Jump to content

TranquilClaws

Member
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TranquilClaws

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. There are two kinds of subscriptions which I can think of off the top of my head. Monthly subscriptions and hourly subscriptions. The difference is as follows. Monthly subscriptions last for a duration of months after their activation and constantly count down regardless of whether or not the player is online. Hourly subscriptions pay directly for the hours a player can be online, which can be used whenever the player wishes, meaning that you are directly paying for the time you are online. The inclusion of both would be very beneficial for creating freedom in choice for purchasing time to play the game. The major difference is that monthly is often cheaper, but doesn't account for players who rarely get on or who get on extremely often, resulting in a less predictable load on the servers. With the hourly system, players directly pay for the time they will be using up server resources, which is more precise and can be saved for when they want to play. As someone who often plays something a lot but in short bursts, I would prefer the hourly subscription.
  2. Eh, I was thinking from a game play standpoint. The idea was to ask if people thought these things would be "fun" to use.
  3. I would be okay with a system of payment that isn't so constricted by time. I would never be willing to pay on a monthly basis. The constraint of only being able to get online for a month is suffocating. So why not replace that model with a similar one that is essentially buying hours to play the game, so that it is still a subscription, but instead of being pressured to play the game as much as possible, one could decide that the game in it's current state just doesn't suit them and would rather wait a while and save the hours they bought until a later time when the person actually wants to play. I personally find this beneficial in that it gives the player freedom to play when they want to play and not be "forced" into playing the game. This was something I absolutely hated about the free trial for EVE Online. It was timed. The game still gets a constant stream of income, since the player will eventually run out of hours and have to pay for more.
  4. The problem with ark weapons is that electrical currents caused by lightning only travel along the outside of surfaces that they touch. Basically they just don't harm ships in space, however I could see them being added as an anti-infantry weapon and for overloading energized armor. The other problem with them is the immense energy requirements, but hey it's Sci-fi so who cares. Tesla weapons are now on the list.
  5. Here are all the things I'd like to see on the battlefields of Dual Universe, whether in space or at your base. -Weapons- Cannons Lasers Missiles Mines Flak Electromagnetic Pulses (including ion cannons) Railguns Plasma Rockets Corrosive Cryo Bombs Tesla -Defenses- Solid Armor Reactive Armor Magnetic Shielding Energized Armor Deflector Shields Absorbing Shields Stealth Self Mending Armor -Mechanics- Cannons require ammo and are versatile yet slightly less powerful than more specialized weapons, coming in all shapes and sizes from automatic rifle caliber guns to large mortars Lasers require a constant input of energy and deal scaled damage over time with energy consumption, distance from the target lessens the effectiveness of the laser and absorbing shields will almost completely nullify it, however any light craft will be devastated by lasers Missiles require more materials to produce and can be intercepted, however they are able to home in on enemies, deal a lot of damage, and be filled with different lethal ingredients Mines are multipurpose bombs left in space or on a surface that can be used for ambush of an enemy, defense against projectiles, drones, fighters, or even restricting the movement of an enemy, the only downside to mines being that they sacrifice other factors for utility such as cost or movement Flak are a subclass of cannon that is more costly for the ability to explode and still deal damage to nearby targets EMP's effectively take the form of any weapon that is capable of disabling a ship's systems if they are unprotected, however, they take a lot of power to fire when emitted directly from the ship (in the form of an ion cannon), the advantage there being that they cannot be intercepted Railguns take a lot of energy and a solid slug to punch through multiple layers of armor and do critical damage in a thin straight line Plasma cannons accelerate a magnetically contained packet of super heated gas that bursts on contact, melting everything it touches, but coming at the cost of a significant amount of energy Rockets are unguided missiles that are cheaper and capable of packing a larger punch than missiles Corrosive elements can be added to any container of explosives for a less powerful explosion but a constant stream of damage over time Cryo weapons work by filling a container with an extremely cold gas and dispersing it into small fissures in hard metals, causing them to become brittle and freeze up mechanical systems, allowing a followup shot of sufficient force to shatter the material, the trade off being that cryo weapons on their own do next to no damage Bombs are powerful explosives that are cheap to produce and only work with the presence of gravity Solid armor is extremely effective against smaller caliber weapons and lasers while not being that effective against piercing, explosive, corrosive, cryo, or melting weapons, with stronger armor materials allowing for higher defense against larger projectiles Reactive armor is extremely effective against explosive and kinetic weapons but is partially used up in the process, allowing a few hits to be absorbed fully before becoming ineffective, meaning that lasers and high fire rate weapons can quickly use it up Magnetic shielding protects against EMP's so long as it completely surrounds the system it is protecting, meaning that any large enough gaps will make that shielding ineffective Energized armor is armor that is strengthened by a stored electrical charge, meaning that it will sustain all damage thrown at it by drawing on the charge of energized armor connected to it (the more damaging the projectile, the larger the area drawn from), weakening itself and the armor from which the charge was drawn from until becoming a very weak solid armor Deflector shields are dome shaped shields that block all types of incoming damage at the cost of a lot of energy for every impact, meaning that large kinetic weapons do additional damage, whereas smaller weapons deal less Absorbing shields nullify energy based damage (lasers and plasma) and conform to the shape of the object they are protecting, effectively reducing the overall damage of energy based weapons at the cost of a constant stream of energy scaled with the percentage of damage nullified Self mending armor draws on a ship's power to mend itself (up to a fixed rate of health regained per second) and is otherwise a slightly less powerful solid armor Tesla weapons fire arks of electricity that, while not so useful against enclosed ships, will devastate unprotected electronics and personnel Feel free to point out any flaws with this and share your own ideas on what features space combat should have.
