Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I took a moment to pull out the conclusion from the Energy Management Part 2.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Currently the roles on a ship are:

  1. Pilot/FC - calls the targets
  2. Gunners - Open fire on the target
  3. Redshirts - guys who repair the ship

 

With this approach to power management you'll create the new role of "The Scotties" who will have to handle the tasks of:

  • Power management for the weapons
  • Swapping batteries
  • charging batteries
  • making sure the generators don't blow
  • checking the coolant systems
  • Keeping the ship's power out of the redzone

 

With this approach, noted in #7 the game takes on a more natural stance for power consumption and generation. Instead of setting hard numbers to limit players on how many weapons they can put on their ship or even what sizes they can place on their ships this will force players to make more informed decisions on how many to place based on how much energy the ship has and can maintain. This would lead to the ultimate end of borg cubes as some players would try to make min/maxed cubes not realizing that spooling up their own engines while trying to fire massive rail guns or lasers at a distance pushes the core into the redzone too much thus shutting down the ship and making it inoperable for combat.

 

With this in mind, you can remove the core sized limitation of weapons for all sized weapons and cores. Because now an XS core can no longer support Large or too many medium weapons from an energy front!

 

Needless to say the scottie would have a critical and equally important job on the ship.

 

 

I feel like I'm just screaming into the void and even though NQ confirmed they read these, I know they have their plan of execution and development.

In addition I did get hints that what I've already brought up was or at least parts of it are being implemented or thought about or something.

I just wish I was able to speak to JC or the development managers and at least understand their mindset... get some kind of communication going here.

There may be a handful of people who don't agree with me, but the majority are in the same boat of knowing this game's activity is in the red. We want this ship turned around and with how .23r went people are a little hesitant for the next one.

"It's going to get worse before it gets better" is not the stance people wanna know NQ is taking right now.

People wanna know that .23 was about as worse as it's ever going to get.

Yes... 0.23 was awful lol numbers don't lie and there's no changing my mind on that

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Demlock said:

I feel like I'm just screaming into the void and even though NQ confirmed they read these, I know they have their plan of execution and development.

In addition I did get hints that what I've already brought up was or at least parts of it are being implemented or thought about or something.

I just wish I was able to speak to JC or the development managers and at least understand their mindset... get some kind of communication going here.

thats why i stopped making fleshed out suggestions for game mechanics after alpha1. It's just being ignored without any feedback because NQ follows their gameplan and basically doesn't care for the suggestions of players if it touches a core mechanic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, vylqun said:

thats why i stopped making fleshed out suggestions for game mechanics after alpha1. It's just being ignored without any feedback because NQ follows their gameplan and basically doesn't care for the suggestions of players if it touches a core mechanic.

Its disappointing to know that a Silver Founder and a person on ATV hit this state long before I even got serious about this game...

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Demlock said:

Its disappointing to know that a Silver Founder and a person on ATV hit this state long before I even got serious about this game...

don't get it wrong, i still care about the game and give feedback, but making comprehensive posts for feature overhauls and similar just seems fuitile for me. I do enjoy reading new ideas tho, so i certainly don't want to dissuade you. 

Its just that, during the pre-alpha and alpha1 stages, i made pretty comprehensive posts about nearly every game mechanic and have said everything i could about it. Some is now implemented in a rudimentary way, many ideas weren't (as to be expected). I feel its not worth it repeating what i already said over and over without getting a reaction, especially when i see that quite a few of my predictions about the negative impact of the current mechanics came true. It feels like DU has to fail really hard before it can make a comeback and the devs start to change their stubbornness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NQ-Naunet said:

I'm curious to see some of your write-ups, @vylqun! Do you have one or two that are close to your heart that you'd like me to read over/re-surface internally? :) 

 

The combat and crafting related topicsfrom pre-alpha and alpha1 are very unlikely to be realized by now, so the thing which is most important to me currently would probably be this topic:

Point 2 in this post will hopefully be realized with the territory warfare update, at least for non-alioth hexes, the other two points are still very much needed right now. Static cubes in the current state of base building serve no purpose besides placing industry and maybe some dispensers (if we ignore the aesthetic needs of the players).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NQ-Naunet said:

I'm curious to see some of your write-ups, @vylqun! Do you have one or two that are close to your heart that you'd like me to read over/re-surface internally? :) 

Are any of these posts being resurfaced or seeing the light of day to JC or some of the Dev management?

and

Actually getting some sort of eyebrow-raising response from any of them?

Are they taking the time to hear out the community instead of ONLY the streamers?

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...