Jump to content

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


NQ-Wanderer
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

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

 

 

Bro that is during ALPHA 3. LOOOOOOOOL.  

 

 

 

Around the 7:30 mark, he literally days AvA is to start and CvC is a stretch goal.  When I talk, you should listen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever.. If you choose to prioritize a fantasy "we dream of doing this" over " here is what will happen"  then .. sure.. 

 

That guy on the left jumped ship very soon after with most of the devs at that time to join a studio working on a tilte for Ubisoft and the guy on the right... Well, he was eventually fired for being an incompetent manager, wasting resources chasing his dream with no sense of reality and repeatedly making promises he could not keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Whatever.. If you choose to prioritize a fantasy "we dream of doing this" over " here is what will happen"  then .. sure.. 

 

 

 

You seem to lack severe reading comprehension.  Ya Avatar combat is fantasy, thats why every other MMO has it....lol ok.   And I never said either was better, in my original post I just pondered if things would been different if they chose that development process over switching, in no way I said it would be better.  

 

'

image.png.a46564a4de09cac08d8bfeb127f8d5b8.png

'

 

That also sounds exactly like JC.  Incompetent, and eventually removed for chasing a dream with no reality.  The "no red flags guy".  JC lived in more fantasy then that guy or anyone else.   When asked how big ships could be, he was quoted as say "no technical limit"  Yet we are bound by the size of a Dynamic L core because.....of technical limits.  Shocking.  But as I already proved to you, AvA was the original design.  That is fact.  Glad I could educate you. 

 

 

Edited by VandelayIndustries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Taelessael said:

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). 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.


Largely agree with what you said here, force projection is a difficult thing to balance, we need look no further than eve to see the issues it raises but the issue I see with DU is the time investments currently required to escort being a real burdern, One point to mention is that if we allowed for higher max speeds this would mean a lot more fuel being required, anyhow any changes need to come with radar being made much better, 2su is pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bleakcon said:


Largely agree with what you said here, force projection is a difficult thing to balance, we need look no further than eve to see the issues it raises but the issue I see with DU is the time investments currently required to escort being a real burdern, One point to mention is that if we allowed for higher max speeds this would mean a lot more fuel being required, anyhow any changes need to come with radar being made much better, 2su is pathetic.

 

2su is pathetic. But you are right about force protection.  If people actually start really pvping and NQ keeps developing pvp and allows for people to control valuable things, or land beyond Alien cores we gonna have real issues. When the whole server can at the push of a button warp to any location this will lead to huge problems.  And right now make no mistake, anywhere inside the ring of planets, along with beacons you can create warp vectors to land on or close to any way point.  We just don't really see the problems now because there is nothing to hold or fight over. Nobody cares if someone bunches up on an asteroid, there is too many and they respawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

You seem to lack severe reading comprehension. 

mirror, mirror.. But it's OK ..

 

4 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

But as I already proved to you, AvA was the original design.  That is fact.  Glad I could educate you. 

 

You've proven you think a plan/pitch == design. The PLAN was for AvA with a stretch goal of CvC. As time passed, NQ realized that AVA in the context of DU would not work without some serious work so they decided to, when the time came to actually start designing the combat mechanic, to go with CvC as it actually was more viable even when it was, and is, shockingly clunky.

For now, it appears that AvA, and honestly with it TW on planets, is off the table. What NQ is trying to sell as "space TW" really is Asteroids v2.0, it's another bolt on event that is not integrated into the core game at all, it sits on top of it. What NQ calls Space TW has _nothing_ to do with the original plan for TW and it's very obvious.

 

NQ is out of time, out of options and out of room to manoeuvre. They need to release a game in what now is probably about to be a single digit number of months and have very little worth releasing. To see what they have is barebones is being optimistic. They have now gone from declaring a MVP mechanic as "tick the box, done" to spinning words to try and pretend they are able to call something enough of what they said would happen to tick that box.

I still hope there is a rabbit in the hat somewhere and NQ can ad will pull it out, but I increasingly start getting the feeling there may not be one. a LOT will ride on what Athena brings, if it is as little as it appears to be.. well.. I think that will be it..

