Jump to content

ROADMAP UPDATE: PREPARE FOR WAR WITH THE COMING OF 0.29 "ATHENA" - discussion thread


NQ-Wanderer
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Haunty said:

 

Yeah I think they mentioned in the past that it will not come before release. I think it will come eventually but I wish it was sooner.

 

Looking back with hindsight, i wonder if it would of been better to stick with their original development plans, and do AvA first.  Or did they see AvA as some hurdle too big and would hinder progress thats why the switched. Not sure, but I wonder if it would of been better, that way TW and tiles would of been fleshed out better, and you could shoot people that come onto your property trying to spy and stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, thinking about it, alien cores should just give bonuses to the person/org that controls it - not resources. Kind of like notum wars in Anarchy Online. It’d be cool if you could choose a perk when you capture a point, like higher XP gain, additional industry output or higher ore production in org contructs.

 

This is actually the perfect opportunity to make orgs relevant and give players incentive to defend them. It’s all about the rewards, and some alien goo or whatever the hell they give as resource won’t be enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Looking back with hindsight, i wonder if it would of been better to stick with their original development plans, and do AvA first.  Or did they see AvA as some hurdle too big and would hinder progress thats why the switched. Not sure, but I wonder if it would of been better, that way TW and tiles would of been fleshed out better, and you could shoot people that come onto your property trying to spy and stuff. 

This was actually what I was hoping for before they even introduced constrict combat. Setting up boarding parties by hacking Rez nodes on enemy ships, capturing enemy tiles by dropping troops on the ground under fire and taking down their TU, etc. Avatar perks would matter more then, especially jet pack ones. It’s be like being a light assault in PS2 and would change how people build bases. So much lost by them holding out.

 

As far as hauler vs combat ships, I kind of look at it like a typical mmo and not eve. Imagine outside of city hubs it’s pure pvp. You play a healer or tradeskiller and get rooted by a rouge while doing some gathering. You have no defensive ability or way to break root, to even have a chance to survive. You have a garden spade and not a sword, why try?

 

Thats not fun to me. I’d argue NOT giving haulers tools to be more slippery makes PvP boring. Shooting fish in a bucket is carebear in a sense, because the attacker is assuming no risk and has to put in minimal effort to meet his goals. Adding defensive measures only makes real combat more deep, and adds more layers for the pvpers to consider, even when evenly matched against other PvP players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:

 

 

As far as hauler vs combat ships, I kind of look at it like a typical mmo and not eve.

 

 

 

Thats your problem tho, this game doesnt mimic a typical MMO.  And its not a even too much like EvE, but does have similarities and was inspired by EvE and JC even if he isnt around anymore. Thats at least how it started.  You have freedom to build your ships in this game.  If you build them to haul mass amounts of goods, that puts you at a disadvantage against a pvp ship.  Your counter is not to be caught, or have pvp ships with you.  Or at the very least a set of guns to fight off 1 ship.  But if a group of pvp ships start to engage you, in what [filtered]in' world would it be fair for that 1 NON pvp ship to win against pvp ships?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:

As far as hauler vs combat ships, I kind of look at it like a typical mmo and not eve. Imagine outside of city hubs it’s pure pvp. You play a healer or tradeskiller and get rooted by a rouge while doing some gathering. You have no defensive ability or way to break root, to even have a chance to survive. You have a garden spade and not a sword, why try?

Lets consider the following situation. You running a fully loaded hauler through PvP space and encountered a pirate. You say you have no choices to outmaneuver the attacker, but what if your hauler is L-core construct with LOTS of space thrust and M-core construct with containers with cargo attached to it. Now you have an option to undock cargo and you will have acceleration advantage over your opponent, and now you have a chance to escape. Yes you loose your cargo, but you save the ship. Also you can simply contact attacker and suggest some money so they let you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@blazemonger There are in fact plenty of anti-pvp players. Unfortunately I've gotten in to arguments with them often enough that the moment someone says they need a "counter to pvp" it is something I've just come to assume.

