Fitorion
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Fitorion
-
-
I remember something about a build mode... where you're in a safe place where you can tinker and test your designs a little... Basically just their interactive parts or their flight characteristics. I haven't heard anything suggesting there would be any sort of targets to test weapons on in such a build mode... But that could be something added later. Highly unlikely they'll have NPCs though.
-
shifting early game activities.
At the start mining will probably be a high priority...
But after the game has been out for a while ... and a lot has been mined and the easy close in deposits have been harvested... Mining probably won't be as important for a new player to engage in right away.
So what will the early game be for a new player be later on?
I'm not sure.
I imagine there will be guilds actively recruiting... And the starting area will be built up with market interfaces, storehouses and space ports... player housing and org headquarters.
If player made quests are a thing then a new player could take on some of those to make some cash.
Depending on how much cash a player starts with and how the player economy pans out... they may be able get out fitted with a beginner ship by purchasing it on the markets or not. Heck new players could have some sort of voucher that enables them to purchase something that contains a certain amount of resources. So the seller gets market value... and the new player can always afford a basic ship...
I'm hopeful there will be sufficient mechanics in place for player made quests... missions... politics... factions... for players to effectively take over the rolls that the NPCs and story would in a non sand box game.
-
some sort of on screen indication of who's talking could be helpful... Especially if you can assign local temporary labels... like say rank on a ship which is separate and distinct from guild rank and only applicable while you're on the ship. Or I guess doing something associated to it... like picking up the cargo or something.
-
P2W is paying to gain an advantage that another could not achieve through other means. The second part is important.
I could see a slight modification to the second part... like say "that another could not achieve or would require such an onerous set of tasks as to be essentially impossible through other means."
But if one makes that alteration the definition of what an "onerous set of tasks" is comes into debate... and can be whittled down to just anything anyone doesn't want to do... rather than a particularly unpleasant and long thing.
Under some interpretations DAC may be slightly pay to win... But the question I have is... Is that too bad of a thing that it offsets the benefits? After all no game is devoid of pay to gain advantage options... even those who actively try to ban them... people still pay third parties and risk either being banned or having their accounts hacked. Free people will exercise their freedom and rebel against efforts to restrict them. The only way to exercise any semblance of control and maintain stability is to provide a structure in which the activities those playing want to engage in can be engaged in.
-
meh. I don't see a point in being a part of any org prior to release.
This isn't to say that others can't or don't have good reasons... just that I don't.
I don't have any idea really what activity I'm going to most enjoy doing or what will need an org to help organize it... Until I actually get to play the game. I don't know what will actually be a viable play style... if say a person could never leave a town... provide crafting services... sell wares... and issue quests for crafting components... and whether doing that would be fun. Or if I'll find a loner asteroid miner or other such thing more to my liking.
I expect most orgs made now won't survive long. The only thing I think could have some value (for me) would be some sort of pre-release social club that closed to new membership after release... except for adding your alts... so people who have been around from the beginning could hang with each other.
I'm an alt-aholic in most games. I make characters with certain character traits in mind... even if I don't partake in any overt role-playing... There is an element of role play in every character I make... they aren't me. And I tend to split my time between them evenly... I'm not sure if I can do that in this game. And the idea of having a main character... a representation of me for the long term... the years it may take for the civilization within the game to grow and expand ... for my character to stick around in an org... is sorta weird to me.
But the Op was taking about artificially inflating your organizations membership numbers in order to attract members... Yeah that's clearly something you shouldn't do.
-
this isn't primarily a space exploration game... it's a civilization building game. While it's set in a scifi setting and some exploration is necessary to expand to new territory for the civilization to grow... If you're expecting a free roaming space exploration game... you'll be disappointed.
-
Depends how hard interstellar travel is... how many methods there are and how long each takes... And the game ceases to function if people spread out too much too quickly.
The corporations and services and PvP require other players to be around... or they have no purpose. I hope it's a full year before players working together unlock the technology and then construct a way for people to get from one system to another. And then it takes very nearly as long in the new system to build the necessary infrastructure to allow further expansion. But exactly how long it takes and how they limit our expansion is speculation at this point and a matter of balance they will have to consider carefully.
