Jump to content
Archonious

Character Customisation and PayPal

Recommended Posts

This is a copy from Kickstarter Update 23.

 

Here’s what will happen next:

  • Many of you have asked to continue crowdfunding after the Kickstarter campaign. We are aware that many of you wanted to back us using PayPal. Others wanted to back us at higher levels, but didn’t have the budget during the campaign. So, we are happy to announce that we are working on a new payment portal that will allow us to continue our crowdfunding effort! We will let you know when this portal goes live, and will remain open to your feedback. For a limited time, Kickstarter backers will be able to upgrade their pledges, and new backers will be able to pledge at a slightly higher price. We will have different payment options, including PayPal. As a reminder, early birds and boosted pledges won’t be available, as they were Kickstarter exclusives.
  • We didn’t reach the “Construct vs Construct” stretch goal. However, we observed the brilliant effort you made to reach it in the last few days. To thank you for that, we just decided to include the second stretch goal in the official release! This won’t modify the schedule for the “Construct vs Construct” goal. We said it would happen in the first expansion or important patch of the game after the release, and this is still the case!

That’s all for today.
We are off now to celebrate this amazing milestone. ;)  
But rest assured, we won’t be gone for long!

The Novaquark Team

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that they are releasing player customization in the official release, but holding off on construct v. construct until a later patch or first expansion.

 

I am happy construct v. construct isn't a first day feature since I think it will help players make initial developments without construct weaponization.  My only disappointment in no construct v. construct initially is that it seems like we likely also won't see it in the beta also.  Who knows though, since it looks like they will want to add it soon after, we might get some beta construct weapons prior to the initial release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said second stretch goal - sounds like the character customization will be in the release, and CvC will follow later. 

Would make sense since we reached 550k and customization was just 50k past CvC. So if NQ doesn't do CvC now they should have the funds for customization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said second stretch goal - sounds like the character customization will be in the release, and CvC will follow later. 

Would make sense since we reached 550k and customization was just 50k past CvC. So if NQ doesn't do CvC now they should have the funds for customization.

Yeah, fair point. Also, I re-read it few times and yes, it is not that confusing, as it was after the first impression =) But anyway, I would like to see not "Second Stretch Goal" but "Character Customisation". Some players could misunderstand information (same as me in beginning).

 

It appears that they are releasing player customization in the official release, but holding off on construct v. construct until a later patch or first expansion.

 

I am happy construct v. construct isn't a first day feature since I think it will help players make initial developments without construct weaponization.  My only disappointment in no construct v. construct initially is that it seems like we likely also won't see it in the beta also.  Who knows though, since it looks like they will want to add it soon after, we might get some beta construct weapons prior to the initial release.

It is not said, it won't be tested. So it could be even in alpha but in very early stage of development (nobody can say that for sure). I believe NQ don't want to release badly designed/tested features. So that's why we won't see many of ideas in the release.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As happy as I am for character customization, I wish it were CVC instead.  Hopefully they won't wait to put it up as another stretch goal when they get their new payment processing set up.  I can't imagine having all these space ships flying around and not be able to fight them.  And I'm not even really a fighter.  Keeping my fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As NQ are making a method for more crowd funding post Kickstarter, I thought they would have saved the 60k and given us a chance to make up the other 40k towards CvC. As CvC forges the game mechanics and character customisation won't have an effect on game play. Was really hoping to make that goal but I have spent all I can afford this month to pledge on Kickstarter, next month I can pledge more. I'm sure a lot of other people are in the same situation as me. But they know what they're doing so I trust them to make the right decision for the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also happy to increase my pledge step by step. Maybe they could make some kind of "wallet" where you can lay away some funds to pledge a bigger package over longer period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we've got to wait a while for mankind to reinvent ship weapons :) sounds fine to me!

 

This does mean that there will be effectively a construct golden age when everyone is retrofitting existing constructs with weapons when the expansion drops.

