Jump to content

Jake Arver

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jake Arver

  1. @PleiJades There's something to be said for both opinions really. The problme here is that NQ, in their drive to reduce cost and rush in "features" is entirely overlooking the most important factor in a game, i has to be fun. As it is, DU is exceeding the need for "work" over "play" and is in many places so over engineered that there is no room for.. fun. NQ is still mainly focussed on finding funding I am sure, to aquire that they wil need to show they have a viable and sustainable game. Designing systems to pretty much require daily login and spending a good bit of time in game drives statistics which may allow them to do that.
  2. The nebula is find in itself, it is part of space. It is however not a source of illumination in space which si what NQ uses it for.. I mean look, this is what I imagine space would look like. Fair enough, EVE's skybox is not a simple 1 layer image, it is quite complex actually and the nebula in this image is actually a layer in several that make up the skybox, which allows the designers to make it look and act like .,. a nebula
  3. Again, your POV, and it feels to me you are trying to spin the discussion away from your actions (directed at specific people) and generalize them. I have many alts and his comment, while I understand where it comes from, does not bother me at all since it does not apply to me as stated. Also unlike you (when you make a comment and add "and that includes you [insert name]") , he is not addressing anyone in particular with such comments so your argument here really falls flat.
  4. It's such a shame most of these bases are abandoned and the orgs in question have left the game.
  5. I'd disagree, as you seem to generally not have the ability to understand that your POV may not be the only one around and so you judge others purely on how you would reason something. OP actually has a valid argument to make which, in part due to an accumulated frustration with the half-baked way NQ is delivering updates while ignoring most of the valid comments and arguments made when they ask for feedback. Now, that NQ pretends to include the community to then ignore most of what comes out of that is not new to anyone who has been around for the past 4_ years, it is pretty much their MO and it was called out to go down that way at the first sign of them asking for questions/feedback on their plans for Demeter. We all really know that this patch was already way past major changes and NQ would push it out mostly as-is anyway. which is pretty much what happened, exploits and all. I get your point even when I believe your way of arguing math here is both misplaced and missing the point. I also think that while it might have been worded different, OP also makes valid points. How about you try and not just stomp on someone in a rather demeaning way and just argue your point. Who knows, if you do not set yourself up as an aggressor in this matter, something mutual agreeable might come out of it.
  6. So that issue that broken GFN.. was the same issue breaking the game on Shadow.. as it works again ... NQ could not care less about SHadow and did not even bother to check, nor advertise this fix..
  7. I did and DU works again on Shadow PC .. Obviously, NQ did not even bother to check as they have not said a word and clearly, the issue causing the game to crash on GFN was the same that prevented it from working on Shadow. As several of us pretty much predicted ...
  8. The nebula is pretty much a cheap way to not have to fix a more mprominent issue, local lighting. Lights in DU have always been sketchy and really have not changed much, if at all. Doing lighting right is not easy and personally I coudl live with a reasoning that the nebula is here now but will be replaced once devs get around to implementing proper lighting. Right now NQ has bigger fish to fry.. such as keeping their own lights on..
  9. This is just so very funny and sad at the same time. NQ basically hacked in a right to use a mining unit and called it "Mining Unit" It's pretty much an unneeded right as the esixting rights should cover the use of a mining unit since: Access to a mining unit allows it's use/activation as is the case for any other element in the game. The "Mine territory" right allows access to the territories resources and so determines whether activating a mining unit actually results in mining resources. Not to complicate things for themselves and since actually designing in a consistent way seems too hard, yesterday's "hotfix" shows Updated Mining Unit right description and name. And with it the right "Mining Unit" is renamed to "Use Mining Unit". It's still a superfluous right for which there actually is no need. It also break the core design purpose of how the RDMS system is set up and should work (yes NQ, I understand how RDMS works, seemingly better than whoever thought this up). There is no need for this right as handmining and use of mining units is mutually exclusive, so one right "Mine Territory" is sufficient for either. The fix should have been: Removal of the "Mining Unit" right The "mine Territory" right will determine if a mining unit will be able to mine when activated This is textbook NQ "fixing bugs", the issue is still there and nothing really changes, we just change the rule in order to not have to actually address and fix anything. It also shows that different devs do not actually care to (re)use existing code or options and seemingly can't be bothered to learn the mechanics of a feature someone else made but feel they must cook their own at every corner.. The game is filled with examples of this. Some will say this is a minor issue and why the fusss, I'd say, this is a structural flaw in the way NQ designs their game and uses their own in game functionality in inconsistent ways. It is a waste of developer resources/time and thus money.
