Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'pvp'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum Rules & Announcements
    • Forum Rules & Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Patch Notes
  • New Player Landing Zone
    • New Player Help
    • FAQ & Information Desk
    • Gameplay Tutorials
    • Player Introductions
  • General (EN)
    • General Discussions
    • Lua Forum
    • Builder Forum
    • Industry Forum
    • PvP Forum
    • Public Test Server Feedback
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Idea Box
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • General (DE)
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • General (FR)
    • Discussions générales
  • Social Corner
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Roleplay & Lore
    • Fan Art

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location:


Interests


backer_title


Alpha

  1. As seen during the beta, since the introduction of the Alien Cores in Athena, the group with the largest PvP force in the game can hold all 10 cores without much trouble. My personal opinion would be to make defending all 10 cores in the game virtually impossible for a single group/alliance to do (assuming there is an opposing side). However, this is somewhat of a balancing nightmare and would get complicated very quickly. My initial proposal would be to make Plasma a non-warpable item (similar to Aphelia Mission packages). This would allow smaller groups to attempt to "pirate" plasma off of the main group holding the cores while they fly it back to safe zone. This still gives the core owners the ability to decide when and where they want to put the plasma at risk and require the "pirates" to do planning reconnaissance, etc in order to pull off a heist. But it at least gives non-core owners a chance at getting a hold of some plasma, even if they aren't a big enough group to hold a core, but still requires them to PvP for it. From an outside perspective, implementation of this should be relatively easy (all mechanics are already in-place for the mission packages). I feel like it gives some balance to the alien cores in regards to smaller PvP factions, while not really making it harder for the larger factions to still control plasma. Thanks, Dead
  2. Currently, stasis weapons work by reducing the top speed of the target by a set amount per hit, which decays over time. Since ships rarely fight at or near their top speed, this means that stasis weapons find no use whatsoever in the meta. The goal of stasis weapons is to allow you to slow down a target and make it easier to hit and harder for them to escape. Stasis weapons should apply an artificial mass to the target per hit, which decays over time. This will have the joint effects of reducing acceleration and reducing top speed, without requiring any additional formulas. This makes balancing simpler, and would allow for variants to the stasis weapons like we see for the other weapon types. It also makes them useful when not at the speed limit, allows them to be made more powerful so that they can actually be a viable weapon fit.
  3. A while ago there was a discussion in the discord about limiting access to certain resources to the PvP space as well as the importance of PvE-players for PvP-players and vice versa. My conclusion to improve this interaction, is to improve the PvE aspect, because only if PvE-players hold a value to PvP players (besides target practice), a meaningful interaction can exist. Currently PvP-orgs require barely any purely PvE-players, because everything from resource acquisition to crafting can be more or less automated. The solution is a more active and specialized PvE gameplay. 1. Mining Pre-MU planetary mining was in a pretty good state if you ignore its lack of excitement (which could be introduced with rare minerals/gems as random encounters). It required active play and every successful org had at least some dedicated miners to supply them with ore. With MUs now that completely changed. Ore can be acquired passively, and especially the yield for higher tier ores (T3+), which you mostly need in smaller quantities, can easily support a large org. No active input besides the calibration by an alt once every 5 days is required. For miners to be valuable again, mining has to consume active playtime. For that i suggest a few changes: significantly reduce the MU output, especially for higher tier ores. Without indepth calculations, i'd suggest to reduce the yields to 50%/40%/20%/10%/5% for T1/T2/T3/T4/T5, respectively. randomize the spawn time and increase the spawn rate of the current asteroids in the safe zone, make the ore node size more variable (no meganodes necessary, but the occasional supernode would be a nice find) place a few copies of Thades moonlets (or moonlets generated similarly) at a region outside the safe-zone and have a significantly increased spawn rate for asteroids in that region to create a more or less dense asteroid belt for mining and PvP base building randomly (time and location) spawn large amounts of surface rocks of a single ore (5000%+ of MU-mini-game generated ones) on the surface of planets (T1-T2 in safe-zone, T1-T4 in PvP space), with a rarity of the spawn relative to the tier of the ore. This enables repeated scouting of planet surfaces for surface rock deposits, gives new players the ability to start mining without neglect able initial costs and adds to the importance of surface rock picking talents. These changes require nearly no new mechanic that isn't already in game, but would improve the value of active mining and thus the value of dedicated miners for orgs immensely. 2. Industry Industry is a bit harder to tackle, because its automated by definition. The schematics update is a step into the correct direction, even tho i would prefer to have a proper CPU/Power system which would have similar and more effects. One way to increase the importance of active game time in industry (as well as other aspects of PvE) could be the introduction of a job system that is based on a players ingame activity and provides boni to cores or elements. Each job has an activity bar, which fills whenever a player does certain ingame activities. The amount of actions to fill the bar should be relatively low (fill-able with 2-4h standard game time) and reduces over time (exponentially dependent on the fill status, very slow when its full, faster when nearly empty, from full to 50% without any actions it should take a week). The maximum job bonus should be kept as long as the bar is over 50%. In addition you can only have a single job active at any given time, and changing jobs will reset the job-bar to 0. Let me give four examples: Job: Miner Actions to fill job bar : calibrate MUs, mine/harvest any ore Effects : Increased mining efficiency with hand tool and calibrated MUs (0-30% depending on job-bar) Job: Industry Manager Actions to fill job bar : interact with any industry unit (limited to once per day and unit) Effects : decreased ore, pures and product consumption (0-10%) and craft time (0-20%) (applied to a core, not to individual elements, limited to a low number of cores) Job: Pilot Actions to fill job bar: fly any mobile core Effects: improved handling of flight elements (0-20%) Job: Soldier Actions to fill job bar: shoot&hit other mobile constructs Effects: improved hit chance, improved radar range (not a PvP guy, so no values suggested) With this system we could encourage specialized and especially active game play. As a bonus the impact of alts on industry would be reduced as well. Due to the core-limitations for the Industry Manager boost, every org with several factories would require several players that focus on doing industry related activities ingame to have an efficient production that can compete with market prices. If we get a CPU&Power system that would limit the maximum amount of industry units per core, so you can't place 5 or 6 large production lines on the same L-Core, in the future the effects of the job system would be even better. With the following increase of importance for PvE-centric gameplay, DU could then start to put up higher incentives or stakes for PvP-space, like adding exclusive resources that you can't get in the safe-zone. Bcause the new incentive for trade between the safe-zone inhabitants and the PvP-space occupants, a good and enjoyable interaction between those two pillars of gameplay should be possible.