-
I want a tidally locked planet with Desert on the side facing the local sun, a temperate ring at the terminator, and frozen icescape on the side facing out to space.
I don't think there should be single biome worlds... except maybe at the extremes. Like Desert or Ice or Water planet. If a planet can have more temperate biomes like plains, forest, and the like... then it should also have deserts and iced over poles...
In Star Wars there's single biome planets... and a lot of scifi actually... but it isn't very realistic. Mars has different biomes... cold desert and perma frost like areas and iced over poles... In the Star Wars expanded universe books and games before it all got dumped... they actually explained why so many planets have a single biome. Habitable worlds were rare... and in ancient times... long before humans became prevalent in the galaxy a race of beings used technology to seed worlds with life and maintain good climates. Overtime some have malfunctioned... turning Tatooine into a desert instead of the jungle it's supposed to be... and making the trees of Kashyyk grow to monstrous proportions.
If this game is to have single biome worlds... which is just plain easier to code... then I'd like to see some sort of recognition that it's odd... and some sort of lore hints as to why it's that way.
-
First you need to restructure how you're thinking about the game.
Unless something has changed... they're still planning on it taking months from release for us as a community to get off the first planet. To begin moving through space to the other planets in the first system... and then who knows how long before interstellar travel becomes available.
So this isn't a free roaming space exploration game where you can be alone on a planet... at least not for very long. Maybe 5-10 years down the road someone might be able to get themselves lost on a world the rest of the game population isn't actively using... but I expect there will be lots of people around for a long time by virtue of how the game systems for travel will be designed to function.
Namely that we won't be able to scatter to the corners of the universe right from the start and will have to work together to build transportation capability.
-
Some simple things too such as different belts shoes etc, scarfs, shoulder plates alot of this would be nice.
Though mesh creation would be amazing i don't think Devs would appreciate it as some people could just mesh out giant dicks on their chest and troll people. there would have to be sizeable limits to mesh creation.
I'd like to see a full web portal with terms of service... where people could submit equipment... gear... clothes... ship parts... any and all meshs of anything and everything it's possible to imagine within the terms of service. Such submissions could be voted up or down by the community and reported for terms of service violations. Then the devs could ... say once a month... take the top 10 or something and import them into the game. If done right this could significantly reduce their work load and enable the large depth and breadth of itemization of long established games much much faster.
-
1) Ignorant : That's you. There's a rreason the word Static means Immobile and dynamic meaning "able to apply forces and have forces be applied on". You thin kthere would be two Core Units, that didn't serve different purposes? On the Kickstarter video they explain it on ships "Core Units deploy a voxel grid, that telsl the planet these voxels can move freely off of it". You still confuse "inert object" with "immune to forces object". If it was so easy to anchor an object in the game, the Devs would not need more time to deploy an anchoring mechanic in the game.
2) You are Ignorant and Inconstistent : You can't have mass and inertia and then say "but ignore mass and inertia when I am sleeping". Also, if I land a cup-shaped ship over your ship in a safezone, I go offline and I get to keep you prisoner FOREVER. I do not break any game mechanics. I just landed my ship where I wanted to. Oh, you want out? How about you pay 1 billion spacebucks to get out of it? OH you don't got it, tough luck, I got 100 more Cup-shaped ship-prisons to look after (and you can't do anything about it in your world of powered down ships are Mjolnir" ).
3) A Breaching Pod, works by plunging itself on a ship's hull. A Pod with guns, it's just a Boarding Pod with guns . If you think a peashooter will break through a battleship's armor, you are way too dellusional Yeah, do try to pierce a battleship's armor with your .50 Cal machinegun, I am pretty sure that will work in your world of magic and ships of infinite weight.
4) Guess who's gonna wait for you in a straight line. Me. I am here to make people's lives a pain. I am the game's difficulty level. I am the pirate. You want to avoid me? Get in an asteroid field, and zoom around tight corners to avoid being grappled and, well, be turned into a salt mine. In fact, I don't even need to grapple you, I will bounce on you until you stop entirely and just board and torment you with "oh, nice stuff you got there for me". Oh, and pirates work in swarms, so we can tackle you completely. If only collisions prevented massive tacklings and piling tactics. I guess spaceshisp are cars. We can use the same trick as police cruisers to tackle a suspect's vehicle. LEL.