 

     As regards pursuing an objective that is itself in pvp space, escorts, guns, and scouts are still solutions for that. If one wishes to pursue such objectives solo then there are more involved strategies for that too, but old-school mining generally makes me hate myself, so I lack enough personal data points with which to base a "you will avoid pvp % of time" claim. We can talk about those strategies as well in discord if you'd like, though as they involve trying to ninja something that is supposed to be a pvp objective, odds are that there will be much higher risk to it.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:

...

You play a healer or tradeskiller and get rooted by a rouge while doing some gathering. You have no defensive ability or way to break root, to even have a chance to survive. You have a garden spade and not a sword, why try?

...

     A significant part of pvp-areas is risking being attacked, and planning/equipping accordingly. You don't leave your weapons behind while entering an area you are going to need them in. Haulers can fly heavy, they can fit more armor under their shields than an interceptor can, and so are capable of winning that fight if they bring the same firepower. If you can't bring the same firepower then you need to properly out-smart them, you need a plan ahead of time to ensure your survival.

 

 

@Shreddder @VandelayIndustries That is indeed just me tagging in NQ to try and get their attention, they didn't say that themselves.
     AvA is tricky, you can more or less work it on the ground at avatar-run-speed, but all the client-side stuff makes it exponentially harder to do as velocity increases. At only 3600kph we are talking about just over a tenth of a second of desync being the difference between landing on a maximum-size L-core or missing it entirely. One must also contend with finding a way to both allow a hostile to "dock" to a ship while preventing people at large from building spatulas with which to abduct constructs from the safe-zone. No mistakes, it is a cool feature and I want it, but I find perfecting CvC to be a more practical goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Taelessael said:

 

 

 

     A significant part of pvp-areas is risking being attacked, and planning/equipping accordingly. You don't leave your weapons behind while entering an area you are going to need them in.

 

This is the funniest part, people talk like you said of no counters, but willing enter a pvp zone with no scout, no weapons, no friends, just a ship that is filled to the brim as to weigh the ship down making it accelerate slower.  All those were personal choices.  But i guess we do live in an age where people forgo personal responsibility for their actions and blame outward, instead of inward.  

 

One thing that stuck with me in early days in EvE was corp mates telling me (if you die, its your fault, and to get better is try to learn what you did wrong, and keep trying to impove) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

One thing that stuck with me in early days in EvE was corp mates telling me (if you die, its your fault, and to get better is try to learn what you did wrong, and keep trying to impove) 

 

Not wrong and frankly, it supports my argument in more ways then you may think. I fly in EVE with no weapons. I am confident I will not get caught unless I make a mistake or get unlucky. And I fly pretty much in Null and WH space exclusively as that is where my source of income in game is. The risk of getting caught is such that I can venture out and accept that this risk exists as in the long run it is negligible.

 

Now, if we move to DU, there is no way I will venture out into non safe zone space as anything potentially of value there has the inherent risk of me getting caught or stranded far beyond any possible value of what I may find there and the effort it may take to get it.

 

And I very much doubt what is coming in Athena wil change that, as from what I see now, this content is purely a conflict driver, designed and meant to create pewpew opportunity. You can argue this all you want, but the facts as we see them are that generally the playerbase ignores asteroids outside of the safezone and I expect the same will be true for these "alien cores".


The thing is, in EVE, sites like this would yield valuables and commodities that in turn feed into a number of possible other gameloops, and whether I, as an explorer, bring them in or a PVPer who happens to catch me, the items still end up on the market and in the hands of those players for whom they form the bases of _their_ gameplay.

Content like this needs to be designed to attract the NON PVP players and in turn give PVP players a chance to find and enage these players. That in itself is something I think NQ wants to achieve for DU (eventually), but they fail to grasp the core concept of this which is obvious by the fact they focus their explanation of this towards the PVP part which really is a sideeffect, or should be. 

As it is, this seems designed to atrtract PVP players and so, they will find.. each other. And the content itself gets lost in the middle of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

Not wrong and frankly, it supports my argument in more ways then you may think. I fly in EVE with no weapons. I am confident I will not get caught unless I make a mistake or get unlucky. And I fly pretty much in Null and WH space exclusively as that is where my source of income in game is. The risk of getting caught is such that I can venture out and accept that this risk exists as in the long run it is negligible.

