Jump to content

[Discuss] We've Heard You!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Have your devs play the game , from the start with no god mode    They will learn more from that than any hand picked forum

Just forget about ATV. Their influence was clearly bad on this game. Learn about the history of MMOs to avoid repeating the same mistakes other already made in past. And play your own game (

And yet again, NQ has proven they're out of touch with how the players have been playing the game.   Setting up a factory to produce everything one desires is just the first step, for many o

Posted Images

Quote

It’s hard to imagine how the appeal could last for more than several months for most players once they feel they have “finished” the game.

And yet again, NQ has proven they're out of touch with how the players have been playing the game.

 

Setting up a factory to produce everything one desires is just the first step, for many of us, through ensuring we have a reliable supply of elements and material with which to build our ships. The market is unreliable or too time consuming. Why would we spend hours traveling to different markets to pick up various ship building parts when we can just mine ore from our tiles and make what we need?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The second important initiative is to revise the role of the Alpha Team Vanguard (ATV), getting them more involved in early discussions about new features and the evolution of the game

Just forget about ATV. Their influence was clearly bad on this game.

Learn about the history of MMOs to avoid repeating the same mistakes other already made in past.

And play your own game (without the cheat codes).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the schematic prices is defintiely needed, even tho schematics themselves are fine. What i miss in this update is how to make PvP worthwhile again. While its good that ships destroyed in PvP will be full stopped i doubt that the components salvaged will really be enough to cover the cost, but we will see about that.

And just so you don't forget, once again: we need more content and we need a complete revamp of the repair system! There are many good suggestions about this in the forum, keeping it as it is would be a great waste of potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vylqun said:

Changing the schematic prices is defintiely needed, even tho schematics themselves are fine. What i miss in this update is how to make PvP worthwhile again. While its good that ships destroyed in PvP will be full stopped i doubt that the components salvaged will really be enough to cover the cost, but we will see about that.

And just so you don't forget, once again: we need more content and we need a complete revamp of the repair system! There are many good suggestions about this in the forum, keeping it as it is would be a great waste of potential.

I think players need to chill on the PvP and ignore it until the actual proper PvP updates are coming, which is why I think element damage through crashes should remain, PvP wont be genuine part of this game for several months yet

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Billy_Boola said:

Element destruction should still happen in crashes.  Maybe give new players another way to repair them in their first month of playing. 

I completely disagree. Since most crashes are caused by bugs - at least for me... maybe the rest of you are sloppy pilots - we shouldn't be penalized for that.

 

Overall, the proposed changes look good.

 

I'm also not convinced that feedback from ATV hasn't hurt the game more than helped it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The item below makes me sad.  I liked that changed.  It was pretty much the only thing that was going to restart the market. 

  • Element destruction will impact the restoration count only when it occurs through PvP, at least for now (not when the ship is colliding/falling as we want to avoid having players penalized simply for crashing their ships because they’re learning how to maneuver them, for example).
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the durability changes go far enough to be honest - though it's a major step in the right direction. You are still discouraging player interaction as any element with less than 3 lives is worthless as an element to the victor of pvp. While at the very least they get some sort of compensation - like schematics back - it's still a matter of diminishing returns and a discentive to take your ship out.

 

Needless to say, you still - under the proposed changes -

 - Have the issue of decorative elements being completely discouraged, opting the pvp meta to be empty box shells of ships

 - Player interaction for pvp is still discouraged
 - Moving further into the future, expanding gameplay options for salvaging and exploration are limited and discouraged


I sincerely urge NQ to scrap the "limited lives" durability model and re-evaluate better alternatives to how element destruction and the need for new elements from the market is handled. There are a multitude of better alternatives suggested across forums - I won't do a self promotion plug again since I don't care what it is to be honest, as long as it's not the restrictive and gameplay penalising system that exists at present. Once again, to re-iterate - the present choice of limited lives of elements has been universally the least popular mechanic for durability in every multiplayer game that has tried it since the 90s. And for very good reasons.