5) Check your e-mail, Kickstarter updates They explain about that in the CvC e-mail. You are, as it seems, misinformed on the subject. Also, I rephrase 1), you are Ignorant and not well versed in english. An emulation, is not a simulation I said EMULATION. EMULATION. Get it? Let me say it again , EMULATION. You get it now? No? Let me say it again. EMULATION, not a SIMULATION. Call of Duty? That's SIMULATION. EVE Online? EMULATION.
Get it? No? Emulations use mathematics to determine periodacal occurances of events. Code-Peasants use the "roll a dice" parabole for code, but since I am not a code peasant, I won't pretend as if luck is an actual thing.
Learn math, then come back and discuss this subject. Also, check what you quoted off of me, I do state "emulate" and "emulation" in it. I never said Simulation, which you, the code peasant, actually think of as physical projectile phyiscs, which are emulations.
Simulations = much more complex
Emulations = statistics based, thus, coming down to a formula.
6) Easy to use exhibit A : AWSD movements, combined with QE for yaw and ZXC for dive and pivot.
Hard to master : Latent motion, transversal speeds and stellar geometries.
What you want, is not the above. Too bad, this flight model actually needs you to be concentrated and not just "pew-pew" at a target.
Also.. you seem to have missed also the news on Protection Bubbles and Shields. They, in fact, can prevent ships from entering. Nobody will drive a Super-Mega-Galactic-Destroyer (or whatever the redonkulous ships the Empire has are cllaed) in a space station. The Protection Bubble will prevent that (or the shield, it's yet unkown what's the difference between those two's properties). If you were to collide with a Protection Bubble, chances are you would pop your ship, no matter how strong it is, unless of course, it's not the case, in which case we get battery-ram ships.
Thing is, without complexities like collisions in the game, piloting becomes a taxi driver's job, rather than something extremely challenging and fascinating. It's becomes a chore.
In EVE, people who are granted Titans by their corporations, are pilots who know how to play the game well. Nobody will give a nooblord a Titan, those babies cost a lot. Same merit should be taken into account for DU. You want your org to give you a battlseship navigators position? You better prove to be a good pilot, that means not being shot out of the sky on every star-fighter you ever go, then working up the ladder, being given a frigate's driver seat, then a cruiser's, then a battlecruiser etc.
You can't have a frame of referrence for a navigator to be judged upon their flight skills, if collision damages do not exist (since we know lateral motion and transversal speeds are indeed a thing).
As I said before, some people are too short-sighted to see that one aspect of a sandbox game, affects the whole game You see collision damage and say "i want to nose-dive a planet and land just fine", I see it and say "we need no auto-pilots for flight assiastnace, engineerig becomes dull and a press A B or C quick-time event gameplay, and ship-building doesn't take into account arrow-shapes for ships, in order for any possible collision between the ship and another vessel, leading to a grazing contact, which means lesser overload (in my suggestion of a collision model)".
See? In my suggestion, even the shape of the ship plays a role in the game now. In yours, I can build a ship shaped like a cup and just troll people until they hand me the ransom I want. Not to mention, Johhny Malarchy can just build ugly blocky ships and not be at a disadvantage.
You are delusional. Making up stuff you want to be in the game which hasn't been announced. Twisting words to your liking and arguing against things I haven't said. And you cast insults at anyone who disagrees with you.
When you return to being rational I'll discuss game systems with you. Until then bye.
-
1) There are two kinds of Core Units in the game, Static and Dynamic Cores. Dymanic Cores can be moved, Static Cores cannot. Dynamic Cores are the blue ones.
2) When a ship is inert, it means there's no person with tags that can power the ship on, it doesn't mean the ship can't be moved. Immobilisation, compelete and total, is in the realm of Static Cores. Your idea? Works both ways. I can place a giant cup-ship aroudn your ship in the safezone and laugh as you whine for days on the forums about it. What? What??? Will the Devs be babysitters for this kind of thing? No. So yeah, Dynamic Core Units can be moved off of a planet, either the user moving them via naivgation, or somone budging them over. Also, since you missed said memo, the devs want to have mass and inertia (massive ships need more engines). I guess in your version of the game, my tini-tiny star-fighter is Mjolnir. Not even a battleship can nudge it aside.