 

Now, if we move to DU, there is no way I will venture out into non safe zone space as anything potentially of value there has the inherent risk of me getting caught or stranded far beyond any possible value of what I may find there and the effort it may take to get it.

 

And I very much doubt what is coming in Athena wil change that, as from what I see now, this content is purely a conflict driver, designed and meant to create pewpew opportunity. You can argue this all you want, but the facts as we see them are that generally the playerbase ignores asteroids outside of the safezone and I expect the same will be true for these "alien cores".


The thing is, in EVE, sites like this would yield valuables and commodities that in turn feed into a number of possible other gameloops, and whether I, as an explorer, bring them in or a PVPer who happens to catch me, the items still end up on the market and in the hands of those players for whom they form the bases of _their_ gameplay.

Content like this needs to be designed to attract the NON PVP players and in turn give PVP players a chance to find and enage these players. That in itself is something I think NQ wants to achieve for DU (eventually), but they fail to grasp the core concept of this which is obvious by the fact they focus their explanation of this towards the PVP part which really is a sideeffect, or should be. 

As it is, this seems designed to atrtract PVP players and so, they will find.. each other. And the content itself gets lost in the middle of it.

 

 

im more interested in the how than the why of this patch (when combat starts, not why it starts) but I do agree with part of that as I said the DSAT is stupid.  It gives no incentives for non-pvpers to go to asteroids, and in turn also hurts the pvpers.  If they made a 10su range long range radar that "pinged" a general direction of stuff in space (wreck,roid,ship) would greatly increase exploration.  And that radar would take time as to not be spammed.  And then you add the mystery of finding an exotic roid that isnt easy to do, now it becomes more valulable.  And if you are 120 su from Jago in a random direction, no one knows you are there if u the first to find it.  No one may ever rind you, or maybe they do, but it takes time and exploration, which in turn would lead more people to go out because they would have some success rate, but still possible for pvp people to find other people for pew pew content.  And its good active gameplay. 

 

 

Edited by VandelayIndustries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really hoping these alien cores have modules on them that can only be gotten from the alien cores. That way players want to go there. And not just another way to get ore. And once you start picking the item up. There is a 22 hour timer before the item can be removed from the core. (A way to create a choke point for conflict)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RugesV said:

Really hoping these alien cores have modules on them that can only be gotten from the alien cores. That way players want to go there. And not just another way to get ore. And once you start picking the item up. There is a 22 hour timer before the item can be removed from the core. (A way to create a choke point for conflict)

Yeah, wonder what would be in them...T6 ore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Thats your problem tho, this game doesnt mimic a typical MMO.  And its not a even too much like EvE, but does have similarities and was inspired by EvE and JC even if he isnt around anymore. Thats at least how it started.  You have freedom to build your ships in this game.  If you build them to haul mass amounts of goods, that puts you at a disadvantage against a pvp ship.  Your counter is not to be caught, or have pvp ships with you.  Or at the very least a set of guns to fight off 1 ship.  But if a group of pvp ships start to engage you, in what [filtered]in' world would it be fair for that 1 NON pvp ship to win against pvp ships?  

It may not be a typical mmo, but drawing inspiration from a two decades old game isn’t exactly inspiring, either.

 

I don’t think anyone in their right mind would, or has, suggested a single non PvP ship should be able to take on any number of combat ships. You said it yourself, they’re at an inherent disadvantage, more so when speed changes are implemented probably.


That would be a silly expectation. Even an armed hauler is at a disadvantage vs a dedicated attack ship, between the extra mass and the build restrictions.

 

You say the solution is to not get caught, but outside of avoiding the pipe (which isn’t much of a guarantee), there are no counter measures to avoid enemies. There are no sensor jammers or an otherwise way to go dark, so if you’re made, you’re dead. I don’t see the challenge in that for either party, but that’s just me. When 90% of the challenge is finding a target for PvP ships, that seems kind of boring to me.

