Jump to content

Knight-Sevy

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Knight-Sevy

  1. Really cool video. I hope NQ will open up the voxel-level possibilities in the future so that we can see some really fun capital ship visuals on this kind of video. This assault showed that the servers are holding up with the new F4 map. Now we need evolutions on the game design and the gameplay to hook people on the game.
  2. Before I spent a lot of time building ships, hoping that the game would be creative so we could fly and PvP in all sorts of cool sci-fi ships. It looks like I lost to the Cross section lobbying, so now I watch them all also stop playing one after the other as a result of their active participation in destroying my fun in the the game. Now I'm waiting for PTS and content updates to see if it's worth investing or not in PvP content again I also continue despite everything to write multi-page feedback to explain the problems that will occur BEFORE the release of each patch. Of course as soon as possible I connect in games to raise moms in PvP and continue to see that this one is always destroyed and rendered soulless thanks to the lobbying of the cross section. Definitely I mainly play other games now and for the few of our activities on DU we live on our stocks (while waiting for the wipe).
  3. Hi, Entropy First of all, thank you again for answering in such a complete way on these precise subjects. Even if we did not necessarily have the same desires, knowing the motivation and orientation of the modifications and additions you make to the game will allow us to be more relevant in our remarks. I will therefore try to dig into the subject now that I have taken a few days back, and that we have seen the fleets forming and more in-game testing as well. The objective of this post is not to contradict your vision of the game, but to help you make the necessary changes to make it happen. Here is the feedback I can give you on the subjects for which you have requested comments. I would have liked to detail 3 subjects but I did not have time so I will focus on 2 points only. ----- Here is a chart for the speed we need to achieve when spinning around an in-game target to avoid targeting. It is the calculation of the rope resulting from the angle (tracking of the weapon) and the distance where the target is. I arbitrarily retained 4 values: - 50km - 100km - 200 km (1su) - 400 km (2su) The tracking being in deg/s I transformed the distance obtained in m into km/h to make it more meaningful. - The first line is an example for a tracking of 1deg/s - The second is the value I have on a siege guner with my character (talent at 4) - The third line is the value of the biggest weapon in the game that should hypothetically have the most difficulty aiming at a target and it is the talentless value to symbolize the worst case. - The last line is a spin test with an M railgun battleship. In 10 seconds I have time to do a 360 + stabilize my aim on a target. Remember that the rate of fire of an M railgun is 13 seconds without talent, which leaves a comfortable margin of maneuver to align its target between 2 shots. Here is also the visual of the rail gun firing cone. 30° cone radius in optimal + 30° cone in fallof. The further away your target is, the more area you cover to be able to hit it. Here is a table to symbolize the distances covered by a railgun without the ship needing to move : With the talents on a weapon we reach a fairly huge coverage, almost 90° without fall off and almost 180° with him and that on a basic weapon without cone bonus and talents not max at lvl5. (The choice of railgun as an example is arbitrary, this is valid for all weapons, not take this for a nerf/up request.) Here are the issues raised (in my sole opinion) : - The penalty linked to the tracking of weapons is valid at very short range. - Tracking is possible if your opponent is not moving or at low speed - If you are attacked by an opponent further away than the one you are moving arround, you will not benefit from your speed bonus to avoid shots - Desynchronization has a strong impact on your positioning and that of your opponent, it opens or closes shooting windows independently of the players' game. - We still have M or L size combat ships that can do 360° in less than 10 seconds, which still allows near-hand tracking using the adjusters. If your opponent is far from you, the more easily he can kill you. That's why we think going for the shield is always better. It protects you against several hazards over which your speed has no control. ----- From the first returns, we can see a very large majority of small ships (but based on M or L cores rather than S or XS). Especially a lot of small ships with an L size shield. Here is a comparison of what we find in game compared to the possibility offered : On the previous meta we were with ships which for the biggest approached 5% of the total construction surface that a builder had the leisure to use. We went to Athena and now we have M ships that hardly exceed 3% of the cumulative surface of the usable box. There is certainly a lever to exploit on this subject at the level of the nature of the game. The voxel and the voxel construction seems to remain a main pillar of dual universe. We necessarily need small vessels and large vessels. But shouldn't the small ships be on an XS and S core category, and the larger ones on the much more massive M and L cores? (category of vessel damaged from the voxel massive nerve). ----- Just quickly on this subject. I started looking to make a ship with spacing between different elements so as not to lose everything on the first try. The areas of effect and the damage are so important compared to the current resistance of the voxels that even using a full block (so no interior in your ship). The surface needed to just spread the weapons apart does not compensate (or very little) for the increased chance of hitting given by the cross section. Since the voxel gives you a weight penalty, we always come back in the case where we seek to maximize the cross section. I think you can try without too much risk to improve the defensive aspect of the voxels a little. You still implanted a triple nerve: - Significant reduction in voxel HP - Added CSS - Weapon DPS buff In my opinion the CSS has a good balance, it will be necessary to look more on the side of the damage of weapons and voxels. For the voxels maybe not the HP pool, but why not look into the resistor values. ----- I will end with a question. Would you like to have the help of the community for all things HP of the elements? There are a number of elements in play currently with quite unbalanced health points. I know that for the Dev team it must be tedious to review everything and that you certainly have better things to do. Can we help on this subject? I already have a few examples in mind. Like decoration plants having more points than weapons. Or very heavy armored doors but with less hit points than hatches.
