Sparktacus

Gotta say, I'm currently the most active member of my group by a long way, and all I'm doing is logging in daily to buy raw mats on the market, and sell a refined product to make sure i;ve got the cash to buy schematics, on the off chance that the game becomes something worth playing again in the future.
 
That's literally it.

I was actively recruiting and recommending the game to people, right up until the Beta launch. While the game was in Alpha, the community was much more active, and I reckon that was down to the fact that we all knew that our assets weren't permanent. We knew there would eventually be a wipe, maybe more than 1, so going out and doing organised fights was something people were up for. After all, if we lost stuff, so what? Not like it was something we'd be keeping in live, so we could afford to have a bit of a laugh with it and have some fun.

Now that the game is in Beta, we're ostensibly in the live environment. Losses affect the live game, and without a scheduled wipe, those losses are long term.

With no reason to fight, why should I risk it? There's nothing to gain in real terms by going and fighting, so why should I risk my assets to do it? It's not even as if the combat gameplay is even that enjoyable, and it's certainly not worth all the grinding you'd need to put a fleet back together afterwards.
 
 

Gotta say, I'm currently the most active member of my group by a long way, and all I'm doing is logging in daily to buy raw mats on the market, and sell a refined product to make sure i;ve got the cash to buy schematics, on the off chance that the game becomes something worth playing again in the future.
 
That's literally it.

I was actively recruiting and recommending the game to people, right up until the Beta launch. While the game was in Alpha, the community was much more active, and I reckon that was down to the fact that we all knew that our assets weren't permanent. We knew there would eventually be a wipe, maybe more than 1, so going out and doing organised fights was something people were up for. After all, if we lost stuff, so what? Not like it was something we'd be keeping in live, so we could afford to have a bit of a laugh with it and have some fun.

Now that the game is in Beta, we're ostensibly in the live environment. Losses affect the live game, and without a scheduled wipe, those losses are long term.

With no reason to fight, why should I risk it? There's nothing to gain in real terms by going and fighting, so why should I risk my assets to do it? It's not even as if the combat gameplay is even that enjoyable, and it's certainly not worth all the grinding you'd need to put a fleet back together afterwards.
 
 

Along similar lines, my entire operation has been stood down, with my players elsewhere. I have several prolific builders completely walking away from the game at present.

The only other thing I would add to Demlock's point is that we also need a reason to fight, i.e. something to fight over. It's all very well having combat in the game, but unless there is a reason for players to fight one another, then it's going to be a limited lifespan at best.

I take it back. Having seen how this has been implemented, this has no place even in a well developed game.

So, I quite like this change, but it's absolutely not something that can be injected into the game in the state it is.

There is little enough for players to do in the game at the moment. This will make building constructs significantly harder for people, taking that activity out of reach of many. That leaves us mining, and flying around in space shooting at other ships. With little to no reason to engage in the latter.

If this is something that's going to work, it needs the whole game to be on board.
 
Atmospheric combat, not just space Incentive to engage in combat (strategic benefit to holding certain areas such as fighting over resources) Resource sinks such as power to make sure that, once up and running, there's an ongoing cost to running a factory other than feeding it mats. And most crucially...
A full, comprehensive wipe. Skills, mats, resources, reset the planets, delete all constructs, start all players back at the arkship.
 
Potentially allow people to keep blueprints so that all the design time that's gone into those isn't lost, but that's it.

Ok.  I understand the sentiment \ understand why a need has been perceived but.....
I am a generalist - I dabble in mining, refining, constructing, ship building, scripting, selling....  These recent proposals seem to "Want to force people into a speciality".  It appears that dabbling will not be cost effective or supported. I personally don't want to make make billions.  I would like to make enough so I can decide whether to build something or to buy it.  I may be happy to wait a couple of hours to build an engine, but if I am developing \ testing new scripts and need a specific element to test against I may decide to buy it instead.

To be honest, I think this level of "balancing" is too early - Yes, they are likely needed but there are more important elements to focus on - RDMS, Stability of the server, Working on the feedback from the beta testers who have used the system thus far....
 

GG Novaquark.. Loved being a Ruby supporter, but putting more barriers to play with nothing else to do, you killing us...

I should have put this in my original post, but Im too lazy to edit. This system doesn't prevent large factories. It just delays them. Ill still be able to make everything eventually, itll just take a few more weeks. Especially if I have friends and we can all split up talent lines. Power should have and needs to come first. Every single "balance" patch NQ has done or proposed in the last month means nothing when power finally comes. 
 
We all know power should have been one of the first mechanics in the game, but here we are. NQ has to focus on power if they want any of these balance changes to mean anything. 

So, I quite like this change, but it's absolutely not something that can be injected into the game in the state it is.

There is little enough for players to do in the game at the moment. This will make building constructs significantly harder for people, taking that activity out of reach of many. That leaves us mining, and flying around in space shooting at other ships. With little to no reason to engage in the latter.

If this is something that's going to work, it needs the whole game to be on board.
 
