Jump to content

cs44697

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Warlander said:

Its not just expensive its not really possible atm to get enough lift to have a 15 container hauler and the space enough to place parts the way the system wants. With the parts creep to weight ratio there just isnt enough space/links to do both until items progress or the size/grades line up to just haul gold which is the benchmark or gold standard if you will for hauling. The problem is getting enough weight up to antigrav levels to get to space. The stats on items are so low even with takents that it would take 200+ L Stabilizers which is pretty rediculous especially with the 2:1 ratio of wings to engine to provide enough thrust. 15 containers is nothing in the grand scheme of things. There is no room for weapons or defenses in parts placement. There isnt enough lift or thrust to do both. The stats of items is what is making haulers cost so much and such a big hit if you lose one that makes pvp out of reach for defense. If there were more stats it lowers the cost barrier to people losing ships or to be able to add weapons.

 

 

What? You put the ship in AGG level at 1000 and you fill cargo with whatever you want. Problem fixed! We use AGG in DU when we want to do this. I hope you dont have in mine to fly off Alioth with 50.000kt :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Elitez said:

What? You put the ship in AGG level at 1000 and you fill cargo with whatever you want. Problem fixed! We use AGG in DU when we want to do this. I hope you dont have in mine to fly off Alioth with 50.000kt :)

We have found no upward limit as of yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2021 at 1:03 PM, nathanwiseman19@gmail.com said:

Warp:

-make it so you have to warp from 5-10 SU outside of the safe zone (excluding the 3 inner planets) and leave warp at a similar distance. this adds risk to warp unlike the current system where you can just reap rewards from.

-make it so your warp bring you out to a random position. this adds variation to warping and still gives players a chance of not dying instantly after leaving warp.

 

Been arguing this for some time, 100% agree, although I would randomise the warp spawn to sometime it does still arrive in safe zone.

On 1/18/2021 at 1:29 PM, blazemonger said:

Can we stop wit the "WARP is unfair" already. Besides it implying you want acces to easy kills, while NQ works on proper counters and planet side combat, the safezones around planets stay in place and warp should have the endpoint in the safezone. Moving warp endpoints outside the safezones will not "fix PVP", it will just hand kills to those not willing to put in effort and/or find actual fights.

 

It actually adds a whole new gameplay loop - SECURITY. You want to go mine a distant planet, then you need to hire someone to make sure you get there safely.  PvP has two sides to it.

That said, none of this is possible without the much anticipated player made mission.  As communication in game is pretty much no existent at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Daphne Jones said:

Almost as ridiculous as no shields or other defensive devices and combat mechanics that amount to shoot first or die. The only thing (aside from fast travel) that warp does atm is allow unarmed undefendable ships to opt out of combat.

 

If shooting unarmed ships is important to you, you're a griefer, not a PVPer.

This is the attitude which ruins games of this type.  The complete lack of acceptance of piracy / anarchy as a viable gameplay path.  Not having weapons makes no difference as to whether you are a target or not, and if you think it should, then you should go find a game with no pvp.

Just out of interest, when you watch entertainment, do you see the Empire as 'griefers' or the Borg, or the Reavers?  They are the excitement, the ying to the yang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moosegun said:

This is the attitude which ruins games of this type.  The complete lack of acceptance of piracy / anarchy as a viable gameplay path.  Not having weapons makes no difference as to whether you are a target or not, and if you think it should, then you should go find a game with no pvp.

Just out of interest, when you watch entertainment, do you see the Empire as 'griefers' or the Borg, or the Reavers?  They are the excitement, the ying to the yang.

And people like you who see things in black and white and make up their own facts ruin the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Moosegun said:

It actually adds a whole new gameplay loop - SECURITY. You want to go mine a distant planet, then you need to hire someone to make sure you get there safely.  PvP has two sides to it.

 

The point is that we _know_ that the safezones around planets are going away and also what conditions wil need to be met for that to happen. Still people keep rehashing this in what I really consider an attempt to shoehorn in easy kills more than anything else. And with hat happening, tis year, the pewpew brigade looking will get heir chance provided NQ brings in the needed counters to that. In fact, using existing options to circumvent getting caught  it wil remain fairly risk-less to warp even when the cost may remain relatively high. Set up off the main warp lane entry with a safe corridor through claimed tiles and the chance of getting shot is only slightly more than what it is now.