  4. I don't completely agree with you. Basically, it's a few interesting things for the gameplay that the radars are exposed. This can lead to having a repair team to repair this as a priority during a fight. So a possible argument for the multicrew. But on the form, well it's NQ what, it's always disastrous. They never try to sell / explain the slightest thing they do... It's quite desperate. Good story to be constructive for NQ and why this change is badly led / incomplete: 1) You can still put your radar entirely in voxels. This completely avoids the principle of exposing your radar 2) Item Pool HP is ridiculously low Voxel HP pools are ridiculously low Weapon damage is ridiculously high 3) This still gives a significant advantage to the ship without voxel and playing only with a shield (their radar will never be in danger) 4) The cross section system always destroys all interest in PvP the game. People only use 3 or 5% of the maximum cumulative usable area of a core. It is absurd. Bringing out the radars will not increase the size of the nano ships 5) To really bring depth to PvP gameplay, such a change would need to be accompanied by real gameplay features. You expose the radars to enemy fire, so ok but make sure that for example XS ships can lock these radars during a fight rather than randomly spraying an entire building. In short, this could have been a coherent change with a real strategy for the future of the game. But right now, I don't feel like there's an future.
  5. This will always be the owner of the ship. If your friend starts lending ships to people who are unfriendly towards you then they are not your friend.
  6. Thanks to you we got a radar update. Cheer
  7. I hope the change wasn't there to force people to put the radar on of the top of their ship. Because currently, it is always possible to make a big box in full voxel, to put the radar inside. And it will all work. You will just have to make sure that you do not put a brake or other element on it
  8. What was initially planned for the game is that players could create their own safe zone which will be attackable by other players. For the moment the alien space cores are only an L shield on a static core.
  9. The problems is that we are called pirates. While we are not. For example at SNS we are a real small nation. We've had big miners, voxel builders, industrialists, people doing Lua and of course people doing PvP. PvP is not a valid activity 100% of the time, so often you also do a few things on the side. Now people are like "it's too easy for pirates to catch me". Dude, we are a nation we have literally 10-20 people (and also double that as an alt) who pooled their efforts to kill you when you wander outside the safe zone...
  10. Thank you Entropy for the response which was sincerely unexpected This gave a good boost to some of my mates who rushed to do some tests and shoot videos. I think they will answer you on the various questions and subjects that you leave open for discussion and will share them all with you soon. As for me, give me a few days to reread everything several times and continue to react to this constructive exchange.
  11. I think you misunderstood. What is requested is to add content. Little things to loot for beginner players. Shooting innocuous targets is a good start for this. This is instructive: - Go to space - Have a ship with working weapons - Train in shooting and combat with a very inexpensive ship - Do not totally waste your time and have a little loot (really very little) This is all part 1. => Now part 2 When 2 players meet in this "beginner" PvP environment, we will have the beginning of interactions between players. Will they continue to do their business ignoring each other? Will they want to collect the same loot crate? Will a doghfight between the 2 begin? It is an activity that must be able to be done quickly (without having to go through 50 Su for the asteroids or 200 Su for the alien core). Which should not be expensive, without bringing in a lot as well. And must use gameplay not currently used (weapons). Having to destroy "PvE loot boxes", helps to circulate the economy: fuel, ammunition and possibly entire ships if 2 players compete there.
  12. Hello, sorry in my nationality we do a lot of irony and black humor. NQ changes regarding PvP are so disconnected that the majority of the community is really confused. But you are right, there is no smoke without fires. So I thought about why this trait of (misunderstood) humor. We know JC was kicked out of the company. His vision of the game including a PvP part has been publicly confronted during several videos with the personal vision of the project of his second (currently at the head of the game design part of the studio). During these public interviews he challenged several times in a very frontal way the few ideas and ambitions that JC could have on the overall functioning of the game (on the PvP part). Of course JC's reasons for leaving were certainly valid and respectable. But the person who took over was in opposition to a significant amount of things that were part of JC's vision. He won, there is no doubt that the overall state of the game (performance) has improved significantly, but this change in the direction of the game has a lot of impact. Hope this clears things up a bit for you.