3) Breach Pods that cannot breach, are not breaching pods. Doing damage, to open up a hole on a ship's armor and hull, to get a pod through, doesn't make this Pod a Breaching Pod, it makes it a Boarding Pod. Nuff said
4) We need collision damage, because otherwise Autopilots are obsolete and anyone can replicate them by taping down the W key on their keyboard and going afk. What? You won't need to adjust your course. Asteroid field? Who cares, you can bounce off of asteroids with Mjolnir, the magical star-fighter.
5) Piloting needs to be complex, it should take skill. If you didn't get the memo, the game utilises geometry in order to emulate calculations on glancing blows, which have to do with the orientation and the transversal speed of the ship, with the turrets locking onto another ship and getting data referrences as of the enemy ship's orientantion and transversal speed. And before any code peasant here says "But that cannot happen, it's impossible", EVE does this trick since 2003. They even got calculations for bullet based weaponry on when to take into account a "smashing hit", by virtue of slingshot trajectory emulations ( how is that achieved? Learn matha nd find out
). This ? This requires a pilot to know a thing or two about geometry in order to be effective. You want a simple piloting skill? You want to not have to know what kind of speed your weapon's projetiles have and have in order to get a maximum hit chance on the enemy given their distance? You don't want to have to build elaborate autopilots that adjust a star-fighter's speed and orientation to its target's in order for the emulation to find the two star-fighters at rest (look up what's "rest" in physics)? Then DU's flight mechanics won't be fun to you, it's THAT simple.6) VTOL? VTOL works in very light-weight vehicles. I know this may sound crazy, but jet-planes do not weigh as much as a shutttle, and since DU is definitely not Star Citizen's WW2 planes in space, and actual space-flight engines are needed to take off a world, it's safe to assume you need to have powerful thrusters to take off a planet. Which also means, no magical space-brakes This game is a sandbox. You can't have mining / sanning / building be a difficult thing to do master, and have flight controls be easy. It doesn't work that way.
You may say "but this is a game, it's not meant to be difficult". Guess what, JC Baillie has said many times over, this game is going to be complex AND difficult.
To reiterate, I do not want voxel collision damage, I want an overloading core mechanism that makes said power cores / capacitors overload when a ship collides with an object, which incidentally, doesn't overload the server with calculations on each individual voxel as of traditional collision models It's a compromise that spills into many different game aspects. If you seen Rogue One, the third act of the movie, about 20 minutes from the end, is why we need collisino damage.
1. Irrelavent
2. if you land in someone else's building zone they could build over top of you yes. I see no reason to prevent that. In fact It could be quite useful if someone doesn't pay their landing pad rental fee... No where does anything I've said contradict mass and inertia while ships are being flown. Small ship flying to a large ship is hardly going to effect the larger ship and the little ship will bounce right off. Big ship will plow right through little ships being flown around it.
3. can you read? apparently not since you ignore where I mention the pod using weapons to open a hole in a ship.
4. Space is mostly Empty. That's why it's called space... The planets will not be moving in orbits. The stars probably won't either. So yeah you could just go in a straight line in a lot of cases. However if you did fly into an area highly populated with objects you would bounce around and end up pointing completely the wrong direction to where you intended to go. Not to mention you'd be extremely vulnerable to attack while you're afk... with your craft in flight mode.
5. Cite a source. because Nothing you've said here has been said to be in the game by any dev I'm aware of. In Fact it's quite the opposite. They've said that projectiles will not at all be physically simulated.
6. So what? You need powerful engines for large ships... No duh. What is your point exactly? Complexity does not mean difficult and easy does not mean it isn't complex. Game systems of good successful games are easy to use but difficult to master. But simple mobility in a game should not be. The simple things should be simple... like flying from point A to B and landing or taking off... Where piloting skill should be on display is combat. Not moving boxes around a cargo bay. This game is not a Physics Sim.
As for Rouge One... The Devs specifically cite large scale collisions and the mass destruction they can cause as the reason they don't want collision damage in game. I completely get why you want it though. The visuals of massive objects colliding and exploding are awesome. I find them just as awesome but I recognize how much it would suck to have a city or large space station destroyed with out any of the players in said city or station having any agency to prevent it. And a massive object being able to be driven into another object such that they explode is that.
