Wardion2000
-
Posts
183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wardion2000
-
-
Don't pick out one word out of the post you need to read the whole thing, you clearly do not whant to understand yourself what is said. There are always two towers to view things from...
But hey let me spell it out for you: You will not need to travel between markets if both market characters are on the same account - you will just change the toon, with too accounts you can have them both at the same time without log in log out trouble, but still no need to travel!
We don't know how the scripting will work but you might be able to have a perfect wingman with just drones or scripted ships. I do not see multiboxing giving massive advantage in fleet pvp in this game at this point.
I didn't. I did, and DON'T go around misrepresenting me. Yes, there are two towers to view things from. You should try standing on the other one. I was critical of one part of your post, doesn't mean I was being critical of the others. vylqun is voicing an opinion based on what he knows. You are voicing and opinion on what you assume. Who says you'll get more than one character per account? Some will view that as reason alone to ALLOW multi-boxing others won't. Voicing your disagreement with either stance is fine. Giving a reason more that it's "ridiculous" or because you assume it will work another way is not. As to your last comment, I agree. I said as much, I pointed out how A.I. and scripting could make it an irrelevant point. I also pointed out how multi-boxing could be unbalancing if the game goes a different direction. If you don't see it fine. But not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't possible.
And finally, If you don't agree with someone else's views on a subject, that's fine. They are voicing their opinions and concerns just like anyone else posting. If you have an argument and would like to debate the finer points of their stance feel free. Otherwise, your posts so far have been full of vitriol, smug rhetoric and contribute less to the subject at hand and more on what you feel about other posters. Leave that on the other side of the keyboard, please.
-
I think what you are asking is possible in voxel engines Wardion. It's a simple "paint-job" so to speak. You have the material you want, you only add dirt over it and trimm the dirt voxels until they bake over the fortification material.
I know it's "possible" I just don't know if it's allowed.
-
the result storage would be tinytinytiny compared to all the other stuff they already have to store.
and the blueprints themself could be stored on the client of the respective player, if theres an external editor to do so, before the player does anything with them in-game.
but then it'd be annoying to have your creations bound to your computer instead of your account in a MMO.
and as many many blueprints will already be traded on the market which have to be stored server side to be made available to other players, im not sure it would give so much relief.
I'm not sure it would be of great benefit either. Just throwing ideas out.
-
thank you captain obvious, but where did i say to increase voxel density?
the density they showed in the announcement video on that fighter is more than enough to do some multiblock equipment design.
why would you do those calc on the client side?
and why would you have to update them when anyone in the universe updates a blueprint?
the client does nothing of importance, never, and only gets the data that he needs and not the whole game database.
when a ship gets built, calculate the equipment effectivity on the server (and on clients who are near enough to it to check the data, for lag hiding) and store it on the server to be transmitted to relevant clients when the ship loads in.
and most clients dont even need most of the data of a piece of equipment anyway, because its the servers job to keep clients in their capability bounds.
The calculations wouldn't be done client side only the RESULTS would be saved there. It was an unconventional idea to relieve system stress server side. Nothing more. As for the database of blueprints, it would be necessary if all resultant data was stored client side. But I thought of it as a POSSIBLE solution. One that I largely dismissed because of all the problems it would create. Unless someone else had an idea to resolve it. Got any of those? If not you can pretty much ignore the post.
-
In the DevBlog it was stated they planned to allow the Nanoformer on your arm to be used as a simple weapon shooting out materials or energy. (both, please?)
I was wondering if anyone besides myself would like to see it capable of other tasks? For instance, The ability to grab a voxel of dirt and just drop it somewhere else as dirt. Could be useful to disguise fortifications, or hide in a covered hole. Also creating things on the ground could be a real pain if you can't fill in gaps for a foundation. Could it be made upgradeable somehow to not just pick up certain substances but also change the state of them? (Collecting water and then creating ice.) Can we upgrade the simple weapon function so it has more punch? Or perhaps the ability to make blueprint structures and constructs build almost instantaneously? "You wish to fight sir? Very well." ~nanoforms a robot gargoyle~ "I shall oblige you."