 

And likewise..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

mirror, mirror.. But it's OK ..

 

 

You've proven you think a plan/pitch == design. The PLAN was for AvA with a stretch goal of CvC.

 

image.png.5a78591da93d0d01f8ca8d3a23acefdb.png

 

Thats exactly what I said. Give a [filtered]ing rest.  You are repeating exactly what I said.  You came in and then said CvC was planned first, in a video 2 years ago, and then I showed you a video proving AvA was the PLAN.  

 

image.png.78fd823e3656cb52c722a612ed3eb7d6.png

 

Also, maybe English isn't your first language, if so ill give it a pass, but design can be a synonym for plan.  

Edited by VandelayIndustries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

but design can be a synonym for plan.  

True, but.. semantics ..  and keyword there is CAN

 

Your interpretation here is obviously not mine. I can also see we will not agree on this.. ever .. so.. whatever.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bleakcon said:

Largely agree with what you said here, force projection is a difficult thing to balance, we need look no further than eve to see the issues it raises but the issue I see with DU is the time investments currently required to escort being a real burdern, One point to mention is that if we allowed for higher max speeds this would mean a lot more fuel being required, anyhow any changes need to come with radar being made much better, 2su is pathetic.

Perhaps if their were a way to allow surrogates to pilot xs-core ships? A lot of folk consider them irrelevant in pvp because they just cant close range effectively against larger ships, but if launched from something that is already trying to run, then they could pressure attackers in to having to choose between pursuing the hauler and letting the fighters close range, or dealing with them and risking the hauler's escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 8:05 PM, Taelessael said:


-Your cargo-heavy hauler will never outrun a purpose-built interceptor regardless of speed-caps.
 

I've done it actually. It just takes good piloting and some luck. (and the enemy pilot has to make a wrong guess, but it's easy to lead him to that.) But a lower speed cap than the attacker would have stopped me and completely removed any risk or fun in the conflict - he would have auto-won and I would have auto-lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daphne Jones said:

I've done it actually. It just takes good piloting and some luck. (and the enemy pilot has to make a wrong guess, but it's easy to lead him to that.) But a lower speed cap than the attacker would have stopped me and completely removed any risk or fun in the conflict - he would have auto-won and I would have auto-lost.

 

Other people in this forum say in the current state of the game a hauler can never get away, haha. Funny how that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Other people in this forum say in the current state of the game a hauler can never get away, haha. Funny how that is.

A heavy atmo-capable hauler can never get away. That's true.

 

This was a light, space only hauler with a lot of excess thrust that I was using for asteroid mining. It was also armed but that was more for flipping the bird at the pirates cause those M lasers couldn't really even hit them, much less damage them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The best news of all is that we plan to release a smaller update between now and Athena release to introduce some quality of life improvements."

 

i hope this includeds things like fixing the fog on teoma

it would nice for a fix to the abismal minefield of making waypoints and the system in genral i dont need be able lock on to my friend i can just ask them. if it worked well. and if they now die they can paste me the coardianates of the notification.

small fixes like having enter key work when you add an amount in things..

 

otherwise im really excited for the new things :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Daphne Jones said:

I've done it actually. It just takes good piloting and some luck. (and the enemy pilot has to make a wrong guess, but it's easy to lead him to that.)...

I suppose I should have included the words "competently designed and flown" in front of purpose built interceptor, but you have me there, I should have been more specific.

 

6 hours ago, Daphne Jones said:

...But a lower speed cap than the attacker would have stopped me and completely removed any risk or fun in the conflict - he would have auto-won and I would have auto-lost.

 

2 hours ago, Daphne Jones said:

... It was also armed but that was more for flipping the bird at the pirates cause those M lasers couldn't really even hit them, much less damage them.

Based on how it was worded, it sounds like larger cores will have a lower speed cap. You may dislike the idea of having to fight/defend yourself, but assuming you fit weapons the same size as your ship's core, you'd now have at minimum (assuming equal skills and using the same weapon types) twice the range and almost twice the DPS per player of anything with a higher top speed than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Taelessael said:

I suppose I should have included the words "competently designed and flown" in front of purpose built interceptor, but you have me there, I should have been more specific.

