Jump to content

DEVBLOG: CONSTRUCTION SLOTS AND STACKED ELEMENTS - discussion thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

Are the Org Construct Talents going to be applied? - Or they are removed from the game? 

 

 

Quote

 

As these changes significantly increase the scale of which these talents previously applied, these talents will be reset at the 0.28 Panacea release.

  • Organization Construct Management

  • Organization Construct Management Specialization

  • Advanced Organization Construct Management Specialization

 

Will we have 1625 * talent_multiplier @NQ-Wanderer , which will result into 3000-5000 cores per org?

This will be be a really solution for the whole forum thread.

 

Best regards,

 M 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if this is just about cutting down on cores, you should just make it so only the super legate skills work for core expansion, that way nesting is a non issues . you can also keep the new skill if people want to add more core to their org. even if you dont do this 2 weeks it to short of a time to fully train up the new skills needed for the core limits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ limited the core counts for a reason a few patches back, I understand that and we adapted.  Now you are going to cut it by 10 fold and there is no easy way to adapt to this unless we just start all over.

 

The best / easiest way to fix the issue with number of cores is to go with your original thoughts.  Limit number of orgs a single toon can be a super legate of, and just turn off any ability to nest.  I realize this will hurt a lot of large orgs, but it would create a limit and stop the talents of  a single toon in maxing out multiple orgs.

 

Simply turn off the nesting and limit a toon to being a super legate of one org.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, m0rrtson said:

Are the Org Construct Talents going to be applied? - Or they are removed from the game? 

I got answers....

1625 is amount of max slots, and each of them must be added by people. Max people involved is 65. And that is a lot of people.

65 * 25 = 1625

 

I do wish you can remain at least 1 Org talent, that will increase affect of slot contribution by 100% (5 levels ), so, with max talents we will have math:

13 people * 25 max slots * 100% * 5 talent_levels = 1625.

 

Involving 13 people is real.
This will allow us to limit cores, and maintain personal orgs. @NQ-Wanderer❤️

//M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The construct numbers are too low by far. 25 for a single player is a terrible idea. It screws builders and anyone with a even small showroom of ships. if you started at sea level with a tower would 25 even be enough?.

 

Just limit players from being in more then 1 or 2 orgs. then figure out how to deal with alts.

Too much construction has happened all ready to make so drastic a change.

 

or 

increase the personnel slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I'm really happy to hear that the element stacking issue is getting further consideration.

 

If you can stomp out the exploit, while still allowing as much freedom and flexibility in the system as possible, it's going to make ship building a lot more fun, and make ships look a lot better overall.  Great news!

Not happy till they (a) fix the algorithm so it’s not flagging elements that were never placed with the exploit and (b) a better way of finding them. On an L core with 1000 elements just saying ‘go check all your ailerons’ is weak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaders of the orgs don't want to run around and remind every member about the need to assign cores.

Members don't want their heads busy with that.

 

So if no one wants to use the feature - just remove it? Limits are fine, but when enforced automatically. It would be totally okay to give an org some cores when a player joins, or remove them, when he's left. You can even add a talent that increases the gain.

 

Also, limits are far too small. An organization of 5 people can have 60 cores for miners, 10 cores for HQ/Industry and a few dozens of ships and outposts. Taking into account that no people will ever spend any skillpoints on the useless (for them) core assigment talents... after patch they will definitely lose something. And there can be no unnecessary structures.

 

So it would be very good to have somewhere around 50 cores for person.

P.S. A person should have one primary org, for which his membership adds 50 to core count. Such an org must not include other orgs. A person must not have to train any talents that help ORGANIZATION. The legates are the only exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.f2dd4defb72962c2ec2498f65f690cb1.png

 

You can only take so many abusive patches. Its like for once punch yourselves in the face as hard as you can just to know what it feels like and come back and say this shiit is a good idea.

 

This will [filtered] so much shit up for no reason.

 

If you need money that bad [filtered]ING SELL SOMETHING. Anything. Hell build a game people actually might want to play. Make it P2W for all I care or drop a full FFA no bybble P2W setver. 

 

At this point NQ needs to reduce the size of the solar system since this isnt working with a full wipe, give the builders some kind of building instance planet they can live in that is a sepperate instance and just make it a 3 planet faction fighting game that is just PvP with set BPs for industrials, Ship Docks to spawn set BP ships from, Mining Rig Cores, Weapons platform/Defense Cores and just be done with it if the voxelmancy is the issue let the building planet instance the size of the moon be the place those BPs are Generated from for Specific Purposes for Cores and be done with it.

