Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Queejon

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    United States
  • Interests
    Sci-fi, engineering, slight programming, and playing the trombone
  • backer_title
  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

1046 profile views
  1. discordauth:NcV4gXHWRCT5oieTZzKowi3HYNfujwgD3MHzorMzd6M=

  2. 1) Of course it will be frustrating, and yes it should have consequences of some sort. Even in games, if there are no consequences, the rewards mean nothing. Now it shouldn't be to the level that they must restart the game in any large way, but it should feel as if something was lost. 2) I'd suggested a player organization possibly run it in my original post, but the problem with that is it still must be backed by a game mechanic. If there are to be player banks of any sort that deal in Quanta, then Quanta must be able to be transfered as an item would, stored and locked aw
  3. If I'd read correctly, then NQ was trying to simulate the DU economy as closely to real life as possible. In my mind, this would mean limiting inflation enough that it doesn't get out of control, but letting it go on enough for the economy to grow. In my opinion, this would mean not keeping the bot on at all times, but maybe most of the time.
  4. There was a discussion recently in my org about how Quanta would be given value, and the ore buying bot was brought up. This seemed like a great way to kick-start the economy, and maybe even revive it if need be. However this got me thinking: if the DU economy is built to resemble real life as much as possible, what happens when money begins to stop moving as freely, and players begin to hoard? The other user in the conversation suggested that prices would all drop due to no one being able to afford anything with little money being circulated. In my mind, this equated to mass poverty throughou
  5. LOL. You have a point though. Many safe-spaces if not all outside the lunar havens and alioth starter zone will probably be costly to go through, with a fee for landing, and many renting out space inside.
  6. There's not much stopping this nomad style of play, and I've even considered doing so myself, but there are a few holes in your plan: You can't use territory units on dynamic constructs (ships), and size for ships is kind of limited right now by the core sizes. A ship would have a hard time scripting a bunch of smaller dynamic cores, voxel, and elements to fly together, than to just set down a few. extra cooridoors in a base or static construct.
  7. Glad to hear someone has the same mindset as me when it comes to this!
  8. I realize that it's exploitable, but making a completely unexploitable game is near impossible. I also just would love to see NQ keep mobile integration in mind, as I personally think that's where a lot of the newest innovation is.
  9. Thanks. Just read through the thread, and I think a creative mode would work better than a CAD import or Bench, simply because the in game building mechanics are the way they are for many reasons. The creative mode also gives more options like testing resources needed or how well it handles, while Cad imports would have to have their program running the same physics engine as DU. The chances of that is unimaginably small. As for the Cad Bench, I think it would be pointless to make another building system to the game when we already have a pretty great one. It puts more stress on the developers
  10. That would be great to have! Maybe have some zip file to download all the most used elements, and then a zip file for each category or something.
  11. I think it would still be great to have. A small feature like that, or operating something similiar like a small mining drone or something.
  12. Thanks for the suggestion. I went and found the Dev Blog about it and that clears everything up.
  13. So I just read up about how territory is going to work, and how the force field idea is implemented, and it got me thinking: Will there be/is there, a more in depth system of permission setting then just allowing or not allowing someone access? I would suggest we have options like "tagging" all, but for organizations once implemented in game. Also, I drop down menu based UI would be welcome, though the current one seems to work fine from the Dev footage. This drop down based system could be per "tag" (an individual, all, organization, etc), and have a default setting. I'd like
  • Create New...