Okay, I admit it. I am so going to play a frikkin Space Wizard when DU comes out.
-
Multi boxing is not pay 2 win xD lol. Multiboxing in pvp is lame and makes aeasy target for non multiboxers thats for shure tahts why few people do that. But to have to log different character to say check a market on one side of the universe and then another istead of haveing them loged at the same time is riduculous.
I do not understand why are there so many ppl trying to impose all sorts of limits sugesting ridiculous ideas.
Ban multibox, favour the defending pvp side, make free to play... it feels that half of this forum don't even want DU, they want a minecraft mmo...
If you don't understand why they suggest a limit or why they put forth the idea in the first place perhaps you should ask before calling it "imposing" or "ridiculous". An idea or suggestion doesn't emerge from a vacuum after all. If they suggest something they may have been in a similar situation and want to point out possible downsides that they have experienced. vylqun makes an excellent observation on the need to travel between markets. Because something might be THERE in between. Could be bad. Could be good. The point is you won't know if all you are doing is logging between accounts. As for multiboxing giving an advantage in PVP? I could see it. Clever keyboard scripting and macros could make a formidable formation of ships. All with perfect coordination, timing, and targeting. You could literally have the perfect wingmen that way. At the same time, it may be a moot point as CaptanTwerkmotor suggests. A.I. ships and drones may make it an irrelevant concept.
-
AI makes for easy targets
I would reserve making that assumption till we know how sophisticated they will allow scripting and DPU's. If it were to be totally free of restrictions you would be hard pressed to beat a well programmed A.I. drone. Instantaneous reaction time, Instantaneous decision making. Not to mention if I designed ships with A.I. piloting in mind I can skip certain aspects that a human pilot would find necessary. (cockpit, life support). And then use all that extra space for armor, weapons, extra thrusters, and gyroscopes. An A.I. drone can be designed to function with a minimum of parts and still pull off better maneuvering than a human ever will. For instance, you could make it without retro thrusters. Every time it wants to slow down it could flip a perfect 180, fire main thrusters, and then flip back without missing a beat. Yeah A.I. drones could be scary. Everybody just programs A.I. dumber for games so the player doesn't get embarrassed.
-
when you do it properly a multiblock device wouldnt need more resources than the same amount of simple steel blocks plus one functional component.
the individual voxel parts wouldnt need to be called and analysed all the time, only when certain conditions are met they'd have to be handled as something not a simple block. for example when the ship gets damaged you check if any multiblocks got damaged and then recalculate the stats of the relevant device.
you dont poll their functions all the time, you calculate the effectivity of the complete device once and then only use the stats from that calculation until you have to recalculate for changes in the local objects grid.
Your statement is true. It would be less stressful if you ran it that way. Up to a point. It merely delays when those calculations are made. When those "certain conditions" are met all of a sudden it becomes a MASSIVE drain on system resources as it now it has to calculate all the values for the affected voxel parts at once. This factor could be compounded even further if multiple ships are being damaged in the same area simultaneously.
Not saying the idea doesn't have merit just that it would require something else along with it to make it work. For instance, I thought a possible solution would be calculating that information before hand and it could be part of the blueprint. Especially if you limited it to voxel and mesh based "elements". All the calculations would be done already and on the client side. But this has the disadvantages of taking up an extreme amount of room on a players computer. (You would need all blueprint information, even for blueprints you don't have.) It would need micro updates occurring every time someone makes a blueprint, and it would be highly abusable by cheaters. So, more ideas? Possible solutions? Information from the devs that will address this entire thread?
-
Would they neigh as you fired them?
