Jump to content

FerroSC

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FerroSC

  1. This is a pretty solid argument for what you're saying. I dont think it's as dire as you paint it up to be, but it's clearly not a cash-flush free for all over there either. All businesses make efforts to save money, be it fuel/employees/computers whatever. Even profitable companies try to cut costs so I'm not as alarmed there. The 350k number actually seems right and the valuation/fundraising seems about right with the 22mil figure, but again there could be other loans/financing/lines of credit that we aren't privy to, but we should assume crunchbase would have those numbers so for my taste the 22m is correct. The catch here is they didnt start at the 350k monthly figure and likely didnt swell up to the 65 employees number until the last year or so, so that 350k/month figure could have easily been 100k/month for the first several years, which buys them a little time with their cash on hand. Very interesting numbers to arm-chair CEO this thing with. Thanks for taking the time to put the facts/numbers together. Makes for a good chat and gives folks some insight into the testing process we are all a part of. Cheers.
  2. Can you provide us any proof of these financial limitations or are you just making stuff up based on information you think you know but actually don't know?
  3. This is a really valid point and may have just changed my mind on this particular point. Ore scans never updated before, based on ore being extracted so it doesn't actually make sense to have them updated for this expansion. Just because they technically *can* update them, doesn't mean they should. Good point.
  4. Would you be this anti if it was called "maintenance fees" instead of taxes? I agree the amount is a bit too high, but the point of the tax system was to keep tiles from being locked from inactive players. I think there is some math to be worked out, but I think the reason behind the tax is a good reason, just needs some math and some patience to listen to the community, but it's not a game breaker. If anything, it's a game helper to make tiles available to new players, or existing players who are trying to expand. Also, to your last point I think driving the real.estate market I to the hands or organizations is kind of the point, to encourage cooperate over isolation, but it might be a misguided idea.
  5. First off, I also agree 1mil over week is pretty steep. But the above statement , you have made a couple times and I'm curious: Can you breakdown some numbers for us? I assume you have done the math on number of tiles versus the cost and the number of players, etc. Would the solution be to level out the tiles so L/h is more equal between tiles? What would the fix be to create a more sustainable system? Re-fill the ore pool for unclaimed tiles every month? Wipe all the scans we already have? Curious to hear what you think. Thanks.
  6. OP, I'm sorry if I derailed your post. I'm sure you have put every bit as much time into this game as I have, if not more. I disagree with your assessment of exploit usage and I used way too many words to say that. The ideas of buffing elements is a good start. Realistically, new elements are part of the fix here. Why does the thrust end of an engine and the power generating end of an engine have to be the same element? Combustion chamber and burner, linked somehow maybe? Who knows. I think more complex systems and additional tools would be a great discussion without the caveats of the exploit usage. In my opinion the rationalization of the exploit usage detracts from the constructive discussion of "where do we go from here". Again, sorry for derailing. Hope our next exchange goes better. I'll try harder next time.
  7. The devs are not bound by their own ToS, per se.. the devs arent users so they're not bound by a "user agreement" but the way it is now neither are the players. The official rules say one thing and the announcement says another. It's just bad communication and sets a really bad precedent that "rules are meant to be broken."
  8. Except the other thread is about why stacking was used to begin with, in which the author tries to convince the reader that the exploit was used for anything other than an in-game advantage. From "different metas" to artistic ability, that thread basically said stacking was used for every reason other than in-game advantage. Didn't need me to derail it. Some posts are train wrecks from the beginning..
  9. I've thought this too. An industry unit where you could put 2 completed engines in, one gets consumed in "research" and the other comes out of the industry with a substantial buff, far beyond any talent buff. Obviously 1 + 1 would not equal two, but you would open up a wide variety of design options if something like this was available. Depreciating returns on researching the same engine could be tweaked so it's not too OP of a mechanic, and fully researched Exotic engines would take weeks to complete so its not for everyone, but why not let people make super charged engines and stuff? Seems like a solid idea.
