Jump to content

April 2017 DevDiary


Sunrider44

Recommended Posts

It seems so, it is just bad gameplay as you can just focus fire the core and win, even if the ship has only minimal damage.

If you take out the ship's central computer, it can't do anything. It can't stabilise the reactor so that goes offline. You could have multiple ship cores so that you cant be focus fired down, but people need to know where the core is in order to focus fire (and they usually don't). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please take some time to understand the effect and problem before replying

Please remove stick off of your rear. Thank you. 

 

Also, the fact you and the guy who confuses speed, velocity and acceleration, agree on someting, shows you how ignorance is bliss.

 

Core Units are the construct's brain. FUEL TANKS explode and REACTORS are by definition impossible to explode. They leak radaition, but do not explode.

 

Please, get back to 7th grade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take out the ship's central computer, it can't do anything. It can't stabilise the reactor so that goes offline. You could have multiple ship cores so that you cant be focus fired down, but people need to know where the core is in order to focus fire (and they usually don't). 

That's both right and wrong. Yes, taking out a ship's core would - techncially - take away the abiltiy to stabilise a reactor, so the stable fiion effect would fizzle out, but at the same time, in a close circuit, that means the ship is now experiencing outtages.

 

And capacitors are dependant on reactors pumping in them joules to keep going. Otherwise it's hiccup after hiccup, the ship would be barely functional if one core unit was out. Unless people reduced power consumption, which in combat situations may NOT  be idea to lower power on any system.

 

Lower propulsion power = you get more easily shot.

 

Lower power to weapons = less rate of fire depending on the weapon type. Ballistic weapons don't care for capcitor, they carry their energy potentila in their cartridge / shell. Lowering power to laser weaponry? You might as well surrender, lasers depend on Joules to deal dmg.

 

Reduce power to shields? Depends. IF you rship relies on shields as defense, you can't afford to. But then agin, if your shields failed adn your armor was punched so hard your core blew up, you might as well pool all resources to shields and propulsions and hope yo ucan outrun the fight. If you rely on heavy armor for your ship, then just stay and fight, you can't outrun them anyway.

 

But don't tell people that. Their pucker factor will reach 11. "I DONTZ WANTZ DIFFIKULTZ COMBATZ. CAN  I HAZ SPACE WW2 PLANES? PL0X?" That's the problem with the forums these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing official, but my guess is, if you blow the core you blow the build grid and RDMS ownership.

 

So most likely the entire construct is lost in a spectacular explosion with a voxel/element loot drop from the list of vowels and elements that comprised the construct.

Surely what remains of the construct is then just left there, floating with no acceleration due to thrust? Also, as said above, CPU's don't explode. A necessary step into capturing an enemy vessel is replacing their ship cores, so having the core explode or vaporise the entire ship into a loot box would be counter productive (not to mention it gets rid of the salvaging gameplay).

 

I imagine that anything that could explode, like fuel tanks, that are also stabilised (directly or indirectly) by computing power would be prone to exploding as a downside to something better (in the case of the fuel tank, storing antimatter). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely what remains of the construct is then just left there, floating with no acceleration due to thrust? Also, as said above, CPU's don't explode. A necessary step into capturing an enemy vessel is replacing their ship cores, so having the core explode or vaporise the entire ship into a loot box would be counter productive (not to mention it gets rid of the salvaging gameplay).

 

I imagine that anything that could explode, like fuel tanks, that are also stabilised (directly or indirectly) by computing power would be prone to exploding as a downside to something better (in the case of the fuel tank, storing antimatter). 

OMG. You dared inject reasoning and facts. Prepare for Ripepr to come at you with all the wrong facts now. 

 

 

P.S. : You can't stabilise a fuel tank :P It's a tank... with fuel. You drain it, it's not a generator. Generators need stability to not melt or overheat. I believe that fuel tanks should be explodey, with their damage bubble being evaluated to the collective energy potential stored in it, minus 87% of it.