 

 

 

At the very least I’d like to see ships whose engines aren’t running be harder to spot and have a device that can send dummy radar pings to throw people off, but maybe that’s just me. Also, have the stasis weapons effect be able to stack, so maybe the meta for haulers is to jam a lot of those to outpace your persuer. If you’re built for hauling, you aren’t winning any slugfests, especially if your a ship balancing space and atmo.

 

I think giving non dedicated PvP ships a chance to put smart or otherwise slip out of an attackers grasp makes things interesting, and might actually result in more people braving the pipe since the encounter isn’t certain death.

 

As far as combat escorts, you can’t count on someone being available for that and it adds cost to your trip, considerably. Getting someone to slow boat a few hundred SU with you won’t be cheap or even fun. For the cost, you may as well warp, probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:

...I don’t think anyone in their right mind would, or has, suggested a single non PvP ship should be able to take on any number of combat ships. You said it yourself, they’re at an inherent disadvantage, more so when speed changes are implemented probably.


That would be a silly expectation. Even an armed hauler is at a disadvantage vs a dedicated attack ship, between the extra mass and the build restrictions.

...

If you’re built for hauling, you aren’t winning any slugfests, especially if your a ship balancing space and atmo....

Most experienced pilots wont go pirating in a battleship, they wouldn't be fast enough to catch anything. Typically they use interceptors that are protected with an L shield and some wet tissue-paper. If you armor your hauler up, match the interceptor's weapons, and keep them in your sights, then your hauler will in all likeliness out-last the interceptor in a slug-out. Note: cross-sections are still important, don't neglect them when designing a battle-hauler.

 

57 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:

...You say the solution is to not get caught, but outside of avoiding the pipe (which isn’t much of a guarantee)...

There are no guarantees, only statistical probabilities. Statistically, if you avoid the pipe, and watch your radar (atmo and space), and change the direction you are going toward to avoid the pipe after your radar is clear of contacts, then you will avoid pvp 99% of the time (I run pvp-space missions all the time, never lost a ship, only times I've even been shot is when I was being lazy about avoiding pirates).

 

57 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:

...At the very least I’d like to see ships whose engines aren’t running be harder to spot and have a device that can send dummy radar pings to throw people off, but maybe that’s just me.

...

As far as combat escorts, you can’t count on someone being available for that and it adds cost to your trip, considerably. Getting someone to slow boat a few hundred SU with you won’t be cheap or even fun...

Stealth is cool, we all want that, and your decoys are your buddies just hopping in to something and flying around for 10 min to distract the pirates while you clear the pipes, they don't need to follow you the whole trip, the chances of being caught between planets when flying a dozen or so SU totally clear of all pipes after making sure nobody saw which direction you were going in order to clear the pipe are statistically so low that you are far more likely to be insided by someone you thought was a friend/ally. 

 

57 minutes ago, Novidian Prime said:

...Also, have the stasis weapons effect be able to stack, so maybe the meta for haulers is to jam a lot of those to outpace your persuer. 

The pirates can and will use all the same hardware you have access to, and most of 'em wont have an issue bringing an extra guy along to fit a full rack of stasis guns on a chair (if that's a thing) to eat in to your speed just as much as you eat in to theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

Its hilarious seeing the carebears in this thread.  Anytime NQ tries to put anything in the PvP zone are start on development its just complete whining.  Then making strawman arguments about "losing player base" and then just random assumptions about haulers having no counters.  You do have a counter, build a PVP ship with some cargo hold.  

 

The game is about choices. If you chose to build a defenseless hauler, that carries 40kt of weight.  You are gonna be always at a disadvantage if a pvp ship finds you. ALWAYS.  That was your choice.  Remeber there are safe zone missions if you cant handle this.



PvP is an important pillar of this game, a pillar that is more of a stone at the moment.

Current situation is this: we have haulers simply staying away from the pipe and easily being able to avoid the 2SU bubble that hunters have, it sucks for the hunter because there is no skill, it is pure luck that is heavily reliant on lazy players and honestly the haulers have it easy ( I made billions as a hauler for missions and if I activated all my accounts I could make billions a week).

