Kelmoir

How do you tell if someone is posting his opinion or is just tying to high jack the thread? Well, given that you reflected on my initial post with almost no words at all, and covered vastly different topics, than I was addressing (and I was focussing, because this post already got very long), I would guess you are the latter. Plus exp-based taxes would punish you for progression. Which is bad. And 'active' afk mining? Even worse. Sorry, but either completely manual, or with the current way. Booster charges for everything? Those are mining charges, And not to force players to save those charges to get an edge in PVP when they got the initiative (and punishing those that haven't, even harder). And finally, DU is not a browser game, don't try to turn it into one, by dialing up these login-bonuses. NQ wants casual players for money, and a few pro's to serve as advertisement lighthouses.

First: Why does everyone pick its own land and a few tiles around that? Because the tile itself costs all the tax (and a lot of it, too). There is no adjacency bonus for your friends, unless the tiles are run by the same org. Why people keep claiming tiles to their own name? Because they can't dedicate their HQ tokens onto org-owned tiles. Thus, org tiles are inherently less safe than own HQ tiles. Why people only claim the (perceived) really good tiles? Because the tile alone costs all the taxes. How to solve this and to propose teamplay? Split the taxation between tile, mining units and Industry. But don't involve actual quanta taxes for the mining units and industry, rather have them require consumables. Admittedly, this would be a hassle for industry, as they essentially just require more input per output, so maybe just ignore the industry in this equation. So, Split taxation between quantas for the tile and consumables for the mining units. What would this acchieve? If adjacency bonuses are available, less great tiles next to friends should become more comparably profitable compared to better tiles with more units and less adjacency, because you claimed out in the wilds. Since you put less mining units on them, which gives you lower running costs for that tile. And yes, these Bonusses should outweigh the tile tax even when only T1 is mined. -> The tile tax maybe down to 100k/week. Of course, the lone wolfs would just claim another row of tiles. But that increases their cost, and risk in the future. Also, higher tier Mining units should require more expensive consumables, to partially (a little bit) offset their much higher income. E.g. 150k/week worth of supplies (bot prices/no manufacturing skills) for a T1 mining unit, 300k for a T2,.... The consumables would obviously be produced by players, which promotes cooperation between players, and players trading with each other, and not just dumping their ore into the buy bots. Plus if the higher tier mining units require consumables that also require materials of their tier, the demand would also increase there. And finally, all mning unit upgrades would be worth wile. Personally I got tiles with 560+ T1 on them, with my current skills I can exploit >95% of that volume, fully skilled, and with 4 units at 125 each, I would only allocate 500l of the tiles, reducing allocation, and reducing net gain, sine the tile itself concentrates all the costs. So why skill in the + allocation skill for the units, when the gain is either nonexistent or negative, but freeing up mining unit slots? How to provide adjacency bonuses for friends/org members? Well, through common organizations, of course! If e.g. 2 Hyperion Members are sitting next to each other, then their membership in Hyperion should enable them to provide adjacency bonuses to each other. Of course, this ideally goes for all the organization slots. This would also enable some feudal like county, where the tiles are owned by the local landlords, but they may act together as their country, if need to be. Especially including fierce fun in times of war, when members decide to switch sides, join both parties, etc. Those changes would really invoke cooperation between players, a player-driven market, and more cooperation and civilization building.

This is to protect all the legacy constructs and tiles around the world. This is a one-time action. And this is honestly even one of my preferred solutions to the problem, of figuring out, how to a) clean up the landscape, and b) don't beat up old players, which might come back eventually.

Well, Among other things, that I got my issues with, the UI is the outstanding thing. Why? Because it makes a difference, if you get a 95% calibration, or a 100% calibration, but the bar on the left won't show you. From this you can't tell, what you will get. Plus, even if that bar would give you a precise number, it would be tedious to find the 100% spot (which was found, meaning I should be able to claim it easily). Thus, I suggest, that either the 'SET FINAL CALIBRATION POINT' (and the UI is even yelling at the player, allthough it is a button, after all) Will display you the best spot that you already discovered. Or it should use a small circle from which it picks the maximum.