 

If players want more then they should have to pay for it by renting a small solar system instance where $100 a month gets you 1 moon size planet and if people in your faction that system is connected to then they can toss more money for more upgrades or additional systems to be added via $ purchases.

 

Watching NQ develop this game is like:

windy02.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Megabosslord said:

Not happy till they (a) fix the algorithm so it’s not flagging elements that were never placed with the exploit and (b) a better way of finding them. On an L core with 1000 elements just saying ‘go check all your ailerons’ is weak. 

I agree, regarding stacking-element-solution:

 

It tells me that few elements are having troubles, but they were never placed with exploit!

Few times I corrected, and fly the ship few times, then It start telling me some other elements are un troubles... ?

( that warning code is not perfect, - we can see, it needs obvious correction ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voxel Precision Tool great idea I think alot of people will enjoy and use to help build . Stacked elements a good thing to get rid of them you announced like 7 months ago they were going to be gone . But the limit on cores is to excessive . This is a building game where players create things that is the main draw of the game for many .

        

        Please increase the personal core limit from the 17 with max talents to like 30 with max talents and then have  cores  for mining units in addition to this trained up at same time as personal core talents to have like 25 mining unit cores to be only used for mining example below :

             Level 1 personal & mining core units +2 per Level trained = +2 to personal cores & +2 to mining unit cores

 

Then the organization core training may take a month to train so start with the 15 cores to allocate for it and maybe max train have like 30 or 40 cores for it . It would seem best to limit number of organizations joined to 2 . Keep the limit of 1625 for total cores but something has to be done about people abusing the system and having 5 or 10 alt characters . That and VR was the reason they abused the mission system and they will abuse this as well if something else is not done about it . It is not they enjoy playing 10 characters on 10 accounts but they do so to manipulate economy to say oh look at me I am rich while ruining game economy at the same time . So if nothing is done about it they will side step this core count restriction . I know you may say oh its more money for DU coffers but some are  on Beta keys so  . Nothing against someone having an alt or 2 and having fun as long as not  abusing it.

 

       So in closing thank you for listening and I think 30 personal cores then 25 mining cores and 30 to 40 org cores would be alot better but not to far overboard so people can build and not feel too restricted .

 

P.S. Extra Beta keys were to be given to brand new players not to alts . Thank you again.

Edited by Evoson
addition to clarify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Megabosslord said:

Not happy till they (a) fix the algorithm so it’s not flagging elements that were never placed with the exploit and (b) a better way of finding them. On an L core with 1000 elements just saying ‘go check all your ailerons’ is weak. 

idk if you know, but you can put your mouse over the red warning symbol, hit tab, and it will highlight the exact elements in red.

loaded.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... they really underestimate how a solo player can make interesting content. Can't make interesting sites. The culture of several prominent places will be abandoned.

 

I already have the foundations of a city yet to be built. Worked on making a logistics network to transport ore (myself). Making an in progress Alioth ring of like 10 L cores space station that I constantly have player missions. Have a separate space station outpost to support remote space rock mining missions. Also I have several missions supporting that station.

 

So yeah... if you wreck the solo builders, you'll hurt the amount of player missions as well. Solo builders, especially good ones, love using player missions.

Decreasing solo player core counts will harm player hauler missions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Skyreaper said:

Yeah so what's stopping everyone from applying the 15 constructs to their own org? Doesn't sound good to me with all the mining static constructs needed atm..what will be the player max now?

 

Re: stacked elements;

 

Have the players been naughty? Bad stackers! Hang on, wasnt it like 2 ppl needed to stack elements in what's called 'jenkomancy'? 

 

Elements now 'stacked' that are maybe one voxel space into another element were permitted by the build helper using only the arrow keys.

 

Although a bit of a bug, many games have them and they get called 'tricks', players' not naughty..programmers' naughty, leave old constructs alone that were NOT 'jenkomancy'.

 

2 ppl logging in and off to place elements inside each other is obviously an exploit, what was permitted by the build helper^

 

Conclusion: bit more slack on the leash pls, i cant even put adjusters on my engines now... not in, on! xD

 

Also, 25 XS static constructs that only have say maybe a couple miners and a container are very different from 25 L full voxel buildings/space ships..?

 

 

~5 of my ships are throwing the stacking error now when all I ever did was place with arrow keys. Either something is wrong with the algorithm, or NQ did a sneaky change to element hitboxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, in regards to the element stacking issue, I have ships I have built post-Selene using build mode with no exploits and it is still telling me my stuff is stacked.

