EasternGamer
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by EasternGamer
-
-
23 minutes ago, Noddles said:
Instead we got more bugs
Unfortunately, that is just the natural cycle of anything involving a feature. Unless you want the devs to spend even more time to update, live with it. Did you see how many bugs they fixed with this patch? (Rhetorical question)
And, just a heads up, you can't just "release the bug fixes" on an older version. It doesn't work like that. Things are too interconnected with the newer version. It would take far more dev time to just try merge that sort of thing. -
The game just got an update. Maybe consider joining a largish org and playing with the new update. The graphics improved *slightly* (no idea how they consider upgrading from 2009 graphics to 2011 graphics an improvement) but it got better.
Not gonna say much about the other things, lol. Your post is just a pointless rant for the most part.
-
2 hours ago, Eternal said:
I've soloed this game since the very beginning! As I said before, this is nothing but a communist game! How can you join an org if nobody here has a system that is equitable to the individual members? Orgs exist to benefit the members, not to benefit the org (which does not physically exists), all in the end, only benefitting the people who holds power and control within that org. You know, I am not stupid!
I will stand by my statement as I've been saying before: organizations in this game are pieces of garbage!
Let's think of a simple example:
3 people decide to start a business; to start a business, you need an infrastructure (this infrastructure costed $300K total in which each person put $100K each, which means each person put 33.33%); the total operating cost to the business let's say is $120k yearly; person A puts the 60K (50%), person B puts 40K (33.33%), person C puts $20K (16.67%) to cover all the yearly expenses (this includes labour); let's say the net income of the business is $60k at the end of the fiscal period after the tax (if there is tax).
Person A should get 50% of that income which is $30,000.
Person B should get 33.33% of that income which is $19,998.
Person C should get 16.67% of that income which is $10,002.
Let's say they decide to quit and liquidate the property. Let's say the property is now worth $250K currently. Since each person put 33.33%, they each should get $83,325.
The finance in this business has to be accounted to avoid internal corruption. Financial stakes should be distributed properly and how can you do this if you don't have any accounting? We are all working together, we are all contributors to the organization, but at the end of the day, we want what is fair for us individual members! What rightfully belongs to me, belongs to me!
This is why we even need contract on top of the accounting to assert my rights. Since we got no justice system, a non-legally binding MOU will do, stating my share in the organization (I will not even invest without going through an MOU first). If they decide to cheat me, I will call them out in the public with my documents. Do something like that and you should lose reputation. Reputation is important to anything mutual such as business.
I'm not saying not to join an org, but you should join an org with the mindset that you are an individual. What ends up happening is people join these "hacienda" orgs as slave labourers to these "hacendados". This is what Dual Universe is: it is a neo-colonial hacienda-building telenovela!
Not gonna even try and look up any of those words.
xD
Seriously though, if the game allowed it, it could have organizations set up salaries, now that org wallets will be a thing, so that it's less communist for those solo players. Anyways, solo play can still be a thing. I develop stuff solo and then "sell it" to the org. But since I don't care about money in the slightest, I keep ownership and just provide my services for free when they need it. -
7 hours ago, XKentX said:
Why did he disclose himself.
The more of a fun would be if he would tokenize, trade token to alt or something and use it there.
This way no one would know who stole the stuff and he could continue doing it while Empire is witch hunting and getting lolz.
I personally saw him at the station, possibly while he was doing it, there was no way he could hide it.
In case anyone was wondering, I only popped in at random, I logged off like 2 mins later, but noticed him and his alt were there. Then half an hour to an hour later, a member noticed the ownership of military ships was different. -
5 hours ago, ShippyLongstalking said:
Automated? In what way is the forum automated?
I was referring to the player subs.
-
5 minutes ago, Maxim Kammerer said:
Such as a player with expired sub shouldn't have access to the game? There are a lot of should-haves in DU.
That is very, very different situation. That is an automated system, this is an employee, supposedly, leaving NQ. Very, very different.
-
I don't think they've completely abandoned anything.
If you click through a few of the staff here, most of the ones that actually check the forum, have come on the forum. A few developers and even NQ-Naunet, who supposedly left, has come online with their accounts in the last day (with NQ-Naunet being only 5 hours ago), as of the time of writing. I could be mistaken, but an ex-employee shouldn't have access to an account with moderation permissions.