Almost. The Idea is quality levels like they have been used in many different Games so far. Higher quality level means better stats, but they get incresingly harder to aquire. Still roughly the same Item though.

Well, My Idea just concerns the Elements, The ships themselves still require the builders. But with all those wider range of quality range of elements and thus also prices, the possible variety of ships would also increase and thus the required builder still to keep everything on order, on tharget and on budget. Like the expensive each with high grade stuff, or the cheap starter vessel that get's the job done, but is not flashy,... It essentially just adds a degree of freedom, if you got left with the decision of using 4 ql 1 squirrels for likely a low cost or 3 ql 10 squirrels for a higher cost. Still quality control of the finished ships would be a mayor part of the associations, from the players, in order to make sure that all ships are making their mark. Or you start that ranking thing when things get going, it would at least be interesting^^

So, this post is about the distinction between basis classes of crafting in games. Between having n Items, where each Item class is equal (i.e. an Engine 'squirrel' always being the same), or diversification through quality levels of sort (meaning the squirrel could be stronger or weaker, depending on quality levels). The first system would quickly boil down to just raw price of the Items. Nothing more. Live. i.e. EVE. It would make shipbuilding and selling very easy, as you can (with some experience) quickly figure out, how much stuff you need to accomplish the task for the ship. But trading would only diversify through price, and I don't quite see how that would invoke that Industrialist's nook, famous, for whatever. As talked about in the devblog. Unless an heavy localization on industry is enforced. I.e. 'pardus': Hauling did require so much action points there, that you would not travel far for supplies, unless absolutely necessary. Howether, by adding in Quality levels of Items, you split market competition between price and quality level, creating a far wider field of competition and diversity. It would add more challenge to shipbuilding, because the really good ones will know, when they i.e. need a squirrel less to make the ship do the job. And thus also kinda forces redesign of the ships. Because price matters there too. And at the end, that would totally enable that specialized industrialist people hear about, because he produces the best squirrels in the galaxy. Finally, because the careful specialization will likely yield more profit, it will require more people to really hit the limit, thus providing more player interactions. You want to be sure, that your premium parts still will be available tomorrow. But how to get those quality levels? I would suggest to essentially handle that with 3 categorys: - The materials used, higher quality in the components -- higher quality in the result. Or more expensive materials for the first things. - The level of technological finesse asserted in their production. I.e. smaller tolerances for a better result,.... - The level of specialization of the factory. If the factory is custom made to create squirrels that it should do a better job than a general one, which in change can also create different engines. By unlocking more tech improvements for the specialized one. Of course, each crafter has to decide for himself, which road to pursue. Specialize on one single high end, high price Item, or just produce on demand in bulk and low quality what ever is at demand, go in mid spec and mid price by selecting a small group of Items,... Technological finesse and specialization. How? I do remember that the devs wanted to add actual research to the game. I would use that. Let's say, you can research engines. After some research you may gain the ability to research atmospheric engines further. And eventually, you might be able to research further into the 'squirrel'. Of course, the Research effort per level would grow exponentially but unlimited in level, and the more specialized ones would be more expensive in general. But if you specialize you will quickly be able to apply more levels of research to the engines you are building. If you use specialized factorys. The general engine one would only get the engine tech levels, that atmospheric one would get the engine + atmospheric engine levels, and the one for the squirrel would also get the ones for the squirrel itself. Additionally that also woks with the materials. Let's say we use the engine housing as an example. You can craft general purpose engine housings, specialized atmospheric engine housings, or an housing specifically tailored to the squirrel. And of course the research and production sec options should also apply there, too. Once again, the special suirrel housings would likely ending up to be the best you can get. But the crafter will literally have set all his bet's on that part. With the risk, and if no one wants squirrels any more, for whatever reason, those specialization might suddenly not worth anything any more. How the blueprints would be need to taught to deal with the chance of facing elements with different quality levels from the ones theroy were constructed with, is another point, but surely there could be a way as to how the builder can specify the valid quality range for each element, if necessary. Or provide some general defaults/settings. Building seems to take a lot of time, adding a few minutes to specify the valid quality ranges should not be too much of an issue.

