Jump to content

SAVE THE DATE: ATHENA ON PTS MARCH 31ST - discussion thread


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, BlindingBright said:

So for me personally, having paid for an active subscription for over a year of beta... I feel like NQ is now holding my constructs and game progress hostage. 

People might say this is a bit over dramatic, but I feel the exact same way.   We are always reminded that this is a beta and "play the game you have, not the game you want" but when the devs won't be clear with what game you have, it's justifiable to feel like you feel.   NQ: just put the info out there already and quit bullshittin' with folks limited free time they are using to play your game.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlindingBright said:

So for me personally, having paid for an active subscription for over a year of beta... I feel like NQ is now holding my constructs and game progress hostage. 

 

Frankly, the whole situation just confirms the dire situation NQ is in financially. If they have had to resort to removing constructs form inactive accounts due to the fact that they can't afford to pay for them taking up space on the servers is rather depressing.

If they just let the construct ownership expire and leave it for othe players players to take ownership then I could understand that. But outright removing them can really only be explained by NQ not willing or able to carry the cost for the constructs server side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, blazemonger said:

 

Frankly, the whole situation just confirms the dire situation NQ is in financially. If they have had to resort to removing constructs form inactive accounts due to the fact that they can't afford to pay for them taking up space on the servers is rather depressing.

If they just let the construct ownership expire and leave it for othe players players to take ownership then I could understand that. But outright removing them can really only be explained by NQ not willing or able to carry the cost for the constructs server side.

I'd suspect removal has less to do with not wanting to keep constructs for server-costs and more not wanting to keep "trash" for server-costs. I've seen a lot of constructs that go abandoned get quickly stripped of their valuable bits, but never completely "cleaned up", leaving low-value voxel with access holes in it, low-cost decorative parts, xs elements, and the destroyed core. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taelessael said:

I'd suspect removal has less to do with not wanting to keep constructs for server-costs and more not wanting to keep "trash" for server-costs. I've seen a lot of constructs that go abandoned get quickly stripped of their valuable bits, but never completely "cleaned up", leaving low-value voxel with access holes in it, low-cost decorative parts, xs elements, and the destroyed core. 

 

if that was the case they could just off load them to the primary owns account, no bp or anything just despawn them with a token for respawn when/ if the users returns.

That way the use has more incentive to return, now "all" is just lost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kurosawa said:

if that was the case they could just off load them to the primary owns account, no bp or anything just despawn them with a token for respawn when/ if the users returns.

That way the use has more incentive to return, now "all" is just lost

It seems you are suggesting there are only extremes: either find a way for everyone to keep everything or delete everything when someone unsubs.

 

The current salvage mechanic is most definitely to save on server space and keep popular areas from needing a regular cleaning by NQ, and allowing players to loot the abandoned stuff is just to score points with the remaining players. Problem is players don't take everything, nobody wants the bits to a thousand novark speeders. If they are going to allow players to salvage abandoned stuff then they need to eventually do something with all pieces that aren't worth most people's time to loot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the trash to treasure forum post:

Quote

When an account becomes inactive due to a canceled subscription, a countdown will begin on all constructs belonging to that account. After a period of time, those constructs will lose their ownership and other players will be able to salvage or capture them.

Then, all unowned constructs will have a countdown timer and it will count down from the moment it is unowned, regardless of why they are unowned (PvP destruction, IAR, abandonment, etc.) At the end of this timer, the construct will simply be removed from the game world.

So the cores or low tier stuff left after salvage will be removed from the game world nevertheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Taelessael said:

Problem is players don't take everything, nobody wants the bits to a thousand novark speeders.

Why not just have a countdown start that trashes the construct X hours after the first salvage takes place?  Once it's been salvaged it has a 12 hour cool down then *poof*  it's gone for good.  Now the salvage game play still exists and the construct is cleaned up for the rest of the folks.  Seems pretty obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this has been discussed previously with many suggestions for working solutions. I.e some variation of parking timer/fee combined with an second stage impound system that will move/BP constucts (including leftovers) away from unwanted areas but still let players reclaim them later for a fee. And then finally as the last step permanent removal after some extended time period.