  4. [Founding Member of the Lodestar Alliance] ƊƛƦƘ SƬƛƦ ƖMƤЄƦƖƲM Forging the Warrior Spirit ƠƲƦ ƇƠMMƲƝƖƬƳ - A Community formed and managed by current and prior military, we are an open and blunt community that promotes free speech. The Dark Star Imperium is an meritocratic empire, What that means is that if you put in the effort, you WILL advance in the ranks. We are a brotherhood with a passion for not just PvP, but creative Design and originality. Our Members are our greatest asset and as such those that earn their place within our ranks can take solace that we care of our own. - We specialize in faction PvP, engineering, and tech with all sections having many experienced veterans from other games. No matter your playstyle, we have a place for You! Our philosophy on all aspects is going beyond the competition by overwhelming levels. When it comes to establishing supremacy on the virtual battlefield we strive to excel in all aspects of warfare as the premiere professional armada! ƠƲƦ ƇƲԼƬƲƦЄ - An open forum where anyone can speak their mind and affect change. Maturity and Thick skin is required to handle our sense of humor as most military vets and those like us see the world differently and as such this community has a vary obvious warrior culture vibe to it, as is what we intended. Rich Lore and a unique art style have also been created in parallel with DSI's evolution. Do you want to KNOW MORE? ƜHƛƬ ƜЄ ƛƦЄ ԼƠƠƘƖƝƓ ƑƠƦ - We're looking for PvPers, Industrialists, ship designers and programmers of any skill level with a genuine interest in being a part of something greater! Apply on our Discord: https://discord.gg/SyDKAk9Xs5
  5. I would like to discuss the near future of DU. It's no secret to either the players or the developers (as I see it) that DU will fail immediately upon release with the current mechanics. As it stands now, it's a mining and production simulator with pretty weak economics. It's so sad to see this great idea go to hell. What is DU now? It's a construction, manufacturing, and peaceful flight simulator. What is the current course? To make a combat flight simulator and maybe a shooter. Who plays this game? Most of us are pretty close to nerds (sorry if that hurts your feelings). I am interested in playing DU even in excel. Do graphics make a significant difference to me? Probably not. Who will the developers attract? Looks like shooter players who definitely don't like excel. What will they find here? Obviously, nothing. That means anger and, of course, nasty posts everywhere. I don't see how ping and pendings can be reduced to an acceptable 30-60ms. Thus, pvp as we know it from Fortnite and similar games is hardly possible in the near future on a single server. NPCs are also unlikely to be possible due to the architecture of the game. But I love this game, I want to play this game, I don't want this game to die. How can this situation be improved? I'm already playing this game. Sure, I'm waiting for additional content, but do I really need an atmo combat simulator here? No. It makes it impossible to live on the planet. Do I need a PvP area in space everywhere? No. It suppresses the idea of peaceful gameplay for construction and production. Do I really need PvP? Yes, I do. However, if you remember, I am a nerd, I'll be more than happy to fight you in excel. I think we can leave the space as it is. It works more or less acceptably. Of course, it needs to be improved, but at this stage it's more or less fine. The focus should be on the economy and the planets. I believe we can realise territory wars without shooting. There are a lot of strategy games that don't require a good ping and reaction. I want to be able to occupy any tile I like if my corporation is strong enough. My territorial and border integrity should play an important role in the mechanics of territorial wars. So my proposal is a flight simulation in space and a solid strategy game without the rush of the surface. Should we ignore reality and just hope for a happy future? Or should we perhaps change course and help the game survive? What do you think?
  6. @NQ-Admin Hi, it's important. Can you put all the alien core in pause (production/lockdown) until PVP was fix? (Radar + Transponder + Anynewbug) We can't fight in good conditions, we can't have fun or enjoy this content (and it's the only PVP available atm) and with the wipe no decision + all those PVP bugs, we just lost all our motivation. Do something, don't be passiv, thx.