 

Why? Cause SCIENCE. I'll expecT Kurosawa to go look up some articles online and skim the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. : You can't stabilise a fuel tank :P

Depends on the fuel being contained. I'm pretty sure an antimatter fuel tank would do some very nasty stuff if containment failed due to low power...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the fuel being contained. I'm pretty sure an antimatter fuel tank would do some very nasty stuff if containment failed due to low power...

Well, that would be a bad idea all around. You have more chances using Hellium-3 as a fuel source for more of a bang on your ship at half the problems causing.

 

If I had to choose between "thing that explodes by looking at it the wrong way" and "thing that explodes only when prodded" I would o  with the latter any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take out the ship's central computer, it can't do anything. It can't stabilise the reactor so that goes offline. You could have multiple ship cores so that you cant be focus fired down, but people need to know where the core is in order to focus fire (and they usually don't). 

 

Multiple cores could be interesting, then it comes down to how we a able to move around and if we can see/target the cores when locking on.

If there is a for of tab targeting then might auto target cores, it often do is my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple cores could be interesting, then it comes down to how we a able to move around and if we can see/target the cores when locking on.

If there is a for of tab targeting then might auto target cores, it often do is my experience.

You confuse lock-on with homing in.

 

The combat of the game is using the same tools for mining, only with a spreading damge and voxel HP.

 

You would know that if you bothered watching the Kickstarter AMA video. You can't auto-target modules. You have to TARGET them manually and hit fire the correct moment or you may miss them in the game's probabilistic chance model - which is more or less, tranversals, optimal ranges and tracking speed, Kickstarter Update #26, check your e-mail - by placing your cursor on them while looking through a turret's scope. IF there's zoom-in function and / or if it's tied to sensor modules, that's not yet known.

 

You're welcome. 

 

 

P.S. : If you pledged AFTER the Kickstarter, check the kickstarter page for Update 26 on Combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple cores could be interesting, then it comes down to how we a able to move around and if we can see/target the cores when locking on.

If there is a for of tab targeting then might auto target cores, it often do is my experience.

I had suggested that idea at one point. If I remember correctly everybody bashed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had suggested that idea at one point. If I remember correctly everybody bashed it.

Bashed with facts toprove you wrong? Yes. Armor is there for a reason you see. And nobody is gonna let you know where their ship's core or Cores are, especially on navy issue ones for factions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to hear that raw videos and more visual effects are coming soon :)!

I've been impressed by lights, colors and depth of field effects of the early footages (with orbital station).

 

By the way, I'm not sure to understand the NQ strategy with youtube attention span...

 

If I remember how I heard about DU:

 

The first time was on Youtube, in a kind of Top 10 space MMO to come: this video was far more longer than 4mn...

Then, I went to kickstarter to get more information, but the trailer and the description reminded me Star Citizen. Moreover, I didn't get what could really make DU standing out from the crowd.

So, I didn't pledge this time.

I've only be convinced to pledge several weeks ago, when I learned more about the technical features of NQ exclusive One-shard technology.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that DevDiaries videos are good promotional videos, because they are too precise and technical. I mean, people interested in watching DevDiaries are probably already interested in the game, or just hesitating to pledge.

So, to my opinion, making 4mn length (or less) DevDiaries does not make sense, regarding the attention span. :huh:

 

To me, good promotional videos could have social or emotional content at the begining to catch and focus the viewers attention. Next, they could introduce general or thrilling information about the core topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to hear that raw videos and more visual effects are coming soon :)!

I've been impressed by lights, colors and depth of field effects of the early footages (with orbital station).

 

By the way, I'm not sure to understand the NQ strategy with youtube attention span...

 

If I remember how I heard about DU:

 

The first time was on Youtube, in a kind of Top 10 space MMO to come: this video was far more longer than 4mn...

Then, I went to kickstarter to get more information, but the trailer and the description reminded me Star Citizen. Moreover, I didn't get what could really make DU standing out from the crowd.

So, I didn't pledge this time.

I've only be convinced to pledge several weeks ago, when I learned more about the technical features of NQ exclusive One-shard technology.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that DevDiaries videos are good promotional videos, because they are too precise and technical. I mean, people interested in watching DevDiaries are probably already interested in the game, or just hesitating to pledge.

