Jump to content

Dakanmer

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dakanmer

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Don't take this the wrong way (is there a "right way"?), but... I don't think NQ thinks very far ahead, or considers the unintended consequences of their actions. It's like certain people who look at a problem and only see the surface symptom, completely disregarding everything that feeds into it and the many other symptoms that arise from them. As far as getting people and orgs to interact, schematics aren't a good way to go. Unless the daily allowance is maintained permanently, or selling ores to NPCs gets expanded on to include higher tiers, then money sinks will dominate: 1. Taxes for placing TCUs can wipe out your savings quick, and it doesn't feed back into the player economy 2. Enough schematics to build just one element, with the things to support building it, is prohibitively expensive, and the money doesn't feed back into the player economy For a player-driven economy, it is leashed tightly to the system in both income and expenditure. That means that all actions will revolve around the system's economic constraints more than anything the players want or do. They slow everything down artificially by forcing people to spend money that will just disappear from circulation, and then wait days to weeks before they can do it again on any meaningful level; that may be fine for the most casual "I'll only log in once a day for the free money" players, but not the majority of "I actually want to play this game more than a few minutes a day" players. And some unintended consequences are going to be orgs merging to build up funds quicker via taxes or donations from their membership, forcing smaller orgs to fall farther behind, and solo players to be forced to join an org or spend unreasonable amounts of time trying to build up enough money to do anything of value. Soloists and small orgs can sell resources, but that's all they can do unless they have enough money to buy the schematics to make anything. Bigger orgs pooling their money won't be buying much from the solos and small orgs, because their members will also be working to build up those same resources, and probably at a discount to the org. That will drive solos out unless they're hardcore and gluttons for punishment, and small orgs will likely lose membership to the bigger orgs because they just can't compete with the massive income and resource mining. What they want isn't being addressed by what they do. They're just slapping bandaids on the symptoms and hoping it works, rather than properly diagnosing the issue and recognizing that they're dealing with a problem that bandaids won't solve. Things they've told us about where they want to go don't mesh with where they're pushing it. They want player-owned markets (we all do), but with taxes going to the system, what is the benefit of having any except to place one in more central locations as a free service to the public? They said "no automation," and then they introduced the idea of mining drones. They introduced the space combat system to allow for anything a player could come up with, then decided that players should be restricted to what they could put on a core based on size because the previous (and very logical and efficient cube fighter) designs ruined the experience. It's as though they are focused purely on doing stuff, with little time spent on thinking ahead to how that stuff might be used and abused by players. Like scientists building a new and experimental bomb to blow up a massive asteroid, they don't think about or see the obvious other uses that they should. On that note, I would suggest doing more outreach to the community to come up with that stuff. The game is sold as very player-driven, but based on the economy thus far, including taxes for market use and territory claims, and now including schematics, the efficacy of "player-driven" is suspect. So get more player input about "how might this be abused" and "what alternate uses might this have that we don't intend" issues, as well as "what solutions to these (specified) problems exist, which make the most sense for the type of game we're trying to create" (and loop back to the first two question sets). Schematics could be a potentially good idea, but not as-is. Where's the player-driven aspect, or is it meant to artificially slow everything down to fit some unreasonable demand that development be slow (you want the game to have a long life, but this is not the way to do it)? Introduce a research aspect. Allow players to create schematic copies. (This is the future, not the past, but even in the distant past a person could copy blueprints, and today a person can copy digital and physical designs easily enough; what is so special about the schematics that they must only be bought from the system?) Come up with some creative solution, and then bounce it around the community to hammer out "how might this go wrong" and "what can be improved" details. Don't just throw something out that you spent days/weeks/months working on, only to find that people are creative and intelligent, causing you untold headaches and wasted time...and certainly don't repeat that same mistake time after time. It is insulting to us that you don't respect our ability to think beyond the level of single-function programs. It's also a waste of your time and money, which could have been better spent with a little more time planning for even the most basic ways that new features would be used beyond their intended functions. Moving the game forward is important, but so is taking the time to consider unintended consequences. As critical as I am, I still think the developers are doing a good job. Some real and major issues to work out, but DU is a worthy venture.