-
As I understand it... when you land a ship/exit it/stop controlling it/deactivate its core (all ways of phrasing the same idea) it becomes a static object like a building or space station.
If parked in a safe area either player made or at the ark ship then any thing colliding with it would simply bounce off just as shown in Dev videos with ships bouncing off the ground. If not in a safe area ships would still bounce but then you'd be subject to a player getting out of their ship and using their hand weapons on your ship (at launch) and their ship weapons on you when ever they add ship combat weapons.
If 2 ships which were under control/ in flight mode or whatever you want to call it... then when they bump into each other the impact could effect both vehicles flight paths.
This is as it is currently and is my understanding of the interviews and descriptions of game systems I've seen thus far. Subject to change... game in development... yadda yadda disclaimer.
I don't think breaching pods would be too hard... All you really need is a way to attach your craft to the craft you want to breach... Then just open your door and use hand weapons... or a ship to ship weapon when they add those...
Couple of potential scenarios:
1. You've done enough damage to deactivate the core... the target ship is now dead in space... no different from a static space station or asteroid which don't move... just pop on over ... zero difficulty.
2. Your main ship or fleet of ships use some sort of tractor beam to immobilize the target ship. Requires coordination and team work... moderately difficult
3. Your breaching pod just has to be fast enough to catch and latch on to a ship. Not sure how difficult this would be... could be pretty easy and could be very very hard.
I don't think we really need collision damage... Landing speed really doesn't concern me. I don't think piloting a ship should be too much of a skill... A little more control than No Mans Sky but not Elite Dangerous levels... And you could limit speeds around massive objects like planets, asteroids, or really big stations... call it interference with the engine drive system or something. Plenty of lore friendly ways to explain such a thing. Now don't get me wrong... I do love Higher simulation games. The first time I docked two craft together in Kerbal Space Program was a 3 hour nerve wracking and extremely satisfying ordeal. I am better at it now but I'll never be 100% confident I won't knock off solar panels... So I save before hand... retract panels and come in very cautiously... slowly... and methodically. Which isn't the type of Game play I and most people would want from DU.
How would I like DU landing to work? VTOL. Vertical Take Off and Landing. I'd like to come into a planet... building... carrier type ship... whatever and hover above what ever surface my down facing radar detects... I'd like to select a hover altitude from my ship computer... or shift to raise and ctrl to lower. use wasd and maybe q and e to shift around and rotate my craft just the way I want then lower myself until contact. Simple. No velocities to cancel. And heck if I don't care about the precise orientation and position the good old No Man's Sky style press button to land or take off works plenty well for landing on and exploring planets.
-
Might this be the inability to restrict access to non-members (lack of guns/PvP and no door locks)? It would be fine for trade ports, not so good for headquarters due to infiltration.
I am sure there will be organisation embassies on Alioth and other natural safe zones that give you safe areas to interact with others and sign on to an org. In my mind, headquarters are there to be the most secure facility you own (hence why mine will be a cloaked capital ship that hangs out in the dark space between planets or on a system's outer edge). Whether the HQ is also your main munitions dump or your main shipyard/dock is up to the org themselves.
Depending on how permissions work... what permissions are available to work in safe zones and outside... it could also prevent such safe zones being used as warehouse space... Which I'm ambivalent about.
A trade hub needs materials to trade... and the ability to store them... If you limit just how much can be stored then shipments from an Org warehouse to the trade hub would have to occur... the warehouse itself and the shipments would be vulnerable to attack. An org might elect to set up their own... "outlet store" at their warehouse where they can concentrate their forces to guard everything... This could reduce the viability of the safe zone as a trade hub. However there is some inherent value to shopping in an area where your fellow shopper can't just shoot up the place.
What I'm saying is that it will take some careful balancing work.
-
On the one hand ... I think it should be different for every planet. Axis of rotation different as well... even planets that are tidally locked so one side is always facing their local Star...
I think that'd be cool and interesting and give unique flavor to the planets.
