Jump to content

Warden

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Warden

  1. I would have to agree with this, and it reminded me of something I thought about recently, with more modern depictions of information: Yeah, it's "sciency" or "modern" and all and may fit theme-wise, but it's harder to read. This is why, should I ever resort to similar images, I will actually do the good old "white paper - plain text" approach, even if it's the future. But it's what people are used to today and it's relatively readable. I actually like the visuals and idea n' all. I just find it harder to read compared to "classic things".
  2. I'm unaware myself, but then again I don't think we can expect to be able to play with literally thousands of other players at a time, I doubt the tech and framework could handle it any time soon. However, perhaps a few hundred per solar system might seem obtainable. I do remember an older quote where he more or less mentions the possibility of playing with a lot (thousands?) of players but that remains to be seen. If I recall right, currently about 50-60 can be in an instance, but I'd have to check. It should show it somewhere as you join. This is an increased number to before where I recall about half of that being possible per instance. So far the trend indicates upward progression, and it has to because I remember the crew listing for a destroyer being about 70, max or ideal.
  3. Tbh, I never expected this from the game if he literally means thousands at a time with that quote (that I missed), per "instance" and depending on what counts as "instance" later on - the whole universe? Or will each solar system be an "instance" meaning you are not locked in with the same players in your area once you join. Or in other words, you join and pop up in whatever system you were with X people, and once you leave the system you could be in another instance, but that would mean once you return the people who were there when you joined would be gone. No clue, just guessing. It wouldn't be consistent like that, but I doubt they count the whole universe as instance because an instance can only hold a certain amount of people, meaning that a universe would feel rather dead-ish player-wise, regardless of how many NPCs populate it. Anyway, as I hinted at the beginning, I don't have the expectation for thousands of people (per instance). Perhaps if you played games like EVE you might change standards, but I personally think games like EvE with single shards are not as common - at least they don't seem to me. Most games with online components are limited in terms of player size per server or instance due to technical reasons. I just think they notable need to increase player count per instance or server. Right now it might be more than it used to be, but I think it's still not high enough. While I'm not quite sure where the number is right now without further research, as far as I know it's not sufficient yet because one has to factor in all the upcoming capital ships. What use are capital ships that can sometimes require a crew up to like 70 or several dozen people at full contingent (including marines and replacement staff) if one of those would already notably fill up the instance. While I don't expect huge fights between player-only fleets with several capital ships, there needs to be the possibility for larger fleet operations by players, for larger player organizations. And who knows, if the technology allows more in the upcoming years and decades, perhaps such statements will be revised. TL;DR: I personally never expected the standards of EvE for example, if that quote is to be literal and seen as "at a time within an instance". It just needs to be more than it is right now and give the subjective feeling of allowing sufficient player numbers, even if they always said you will encounter 90% NPCs or whatever. Larger groups should be able to play together at a time. Who knows what the future will bring. But for a single shard experience akin to EvE with many players, I look for DU to fulfil those needs right now - most other games cannot do this by design it seems.
  4. That sounds about right and is also usually what I throw out to people to explain it fast or in a simple way.
  5. I don't consider myself an "EvE player" in the sense of saying that implying I was involved in it much. I played it briefly, few months tops, did some mining in high sec. Had some ominous friend who was a goon alliance skirmish commander with a funny story of plot twists and betrayal, won't spill his name though. But technically, I am a former EvE player even though I never got into it much. I'd support the notion that people shouldn't automatically laugh at Minecraft, because that's what I played about 2 years or so, extensively, in a semi-serious setting. Yeah the graphics were crap (unless you used a texture pack, then could even be rather beautiful) and the character models weren't that detailed due to the blockyness of it all, but damn, the game could offer a certain depth, and when I played most modern sandbox games who picked up the torch were not around or not released for early access and whatnot. In the MC community we played (with the same group I once started promoting here) we brought a semi-serious, immersive approach to how groups would interact with each other. My point is, yeah sure there's probably some weird kids playing Minecraft and we all know that cringy video from Minecon or so where the devs get asked cringy questions by kids, but it also offered a mature mindset and approach or setting. Most communities I saw were populated by older teens and adults who delivered a unique experience, wether on my own former community or the Civilizationcraft servers with unique hubs and 'cultures'. But enough of MC for now. I get your point, I think. There's usually only few extensive, complex games or games you start to play that shape you in a distinct way. Perhaps you eventually stop playing them, but eventually look back in a nostalgic way. I do so with Minecraft primarily, due to the great experiences and adventures I had there, and primarily because we won in that particular community I was in. By design or idea, I find Dual Universe to be the perfect combination of what I was always looking for: The emergent gameplay and player influence of EvE Online (which I disliked for its controls and focus on operating ships, instead of people sitting in ships with a focus on first person or on character, and lack of planetary components) coupled with the sandbox elements and ground components of games such as Minecraft. If it's done well by NQ, this will be considered a better EvE Online for me because it then may offer the same idea (without your filler NPCs though) but with things people missed from the game. The "best of both worlds", so to speak. But time will tell.