  7. With the Athena update we decided to hold 3-4 alien cores, the goal being to test our ability to defend multiple cores. The harsh reality of alien cores In response, our enemies have put our cores in lockdown ~fifteen times, sometimes 4 on the same day, forcing us to organize ourselves well to allow everyone to come home from work, eat, take care of their family or simply rest. For having a minimum number of people at the end of each lockdown, just in case. The ends of lockdown follow one another and still nothing on radars, the regularity required by this feature prevents us from pirating on asteroids or pipes as we did before, but the various changes have not reinforced either the interest of them, the motivation is therefore less and less perceptible and it becomes a chore to come and defend... So we come to this evening of May 21, 4 cores are in lockdown; Gamma, Theta, Iota and Zeta Theta and Gamma are respectively under siege at 18:24 UTC and 18:56 UTC, knowing that it takes 20 minutes to secure a core without enemies, the timing is tight but nothing can tell at this moment that our enemies will take advantage of it... A well thought out plan 18:36 UTC, Theta in siege but without contacts, when suddenly the announcement falls: "CONTACT ON THETA" 10 to 15 ships on radars, the fight is easily managed but a large part of our fleet is therefore in combat lock for the next 10 minutes, preventing warp, and an attack on Gamma begins to grow in our heads. Taking advantage of the combat lock to loot some of the enemy ships, meanwhile another group forms, alerted by the first attack and start moving in direction of Gamma. 18:58 UTC, Gamma in siege and the dreaded announcement drops: "24 CONTACTS ON GAMMA" We are all surprised and at the same time excited, @here and @everyone appears on the various discords to call Legion for mobilization, we've been waiting for this moment for a long time, impossible to miss it! We get together in voice, we regroup in the same place in game and we jump into the fray. Focus announcements follow one another, but more surprisingly, there are not 24 contacts but 50... 70... 100... (we reached 150 contacts on the radar at one point, allies and enemies). Several ships are dummys, but the enemy is really numerous, we will have to be disciplined and use our experience in PVP but also as a group. The confrontation was complex, the previous patch broke the radars and transponders, impossible to sort the contacts on the radar and even less those who change their name like ours (our entire fleet bore the name "WONDU" on its ships), but LUA scripts save us and maintain some semblance of order in this nameless mess. The station sees its shield descend little by little, an alt left on it allows us to follow it live, protecting the core is impossible without killing all our enemies, it must get out of the 10 minutes of combat lock to recharge its shield. It ends up being core, we manage to regain control, the core itself is not enough, we have to hold these 10 minutes. Unfortunately the timer is constantly reset, even after taking advantage of the fight; the dead ships then repaired by our enemies, the incessant comings and goings of small fast ships and those bearing our tag, it's almost mission impossible to prevent them from approaching, the fight drags on so long as we almost destroyed the entire enemy fleet. The Liberation "30 seconds left" (combat timer on alien core) Announced in voicecom, still no hostile contact... When suddenly a M core appear, rushing to the alien core. "15" Some of our remaining forces are concentrated on him, the burst is violent but it's not enough. "10" He is at 80km from the core, almost dead but he still represents the last threat of these long hours of confrontation. "OHNO OHNO OHNO HE IS SHOOTING [filtered] MY LIFE" ... "IT'S REPAIRED" Nerd screams, phew of relief, Legion held on but not without difficulty. A big GG to everyone, even if the game is clearly not the most pleasant for PVP currently, it's events like this that make the game live. Bravo for the organization, the execution and the destruction of the core. We had a lot of trouble keeping our precious plasmas Some stats about those fight The opposing forces: Legion vs "Empire, BOO, CVA, Penrose, CYT, IC, CRN, MSI, SB Nation, UA and I think another 1 or 2, just a handful from each, think IC had the most, but mostly new to PvP" +/- 150 ships involved ~40 Legion members at the end More than 3 hours of fight 45+ wrecks still close to Gamma this morning Very very little amount of stasis Too much ammo fired Too much kills Not enough transponder xD
  8. Alien core can be a good feature... If only players really need to fight for them, let me show you what we will really have 99% of the time: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1480246940 (No sound because of comms, sorry) Why defend a station is a waste of ressources and time? - Shields are too low, we can't wait for our ennemies before moving - So we will need to travel 300SU+ or warp our entire fleet each time we have to defend, even for nothing - Ship aren't protected when dock on a station with a shield (??) - This can help ppl with lot of job/kids or else to setup their ship when they can - If we take at least 2 core we have to defend an alien core each day - If we want to attack, we add another timer where we need to be, again it can be each day - Why we don't have a combat free timer after we win a defense? With your wipe talk without ANY DECISION, with your patch against any PVP mechanic or method, a big nocare about some of the oldest bugs known in DU... We don't have any other content outside of alien core in PVP now. We send plenty of idea/feedback for a better PVP or more confortable, we tryhard each PTS for help, report each bug/exploit find even if that lead to another nerf of our content How can we keep our players hype for Dual Universe? Why NQ stay so quiet? (Entropy did a nice feedback but only around voxels and shields for PVP but some other part are missed) Our ennemies got the same problem, maybe more because we are really lucky to have so many ppl still active on DU. Don't kill your game, listen us, don't stay focus on your ideas if everyone say it's not the good way and talk with your community.
  9. I am at a loss on the ore collecting systems in this game. With the intro to Asteroids, I did not really care for the effort put in vs ore collected before the asteroid is contested. It is very hard to do this without a medium to larger group to go with. Issue I have is the availability of asteroids. It does seem that asteroids are fairly quickly snagged up each week and only the ones that are very far away are left for anyone else. I also agree that the original mining option of underground mining had to be changed and perhaps gotten rid of. So I am fully okay with this being gone, however I felt the reward vs time put in was worth it. Mining units were one of the worst additions to the game to date in my opinion. It creates an uncontested infinite amounts of ore, as long as your taxes are paid. I would suggest a revamp to asteroid mining. The suggestion I would have is to make asteroid fields that are decently close together. Idea is to have zoned asteroid fields, non PvP for lower tier ores, medium tier zone and high tier/ gemstone asteroids. This would give the "Infinite ore that the devs were looking for but add the aspect of having to work for it. Would create PVP opportunities for asteroid cluster patrolling Asteroids can be regenerated on a daily / weekly or time based system. Asteroid regeneration could be as simple as asteroids spawn, if someone comes the asteroid and alters it by mining either the asteroid surface or the ores within it will then start a timer to despawn this asteroid and once despawned, spawn a new asteroid in at a random coordinate within the asteroid field. Example if I mine an asteroid it could despawn after 72 hours or something like that and then spawn a new asteroid in. Asteroids could be a lot smaller than the current asteroids in the game. Maybe 1 or 2 ores per asteroid with some more ore dense than others. I think this would create better opportunities to mine and create good pvp opportunities as well. I would say these asteroids fields should be fairly large so that there is a chance to actually go into a higher tier asteroid field and not have a 100% chance to be spotted.
