus ex machina and you undermine the impuls to be human in the sandbox.
Time will tell '
-
9 hours ago, Lethys said:
Do it. Organize that. Work for it. See that it's done. I'll watch from afar and will try to bring it down. That's a sandbox
Pretty much
3 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:Government would require larger scale organization with tools specific to function (like voting, criminal reports, trial system, tax etc). I also think citizenship would have to be all inclusive with no way to kick citizens out because they don't do what you want (even in a dictatorship). The reason I see government type systems as important is that it would enable players to preform functions normally handled by mechanics and npcs. It could solve changes related to viability of civilization building, economics, politics, bounties and justice.
Anyway, that's what I think.
No let it flow let diversity rain
-
21 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
Um, just nope, it imposes limits on a sandbox game, which by its nature is open ended and can end up being communist, capitalist, democratic, fascist, demonic,. angelic, religious, agnostic etc etc etc.
The worlds/systems will be what they will be, and just like in the real world as DU expands, I'm sure there will be a mixture of the above throughout DU
If you want the above then join an org that wants the above.
Simplz
I agree there to be a limit however only if it doesn't destroy the game as a whole other than that Orgs should not be limited and can be countered likewise
15 hours ago, NanoDot said:"You can have any political system you want, as long as it's Democracy" !
DU's playerbase is not one nation, it's a fractious collection of different groups with widely differing ideas of how the game should be played. DU's design gives those groups complete freedom to choose how they want to organize and rule themselves. Anything else limits that freedom of choice.
Democracy is an option, but not a requirement. It will in all likelihood be the least popular form of organization, because it reduces the power of organization leadership. I expect semi-dictatorships and "monarchies" will be the most common forms of organization.
The "founders" of organizations in DU are closer to CEO's than to political leaders. They "own" the org by virtue of the fact that they created it. They are the supreme authority in that group, with the power to invite new members or eject existing members as they see fit. Very few of them (if any) will be elected leaders that serve only as long as their "people" approve of them. Anyone that doesn't approve of them will most likely be summarily ejected from the org...
Authoritarian governments .....
-
So would this be possible? I know ramming is going to be impossible to do but what about hyper space collision will this be a tactic thats possible? I will add a poll if this gets answered/ not shot down
-
On 4/26/2018 at 12:10 PM, Lethys said:
Player skill - nope. Everyone is in even ground there. No CoD in space, thankfully
Character Skill - oh yes, a lot
Player skill I would say there would be in a traditional fps but my point with a lock on system is there would be none Chariter skill tree was not what I meant
-
6 minutes ago, Veld said:
Totally agree.
To argue from a philosophical standpoint. Nobody intrinsically had rights. Rights are something we have to fight for ourselves and protect as individuals dedicated to a single and subjective moral cause. In a game which attempts to encompass the freedom of human ingenuity, I don't see much handholding other than safezones for PVE players.
To use myself as an example, I don't concern myself with PvP. Partly because I suck and partly because I have other things to do. My organisation will be able to protect those rights for me to not have to engage in combat in exchange for my services.
You as a civilian in the real world have your rights protected by your government. Your government is subject to failure and misconduct. Are you digging bunkers, hording canned food and amassing an arsenal? Perhaps; perhaps not. But in the case of the latter, it is because you are either a sheep or you take full advantage of your civil rights to live your life how you want. DU is no different.
Pretty much back to the art of cloaking...
-
10 hours ago, NanoDot said:
How that "balance" will be achieved is a mystery to me. I'm genuinely interested to see how it all plays out.
Unless by "balance" we're talking about non-PVP'ers playing in 5% of the game world (safezones) and PVP'ers owning the other 95%...
I have never seen a MMO with FFA-PVP that was able to sustain a significant community of non-PVP'ers for very long. EVE comes closest, I'd say, but EVE has considerably more protections than DU appears to have, and it has a large amount of PVE content for those that are PVE-focused. Even so, EVE does not have a huge community of non-PVP'ers, but it IS possible to play the game that way. At least it was when I played it...
And then DU was born.....
7 hours ago, virtuozzo said:There is no such magic as "balance". This is a game, subject to iteration, at minimum because in a sandbox people will always go overboard with anything.
The truth is that this is just a perception problem. It's not a real problem. It's a big universe, and nobody needs to be alone. Heck, even the guys or girls who want to play alone have plenty of room and opportunity.
The reality of a sandbox is that nobody and nothing guarantees any sort of magic protection some might see as necessary for any chosen type of gameplay. It's a sandbox, so it is entirely up to the player.
Yes kind of the theirs a protection safe zone more or less anywhere but there
-
13 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
Um. No. This thread was created to discus ideas. NQ will design and impliment what it believes will work. This thread answers nothing and can only echo initial thoughts fron NQ.
It can anwser things that are already confirmed by NQ
-
4 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:
No, I wouldn't suggest using this as a blueprint, just came to mind because of the force field. I'm also not sure how much I like the idea of force fields, seems cheap in terms of an idea, the concept has been around for a long time. Also, how much science is there for its feasibility (how realistic is it). I think it would be awesome if there was a more "outside of the box" solution that could play on real technology or based in science. That said, I'm not a scientist, so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe something to do with magnetic repulsion and well designated base defenses.
If you are asking for science please watch the video above There will be many outside the box solutions some are already here And force fields may be cheap but so are many other metas out there but I really like it to give one more atvatage to a defender if it puts the time into it
-
On 5/1/2018 at 12:15 PM, dw_ace_918 said:
It's from command & conquer alliance's (or something like that), it used a shield mechanic on new game start and after destruction. The focus was heavily on defence, and strategic attack patterns based on opponents defensive design. Attacks where limited by command points that had a cool down period to regenerate. Many times I would log in with my base destroyed, have to move (an allowed distance), and for a short time have a shield. We would use this time to gather alliance members to retaliate. I'm sure many games use mechanics like this for always online play. The point is that it makes base building strategy and attack strategy more challenging and in turn rewarding. It also had a focus on holding resources that benefit the alliance.