  2. If the maneuver tool is being nerfed before desynch issues are fixed, then what are players supposed to do when ships decide to start moving around on their own? They can go from being landed on a space station to plummeting towards a planet, or landed near a base or mining spot and drifting away rapidly, and the only way to stop and return them is often with the maneuver tool. Fix the problems that make the tool most useful first, then do the adjustments to the tool's abilities after.
  3. Except that it's written right here and doesn't discriminate between technical limitations or anything else: Playing at the same time with two or more accounts is forbidden (having several accounts is fine as long as you only play with only one at a time). It's not reasonable to say that it was an interpretation issue mixed in with technical limitations, because the bulk of the responses were basically saying, "This is what the rule says, but what if I wear a red shirt instead of a blue one? Does the rule still apply? And what if I'm not wearing pants?" Which is to say that they either suck at understanding the meaning of words (like "forbidden" and "you" and "only one at a time"), or something else is going on. The following example posts were most of what people were arguing, which doesn't support the confusion you described: Does this restriction include running a second account on another PC, where the player character only stands near a control unit (programming board) and does not do anything else? Until headless Lua clients are added to the game, there is no way to keep a Lua script running while the player is offline or out of range. --- I'm a bit curious about this - are they talking 'same machine', 'same external ip address' or 'same household'? We have three gamers in the house, two of which actually PLAY DU. And sometimes we sit at different machines in the house while doing so. I might sit at machine A for the first half of my day while my other half uses machine B, but then in the evening I might be sitting at machine B while my other half uses machine A. --- Please reconsider this. People who want to multibox will not stop because you simply say their not allowed. It just raises the barrier to entry for people who want to. This game involves a lot of waiting around if it's for industry or slowboating and allowing people to do fun things on an alt allows them and others they play with to have more fun playing the game. --- More and More remote communities are under 1 IP in Buildings, Schools, etc. 1 Per IP would be insanity in 2020. it also states "Playing at the same time with two or more accounts is forbidden"So in my books unless your playing someone elses account and your own at the same time and that is talent I can't see any rules broken.Honestly the word playing normally means direct Interaction. I can even see them letting us use an alt to run LUA scripts as long were not playing it actively as it be sitting on a box in the corner with anyone "playing" --- The last one meshes a lot with another conversation, which amounted to basically saying "I'm going to interpret the rules posted as not being rules at all, because reasons." They are not being consistent, which is causing confusion, but what is written explicitly states what is allowed and what is not, and going with what's written is defensible, while saying "but I was told by someone that it was okay" is not...and neither is "I don't see a problem with it." They need to be much more consistent with their rules, but anyone who argues with or is confused by this statement Playing at the same time with two or more accounts is forbidden (having several accounts is fine as long as you only play with only one at a time). has issues with reading comprehension, or else is trying to say "that rule shouldn't apply to me (or anyone)."
  4. I'm hearing conflicting things. They say only one account at a time, but JC said otherwise in an interview, so it's anybody's guess at this point. That said... Asking rando's to clarify how the technical side of things works is silly. If I recall from back in the day, all you had to do was let them know about multiple people playing on the same IP, and they would make the exception. That should hold true even now, and asking people "why is this happening to me" should only come after the common sense "I should contact NQ about this issue" or "maybe the FAQ has something about it." As for thinking they can't tell if it's one person playing multiple accounts or not, that's technical stuff that only they can answer, though I can tell you that it is possible to determine whether one person or multiple people are playing; the methods have been used in other MMOs for years now. This issue has been brought up more than once, so it's safe to assume they are at least thinking about how to deal with it. JC's contradiction of this rule in an interview makes everything murky, but for now all anyone can do is look at the rules as written and use common sense and basic reading comprehension to interpret them, as opposed to trying to find loopholes or ask for someone else to re-interpret "don't do it" to fit every single situation. (It should be obvious, but your son isn't "you," so "you" are not playing multiple accounts at once, therefore "you" are not breaking the rules. "You" should contact NQ about it, because it's the sensible thing to do. If and how they determine "you" versus "not you" beyond that is up to and on them, which they may or may not explain to the masses for reasons they may or may not give. But it all starts with "you" saying "he isn't me" to the people who run the show, not complaining about it in a forum to people who can't do anything about it.) Hopefully that cleared it up. Sorry if it sounds aggressive, but nobody should have to clarify "you" versus "not you," or explain "contact the people who can help you before complaining in a public forum where it is unlikely anybody can help you" and other basic things of adulting. Until they come out with different rules, go with what's written, and if you come up with legitimate issues where you aren't breaking the rules but get flagged for it anyway, contact NQ and figure out how to fix it. Just like you would do if your internet stopped working, or if something on warranty broke. Nobody here should even hear about it until that has been done.