Atmospheric combat, not just space Incentive to engage in combat (strategic benefit to holding certain areas such as fighting over resources) Resource sinks such as power to make sure that, once up and running, there's an ongoing cost to running a factory other than feeding it mats. And most crucially...
A full, comprehensive wipe. Skills, mats, resources, reset the planets, delete all constructs, start all players back at the arkship.
 
Potentially allow people to keep blueprints so that all the design time that's gone into those isn't lost, but that's it.

So, I quite like this change, but it's absolutely not something that can be injected into the game in the state it is.

There is little enough for players to do in the game at the moment. This will make building constructs significantly harder for people, taking that activity out of reach of many. That leaves us mining, and flying around in space shooting at other ships. With little to no reason to engage in the latter.

If this is something that's going to work, it needs the whole game to be on board.
 
Atmospheric combat, not just space Incentive to engage in combat (strategic benefit to holding certain areas such as fighting over resources) Resource sinks such as power to make sure that, once up and running, there's an ongoing cost to running a factory other than feeding it mats. And most crucially...
A full, comprehensive wipe. Skills, mats, resources, reset the planets, delete all constructs, start all players back at the arkship.
 
Potentially allow people to keep blueprints so that all the design time that's gone into those isn't lost, but that's it.

Given the comments on implementing a replacement tool for swapping engines etc in without having to re-do all the links etc. Will this tool also allow replacement of existing industry units for the new higher tier variants?

Given the comments on implementing a replacement tool for swapping engines etc in without having to re-do all the links etc. Will this tool also allow replacement of existing industry units for the new higher tier variants?

....and if it were - that would NOT be a good thing!
 
Alright, this is something that's been bothering me for some time from JCs interviews - and yesterday's Easter Egg interview pushed me over the edge to where I really have to say something...
 
First and foremost - lets face the reality that Ready Player One would be a horrible game for most people nor would the events of the book be enjoyable for the majority of the player base.
 
If you're looking at your game and going "Hey look it's just like RPO!" - what I hear is "Look just a handful of no lifers got to have all the fun!". That IS the plot of RPO. A tiny group of players who take the game WAY WAY WAY WAY too seriously get to enjoy the content while the rest may as well not exist.
 
The puzzle fit this perfectly. A tiny group of players with tons of NDA covered information going back to pre-alpha solve a puzzle while the rest of the community doesn't even know it exists. Yup  - very RPO.
 
JC - The takeaway from the puzzle event should not be that "Look it was just like RPO! I did a good job!" - it should be that "The event was a complete failure and did not involve the majority of the community in a meaningful way, and was solved largely due to a bug and alpha knowledge that was not available to the bulk of the community."
 
Please please please for the sake of DU - stop trying to make this game like a fictional book about a fictional game. You need to take a serious look at how other games have done community events and have managed to involve much larger groups of players. Everything from opening the gates of Ahn'Qiraj to the Elite Dangerous Alien events - yes they were flawed in their own ways - but by and large involved more people.
 
 
Finally, this doesn't just cover events. The general game mechanics cannot be based on the mindset "Just like RPO!" - because I repeat - RPO would be a horrible game. In fact, I would go as far as saying if you are looking at any upcoming part of the game like AvA or Territory Warfare or Atmospheric combat and can say "This is just like RPO!" - then it probably needs to be reworked to NOT be like RPO but to be like an actual game that would be fun for more people.
 
Once again - face reality - RPO was a no life simulator where only the no lifers mattered.
 
This means designing things in consideration of players who are not willing to play DU 16 hours a day - and entire teams of such players.
 
Players are not going to want to spend hours waiting for an attack on a territory to man the manual guns because you refuse to consider automatic defenses.
 
Players are not going to want to fly dedicated gunners or escorts for every single hauler just because they may get attacked.
 
Players are not going to want to sit in their ship for hours watching the radar while their orgmates mine out an asteroid.
 
I could go on and on, but the core point is that the game mechanics need to be designed around giving people who do not no life the game a chance to have fun and stand a chance in pvp vs those that do.

"But Why?"
 
That question, right there, is the crux of it. Yes, the game has significant issues in a lot of ways, but for me none are more significant than the lack of reasons for players to interact.

As it stands, you can mine to get mats, build industry to make things, make ships from those things, and then go fighting. You can do any one of those stages and sell your stuff on to people who want to do the next stage.

But there is no reason to fight, as fighting is space only, and there is nothing in space to fight over. Safe space has everything you need, without risk, so there's no point going out into PvP space unless you want to go for a fight, and sadly combat is not a satisfying experience in and of itself.

Without people losing ships or equipment, the demand for new ships is minimal, which affects the builders. The builders have no customers, which means they don't interact with the industrialists, who don't interact with the miners.

Just one example, but it follows through for the rest of the game. You cant be a trader when no-one's buying goods, etc etc.

I'm really glad you asked this, as a new player. My org had a big influx of players as Beta launched, and nearly all of them have since unsubscribed, as there is nothing meaningful for them to do now that we've got everything established, so you're far from alone in thinking it.

There really is a lot of potential in this game, which is why I've been playing it, but I must admit to asking myself that same "But Why?" question a lot of late, and I really don't like that.

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?
 
 

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.

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.

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.

^^ 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)

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?
 
 

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.