 

In the mean time, we'll be building ships intended to either repel boarding parties, or to launch them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think this is fair, if they open it up for additional funding (which they should and it sounds like they will), I think they should take additional funding before the start of the new year into consideration for these two goals.  I think if we make the 650k goal or even 700k, they should include CvC in the initial release or at least let us play with CvC during the Alpha and Beta stages and then release it later in a patch.  

I think CvC is critical for a game like this to be successful IMHO.  I think it will be critical on release to the masses that know nothing about the game and I think it will be critical to absorb additional fund raising.  I get why they have chosen not to sink their teeth into that much, but by giving us a goal of another 100k to have them focus on that too signifies to me that it is a monetary issue more than a scheduling issue.

I think if they truly want to be successful amongst the Star Citizens and Eve's, they will absolutely need CvC by Beta time.  I think it is us, the supporters, to persuade them to let us fund them further so they can meet their goal by the end of the year.

What do you think devs?  I will be prepared shortly to double my contribution (and join the Ruby's) and I know others in here have already voiced an eagerness to upgrade; You can't or shouldn't hold it against us because money wasn't right at the time of the KS just like we can't hold it against you for having a tight schedule/budget.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that they went this way, but is very logical. 

The initial stretch goal was 600,000, where as from there, character customization was 650,000. 

Now, as for that being included, hot damn I'm going to spend way too much time customizing my character. 
Hopefully CvC goes through a full cycle of testing still before they decide to implement it (it more than likely will, just voicing my hopes), but atleast we know that this is a planned thing down the line. 
 

But with the addition of a post-kickstarter system, maybe they will reach their goals! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It is not said, it won't be tested. So it could be even in alpha but in very early stage of development (nobody can say that for sure). I believe NQ don't want to release badly designed/tested features. So that's why we won't see many of ideas in the release.

 

 

 

Doth Lord Cringeworth of House Layman realise that the CvC combat, is the same mechanics as Avatar Vs Avatar combat?

It doesn't need "testing", that will be done in the Alpha regardless. It's the development time on their part to implement it that is the issue. The 600K Euro Stretch goal was to hire more people to develop that part of the integration of the combat system, something they can still do, if the Paypal store raises enough funds for them.

So yey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doth Lord Cringeworth of House Layman realise that the CvC combat, is the same mechanics as Avatar Vs Avatar combat?

 

It doesn't need "testing", that will be done in the Alpha regardless. It's the development time on their part to implement it that is the issue. The 600K Euro Stretch goal was to hire more people to develop that part of the integration of the combat system, something they can still do, if the Paypal store raises enough funds for them.

 

So yey.

 

How is it the same mechanics?

 

One involves targeting a player and lowering their health.  The other involves hitting a spot on a moving player made voxel structure and then destroying a portion of it, plus elements and players nearby.

 

One has been done before a hundred thousand times and the other... never as far as i know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks NovaQuark, you are truly some nice people. I don't really know what to say, thank you for at least making an effort to include the enhanced character creator for launch.

 

You all continue to shoot past my expectations. I really wish the best for this team and hope the project succeeds overall and is a great success post launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it the same mechanics?

 

One involves targeting a player and lowering their health. The other involves hitting a spot on a moving player made voxel structure and then destroying a portion of it, plus elements and players nearby.

 

One has been done before a hundred thousand times and the other... never as far as i know.

 

Both are active Lock-on. Oh no, no point and click targeting, it takes actual effort.

 

Both utilise the same logic, "keep target in your reticle for a certain time to lock-on.".

 

Think of this system, as an Area-of-Effect ability on every time you use the ability. Point is, the further the targeti is, thhe more the less the damage on some weaponry (ballistic), and maybe effectiveness for others (laser, plasma).

 

You don't need 2 different combat systems, you need 1 combat system and you integrate it to another Element and associate stats to it.

 

What? Did you think tank shells in Battlefield follow different set of rules than bullets? Or like in WoW, do you think Rogues and Mages follow different set of rules? No, no they don't.

 

As I said, the extra hundred grant were to be used to hire more people for the CvC integration of combat. And again, they may still be able to do it if the fundraiser clocks in more money.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um. No.