  5. I don't understand how people can fail to interpret a rule like this, and instead make excuses for breaking it. Playing at the same time with two or more accounts is forbidden (having several accounts is fine as long as you only play with only one at a time). They don't specify "unless you're using a different computer" because they don't need to specify it. They also don't explicitly tie it to EQU8, because they don't need to. They very explicitly state "Playing at the same time" and "having several accounts is fine as long as you only play with only one at a time." There is no "but what if" about it. There is no creative interpretation. It is explicit. They give the rule, and the ONLY caveat to that rule. YOU can have multiple accounts, but YOU cannot play more than one at a time, REGARDLESS of how many computers you want to run it on. That doesn't mean that OTHER people cannot play on the same IP at the same time, just that YOU cannot play "at the same time with two or more accounts." Again, I don't understand how people can't comprehend what is very explicitly stated. It's like this one time I was telling a guy to follow a clearly defined path, and he looked confused and tried to go off the VERY CLEARLY DEFINED path. It's not rocket science. It's "you're either playing one account at a time, or you aren't playing one account at a time." There is no middle ground, no gray area, no exception that can possibly be puzzled over. You're either following the clearly defined rule, or you're making excuses for trying or wanting to break it.
  6. Which brings us back to the point of the issue: finding tiles by number is not If you have to look up or understand stuff like goldberg polyhedrons or conway rotations in order to do something as simple as find the next tile in a sequence, then it already fails the "easy to follow/find" condition. That's why I provided the 2 suggestions I did. Both would make finding tiles by number far easier than the system they have, even if it ruffles the feathers of people who think that cool geometry tricks are better than simpler solutions that a monkey could understand, because I can guarantee that the vast majority of players are not mathemagicians. They're monkeys, like me.
  7. Here is an example of what I mean. If you can find tile 3894, anywhere nearby, then you're better at finding them than I am. ::pos{0,120,8.4724,91.5964,-0.0001} It is easy to find tiles up to a point. It's at that point that you have to search an entirely different part of the planet to find the next one in the sequence. I've run into this issue many times when trying to find a territory someone tells me about. I ask for the tile # near where we are, I can't find it easily because the tiles are not consecutive and sequential, and because sometimes the tile numbers don't follow the simple "down 1 over 1" pattern seen here.
  8. If you press ALT V and make sure players are checked, then press V to toggle the enhanced view, they are no longer "unknown," because you can see their names. Screenshot, then you can post in the forums and chat who these people are. Nobody can do much of anything with "unknown, even though we watched them do it." Not criticizing you, just showing that the community can't respond to people using exploits like this if nobody knows who they are, and given that NQ is apparently not responding to this issue type, vigilante justice is about the only kind you can probably expect. If there is a process that is known to be repeatable to make this happen, then are there measures that can be taken for players to block it? That would be great to know.
  9. I never said it was random. It follows a pattern, but it isn't a good one. When searching for a tile, you can more or less predict where the next in the number sequence will be, but I've ended up seeing the pattern end and pick up somewhere entirely different. It's not random, but it is much harder to find tiles than it should be, if all you have is the tile number, even if you find a number close to it, or know the general section it's found in.
  10. The probe for scanning the planet's general data would be fine, but using it to scan individual territories is probably taking it too far. They have territory scanners for that already, and while slow and heavy, make plenty of sense. A probe can get data about the planet's atmosphere, mass, radius, etc, and use some NQ galaxy magic to say what ores it contains, but you would need to go to the ground and use a form of "sonar" via the scanners to find out what each territory has. We already use a version of that IRL to get an idea of how our planet is layered, track earthquakes, and some other things I'm sure.
