ManfredSideous
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ManfredSideous
-
-
Someone wake me up when they put some conflict drivers in the game. Like man holy F#$& just put in asteroids out in the pvp zone that is good high tier ore for us to fight over. This mission system I doubt will yield much in the form of conflict. Really feeling let down here. Starting to ask myself why I am keeping 3 accounts subbed.
- OrionSteed and OBER0TH
-
2
-
So we posted this in the discussion thread when the idea was initially posted by NQ. They obviously overlooked it because this idea is far superior to the system they suggested and are now implementing. It is my belief that elements should have a durability stat. A new item would have 100% durability as that element becomes damaged to "red status" it loses a % of its durability. Losing durability % reduces the total HP of an element. Subsequent "element damaging events" would further reduce the elements durability level until it finally reaches 0% durability. In which case the element could be repaired to useable status but it would have 1 HP. Furthermore if NQ chose to they could degrade other statistics as well so for an example an engine. For this example lets say the Engine element has 50% durability this could mean that it has 50% of the HP 50% thrust 50% more fuel usage. The argument for durability is as follows. This punishes bad piloting like NQs system. It still creates a sink whilst not leaving players stranded due to accidents , bugs , pvp etc. I will illustrate some examples below:
Space Engine L
100% durability
Engine HP 10002
Engine Thrust 3,240,000 kn
Fuel Usage per hour (liter) 2,985.98
**ENGINE IS DESTROYED RED STATUS**
**DUE TO DESTRUCTION EVENT ENGINE LOSES 10% DURABILITY**
Space Engine L
90% durability
Engine HP 9001
Engine Thrust 2916000
Fuel Usage per hour (liter) 3284.578
So as you can see in the above example how this effects the element. The player would still be able to use the element after its lost durability but at some point it is going to make sense because of performance loss to replace the element. However the element will still always work just rather inefficiently meaning that a player wont be stranded somewhere.
-
Havoc will be there.
-
10 minutes ago, Neo_O said:
im not agreed with all you said in your post but yes in most of it. anyway im not arguing and answering your post cos im not agree. the thread was open to add our ideas and agre with Nq not betwen us plz this is not your post, i don't think is a good idea to you to asnwer everyone debating or making their ideas bad or a joke cos you think yours is the better
pd: i love your analoge of zorg cherrie
Yea was no hate friend I do not have the market cornered on best thinking. I was just participating in the discussion. Have a good day ?
-
Just now, Mornington said:
Why is there only one comment so far on the industry side when it sounds like they seem to have just invalidated 100% of industry blueprints by bringing in a system where you need machines that don't exist yet to make parts you are already making?
The tractor made the plow horse obsolete bro. Advancement does that.
-
Just now, Neo_O said:
all changes will be great but they don't be balanced and can create a very wide clift into mining and economy. without a continuous renewal of ore source prices will grow up and gonna keep new and solo/duo players away from markets, obligating them again to join a bigger org. that bring again the controversial "safe zone moons" that "run out of rare ores" i know that all this renewal resources are in roadmap and they are coming but release your changes without releasing renewals ore resources mechanic is a non sense.
another thing in consideration is with the ability to bring the reduced durability items to the inventory... give a new use for the recycler. dismantel: capable to split the damaged element into crafting parts depending on the durability loss and always less than the cost of craft it. or just making a new industry unit and reuse the recycler as placeholder for don't "charge" too much to art devs.anyway the changes will be good only if the renewal of resources mechanic release at same time.
pd: we will apreciate if you inform and show some of the conceps you have for the energy system and all new things you are working on, transparency, movable parts and on foot pvp is all starbase have to win you in future if you don't rush them, transparency over all.
NQ have said there will be asteroids and new solar systems to bring in new ore. Your comment of the solo player having to join an org. Lets look at that word Organization ( to organize) hmm I wonder why they would have an advantage over a solo player ?
-
Good changes (mostly). What is to stop me from making a small cross section L core with L weapons? Because I can see that being meta. IMHO core sizes need some built in invisible cross section to them that prevents the behavior I have described. NQ I am a 16+ year EVE veteran that played at the very edge of mechanics even personally forcing the developer to change there game due to my creations. Let me make something abundantly clear WE , I will abuse mechanics to the absolute degree if we think it will give us an advantage over our opponents because winning is more fun than losing. So when you make changes that effect PVP or the economy you really need to have a think on how players can and will abuse your changes. Because I promise you I and WE will. I am going to shift to L cores with small cross sections and L weapons and my ship will be more potent than an XS , S , M with the same cross section.
