Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

The loading times at the Districts and the Markets are beyond a joke and it has only gotten worse over time.

 

When players log out, (if they are not in combat), then their Dynamic cored ships should disappear 10 or 15 minutes later. This will save massive amounts of bandwidth and make the game a lot easier to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AlexRingess said:

How the game will deal with players B that will land at a the same location of a despawned ship and suddently respawn few minutes after player A log in again ?

By moving it to the nearest available space same as it does not allow ships to occupy the same space at the moment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If DU gets the player numbers NQ needs, they will have to make changes in the direction OP mentions. This is not something new and a good example is Star CItizen where players land on a pad, their ship will despawn after X amount of time and once ready to leave they will request their construct to be returned to the pad.

 

Markets could be redesigned to have a more closed/industrial look NQ could set up a design contest for players to enter constructs for this purpose to reduce cost on their end.

 

Once implemented, landing outside of pads should be disallowed by impounding any constructs placed outside of pads within the tile the market is located at. 

This  mechanic is not hard to design, implementing it may have some dev cost but overall it will allow for a much cleaner system.

 

On top of that, such a mechanics will be great for use on player run stations as well so it fits the context of the game nicely IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they are charged for bandwidth? Like how much data the customers download from the DU servers?

 

IF SO, they are wasting a lot of money/data. 
 

sooooo many good and seemingly workable solutions have been posted here over the years. 
 

I keep wondering if I’m just too naïve to understand the nuances of coding or are NQ really just ignoring us... hmmm...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GraXXoR said:

I keep wondering if I’m just too naïve to understand the nuances of coding or are NQ really just ignoring us... hmmm...

 

Doing a "SC style" landing pad > despawn > request ship > spawn mechanic should really not be hard as this is pretty much already possible with available in game mechanics.

 

The only thing that really would need to be added is to set up a "virtual" cargo space for the construct as it de-spawns so the player can pull or push items from/to it and then sync that with the construct as it respawns on departure. This can be a bit tricky but I can't really see any unsurmountable problems for something like that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GraXXoR said:

Do you think they are charged for bandwidth? Like how much data the customers download from the DU servers?

 

IF SO, they are wasting a lot of money/data. 
 

sooooo many good and seemingly workable solutions have been posted here over the years. 
 

I keep wondering if I’m just too naïve to understand the nuances of coding or are NQ really just ignoring us... hmmm...

Yep, AWS does charge for outbound bandwidth -- Jeff Bezos ain't giving anyone free shit. 

For 150 TB, the bandwidth cost alone would be about $12,000...it seems like DU uses a lot of bandwidth, but somewhat doubt it is 150 TB for a given month considering the player count. 

 

Keep in mind that's only outbound bandwidth - AWS doesn't charge for inbound bandwidth...but it does give you an idea of the cost of AWS at scale, considering bandwidth is not the majority of the expense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

 

Doing a "SC style" landing pad > despawn > request ship > spawn mechanic should really not be hard as this is pretty much already possible with available in game mechanics.

 

The only thing that really would need to be added is to set up a "virtual" cargo space for the construct as it de-spawns so the player can pull or push items from/to it and then sync that with the construct as it respawns on departure. This can be a bit tricky but I can't really see any unsurmountable problems for something like that.

 

 

Yes, its the same a compactifying a ship now. DU should do this on special landing pads as well, and then you should request your ship back. As we do not need to load in stuff physically in the game.

 

And then have space markets!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Are a Elite dangerous system. You request Docking, you are assigned a pad, you try to land anywhere else you get shot.

 

then just have a time limit on the pads, or do what ED does, and have the pad lower you I to a large parking area and lock your ship, so only way to fire it up again is request departure, at which stage your ship is moved up to a suitable pad and you have a time limit to clear it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All suggestions will be ignored, but a simple Hangar system should be no issue to add. The only thing is, its exploidable in PvP or unusable and then extra coding is needed to add PvP space into the hangar calculations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hangars sure, but why not the simple parking impound system we have suggested over and over again? It would require minimal dev time (Heck, they even had a version of it in-game for a short while), and also solve future problems with unwanted crowding on player driven markets and tiles in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 6:56 AM, CptLoRes said:

Hangars sure, but why not the simple parking impound system we have suggested over and over again? It would require minimal dev time (Heck, they even had a version of it in-game for a short while), and also solve future problems with unwanted crowding on player driven markets and tiles in general.

I'm assuming you mean magic blueprints - if I apologize. Unless they add a way to lock the magic blueprint to that station (which is where the dev time would be), its exploitable. It would create the same problem as using the nanocrafter to move ore around freely just with elements. It's fixable & they should do it, but I dont think it's as simple as just make constructs MBPs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IRL you have to collect something that is impounded and pay a fee, it's not magically transported back to your garage or something like that. And that's the idea here also.

Ie. there will be a stand at the same market where the constructs was impounded, and this will be the only place you can get the blueprint back (fee or not). And.. this magic blueprint would have some mechanics to prevent exploits. For example the blueprint would be the same weight as the construct, and/or have a very limited range (similar to the the container link range functionality) outside the impound retrieval pod where it can be deployed.

 

Anyways, the point is that the mechanics for this are already largely there in the game with blueprints, market pods, weight restrictions and container link range. So the dev time would be orders of magnitude less then for example a completely new hangar docking feature. And it solves more then one problem, since the same mechanics could be used for setting parking rights and dealing with construct greifing on player tiles, space stations etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just compactify the ship to a magic blueprint...  then limit respawning the ship to the tile where it was compactified. System is basically already in place.

Almost zero dev time and not even any time needed to design a stand and mechanism that dispenses the correct blueprint to the correct owner after pressing a button.

 

Once the game goes live, replace it with a player focussed salvage mechanic... where core ownership counts down and becomes unowned after a set time.

 

Hell, we need all the gameplay we can get, currently and that seems fairly organic to me..


-- edit: I said I wouldn't, but I just realised I made another pointless suggestion that will be ignored anyway. shrug.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CptLoRes said:

A couple more of those 'pointless' suggestions ignored by NQ, and you will also become 'toxic' in no time.. :)

Ironicly, I think, some of most rabid WKs who were "endlessly enjoying the game and planned do so for next eternity" silently... quit themeselves. I guess even seen couple in Discord of that other game. So its now relativly calm time to put good ol "critical feedback".


Sure, some weak ones still skulk around, but mere annoyance, nothing our troll brotherhood can't handle.

 

 

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...