EDIT: The DRM introduction also makes capturing ships not feel like... captured ships. Half of the appeal of pirates to capture ships was for underground lua script market. If you want player interaction, you need to want player interaction - not attempt to socially engineer what kind of interaction you want the players to have. Can't have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daphne Jones said:

I completely disagree. Since most crashes are caused by bugs - at least for me... maybe the rest of you are sloppy pilots - we shouldn't be penalized for that.

 

Sloppy pilots should be penalized, but yea fair call, once the bugs that cause crashes are gone then crash damage should be a thing

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Emptiness said:

And yet again, NQ has proven they're out of touch with how the players have been playing the game.

 

Setting up a factory to produce everything one desires is just the first step, for many of us, through ensuring we have a reliable supply of elements and material with which to build our ships. The market is unreliable or too time consuming. Why would we spend hours traveling to different markets to pick up various ship building parts when we can just mine ore from our tiles and make what we need?

ffs. They provide evidence they listened and have announced a response to player feedback.  The market is unreliable because of what was explained.  Small groups or soloists not interacting. Give it little time for people to catch up. Right now, many are running around moaning about not being able to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  • Ships will now stop (be frozen) when their core is destroyed in PvP, making them easier to catch.

Do not stop it, raise the maths you talked about in the stream so that the ship will still move, but with a tremendous amount of brake effect.

Quote
  • Element destruction will impact the restoration count only when it occurs through PvP, at least for now (not when the ship is colliding/falling as we want to avoid having players penalized simply for crashing their ships because they’re learning how to maneuver them, for example).

Good trade off, rather than not counting penalties at all.

 

The game needs a way to force people to build viable ships as well, right ?
And just like Industry should not be possible alone as far as big quantities are concerned, building a large or even Medium core alone should not either.


Maybe, "way less damage" would have been better than just "restoration count penalty" ?

Quote
  • Recycling of un-restorable elements through a recycler that will take an element as input and grant a small amount of the schematics required components as output.

Really good !
Would be even better if you could make "Recycling" doable with the "hand tool" (nanopack) that would give way less schematic components than a "Recycler" would.
Making it a new branch of specialisation for the game !

The most important lack in the game right now, and you are aware of it, that's great, is indeed the lack of ways to generate Quantas.

 

All in all, all good. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you heard SOME of us, after we decided to speak with our wallets at least... All of these steps are quite acceptable... Yet I notice you guys have completely ignored the RDMS issues and aspect of the game. There are still dozens of shipbuilders out there who have had their blueprints stolen because the RDMS system opened up and allowed people who'd previously bought said ships, which were previously locked (No blueprinting) and unlocked them so dozens of BP's could be made...

And stranding players with unannounced updates to the seat controllers.... Not cool. Not cool at all...

Also, a quick fix to the market... Introduce NPC shipping.. You can't find something locally? Hire an NPC ship to bring it to your local market from ANY market for X quantas per SU of distance....

The test server is something that should have happened ages ago... 

Still, after you guys removed the unsubscribe button from the "my products" page, it's going to be a bit before I can trust you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

Just popping in to say thank you to everybody who took time out of their days over the past couple of weeks to write extensive feedback here on the forums.

The community team was able to collect and present your thoughts to the rest of the NQ which ultimately led to this evening's write-up from JC. :) 

Even if you're not 100% satisfied with the changes we're making to 0.23, I hope that this at least demonstrates that we do indeed read, digest and execute on your valuable questions, concerns and suggestions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NQ-Naunet said:

Hi guys,

Just popping in to say thank you to everybody who took time out of their days over the past couple of weeks to write extensive feedback here on the forums.

The community team was able to collect and present your thoughts to the rest of the NQ which ultimately led to this evening's write-up from JC. :) 

Even if you're not 100% satisfied with the changes we're making to 0.23, I hope that this at least demonstrates that we do indeed read, digest and execute on your valuable questions, concerns and suggestions.

Well, since a lot of us decided to speak with our wallets, I'd sincerely hope that you'd come to the conclusion that it's your paycheck on the line if you don't listen....

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...