 

I have another ship that is telling me I have a bunch of stacked stuff, so I move the offending elements to another area.  Half an hour later I sit in the seat and it tells me there's more stacked stuff, so I move those.  Repeat literally 5 times.  Why should I have to fix my ship 5 times?  Why can't it just tell me all at once?  Furthermore, why is it telling me my stuff is stacked when I didn't do any kind of exploit and simply used build mode as intended?  I'm all about disabling stacked elements, but the detection for them is pretty awful and finicky, and having it disable elements that were placed fairly in build-mode feels really really bad.

Imagine spending 2 hours building a ship and then sitting in the seat just to be told a few elements are "stacked" in a really tightly-packed area and now you have to literally undo an hour's worth of work just because two fuel tanks were kinda close to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea, instead of dropping this all on us in one release (fixing our ships, trying to figure out how to reallocate cores, go around in 2 wks and tokenise everything and do handovers, recruit org members, renegotiate terms, AND demolish a bunch of cores) give us:

 

- DAMAGE ASSESSMENT: the planned screen or JSON export with total count of our constructs by player and org (which we should have had a year ago.) THEN ask us for feedback so we can all make an informed decision on this release based on how much it will really impact us, 

 

- TOOLS TO EASE THE TRANSITION: a "quick demolish" cos we've all known forever that pulling down a L static is a frikking nightmare and you've just never listened; also fix static core alignment (again for the 1000th time) and other basic tools cos many of us are going to have to rearrange our whole set-up, move bases, consolidate with mining operations, relocate from surface to space, etc. also many players haven’t bothered to rebuild or move our bases yet from getting done over in Demeter geometry reset, and

 

- REASONABLE TIMEFRAMES: more than 2 wks(!) to absorb the initial reconstruction and redistribution of everything we've build in the last 16 mths.

 

- EXCLUDE SPACE CORES: I mean, this should have been blindingly obvious. Space stations might be big, but they're rarely close together, there's no terrain to render, and generally less traffic around them so system o/h is far lower than ground constructs. All those who want to build very large bases can move into space, driving gameplay progression and luring more players one-step closer to PvP.

 

Not rocket science. 

 

demolition.png.f8ed146f5ea8a6b8aaf0bfdf8595ac9c.png

Edited by Megabosslord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wokka1 said:

The best / easiest way to fix the issue with number of cores is to go with your original thoughts.  Limit number of orgs a single toon can be a super legate of, and just turn off any ability to nest.  I realize this will hurt a lot of large orgs, but it would create a limit and stop the talents of  a single toon in maxing out multiple orgs.

 

Simply turn off the nesting and limit a toon to being a super legate of one org.

in less the never implemented it i do believe each toon is only allowed to be the super legate of one org and can only be in 5 orgs. i do belive you can be grandfathered into more then 5 orgs though, but if you wanted to join a new one you need to drop down to 4 to add the 5th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that many folks have already chimed in on the topic of core restrictions, but I'm going to add mine to the mix...NQ-Deckard asked us to comment, so here it goes.

 

I'm new to DU, I didn't play during Alpha or early Beta due to limitations with my hardware, but once I had the financial ability to upgrade my system I did - the very first thing I did was install Dual Universe and get started. I've only been playing for about 3 months now - but learning curve aside and minor bugs here and there I've had a great time. 

 

I came for the mining - but shortly after I got going that was removed. Boo.

I moved to asteroids, but the ore market had tanked so I fired up as many MUs as I could. Still earning quanta was slow, but damn...I love this game. The visuals and the ability to literally do anything kept me around daily.

 

So I spent time learning how to build ships and other things, diving into voxelmancy and coming up with things to build and maybe sell...plus some grandiose plans for a massive base in the mountains. So I claimed numerous tiles to get started...taxes came.

 

Still, I pulled it together and kept things rolling. I hatched numerous plans and started building up my base and other projects. I felt the most creative that I've felt in MANY years. I was happy and being productive and more importantly learning and enjoying myself. 

 

Whoa! The vertex precision toll is on the horizon! Awesome, some very difficult to do voxel things I had planned will be easier...but wait...core limitations arrive.

 

As a solo-player running his own org with no other members this means that I'm restricted to just 25 constructs. Uhm. How is that supposed to work? My MUs total 6 core already, I have 4 ships currently and a base that is 6-7 cores currently, plus other constructs on the base. I'm near to the max already...and haven't even begun ship building projects or my mega base. 