Most of the staff accounts haven't been in use for a lot longer than just recently, probably because they never used it.
My sense here is that, internally, I don't think much has changed. I could be wrong though.
-
5 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
IMO a major oversight by NQ is that in an MMO setting PVE is generally the root from which everything else follows. PVE content provides materials and items which feed into economy, industry, research and more. PVE is also a starting point for PVP engagements in many MMO (such as EVE) and that way not only does the PVE content provide potential content for PVP, the items that come out of PVE still pass into the game through the PVP action as the loot is still sold in most cases.
This is something that has been brought up by several of the backers many times but (quelle surprise) never got a response from NQ who seems to not understand this basic rule of MMO gameplay at all and just thinks they can drop parts of such a loop into the game.
Example is schematics.. great idea but no creative thinking attached to it by NQ, just drop the schematics in the markets sold by bots..
I've mentioned it before but this is also possible:
From scavenging and PVP players obtain damaged elements, these can be researched to "reverse engineer" schematics. In turn these schematics can be used in "invention" through which process bigger or more efficient versions of these elements can be made into schematics. Finally by applying high tier elements and possible (ancient) items found through exploration these schematics can be upgraded to higher tier ones which produce elements with better performance and/or capabilities.
Players can choose to sell the schematics they create on the market or use them in industry themselves. PVE players go out and find the rare items and PVP players go out to find the PVE players and if they do, still bring back the rare items as loot..
so yeah.. basic MMO game loops where both PVE and PVP have a role to play and both eventually feed into the game it self.
Perfectly said.
I'd like to add that basic items up to M should be available, but items above that and the other qualities should be found by other players and sold on the market. -
On 3/9/2021 at 12:52 AM, GraXXoR said:
You honestly think that not having PVP is why the builders left....bwahahahahah...
there were many reasons why our org members went into hibernation but PVP was not first, second or even third on the list of reasons.
I think the overall experience is the problem. As you've said, there are many reasons, not just one or two. Eventually these reasons make one or two people leave, then another wave of five leave because those one or two left (and they also about had it with the multiple problems they faced), eventually it just cascades into droves of people leaving...
I personally don't see myself quitting the game outright. And, so long as they don't shut the game down, I'll even pay for a subscription after beta is over, most likely. I can just mine bitcoin for 2 days on my PC and afford the subscription, lol.If anyone was wondering, I'm a designer in the game. I do design work for interiors. That's what I primarily do, so my views on this are purely from that standpoint. I don't mine much, if at all, because I don't need to. Most of the resources I need are either with me already or provided since I'm apart of an org and the only dedicated interior designer.
-
Not sure if it was stated elsewhere, but to commence territory warfare, you might need to declare war. After that, a timer(one, two or more days long) will count down so people should have time to prepare to defend the territory.
-
Honestly, the whole idea of the game running on separate clients is a brilliant one, that means less investment into server tech to compute everything and thus reducing operation costs and increasing scalability. However, they need to find a way to supplement it for people who don't have high-end hardware to run the game then.
-
1 minute ago, Daphne Jones said:
Yes. And as joao mentioned, this is the long discussed head-less client issue. NQ has run 10s of thousands of NPCs on headless clients for stress tests, so it can be done, but no one outside of NQ knows whether the cost to do this all the time is practical.
They could design a completely dynamic system for NPCs, so only about 10 or so headless clients would run at the same time. The main server would track all the virtualized objects of the ships, just points moving through space, until it it get's really close (2.15 SU away) and loads a headless client to take control of the ship and the guns, it will be like what an EVE Player has, simply orbit, lock, shoot, no need for anything complex like image recognition. They could run away when too much gets damaged, but if you took out their warp drive before then, they would just fight to the death. The cores could be placed further from the middle as well so that the ship isn't a complete wreck at the end. But, if it manages to get away and you're close to it, you might be able to tell the direction they warped in because they changed their velocity vector to that direction prior to warping. You then go searching in that direction for the FOB. This could be a reason to send scouting parties, btw.
The moment it warps, the ship gets unloaded and the headless client get's unassigned. -
Just now, joaocordeiro said:
This topic looks like the resurrection of old threads.
We are now arriving at the "headless clients" thread.
?
Mwahaha, this was the plan all along.Headless clients sound like a good idea, but who would run them? I think if they're lightweight enough you could run like 10 at the same time on a single computer, though I have no idea, honestly.