The current situation is also that we have missions that require players to play screensaver online, any escorts that come along will simply be doing it for the quanta in the current state and they will be required to sit there for 5-6hours straight waiting for that 1 percent chance of a contact, we can both agree this is boring for every single player involved.

Even so let's say a freighter brings an escort along, doesn't matter, any decent pvp org is going to be flying in teams, the chances the freighter makesd it out of most engagements are slim, at least without being virtually destroyed because there are no mechanics for escorts to provide shield support, to intercept fire or to provide interference to enemy weapons - there is an argument for bringing more escorts I suppose but the population of this game as it is........escorts want action and as you have admitted the chances of action are about 1 percent if you aren't lazy and any freighter that pays for an escort is not going to fly down a pipe unless it is bait.

A BIG problem with this game is PvP doesn't exist outside of prearranged fights or astronomical encounters, 9/10 it boils down to ganking which isn't engaging, now, you could tell me to suck it up and avoid you better (which I already do, in the 100s of mission runs i did i got caught twice and both times were due to players on ship prior to the mechanic of being able to eject players from constructs) but that isn't good for you fun per minute, you don't want people to put a hard emphasis on avoiding you because that is totally boring.

In other words what this game needs is an incentive for escorts to escort (make the trips 1 hour long as an example rather than 6 hours by either increasing max speeds or lowering distance from planets and scaling payout accordingly), escorting is more likely to be a thing if you can escort for an hour then log off, at present you will be lucky to find someone willing to escort as a service without making the haul itself worthless to do.

This game also needs to do away with the insane 2SU radar limit, times that by 10 but make the radar a mechanic (only able to ping for a certain core size in a certain direction as an example).

Stasis guns seem good but let's forget freighters for a moment, this kind of weapon needs a counterplay, PvP needs depth, you make frequent remarks about eve, well outside of large fleet battles you have options in the forms of various modules and classes of ships which DU doesn't have.

I'm not sure why you are so against non pvp ships having some pvp buttons to push, sure, they should not be ableto hold their own in a fight at all, maybe they can dissuade a poorly constructed pvp ship if their ship sacrifices cargo space for tank or whatever but not a well-thought out pvp ship with a prepared pilot.

What they could be able to do is use mechanics to call in the cavalry providing they fit a proper tank, this is something that happens in eve, an example that is probably outdated is the rorqual and it fitting a cyno.

Cyno mechanics would be great, might even act as a way to solve the previously described 'escort' issue, freighters could pay a organisation to be 'on call' freighter light cyno and the cavalry can warp to, of course this isn't perfect as force projection but there could be balance (those on call needing to have outposts throughout the system with active pilots in order to cover the solar system).

What I am trying to convey here is that not every non-pvp player wants an 'i win' button or 'i escaped' button, what they want is a game that is fun and engaging rather than 'engage auto pilot, fly off pipe and then engage autopilot, watch netflix....profit' likewise pirates don't want 'fly from a to b and hope for radar contact because a player was lazy or unlucky'.

To get that engaging gameplay we need more PvP mechanics and some of the mechanics will be applicable to a freighter, personally I kind of like the idea of ships being warp beacons for a cost and escorts flying in, people get their pvp, we get another profession in the form of mercenary and with proposed radar changes and even speed increases/space shrink we should get more encounters.

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

Or at the very least a set of guns to fight off 1 ship.  But if a group of pvp ships start to engage you, in what [filtered]in' world would it be fair for that 1 NON pvp ship to win against pvp ships?  

T

But what about huge battle ships, they have the same problem. 

 

With CSS they can’t just tank their way through a combat. The large weapons have problems with smaller hitting smaller cores, and now they can’t even chase if they are doing well.

 

Yes it will mean no S core size ships on L cores, but what about actual large L core battle ships, still no place for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CoyoteNZ said:

T

But what about huge battle ships, they have the same problem. 