But I can also see how that could be confusing...
if they do the above then there could be large ranges in how long a day/night cycle is or even if one exists... Planets are smaller than IRL Earth... and travel is way faster than anything we have IRL... So I don't mind at all if day/night cycles are really long as I can just fly to what ever part of the planet has light or darkness as I see fit... Really short cycles as are in quite a few space games ... if they're ubiquitous would annoy me. But if a random planet just spins really fast and so has short day/night cycles then that's just an interesting environment to encounter.
Last I heard they were still uncertain if they'll be able to get planets to rotate at all... They certainly won't be moving in orbits... So what I'm asking for is a bit more complex than anything that's been talked about... But I really hope they get planets rotating. If they don't then they're going to have to have the sun for each system move... which will mean every planet in a system will have the same length day/night cycle. And if that's the case ... at least for the first system... I'd like the day/night cycle to be a full real time 24 hour cycle.
I'd love to see a planet that's tidally locked... with desert on the side facing the sun... frozen wasteland on the side facing away... and temperate zone in a ring in the twilight zone at the terminator between day and night.
Planets rotating on their side so one of the poles of the axis of rotation is pointing at the sun so the sun just makes a circle in the sky with every rotation of the planet... such a planet would have to orbit the sun to have a day/night cycle... as one pole and then the other pointed at the sun during the year... I'm having a hard time imagining the code that would be needed to precess the axis of rotation with the planet in place...
But I guess you would need to precess the axis of rotation in place of all the planets if you want them to have seasons... again because you aren't having them orbit.
-
1. There's no Collision Damage. In interviews all over the place they specifically call out the idea of making a ship to ram another ship and how they will not allow that to be possible. Ships simply bounce off each other without doing any damage.
2. Safe zones exist. Safe zones can be created by players and will last as long as said player maintains them. So safe trading spaces can be set up for a price. If you don't have a safe zone set up then you are vulnerable... which is a reason for you to join an organization so they can protect your stuff while you're offline.
3. Resource depletion is necessary to drive population to move out and explore. As the area near you gets depleted you must travel farther out to find resources and new settlements to trade in goods will have to be constructed and protected... This is the Game Play of the game. It's how real civilizations grow and it's how civilization will grow in the game as well.
At the launch of the game ... unless something has changed... ship to ship combat will not exist. The only combat will be on the ground person to person. Eventually they'll add ship to ship... but the point is at the start the potential for mass destruction is limited. If they do get Ship to Ship combat in then safe zones will be very important and drive people together to form communities.
Everyone being spread evenly over a planet... solo... building by themselves... not interacting with anyone else is a bad thing. Combat... resource depletion and costly to maintain safe zones are mechanics to drive people together and will be what makes this game work.
-
My take is the voxel/LUA/DPU aspect is huge in the game, turning the creation process almost entirely in the players' hands. That's huge.
Another is crewed ships in an MMO. I mean, look at EVE. Those 1,000 ship battles are only possible because a single player flies even the largest ships in the game. Requiring 50-100 players for a corvette brings that down by a factor of 50 at least. How many will be required for a cruiser or battleship?? Will there be a minimum crew setting much like a bridge crew? I'm thinking with LUA scripting and DPU architecture essential crew can be defined by the players as designers, but the numbers may come from the maintenance rather than actual manning. Still, manning a battleship with 10 people to operate effectively is 10 more than 1(analogy being EVE).
Survival in battle may be dependent on how well the crew responds to damage control should weapons not naturally overwhelm defenses. How destructive weaponry is on structures will be important in figuring some of this out. Will space battles be long drawn out affairs to allow for responses to damage and more opportunity to save very expensive property, or will battles conclude in a few minutes' time?
All this will impact the market as well...
Lastly, when a player goes offline the ship remains on the grid. Now if you can put a 48hr shield on it, then you're good as long as you or someone you know can get back online and reset it. Still, persistent structures will be ripe for destruction to anyone who tarries offline for longer than a couple days.
Mind you these are observations and born out of fascination of where this game may be going. Looking forward to it!
I sure as heck hope the 48 hours shield timer is not meant for low powergrid ships, because people won't even bother docking up in ststations. Now, a battleship SHOULD have such a defense on it but it als oshould have a fuel cost.