  6. There is a (new) roadmap that has been around for a while, usually containing the next few version estimates including all planned milestones. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/roadmap/board/1-Star-Citizen/info
  7. Here's something that made it into SC related news on google and whatnot: I think we shouldn't expect something like a "classic release date". Due to the scope of the game, the game will simply always be worked on, with bits and big milestones added. Even if you say "Release is in 2 years", so much would likely come after this ominous "day X". I mean, "release date" would likely be a marketing tool by now to get attention to the game again - although I assume such "release date" would be further into the future as the game isn't anywhere of being done in terms of the multiplayer universe. Now unless you mean a release date for Squadron 42, the singleplayer campaign, then it'll take many more years to even think about a "release date" for the multiplayer component since so much is missing and they still seem to focus on notable framework or background technology. Once that is in place and working, I'm assuming the progress on content should be faster, maybe notably faster. If you want to know how much is missing, look at the interactive star map on the website. See all those systems? Yeah, those are missing. The current system that is in isn't even fully done, with major planets missing. Once the whole system is ready, then we can tick that off as milestone. I have no clue how fast they can be once they dedicate more personnel to creating content and systems, but damn, it'll take many more years for it all to be fleshed out. I'd say a lot should be done in the next 8 to 10 years.
  8. Here you can discuss anything related to Star Citizen. Will make the OP fancier in the near future, with some information about the game for people new to it, etc. Until then I assume people either already know about it or will utilize a search engine of their liking to find out more about Star Citizen.
  9. Ich persönlich finde, dass nichts dagegen einzuwenden ist, wenn man es der internationalen Community direkt via Übersetzung ermöglicht zu verstehen, worum es geht. Quasi ein "Bonus-Service". Nicht notwendig, aber ein Bonus. ENG, to anyone wondering before you possibly translate. Just replying to the inquiry why some parts are in English, to which I added that it can be considered courtesy or bonus service even though the organisation in question has German speakers as target audience.
  10. While I would welcome human NPCs in Fallout 76 where it makes more sense, in DU what you propose seems weird. I would not mind actual NPCs that have points of origins and do their thing. But if that is ruled out, "fake NPCs" on constructs as decoration seem slightly silly to me for some situations. Full ones or none is my stance. If it's none at all, people have to band together to create activity or fill roles. Sometimes you have to be the guy just patrolling or standing guard at an entrance for hours as a (or no) battle rages on. The realization will set in that not everyone will be Rambo or always engaged in some Frontline activity. And that's fine for that type of game, even if I prefer real NPCs.
  11. Besides you can still adjust via regenerating resources in space via asteroids and whatnot. Although completely dry-mined or milked planets seem weird. It should take a while. But those are questions or topics with no "clear" answer. You can do A, B, C etc. We'll have to wait and see and also look at NQ's eventual stance on this. I so far suggest initial resource rich planets that drop in yield over the months and years. A "vein extraction mechanic" can regulate this per spot or vein. If it's like Minecraft where you physically mine it all, it's gone when it's gone.