 

To say that I'm disappointed and depressed over this planned change would be an understatement. In the very short time I've been in DU I've become very addicted to it and play every single days - for hours. But after this devblog was published I haven't logged in once. Why bother? My mega base will never become a reality, my current base building must stop - and even be shrunken down if I want to build any ships - or set up any more MUs.

 

I've worked in the software development/Engineering space for over 20 year. During which time I've seen my small application grow from 50,000 clients to over 1 million. During those years we've had MANY challenges and hit the wall on server and software limitations numerous times.

 

Do you know how we handled it? We increased our server(s) memory/CPU/storage, and when that cap was being reached we expanded our server farm. *WE* the organization delivering the service(s) to our clients took the costs of expanding, maybe prices to our clients were increased a little to compensate, but *never once did we say to our clients, "Sorry, but we can't handle you using our application the way it was designed for you to use it. You need to limit your usage.* Not once did that thought ever come into our minds.

 

Why? Because it's not good business. Period. The day you ask your clients to adjust to your shortcomings and limitations in that manner is the day that they stop being your clients. 

 

I totally understand your limitations and sympathize with your plight, but please - a change like this totally kills any chance for solo players to do anything creative in the game. At the very least increase the max to 50 constructs per player and a base of 50 for orgs. A limit of 100 constructs is bad, but it's a whole lot better than 25 - and something I can plan around. 

 

Thank you for considering this request. I still love DU and have high hopes for it, but right now I'm concerned for it's longevity. The outcry among the player base is quite dramatic. 

 

Good luck.

-Trakkur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i wish NQ would do when changing basic core mechanics or limits like it is the case for each update lately:
instead of throwing something out in a devblog to all, then receiving the hell of a shitstorm and then react and go back to the design table and leaving the playerbase wounded and demotivated.
Talk to us first,  i bet if you would have asked any senior player about the core limit , you could have avoided the shitstorm.
if you want constructive feedback let us now what the problem is you are trying to solve. you have a lot of game knowledge out there. we are the ones playing the game more than probably most of the NQ employees. so we might have good ideas. but to come out with potential solution ideas we need the problem statement first.
is it about server storage costs?
is it about network trafic?
is it about client limitations when rendering?
what are the problems, what is the data behind it.

i bet there are a lot of players like me who would happily think about it and come up with ideas. but just asking for feedback on an upcoming core limitation does not give me enough data to properly think about the problem itself and propose good potentiality working ideas.

So pls involve us. use us. but put a bit more on the table and preferable before creating damage by coming up with something that first sound like a final decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hagbard said:

What i would wish for NQ when changing basic core mechanics or limits like it is the case for each update lately,
instead of throwing something out in a devblog to all, then receiving the hell of a shitstorm and then react and go back to the design table and leaving the playerbase wounded and demotivated.
Talk to us first,  i bet if you would have asked any senior player about the core limit , you could have avoided the shitstorm.
if you want constructive feedback let us now what the problem is you are trying to solve. you have a lot of game knowledge out there. we are the ones playing the game more than probably most of the NQ employees. so we might have good ideas. but to come out with potential solution ideas we need the problem statement first.
is it about server storage costs?
is it about network trafic?
is it about client limitations when rendering?
what are the problems, what is the data behind it.

i bet there arte a lot of players like me who would happily think about it and come up with ideas. but just asking for feedback on an upcoming core limitation does not give me enough data to properly think about the problem itself and propose good potentitall working ideas.

So pls involve us. use us. but put a bit more on the table and preferable before creating damage by coming up with something that first sound like a final decision.

 

Well said. It's almost like my situation at my job with the developers. The most successful changes are those that involve the developers, engineers, DBAs, support, management. If only one team is involved in the change without the input of the others it usually ends up being a total disaster.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question: is the a DU or DIE thing for the game? Truth is there could have been different design choices that could be applied before reducing the core count drastically 
a) Why not make miners be able to be placed on same core but different territory?

b) Why not make a score system for cores, and lets say you can have 25 heavy loads, 50 medium and 100 light. It not the same having 1 core with miner + container as having 1 S hauler as having 1 LCore 1800 element industry 
c) Why not give us options do dismantle with right-click and 1 option, rather then having to do it slowly manually, this would help us free older constructs
d) Let us first have an option to dismantle abandoned constructs. I have for months someone crashed ship near my base, nothing i can do about it 
e) I'm sure there are other options to 

EDIT: Give us storage space inside Aphelia location (Markets, Mission givers, aso) that we can manage with RDMS to give access to specific people. Let us store items there so we dont have to clutter the locations with container constructs 

 

Edited by Varsolc
Added another suggestion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, m0rrtson said:

Are the Org Construct Talents going to be applied? - Or they are removed from the game? 