Now, 48 hours for a safezone (not a protection bubble, AKA, a player-made safezone) would make sense, as a safezone could be the Citadel of a star system, the last fortress so to speak.
Pretty sure the 48 hour shield referenced is the player made "safe zone" for structures. I don't think any combat ships should have it. Space stations should though... so your combat ships can dock there while people log off. But then if we can have spawn points in our ships... that might not be needed as people could log in and take over for those logging off without it mattering where the ship is.
-
To add on to my previous comment,kurock had a good idea to spice up the mining the problem with "grain" mining is that i believe it would be too much to rework the mechanics of the game with grains and while it would be a fun idea i believe my idea of light medium and heavy materials is more practical and an easier solution to implement until the game has the capability to create more complex mining mechanics such as grains.
I agree with this, it makes more sense to add something like ore quality or density into the mix than some sort of directional calculations.
well... yeah... but just doing that still seems a little too simple to me. Not engaging enough. If we could combine it with some sort of hazard... explosive pockets or even false materials... So you have to pay attention... work around obstacles...
I don't know what the best solution is. I just want mining to be enjoyable as well as profitable.
-
I think it is not so bad to dig by hand, it gives the game the time to send and receive the data. Maybe there are hidden shortcuts in the tools that you have to master. Or maybe you can buy extra things with DACs. I will start it slow to understand and master the tools.
the problem isn't so much the speed... it's the monotony.
Most of the suggestions in this thread aren't about speeding mining up but about making it entertaining and intellectually engaging. Doing that may actually slow down mining...
-
I haven't back peddled anything... and you apparently don't know what a strawman argument is. And I gave you the link. That's the entirety of it.
There isn't collision damage in the game at present and they don't think they'll be adding it. This is fact. There's the video with the Devs saying precisely that. The game is under development so they can change their mind if they find a way that works for them... But nothing is guaranteed.
So lets see... I stated there's no collision damage which is a known fact. And referenced our mutual speculation on how moving ships such as carriers might work.
You said that would prevent Space stations from working.
I thought you were referring to the speculation on moving ships.
So I responded that I don't see how it would.
Then you went off about collision...
This made me think that you thought I was saying there's no collision... which isn't what I said... and how anyone could think that is still a mystery to me.
So I then told you that's not what I meant...
And now you're getting all emotional over absolutely nothing as far as I can tell.
We seem to be talking past each other and I don't know how to get us on the same page.
-
I only entered a first name for both my first and second choice. I too saw nothing in the survey to indicate a last name was needed or even allowed.
-
I don't got the patience, nor it's my responsibility to explain to you what a localised physics grid is.
The station won't orbit the planet, it will be stationary, IF it is built off of a planet's physics' grid.
Also, you seem to openly disregard my points above on how the Devs treat constructs when players are offline. That's called trolling, a perpetuating discussion until the other party exasperates off of the discussion.
As I did reply to the OP some posts ago, when a player is not online, their constructs (ships using dynamic cores) are stable and immobile. No clip, is collision without transfer of energy in a physics grid. What the Devs go for, is collisino that transfers energy but doesn't cause damage. Think of these ships in DU, as billiard balls when colliding, only a battleship won't be moved by a star-fighter, because mass + acceleration = more weight. And yes, they wouldn't bother with having center of mass (the reason engines nees proper placement on a ship) and they would not bother withh collision at all. That being said, when you are offline, you are immobile. They can only try to bust your ship open if it's not in a safe-zone and hack it or what-not. And chances are, player-made protection bubbles will have RDMS powers as of who is allowed to fly a ship in them, so it's okay.
Collision damage is costly to simulate in a server, not collisions in general. And if the Devs make ships explode or reactors overloading from sudden deccelerations, you can bet that collision damage will be in the game, just not in the "car-wreck" idea of it, but more like water-baloons colliding, only if the mass differential is great and / or the speed in which some ships collided is high, they explode. Because, you know, theer's no point of having atmospheric engines for shuttles as the Devs want there to be, without an actual danger of crash-landing. And since collision dmaage won't be happening via the simulated way, you can bet there could be an overloading mechanism on collisions, which is way way way cheaper to calculate and unlike traditional collision damage, it can be countered by engineers cooling down the reactor(s).