  10. It is quite obvious Athena is adding more features for pvp so that more players and orgs participate. PVP never been popular among majority of players that own only 1 account. Participating or wanting to, requires levelling hundreds of pvp related talents that most players wont, because there are other hundreds more vital talents to enjoy better a quiet life. But NQ has done the probably unfixable mistake to open market to shadow PC players, which ultimately broke PVP in DU There is not a single PVP org member that have less than 2 accounts and play pvp with 2 DU clients open on a single computer Meaning a minimum of 2 characters seated in the same ship and ready for pvp, controlled by 1 single person, meaning double of weapon power controlled by 1 "at the same time" Us random folks and orgs have absolutely no chance out there What should be reviewed by NQ to rebalance this and give equal chance to anyone? 2 solutions: 1) Re enable the VR controls, letting player in VR use remotes / programming boards / command seats / pvp seats VR could still restrain inventories access, and talents 2) Remove the number of allowed weapons per seat, but allocate it per construct
  11. eg an L shield on a ship with no CCS would have 5 million hp, while one that does could have the usual 20 million, maybe even more for larger ships. This would encourage players to use voxels on their builds instead of just using elements.
  12. TL/DR: Top speed should be based on the size of a ship's shield generator instead of its mass. The long version: NQ currently planning to limit a ship's top speed based on that ship's mass in an attempt to keep engine-heavy pvp ships from easily out-running things they attack (preventing people they attack from finishing them off if they start to lose). I suspect this idea results from all the people that see M and L cores on radar when they get pirated, and fixes based on such limited information will only annoy everyone by slowing them down without actually solving the real problem. Most pvp ships I've seen were built on an M or L core to get access to the size-capped weapons, but were little more than thruster-packs with guns and an L shield and would have fit in to an S core's build volume. As such, they already weigh (relatively) next to nothing when compared to the stuff they are attacking, and will still be significantly faster than most anything they attack after NQ implements the mass-related speed cap. Because the goal at its most basic is to have the most fragile ships be the fastest, I would instead propose that a ship's top speed be capped by the size of shield generator it has equipped, thus preventing the fastest ships in the game from also fitting what is supposed to be a battleship's defensive hardware. Everyone would still be able to hit 30kkph in a ship with no shields (or possibly with only an xs shield), so people hauling stuff wont be annoyed by having to spend twice as long making their trips if they choose, it wouldn't break immersion quite as hard as capping speed just by weight, and it would help improve the overall balance of pvp by making combat ships choose between speed or defense. On a side note: If a shield-based speed cap is implemented, the act of placing a shield on a moving construct in build mode needs to be disabled to prevent potential exploits. It may also be necessary to cap the speed of ships serving as carriers for a ship with shields to likewise prevent exploits. Any topic-relevant thoughts or criticisms?
  13. I feel many casual players playing this game don't want to (or can't) build very pretty looking ships, and this element would be perfect for making your ship look 10x better for little effort. it even has some practical use! They could come in different shapes and sizes, smallest being 4x8, largest being xl space engine sized, and would be easy to repeat across flat surfaces without it looking weird. Armour plates would have the same weight, Hp, crafting time, manufacturing cost and resistances as iron honeycomb of the same volume (if not more due to CCS) and would be an easy way to add armour to your constructs. It would be great for adding extra detail to Dual Universes ships for people who don't have the time to make their hull using Voxelmancy. Could even come in different tiers in the future, t1 would be iron, t2 might be copper etc. Would also be great busy work for NQ's modelling team as well lol.
  14. I think the real problem with this current pvp system is there are no counters to anything. This makes it very hard to balance every weapon, core size and shield size since the only stat that matters is pure killing efficiency. Even with the new proposed pvp changes, this problem still occurs because the only thing that will lead to victory is having more ships, and more firepower. Strategy is almost nonexistent as well, as apart from piloting skills each battle is nothing more than a damage slugfest. Even if Precision guns become less broken, and cross section doesn't have as much of a play in combat anymore, people are just going to move to the next best damage dealers and nothing will change (like it has before). However, If you take the most meta combat ship right now, and make a counter to it which beats it very easily (but is less effective in other scenarios) it makes combat much more strategic and interesting, as what ships you take to a fight determines your outcome instead of simply stats and damage output. Hell, this counter could be extremely OP at destroying the current meta ships, but as long as this new 'counter' ship also has a massive weakness, take cannons for example, then the pvp meta will be much easier to manage and be much more exciting. Its literally just rock paper scissors but for DU PvP. rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper etc. Its super simple, makes the meta much more complex and is way easier to balance. its been done in many games before and I dont see any reason not to add it to DU's pvp.
