Jump to content

Dakanmer

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    USA
  • Interests
    Scripting
  • backer_title
    Patron
  • Gender
    Male
  • Alpha
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Dakanmer's Achievements

  1. If you were really looking at player feedback and responding to it...this nonsense wouldn't have even been considered. Sorry, I just don't buy it. A research tree would have been infinitely better. Research stuff, make copies of schematics from that research, use/sell schematics, but make it cost time (you don't need money for a digital thing, and if the machines aren't using digital schematics, then what's the point of calling it a futuristic game?) instead of quanta. Yes, people can make zillions of alts to speed up the research and acquisition rate, BUT THEY DO THAT ALREADY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, AND WILL DO THAT FOR THIS AS WELL, so think ahead, have an open dialogue where you can work with the community to get the best (i.e. the most widely supported after discussion) ideas, etc. Basically, don't just make something up at the last minute and say that it's because of community input. Because that's the vibe for this. No real thought put into it. Just checking a box in a hurry. The more of these "we listened to the players and this is our response" posts that I see, the less interested I am in seeing the final product.
  2. Like some other people, I got excited about the new gravity-inverted containers. I set up a spreadsheet and everything to see if they would be worth the exorbitant cost of production...only to find out that, by design, they do not work as anything but standard, lower-volume containers when linked to a hub. For those who haven't tried making them, the schematic costs alone are nothing to sneeze at. I built a single production line for advanced containers, with enough sub-production to make sure there's always just enough stuff to keep the assembler running. Material-wise, it's not super-horrid, but time-wise it's a monster. Producing these containers (worse for rare, and I'm not dumb enough to even consider exotic, because the plasma cost and time sink are not worth the end product) is slow, so expect to only replace containers on ships you've already built....except....not even that, because, again, by design they don't work to reduce mass when linked to a hub. In short, that means that you will now need to design new ships that put the containers at the center so that your adjusters will work properly (meaning turning doesn't result in pitching and rolling). Cost-wise, it would be better to just add more engines on a ship with standard containers, because at least then you can link to a hub and have the same result. Sooo....why bother with gravity-inverted containers in the first place, if the intent was to have them act as single-container units from the get-go? What is the point? Designing a ship around individual containers, which you have to manually distribute resources between to get the center of gravity just right, was done away with when hubs were introduced. Why bring it back while wrapping it in the c***-tease "but you have a small mass reduction of the contents" ploy? To be clear, I stopped my production of these containers. They're effectively lesser-volume basic containers that just cost a lot of time and resources to produce. That makes them worthless. No value added to the game except for ships designed around 1-2 containers with no hubs, and the cost doesn't even justify that for most cases. Maybe I'm just salty, but the fact that the official response to identifying the issue was to point out that they were intended to work this way doesn't give me much hope for the future of the game. If it was intended to work this way, but also to be changed later to work with a hub, then that would be fine, because that's the way of development...but not even that. So a suggestion for the devs, if you want a feature to be seen as actually adding value to the game: make sure it isn't just a gimmick before releasing it. This new gravity-inverted container type is a gimmick; a container that reduces mass, but only when not linked to a hub, and is supposed to go on a dynamic construct where mass and volume and center of gravity are important factors. The optimized containers at least work properly when linked to a hub, making them worth producing. If it's about mixing container types/tiers, then do something simple, and make it so that the reduction only applies if all containers are of the same tier/type (independent of size, obviously). That, at the bare minimum, is reasonable. This is a mixed rant and feedback. I wasted a lot of money setting up production, and got my hopes up that it would be worth the cost. Now I have millions worth of schematics that are worthless to me. Obviously, saltiness is to be expected, especially since it wasn't clearly explained that the mass reduction wouldn't work when linked to a hub. Something like that, for something so costly, speaks to incompetence or malice, given that it was by design, even if it was just an oopsie-doodle "I forgot to mention this really important 'feature' with this new element."
  3. Unknown Wrecks are a thing. You can "salvage" from them. Great start. But you can only salvage a set maximum volume in elements and voxels. The voxel maximum was ludicrously tiny; you can't even remove a wall big enough to walk through (that I recall). The element maximum...was slightly better. The wreck I just came upon had 4 L containers, 4 L space fuel tanks, 2 XL space engines, and a bunch of other less interesting stuff...but you can't salvage even 1 of the larger elements. You can certainly waste scrap repairing them before finding out they're too big, though. NQ, please increase the salvage volume cap so that you can at least loot the largest element, even if you can only loot one and nothing else from the construct. Having them there without being able to take them because of the maximum is silly, and a massive nerd-tease deserving a good thwomping.