  12. I think it is totally okay and manageable if, later on, resource availability on Alioth drops notably compared to before. Because the community can step in and offer players exciting ways of interaction. Some offer to get you off the planet if you join them, others might demand you to work somewhere (Mining, assembly, etc) until the debt is paid. Others will simply demand a fee to get you off, like a taxi or shuttle service without any other things like work attached. And others will do it for free. Not like literally any player theoretically and practically has to or must be able to build a ship without help. For a while, sure. Way later? If it can still be guaranteed, cool. But even then I'd argue for solo players that later, there will be fast or cheaper ways to get off Alioth if they just want to leave. But in the end, time will tell. I just want to say that I think in this particular case of less resources available to all on a starter planet, it's fine and fun if the community steps in. Part of emergent game play for me. I'm sure NQ will adjust if need be.
  13. @CoreVamore Well said... or written, rather. In mobile right now where typing longer texts is a PITA, so I elaborate later, but by mindset I'd rather see myself on the risk taker crowd since that is largely my history. And to those who prefer it safer: the other side of the coin (risk, PvP, etc) isn't bad, it spices things up even if it may not be your preference. Even you might likely profit from it by picking a branch or business that focused on logistics or makes things that are blown up or used up in wars. I think DU will offer a fair compromise in that regard and in terms of bridging worlds and (sub-)communities.
  14. Funny, reading this I just thought of a ground-based counter example, and DayZ could be among them. There the hardcore groups in a particular more story and RP based servers usually roam in backs to overpower others with ease, if need be. Some planets or areas on them could be relatively lawless or always contested, and if combat will be a thing there, also expect to encounter larger groups - just like you might find larger groups in space. Safety in numbers. Anywhere.
  15. I think "Neon city" seems kind of attainable and possible, and in a certain way, is already underway.
  16. To add specifically to this aspect: Well, it's simple, kind of: In the end, it's a hobby. And hobbies usually cost money eventually. While it might be a bummer for some, I'm not aware of some kind of universal right to play (such) games for free if the provider of said product doesn't aim to provide it for free in the end. Even when I went to school I could somehow afford to pay MMORPGs with the average monthly sub and it's not like I grew up with a golden spoon in my mouth, if you catch what I am saying. The actual problem I had was paying the company effectively since I did not have a bank account and since game time cards for that game (Star Wars Galaxies) were hard to get in local stores so I had to ask others at times. So I'd say for many people who're not living in complete poverty, it should be nothing impossible to obtain the funds for some months of game time at least if they want to play this game. And besides, this game theoretically allows you to eventually pay for your game time by in-game means by obtaining DAC, if you can manage to trade for them in-game or convince the right people, so in theory you might not have to pay hard cash at some point any longer, or only do so rarely. But I feel like we had that particular debate already and will have it lots of times with new(er) people in the future.
  17. This sounds useful, but it will likely be something that will develop and spread (and find acceptance or rejection) organically. And it will likely not work without sufficient promotion and acceptance. Once you get over a certain point, others will pick up on it. Much like trying to grow an organization past a level where it attracts people "by itself", in a certain way. I do not (yet) think we get to see many truly universal, widespread standards depending on the area we're talking about. What I can imagine is something akin to different power plugs: There is no universal power plug, different regions or countries utilize their own versions. Something similar might likely be a thing in DU later on in many areas. Perhaps some select widespread standards, the rest more custom to certain alliances, nations, groups, organizations, and then random or endless smaller versions. But time will tell. I think it's generally a vital topic and in the interest of many people. Picture it like this: A certain adaptability is likely in your interest, or you might not be able to fully or easily interact with others in some situations. Let's say you're a ship builder or vehicle (car) designer in DU. Here's the thing: Many cities where you likely intend to sell your product and see it used will likely resort to classic streets, especially if they ban most types of airtraffic. What's a potential problem or aspect to consider? Size! No use selling your car effectively if it violates most standards in cities or areas as it's unfit to be utilized on classic roads, for example, due to being too big or so. That's just one example where the community in general has to always mind itself, aka players have to mind other players and find common grounds so that interaction and production, sales and a lot more can happen.
  18. @yamamushi Oh man, what a mess. Surely a setback for him, but he seems popular enough to be able to get out of that okay, or even stronger. I must say he also seems more authentic with his community ties than others, and I think he just has a natural talent for some of those things. This event makes us and me even want to resort to him more. Not that I could complain prior. E: Thanks for the heads-up by the way. Appreciated a lot, I would likely only have noticed way later.