Yes but you also have a survival aspect added to it so in this case I dont believe this is the best soultion
-
4 hours ago, Nanoman said:
Nah, us noble noveans are way too evolved for such pettiness.
War, greed and corruption shall be a thing of the past. There shall be no more famine, disease or inequality. Lions and lambs shall walk hand in hand, and work together to raise harmonious cities and magnificent beacons of advanced civilization.
We learn to live, when we learn to give. Each other what we need to survive, together alive. Side by side on my piano.
You sound like a new born child naive to think hate and war will never be included in society
20 minutes ago, Ben Fargo said:The safe zones will only be a relatively small portion of DU. I do not think it is realistic to expect that all creative building will be limited to them. While everything outside the safe zones will need to be defended, that does not mean defense will always be the primary factor in how it is designed.
To me, there is no reason to have any defenses unless someone has built something that is worth defending. For other people, defending their territory is a goal in itself. Scarce resources lead to people using everything available on defense. It can also cause them to form extensive alliances so they can avoid destroying those resources by fighting. What is prevalent will depend on which people decide to play DU.
Pretty much more or less
-
4 hours ago, NanoDot said:
NQ burned their fingers badly with the original estimate for the start of alpha.
I'm sure they're going to do everything in their power to avoid a repetition of that scenario. DU turned out to be a bit more complicated to put together than anyone thought, including NQ. It's no biggie, the game is very ambitious and delays are inevitable.
That's why they've completely avoided talking about the start date for alpha1 so far. I'd be surprised if the coming roadmap has any dates at all. It will probably be a "planned sequence of events", rather than pinning things to specific quarters of the year.
That's why I don't consider this next patch to be an indication that alpha1 is "imminent". Unless you think that "imminent" covers the next 6 months to a year...
Pretty much as fast as this goes I believe The game will release next year at charismas at least or more as long as the game is developed right its fine
-
6 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:
There is a mechanic from a different base building game that was always online. In order to destroy a base of a player online or not, the attackers had a limited number of attacks to destroy all defenses (which auto regenerated over time) and destroy the command center. Attackers would take damage from defenses also. Movement was limited, so if attacks failed, a player would have time to retaliate and backup could also come and help. If the base was destroyed, it would be moved and slowly recover from damage, losing functionality and resources for a time. I don't know if something like that could be a good compromise, but kinda seems like a possible solution all-around. Would make for a fair and extended battle mechanic.
What do you think guys?
Apologies, this is off topic.
This sounds like a phone game called clash of kings? And it inst necessarily off topic
-
4 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:
Your right, they would have to work to defend a base when you are online or offline too right? I guess automated defenses would not be unreasonable. Not only are they deployed on bases, but ships have them as well (irl). They typically are reactive and not proactive, such as shooting down missiles and divebombers. That would make sense to me. I don't know what kind of weapons you can place on your base and how much independence they are given to operate.
And that is why this thread was made to answer these questions
-
Stealth technology and detection technology, even in a futuristic sy-fi game, would have to take its queues from our current understanding of these technologies, and known possibilities, if said game intends to be balanced and fair. Although imagination is the cornerstone of DU, combat technologies are not. I see a civilization trying to rebuild not self-destruct. Conflict is bound to happen when groups decide not to work together, but the intent is not to force such a scenario; it is not only unrealistic in an economically and politically driven world, but detrimental to the core mission of the more evolved survivor of Armageddon: they did not spend 400 years researching how to destroy each other, but how to rebuild.
That said, all war technology should be limited and used sparingly and at great cost not only financially but also politically. Defense should hold a higher priority in any case and be given much stronger mechanics.
Finally, if I may say, I think it would be great if, when building such systems, much thought and research was put into them, so that they have some scientific basis (though fictional), balanced, and consistent with the technologies related to a society attempting to rebuild light-years from home.
14 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:Stealth technology and detection technology, even in a futuristic sy-fi game, would have to take its queues from our current understanding of these technologies, and known possibilities, if said game intends to be balanced and fair. Although imagination is the cornerstone of DU, combat technologies are not. I see a civilization trying to rebuild not self-destruct. Conflict is bound to happen when groups decide not to work together, but the intent is not to force such a scenario; it is not only unrealistic in an economically and politically driven world, but detrimental to the core mission of the more evolved survivor of Armageddon: they did not spend 400 years researching how to destroy each other, but how to rebuild.
That said, all war technology should be limited and used sparingly and at great cost not only financially but also politically. Defense should hold a higher priority in any case and be given much stronger mechanics.
Finally, if I may say, I think it would be great if, when building such systems, much thought and research was put into them, so that they have some scientific basis (though fictional), balanced, and consistent with the technologies related to a society attempting to rebuild light-years from home.
- dw_ace_918 and Tordan
-
2
-
4 hours ago, dw_ace_918 said:
I change my answer... no to ai stuff for combat.
I could imagine it though... My own army of automatons, a fleet of drones and an infinite supply of clones.... unlikely and unfair an advantage that would be... worse, missing the point, I am. The game, YOU must play.
Emphasis on the YOU (the player), not ai constructs.
That's what I think.
these constructs can not move they are static to defend a base
-
Has NQ said anything on it yet?
consequences of non-regenerating planets and ressources
in Builder Forum
Posted
If there is demand there is a business for it