Jump to content

Elias Villd

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Elias Villd

  1. On this point neither, I do not think it's THAT easy on DU : There is many aspects to consider (collisions with parents, synchronisation between players, collisions with ground ...etc). I think there is reasons why there is nothing to have to separated constructs physicaly linked token since the beginning ; even I would love it. I'm not sure but I think I remember a development video that talked about this in the early years of the project. And so I assume all aspect of weels/walker legs/hinge/rotating motors ...etc would not be feasible, or not feasible without a large rework of their system. I think, the most "feasible" would be a tractor beam, but feasible do not mean release ready, even more when I think about the art work (design models can take more times than people think), development and testings.
  2. When I clearly mostly agree with you on most of your points, some I do not agree : I do not agree on the assumption of "simple", which is always the thing that make people angry. It's because they all things everything is simple. You know me, and I'm an 1 000 000% Lua supporter, but there is clearly a security issue on Lua wallet API (this subject has been discussed and NQ commented here ). Indeed, Lua can be in realtime memory edited if you want to and so change the prices/wallet id ...etc So means critical feature, and complex, however a reversed dispenser elements could be done I think, but not necessarily easy. So it's not simple. And the same of other points in my opinion. However, I think we can "assume" that NQ HAVE to release the game, even if they would spend more time on it before. So in my personnal opinion, it would be to continue to support/play the game to allow the game to not be an economic disaster and let NQ have incomes to improve, add new things to the game.
  3. I'm still worried about community projects and organizations. Players will massively use all their cores, SOLO + ORG SLOTS for them! There should be a maximum of assignable cores per organisation (25-50 ?), and make joining an orga self-assign 10-20 cores. So that even if the player wants to use a maximum of cores for himself, he will still have some left for his main organization and/or community projects. Think of Utopia, Rendezvous Station, ODY Space Station, IC spaceport, Hyperion City ...etc
  4. Awesome ! Can't wait to test it and do some nice details !
  5. Hey @Tekhamon! Personnellement , bien que je joue beaucoup moins qu'avant (changement IRL et non un reproche au jeu), je ne me pose pas trop de soucis avec Demeter puisque je vis majoritairement dans l'espace, n'ai qu'une tuile (mise en HQ car ne faisant pas d'industrie) et n'utilise pas vraiment les MU, ai uniquement calibré et mis en place une dizaine sur Sanctuary.
  6. Personally, I've always defended the fact that it's all well and good to want the great freedom to do what you want on your own, but it's not that (even if you add gameplay) that will create a game with a living economy, interactions between players (direct as well as indirect) ...etc How do you want a player-run economy if no player will buy anything from you because he can do everything himself? Why would players join an organization or play with other players if they can do it solo? Why would players build infrastructure, cities, hubs; FUNCTIONAL and LIVING, if they have no reason to go there, to interact with others ...etc Various things need to change in this direction, the current "game" is far too based on JC's utopia, which dreamed that in a totally free world the players would play as they wished, together, specialising themselves, creating companies that create circular economies, services ...Etc Except that JC did not have a vision of a game, but of a utopia Players are humans and they are far from respecting utopias if they have no reason to. Besides, he himself thought that pvp should be a small part of the game, that everyone should be a bear, that DRM should not exist and that everything should be shared, even Lua codes...etc The fact is that if you really consider DU to be an MMO with flow, animation, interactivity, an economy ...etc there are many things that need to change that will "restrict" these freedoms; because it is also a game that lives, these choices and decisions. Most sandbox games where you can do everything so easily, people don't stay for more than a couple of months. DU still keeps its players because of mechanics like voxels and Lua, but otherwise nothing more. And you can see that NQ, since JC's departure, is trying to make DU a game, which it isn't yet. And so that means changes. And SO, to get back to the topic, if we want a GAME, where there are interactions, direct or indirect (mission, market, services), economies (and stop saying to remove the bots, it will be even worse afterwards as no one will have a reason to buy as long as they can all do it), in-game powers, services, player groupings, living structures ...etc. We'll have to go through a decision tree for the talents And that even if it remains based on time and not actions (because it's difficult to set up a system of experience on all the actions of the game and that it is not exploitable; like piloting? ). A decision tree would lead players to specialize as they choose the branches they want to play. To give a vague example but for the sake of the idea: - a pilot will concentrate on the use and improvement of the performances of his skills, but will not be able to take at the same time the installation or the manufacture of these elements - an industrialist will focus on manufacturing but not use - an builder will focus on unlock the use of rare materials, rare decorations ...etc - a ship builder will focus on place down bonus on elements and get best pvp materials ...etc A tree does not mean square classes, let us rather say that a tree of decision will lead to arc-types of classes, but which will be composed of various choices of branch. TRULY! If such a system is implemented, it would make sense to allow players to use a talent point reset token (given for free at the beginning of the game and which could become an item purchasable with real money in the shop once the one offered is used). And before reading your comments that retort "yes but I want to be able to mine, craft, use the elements of my ship ... etc), you might as well say that you want to play a single player game and therefore do not complain about the lack of "dynamics" to summarize all the points. To these people I will answer, to give me the reasons of : Why would a player buy something you sell on a market if he can do it himself in your same logic? Why would players group together if they can do everything themselves and don't need anyone else? Why would players create shops when each player can create his own ship? (besides the aesthetics) Why would players use and organize living spaces, flow nodes if players don't need to buy, talents from other players ...etc? ...etc I think that if we want Dual Universe to become a game and not a sandbox based on a stupid Utopia of someone who has thrown promises at everything. I think it's important to accept and push for mechanics that add a need; the need of other players directly or indirectly (if you don't want to play with people, good for you, but the marketplaces where you buy items, or the missions you complete ...etc will be sold by players, or organized by players who need you in some other way; you will interact with them, but indirectly)
  7. Don't get me wrong. ? I'm not saying all players should log in every day. Just for example, if you only play during the weekend and log in on both days, that gives you a good boost of 300k. I just expose that because it can be a boost. Beside that I see some players saying that their city project, event venue circuit will not be able to stay. But in addition to the feature of HQ (which fit to the majority of the projects), you have to think economically, if you have a city put in place a rent for example, for events, to finance either you go through sponsoring organizations, or charge for players who want to participate, sell products ( for example racers for races) ... etc. So for me it's not the end of the world on the contrary it can lead to a dynamic ... even if it takes a little time for everything to be put back in place after this hustle and bustle. Anyway that remains a personal opinion.
  8. A lot of players seems forget the daily 150 000h each day. Even with that you can collect enough quanta, without doing ore trading with MU, or missions ... or all other acivites like ship selling, ressources trading, event organization ...etc Where did they said it was 1 000 000 per month ??? It was already 1M per week on the PTS. Nothing changed. No no An inactive tile, is just a tile on which industries and mining units can't run. But you can keep building, terraforming or digging. If you're a solo player you should stay on Sanctuary until you determined an economic model to substain to taxes. - If you log one time each day, you will get 150 000h per day ; 1 050 000h. - With missions, you can get much more with much less time. - On your Sanctuary tile, you can keep using mining unit indefinitly, so use it to generate resources or income. So technicly, if you take a tile on a non-sanctuary tile, you can generate resources from two tiles and double your production. In addition to that, you can find multiple way to get quantas, sell ships, do events to win quantas, salvage tiles ...etc If you a new player, as said higher, nothing force you to come on other players you can stay on Sanctuary as much time you need It's taxe free. After that, if you want to build somewhere else you will always be able to declare a HQ tile, and so build on it and use it without paying the tax, just will not be able to use MU or industries on it (but it will stay possible to do on your sanctuary tile). I don't see real issues for newbies. They got Sanctuary tiles ; safe, free, persistent, productive .... it's for that. My personnal opinion is just that 5 HQ tile per player is a bit too much. Would suggest to limit it to 3.
  9. This feature is only available to player-owned, not organization-owned It written in the text you quoted ? Anyway, I personally approve that 5 is too much, I propose to reduce to 3 tiles, but one per planet could a thing too ? And may be limit it to SZ.
  10. I think this headquarters feature is really good. For all the players who don't want to have to pay every week for a gameplay or creative project. Or have "safe" tiles that would never go unclaimed ?. Anyway... I think 5 is a bit much per player. I'd say more like 3 or 2 HQs per player personally. And on top of that ... why have to wait 1 month (2 unpaid weeks+ 2 weeks to claim staic builds = 4 weeks) to be able to loot a tile ... a bit long, no? Would this HQ functionality be limited to the safe zone? I personally think it should be to avoid squatting on T4-T5 tiles.
  11. Be welcome! I hope the studio will continue on the new path it seems to have taken. More quality, more communication and a clear direction.
  12. If I remember well, when the repulsion has been exposed a long time ago, they exposed too that they will reconsider it when teh AvA will be considered.
  13. If you checked today PTS release change log, they fixed it. And if you read the older PTS change logs, they fixed multiple exploits Anyway, I like this PTS release ! So much Lua ?