-
To avoid making more blanket statements: the thing that FTD has, that SE lacks in my opinion, is depth in design. That is not to say I don't believe that SE is a good game. The fact is that in FTD you design on multiple levels: the ship, systems on the ship and if aplicable the sub parts of those systems. SE only has a single layer of design on top of which is super imposed the design of control stuctures (sensors or code) that give the design aditional function. Further more, the fact that FTD has regular turnements, where designs are matched against eachother, while space engineers does not, clearly shows that designing things is more fundemental to FTD than SE. In contrast, the fact that ships in FTD are basically combat ships or support ships, while ships in SE can have many and multiple functions shows that SE focuses more on what a particular ship (or stucture) can do, rather than the intricacies of the design of each component. The real point I am trying to make is this: the way space engineers handles functionality is very difficult to deal with. It requires a lot of work and in many cases knowledge of programming in a fairly difficult (for begginers) language. While amazing things can be done, they are only done by a small portion of the community. In FTD, designing is the focus. While the only thing ships do is combat, every player can and does to some extent take a different approach. There are multiple ways to achieve any goal, and due to the modularity of the systems, that goal can be exactly achieved with little waste. Additionally, through the use of prefabs and saved subsystems, the design phase of subcomponents can be completely skipped. On the flip side: there isn't anything to do in FTD besides pitting ships or fleets against eachother in combat. The campaign allieviates some of that monotony by restricting and localizing resources, but the main principle remains the same. In SE many things must be done: resources gather and infrastructure built. You need to explore and survive and build. While design matters much less in SE there are many more things to design a ship to do. However, the two sides of the argument need not remain seperated. If this game could merge the depth of design from FTD with the more complex gameplay of SE, this game would be far supirior to both even without having massive servers. This is especially true, because both the exploration/survival or the designing can be avoided in game. If you don't want to explore for resource and build infrastructure, pay somebody to use theirs. If you don't want to spend your time designing, pay somebody to design stuff for you, or buy designs off the market or just plain copy them.
FTD design focused? Couldn't agree more. Ease of use? Dead on. Thank you for making it clear that is what you were trying to convey. Until now it felt as if you were making the claim that you can't engineer anything well with a single block style system and a multiblock system was the only solution. And since you were using Space Engineers (a game I know for a fact you can engineer the $#!+ out of) as an example. I felt hard pressed not voicing my opinion otherwise.
So with that out of the way. More to discuss later then?
-
I agree that you can make awesome things in SE, but that is not the point, the point is that you in vanilla SE aren't able to build your own custom thruster or a minigun where you can change freely the firerate and shell size, such things are only possible with mods.
On the other hand with FTD you can change this parts almost without limitations, but there are no prescripted single block elements that would be worth it to build them, so if you don't want to spend your time on building such elements yourself, you must also go to the workshop.
So we have here to extremes, why not find a middle way? For example we could have prescripted single block elements and a buildsystem for multiblock elements, the prescripted elements would be in their size and properties about equal to a balanced (with this i mean that it is optimal balanced for all properties) similar sized build one, but with the build one you would have the ability to change the properties to your liking.
With balance i mean the balance between the positive and negative properties of the element, for example with a thruster you would have to balance the thrust and the power/fuel intake, so if you want a small thruster with much boom you must live with the fact that it drains your tanks within minutes.
Who's ignoring you? Point them out, I will entomb them within a prison I Voxelmance from my mind.
Oh, and in response to your post I present for your entertainment these two new video links. Vanilla made chainguns in Space Engineers! (Link here and here) Both can have alternate payloads and firing speeds.
I'm sorry no matter how many times I read your second paragraph I couldn't stop my brain from having a seizure.
What exactly were you trying to convey? Because I didn't get it.For the thruster, You are correct! But pointing out every single component I can't alter cuts both ways. Can you customize your boat props in FTD for instance? (And no, size doesn't count I have different size thrusters as well) Pretty sure they're both fulfilling the same basic function too. All that shows is in both cases the game developers saw no need to include such sophistication. (yet)
Finding a middle ground? This intrigues me. It is an interesting idea. You could have them be the BOG standard parts you initially have access to. Do you have any ideas how you would incorporate it into the skill system?