-
4 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:
The hard part in DU is that every actor needs a client because almost everything runs in the client.
Oh! I get what you mean now. You're saying every PVE ship would require a client to run it?
-
2 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Also it is important to understand that different programmers have different skills.
Example: the guy that fixes "pending operations" is not the same of the guy that made the industry UI.
And so, it can be wrong for players to say: "how can feature A was implemented before bug B was fixed"
Because the guys technically capable of implementing feature A are not necessary qualified to fix bug B.
I'm an amateur programmer, I'd like to say I'm pretty good at it as well; I've developed multiple Discord bots, most of which were for custom purposes, and the one I did make public has a lot of servers using it. For the most part, my initial work was buggy and poorly done, then I rewrote it with one framework in mind. Even then, there are some bugs, but nothing a lot of experimentation couldn't find a way to solve. But, almost everything is bug-free. Almost all the "issues" people come onto the support Discord for are actually them not understanding the issue. The point is, from my amateur perspective, I commented without thinking about that. When you have multiple people coding the same project, their conventions and how they laid out the framework for what they did won't necessarily be the same as what you're familiar with working in.
I see where you're coming from, so NQ should get around to doing those fixes that are once off and common. And I hope the patch coming up addresses a few of those. They normally do a massive bug-fix thing every major patch, so I hope they do the same this time round as well. -
7 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Probably because he knows how difficult and resource expensive it is to implement.
Regarding on "how to fix" the game.
There is no choice.
This is what we have. No budget to change DUs direction right now.
The plan is to keep basic promises, clean the bugs and release.
Is it a viable game? There are some viable parts. But can those compensate for a subscription? Maybe.
Maybe we will see DU2.0 kickstart campaign. Asking for more funds to make DU viable.
That Dual Universe 2.0 kickstarter campaign would be interesting. I might put some money to it.
I'm sure if it came down to it, they could lay-off half of the team, that probably isn't doing more than 10 lines of code a week, and the pace wouldn't change much.
But that's an assumption. I have no idea how the company works internally, how many programmers are doing anything on any particular day. I'm sure if they want to keep their jobs, they have to do something, but, if I was a developer there, I would be investigating and fixing this bugs the whole time if I could help it. The less bugs, the easier it is to add more complex features.
Particularly, I've been burned by those crash-type bugs. Man, I've had full bluescreens. I have no idea why Dual Universe ends up being the only game to every crash my PC like that.
But that was only on planets when I decided to fly around at higher speeds, probably something about voxels being unloaded and loaded into memory too fast or something.
I don't know their budget, but I hope it's not as dire as people believe it to be. It would be great if they pulled in enough money to see this game through beta, to release and beyond even. -
7 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Best i got from NQ was this (under NDA) answer:
Has the NDA marker effectively void or does it still apply?
This was like 2 years ago, their priorities and thoughts probably changed a bit. Right now, my org mates agree, PVP fights and wars don't have a purpose, other than burning resources in voxel and broken advanced/rare elements. This would hopefully change in the future.
With PVE, the goal in mind is provide a good reason you're burning resources. If you happen to locate the HQ, for example, a massive raiding party would be required to combat the ships there, but at the same time you have a giant station you didn't blow to bits left with resources, so you get a netgain. Even with FOBs, you will gain.
Now that I think about it, how would the ownership of the HQ or FOB go if it was not destroyed in the fight? Would it be to the first person to destroy the core and reclaim it? I think this might be the part where avatar vs avatar becomes a necessity. If raiding rules are made beforehand, you would need a way to enforce it. Like, if for example you say that X party will only have the wrecked ships, where party Y get's the resources stored in the containers on the station and party Z would get the voxel and elements of the station, you will need a way to enforce. -
1 minute ago, SirJohn85 said:
Well, you haven't really answered any question. OP just said he wants it in the roadmap, which will make it more concrete.
But well, I guess it's just another thread that will join the many other npc threads already created during 2016-2020 when it has no relevance today.
Pretty grim, and accurate view. Yes, I want it implemented in the roadmap, whenever that may be. Maybe the next year or maybe the year after that.
5 minutes ago, Lethys said:Exactly the point. Then ppl dont do it solo but with 5 ppl. Or 20. Or 200. Doesnt really matter. Despite the fact that needing 200 ppl for a pve base would mean excluding small orgs (fine for me, but you know the lads....), it would also not matter much. Even if they put in a number limit and everything. Ppl WILL figure out how to blitz it and ppl WILL Farm it. And then it Boils down to: is this worth it to implement it for another grind?