  13. I find it a shame to have an item in the game that you can't use one of their features on. If the ventilation does not work on XS, S or M shields, I think there is a fundamental balancing problem. The solution must not come from: Use an L-shield and that's how it is now.
  14. And I forgot, I also wanted to talk about the economic value of things. If we compare a shield L With a Shield M + voxel (with the Al-Li which is a Tier 3 voxel like the shields). This gives in volume of ore: About 100,000 liters for the shield L About 115,000 liters for the M + 3800m Voxel Al-Li shield. Knowing that the proportion of T3 is 70% for the choice Shield M + voxel While it is only 20% for the L shield alone. Economically, you also have every interest in using the larger size shield.
  15. Hi, There has been a change in the HP value of shields to align them with voxels => It's a good thing But when I try to see if it is relevant to use voxel to be able to play with the venting function. I can't find anything conclusive. I made a small table to see if it is interesting to use an M shield and the voxel. Or if it is more relevant to go directly to a L shield : The M shield is 30 Tons. So I have the right to use 95 Tons of voxels before reaching the weight of the L shield. At the resistance level, I decided to go with the average values. The fact that the shield has a dynamic resistance management function is an argument in its favor. Keep it in your mind. From what we can see on the table, the best armor that gives us the most hit points is the T1 plastic voxel. Average: 6,666,000 + 8,750,000 = 15,416,0000 In 2nd and 3rd position we find the Al-LI and the SC-Al. The shield L has 13,333,000 life points. Which is slightly worse than plastic shielding. But now we must remember that its resistance values are dynamic, which will certainly make it pass in real condition. You should also know that during the venting phase, you take the risk of losing elements and seeing your combat capacity reduced. Analysis : If you can upgrade your shield size, you should. This will always provide you with much better protection than that offered by the voxel. Problems to be solved: - The values of % of resistance do not correspond to the tier of the voxels, we end up with a plastic of tier 1 always clearly more efficient than the others. Tier 5 was particularly lagging behind. - Venting phases are currently unplayable if using XS, S, and M size shields. - The TTK values of weapons seem unbalanced when comparing the hitpoint values which seem really low for elements and voxels. Kiling all very faster. I think it would be nice if the game designer could chime in on this thread to clarify how he sees the use of these shields and the venting phase. See you later,
  16. At first I was going to laugh at your thread, then I read your second post and I understood that you were a little more clumsy on the first. What you are asking seems legitimate, I think a lot of players are asking for more gameplay mechanics (especially multicrew for PvP). As long as there is a measure and against measure aspect, you have my support. But be aware that PvP often takes a lot more effort than you think to take down a target
  17. Or directly an NQ staff. There are many who play their game in private. But given the quality and balance of PvP, we know that they are not part of the PvP community. Maybe they don't need to receive complaints from PVE players. The only ones are enough for them "fix the shame of loosing a ship in pvp".
  18. When will territory management and space territory warfare arrive ? For the moment the core aliens are only a shield that can be placed on a space core. We expect better. Your game deserves better. We deserve better.
  19. The Lua community seems to be the only ones happy with what NQ is doing. They will look after them well until the end. Unfortunately they bring very little to the game. Seeing one even a negative aspect by automating the little gameplay that could have been at the expense of the players.
  20. That's exactly what I told my PvP mates when I read a mention on Athena's announcements. "Release the Pressure on PvE Players" I was there in mode, you will see they will send us a thousand SU so that you leave the PvE players alone. It did not fail. The worst part is that they even destroyed the hauler missions so that if you are a PvP player you now have no targets. Checkmate for in-game player interactions. And an MMO without interaction is a dead MMO.
  21. So NQ, Ok that's cool, you put alien stations 500 Su away from planets so PvP players don't interact with other players. Now, what do you suggest for players to have fast gameplay in PvP? An area not too far from the safe zone? With loot boxes to destroy and with a little loot in it that is worth it for guys to go and compete with XS or S? Imagine a new solo player who arrives, apart from entering a station fight at 1000 Su, the game has nothing to offer. Move around a bit.
  22. As we are all here digging up topics. Personally I have the impression that the game runs better on my PC than on Geforce Now. (Dual Universe seems very unstable on Nvidia architectures). Here is my very old config: - Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 OC graphics card, 2 GB - Intel Core i5-4670K (3.4GHz) - 16GB RAM - game on SSD Remains stable within 30 FPS. 1080p with most options disabled disabled. Except the clouds very important keep them.
  23. I don't see why the group of players who play together can't multibox too
  24. We hope that RDMS will be possible to share the position of ships / fleet between allies
  25. It's not NPCs. Just core units. like wreck but y need to destroy it for looting him.
×
×
  • Create New...