As to your fourth paragraph. No more needs to be said by me. I think I've made my opinions known on this in previous posts.
-
Im actually only parroting myself and just agreeing with the other guy.
SE has some equipment engineering possibilities, yes, but for the most part it simply /is/ "slap on more of it".
SE has no variation of FTD's motors/generators which you can taylor for your specific needs within the bounds of the game, practicality and player skill.
In space engineers its always 950kwh/kg uranium regardless of how you build your ship or reactor (as far as i can tell).
No choice to build a less efficient setup or more efficient setup to statisfy your power needs, no thinking beyond "slap on more of them"
In FTD you can have a large efficient, small powerful, large powerful, or anything inbetween in terms of generators.
And the extrema of either need some skills on the side of the builder to be pulled off.
There simply is less thinking involved in space engineers to do anything.
Yes there are cases wheres a lot of thinking involved, like with some of the missle scripts, im not denying that.
But for it to be any good for the community at large and general gameplay it has to be simple to do at least something somewhat useful out of a bit of effort.
Programming in general is nothing simple or low effort for most of the populace.
Placing blocks and designing machines in doing so is easy and available to everyone.
core mechanics only being interesting for people who invest a ton of time is a bad idea for a game that wants to have a large player base
Your points are well stated, speak of experience, of both yourself and others, and make no assumptions about what is or is not true or possible. I congratulate you, Cornflakes. This is exactly what I look for in debates.
- I concede that most people do play S.E. just slapping components on. Few people make the jump to actually engineering things.
- I see where the disconnect in our views are now by your second and third statements. You are equating a reactor with an engine. Though technically this is true it is much harder to make it an equivalent example, due to the relation between power sources and thruster types in Space Engineers. For instance, If I used batteries on atmospheric thrusters most wouldn't think to draw a parallel at all. If I use Hydrogen thrusters I don't have an engine at all, just a source of fuel and a throttleable output (which almost no one uses
) to thrusters. If I make a gravity drive once again it becomes another fuel source. The ability to draw parallels is muddled even further when designing mixed systems. - The gravity drive is probably the closest you could come when drawing comparisons to FTD's engine design stage. It has the same balancing act when it comes to efficiency, power, and size. (I do concede most people design only with acceleration in mind)
- Your fifth point leaves me wondering, though. Your statement pretty much contradicts itself. I would say to accomplish what you want in Space Engineers requires as much thinking as you NEED. (This was my general gripe about OmnipotentVoids blanket statements.) The people who make great, complicated, machines that work in Space Engineers are the artisans that fit on one end of a spectrum of skill, and their work deserves more than just being labeled as an exceptional "case".
- Your last two points make for an interesting argument. On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with making a game simpler and more accessible to a larger player base. On the other, If the goal is to make a certain kind of game and then you change it to something that MIGHT be more popular? Er. I think this might create more problems than it resolves. Is it the multiblock system easier? Certainly. Will it work for what the game devs WANT you to be able to do in DU? Hmmm... ~shake, shake, shake~
-
- The simple truth is we don't know enough about what the devs want to answer that question yet. It could turn out that a multiblock system is exactly what's needed for this game. Or every pro about a multiblock system might turn into a con because the of direction the game goes. We are kinda in the wind right now. What I do know is that a well done single block system can do everything a multiblock system one can. It might require skill sets not found in your average player but it can be done. And I say this with the full knowledge that even single blocks systems like Space Engineers don't always cover the things you want them to. But that's what updates are for..... And modding. Definitely modding.
-
Greeting Timedragon! And welcome to the boards!
-
Well since we have gravity in game. Maybe we can build jump gates near gravity wells? "Welcome to my jump gate fools! Hope you built your ships with an overabundance of thrusters. No? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!".
-
Very aptly put reply to what i wrote.
Wow, very eloquence, much arguments, wow.
Just refusing to acknowledge anything the other writes with "you havent read what i wrote" is surely convenient.