  15. Some will disagree with me and claim that DU's PVP was never fun but I strongly disagree, I had loads of fun before shields came out. This is due to how PVP brings players together. Before Shields every group in the game ran multicrew ships they would have 1 pilot, 4 gunners and 2 repair guys, now this would bring people together, it was so so soooo much more fun communicating with your org mates while you all organised your firing and piloting and made sure your ship was all repaired, unlike now when you have one person on one ship running the entire ship. It no longer has that feel of comradery, it no longer has the same team aspect to it. you no longer feel as though you are an elite unit in a space ship fighting your enemy. Now I can keep going on about how bad this update was for the PVP meta and population but instead I will list some changes that I believe NQ should make to bring back the fun aspect of DU's multicrew and add counters causing fleets to create fleet comps and not just run the same type of ship. In the following wall of text I am going to address the majority of aspects of PVP and explain how the y are unbalanced and how to make them balanced and fun. Firstly Tanking. I will start this of by comparing the in-balance between shield and voxel tanking. When your voxel gets shot you lose money, as that is voxel you then have to replace afterwards. When your shield gets hit you investment in your shield becomes worthwhile as you can just leave your ship on your pad for 10mins and it will regen. When you are in a fight with voxel you only have a limited amount of HP that's based on your total elements and voxel. when you are in a fight with your shield you are carrying infinite HP as you can leave the fight to go and vent and regen your health as much as you want. when you shoot a shield you have no real feedback/sense of accomplishment but when you shoot a voxel based ship you can see every dent and every bullet hole and every explosion and feel that accomplishment. How to balance this? Set L, M and S shields to 15mil HP, leave L shields to how there are so that they still protect the entirety of the ship, make M shields only protect about half the ship and S only protect a specific direction. Now if Voxel was balanced correctly S and M shields would have a interesting part in 1v1's and small fleet fights whereas L will most likely still be used for medium to Large fleets due to the chaotic aspect. Remove the CCS Health Pool curve making more voxel less worth while, this meant that you were putting an artificial limit on ship size and not letting builders be creative, CCS will still play a role because it means you cant just build a giant ship and expect to live forever as hitting it too many times wont expose the core but will hit the CCS limit. It will also make small ship viable as they would most likely be trying to not die from the CCS Health Pool but instead will most likely die from their core unit being hit, and Medium sized ships will most likely die 50% of the time to CCS and the other 50% of the time to their core being hit. Increase the CCS value that each voxel supplies by 2.5 times what they currently do. ships will die way too quickly otherwise. Now those are the changes I would like to see made to Tanking. This isn't directly involved in Tanking but Tanking Usually has a negative affect because of this so I feel that I should mention it here in this section. NQ have openly stated that they don't like the length of fights and believe them to be too long. Now they usually nerf how your ship takes damage to try and fix this when I don't think this is the answer. When we build warship we have a goal in mind, it may be to be the last on field or to have a mission runner last long enough for a response to arrive or an armoured hauler to escape a fleet of ship after mining an asteroid. These are all goals that we build ships for, if you don't like the length of fights then you need to change the win condition as this will then make us rethink how we build ships and could shorten fights if implemented correctly. Weapons. I feel as though weapons could be used to add counter play to the game which could then interduce a fleet comp and add another level of depth to fights. First Off make each guns firing feel different. I would like to see railguns do small long holes in voxels while missiles do fat big explosions. Lasers drawing lines across the voxel as though the ship had battle scars, and leave cannons how they are as they will now feel unique. Secondly, Make M guns an anti-Shield weapon, Either give them the ability to pass damage through shields doing 50% to the shield and 50% to the ship, ignore shield resistances or do double or even triple damage to shields. This will mean shields are not he be all and end all and will force people to hybrid tank. Lastly Make S guns a weapon that can slow down targets. If S guns could nerf the ships engine speed by 2% for every hit a well piloted S core that gets behind a big L core could be a real pain in the ass and viable in large fleet. And there you have it, you now have counter play and can create a fleet composition. Conclusion. If these changes are made I believe that we would have a more fun and balanced PVP experience in DU. What do you think?
  16. With Demeter landed and a roadmap for 2022 being put together, we thought it would be a good idea to combine our feedback from the past year and some change of playing the game. One of the things NQ talked about was needing quanta sinks. PvP is the ultimate sink with ammo, fuel, and lost honeycomb plus elements. There are a TON of people out there who would play this game if PvP was a more content-rich pillar of the game (please note, we want PVP to be an equal pillar – and love our industrial and trader communities). Here's our opinion on how to motivate PvP-minded individuals to be attracted in this game. There are several pillars of the game we feel need some serious TLC from NQ: Ship building - Give us interesting choices (not just PVP centric this one) Core Sizes - Everyone need reason to diversify PvP Diversity - Give us a real reason to PvP ==SHIP BUILDING== The THEME of this section is: Give us a reason to pick X over Y But give us a reason to pick Y over Z And give us a reason to pick Z over X As ship builders, for every decision we make, there needs to be another decision someone else can make to counter our design plans. This currently isn't in the game, which is why every patch there is a PvP "meta". And while that meta might have evolved over time, there is always one option that is objectively better than the others. The much-discussed solution to the issue needs to again be brought up - we *have* to talk about an energy system. We need some kind of battery/energy generator on dynamic constructs that will power all of our components. This would give us the ability to do two things: Limit component usage and stacks of engines/brakes Gives players interesting choices in ship building Consider the first point - we have ships right now that hit 20G accel or braking. That is the benchmark for PvP ships. It's a bit silly isn’t it? With an energy system, for every X engine we want to add, we have to add Y battery / capacitor, which come with a certain amount of weight. We can put 20 XL engines on a construct, but it will come with significant added weight. This could effectively give us an acceleration “G max”, because we shouldn’t expect our avatars to take sustained 20G to the face and be ok with it (maybe modifiable with skills or *gasp* avatar equipment). To the second point - this is where PvP gets the most interesting. Right now, everything is done at long range, with lasers. Take the follow example setup: Laser and Rails require lots of energy to function, so the added batteries make the construct heavy, and therefore slower. Cannons and Missiles don't require any additional energy, so they can be more lightweight, faster