CvC is going to involve targets moving away from each other at far greater speeds and distances than AvA.

With human players creating strategies to avoid constructs getting hit that will be different than the strategies created to avoid avatars getting hit.

 

The basic concept will likely be very much the same.

The details of how CvC combat handles differently from AvA combat will require extensive testing.

 

People in Landmark complained about the bunny-hopping strategy in Landmark.

That will be exacerbated with CvC combat in DU... until they work out the kinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um. No.

CvC is going to involve targets moving away from each other at far greater speeds and distances than AvA.

With human players creating strategies to avoid constructs getting hit that will be different than the strategies created to avoid avatars getting hit.

 

The basic concept will likely be very much the same.

The details of how CvC combat handles differently from AvA combat will require extensive testing.

 

People in Landmark complained about the bunny-hopping strategy in Landmark.

That will be exacerbated with CvC combat in DU... until they work out the kinks.

Landmark utilised the same concept as DUAL. Active Lock-On, you clicked left mouse button and is some weapons, it was a one trick pony, in the case of sword and shield (the armor simponing one), you could elect to charge left click, Link-from-Zelda style. Same deal can be done in DUAL possibly, having laser weaponry overcharge.

 

Bunny hopping won't be helped, unless a stamina system is added in the game for those things, tied to attributes / skill training allocation. A commando should have a lot more endurance than the frigging architect after all.

 

Also, the same principle of spotlighting applies both in constructs and avatars. The same way you would cause damage to Elements, applies to plaayers, only via different modifiers for players, like armor and shield levels, along with lateral motion. If a target is moving away from you, you would be missing more on them depending on the distance, that applies both to ships and players alike, the only thing that varies are weaponry.

 

Now, if you were to aim from orbit to a guy on the ground, that goes without saying, a weapon from orbit, no matter what it is, will have a vast area of effect at range, not to mention, that if a players was to be hit by weaponry meant to pienetrate ship hulls, that player would die on the spot, no questions as of why. Even a glancing blow from a 50mm cannon can kill you, and we're talking of a rain of half a meter wide slugs dropping on your from the sky. The mere AoE damage volume will kill you and yes, the combat system in DUAL will be AoE based, similar to how AoE spells work in WoW, you cast a spell, it takes time to fully cast, then if 1, 2 or 50 guys were in its area of effect, will get the damage.

 

For Avatar weaponry, they can implement a first-range lock-on to avoid "AoE rifles", meaning if you were to aim at two people in your cross-hairs, you would be dealing damage to the one closest to you.

 

 

As for testing, the Devs can add anti-material weaponry in the game for Avatars (ion cannons, rocket launcher, rail-guns, explosive charges ), to get feedback on how damage models react with voxel / material durabilities and what is balanced or not. Then, they take the data and work them into the weaponry for CvC and utilise the same robust lateral motion / armor quality formulas from AvA to CvC. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope that we can get the CvC stretch goal by continuing the funding here. I currently only had money for the iron package (€15). But i will upgrade to the silver one for €60 at a later date if/when possible. Hopefully we can reach an additional 100k and they can add the CvC for release. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if you were to aim from orbit to a guy on the ground, that goes without saying, a weapon from orbit, no matter what it is, will have a vast area of effect at range, not to mention, that if a players was to be hit by weaponry meant to pienetrate ship hulls, that player would die on the spot, no questions as of why. Even a glancing blow from a 50mm cannon can kill you, and we're talking of a rain of half a meter wide slugs dropping on your from the sky. The mere AoE damage volume will kill you and yes, the combat system in DUAL will be AoE based, similar to how AoE spells work in WoW, you cast a spell, it takes time to fully cast, then if 1, 2 or 50 guys were in its area of effect, will get the damage.