  10. But tigers ARE Orange and black. Fun fact: a tiger is orange because its primary prey are color blind. To those animals, tigers blend right into the jungle because green=orange to the colorblind animals. Mammals lack the ability to produce the color green in basically all cases, so evolution adjusted to this limitation and created the ultimate jungle killing machine. So now you know why we don't need another color of tiger because outside of curiosity and spectacle, it is inferior to the black and orange tiger.. because black and Orange, in this scenario is the meta.. just like cubes are the meta. If the animals were color blind on a different spectrum the tiger would have evolved to be another color. Another "if" that is irrelevant because the meta is the meta which is based on reality, not on hypothetical MS Paint squares and poorly constructed paragraphs. So you and I agree, in another universe things would be different. You're trying to explain something everyone understand already: why stacking was used. Problem is, your reason is wrong. You're giving the builders this creative license that everything they did with this exploit was for creative/artistic reasons and if only the game was "better" then this exploit would have never even been used. You're saying "if we had more tools, people wouldn't have used the exploit" which is just a ridiculous point to make because 1. There is no way to prove what would have happened so it's a pure hypothetical argument (see also, not a constructive criticism or anything else that is useful aside from a conversation starter) and; 2. People will always use exploits regardless of the tools they have available. There are no ethical cheaters. There are ships that are currently exploiting the bug for many, many different reasons and the "preservation of artwork" IS a valid reason not to delete the constructs but it's hardly the reason the exploit was so widely exploited. All these "unbalanced" ships are for players to game the system and gain an unfair advantage. Aside from like The Nautilus and some other flagship creations(which are all very very impressive and should be preserved) , there isnt a jancko ship in the game that was build "just because I didnt like how a wall of engines looked". They were made to min-max the physics engine in the game and for nothing else. Cheaters gonna cheat, regardless of how many excuses you make for WHY they cheated... cheating is cheating.
  11. On top of that, it negates any "battlefield literacy" a non-advantaged player may have. Consider this: an experienced Pilot sees a M core ship inbound. This experienced pilot has been playing a long time and he knows very well the capabilities of each core size and the risks associated with engaging each one. With the "unbalanced" elements, his battlefield literacy is 0. He has no idea what could be on that M core. He knows what is on *his* M core, but without a fair playing field this player is not just potentially disadvantaged at a technical level; But he is also disadvantaged at a tactical level because all of his information, which should be accurate, is completely unreliable because the rules of the game are not clear. Even if the ship he is facing DOESN'T have any unbalanced elements, the fact that it persists in the game means any engagement is done blindly without anyway to know what you are actually going to encounter.
  12. I read all of it. I had to read some of it a few times because the ideas weren't very well organized. You are arguing against the "cube meta" . We get it. Meta means "most effective tactic available". Would you prefer a cylinder meta? Perhaps a spherical meta? Your post here basically says "if things were different we could do different things". Then you made some poorly argued descriptions of what "different" would be, but you never really land on anything you are trying to endorse. You simply don't like the cube meta and think everyone around you is stupid because "they just don't get it"... cylinders, cones, rings.. all shapes could be meta if conditions were different. Well, if "if" was a fifth we would all be drinking. If dont mean shit. Maybe in another universe those can happen, but in this universe we are worried about 3 planes. X, Y, Z. It JUST so happens that a cube is perfect for min/maxing a ships ability to maneuver efficiently in these directions. You don't like cubes. So you made some drawings to prove what we all know: cubes are meta. Then you made some long winded reasons about why people used and exploit and then you made an attempt to rationalize being able to keep the exploit based on some hypothetical metrics that could exist in the game but don't. Them you closed it with "did I ramble?" Which indicates you are unsure of your own ideas and you realize they are poorly presented. Then you came and threatened to report people who disagree with you, then you claim no one read your post. And now we are here. Thus ends my book report on your post. I'll look forward to reading the next one. Have a great day.
  13. I made this suggestion a few weeks ago on the subreddit and got roasted by the downvote brigade, but I still think this idea has merit.