  19. Joining means long-term ascension. Most outsiders or new members will be unable to grasp the glorious perception and understanding of the universe! Chair. Chair Chair Chair. Chair. E: This is the 777th post. COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT! ASCENSION, ONE POST AT A TIME.
  20. I so far believe moderation is eventually decisive or acts when something is considered a notable problem. Someone reports something. Now there's basically two basic options: moderation either did not process (or get) that flag or report which could be bad, or they did. Even if manpower is an issue I believe there is currently no indication staff isn't eventually seeing and processing requests. So chances are they see things and investigate. But perhaps they do not decide to take a certain action you would expect as reporting user; what you might find 'offensive or troll-like', others might not. Perhaps they spoke to the person and they cleared it up, perhaps it's a borderline-case, perhaps the person received warning points or will receive them due to a verbal warning, perhaps it's considered within the rules. I personally gotta say, even with personal conflicts, I was never fond of ignore features in MMORPGs and whatnot. I manual ignore is vastly better in my eyes. An ignore feature I'd only ever consider for "china farmers" in MMORPGs or bots spamming credit or money services and offers, and perhaps someone actually annoying me in some chat without stopping, "spamming" my channel after being told to stop, so you do not get distracted by garbage messages or can follow chat. Even if posts of a user might annoy you, I think it's better just to ignore them manually unless they're completely over the top, than to get angry over it. Otherwise, the currently embedded "block function" might be to your liking. Try it out.
  21. Even though I might take this out of context (the context you mean), it's not entirely true. If you argue that from the perspective of the sole game Dual Universe, organizations are mere "intends of purpose or goals", then yes, in a nutshell this would be the case, as there isn't much of a finalized product available at this time. However, in terms of a social hub, organizations are most often not solely focusing on one game. While they may not have other core branches or divisions in other games, aka a formal presence there, they could still play those games together. I believe this is an aspect people should not forget as it might count a bit or even a lot as people consider potential membership in an organization, or join and try to get by until DU release. Long story short, for DU this might be the case. But orgs might as well function in other games already. Already established organizations that do not hing on DU will likely have it easier as they will likely, on average, seem more stable in general.
  22. Many areas will likely face this problem. In an ironic way, even safe zones aren't fully safe: yes, a city, district, station, building might be protected. But the zone eventually ends. Attackers can roam the areas on the border of any safe zone. But I mean Tortuga even has dedicated security, police and military orgs to defend it so I guess they will do notably better or be better off than other areas or zones. Here, you have a big(ger) pool of personnel to put into dedicated security roles. If you are a raider out for quick profit, why bother if you can potentially get smashed fast when there is other weaker targets? As criminal, do you want to mess with big parts of the community or in the sense of the founders, other outlaws and pirates? Tortuga will see a fair share of events and maybe even action. But it should, by my guesses, be better off and relatively safe. And if external threats become a problem, you... scale reactions accordingly.
  23. Regarding drama Beware potential confirmation bias though. Frankly, I don't get some saying the forum is full of drama (implied or literally), as I hardly see much of it. Now just because I don't see or perceive some things as such doesn't mean there is nothing going on, but I so far think some seem to blow things way out of proportions. Exaggerating doesn't help players or a community however. So my little PSA is: maybe it's not as bad as some people think it is. And I think the forum or community can survive an occasional joke or sh*t post or some organization taking a jab at another. Whatever makes it past a certain threshold, moderation can deal with. Last but not least, there is usually also always at least two sides to (public) "drama". While you cannot always influence the other side, what you can influence is how you deal with it or specifically, how you react and respond. Often you can de-escalate or escalate further. Regarding the group Interesting idea. However, I see a potential manual work aspect where automation might be better. Orgs have go through an application and you have to manage it. Now, not counting the featured org status, for all players it might be more beneficial to have DU integrate categories into the organization hub at the community section where all orgs are listed. Think of like how Star Citizen does it with. Pre-defined categories and tags so as you create your org, you can already pick a category yourself. No offense to your idea but for convenience features an integration into existing systems is always more preferable from a community POV over having to go through private entities and manual work to keep things updated. But this mostly depends on whether the devs add this or not. If so, you might have to adapt your idea a bit.
×
×
  • Create New...