Jump to content

Call for Demeter-related questions


NQ-Pann
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/29/2021 at 1:45 PM, spacecat said:

Considering that the underground nodes will be removed it seems that the 15 minute timer on claiming territories is now useless and a hindrance if we want to deploy cores and set up miners for a recently claimed tile. 

 

I would also agree with the problem of existing scan giving larger orgs a large advantage.

I'm guessing you deleted your scans?  I'm not in a large corp but held all my scans for over a year and have been collecting more.  You should do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 4:36 PM, ReconDo17 said:

So as my First Sergeant in the Army use to say I can't even make this stuff up, I started a miner the day the PTS went live and just checked the container it has 1800L in it. You have got to be kidding right there is no way this is going to support anyone in this game currently. Look I know and I have seen the other players trying to sell this with there analysis and showing off how they could make millions of quanta a week but looking at this set up there is no way and no way you are going to convince me other wise the proof is in the pudding on this one.

Do you have max skills and the 6 tiles adjacent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, atldrab said:

Do you have max skills and the 6 tiles adjacent?

 

What you are trying to say;.

Do you have/make 7 million a week to spend on taxes to be able to maximise your mining yield?

Which kind of exposes the whole debacle that is this update. NQ pretty much is introducing schematics to mining now..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jake Arver said:

 

What you are trying to say;.

Do you have/make 7 million a week to spend on taxes to be able to maximise your mining yield?

Which kind of exposes the whole debacle that is this update. NQ pretty much is introducing schematics to mining now..

 

This is worse that r0.23 and schematics.

 

Schemas are pain only once.

 

This Territory Taxation stress newer ends.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 10:16 AM, Shaman said:

I am loving the changes so far (especially the ability to play your most recent emote), but I would like to mention:

  1. I don't think you should be taxed for the first tile you place on a planet, just like how the first tile was free pre-demeter, so that you can safely have your house on a tile without it being evicted if you leave too long. Not doing this will leave most planets empty as many people will migrate to space. IK you guys are taxing for mining but I think its a bit unfair if you don't want to - e.g. you sell ships and money can be few and far between, so could you guys maybe consider changing this? Perhaps you could add an option to your tiles where you don't get taxed, but can't mine either?
  2. I'm usually pretty stoic about changes you make, but the new brake system really struck a nerve. these things are too flat and large to fit on the outside of sleek / detailed ships. can we see some changes so that we don't have to scatter them around our constructs like plate armour? maybe xl brakes?

thanks! -Shaman ?

I honestly think this is a problem across most ship elements as they are using size as a factor in balance. I would say large atmo engines are one of the worst offenders. You have a clunky elongated cube that is so hard to make look good in any design that is not chunky industrial styles. Most people bury them as best they can having only the tips poke out.

 

There has to be a rebalance of elements with some type of quantifiable limitation on the core. This would allow NQ to rebalance elements beyond "if it fits it sits". Small Core Dynamics have no reason to have the ability to functionally fit XL Space Engines, Large Shields and even a DSAT all on the same core.

 

The balance of the game will always be broken until there is some limiting factor to how many elements you have on a ship beyond fuel economy. You can brute force a ship by strapping on 50 engines of each type with 50 Large fuel tanks and do pretty much anything you want. This makes for terrible looking but highly functional ships. This is by far the biggest weakness of ship building and balance in DU and is somewhat easily remedied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the benefit of a flat tax on territories. I love that it is now a weekly maintenance but the old exponential cost increase worked so well. Why was that system dropped? It worked so well to make it a manageable cost for solo players and small orgs but also did a pretty good job of reining in large orgs of taking over. The flat tax is just oppressive and a blunt instrument when we needed a scalpel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 11:14 AM, Doombad said:

Large ships stack them because so many atmo brakes are required.

 

Maybe you could point us to your ships so we can compare. Large ships may have 60+ atmo brakes. I am curious how you do that without stacking them.

 

Let’s also skip the “don’t make large ships argument.” This is a simpler problem for smaller ships.