 

 

You'll find that it goes without saying, that you won't be able to attack things on the surface from orbit reliably. Because the game wont' be tracking projectiles, you will only be able to damage assets that are loaded in your area, which will become smaller based on server load (as demonstrated in their server tech demo). For that reason, the devs already stated that sniping someone from a long distance won't be possible. Besides, orbital bombardments fall under that "weapons of mass destruction" category where a player on the surface would be killed and their constructs destroyed without seeing their attacker, which the devs consider unfair.

 

You'll find that what makes CvC combat hard to implement is the sheer volume of things that will have to be balanced and developed. Some of the mechanics from Avatar vs Avatar combat will carry over, but there is some complexity that CvC will have that will not be present in AvA. The size of a construct will probably have a bearing on how easy it is to hit, in addition to the characteristics of the ship, the flying skills of both pilots, the stats of the ship's weapon, possibly the presence of a targeting system on the ship itself eventually.

 

The dev's described that the first iteration of CvC combat would be a 1-1 player per weapon mount situation, possibly with an exception for a forward mount weapon/pilot relationship. This compromise is what will make CvC so similar to AvA, since it'll have almost the same variables from the attacker's perspective, and in theory the same variables from the defender's perspective if avatar weapons can damage constructs during launch.

 

But this is all under the assumption that they really will make avatar weapons and ship weapons almost the same. That would make sense, but I don't know if we have enough info to make that kind of assumption. Ship weapons will probably have their own limitations, mainly mount location, range of movement, how much power the ship has to spend on said weapon, how fast the weapon can rotate/aim, how the ship it is attached to is moving, etc. There could be much more going on there than we are considering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll find that it goes without saying, that you won't be able to attack things on the surface from orbit reliably. Because the game wont' be tracking projectiles, you will only be able to damage assets that are loaded in your area, which will become smaller based on server load (as demonstrated in their server tech demo). For that reason, the devs already stated that sniping someone from a long distance won't be possible. Besides, orbital bombardments fall under that "weapons of mass destruction" category where a player on the surface would be killed and their constructs destroyed without seeing their attacker, which the devs consider unfair.

 

You'll find that what makes CvC combat hard to implement is the sheer volume of things that will have to be balanced and developed. Some of the mechanics from Avatar vs Avatar combat will carry over, but there is some complexity that CvC will have that will not be present in AvA. The size of a construct will probably have a bearing on how easy it is to hit, in addition to the characteristics of the ship, the flying skills of both pilots, the stats of the ship's weapon, possibly the presence of a targeting system on the ship itself eventually.

 

The dev's described that the first iteration of CvC combat would be a 1-1 player per weapon mount situation, possibly with an exception for a forward mount weapon/pilot relationship. This compromise is what will make CvC so similar to AvA, since it'll have almost the same variables from the attacker's perspective, and in theory the same variables from the defender's perspective if avatar weapons can damage constructs during launch.

 

But this is all under the assumption that they really will make avatar weapons and ship weapons almost the same. That would make sense, but I don't know if we have enough info to make that kind of assumption. Ship weapons will probably have their own limitations, mainly mount location, range of movement, how much power the ship has to spend on said weapon, how fast the weapon can rotate/aim, how the ship it is attached to is moving, etc. There could be much more going on there than we are considering.

 

Projection of the Gunner's POV via zooming in => Rendering targets on the ground => Orbital strikes.

 

I guess FOV + location projection have not been invented-- oh wait... it's what every other sniper scope mechanism actually uses to render targets in the distance while scoped in, unless it's some ultra super realistic simulator like Squad or Project Reality, which DUAL is NOT, therefore your arguements have no merit, we know it's not Battlefield realistic in bullet drops, that doesn't mean stats can't emulate bullet drop effects as of damage / hit chance ratios. 

 

They already have the digging tool they will use (Youtube AMA question JC answered and also, wat I've guessed when they released the first gameplay video on IGN ), that they will use to implement the CvC model. Now, the only thing they actually need to calculate, is how different types of damage operate. Ballstic lose accuracy over distance, lasers lose damage over dsitance but are instant on their damage delivery, explosives lose no damage do more AoE damage and have limited range (because missiles can't fly forever :V ) and electromagnetic are heavy hitters but have a long reload time and they are essentially a more "power-taxing to operate, cheap to resupply" forms of ballistic weaponry

(particle cannons fall into the general category of railguns ) .