constructs to get in close range. (Sidenote the ammunition would have to be reworked but that’s a later technical discussion) With this example, the “Laserboat” has a counter (current meta). Someone coming in full speed with a bay of cannons or missiles, gets in close to the slower ship. The sniper might be able to take out the brawler on approach, but if it doesn't, it's in big trouble – at least that is the theory we are crafting. Now, as PvP players, we have meaningful decisions to make. Do we make a dedicated sniper? Do we make a brawler? Do we go for multi-role and add different weapon sets? Does the added weight of multi-weapon sets benefit our setups? We can come up with similar decision making for brakes, wings, and all other component types. Right now, the only decision to make is whether or not we add MOAR brakes to our constructs – and the answer is always yes. There's no drawback. With an energy system, a construct could hit 20G braking for a bit, but that would just drain the batteries completely and start disabling components. Sidenote – this is also why you have crappy looking ships everywhere with 200 brakes on them. Can’t have cool screenshots if you encourage your player base to basically min/max everything. ==CORE SIZES== When we think about building a new ship for PvP, there are exactly 0 seconds spent thinking about what core size to make. It's Large or nothing for two obvious reasons: We need a Large Radar to lock up a construct at 2 SU and stop them from warping by taking a random shot. Large weapons are better than everything else. There isn't enough drawback to consider smaller ranged and damage producing platforms. By addressing this, you could attract some more combat orgs (and all of the gaming press that generates) – consider some options: Give us an additional tool to prevent warp that we can put on different core sizes that can target up to 2 SU. Give it some sort of skill-based chance to hit even. Implement different types of bonuses for core sizes – these could be different advanced cores within the same size range. For example, and Advanced XS Core might have a range bonus to whatever E-War you implement. An Uncommon M core might get a fuel use bonus. Just give us interesting choices. Implement different speed limits (max speed) per core size with generally smaller cores hitting a higher top speed. An XS core could hit 29,999m/s and maybe a Large core only hits 19,999k/m with the others in the middle. Additionally (although not related per say to core size) - the cockpit needs a huge buff – no PVP players will really use this other than to screw around on their stream or making “art projects” (hey – PVP players can be artists as well – come check out some of our ships). There needs to be a tangible reason to fly a cockpit ship into combat. It could be that cockpit ships get huge radar range bonuses (thus instantly making a viable recon). They could have an ewar bonus to reduce the top speed of ships down in combination with core size (see above). The community could give you a hundred ideas – but cockpits need real uses in PVP. We need some motivation for core diversity in a fleet. With some of the above suggestions, we can get in a scenario where an XS core chases the target to max speed, then applies the slow debuff so that an M/L core can catch up and do the actual damage. If the target can destroy the XS core before the DPS ship arrives, it can still get away. Otherwise, it will be in big trouble if the M/L core ship gets in range. Large cores, capital-type ships, should never be viable in PvP by a single player. Pretty much all PvP is that, because it's the meta and the current tools like remote controls and LUA scripting allow it. How do we motivate players to multi-crew? Right now, if we build a Dreadnought-type of ship (capital class with lots of gunners and lots of guns), it isn't viable because it's going to be slow and everything will get away. The gunners will be supremely bored on the mission as the interface is generally unpleasant. Yes, the gunner’s seat needs to be a bit of a “mini-game” or give us more responsibilities in that seat. For example, let us focus fire on a specific portion of the ship (“Take out the engines!” said the Captain...). ==PVP DIVERSITY== The “old days” of sitting at the edge of the PvP zone, waiting for a non-warp target to show up, or using questionable half-exploit LUA auto-flying type shenanigans to catch people slow-boating between planets is supremely lame. In this regard, Asteroids were a real blessing to the PVP community. We hope they receive many iterations from the design team to make players “risk it for the biscuit”. Industrialists are some of the smartest gamers in any community because they will engineer the safest gameplay. One small improvement we would consider for asteroids - chasing discovered asteroids has been a huge commitment. It's an hour travel time on average (roughly) for us to check one discovered asteroid and return back to base. NQ should consider spawning the asteroids *closer* to the anchored planet, but adding a 30 minute delay to appear in the Discovered section. This will give miners the same amount of time (roughly) to mine in safety but make it less painful for us to patrol broadcasted asteroids. Patrolling broadcasting asteroids is such a commitment with low probability of getting content. Let us patrol multiple a night to “go fishing” ==LONG TERM== Today we discussed giving people some more tools above (such as energy systems, ewar, asteroid iterations, etc.) but we clearly need to talk about Atmospheric PvP and (duh-duh-dunnnn) Territory Warfare. But before we can talk about that… we have to talk about the elephant in the room: client-side control of construct authority. A long while ago JC (RIP) had talked about the plan to have server-side control of the movement of dynamic constructs. Since then, it's been radio silence from NQ. Now that we have optimized servers and recouped some COGS with Demeter - let's get back on the road to implementation - it's the right thing to do. In fact, it is our humble opinion that Dual Universe will never be a serious hit until this is addressed – unless you truly just want your game to be “Space Truckers Simulator Online”. Client-side authority on construct behavior is what causes ships to teleport all over the place planet-side (You also see this behavior at extreme short range in space during combat). Client-side authority opens your game to rampant cheating as well (regardless of your anti-cheat apps you run). Once server-side authority is implemented we can talk about territory warfare and atmospheric PvP outside the safe zone planets. All of our atmospheric equipment will need to follow the engine element model – if we make multirole ships that work in both Space and Atmosphere, there should be real consequences for running that Swiss army knife type of ship. Once we get all that implemented then we can begin to talk about atmospheric PvP. Give us some tools to scan hexes (we want to know what our organization is getting into before invading). Let us build hover tank carriers to AGG drop them on that T5 hex we want to control. Let us fly our Top Gun dream ships on patrol over the outer hexes for recon ships. There is plenty to do inside the safe circle for industrialists – it would be time to open up the outer planets like this before people grow significant roots in more dangerous places. While this community is primarily industrialists right now, it will never be commercially viable given NQ’s direction with all these guns and weapons in their game unless a solid PVP roadmap is committed to. Emergent gameplay (NQ’s core design document concern) will never be achieved by simply building hauling ships in safe space and moving rocks around the map. Thanks for coming to our TED talk. The Esteemed Members of Scotch & Tea™ Purveyors of the finest whiskeys and other luxury goods this side of Helios.