Also, there are two types of Core Units for constucts, Dynamic and Static. Dynamic Core Units are meant for ships and vehicles in general, but Static are meant for buildings. I'll let you figure out the insinuation between those two.
Anchoring is a thing from EVE. Essentially, you can build something in space as if you were playing a real-time strategy game. So, you can build a space-station, copy it in a blueprint or more, then go to a place in space and start building it there via factory ships feeding the construction process with materials.
Even further than that, the static ships you mention, are there because the Devs have not integrated the full extend of the physics grid ... as it's in pre-alpha stage after all, their main focus is getting the server-tech going smoothly, then integrating the gameplay aspects.
Now you know more.
You still seem confused. As evidenced by the fact you are saying what I said and thinking you have to explain what I clearly already described. You seem to think I've said something contrary when in fact we've said the same thing and are in agreement. You're getting emotional about it to... Starting to cast insults against someone who agrees with you.
Though you are entering the realm of speculation when you go into things exploding... That clearly isn't in the game yet. In the video JC collides with the ground and just bounces off it. He clearly states that they don't want people making kinetic kill vehicles... which means to me that collision damage either won't ever be in the game or will be very carefully implemented so no damage is done to the person on the receiving end of such a collision. The simulation requirements don't enter into this. It's a game design decision.
-
So, you have no link on what you claim, no idea what you talk about and you just made things up. Cool.
You see those ships that touch the ground? That's when you logic became faulty, since the game engine doesn't disambiguate between planet, ship and bilding, to it, all of them are voxel constructs. If they had collision damage, those voxel entities would possibly damage each other, but since there is none, they do not. Also, please feel free to google "localised physics grid".
My hopes and dreams are apparently 3D tech developed in the 90s and utilised since the dawn of MMOs like Everquest, so people do not fall thhrough the ground. Also, GamerGate... no wait, referrecing some important gaming related thing doesn't inject my arguement with gravitas.
Talk about game features, like interstellar empires, that's "peoples unreaonable hopes and dreams" that is remotely close to your claims of No Man's Sky. What I'm talking about is actual 3D technology, that has its roots to SPACE INVADERS, Pinball videogames and even Pacman. But nah, Pacman was made by mystics in Mt. Fuji, that's why it does what it does.
But I guess I am projecting what I want onto what is in this discssion. What is this discussion, is a dead horse you keep beating... with a spoon.
Cheers. Enjoy being utterly wrong about your utterly mistaken opinions (in which you lack any form of video link as proof).
Here's static buildings
If they get planets to rotate... One of my question would be will the space station rotate with it... always hanging above the same spot on the planet or will it stay stationary so you can see the planet rotate bellow you?
He also mentions no collision damage. You seem to be confused... No collision damage doesn't mean no collision... doesn't mean things pass through each other. It's not No Clip. But it also doesn't mean that colliding will move another object. So you can't push things around. ... well not things that aren't made to fly... and which aren't being used to fly at the moment. I expect that if you're flying around next to another person flying and you bump into them you could push them. I expect that any landed ship... building... or space station not currently being moved via its own engines will be immovable. So no one can do like the OP suggests.
Also here's a thread you participated in... in which we speculate on how transport ships could work. https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/10319-transporting-constructs/
-
how so? Doesn't prevent them in any way I can see.
Don't project what you want onto what is. We have what they've shown us and nothing more. People projecting their hopes and dreams onto something and then being presented with the reality that was always there but they refused to see is how we got No Man's Sky.
Planets running out of resources?
in General Discussions
Posted
What do you do when you start in a theme park MMO?
I join a faction... and go around talking to NPCs about the various rolls... and then choose one.
The goal is for Players to fill that structure themselves. So you'll enter the game and research which large Org to join... and then you'll talk to people to find a roll you enjoy and are given tasks to teach you how to do it and which are beneficial to the org as a whole. One Roll could be mining. Another could be shipping... or loading cargo... or lua scripting... or building...
The point is to make a virtual world where people can function is as many different ways as they do in real life. And real life like pressures that keep people grouped up will have to be used. Fuel cost... tech limitations... time to travel and cargo capacity... and yes finite resources are needed to make the world as dynamic and changing as desired.