 

With CSS they can’t just tank their way through a combat. The large weapons have problems with smaller hitting smaller cores, and now they can’t even chase if they are doing well.

 

Yes it will mean no S core size ships on L cores, but what about actual large L core battle ships, still no place for them?

 

Yes there can be a place if NQ balances right and L cores get more CCS, more shields and more resist pool. They will be for holding grid, or sieging, perfect for those alien cores where there is a fixed point to fight over that hopefully has lots of value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Yes there can be a place if NQ balances right and L cores get more CCS, more shields and more resist pool. They will be for holding grid, or sieging, perfect for those alien cores where there is a fixed point to fight over that hopefully has lots of value.

Don’t need more shields, they need to limit shields to cores so S cores aren’t using L shields.

 

Maybe if they brought in power management, so then the L cores could just have piles of batteries or generators to keep their shields charged unless they were actually attacked by a realistic force, as CSS broke L cores being able to tank their way through until a real challenge arrived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CoyoteNZ said:

Don’t need more shields, they need to limit shields to cores so S cores aren’t using L shields.

 

 

 That's basically what I meant

 Tho I would rebalnce them. M have 15mil, S 10mil, xs 5mil.

Edited by VandelayIndustries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bleakcon said:

...I'm not sure why you are so against non pvp ships having some pvp buttons to push...

3 hours ago, bleakcon said:

...What I am trying to convey here is that not every non-pvp player wants an 'i win' button or 'i escaped' button...

The issue is less one of fearing armed haulers and more one of a pvp favoring player that has been in so many arguments with players that think pvp should be banned that their first reflex to someone asking for a "counter to pvp" is to assume that person is the stereotypical care-bear trying to get a "turn pvp off button". Everyone that believes pvp should be a part of this game also generally agrees that it needs to be more complex, that non-conventional combat needs to be a thing, and that for any given offense there needs to be a counter (that isn't just a larger amount of that same offense). 

 

3 hours ago, bleakcon said:

...In other words what this game needs is an incentive for escorts to escort (make the trips 1 hour long as an example rather than 6 hours by either increasing max speeds or lowering distance from planets and scaling payout accordingly), escorting is more likely to be a thing if you can escort for an hour then log off, at present you will be lucky to find someone willing to escort as a service without making the haul itself worthless to do.

This game also needs to do away with the insane 2SU radar limit, times that by 10...

If NQ were to increase radar range, then for balance reasons they also need to increase weapon range, engine output, and (as you suggested) maximum non-warp speed. This would in turn require some manner of clamp-down on missions so as to prevent runners like myself from going ham and destroying the economy, such as a cap on how many Aphelia missions can be run in a day (perhaps via a point-system relative to the package-size or mission payout so as to avoid crippling newer players that run a greater number of the smaller missions). It would also necessitate an increase in the distance required to travel to reach asteroids to stop people from burning those all up too quickly. I would very much approve of this.

 

3 hours ago, bleakcon said:

...make the radar a mechanic (only able to ping for a certain core size in a certain direction as an example)...

Stealth mechanics are cool, but they need to be a lot more involved than that, and given desync and potential scripting exploits I'd advise putting mechanics like this on the back burner until we have more practical things like e-war and heat/power management dialed in properly.

 

3 hours ago, bleakcon said:

...personally I kind of like the idea of ships being warp beacons for a cost and escorts flying in, people get their pvp, we get another profession in the form of mercenary and with proposed radar changes and even speed increases/space shrink we should get more encounters.

I like the idea of having the ability to cyno a fleet in, but the game is not at all big enough yet to allow that degree of force-projection, particularly since pirates would be using it too as a preemptive measure in preparation for their target potentially doing the same. It would annihilate the small orgs. 

 

1 hour ago, CoyoteNZ said:

Don’t need more shields, they need to limit shields to cores so S cores aren’t using L shields.

 

Maybe if they brought in power management, so then the L cores could just have piles of batteries or generators to keep their shields charged unless they were actually attacked by a realistic force, as CSS broke L cores being able to tank their way through until a real challenge arrived. 