  17. Ok so there may be posts or other places where this is discussed, but I need to say it. I am aware this is a beta game. Duh. However, the state of PVP is just ridiculous. I cannot be the only one who feels like this. It feels like we are playing a 1995 tanks game where they cannot handle the intricacies of visual combat. I would love a Elite Dangerous type play to the game. That game has been around since the late 80's, yes it was wire frame ships and all but you still got a better combat feeling than this game gives. There is no joy of manually firing a gun, no sub-system targeting, and letting your guns have at it. No targeting the engines so they cannot escape, no aiming for the shield generator so they cannot cycle the shields. No maneuvering and circling to get the best shots. It's aim at the core and pray your ship holds together while you trade fire. It's stagnant game play. The Core Combat Stress system is a step, a very teeny-tiny step in the right direction. But loosen up NQ, you want a Sandbox game, cool cool we can dig it. You want a PvP game, great! MAKE THE COMBAT WORTH OUR TIME!! Make the player in the fighter feel his terror at being shot at by a capital ship, make it so the gunners onboard a battleship feel and see the damage he does. Make the warfare feel like combat, and when you guys go to do the Construct vs Base/tile warfare listen to the community. Don't give this up!! You guys have a niche in the world we never thought could be filled but remember gamers are fickle, we have needs. We crave the violence and destruction as much as we crave the building of the ships, tanks, and jets to do it.
  18. Guest

    AvA ideas

    I created this thread so players can submit their ideas for the future AvA mechanics here. This will make it easier for NQ to collect our ideas. My suggestions: I think NQ need to give the players the ability to plant C4 bombs with a remote detonation or a timer on other players ships, so that later they can detonate them in the pvp zone, we also need tracking beacons that will transmit the coordinates of the ship every few minutes that the ships owner can detect and remove from the ship before departure. This will be a good start for the AvA ? These 2 mechanics will be the easiest to do. Another AvA mechanic is the boarding mechanic. How it can work: when 1 ship approaches another at a close distance, for example 20 km, a button appears in the pilot of the ship to send a request for boarding to the pilot of another ship. A boarding request cannot be rejected if your ship has fewer players than the other ship that sent you the request. When boarding starts, the ships stop 100m apart and remain motionless, the boarding timer starts working. While the boarding timer is running, players cannot pilot and fire the ships' guns, these 2 ships cannot be destroyed by other ships, a no-fly impassable zone appears around these ships until the boarding timer stops. If none of the ships was captured during this time, then after the end of the boarding timer, the speed of the ships is restored. Boarding mechanic: https://youtu.be/OFhtWj729Y4
  19. I know NQ isn't going to listen to me, and i've said this a BILLION times already, but i'm going to say this anyway. smaller core sizes need more perks. There is nothing stopping you from strapping a xs sized ship onto an L core, and getting all of the benefits from that core size. The only 'benefits' you get from smaller core sizes is a slower identification speed (negligible with skills) and a faster repair time (negligible with shields), which, to be frank, is terrible. it didn't used to be so bad either. before 0.23, radars had a nerf where they could only lock certain core sizes from certain ranges, (eg L radars were only able to lock xs cores from about 40km away), which is a perfect fix to this problem since it removes the issue of small ships being unable to get into the firing range of L cores before being shot at/ destroyed, as well as making the meta much more diverse as the best counter for xs cores would be other xs/s cores (think rock paper scissors, but with cores from xs→s→m→l→xs). I mean seriously, WHY was this removed? imagine the metagame with something like this, its such a simple fix that would make pvp 10x more fun. my only guess is that NQ came up with this nerf when xs cores could still use L guns, which i guess is a fair fix at the time, but makes absolutely no sense if you remove the ability for those xs ships to use L guns in the first place. my second alternate solution would be to give core sizes different max speeds, which i have seen many people request (including me) and IMO seems like a very good idea. it could finally give people the chance to escape/catch up with their enemies, with the downside of dealing less damage/ being weaker. if NQ cant/wont do the radar fix then I would be very happy with this change as well. I've contacted the devs about this radar a month or so ago, but they never got back to me about what happened to my suggestion. thoughts?
  20. Bonjour, voila mon objectif. Je recherche une Corpo avec qui je pourrais jouer dans différents domaines. Je dispose de plusieurs vaisseaux de combats, mais pas assez d'artilleurs pour faire des sorties PVP (Minage ou Pirate). Je suis prêt a intégré une corpo. Les nouveaux joueurs sont les bienvenues dans ma Corpo. Me contacté sur discord avec le pseudo hoddie#6308 ou pour renseignements et discuté du jeu sans obligation https://discord.gg/jsMQUJ7 Merci et bon jeu
  21. Hey everyone, so the event was a few weeks ago but no one talks about what happend their. At the moment when at every PVP Battle something wierd happens and an Member from Hyperion taken part of it, everyone says that Hyperion is using Cheats or Glitches. Yes the two ships which takes part of this Battle uses Stacked Elements and Burried Elements, but both is allowed from NQ at the moment and thats really not the Problem. After this Battle we dont know what happens, so we decided to do some research. We figured out one really big Problems that game has at the moment. We have this Information a really long time but i dont know why my Leadership or NQ didnt put an offical Statement on the Forum or so. So what we figured out: If your ship gets enough DMG from PVP fights your PC uses much ressources. In this Fight the most AC members shoot with Railgun which makes good Damage but the Damage per Seconds are low. Both Hyperion ships shot with laser which has after Cannons the highest DPS. Both Ships got 4 Seats of Laser which means per Ship 24 Lasers. At the moment Hyperion engaged the Boo Ships their getting so much damage in an shot time that their PCs are "Burning". The pc off the Pilot is the "bottleneck" in this Part, on his PC the Ship gets calculated. But the biggest Issue in PVP fights at the moment where the Damage at the Voxels, at every shot your PC Downloads the "new Voxels" of your ship. The Boo Ship got a really big Part of Gold Voxel which creates microvoxels with every shot/damage so your PC Downloads really much Voxel changes. We tested it and the Download is the biggest Problem in the actual PVP. My PC in the Video got: i7-8700k(overclocked to 5.0Ghz), 32GB Ram, Readon RX 6800XT, Samsung 970Evo M2 and and 1Gbit Internet Connection. First test 11 Gunner, 50 Missiles, 4 Railguns to a Plate of Gold Voxels Most shots missed, network spike 40Mbit/s, lowest FPS around 20 Second Test: 8 Gunner, 48 Lasers to a Plate of Gold Voxels Min of FPS: 2, Network spike to 254Mbit/s Third Test: 8 Gunner, 48 Lasers to a Plate of Iron Voxels Min of FPS: 5, Network spike to 159Mbit/s Fourth Test: Ethernet Limited to 16MBit/s 8 Gunner, 48 Lasers to a Plate of Iron Voxels Min of FPS: 5, it takes around 2 Minutes to load every Voxel Change. You can watch these Results in the Video:
  22. There is a burning question on my mind that I need answering, which both discord and the in game help section have failed to answer. how does hit probability work? everyone knows that it is based on cross section, but how does it work exactly? take this beautiful tie fighter I drew in 10 seconds with MS paint (fig.a). is hit probability worked out by: fig.b) a square around the ship, being more likely to hit if the square is larger fig.c) the area of the ship from the direction you are hitting from, being more likely to hit the more area there is. fig.d) shooting a raycast; if it hits, it deals damage. second off, is this only calculated from the front, or from other angles as well? you may not think it, but this makes a HUGE difference. for example, if DU uses figure b, having ships with wings like a tie fighter would be a severe disadvantage, because it would have the same hit probability as a cube the same size. Anyone who has knowledge about this/ is willing to test this out would be a great help to me and the community in general. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be documented but isn't.
  23. in theory , xs ships could actually be pretty powerful. their 60 minute lock time from L ships means that you can just hit and run in and out of range of the enemy with 0 damage, and are loads cheaper than L cores. In practice, this doesn't work for many reasons. damage is too low. not only do they do 8 times less damage, since they are controlled by a pilot seat you can only add 4 guns maximum, meaning that you would need a swarm of them to harm an L core. getting 2 pilots in an xs core is far less efficient than putting 2 pilots in an L core, not even mentioning gunner seats using remote control units. The damage multipliers between core sizes should be nerfed greatly, to the point where there barely is a difference. Of course this means that it will take quite a while for L ships to destroy one another, but imo the should be like that anyway. They are L cores after all, they can cost over 150 million quanta, destroying one should be a long process. It would also be cool if cockpits had 2x the capacity than hover seats as well, to give them an actual use. xs ships are too flimsy. this would be ok if tracking on larger ships weren't so great, but unfortunately they are. the same goes to small and medium ships as well, they are just too weak. a fix for this would be to either fix tracking, or yet again nerf the damage on larger cores. xs ships are mostly glorified gunner seats anyway. There is practically no difference, apart from the fact that you can drive as well, which is something that remote controls do anyway. Making something where guns track where the player points, and then shoots where you aim would be far cooler and more useful. Using real time hitscans to damage ships might not be possible (as we discussed in an earlier thread) so I suggest that instead you click on a point where the guns should fire, and then deals the damage as soon as the other client recives the hit. Range and speed is far too high. The current range of xs ships needs to be the range of L cores, and the speed limit should be limited to 2000km/h. of course, adding a speed cap of about 2000kmh would disrupt almost everything else in the game, as it would make the already slow trip to other planets even longer. To counteract this issue there should be a unit that makes you accelerate past the speed limit, but disables (and rapidly slows you back down) as soon as you enter combat, a bit like warp drives. There should also be a unit which has a very high range (maybe even higher on smaller cores) that disrupts them to help catch those super fast ships.
  24. In many ways, a hitscan point and fire based shooting system is very similar to the way mining works at the current moment. With mining: The player shoots a raycast from the direction you are pointing, and removes voxels in the area around where the raycast hit. With a hitscan point and fire weapon system this process is very similar: The player shoots a raycast from the direction the gun is pointing, and removes voxels and damages elements in the area around where the raycast hit. If these two processes are so similar, why do we have to stick with the boring EvE-style PvP mechanics we have now? My two main theories are this: it would be too hard to aim with such high ranges (nq should definitely reduce combat range + speed) they haven't got round to doing it yet (most likely) And I know this one is far off, but the same goes for AvA. why does ava have to be a locking based system as well?
  25. Damage multipliers between construct sizes are too high There is no reason to fight (ofc this is being worked on) Fighting is unprofitable as any loot you get will most likely have lives taken out of it/ be worthless The investment to get an L core PvP ship is too low, L cores are supposed to be the large org battleships which need a large investment to build and run, but are too easy to get atm. (XLs should be the equivalent to Titans, if not more) The hit probablility for small constructs are too forgiving to the offender, even super tiny pvp ships with a <2m^2 cross section get destroyed easily. It should be a lot harder if not impossible for large ships to hit constructs like these pvp is too long range (this one is more bias, but if constructs had a lot less range like 500-1000m most of these kind of problems would disappear, as well as being a lot more cool looking. you might want a way to catch up with ships as well if this is implemented) players can just enter third person under layers and layers of voxels, which means that it is hard to kill players in most PvP ships. Making seats more like the currently useless cockpit would make more sense. PvP is boring to watch + buggy most meta ships are just glorified cubes atm players can just warp out of danger nothing is stopping you from building a ship the same size as an XS/S/M core with a L core instead to get the benefits that the larger guns give, and the benefits of using smaller cores are currently negligible most PvP battles end in a retreat as fuel, scrap and ammo requirements are too high for any outcome to happen
×
×
  • Create New...