Yes, Miamato, I guess you are right. Guess, I messed that up with their mobiles, as Huawei also got their booloaders blocked, so that you can't easily install a custom OS on the Phones. But Laptops are still free there, thankfully. And thus rendering my point moot^^.

Yes it always is. It is never talking about problems that might arise in the future. Or having redundancy. Just as I stated, I don't know to which extent things will change and what things will. And in case you didn't read, Huawei is essentially banned from using proprietary software made in the USA. Not that Microsoft or google like that, and there already was added some grace time, afterwards (which lends a hand as to how far-sighted that decision was). And I did not ask for linux support. I just asked about some feelings from the devs on that thought.

Weird title, but I couldn't quite come up with something more better. The thing is the following: The president of the USA prohibited his companies (this includes Microsoft) to continue work with Huawei. I.e. news article on BBC. Which might just be a single case or the first company of many. Means, there will be less or far less windows computers in the world, especially in China. As Huawei does also produce notebooks. Which all reduces the number of potential customers for an officially win10 only title. I don't have numbers, but Huawei isn't exactly small. Question being, does this change the relation towards Linux, as to try making it run there at least easier?

Rulers serving the people is the ideal form. Really nice constitution.

To be Honest, the SG Probe thing only really makes sense, if you can actually jump to them. Like, fast. Or will they have a person sized SG on board? I have the feeling, that Stargates will be bilt in various ways, some with high power production to allow frequent use, some with high-capacity fields to allow long range, and others with big size to allow big ships. Of course those three thing greatly interfere with each other. Like bigger range also needs more power, or bigger ships need much more power, even reducing range and increasing spin up-times. And I can totally see Jump drives not outclassing Stargates. Just make the space/power rquirements so big, that ships with jumpdrives will simply get too big to use standard Stargates. And maybe also induce some field shape propertys onto the ship, Like hiding everything in the jumpdrive bubble. Where Expanding increases the costs, etc. Plus finally, Jump drives would need some marked coordinates. Free form jump on known coordinates might be overpowered.

Well, my Idea would be the following, that enery (or fuel) needs to be harvested and used, or stored and then used. What do I mean? Let's take Antimatter as an example. You need lots of power and an particle acelerator (or High power Lasers,..) to create that. But you would power that by solar, for Instance. In the Spacecraft you would use an Antimatter reactor to generator Power. So, via solar power you harvest energy, and convert it into antimatter to store it. In the spaceship you use it then for stuff. The Idea behind this is, that ships usually are so small, that the can't harvest the energy resources by themselves, thus they need fuel of sort, and refuel somewhere. While really big motherships could hold fission reactors and (re-)processing plants to utilize easily acquirable fission fuel, and utilize the fuels to their maximum extend until just worthless waste is left. Or you have an ground base Uranium mining operation, and processing plant. Ships could get the std. Uranium for fuel, and sell their uranium waste. With the ground based reprocessing plant you would then reprocess the waste to sell the remains as nuclear fuel, again. Just because the reactor itself is light enough for the ship, but not the processing part. Thus my Ideas: Harvesting: -Solar -Chemical fuel gathering -Fission/fusion fuels gathering Storing: -Batterys -Hydrogen/O2(for fuel cells) -fusion/fission fuels -Antimatter Usage: -Fuel cells -Batterys -Fission Reactors -Fusion Reactors -Antimatter Reactors -Hybrids of these above And finally, due to the immense energy requirements of space propulsion, even antimatter powered ships would need to refuel on antimatter from time to time.

Well, this faction sounds very interesting. I would like to sign up, freelancer Engineer/R&D and whatever is fun/needed atm. RL Skills: - Programming C, C#, LUA,... - learning Mechanical engineering - will to design things for one specific need I have a few Ideas on what to tinker, already. But I am not sure how much time I can opt in on a regular base, thus freelancer. And also change of stuff to do at times. Just doing R&D would get boring.

Basically the same as in RL would be cool. The code usually gets protected really well, and the mechanic side of things, well, you can just open things and look, how it was done. And that is, what they stated. As the true knowledge goes into manufaturing the components, and the code. Plus making sure everything on the mechanic/Electronic/whatever side is working. If the Voxel mesh will be static, that one might be somewhat easier...