  14. Was curious to see what is an emergency (because all players say their request is emergency ^^' ) but I have to admit ... I didn't understand your point ? What do you want to add ? @teso91
  15. Globaly, I like the idea ! The docking and boarding rights use is logical. The build helper addition is good to be able to monitor it. Anyway ... the docking procedure become more "complex", more steps. A thing that could be not appreciated. Could be may be improved later with a right management with Lua, to be able to implement board system asking docking request and autorize by Lua ...etc The boarding system ... humm.. on one side, it's good to control who is in your construct. And think about expositions with the "deactivated" status is good. Just certainly consider to reauthorize entering of players in active constructs when we will have to ways to defend, with the AvA. Currently, considering there is no ways to act against a players, I'm for ! Good addition ! ?
  16. We don't know anything about the new system. And yes existing systems will be broken. And ? It's not a reason to say it's shitty ? It will just give a new support of developpement. And more possibilities. We even don't know what kind of limits we will have ? For HTML/CSS it was the characters, and it was heavily impacting performances. On FPS aspect and data transfer aspect. And it seems hugely better on that... so wait to test. I will may be say it's a huge shit after testing it. But for the moment, I stay optimistic Be optimistic sometimes ^^'
  17. Nothing say it's limiting possibilites, wait and test. But I agree on the fact it's missing informations
  18. The script size limit is not a real limit. You can simply store code or UIs so, in databanks and extend so your limit. I do it all times to load, unload libs and heavy UIs.
  19. I recommend to wait for the PTS openning to test it and judge. It seems to bring more power and better display rate. It's not because it change or break things done before that's absolutly bad ? I have so much project which will be broken with it, and ? And wait to test and judge
  20. We discussed with Naerais yesterday ...I'm suspicious ? Source ?
  21. Love it ! Continue like that ! And keep people in news THe next quesiton is ... VOXEL EDIOTR when ? ?
  22. Like it ! We need know a DRM system for Lua libraries. We need to be able to install a lib on library slots of controlers, which could be protected by a DRM. Allowing us to sell or give technologies protected, and useable to create custom sytems / APIs ...etc based on created technologies. For example, to install games on existing construct, or install a navigation system on existing construct, or install technologies with API made by the reator to interact with it ...etc I'm really waiting for it ! But it's a good first step !
  23. I agree that this will clearly not please everyone ^^ ' However, it is important to remember that this is not a game in creative mode, solo / co-op with a lifespan of 50 hours. Currently, far too many things are simple, and the complexity is .... no it's not the right word .... accessibility, that's better ^^ ' The accessibility is too high, everyone can do everything so easily, no need for other players directly or in direct, little cooperative effort ... etc In short, people find it hard to see the game as an MMO whose goal is to build a new civilization at the moment, and an infinite one to take, manage, create its role in this world. Anyway, why am I saying that ??! Well because without wanting to criticize, even if I know that a lot of people will fall on me ... well the players want everything to be simple, accessible ... etc to play quietly in their corner and do everything so easily . And that goes through the elements, the industry, the management of the damages ... etc Anyway, after this intro, basically, I'm clearly positive about adding a final destruction! It is clearly a necessity! (and contrary to what we hear, many games have definitive destruction, because it is a need to have an economy that runs, even on management games ... etc. everything is CONSUMED it comes back to the same) . BUT ! I am not necessarily in favor of this system of life, even if I REMIND IT, IT IS A FIRST ITERATION, THEREFORE TEMPORARY and INTENDED to change. This is why I am much more in favor: 1 single life for all the elements (a destroyed element should not logically reshape by wonder) much more HP for the elements a degree of performance directly linked to the HP of the element ( fuel consumption, t50, thrust, tracking speed ...etc) What's the idea, before I get spit on me ^^ ', the idea is to make the complete destruction less frequent, but still impactful. Some examples to explain: In PVP, we could have a lot less elements destroyed but a lot of damaged. This will keep value to recover in combat, while allowing to weaken a target. For ship crashes, well some elements yes would be completely destroyed, and IT MAKES LOGIC if you spit yourself out, but a good part would be damaged, even sometimes close to destruction. This will avoid having second-hand pieces lying around for nothing because they have X lives on Y ... etc Obviously, the idea will greatly benefit from a recycling system to create the scraps, from destroyed elements, since the DESTROYED elements SHOULD NOT DISAPPEAR BY MAGIC ^^ ' There you go, now you can spit on me because I have circumscribed the players who want everything simple and easy and without fuss ^^ '
×
×
  • Create New...