Are you trying to bait me? ~sigh~ Okay. I don't think you read the post in question because if you had you would have realized you were echoing OmnipotentVoid's exact same sentiments and I had already provided a counter argument. With examples no less. Do you really want me to have a debate with you over the EXACT same things he said? Maybe you do. I certainly WON'T. Hence the "Clearly, you didn't read all of my previous post." comment. And if you're going to quote me actually quote me. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting what I wrote. Now if you would like to debate any other reasons in which the DU might benefit from a multiblock system over a single block system. By all means, fire away and we can debate til the sky falls down. Otherwise, I'm not going to repeat myself if all you are doing is parroting someone else. Because that would be two parrots and that's just silly.
-
Well, how do i increase any weapon stat in space engineers? I add another gun.
Want more damage? Extra gun
Want more fire rate? Extra gun
Etc
With ftd i can have one core gun and tinker around with the subcomponents to archieve what i want.
If i want a bigger boom per shot i put a gauge increase component on it.
If i want higher fire rate i put another loader on there.
if i want it to have higher precision i elongate the barrel.
Etc.
With the volume and cost being partially dependent on the skill of the builder, on him being able to cram the most parts into the least volume with the least wastage.
i havent played it in a while, so im not sure if thats still valid, but also adjaciency of different components mattered.
So if you knew what you did you could "reuse" some components multiple times to increase the use you get out of every single component.
Theres quite a bit of skill, knowledge and design in a gun in ftd.
Whereas in SE every gatling cannon is exactly the same, and increasing cannon firepower is to add more.
Scrap and warhead launchers are no single component weapons because they consist out of multiple components which are arranged in very specific ways.
So they are a very strong arguments for multi component weapons.
And when multi component weapons are in i'd rather have them be first-class game objects that they can have better performance, better AI support and better interfaces to design and build them.
Clearly, you didn't read all of my previous post.
-
In S.E.
- Just because someone accomplishes something with programming and timers doesn't invalidate it. So what point are you trying to make here?
- I've designed missiles that guide themselves, penetrate a ship and then open up to expose gun systems that shoot the ship inside out. Also, ones that release active thrusters to burn up components. (hilarity ensues if the target uses a gravity drive) No warheads required.
- Complex systems work just fine. (Example here)
- Sitting Flush? (Example here)
- People design gravity mass drivers that shoot scrap steel, stones. (Link here)
- Other player made weapons that aren't missiles. (here and here)
- Custom turrets ARE possible manned or automated. (Link here, and here respectively)
- Stating it's a pain is rather presumptuous. I don't find it a pain and I'm sure there are others who feel the same.
- People make turrets with weapons that have variable capabilities all the time. So it's not the same as a single block turret.
- DU plans to have LUA programming and DPU's. Which will allow you to do amazing things that can take ridiculously long time to set up..... If you're not particularly skilled at it. Or they can be largely ignored for those that like simpler designs. So I think this issue is already a moot point.
- Even if it weren't a moot point. Stating it takes a "ridiculously long time" as a negative connotation is a personal gripe, not an actual issue.
- Requiring programming skills doesn't exclude anyone. (And once again difficulty and the time it takes varies from person to person ) They can either learn LUA, a very simple programming language or get a script from someone who does know LUA.
- Ships designed around doing more than one thing really well? (Link here)
Telling me scaling up a design means more of the same blocks also means little. For FTD you mention an in-game system upgrade that takes up the extra space so I can place my weapon on a turret Or upgrade its fire rate and damage, or upgrade the engine or more thrusters. How is that any different from me taking up more block space internally or externally to place MY weapon on a turret, Or upgrading the weapon for a better fire rate or damage (Clearly from the above links I'm not limited to simple weapon blocks) Or upgrading my gravity drive for more power, better handling or more acceleration. Adding thrusters? "click done"
So while I may concede that FTD maybe easier to use, I find your statement that it contains more depth, is a superior ship design game and that S.E. is lacking in the engineering side a somewhat "lacking" assertion in and of itself.