 

 

Remember the Digging Tool and how it has a short time that it flickers before it affects the voxels? That's the "lock-on" time it has, roughly a second (pre-Alpha stage, no real timers on it, skill training may increase the mining lock-on timer). Same logic applies to weaponry, it's an area of effect, with randomised minor areas of effect randomly generated in the field you spotlighted. A bullet may go on the upper quarant of the area you spotlighted on a ship, therefore that minor area will be affected from the shot the gun made, skill may be able to reduce the original area of effect or "Cone of Fire" if you will, so you get more consistent hits at ranges (shotgun slugs mechanics from any other game out there, Planetside 2 is a good referrence on how this emulates randomly generated areas on a cone of fire).

 

So yes, the same mechanics can be used in the game. A soldier on the ground may have skill training into Assault Rifles, thefore getting a smaller cone of fire, therefore, more hit consistency, while a Gunnery Sergeant on a ship will get tigher chokes on his cone of fire (spheres of effect). 

 

Again, Active Lock-On is an EMULATION of FPS combat, not a simulation like CoD, Battlefield or other games. It's a scan-lock-shoot mechanism. It's the equations behind it that make it look realistic. Just because it's Lock-On based, doesn't mean it have to be fully RNG and the "you can't render targets on the ground" idea is silly at best, because of the aforementioned Zoom-in method. 

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Projection of the Gunner's POV via zooming in => Rendering targets on the ground => Orbital strikes.

 

I guess FOV + location projection have not been invented-- oh wait... it's what every other sniper scope mechanism actually uses to render targets in the distance while scoped in, unless it's some ultra super realistic simulator like Squad or Project Reality, which DUAL is NOT, therefore your arguements have no merit, we know it's not Battlefield realistic in bullet drops, that doesn't mean stats can't emulate bullet drop effects as of damage / hit chance ratios. 

 

They specified in a DEV interview that objects will not render at long distances, and for performance reasons sniping will not be possible. I'm not making an argument, just stating the intention of the devs.

 

-> it is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding what I'm referencing, since the "long distance sniping" was in reference to not having FPS elements. The devs were however clear that causing massive damage from a distant location (orbit) would not be possible, as it would be unfair to builders to lose their structures to an attacker they could not see. This was in reference to the possibility of WMD's and deathstar cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They specified in a DEV interview that objects will not render at long distances, and for performance reasons sniping will not be possible. I'm not making an argument, just stating the intention of the devs.

Sniping as in compensating Bullet Drop physics, no, it won't happen, Zooming in is a thing that will happen. It's like they said DACs won't be lootable, onlly they meant "won't be lootable for the moment until we introduce lootability". You also stated you knew the intentions of the Devs there, while I'm only saying aiming at a target 10 kilometers away will be impossible without a zoom-in function. 

 

Guess which one here is on the right. It's a good thing you are opinionated and cite Dev interview statements, but don't take things out of context. Zooming in will be simply for the purposes of rendering the target (possibly a function tied to long-range sensors / scanners), it is not tied into bullet physics (as you mentioned earlier). It's a thing that will tie in to orbital strikes on siege fleets.

 

And once more, it's an emulation. Zooming in will only make you able to render the target's Elements so you can target them, the chance to hit will still be tied to your distance from said target and skill levels with said weaponry utilised. There are no physical projectiles involved in this, only chances / Cones of Fire and rendering happening. Add a sensitivity clutch to the gunner when zoomed in and you got yourself a "sniping" gameplay for both ships and Avatars. Heck, add an overcompensation mechanism for Sniper Avatars and you can get a headshot mechanism in here, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zooming in is a thing that will happen. It's like they said DACs won't be lootable, onlly they meant "won't be lootable for the moment until we introduce lootability". You also stated you knew the intentions of the Devs there, while I'm only saying aiming at a target 10 kilometers away will be impossible without a zoom-in function. 