  14. Hi. I'm not a pvp pro and never claimed to be. I've been shot down a couple times and never actually fired a weapon myself. I am 0-3 at PvP. I am, however, fluent in English and can read the ToS and the recent Dev announcement and identify the contradictions between the two. Im not suggesting what ships should be used, I'm suggesting that the message from NQ be consistent and changes implemented on a way that is as fair and equitable as possible. The script you suggest would be fantastic. Other suggestions have been good, too. A variety of options have been suggested and we should feel free to discuss those as a player community. It seems the only bad ideas in this discussion have come from NQ themselves in the way they have chosen to tackle this issue. I don't think coming onto the forum and being condescending to other players is constructive in any way, but everyone has their own interests, I suppose. Lemme ask you this Kent: if NQ grounded all the ships with "unbalanced" elements until they were fixed, not deleted but simply immobilized, would that be a reasonable solution for this problem or do you think the ships should be allowed to persist and NQ should let them fade out organically and focus on other things? What other ways could they fix this that would allow players to keep their investment but not their in-game advantage?
  15. Hold your breath, I'm sure this is coming any minute now. Lol
  16. 1. Are you going to be replacing ships that are lost from "unbalanced" ships? If so, what is the claims process for that? 2. Are you going to educate players on how they can identify unbalanced ships, particularly after a ship has destroyed theirs? If so, when and where will that guidance be posted? 3. What is the proper reporting process for a player that believes an unbalanced ship has attacked them? 4. What tools does NQ have at its disposal to identify unbalanced ships, aside from player reports?
  17. That's simply not true. The first trailer for this game mentions "combat" several times and even describes various types of combat that could take place. This was billed as a "civilization building mmo" and guns were a part of that design from day one.
  18. My single player property is basically a city. So what you are describing is 30 mediocre players, not 30 awesome tiles that actually make a player community.
  19. I think the challenge of designing around the limitations is part of ship building. I think your description of the existing systems as limited only speaks to the limits of the builder's creativity. A true craftsman can make excellent work with only simple tools. It is the novice who needs a special tool, or an exception to every rule, to make a quality product. This is why the ship creators are popular, because they used the existing tools to make great ships. At a time, jancko elements was one of the tools that was used. To argue that a ship can not be built to the same quality without that tool is a reasonable position to take, but it's both subjective and irrelevant since the tool has been removed. Many of my favorite ships in the game have zero "unbalanced" elements (see also, janko/clipped) and those ships perform outstanding and look terrific. I think we should challenge ourselves with the tools we have. The game is young and this will definitely not be the final form of ship building. Maybe NQ finds a way to combine elements in a more sophisticated way? Perhaps linking engines or stacking brakes as multi-element kits that are more aesthetically pleasing. There are lots of cool things that could happen, but to say that you can't make good ships without this particular tool is untrue. To play a physics based game and insist on physics breaking tools is just counter intuitive. Of course there are form factors that are the most efficient. Of course there are physical limitations to the different sized cores. The things you say are obstructing creation are many of the same things that are fueling innovation.
  20. *Elements Stacking is a bug, there’s no way around it. As a bug, especially one generating a lot of gameplay imbalance, it has to disappear at some point. * NQ Dev announcement, 20 Sept 2021
  21. You can use them in PvP and only if you are reported and confirmed by NQ will they get deleted. You could kill a thousand ships before getting reported. That's what their words say. "If you use them and get caught we will take it away." They are not disabled. They are not even marked. They are free to be used for several months and given the sheer number of them out there, the PvP spicy boys can lose one a day and still have left overs when Demeter drops. Quit saying "you cant use them in PvP" because by their own words, you 100% can and there is no consequence for doing so unless you are reported and NQ can prove your allegations.
  22. So NQ was incorrect when they said this issue creates "a lot of gameplay imbalance" and that its "a bug". You realize if someone is "advantaged" then inherently someone else has to be "disadvantaged". That's what that word means. Is that someone has a better setup than someone else. In this case, that better set up is from exploiting a bug and NQ says that in plain English. Not going to do your mental gymnastics on this. The ToS contradicts their actions. Plain and simple.
  23. So we should allow people to keep an unfair advantage because you like the way it looks. Copy that.
  24. If quoting their own ToS and their own announcements to show a contradiction is a rage post then I guess this is a rage post. I call it a disappoint post because I'm continually disappointed in NQs lack of clarity in their own rules.
×
×
  • Create New...