 

 

 

Will we have 1625 * talent_multiplier @NQ-Wanderer , which will result into 3000-5000 cores per org?

This will be be a really solution for the whole forum thread.

 

Best regards,

 M 

 


 

That will not be a solution!
The problem will be that as soon as the multiplier is set in the skills system, it will again be seen as a duty for players, as every player can then get these core places for themselves through skills. So it would be the same problem as now, that players only use organisations for themselves.

The solution here would be:

Increase the private character slots drastically as compensation. Then make it possible to donate character slots to an organisation in addition to the 15+10 org slots.

We want to move away from characters creating their own org for slots.

At the same time, however, it should be possible for an organisation to determine exactly which cores must be removed in the event of a loss; the organisation needs control over a core loss in order to rule out cheating. That's why I would also suggest that an organisation should have 4 weeks to remove cores and not just 2 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hagbard said:

if you want constructive feedback let us now what the problem is you are trying to solve.

It is partly understandable.

It is a problem that players form an organisation just to get to the core seats. This problem is now mitigated because an organisation only gives 15-10 places.

This creates a new problem because the private slots are too few and players are now founding organisations again in order to get to these 15+10 slots.

If the private slots were more plentiful, there would be no need for an organisation. (I had already written this several times, as an example 275 core slots skilled, expandable up to 1,000 core slots through an ingameshop.

+10 core slots cost a one-time fee of 5,-€.
limit with 1,000 slots it would be a maximum of 362.50€ for +725 slots (those who really need it should pay, if this is really a financial problem on the part of NQ.

Alternatively, one could also introduce a "premium subscription" that already includes the 1,000 core slots and then the subscription costs 5-10 € more per month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.  Here it goes.  I'm literally a bad patch away from giving up on this game.  I am the creator and owner of the Anvilworks Speedway on Alioth.  The entire reason that this came about is because I wanted to create content for a game that the developers can't even seem to do properly.  Without the players creating content there would be what exactly?  Mining, selling ships, and PVP... that's it.  This update will be the nail in the coffin for those of us who create and design for others to enjoy.  I have 3 people in my ORG and somewhere around 150 cores used for the race track alone (pits, signs, gates etc.)  This will be gone unless I beg people to donate cores?  SERIOUSLY?!?  On top of that after the decision to implement a tax on land I decided to finally create a ship shop to make money to pay for the tiles.  Thats going to be gone now as well.  No ships to display because all my cores will be tied up in the race track.  Here's a thought.  Create meaningful content for players to do before you run out of a player base.  Implement food, water, and health necessities.  At the same time make it so that players need to grow the food and produce water and other goods.  Make it so that you need to choose what it is you CAN do in DU.  Don't make it so that as long as you are training you can be the all knowing god of everything in talents.  Put a hard cap on talents to make the player choose wisely.  I specialize in my trade in real life.  Why should I be able to be a master pilot/technician/miner/factory designer/production specialist etc etc etc.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Hagbard said:

What i wish NQ would do when changing basic core mechanics or limits like it is the case for each update lately:
instead of throwing something out in a devblog to all, then receiving the hell of a shitstorm and then react and go back to the design table and leaving the playerbase wounded and demotivated.
Talk to us first,  i bet if you would have asked any senior player about the core limit , you could have avoided the shitstorm.
if you want constructive feedback let us now what the problem is you are trying to solve. you have a lot of game knowledge out there. we are the ones playing the game more than probably most of the NQ employees. so we might have good ideas. but to come out with potential solution ideas we need the problem statement first.
is it about server storage costs?
is it about network trafic?
is it about client limitations when rendering?
what are the problems, what is the data behind it.

i bet there are a lot of players like me who would happily think about it and come up with ideas. but just asking for feedback on an upcoming core limitation does not give me enough data to properly think about the problem itself and propose good potentiality working ideas.

So pls involve us. use us. but put a bit more on the table and preferable before creating damage by coming up with something that first sound like a final decision.

I think spot on. Adding to this maybe they can setup a few 'player journeys'. Ask a decent number of player how they play the game and what their needs are. How do people play the game and what are the needs beloning to those 'player journeys'. NQ can then make al of their decissions based on those 'approved' journeys.

* player journey = basicly a case decription on a certain kind of game play, what people do in the game. Not everybody is doing everything but most of us do combine certain play elelements. It is interesting to find out which different game play types there are and then based on this design your game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...