  4. I've made my point clear. It's obvious that people arguing against it aren't actually reading any of it, and are instead knee-jerking about "oh, no! He's attacking pirating! All hands on deck to argue against whatever he's saying should change!" I won't post further, because it's pointless trying to argue with people who won't do the bare minimum of reading the suggestion, or the further explicitly-stated clarifications/reiterations.
  5. Try making a valid argument instead of complaining that a valid one has been presented that YOU DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ.
  6. Yes, people would rather just cry to NQ instead of actually learning a valid strategy...hence the nerf that pirates cried to NQ about to create the full-stop and spin-up of warp drives.... I offered a reasonable balance to an unfair advantage. That's all. Take away unfair advantages like being able to warp immediately. Fine. But balance it out so that there is NO unfair advantage. It's not whining to say "that's an unfair advantage, here's a fair solution," especially not when pirates said "that's an unfair advantage, so take it away and give us an unfair advantage."
  7. Maybe try reading what I suggested before asking that, because I spelled it out very clearly.
  8. It is trolling, plain and simple. Yes, there's a warning, just like there's a warning on a pack of cigarettes and a bottle of alcohol saying "this is dangerous." That doesn't change the fact that pirates in games do it primarily for fun, i.e. to troll, just like smokers and alcoholics use their products for their enjoyment. Blaming the people who get trolled for the troll trolling them doesn't change the fact of what happened, and trying to suggest it does only proves the point further.
  9. Yeah, it's standard pirating. But my point is about balancing the non-standard pirating, not making all travel safe all the time.
  10. It was nerfed because pirates whined about not getting enough action. Nobody said anything about un-nerfing it. I EXPLICITLY said that it should be nerfed for EVERYONE, not just slow-boaters. I'm talking about balancing, and you're trying to straw-man it to make you guys appear to be the real victims when someone says "maybe they shouldn't get to keep their advantage, since they took it away from their victims." B.A.L.A.N.C.E., not special treatment, not un-nerf.
  11. Maybe if I put it into simpler terms, you'll understand the problem: Kid #1 has a shiny toy. Kid #2 has a shiny toy. Kid #1 whines to an adult that kid #2 has a shiny toy that makes it so kid #1 can't have fun. The adult takes away kid #2's shiny toy, but lets kid #1 keep theirs. Kid #2 then says "that's not fair. If you take mine away, you should take theirs away, too." That brings us to now, where kid #1 is saying "that's not fair. I should be allowed to keep my shiny toy and have fun, even though they can't keep theirs." Except that we're talking about kid #1 actually stealing from kid #2 after beating them up for a lauhg, with almost (almost) nobody who actually stands up to people like kid #1 because there's almost no incentive to, and plenty of incentive NOT to (it's not cheap, there's basically no reward, etc). Like you people defend your shiny toy with "stop trying to take away my shiny toy," the "best" response is "just warp directly. Don't slowboat at all, because they WILL catch you before you can even respond. Here's some videos proving my point." Complaining about balance is a [filtered] move after all that whining to gain an advantage. Sure, you can slowboat out of the pipe, but that just leaves the STANDARD threat of pirate attacks, which aren't uncommon already. That STANDARD threat should be the only threat, because that forces pirates to put in the effort to chase people down, which is only fair given that the people they troll have to also put in the effort to fly for multi-hour trips.
  12. 100% avoidable just not fly in the pipes...except when that doesn't work. My org has a guy who regularly flies outside the pipe for missions (or did before the change), and "100% avoidable" was constantly disproved. "Less likely," yes, but only to a point that was discussed quite a bit before, following along the lines of "actually, they also watch those other areas. Here are videos showing them catching people who try." If it was a simple matter of going out of the way, you would have a point, because then pirates have to chase people down the old-fashioned way. But it isn't that simple, because you DON'T have to do that when they go direct. Hey, you want things to be fun, then make sure it's balanced so it's not JUST you having fun. You guys complained about people warping before you could shoot them, so you got what you wanted, but with no balance. This is a reasonable balance. You want a spin-up time and full stop to warp so you can get some PVP action? Then have a spin-down time and full stop to leave warp and make things reasonably fair. My points about escorts and the like are still completely valid, whereas yours for keeping a feature that only really favors pirates is just "I have this shiny toy that gives me an advantage since I took away their shiny toy, and I don't want mine taken away, too, because then I won't have fun." You want fun, but so does everyone else. Balance or bust.