So, to my opinion, making 4mn length (or less) DevDiaries does not make sense, regarding the attention span. :huh:

 

To me, good promotional videos could have social or emotional content at the begining to catch and focus the viewers attention. Next, they could introduce general or thrilling information about the core topic.

I have dealt with online media to explain how this works.

 

Depending on your content and the consistency of it, the algorithm on youtube sets up a priority on front pege feed or alerts.

 

IF let's say, Gameranx (The video you saw DU on), tags itself as "information, games, top 10 " and the aglirtihm takes into account trends.

 

Most people want their top 10 lists, to be itneresting, yet not extra long ,but long neough to be worth loking into. WatchMojo is to blame foir that, but anyway.

 

Thing is, NQ has to tag their DevDiaries, as "#video game #update #news", cause people may look up on Youtube "Dual Unveise Upadete" isntead of DevDiary (which is still an alien term to me). 

 

The algorithm then checks the trend for news. News videos are like quick snapshots that skim the facts. Liek a news reel for the NEws at 8 PM., going past you in 60 seconds.

 

And that's sadly the reality. Youtube won't push the DevDiary on the front page if NQ doesn't keep its "news" down to atrendign number of 3.1 minutes. If NQ was to make a public video that goes for 20 minutes and people Youtube brought it on the forefront for "News" and people left half way throguh, it would hurt the DevDiaries algorithm exposure later on.

 

More or less, it's a shit system, born out of convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bashed with facts toprove you wrong? Yes. Armor is there for a reason you see. And nobody is gonna let you know where their ship's core or Cores are, especially on navy issue ones for factions. 

I never said there was anything wrong with what they said.

 

Edit: I agree it's not a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, I went to kickstarter to get more information, but the trailer and the description reminded me Star Citizen. Moreover, I didn't get what could really make DU standing out from the crowd.

So, I didn't pledge this time.

I've only be convinced to pledge several weeks ago, when I learned more about the technical features of NQ exclusive One-shard technology.

 

Open World, Voxel, MMO pew pew in space ;) where do i sign up again, i am sold.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that DevDiaries videos are good promotional videos, because they are too precise and technical. I mean, people interested in watching DevDiaries are probably already interested in the game, or just hesitating to pledge.

So, to my opinion, making 4mn length (or less) DevDiaries does not make sense, regarding the attention span. :huh:

 

To me, good promotional videos could have social or emotional content at the begining to catch and focus the viewers attention. Next, they could introduce general or thrilling information about the core topic.

 

They are devdiaries, and as such are meant to be technical. I think you are mistaking them with teasers and trailers like on this page http://www.dualthegame.com/medias

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bashed with facts toprove you wrong? Yes. Armor is there for a reason you see. And nobody is gonna let you know where their ship's core or Cores are, especially on navy issue ones for factions. 

About the last part.

 

After disabling one ship you would figure it out. So that's kinda a stupid point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the last part.

 

After disabling one ship you would figure it out. So that's kinda a stupid point

I would say it would take a few tries to narrow down what the weak spot of that ship design is (and thats when you are actively trying to find it. It would take too long with trial and error to get an effective set of weak points for each objective (disable engines, command, gunners, hangar, etc.), hence the overall point of not having the ship magically turn into a loot box when it is destroyed so that people can board, capture and reverse engineer the ship to both find out how to build it and how to destroy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it would take a few tries to narrow down what the weak spot of that ship design is (and thats when you are actively trying to find it. It would take too long with trial and error to get an effective set of weak points for each objective (disable engines, command, gunners, hangar, etc.), hence the overall point of not having the ship magically turn into a loot box when it is destroyed so that people can board, capture and reverse engineer the ship to both find out how to build it and how to destroy it.

That's the beauty of building a ship though. Make it look weak at a point, and reinforce it more, then focus on cocnealing strengths as wekanesse. It's the best meta-game, theorycrafting, people discussing over the design mentality behind a ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...