  11. Short version: the territory numbering scheme is hard to follow and should be replaced by something that players can use to actually find territories by number easily. Long version: The way that territories are numbered should follow a predictable and reasonable sequence. Currently, sequentially numbered territories are placed anywhere from 2 tiles (shorthand for territories) away in a diagonal, or even much farther as the sequence stops and is taken up somewhere else across the map. This makes it hard to find a territory unless you have a scan result or a bookmark/position for it already, which then necessitates having lots of bookmarks or lots of scan results, or both. Instead of the current numbering scheme, and due to the spherical nature of each planet, a more appropriate method would be to start at the north pole as tile #1, then each succeeding row going southward would have an unbroken numbering scheme. For example of a small sphere: North pole = 1 Row 1 (right below the north pole) = 2-10 Row 2 = 11-24 Row 3 = 25-40 Row 4 = 41-58 Row 5 (equator) = 59-80 Rows 6-8 continue as the reverse of 2-4 (because "sphere"), leaving the south pole as tile #138. This would make each tile easy to find (with the added benefit of probably being less complicated to code than the current system), as one would only need to check the value of a given tile before determining if their target is in that row. A second option, which could be used in conjunction with the above scheme, or as a stand-alone, would be to create a search function in the map so that players can search by tile number for their destination. Either method would make it easier to justify getting rid of scan results (I have a spreadsheet full of data, including tile #, so keeping scan results is purely about being able to find the tile again), which can clutter boxes fast.
  12. 1600's: Galileo uses a telescope to observe celestial bodies 1700's: many improvements to telescopes; many discoveries about the solar system 1800's: larger telescope made 1900's: telescopes improved and launched into space Early 2000's: more telescope improvements and more space telescopes, including one meant for deep space Modern Era of the DU universes: ships that can travel at great speeds; the ability to magic ore from the ground into a Bag of Holding; wireless container connections that magic stuff between containers and wherever you want to put them; teleporters; anti-gravity generators; force fields; scanners that will tell you how much of what types of ore are in the immediate area (territory)...but the only way to explore the solar system and galaxy is to physically travel through it and see everything in person. There should be an element, or series of elements, that can be used to detect celestial bodies in a radius or cone (or separate elements for short range radius and long range cone). If unknown planets exist, we should be able to find them without relying on luck or days/weeks/months of staring at a screen scanning space as you travel from corner to corner in parallel paths 2-300 SU apart in all axial directions. “Space [...] is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." If we have rockets and ore scanners and the ability to travel between universes, we should at a bare minimum have tools for exploration that extend beyond just our own eyeballs. We have PvP radars, but no non-PvP (scriptable) radars. We have short-range telemeters, but nothing that could be used from kilometers away to get a LiDAR scan (like for night time travel). Exploration was one of the selling points of the game, yet it doesn't exist in a meaningful way. We should have tools for exploration, and reasons to explore. Discovering new planets is great, but must that information be shared with the whole community once it is found? Maybe the discoverer wants to have their own corner of the universe for as long as possible, maybe to exploit resources before the rush begins. What about about exploring the planets? What about oceans? Beyond just finding ore deposits or caves that are mostly just neat aesthetics, exploration has no meaning in this game, and there are no tools beyond ore scanners to make exploration about more than just resource hunting. With space, telescopes or radar-like elements would fill that role, giving individuals/orgs the ability to explore, and either share their results or keep them secret. With oceans, sonar or some other device that gives you an image of what's around you. All of these exploration scans could be displayed on a screen/widget (or, better yet, a 3D holographic device), and be scriptable by providing raw data...because LUA is another selling point of the game that is being downplayed (rumor has it that people complain about it being OP...but so is anything else if you don't have the skills. Piloting is OP if you can't fly or have no interest; it's not fair that others can move planet to planet when you're stuck relying on their skills to get you places. Same illogic applies to scripting). Maybe other players can suggest exploration options, but it's something that I found seriously lacking.
