Jump to content

Sparktacus

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sparktacus

  1. discordauth:MraqL3JYioI3KiH3gqf4Leo-9ZvB0U70VNRJtqphvBc=

  2. So there's only issues with large numbers of players collaborating if theyre in the same org? Whilst we know almost nothing about combat, I'm fairly confident that a 100 players from a single org, or 100 players from 10 co-operating orgs will have roughly the same effect.
  3. You don't even need to alt spam. A group of allied smaller orgs who give each other rdms access would have the same effect. And I think they would have a really hard time putting in a mechanism to stop that. It's a civilisation building mmo, people collaborating is a core concept.
  4. If it becomes the case that auto defences can hold against serious numerical advantage, then fights with close to balanced sides become massively weighted towards the defender. If that happens, then the only viable attack tactic will be overwhelming numbers. That will exacerbate the "issue" with big orgs, as smaller orgs wont be able to muster enough force to take anything on, so the big orgs just wander around with impunity.
  5. ^^ That. Auto defenses are there to serve 2 purposes for me 1) stop casual raiders blowing you up for a laugh. 2) Make things a bit more interesting for those who make the decision to come and make a concerted attack on you. They shouldnt ever stop a co-ordinated team from taking your base when unmanned. They should make sure that theres a bit of a cost for doing so (repairing damage etc)
  6. 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.
  7. Correct. All im looking go for is for a to be able to shoot back a bit so its not a free kill for a single seat attack ship, and not have to haul a gunner about with me on otherwise dull cargo runs.
  8. Its on my to do list as soon as it does. As i say, hate leaving things on a vague note.
  9. Providing the engine supports that, sure, not a bad idea. Personally, id like to be able to build/edit smaller ships while aboard a larger moving ship, as I want to be spending most of my time shipbuilding.
  10. This is why im so conflicted about multiple characters. It does resolve the problem of downtime for travel, but it just dosent seem right somehow. As I say, still trying to work out why myself.
  11. I absolutely, fundamentally disagree. Games are meant to be fun to play. I do not spend my free time playing them, to be bored. If there are significant gameplay loops that are little more than watching a screen, that is going to significantly detract from the experience. Now of course, there are lots of different gameplay loops. Mining, building, fighting etc, you dont have to like all of them. But players should always have something to do in order to keep them engaged and entertained by the game. If thats not the case, youll find a lot of players just going and playing other games instead of DU, which would be a shame. This game has a huge amount of promise, but its going to rely on having a solid community of players im order to thrive.
  12. Right up to that point, I completely agree. Time spent in game should be fun and engaging for the player. But being able to swap between avatars and effectively change what region youre acting in instantly makes me twitch. It might be a good thing, leading to more players taking part in a given fight as everyone activates their combat avatars, but it still makds me twitch for some reason. As I say, im conflicted. Still havent figured out why.
  13. Id be ok with that kind of thing. Extra logistics and widgets required to make any automation happen. As for multiple chars per account - im honestly not sure how I feel about that. I'll need to give it some thought.
  14. I voted for cryo/beds, but really I think it needs 2 mechanics, as you need to accomodate for people dcing away from a tube. So, beds and cryotubes as a "safe" option (avatar disappears, tube switched to show its occupied), and ragdoll or similar otherwise, leaving the avatar in place to whatever fate awaits it. Obviously, if your tube or bed gets blown up, youre toast, but that shouldbe more difficuly than just taking out a prone avatar.
  15. Yeah, solution there is hoverpads, with round voxel "wheels" hiding them. Did someting similar in empyrion to make an E:D rover
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. Not sure I follow you there? We're not flying about looking for a fight here. The ship is literally doing a shuttle run to and from the mining site back home, a trip of a couple of hours. Getting people back aboard isnt an option once you leave. You either leave with everyone, and everyone makes the dull trip back, or you leave people on planet working.
  20. We're into necessary evils at that point. If you want to mine a distant planet, youve gotta suck up flying there. Long haul is never fun. Take this as an example of how id use it, for context. 4 man mining/survey team. Load the frieghter, everyone aboard. Dull long haul flight ensues, everybody yawns, but you get there. You de bus. One person gets into the atmospheric scout you brought with, goes looking for likely prospecting locations, while the other 3 throw a little outpost together. Surveys ensue, and mining. Eventually, you have enough mined ore stored that you want to ship it back. With auto turrets, one person shuttles the ore back, while the other 3 keep mining/surveying. One person drops the ore off, yawns, and flies back, knowing its someone elses turn next time. Without auto turrets, all get aboard, fly back etc, knowing they all need to do it every time.
  21. Oh, if theres no one online aboard the ship, it should be parked up somewhere safe, or easy meat. No issue there, i think we're on the same page. Early warning would be nice, regardless of any other tech. Trouble is, it would take time to get friends online (probably longer than early warning will give you id reckon), and it would also require the players avatars to be aboard, so they couldnt be playing DU. Essentially, same problem exists - no fun to have in game, so you go to do something else. Thats not a particularly satisfying thing to experience. Same problem with them flying a fighter rather than operating a turret, theyre still mainly waiting about.
  22. I did read your reply. I disagree with your conclusion. Essentially, your argument seems to be that you should only fly small craft if you cant find people to sit aboard doing nothing while you fly a bigger one, in the offchance that they need to may your turrets for you. I do not see what that adds to the game, hence why I am pro AI defenses. As covered in my first post, I am completely on board with the idea that these should be limited, to ensure that you cant run big combat ships with loads of turrets and only one pilot. However, i do not see how allowing a few automated anti-fighter defensive measures detracts frim the game, in fact, I think this would improve the play experience for all. Taking the frieghter example I put forward in my second post, having the turrets on AI would let my 3 friends do other (more fun) things than sit aboard waiting, and would give the attacking pirates a better experience as well, as shooting at a target that can fight back a bit is a lot more satisfying than shooting at somethung defenseless. I would be interested to hear your opinion on what disallowing AI defenses on ships adds to the game?
  23. Fair enough. We're allowed to want different things. Essentially, I think having AI Defence would minimise the amount of time players spend doing dull things, rather than having fun. That includes Players flying combat ships, coming up on lone freighters. I would rather have targets shooting back at me being the norm, rather than just sitting there and getting shot. With the best will in the world, if you build a freighter, there's only so much to occupy you while you're in flight between stops. It'd be some VERY dedicated friends who stayed logged onto the ship ready to man the guns on the off-chance someone attacks.
  24. Id like to see it taken further than just static constructs, and expanded to include what i'll refer to as "defensive turrets" - i.e things that need to be operational constantly in order to do their job right, but that would be mind numbingly dull for a player to sit in and do. For point defense chainguns or similar for instance - need to be able to respond at a moments notice, but will spend most of their time doing nothing. Sitting manning one of those would be incredibly dull most of the time. "Offensive turrets" - things intended to attack other constructs, like cannons should absolutely not be automated, to stop solo battlecruisers being in any way useful. As for limiting them, perhaps an ai control block to mount them on? Could have it with a significant power drain and cost to discourage spamming, and only have them compatible with a limited weapon subset.
×
×
  • Create New...