  10. nah.. NQ has already moved on to the next patch and will just pile finishing stuff onto the heap for sometime after releas if they even bother.
  11. Why are effects in game so overdone and unnatural looking in many cases. Few example; The "dust cloud" created by the flattening tool is way overdone and too thick. The new shield effect is way to strong the same way. Suface harvestables look like they were hijacked from Candy Crush. The warp "starfield" is way to pronounced and "present" (old one yes, but still..) Please dial effects back, there is no need to show off all these bright colors and they really deface the game IMO
  12. Why has NQ designed Mining unit access in a rather inconsistent way through RDMS The RDMS system is designed so that any individual element (group) on a construct can be given access rights to and with access permitted, so is use of said element. If I have mining rights on a tile and I own the construct the mining unit is on, that should suffice. Currently, unlike any other element in the game, the mining unit has it's own rights entry for the sole purpose to activate it. This is inconsistent with the design of RDMS.
  13. With HQ territory units being positioned as personal use only (as clearly seen in the devblog), why can players give full access to orgs on these tiles? This effectively creates an exploit which allows orgs to control/have access to massive numbers of tiles they only have to pay taxes on if they need to run industry or mine, going on the notion that orgs will "buy" access to these tiles or make it a requirement for their members to set rights for the org on these and/or have control over theior placement.
  14. With most of this happening in the permanent safezone, I think not. The changes Demeter brought makes it even less worth it for many to venture out as the rewards do not justify the risk if and when NQ eventually, maybe, get around to TW and planet side CvC combat. Not even expecting to see AvA for another 2-3 years..
  15. I'd say making a realtively minor change, with really not as much of an impact as you seem to want to imply, which may well retain paying customers.. Seems like a good idea to consider.
  16. It's a circular argument.. It's like you country's government requiring you to pay them so you are able to go to work to make money and then pay them.
  17. You can't mine or run industry on them when the taxes are due though.. But yeah, the excuse "just set them as HQ tiles" allready seems to be taking hold, even while it is meaningless and not valid in this case. So while you may not lose ownership, you still will not be able to generate the quanta needed to pay for them unless you go run missions all day long, which kind of defeats the purpose and makes DU a second job instead of a game. Well done NQ.. well done..
  18. Well, you now know how to work around this mess ..
  19. I never said NQ will not wipe, I am pretty sure they will. All I said (and all everyone in favor is saying) is that that wipe will be with blueprints and talent point sback in the pool. A full wipe like we have pre Balpha start will not happen again sure, and no one is asking for that, even when NQ seems to try very hard to generate that impression. A full wipe is something NQ will never be able to selll from the moment they started charging money for access..
  20. You need to set this in the RDMS for whoever owns the tile.. I pretty much saw nonsense like this coming the moment NQ brought in RDMS so I always added the ME tag to all of the ones I deployed so I could easily fix shit like this without the owner of the TU being required to actually be near it. I expect the person who wrote the original RDMS system may have left and whoever made this change really does not understand how RDMS works. An element should not have specific top level rights, you set access rights for elements with a composite tag. Specific access (and with it rights to use) for mining units on a construct should be set through a "mining units@ME" tag in the above example. Again, if you can ACCESS an element, you should be able to USE it. So yeah.. looks like your average inconsistent NQ rush job right here. Maybe @NQ-Deckard or @NQ-Sesch can provide clarification as to why this inconsistent behaviour for the RDMS system was implemented
  21. So I did test this and indeed. On a construct you personally do not own you can't mine on a tile you own unless you set the owner of the construct with mining rights. The construct determines the rights here, regardless of who owns it or who owns the mining unit You _must_ set up the ORG with rights to use a mining unit on the tile Which makes no sense as the rights shoudldetermine who is able to access the UNIT in the first place, not make it perform an ACTION If I can ACCESS the unit I should be able to USE it. If I have mining rights on a tile and access to a mining unit, I shoudl not need any further rights LOL
  22. So you placed a mining unit on a construct owned by an org which is on a tile owned by you? As the org legate, you shoudl have full rights to the org constructs and thus to the mining unit on the construct, as you own the tile, you should have full rights to minie on that tile. If this is about the fact that the mining unit is on the org construct, which makes the org (as owner of the construct) the actor needing rights to mine on the tile, Knowing NQ that would make perfect sense for them while it makes so sense to pretty much anyone else. The part that is off her eis that the mininung unit needs access to the tile and not the construct. So regardless of who owns the construct, who ever owns the mining unit need to be what determines the rights.. I am almost tempted to test this..
  23. Again, NQ never, not once, said there would not be a wipe. Feel free to prove me wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...