Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FerroSC

  1. The game definitely falls within the "mmo" genre. The population is quite small but seems to be dedicated and some of us do have fun despite the lack of any meaning development in the past (checks calendar).. forever.. but there are enough players for the economy to function and have people to shoot at sometimes, so the game isn't dead but its not bursting at the seams either. People just like being hyperbolic in their reviews, I guess.
  2. Why not just have a countdown start that trashes the construct X hours after the first salvage takes place? Once it's been salvaged it has a 12 hour cool down then *poof* it's gone for good. Now the salvage game play still exists and the construct is cleaned up for the rest of the folks. Seems pretty obvious.
  3. People might say this is a bit over dramatic, but I feel the exact same way. We are always reminded that this is a beta and "play the game you have, not the game you want" but when the devs won't be clear with what game you have, it's justifiable to feel like you feel. NQ: just put the info out there already and quit bullshittin' with folks limited free time they are using to play your game.
  4. Should be grandfathered in, especially considering they haven't launched yet.
  5. So what, we wipe every month so everyone has equal access to a market spot? Where does that rabbit hole end? How far ahead can an organization get after launch before they need to wipe again to let new players have a fair chance? By this metric, you might as well play sea of thieves and get a clean map and a shiny new boat every time you log in. Sorry, but new players shouldn't get prime real estate. It's just not a thing.
  6. This will be true for any new player with no skills regardless of a wipe or not. There is always a learning curve and barrier to entry into industry in an economy based mmo. Supply issues are fixes with materials depletion/element degradation and other burn mechanics and quanta sinks, not wiping the entire economy. "Can't get ore tiles." Sure they can, join my org we got all the tiles they want. -ore tiles are already limited and will be continually sought out. A wipe does nothing to help with this. I promise if they wipe and start over, my org would end up with better tiles and new players would likely have even less to choose from being that we have had nearly a year to learn these systems and develop strategy. "Harder time earning quanta"? Nope. -large orgs provide better earnings opportunities than a server full of freshly wiped accounts. Industry creates jobs, which is where new players get paid, so this point is also wrong. "New players can't get the best real estate". This isn't limited to new players, it's part of the game. -new players can look for homes wherever they want and tiles become available everyday. In any game where there is limited real estate, you have to work your way up to end game content of having the best real estate. Nobody is rolling 20 deep into a full loot PvP zone on day one expecting a W. End game content takes time. Primo location is end game content, not a given for every player. If every player deserved a plot next to a market, we would need a thousand markets, wouldn't we? So as you can see, you have yet to provide one single thing where a new player is excluded from content because of the existence of more advanced players. If anything, you've proven how beneficial the established orgs are and given plenty of reasons why new players need established orgs just as much as the orgs need new players.
  7. I bought the founders pack because it had pets, collectibles and beta keys. I actually inquired about buying more beta keys that I could give away and was told no. The DACs werent even a factor in my decision. I am a multiple account player so i just let the subs renew on the credit card. The beta keys were one of the key selling points for the packs, not an after thought. Regardless, your point was "when all these players who aren't paying leave the game their shit will be abandoned because they won't pay for subs". Right? I'm just trying to piece together the idea. Why are these beta key players not going to keep playing? And if they do quit en masse as you say would happen, Why would the remaining players not be able cannibalize their abandoned stuff? We got a dozen ships and players at the ready scouring for abandoned and forfeited constructs. I guarantee my crew isn't the only ones. Allowing these wrecks to be abandoned and litter the environment just creates more content: salvaging, scouting, hauling and potentially pvp engagements over constructs in dangerous places... all that potential content gets wiped for what? I don't understand. All content is player generated and there are many of those players on beta keys, yes, and many will likely not continue once the free ride ends, yes, but the fact remains all content is player generated, regardless of how many or how few players there are and how those players earn their game time. That's my point: to hamstring content creation at this point in the process is just kinda silly.
  8. Every beta key was paid for by way of a previous game purchase so this idea of "beta key freeloaders" is unfounded. Regardless of what those accounts have and what will happen to it I'd they fail to renew a sub, the gametime was still paid for somewhere by someone. Regardless of payment status, the players in the game currently are the only people generating content. That's indisputable. They aren't making content because of what NQ has done, they are creating in *spite* of the setbacks and changes NQ has provided. So to say "these players are so few they don't matter", which was the point of the comment I responded to, that statement is just not the whole story because the "so few beta players who don't matter" are in fact the only ones generating content and barring some significant additions to the game, these same players are the only ones that could provide any type of content on launch aside from "surface gather to build shitty speeder". I'm not making any argument for what they should/will/might do. I have no idea, but it seems with the previously implemented "magic blueprints" you could clear the game world and let the active beta players pick back up basically where they left off, without any of the other clutter remaining in the world. It's the only way really the established orgs would possibly tolerate and continue to play through a full world wipe. Fwiw, I think at this point NQ should just completely jump the shark and say this is going to be a web3 blockchain based game. Lol. Why not at this point?
  9. Can someone help me understand what it is a new player is excluded from when they join the existing game? What content does the existing game world prohibit a new player from doing? I hear this talk about letting people get a fresh start and a new release so everyone has an equal advantage or whatever... but I haven't heard what it is these new players wouldn't be able to do? How does one "win" DU and if there is no "winning" then how can there be an advantage?
  10. I agree the beta players themselves represent a very small portion of the potential playerbase. You fail to recognize that the beta players do represent 100% of the content, however. So yeah there are a small number of players, but that small number is basically building the game FOR NovaQuark, and paying doe the privilege. So my take is why would NQ remove all the content, just to level the playing field for new players to catch up with what you call a "tiny" number of players? Seems to me they cam have their cake and eat it too by leaving everything as is and just pushing ahead with a launch. I'm not an expert, but it just seems allowing your sandbox game to be built by countless hours of some of the most try-hard gamers around(myself included, not being derogatory there) would not be something you would want to undo, especially when your entire selling pitch is based on "player created world". You make good points, it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.
  11. Dude, quit gaslighting these people into thinking you care about their well being. You used mental health issues as a way to demean the original comment, now you're gaslighting like some mmo white knight. It's gross. Stop. If you really are concerned about this individual's well-being you should reach out on a 1 to 1 basis and not embarass and stigmatize by making an example out of them here in a general forum.
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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."
  19. 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..
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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?
  • Create New...