Capping shield size to core size will do the exact same thing as it did when they capped weapons to core size: it will raise the price of L cores and make anyone that can afford it use them just to have access to the size capped items while still building to more or less S-core volume. 

 

What they need to do in this area is to remove the cap to weapon-sizes, and then do as you suggest in the second part and just implement some kind of power/heat system so that if people want something big they need to have the appropriate power and/or cooling systems to make use of it. Altering the CCS curve to buff the use of armor on larger ships as many here have suggested also wouldn't hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

Looking back with hindsight, i wonder if it would of been better to stick with their original development plans, and do AvA first. 

 

When was AvA ever supposed to come first?

 

AvA has many more factors playing into it than CvC in space. Abd to be honest, seeing how NQ has gutted their server tech in order to be able to keep paying the bills, I doubt they hav ethe headroom to even consider adding it until they will be at a point where the game has showsn to be able to stand oin it's own through sunscriptions and the cash shop.

For AvA to have meaning, TW needs to be in place and with it the defensive mechanics and options that allow it to be viable. That whole loop wil take NQ at least a year to design and get in to the game in a basic form. I really do not see that happen until some time after release, if ever.

I also question how viable and/or functional AvA will be with Lock-Fire mechanics. That seems to not make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what does this thing add for all players with respect to the overal DU idea of Building Civilization?

 

Nothing

 

What does it bring then?

 

I absolutely have no idea where this fits the lore or the core idea of DU, this is just something thrown together that fits better in Empyrion and frankly there it already is. 

So i see we are moving closer and closer to be an empyrion clone and further away from the characteristics of DU

 

Hopefully the next addition is true to DU and actually adds something that really helps in building Civilization, reall exploration, actual reall conflict with meaning and PURPOSE.  As for some reason only additions are good for pirates and grievers.

 

What also is getting more clear after every patch is that wipe will be unavoidable, and NQ probably already knows that.

 

Lets hope we will se the next best sing soon: DU_NE The survival MMO

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

When was AvA ever supposed to come first?

 

AvA has many more factors playing into it than CvC in space. Abd to be honest, seeing how NQ has gutted their server tech in order to be able to keep paying the bills, I doubt they hav ethe headroom to even consider adding it until they will be at a point where the game has showsn to be able to stand oin it's own through sunscriptions and the cash shop.

For AvA to have meaning, TW needs to be in place and with it the defensive mechanics and options that allow it to be viable. That whole loop wil take NQ at least a year to design and get in to the game in a basic form. I really do not see that happen until some time after release, if ever.

I also question how viable and/or functional AvA will be with Lock-Fire mechanics. That seems to not make much sense.

 

Watch the older videos during pre alpha. They literally stated plain as day "we will be developing AvA first and then later will do CvC" this obv changed but there are videos still on YouTube that say this if you want to look. Obviously they changed plans, but the reasoning I don't remember them saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

but the reasoning I don't remember them saying.

 

Do they need one? All the reasoning we see lately is plainly not entirely true. All has to do with cash and server power, i also remember they told us stuff in inventory would end up in a box at death, well i died 4 times yesterday and no boxes, why? server power. Else the whole planet would be filled with death boxes.

 

When are we getting a patch that actually lets us build civilization, incentive to stay on the planet and build? or to build actual armadas to go colonize the outer rim? When will we see players near our structures again because its fun to be around buildings? At the moment all buildings are static art objects with no function what so ever. Also the small core sizes do that. there is no reason to build a large hanger or underground space yard, there isn't even the need for a spaceyard at all. 

But that probably begins with the choice of DU to follow the empyrion route to development and not the Space engineers way.

In short DU is more and more becoming an Empyrion clone with as only real difference the single server.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Watch the older videos during pre alpha. They literally stated plain as day "we will be developing AvA first and then later will do CvC" this obv changed but there are videos still on YouTube that say this if you want to look. Obviously they changed plans, but the reasoning I don't remember them saying.

 

Actually The first public discussion about PVP immediately set up the "CvC first, AvA later" idea and HERE it is..

 

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...