 

 

The security argument here is in line with the "bring friends/guns" and pretty much shows a lack of understanding of how hauling as a profession in game works and what the margins are that allow that gameplay.  In a game like this, hiring anyone to "protect" you inherently hold the risk of being double crossed and attacked which generally is greater than the advantages it brings. What we need is mechanics that mitigate the risk of slowboating to a point where it becomes worth the risk and we're not quite there. Using throw away ships, calculating in a 10% loss due to piracy and using Warp are the only currently available options that there are. Escorts are not a risk worth taking besides the fact the game really has no (fleeting) mechanics to properly use such options. 

 

We need ECM, possible stealth and decoy mechanics and similar to be able to leave the warp drive and it's cost at home. NQ has said those are coming so why don't we wait for that to happen sometime this year. The continuously whining and complaining by some about temporary restrictions is getting both old and serves no real purpose as, again, we know once certain conditions are met, this will happen this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XKentX said:

Surprise my boy. DU is advertised as a PVP game.

No, "my boy", it isn't. It's a game with PvP as a feature

 

If PvP was soooo important, NQ would've spent more time on it -- it's an afterthought after six years of dev. It barely has an implementation at all today, hence the safezone and warp bubbles. 

 

Rust is a PvP game. Overwatch is a PvP game. These are products built with PvP in mind as the core gameplay element that simply do not function without it. 

 

DU isn't that. Maybe you want it to be, but NQ clearly doesn't or they would've invested their development time accordingly. Instead, they still don't know what to do with PvP...they still don't have an ETA or plan, or at least not one communicated to the players.

 

Does that sound like a "pvp game"...? No, it sounds like a game that slapped PvP onto an existing design with no obvious cohesion and no plan.  

 

I don't agree at all with NQ's approach -- I think it is absurd and backwards and highly disingenuous bordering on false advertising. I wish there was a lot more development around PvP. A lot. The game will not work without robust PvP.  

 

But...I disagree with the idea that all it takes is ripping down the barriers that exist because NQ hasn't spent time developing their key features.

 

The reality is that DU is still very much a game about building and that every PvP feature must keep that in mind to achieve balance -- it isn't as simple as actual "PvP games" where the game balance was built around PvP since its inception. Realistically, NQ doesn't have the design experience (or even like...basic planning skills) to handle this balance easily, nor do they have the development competence to iterate quickly to test changes...we're all in the same boat: a long, boring cruise until NQ can deploy actual changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

Well NQ is investigating warp, lets see what happens. If it goes like everything i already know the outcome

 

I wonder what unintended feature warp beacons are providing, I mean, what else are they doing beside providing a private warp waypoint?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lethys said:

A beta would've had all mechanics implemented. This is a subbed alpha at best, not a beta. Despite what NQ or ppl say

If quibbling over terminology is your thing then by all means plant that flag pole. The reality is no one cares if they call it alpha or beta. It's not going to win you any arguments, nor does it validate any opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Xennial said:

If quibbling over terminology is your thing then by all means plant that flag pole. The reality is no one cares if they call it alpha or beta. It's not going to win you any arguments, nor does it validate any opinion.

Using wrong terminology for the wrong thing leads to dissapointed customers. As seen here again and again. But I guess NQ doesn't care, because they need the money. 

At least "they heard us" /shrug 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lethys said:

Using wrong terminology for the wrong thing leads to dissapointed customers. As seen here again and again. But I guess NQ doesn't care, because they need the money. 

At least "they heard us" /shrug 

It does matter. If terminology didn't matter and "no one cared", why would marketers be so eager to brand things as beta vs. alpha...? 

 

There's a reason the industry has abused these labels in marketing...they know that people will be more attracted to a beta product than an alpha. Not all consumers care about the labels, but enough do that it compels marketers. 

 

To be fair...if the point is "it's 4 months into beta, relax, it's not close to being finished" -- that point goes double for DU actually being in alpha. It'll take patience to see how the game evolves.

 

Just remember that the game has been in dev for six years already. Not like these are early days and they have barely had a chance to dig in. Don't expect the pace of dev to rapidly accelerate as it nears release, and expect that "release" actually will mean "beta". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, michaelk said:

It does matter. If terminology didn't matter and "no one cared", why would marketers be so eager to brand things as beta vs. alpha...? 

I would have agreed with this several years ago. Now that early access games are common, the pre-release terms do not mean as much. Should they have called it early access or alpha instead of beta? Sure. These days there is no consistency of quality for pre-release games that are being sold to customers. It's unfortunate, but like all pre-release games you need to do your research before paying.

Link to comment
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...