  13. Short version: dropping out of warp letting people continue at max speed should be stopped immediately. Force anyone who drops out of warp, manually or upon reaching the destination, to come to a full stop, and lock their controls for a brief period (as is the case when you leave warp automatically). Long version: pirates whined about not getting enough action, and NQ delivered by forcing warp ships to have a spool-up time that could be stopped by a target lock. Pirates were happy. Pirates could use scripting to predict player trajectories, warp over, and cancel warp while retaining high speeds to catch ships that were travelling at max speed. That's total BS. If NQ insists on locking the ship down for warp, they should lock down the radar, as well as force any ships in warp to come to a complete stop when they drop out, regardless of if it's by prematurely stopping or arriving at the destination. By allowing ships to maintain max speed when dropping out of warp early, they give pirates specifically an unfair advantage over others. Pirates specifically, because they're the only ones who benefit from that strategy in a PVP game, with the ultra-rare exception of actual battles taking place and reinforcements warping in...which is a joke, because battles don't last that long to begin with due to there being no large-scale conflicts. This game needs PVP balance, not preferential treatment for trolls/pirates (or whatever helps them sleep better at night calling themselves. I've heard "gankers," and "justifications" for being one, but it's all the same). Making ships slower so that pirates could more easily catch them was just another way to show preferential treatment to them at the expense of people who already sink hours into travel time. Rather than making things slower, they should have just increased the cap and kept the concept of acceleration slowing as your speed increases according to some curve. Throwing out lame "we realize that this will make some people (everyone who even thinks of space travel, except pirates) mad, but we want more people (pirates) to enjoy the game" excuses for giving preferential treatment to pirates is not exactly a great way to convince people that space travel is worth sinking time into....unless they live to troll those who do. Stasis guns might be useful for that, but it goes both ways, and slow ships becoming slower means that there's even less incentive to bother. PVP isn't cheap. Flying isn't cheap. You can't sell damaged elements on the market. Pirates get away with it because that's what makes them happy, and they have the chance for stealing cargo. There is no real motivation for PVP orgs to fight pirates because of the cost, and since taxes go to Aphelia instead of orgs, there's no way to fund them except through donations...and good luck getting anyone but a pirate to fly for 4-6 hours playing escort, when a pirate can warp in at any moment, without any delay between dropping out of warp and shooting. Again, it's preferential treatment. Get some balance, and stop making excuses for coddling pirates. They're the ones who do the bulk of PVP, but that should not mean giving them what they want. It should mean finding ways to make other people want to, rather than forcing them to in the least reasonable ways that put them at a significant disadvantage. You will never entice people to actually do PVP without balance, and without finding ways to get non-pirates, specifically non-pirates, interested in it beyond "we don't have a choice." Because you don't need to entice pirates. They already want it. You need to entice everyone else. Entice, not force.
  14. I'm not sure what API might be useful as a scripting noob, so I can't offer suggestions. I wanted to keep the possibility for API open as a suggestion, though, in case other people had ideas. RDMS would be great, though. Having a public beacon network, or even one requiring a subscription (players/orgs pay a recurring fee for use of existing networks owned by other players/orgs) would make it so every org didn't have to make their own, especially with the limit on the number of orgs a player can be part of. If one of the ideas is to get people to specialize on things so that everyone isn't doing everything, then that would be a big one. This one was more about being able to get the waypoint without having to go into the map and copy it. Opening the map is always lag-inducing, making it sometimes dangerous to open at all (including/especially PVP areas like asteroids and the like). Even having a right-click option to copy/clear the current waypoint would be great. I've seen the clear waypoint in a video, but there's no explanation for how to do it, I haven't been able to replicate it, etc. Adding it to API would just be icing. Thanks for responding. Usually it's a wall of demoralizing silence from NQ.
  15. If you want people to interact more, there are plenty of justifiable/reasonable ways to do it. This is just not one of them by any stretch of the imagination, and it violates the promises made about the game, particularly about being able to play solo or with friends, or however the individual player wants. If you want to play with other people so much that you have to coordinate between dozens/hundreds of them to produce enough stuff to make anything mid-high tier, then you can play that way. Don't suggest that we all be forced to. If it does happen, I can guarantee that a lot more people (than in previous updates) will either boycott until it's reversed, or quit entirely.
×
×
  • Create New...