Oh and I don't think you are putting S.E. down, But from my above links clearly you can do all the things you say that S.E. can't.
Also from the above links, you can clearly accomplish without multi blocks all the things you want them for with a simple block system.
-
Well, all the suggestions I read make me think of one thing : Grand Theft Spaceboat.
The Voxelmancer approves.
-
The purpose of the game as stated by the devs is a sandbox with certain creative freedoms. Big difference. There will certainly be restrictions, and not enough information has been put out for anyone to have an inkling what ALL of those creative freedoms might be. As for what is expected that players may be allowed create, envisioned or not, SledgeHammer what you wrote down is merely an assumption.
Exploitative does not necessarily suggest cheating. Being able to repeatedly jump a wall to avoid an attack while an AI mob must find a path around is an exploit. You are specifically exploiting a limit in the game design. I might not be fighting the mob as intended but I'm certainly not cheating nor is it an unfair advantage if I was given the ability to jump walls in the first place. Exploits can exist and not be cheating.
So once again, what can we expect in these types of situations? Will they change it if they feel it's unbalancing or let it play out as if it were some meta that might be countered by someone else's creation. Will they ignore it because altering it would change the gameplay of other in-game systems and simply expect players not to do it again? I have no idea. That is why I created this thread and asked those questions. Perhaps if I had been this detailed before you would have understood. So If anyone has an idea what that might be, by all means, please add to the conversation. If not please inform me if later you do have an idea about what that might be.
-
early 2017 might be the stat of pre-alpha, thats still a loooong way till release.
Also keep in mind, that pre-alpha and alpha accounts and servers are normally wiped regulary or at least at the end of the phases, so paying real life money for a space station which will be deleted shortly after might not be worth it.
He's right. There might indeed be harm in trying.
-
"WoW is targeted at a far larger audience than DU, so DU will never have that many players,"
Reading this makes me sad. ~tear~
-
The biggest disappointment in space engineers was the fact that there was no actual engineering. Building in the game (to me) feels more like an exercise in esthetics, slapping on functional parts as necessary. The fact that the capabilities of a ship in space engineers is defined more by what and how many functional parts were on a ship, than the actual design is extremely disappointing.
I'm a big fan of Space Engineers, so I am undoubtedly biased. And I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this but I feel the need to after reading the first part of your post.
I have seen many people who play the game simply tacking things on together or making ships that are simply functional or aesthetically pleasing. And then I have seen real artists. Those who put together sensors systems, engines, and drills in a manner that defies any simple explanation to make automated drones that mine asteroids and bring back the cargo and then do it again all at the push of a button. I have seen people design jump capable satellite systems with solar arrays that unpack themselves from a stable flight mode and unfold like a lotus flower to follow the sun creating an outpost over their next planetary conquest. I have seen vessels that have rotary cannons, player made torpedo systems that will deactivate their own warheads if a friendly target is about to be hit minimizing the accidental damage. I have seen rolling automated scouts. Rovers that are so well crafted that the can traverse any terrain in front of them. The list goes on and on. The point is anyone can tack parts together and make something that works in Space Engineers. But it takes a true Engineer to actually make something that works well and beyond the simple summation of its parts.
-
I suggest, ney, I demand an Australian RPer to open an amazing pub in-game called "The Lazy Dingo". Or even better, A flying pub in space, called "The Chillo" (Get it, because people will chill in it ? )
I second this motion.
-
then you report a bug... end of story...
Not necessarily. An unintended combination might be considered innovative and even and left in. Take Starsiege Tribes for instance. Skating across the ground with your jetpack, building up speed and inertia was an unintended effect of the game engine physics. A "bug" so to speak. It was considered so fun in testing that they reworked the game layouts and left it in place. My point is we are going to see things that were never planned for and I wonder how NQ will handle it. Even they have a vision for their game and therefore have a direction on how it should develop.
Nanoformer Capabilities
in Idea Box
Posted
Oooh. Crazy thought. Make a ship look like an asteroid.