IMHO larger core sizes need to some extent signature blooms baked into the core to combat the scenario I have presented. I will illustrate below.XS Core ship with 20 voxel wide front = 20 voxel wide cross section
S core ship with 20 Voxel wide front = 25 voxel wide cross section (s core gives 25% bloom)
M core ship with 20 Voxel wide front = 30 voxel wide cross section ( m core gives 50% bloom)L core ship with 20 Voxel wide front = 40 voxel wise cross section ( L core gives 100% bloom)
So you can see from the example above baking this into the cores stops the abuse that I laid out we players will do. So the next argument will be "well why use a larger core" the answer is because they can hold more armor more container space for replacement elements and so on so you can stay in the fight longer. Also destroyed elements should be have some material that could be salvaged by players so people can have spoils of victory in pvp. I don't actually care about loot in PVP the experience is what I play for but I admit and understand that others see the loot as an integral part of the experience and reward for victory. So being able to somehow salvage some monetary value from a vanquished foes battle steed will go a long way in appeasing a good portion of your players.
Next critique is destructible elements. For PVP this is an awesome change for non-pvp not so much. My suggestion is for non-pvp aka collision is that collision cannot break an element ( make it red) only damage it ( make it yellow). ITT several players have illustrated that due to bugs , things not loading or server / client issues desynch etc leads to ship crashes or collisions. So I would highly encourage you with a rethink on non-pvp element damage or you will have a large part of your customers gnashing teeth.
In closing I just want to say that in a Sandbox MMO destruction is the seed of life. I can go on to ad nauseum of the hows and whys justifying and proving my point. However someone did a much job than me in a much better way. Let me introduce you to Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg from Zorg industries in the cult classic Fifth Element. Enjoy the clip!
♥ Manny
-
So with no interdiction capabilities in the game I love the idea of a space harpoon. You fire it at a certain range ( think cone of fire like turrets) it connects with target. If the mass of the firing ship is higher than the target the target ship will be reeled in. If the target is heavier than the attacker the attacker will be reeled to target. For counter play the target player can cut the harpoon line through some mechanism.
SAY IT WITH ME , SPACE HARPOON ARRRRRG MATEY PREPARE TO BE BOARDED WE CUM FOR YOUR BOOTY!
-
11 hours ago, Lucjan said:
I think, moving constructs to instance isn't good idea for this type of game (EVE can be compared but it's a different game), using included containers could be problematic, but leaving it this way isn't good either. So, IMO, I think the better way will be "towing" a forgoten constructs if they were not moved from the entire marketplace/district tile for a specified amount of time (maybe 48h, or 72h, or 1 week at most with proper alert message for logged owner or email notification for not logged owner).
One is for sure - something must be done with that because in long term this will turn in a total chaos in such places.Devs moved constructs away from markets just a couple days ago. It was so cluttered just 24 hours later that it was causing crashes. I cant go to a market because of it. Many others are in the same boat.
-
The clutter of constructs at markets is horrible. I have slower internet speed and cannot get higher. Whenever I get close to a market I crash out. I have seen lots of people complain about this as well. The idea I have and deff not an original concept is: When you roll up on a market and land anywhere in a specific range you are invited to park your construct. By doing so it moves the construct into a garage or bay which would be an instance. Removing it from the main server . For those who do not park their construct after a short period of time the server moves it to an instance. Already in my short tenure I have seen devs have to move constructs to the ark to reduce load at markets. This does not seem sustainable. Having to load all these constructs anytime you need to go to the market ( an essential thing) is also not practical. I play EVE Online when you go to a station in EVE you dock in it and it removes the ship from the environment and reduces load on the node/server. We need something similar in DU. Discuss.
♥Manny
-
Hi Malcanis XD
-
-
Hmmm.
-
Hi I am Manny and I have been lurking following development of this game for some time. I am a gaming vet and 13+ year vet of EVE Online. Google Manfred Sideous or search it on youtube Shoot you all soon =P
NQ Your lack of action regarding the schematic fiasco is disturbing
in General Discussions
Posted
Has NQ given any consideration to just rebranding themselves to Banana Republic Development Inc? It seems to be a more fitting name.