Those ships should not be possible in the first place. I get around it by building purpose built ships. A heavy amto hauler, a heavy space only hauler, modest all around hauler as a few examples. The game balance is busted with no limit on how much crap you can stick on a core. All in one ships that have so much bs on them they can do everything well with the only drawback of using lots of fuel is so broken and needs to be fixed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DecoyGoatBomb said:

I honestly think this is a problem across most ship elements as they are using size as a factor in balance. I would say large atmo engines are one of the worst offenders. You have a clunky elongated cube that is so hard to make look good in any design that is not chunky industrial styles. Most people bury them as best they can having only the tips poke out.

 

There has to be a rebalance of elements with some type of quantifiable limitation on the core. This would allow NQ to rebalance elements beyond "if it fits it sits". Small Core Dynamics have no reason to have the ability to functionally fit XL Space Engines, Large Shields and even a DSAT all on the same core.

 

The balance of the game will always be broken until there is some limiting factor to how many elements you have on a ship beyond fuel economy. You can brute force a ship by strapping on 50 engines of each type with 50 Large fuel tanks and do pretty much anything you want. This makes for terrible looking but highly functional ships. This is by far the biggest weakness of ship building and balance in DU and is somewhat easily remedied. 

 

This should be a priority.

 

If it is not on the roadmap before the release, it is dramatic for the future of the game and its balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest Vlog about Demeter - Time: 1:29

https://youtu.be/FV54JaiAbmg?t=5372

 

Question: NQ Shesch: It may be players not playing at the launch of Demeter and they come back after couple of months. They see their construct burred into the ground. Can they ask for help to dig out the construct.

 

NQ Deckard , Answer: absolutely yes.

 

My Question: How is this possible if their taxes are not paid. It is the case If they are not playing at the launch of Demeter and coming back after couple of months after launch. Ownership of the tile is gone and there is new owner. And possibly whole base is looted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kulkija said:

My Question: How is this possible if their taxes are not paid. It is the case If they are not playing at the launch of Demeter and coming back after couple of months after launch. Ownership of the tile is gone and there is new owner. And possibly whole base is looted.

I thought they said you just wouldn't be able to use mining units, don't remember them saying if or when ownership would be lost if taxes weren't paid, maybe we should get that answered first. It sounded like they didn't decide yet when the video was recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Haunty said:

I thought they said you just wouldn't be able to use mining units, don't remember them saying if or when ownership would be lost if taxes weren't paid, maybe we should get that answered first. It sounded like they didn't decide yet when the video was recorded.

 

https://youtu.be/FV54JaiAbmg?t=3183

53:10

 "Once that grace period is over you will actually loose ownership of that territory."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still I really feel that eventually losing ownership is not a bad idea at all. It's how NQ's great example EVE does it too.. You do not fuel your station .. it goes into low power mode. You still do nothing? It will be vulnerable to attack. Obviously EVE has a wel designed and implemented way of going about it wil many possible routes to keep maintenance up, but still.. This is nothing new and certainly shoudl not be unexpected.

 

  • TU upkeep has _always_ been in the books to arrive sooner or later.
  • NQ has always said the only place your stuff is really safe is on Sanctuary.

 

The problem is that while the idea is good, the blunt knife method NQ now implements it is really not good. I could see an argument being made for the first claim outside of Sanctuary remaining free as well, but not one free claim per planet/moon as it is now.

 

Personally, as I fully expect we wil see a wipe prior to actual launch, I will probably just go around and move all my stuff to my tile(s) on Sanctuary and wait it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hearing scuttle about a "Space Tax" if this is true then the question begs WHAT are all these taxes for why its a simple question that most have asked here. Is it to attempt to punish those that are wealthy, I can assure you that will not work it never does? Is it to in your NQ eyes help the economy, again I can assure you it will not. We need answers to our questions, we in fact demand these answers as the future of this game and your very jobs may very well depend on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ReconDo17 said:

I think we have NQ Pann to thank for the suggestion of territory loss as she came from EVE, so it can be concluded, since they NQ will not answer us that any similarities in this game to EVE are the brain child of NQ Pann. 