I don't think our disagreement on the DAC's issue is relevant here

 

If there is a technical limitation to how far you can engage a target, I think it will come from the way the server technology distributes it's resources.

 <-- I'm sure you've seen this video before, the part I'll be using starts at 0:48

 

You see how it is split up into boxes, and those boxes get smaller based on player density? Those boxes will determine what elements and assets will be updated in/near real time for your character.

 

What do you think will happen if you are trying to shoot at something beyond your box? What will your target look like? will you even be able to lock onto it?

Your idea that zooming in will load assets further away is interesting, however neither of us know if we can zoom with the way this server technology is configured. 

 

My guess is that lock on distances will be longer when player density in your are is lower, but probably not long enough to shoot at something on the surface from orbit. That box will probably determine the limits of what we can interact with, like a sphere of influence. To be able to zoom we would have to be able to be in two boxes at once, or stretch the box in a given direction. We don't know what kind of load that would put on a server, so I just wouldn't count on being able to attack from long range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't know what kind of load that would put on a server, so I just wouldn't count on being able to attack from long range.

Yes but the dynamic area splitting should be able to handle combat across areas or big space battles wouldnt work.

 

Its a very interesting question in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think our disagreement on the DAC's issue is relevant here

 

If there is a technical limitation to how far you can engage a target, I think it will come from the way the server technology distributes it's resources.

 <-- I'm sure you've seen this video before, the part I'll be using starts at 0:48

 

You see how it is split up into boxes, and those boxes get smaller based on player density? Those boxes will determine what elements and assets will be updated in/near real time for your character.

 

What do you think will happen if you are trying to shoot at something beyond your box? What will your target look like? will you even be able to lock onto it?

Your idea that zooming in will load assets further away is interesting, however neither of us know if we can zoom with the way this server technology is configured. 

 

My guess is that lock on distances will be longer when player density in your are is lower, but probably not long enough to shoot at something on the surface from orbit. That box will probably determine the limits of what we can interact with, like a sphere of influence. To be able to zoom we would have to be able to be in two boxes at once, or stretch the box in a given direction. We don't know what kind of load that would put on a server, so I just wouldn't count on being able to attack from long range.

And again, the ZOOMING IN, is to project your POV near a cluster to the target so the damage calculations can be more precise on your end, as you would be updating FASTER on the target's position. You are still argueing against reasonable mechanics.

 

Your are 10 clusters away, you zoom in, your POV is now 3 Clusters away from the target, thus, you update faster on their position. And if ou are on a ship, you would want to remain still for an orbital strike, as motion causes loss of accuracy (lateral motion in other words).

 

JC could zoom around in god mode and the loading didn't even happen that slowlly on a single machine that ran 200 clients and the server hosting at the same time.

 

It IS possible for a Zoom-In to be implemented, both for Avatars and Constructs, to make snipers more viable. Sure, locking on should take longer given the distance you elected to fire at.

 

If I was to snipe you (which I will by the way -_- ) from a distance of 1 Km, I would take like, 10 seconds to fully lock-on to get 100% of my accuracy stat (which could be like 74% chance to hit, which 100% of that is 74% ). If I was to aim at you from 3 Km away, I would take 30 seconds, which would require in itself the Zoom-In function, so I can lock on you to begin with.

 

You might try and say "But, unfair, I will diez from one shot!", to which I say "Damage drop-off, avatar weaponry on a planet los damge given the distance involved if they are ballistic weaponry". Therefore, my 3 Km shot won't damage you, as much as graze you. It's the future, you got armor and shields protecting you from such shots. Closer diistances though plus some sweet sweet depleted uranium bullets, and your head will po-up like a watermelon though. And guess what, depleted uranium costs mullas, so it balances out on its own and no, yo uare not worth my uranium bolts :V

 

So no, Realistic sniping, won't be a thing, as physical projectiles can't exist. EMULATION of sniping gameplay, yes, absolutely can and possibly will happen.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...