Dont get me wrong, I loved wh pve in eve but it was boring too
Another grind? Sure, better than mining to me, rather spend 100 hours doing this than mining 100 hours, even if the reward was half or even a quarter of what mining does.
-
2 minutes ago, Lethys said:
That's the problem really with PVE in a mmo.
It may look hard at first and when implemented ppl are all over it because they always die and noone knows how to deal with the new threat.
A month or two later you just chain solo double escalated C5 sites.....been there, done that.
Pve gets really really hard to balance in a game like this so it'll end up
- either too easy/no good quanta per hour and noone bothering with it
- too easy and making ppl good money. So just a second grind like mining, a bit more exciting tho
And yes, That's also true for this idea - not sure how to balance that.
And thats exactly why Nq should first provide what was promised in the first place: atmo pvp, full pvp everywhere but the safezones, avatar vs avatar gameplay. Those three would be a major driver for sec companies and emergent gameplay
I am not one of those people, for the record. Also, that kind of solo player will never happen here. Think about it, in the current state, the game has you with 6 guns solo. You could maybe deal with 2 pirate ships solo if you have your tactics worked out, but not the FOB because there would just be too many ships defending it, unless you get it really early somehow.
A solo player would be able to ambush a single patrol ship, basically or maybe come in when both sides are weakened and score a kill.6 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:What prevents people from hiring organisations that do mercenary work?
The post was made purely from my personal experience, so far in the org I'm apart of no one is hiring us to protect them.
7 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:Territorial warfare (battle for tiles and atmospheric pvp inc.) and AvA (Avatar vs Avatar) would be 2 things that would immediately come to mind. One is supposed to come soon.
I was more speaking of what wasn't already on the roadmap to be added. I couldn't find a post from NQ, though I didn't really look either.
9 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:In principle, there is nothing against PvE. I'm primarily weighing up what was said during the Kickstarter campaign about what should be in place for the release. I just wonder how you imagine it exactly, since the safe zones are supposed to be around 20km and everything after that is actually pvp and no longer "pve" in this sense.
I also enjoy flora and fauna and would be happy to see that, but I knew then that it would not be a priority. If you now put the resources, energy and money into PvE, they lose the focus of the game in my eyes.
Yeah, that was my mistake really... I meant PVPVE.
PVE where PVP can happen at any time. -
Just now, SirJohn85 said:
So far, no one has answered my question: Why do we need this in this state? If we already have pirates, in this case as players, why not put in the features that expand that first instead of opening a barrel and developing an AI?
For instance, more peaceful organizations, which I feel the majority are at the moment, will have a need to protect their shipments, even when they avoid the pipes. I sort of outlined this in the original post. Personally, I couldn't think of what you could add at the moment that would promote PVP. So I suggested a whole aspect that hasn't even been made yet in the game, PVE. There are PVE players who just are just forced doing PVP until such a thing happens.
I'll be frank, I'm more of a PVE player. I don't go out and shoot people often, and when I do I'm with an org with 8~ other people in the seat of the ship I fly. I think it would be great for solo players to have an "in" for some form of combat. I play EVE as a solo player doing purely PVE because I can't compete in the PVP space, personally speaking. (I haven't played EVE for a while)
I can't help but think that, in the current state, PVE could be great, if done right.
(Though, I feel like PVE is still at least a year or more away in the current state of the game) -
3 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:
As I said, what you are describing is holding hands. You want to "pvp" with a pve pirate faction in a safe environment because you want nothing to do with other people or you fear losing because you don't feel powerful otherwise.
There's nothing safe about it. BOO can drop in at any moment and do a cleanup on what NPC pirates already did. For instance, if a fleet is dispatched to take out a FOB, BOO could come in mid-fight because some intel was leaked to them about the position.
-
34 minutes ago, XKentX said:
NPC pirates ? 5 code line fixes ?
They can't change the sign in rate of fire calculation so skills don't make opposite of what they are supposed to be.
Not sure if it's that simple. If they didn't start off right with a centralized system, for whatever reason, then it would require changing in multiple places. But yeah, I agree, things that simple should be changed regardless of if they were poorly implemented to begin with.