 

 

Based on how it was worded, it sounds like larger cores will have a lower speed cap. You may dislike the idea of having to fight/defend yourself, but assuming you fit weapons the same size as your ship's core, you'd now have at minimum (assuming equal skills and using the same weapon types) twice the range and almost twice the DPS per player of anything with a higher top speed than you.

I don't mind fighting, but I do object to DU being turned into a fantasy game by giving ships different artificial speed limits. The current speed limit functions like the speed of light in general relativity. It's not a perfect simulation, but probably as close as you can get in a game engine that models absolute speed (which doesn't exist in reality).

 

All they really have to do is raise the speed of light to something that can't be reached in a reasonable amount of time and the higher acceleration of combat ships will give them the advantage they're looking for. And yeah, I would stay out of the combat zone in that situation because it would be auto-win in all situations for the pirates then. It's not a fight if you can't possibly win.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Daphne Jones said:

I don't mind fighting, but I do object to DU being turned into a fantasy game by giving ships different artificial speed limits.

Agreed, it is quite unrealistic, and while I appreciate the balance reasons, it still annoys me..

 

Unfortunately NQ have shot themselves in the foot there, they want a variety of ship sizes to be used and don't want one core size to just be unambiguously the best like it is now, but if you can afford it there aren't currently really any good mechanical reasons to use core-sizes smaller than L (aside from docking, which generally isn't enough of a reason). They'd probably need to introduce multiple new mechanics at this point if they wanted to get a spread of sizes without something absurd like the speed thing.

Personally, I'd suggest both heat (to encourage small builds that would cool quickly enough to avoid overheating) and power (encouraging large builds needing enough space for capacitors/reactors/ect to power larger shields/weapons/ect), but that probably wouldn't do much to keep people from just building small stuff on L cores like they are now, particularly with the absurd weapon-size cap...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taelessael said:

Agreed, it is quite unrealistic, and while I appreciate the balance reasons, it still annoys me.

 

I don't want realism.  No one wants realism. We want a video game. People didn't pay into kickstarter for realism, they did for a game. Carebears have no problem with warp, don't complain about realism there do they? Or space breaks? Or AGG, or invisible linked range, or any of that. No we need these speed changes and caps because NQ is making a game, and they need People to play and pay for that game, not to appease a couple nerds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

I don't want realism.  No one wants realism. We want a video game. People didn't pay into kickstarter for realism, they did for a game.

We know, says who, sure and no, realism was actually part of the KS pitch and _many_ of us original backers specifically came to the game because of it (and many left the game behind due to the lack of it by now). As a relative newcomer to the game, you sure seem to pretend to speak for all of us/claim to know it all (unless you had to create a new account due to your original being unavailable to log in with).

 

The game applying Newtonian physics was actually a part of the original pitch during KS and throughout communication leading up to and during Alpha.

 

8 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

Carebears

And here we go again.. as you run out of arguments you just start polarizing  again..

 

  

8 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

have no problem with warp, don't complain about realism there do they? Or space breaks? Or AGG, or invisible linked range, or any of that. No we need these speed changes and caps because NQ is making a game, and they need People to play and pay for that game,

 

No, I'd not have a problem with AGG if it had cost attached to using it, and not be some magical force that just "is". AGG was supposed to be (heavily) reliant on energy/power management systems and NQ never brought that to the table, still you still are able to float in the air without cost.

I'd not have a problem with linked containers not being a thing but frankly, it is a requirement for the game to work as you can't carry enough components to spawn a blueprint in many cases and NQ has never brought the "promised" factory units to solve that issue.

Space breaks are just engines really. I would actually prefer to see proper retro thrust mechanics or requirement but as it is, they are just engines.

Setting speed caps based on the core size if inherently going to be upsetting the game balance as it puts game variables in a place where they should not be. But it is the easy way out of a problem for NQ, so they take it instead of a more elegant and gameplay driven one. The objection is not "just" because it's not "realistic", it's because NQ is continually choosing cheap exits to "solve" a problem by just making it a number in the database, instead of creating a game focussed solution.