  13. I'm sure it's been beat to death with a herring, but lighting. NQ's intentions were good with trying to make things less stressful flying at night and dark places, but they made it pointless to have lights regardless of environment. So here's my idea: Scale back the ambient lighting, or remove it entirely and give us a "night vision" mode on our super-advanced suits (that also apparently keep us fed, breathing, sane from lack of sleep, etc), and then improve the ability of lights to actually produce light over a longer range (without bleaching through walls or the ground). Explanation: As described above, lights are pointless regardless of environment. You don't need a flashlight when mining anymore; the pitch indicator is great, but you can't see it so easy with the flashlight on, especially in brighter soils. You don't need light elements on your constructs anymore. Lights can help better pinpoint your construct in space or dark soils, but we now have luminescent white (but no other color. Much sad face) voxels for that, so they are completely unnecessary. Whether you are underground, on the surface, hiding deep in a labyrinth of corridors and rooms in your construct, in a panic room in your super destroyer in space, or anywhere else, the sun bleaches through and lights your surroundings enough to see everything as though it was at least an overcast/rainy day, even giving a sun "reflection" on any surface that is ~orthogonal to it (this is especially annoying in space, when I'm pointing directly away from the sun and getting glare in my piloting cabin that makes my transparent screen unreadable...and yeah, I could make it a normal screen, but stop making excuses for problems. That translucent screen is in front of the forward window so that I can see where I'm going and watch important stats, and smaller screens out of my direct field of view get blocked by the default UI). Added to that, you see the reflection of the nebula wherever you are, whether above ground, km below with no sky access, or in your labyrinthine constructs with no outside visibility, which completely throws off aesthetics. (Want a mirror in your bathroom? Too bad, it's a viewing portal to space!) The overall effect is that there might as well be no night or day, but a constant bleh of medium-to-high lighting differences. There might as well be no lights, as well, no matter how deeply you dig or how thick and dark your walls. Justification and response: Some people have said they love the change because of night flying and trying to find space stations in the dark. I hate to be "that guy," but get over it. Night time and space are dark. That's why we invented lights, and that's why we invented night vision systems (like "thermal" and "infrared" goggles/cameras). The nebula is great and adds lots of flavor to the place, but it shouldn't be so pervasive that you can see it reflected anywhere at any time on most semi-reflective+ surfaces, nor should it light up the solar system. At most, it should provide aesthetic value and contrast (like in space, contrasting your ship against the void). Similar with the sun, it shouldn't be reflecting off anything on the other side of a planet and inside a fully enclosed room. Improving the ability of lights to perform their intended function, and giving a toggled night vision system, would make night and space flying doable without detracting from the game's realism or aesthetics, and complaints about such a change would become void; best of both worlds. Others have suggested similar ideas, but it can't be overstated how much the new lighting has adversely impacted gameplay. Some people are happy because they can see at night and in space, but they should have been asking for improvements to physical lights and a night vision toggle system for your suit (and learning important lessons about the dangers of night time/space navigation, and the need for quality lighting/detection elements/systems, like telemeters that have longer ranges to allow for coders to create LiDAR programs), not cheering for something that is a massive eyesore and big inconvenience for those of us who respect the psychological, aesthetic, and logistical impacts/aspects of darkness. (Want to build an escape scenario that is spooky? Hard to do when you can see EVERYTHING with only weaksauce shadows.)
  14. discordauth:M4ilaqlzBFibFWSWu3qTLKauSWuHxmXJLmUhi__09sA=

  15. This is just a minor math correction, but as you wrote: -- acceleration = newton / mass -- mass = newton * acceleration -- newton = kilograms * acceleration You got it mostly right. F = m*a becomes m = N/a, not N * a. Think of it as a triangle or pie chart, with N on top and the bottom split between A and M. Cover up the one you solve for to get the equation. To solve for mass, cover it up and you see N / A. One of the tutorial videos covered LUA, but it referenced the codex in game, which you can't access offline. Also, as of 7/19/18, that part of the codex was not active. I'm sure you can transcribe the information if you go through each item one at a time in the game to find out what can be done with it, though that would take some time and resources, and would be subject to any changes they make anyway. I'm a coding noob (only got 2 classes for C++ in for my AA in science/physics, but that was years ago), so I'm trying to learn out of general interest, and because I think creating is more interesting and satisfying that destroying. Oh, another correction. The program wouldn't be for "Earth," so you might want to replace it with something more generic. (I'm not sure what you mean by "repel Earth's gravity, either. Do you mean to program the simulation to determine whether you would be able to achieve stable flight, escape velocity, lift off, or something else?)
×
×
  • Create New...