I'm also not siding with NQ at all on why simple fixes haven't been made yet. They should literally have 3 or more people going at it on that mega-thread I saw, the game would definitely become better.51 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:If it is a oppressing force, by being too OP, it is not. (infinite ammo, instant radar detection and lock, overpowering numbers)
If is too easy and exploitable, it is not.
If it adds major bugs, it is not.
A agree with these last two points, but the first might be a requirement for the sake of simplicity.
Right, they shouldn't be too easy to exploit, but they should be a way to exploit them through tactics and planning.
However, one thing I know about AI is that they aren't human beings. They need things like the real-time position of a ship to know where to go. They don't "see" a ship. They see data. They see the ship's data says it has 10 cannons on it, is an L core, is at position X, moving to position Y.
If you wanted to balance this however, you could just say that it is old data, like from the 30 seconds. As for guns, you could just send an estimate, like between 8 to 12 guns.51 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:Here are some questions:
- With pirate npc avatars inside?
- Salvageable constructs or only container contents?
- Same efficiency as player constructs or with boosts to compensate for weak IA?
- What happens to destroyed ships? A timer deletes them or stay in game?
- Allways 1 npc vs 1 player construct or dynamic numbers?
- What happens if a player asks a friend for backup? Should a new NPC ship spawn? If not, can small ships bait NPCs to face large fleets?
- Where should pirate NPCs spawn? Everywhere? PVP zone? Non PVP zone?
- When should pirate NPCs spawn?
- What is the relation between numbers players inside a construct, number of guns, core size, ship mass and the pirate ship spawning?
I'll quick-fire answer this to what I think. Of course, comment on anything you disagree with here.
- No
- Salvageable constructs
- Mid-level efficiency, or no efficiency at all just for simplicity sake.
- Destroyed ships should act like they are now. However, if the pirates manage to kill your ship, there will be a timer to say, if no ships close by, and 5 minutes have passed, despawn ships. Value of destroyed ship is turned into components/raw resources.
- Completely dynamic, just like how in Stellaris they will send a fleet in when they think they can crush you, but won't send their entire fleet away just for a single hauler with no guns.
- NPC ships shouldn't "spawn in", there should be a response delay to anything since they wouldn't have a warp beacon deployed there at random.
- They should have FOB, from which they are sent out to attack haulers. This will be in the PVP zone since no one would be able to afford random pirates ganking you while you're going from Alioth to Thades or something.
- Pirate NPCs should only spawn if there is a FOB in the area. You could even have them do randomized patrols around their FOB in a 10 SU radius, but only have them as virtual objects, not real clients.
- That's just something that would require mass-player testing to decide on. That kind of thing isn't really possible to program in advance.
21 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:On the one hand, the community complains that real pirates raid their events, and on the other hand, they want pve pirates?
Guys, it doesn't work like that.
This shouldn't close any doors and this shouldn't affect events any more than a real pirate would. Pirates shouldn't instantly spawn, they should have a timer to determine how long it would take to get there from their FOB and only spawn in the moment that timer stops. So for the upcoming Star Wars event, the NPC pirates would have the same issue in getting there. Additionally, FOBs shouldn't deviate from high PVP areas that much so that empty space is still safe to an extent.
I agree with joaocordeiro, they won't be OP and normal pirates will still have a place. -
11 minutes ago, le_souriceau said:
Yep, sorry to ruin it, but its exercise in futility.
Currently we often begging for months about simplest QOL things without any results. Devs now preocuppied with survival basicly, they nor care about your ideas (there is 1000s others in line), nor can realisticly implement them next eternity.
The point of this post isn't really to say to NQ directly: Here add this feature. That never works. The idea is to have multiple people read this post and say "Oh, that's not a bad idea."
So if the suggestion comes up again when NQ is able to do something about it, they might just go for it.
People were saying the game lacked content over and over again, so I wanted to give my suggestion on what content they could add. -
3 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:
Sure, we can have that academic discussion. Just dont expect it to happen.
There are 5 line code fixes not happening because priorities and budget issues.
So, let's have that academic discussion, is there anything you want to add to this? Suggestions, things you disagree with—not because just dismissing the entire idea—and maybe things I forgot to take into account, gameplay-wise?
0.24 Phase One - Discussion Thread
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by EasternGamer
I believe that is intended. Luminescent materials don't light up areas in real life, as far as I can tell. Use lights instead.