  6. I just had an idea (probably got it from everyone else's) for ark stones that could fit nicely. As I see it ark stones are a way to protect builder's creations until said creations are able to protect themselves via security contracts or other methods. It would generally help the economy if there was an incentive to both explore and stay in a single area, promoting interaction between players at the same time as expansion. Ark stones could easily support this by being scattered around the universe and having a set charge until running out of power and deactivating. Replacing ark stones would become the method to sustained safe zones allowing populated cities to thrive for long periods of time before the scarcity of them becomes too restricting to be viable. In this way PvP is supported by the fight for ark stones, builder's creations are safe for a long enough time to be fully appreciated, a market of individuals selling ark stones to major organizations is formed, and explorers are rewarded greatly for discovering ark stones. The cycle of "nothing lasts forever" can be kept in place. The main thing I disagree with when it comes to ark stones is them being permanent. This disrupts the cycle of renewal that keeps old civilizations from clogging the landscape like an infection.
  7. Arkified areas really are a double edged sword. As long as there are game mechanics that allow for "invincible areas", there will also be ways for these to be exploited by PVP, whether it be through shipments or strategic value. The alternative is no truly safe zones for people to reside in resulting in frustration of those without any form of defense. Both options cannot function together, leading to the conclusion that they have to be separated entirely while still providing benefits to each other. In order to find this compromise between the two functionalities we need to consider the effects of every involved variable and every condition that must be met. So far as I see it the conditions are: 1) The entire universe needs to fit the grand story of the rise and fall of civilizations 2) Non PVP individuals need a way to safely perform actions without the constant threat of PVP players attacking them and their creations 3) The game needs building and conflict to support each other Now the variables we can only guess are: Player satisfaction Player preferences Player interaction Within this context we can generally conclude that players like to be apart of the big community, yet the community itself can shift to different focuses, alienating certain player bases as minorities that find it hard to enjoy the game and leave. The solution to this is splitting the community into its respective sub-communities. Now comes the potentially difficult challenge of maximizing player interaction so that the game can make up for this divide and become more interesting. In the world where everything is peaceful, owning, creating, socializing, and trading are key factors that add immersion. The only real breaks in this immersion are when one decides to blow something up for the fun of it. Now the war torn yet story driven world is full of action and change, where things get beat up and strategic factors come into play. It is an add-on to the previous peaceful world which uses up resources to both protect and take more resources. As a result when the two are combined the peaceful world is forced to adapt to it's new challenges just as the action oriented side is forced to adapt to the afore mentioned adaptations. These forces prevent the absolute free will of the player from emerging, but also improve the overall game experience by adding in challenge. (notice how the Dark Souls series used challenge to make the end result so much more satisfying, Flappy Birds also uses this to it's addictive advantage) This challenge, however, will almost always alienate the people who want to relax and just have fun. Since the main universe is full of obstacles, getting past them is an obstacle in itself to the point where it creates even more obstacles for others and on and on the madness goes. In a game that is player driven it is required that players contribute and not just sit around doing nothing. The players that take up roles and advance the story are the real middlemen of the two extremes. They provide the reason behind the military and the purpose behind the creations people make. Such is the nature of this game that nothing is made important without serving a purpose, and nothing serving a purpose lasts forever, so that more things can be made with purpose. From this only one conclusion can be drawn. That any feature in the game that does not support everyone, supports no one. The Arkified Tiles don't support everyone, so the game doesn't gain anything from having them, whereas a virtual reality instance that any player could make doesn't trade off anything if done right. The question isn't necessarily all about "How do we implement Arkified Tiles?" That's just narrow minded. Try opening up to different ideas that fulfill the same goals in different ways. If everyone only concentrates on making a flawed system work, then no one is working on making a flawless idea into a reality.
  8. Anyone get thoughts of the Flood from Halo when they read this? Because I certainly did.
  9. You can thank me for that idea To expand on what was just said I will add to it that this could make galactic E-Sports a thing WITHIN a game. Virtual reality can also serve the function of any other wacky mini game that just wouldn't make sense in the main universe. The game itself is one giant story that every player gets to take part in. The more it feels like a second life the better. I think bounty would make a great mechanic to counter people who like to be mean for no reason.
  10. And to do that the spawn hub becomes obsolete. I think the only way spawn killing can really be avoided is by avoiding the spawn killers themselves. This could be accomplished in a few ways, mine below being an example of how it might work. One way is the one I suggested, making ark ships spawn a set distance away from the central cluster of players and then allowing a community of newly joined players to pop up around that ark ship. These ships would come with onboard tutorials for the new players to start up a community and learn the game. The ship would also include information for these new players pointing them in the direction of society and the current status of said society such as how much warfare is going on between factions in certain areas and other useful information. This would allow the new players to explore the game at their own pace without having an immediate fear of stepping outside the protection of the ark ship.
  11. That would allow just any player to disable the whole field protecting that area. Not exactly a good plan in my eyes. Still gonna go with the idea that a state of war with a "significant" faction would be the only way to temporarily remove the no pvp shield. In which case all city/basewide defenses would turn on and begin attacking the invaders. Should that city be deemed precious due to the presence of monuments then it is up to the defenders to preserve it. One thing to note about builders in this game is that they won't be making just static things to be looked at. Whether it be a home, base, ship, or cultural marker, everything made by the builders should have some meaning in the universe, even if that meaning attracts the eyes of envious conquerors.
  12. I was thinking about a beacon system which allows players to find where civilization currently resides as well as a system for reclamation. It would be cool to come back to an abandoned city and find it overgrown with plants and weathering. Side note: If a player decided to come back to the game after 10 months of inactivity that would be hilarious to watch his reaction.
  13. I also agree. This is the way it should work.
×
×
  • Create New...