Where's my hit head against the wall emoticon? ? And no other Devs have played EVE or there are really no other games with a territory loss mechanic. I absolutely hate the territory loss mechanic as proposed by NQ, but blaming anyone at NQ is just beyond the pale!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that would have made this tax implementation go over a bit smoother is if this patch also introduced the Duties part of RDMS. At least in relation to territories. Meaning you could collect duties or sales tax from players that are not you or part of your org but have constructs on your territory. This on the surface sounds like just passing the buck but I see a big reason for the negativity against the new tax as is it punishes people for holding territory with any purpose other than mining. This would give non miners, solo players and small orgs the option to be on someone else's tile while paying a modest fee to the territory owner.

 

This also encourages/gives reason for players to group up, play together, create cities and communities. The flat tax without adding a function to make money from these types of projects hurts orgs and players creating community spaces for shops etc.  This is likely in the plans for the future but if that is the case NQ sharing this information would help the community see the logic behind your design and reduce the rage to seemingly haphazard implementation.

 

Another small way to make this less painful is add talents to org management that help mitigate territory taxes. This is a great example of giving people ways to play outside of mining, building or pvp. Many people come to this game for things outside of those three paths. Is DU still billed as civilization building MMO? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2021 at 4:45 AM, spacecat said:

Considering that the underground nodes will be removed it seems that the 15 minute timer on claiming territories is now useless and a hindrance if we want to deploy cores and set up miners for a recently claimed tile. 

 

I would also agree with the problem of existing scan giving larger orgs a large advantage.

Easy to say if you're not a solo player who also spent months scanning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: 
With Demeter becoming the first area on Sanctuary to be tax exempt for all players, there could be significant performance issues on this moon.
-> Is it therefore possible to divide this first exempted area across the entire safe zone so that players can spread out and not be forced to gather on Sanktuary?
-> If this were to be introduced, would it be possible -once- to get back the special territorial unit already set there?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ReconDo17 said:

I think we have NQ Pann to thank for the suggestion of territory loss as she came from EVE, so it can be concluded, since they NQ will not answer us that any similarities in this game to EVE are the brain child of NQ Pann. 


Newsflash.. Pann joined well after all of this was decided on.. DU has always been "inspired" by EVE and it was always going to be that, outside of Sanctuary, you would lose ownership if you did not provide upkeep for territory. This fact was discussed as far back as the first talk of teritory during alpha and as I recall even before that. 

 

So this is not new, and IMO the mechanic itself is fine. It's the way NQ goes about implementing stuff like this which is the problem, just like it was with schematics. NQ looks at EVE from a top level/player perspective and seems to "reverse engineer" mechanics to only the first layer. They do not seem to consider the underlying/connected mechnics that feed into something which actually make it work at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jake Arver said:


Newsflash.. Pann joined well after all of this was decided on.. DU has always been "inspired" by EVE and it was always going to be that, outside of Sanctuary, you would lose ownership if you did not provide upkeep for territory. This fact was discussed as far back as the first talk of teritory during alpha and as I recall even before that. 

 

So this is not new, and IMO the mechanic itself is fine. It's the way NQ goes about implementing stuff like this which is the problem, just like it was with schematics. NQ looks at EVE from a top level/player perspective and seems to "reverse engineer" mechanics to only the first layer. They do not seem to consider the underlying/connected mechnics that feed into something which actually make it work at all.

Fortunately, the majority of players voted for a larger safe zone and NQ has implemented this for the players. From a purely lore point of view, we are settlers who -together- want to build a new beginning. There is no reference to PvP as such, except that in a PvP zone (which is not a PvP zone, but simply a zone without rules) there could be warlike actions.
So the overall concept is everything but comparable to Eve. If you want to play Eve, you should play Eve and not DualUniverse to be happy, because they are two different games. (Apples and pears)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • NQ-Pann locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...