Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'novaquark'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Starting Zone (EN)
    • Rules & Announcements
    • General Discussions
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • Starting Zone (DE)
    • Regeln und Ankündigungen
    • Novark's Registratur
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • Starting Zone (FR)
    • Règles et Annonces
    • Registres du Novark
    • Discussions générales
  • Beta Discussion
    • Beta Updates & Announcements
    • Idea Box
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Streamer's Corner
    • The Builder's Corner
    • Innovation Station
    • DevBlog Feedback
  • Organizations
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Novark's Registry
  • Fan Art, Fan-Fic & Roleplay
    • Novark Agora
    • Novark Story Time
    • Novark Art Gallery

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


community_id

Found 8 results

  1. The Above image is a snippet from a post on the .23 patch regarding Perma-destruction of elements and Weapon limitation of core size. Below I go over some of the problems with these two aspects of the 0.23 patch and outline potential ways to make it better and more enjoyable. Element Perma-destruction: Problems: Creates excessive risk and inclines less people to travel out into space Inability to trade "used" elements... even though you can buy/sell used cars, games, GFX cards, laptops ect. in real life. Forces people to carry excess weight on their ships by having whole replacement elements. Severely hinders PVP since there is virtually no reward or fully developed, profitable, fun and engaging salvage mechanics Suggested ways to fix it: Due to excessive risk, instead of just the counter to an element make perma-destruction occur in this fashion When an element takes damage, have it's efficiency decrease by the percentage of health removed from the element. Simply put, if an engine, wing, adjuster, air/space break ect. has 90/100 hp then it will function at 90% efficiency. When an element is destroyed and restored it will function at 90% efficiency even if it's at 100% health. Every subsequent destruction/restoration of an element will result in the element operating at an addition 10% loss in efficiency When restoring the efficiency or running maintenance on an element that has been destroyed say 4 times (making it 60% efficient) create a UI that will require the person to use X number of parts that it took to create the element. This X number of required parts is reduced based on the maintainer talents applied when fixing the efficiency (yes that means new talents to train for a maintainer/grease monkey). The maintainer can use a portion of the parts required to restore a portion of the elements efficiency, because not all of the time will you be able to fully restore a weapon or engine and will need to stop at a market to buy more parts to fully repair the engine. The Inability to trade "used" elements that feature a low max efficiency should still be tradable on the markets and not limited to just bartering. This aspect cuts out the PvPers who want to sell salvaged parts on the market and also cuts out a whole market from those who like to buy/sell items new or used. Forcing people to carry whole replacement elements (even a core) is not an optimal stance. Or, I should say that it should not be the ONLY choice a pilot or crew have to repair/restore/maintain the elements on their ship. Allowing people to use parts to restore the efficiency of an element will help virtually everyone since perma destruction will no longer exist and it will remove the risk factor for everyone to be able to jump back on and enjoy the game. In addition, the perma-destruction of an element will only exist if a person/crew is unable to restore the efficiency of an element. Because at the end of the day, if they can't restore the efficiency of an element then when it's max efficiency, after getting destroyed 5 - 9 times, goes down, then the element is nearly useless to begin with. This brings back the reward aspect of the risk of PVP. When two ships go at it, in the game's current state, they both stand to gain nothing and lose more than just ammo and voxel and elements... and time. Giving people the ability to repair and then restore an elements efficiency will encourage PVPers to get back out there more and plunder the booty. Weapon limitation for core-sizes: Problems: Too overzealous of an approach and clearly focused on just the excessive borg cube issue which lead to no one building legitimate ships in PVP Still didn't stop people from building Borg cubes destroyed a lot of builds where some ships could feasibly support a weapon that was 1 size higher than it's core size. Suggested ways to fix it: Allow for cores to use a weapon size 1 size up. By doing this it will make XS and S core ships feasible in combat once again. Medium size ships will be able to contend with Large cores. and Medium core ships will actually be afraid if it is taken on by multiple Small core ships. However, Medium core ships will still be able to hold their own in a fire fight. Balance the numbers better. Right now the initial numbers for the T2 -T5 items seem unjustifiable. Meaning, there's no justified reason to go for T3 or T4 cannons when T2 does the job just fine. The current "why" behind chasing after higher end items does not line up with the reasoning for gathering up all the needed materials to produce them. (Disclaimer: Yes, I understand that MMOs of this kind always have a balancing act going on when it comes to content so you're probably already aware the need for better balancing)... I'll update soon with proof of concept.