You continue to fail or ignore the reasoning behind arguments and just rip a part out of context in order to generalize a group of players and polarize the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 10:25 PM, XKentX said:

So flying from A to B on a big ship will take longer. Yay \o/.

I am really hoping these speed changes are during combat lock only as it doesn't make sense to limit top speed by core size.  Crates of sand could end up taking 8hours plus to complete?  That really doesn't sound fun at all :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, i2eilly said:

I am really hoping these speed changes are during combat lock only as it doesn't make sense to limit top speed by core size.  Crates of sand could end up taking 8hours plus to complete?  That really doesn't sound fun at all :(

 

as opposed to the current fun of 4+ hours?  Its bad game design from the get go regardless.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

as opposed to the current fun of 4+ hours?  Its bad game design from the get go regardless.  

Exactly, it is already boring going afk for extended periods of time.  Adding more time to that just kills one part of the game to make another more fun. 

 

I agree we need more diversity in PvP, but not sure locking core speeds will really do much.  It will really only affect ships that run away. 

 

Most ships I fight want to fight, so we are normally below 10,000kmph until one starts to flee the fight.  Maybe pirating haulers is different as most the fight is chasing the hauler at top speeds.

 

 

Haulers are always dead regardless unless the PvP pilot makes some huge mistake, a 2-3g Hauler isn't getting away from a 15-19g PvP ship.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, i2eilly said:

Exactly, it is already boring going afk for extended periods of time.  Adding more time to that just kills one part of the game to make another more fun. 

 

I agree we need more diversity in PvP, but not sure locking core speeds will really do much.  It will really only affect ships that run away. 

 

Most ships I fight want to fight, so we are normally below 10,000kmph until one starts to flee the fight.  Maybe pirating haulers is different as most the fight is chasing the hauler at top speeds.

 

 

Haulers are always dead regardless unless the PvP pilot makes some huge mistake, a 2-3g Hauler isn't getting away from a 15-19g PvP ship.

 

 

 

I think the hauling needs to go anyway.  Just remove it, remove the big rewards.  Its terrible gameplay from the ground up.  And changing speeds will matter for pvp, A LOT. It matters in EvE as proof.  The diversity matters.  And the stasis weapons can combat ships also trying to run, and that can add a good mechanic to further improve battles.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

I think the hauling needs to go anyway.  Just remove it, remove the big rewards.  Its terrible gameplay from the ground up.  And changing speeds will matter for pvp, A LOT. It matters in EvE as proof.  The diversity matters.  And the stasis weapons can combat ships also trying to run, and that can add a good mechanic to further improve battles.  

It is a start for sure, we have been needing more than L cores using Precision damn lasers for such a long time. 

 

We will have to wait and see what the dev blogs contain as the moment it is all just a lot of speculation. 

 

I have been seeing some variation in PvP ships lately which is good, this update will for sure mix it all up again now!  So can only lead to be better PvP for us all.

 

As for the hauling that is the same kind of issue of precision weapons, why do/use anything else when nothing else can compete :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, i2eilly said:

It is a start for sure, we have been needing more than L cores using Precision damn lasers for such a long time. 

 

We will have to wait and see what the dev blogs contain as the moment it is all just a lot of speculation. 

 

I have been seeing some variation in PvP ships lately which is good, this update will for sure mix it all up again now!  So can only lead to be better PvP for us all.

 

As for the hauling that is the same kind of issue of precision weapons, why do/use anything else when nothing else can compete :(

 

Agreed. But my contention is, building better pvp can actually legit garner new customers.  Advertising the current 4+ hour afk space flight for some space bucks....will not.  So I give to shits if hauling gets a huge nerf, thats good imo. Game needs to move foward with things that can actually have a chance to get new customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Agreed. But my contention is, building better pvp can actually legit garner new customers.  Advertising the current 4+ hour afk space flight for some space bucks....will not.  So I give to shits if hauling gets a huge nerf, thats good imo. Game needs to move foward with things that can actually have a chance to get new customers.

The hauling does make PvP affordable though, so we could use something that makes a good amount of quanta.  Maybe these alien cores could fill that part and then hauling wouldn't be so lucrative.

 

But I also agree, I want to play DU, not sit at my screen watching an SU counter go down!

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...