  2. Hello, This post is being put up and polled to get NovaQuark's attention regarding certain mechanics of the game that may or may not be intentional. After a fair number of PvP engagements in DU I've noticed that people are beginning to dive deeper into the cube meta of DU. As in construct XS/Small Core ships that are just a big brick of ridiculousness and large weapons. By maximizing the entire build space of a construct people will fill it with voxel and other essential elements to just power punch an enemy off the field. An effective strategy I must say. While it is not the only strategy in the game I'm trying to view this topic from a longer term or generalized view of the game (from my perspective... which could be totally wrong). NQ and even JC has envisioned people building amazing and powerful ships to traversing the stars and battling each other for one reason or another. However, people will tend to follow the meta until NQ makes a change that forces the crowd to take a different path. With the current stance of PvP, NQ will begin to see more and more ships produced that are just shoe boxes or cubes with no thought, effort, or design prowess behind the build. Without going into too much detail or some long drawn out diatribe, I've created a poll with: Is a simple yes or no Is an option selection based on some ideas I and others have had regarding how to kill the cube and force people to build actual ships instead of boxes. I'm asking for NQ to prevent this from becoming a thing by nerfing the cube meta and forcing people to have to build legitimate ships.
  3. Hi I'm Lepus, recently i found out about Dual Universe and was really excited to try it out! I decided to by the contributor pack but was sort of on the fence about paying 60€ for a game in alpha... Eventually I decided to go for it, mainly because DU is exactly what Î was looking for in a game, and since no other game (even in development) is offering the same set of features, I was not going to wait 2 years without anything interesting to play! So I make my DU account and and buy the 60€ contributor pack. this was 8 days ago. Problem is, my money disappeared. A full day passes and I contact DU support asking why I still haven´t received the payment confirmation. Four days later (yes 4 days) I hear back from Novaquark. Novaquark hasn't received my payment. Apparently payments go through Xsolla, their "payment system provider". Do they offer to contact Xsolla to find out what happend? No. They tell me to do it. Ok, so I contact Xsolla. They have a live chat. The person I speak to at Xsolla says my payment didn't reach them, that I should contact my bank to find out where the money went to. My bank has 24/7 phone support, so I call them up. According to them the 60€ went to a company called PPRO Financial Ltd. *sigh* I then contact PPRO (this was more than 2 days ago), they ask me to send them the transaction detalis, which I send straight away. Till today they have not given me an explanation of what happened to my money or refunded me. So just to recap: - In Portugal I decide to buy a game - The makers of the game, in France, don't receive my payment. They pass the blame to Xsolla - Xsolla, in the US, don't have the money either, they point to my bank - my bank, in Portugal, says the money went to PPRO, in the UK - PPRO, till now, have not passed the blame on to anyone else, nor have they solved the problem. So far I'm loving DU!
  4. Dear NQ, I would like to request you to publicize some values which would help calculate how many engines and how much fuel is necessary on a design. At max thrust, Force in kn each engine can exert Fuel consumption for each engine (l/s) Gravity in m/s^2 for a couple of planets Thank you! P.S.: this could not harm the game's reputation in any way, as it is just numbers that would be made public. It would not enable anyone to make a verdict on the game, as it says nothing of the quality of anything. The most it could do is impress ppl by the fact that those values actually exist, showing (or at least hinting) that this is a game based off of realistic physics.
  5. Hi there, since NovaQuark had a Booth at Gamescom last year, there is a question comming up: Will you be at GC2018 too?
  6. Update: 8/3/17 I added a "No Text" option and a "3-monitor size" option as well! Added GREEN version. Added RED version. CHECK OUT THIS AWESOME WALLPAPER I MADE FOR FUN! Go ahead and download it and stuff. https://www.artstation.com/artwork/xPywE Here's a preview (very low res). Let me know what you think and if I can improve it in anyway, thanks peeps.
  7. "Well, I seem to have made it in the nick of time. Without further ado, here is my Contest Submission. I can only hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you. " Novawrimo-ThatBrightDawn.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...