 

But as usual NQ implemented some half-way system (or in NQ speak: first draft that will remain permanent solution)  not considering all the ramifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Ship mass speed limitation basically nerfs Aphelia missions out of the game loop, as you cant transport a single 1.8 Kt mission package at more than 20.000 km/h anymore. I understand that mission abuse should be addressed, but why punish the solo mission hauler? Why not keep the 29.999 cap for all, as lighter ships already can go faster and use Stasis to slower other ships? Just put a cap to the max number or Aphelia packages a ship can carry
2. Aegis space market looks great
3. New 3d map is a great addition
4. Space dust particles - seems like you are flying into a snow storm, not through space. Live server speed-ray effect looks better
5. Warp tunnel effect - seems exaggerated. Like staring into a kaleidoscope or a multicolor spinning umbrella.
6. Starfield - looks great, but background should still be darker
7. Water - cant see how it improved in the PTS. Water is way too transparent, in shallower places the water becomes invisible above 1000 meters. Frankly, current seas in live server look way better and more real. Below, live server x PTS invisible water.

Water-live-server.jpg

Water-PTS.png

Edited by DarkEvader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FerroSC said:

Why not just have a countdown start that trashes the construct X hours after the first salvage takes place?  Once it's been salvaged it has a 12 hour cool down then *poof*  it's gone for good.  Now the salvage game play still exists and the construct is cleaned up for the rest of the folks.  Seems pretty obvious.

That would work fine on almost anything, but again with the novark speeder example, some things aren't worth the time to salvage. The salvage/deletion mechanic we have now is annoying for getting rid of your stuff if you take a few months off, but it currently does what it needs to quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2022 at 3:44 AM, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

We understand that some of you may feel as if we were not caring or being direspectful towards you, our players.

 

I, for one, don't feel like you are being disrespectful towards me. The issue is a far more practical one.  I have stalled out.  Just like the "Real World" at large. It feels like everything is on a great pause.

1. I don't want to keep working on my space station because if it resets Lots of time will have been wasted. 
2. I don't want to keep working gathering resources and building up my inventory and industry because well... it might get deleted soon.
3. I don't want to spend 100 hours repairing the lag-fest that is my floating city on Sanctuary if it is just going to get purged anyway
4. I don't want to spend massive amounts of time templating, and blueprinting sectionals, because if there **isn't** a wipe then I don't need them.
etc.

So I wait,
and wait,
and wait,
and wait....
like i have been doing for years with the few simple "quality of life" checkboxes i have begged for to turn off the seizure inducing flashing UI interface components. I cope.
and wait,
and wait.

So please.
please, just figure out what direction you are going soon, before ***everyone*** gets tired of waiting and wanders off. And please, don't waffle or hedge, or worse change your direction again later. Just decide.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Tordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DarkEvader said:

1. Ship mass speed limitation basically nerfs Aphelia missions out of the game loop, as you cant transport a single 1.8 Kt mission package at more than 20.000 km/h anymore. I understand that mission abuse should be addressed, but why punish the solo mission hauler? Why not keep the 29.999 cap for all, as lighter ships already can go faster and use Stasis to slower other ships? Just put a cap to the max number or Aphelia packages a ship can carry

Is 20.000km/h the slowest it will go? Or will it go down even further if the ship is heavier? If a very heavy ship goes close to 0km/h, the system is very broken imho. It already feels completely broken with the speed nerf, the stasis, and the propriatory pvp systems some corps have already developed.

 

I understand why the lowered the speed for one of those large packages, it's because it would make interception way more likely by pvp ships. Then add the already pvp systems in place that some pvp corps run (scripts), AND stasis.. It's going to make pvp a LOT easier... What NQ seems to forget is that the reason why pvp vs haulers is now so bad is because of there just are not so many targets, increase travel time by 50% and you'll get even less targets that come across the target zones. Then there are the haulers that just give up, as they can't make the hauls anymore in the time it takes, as it doesn't line up with their game time... When IF player count ever spikes and there are a LOT more PVPers that hunt haulers, this system would make the hauler loop impossible, haulers leave, no haulers to pvp on, pvpers leave...

 

I think the stasis weapons are a great addition to the game. I also think it needs a counter module. Speed changes in space feel bad imho. I also think that there are other ways to discourage 20 character haulers, imho it should be cost of the ship. PVPers should be easily able to identify the LARGE ships, those should have a small fortune of engines on them to move all the stuff, it's a far better payout then just attacking a small single haul ship. But honestly, I suspect that the PVP corps themselves already run those trade routes with huge ships... Most of the 'solutions' by players for the hauling 'problem' are just as much full of holes as the NQ solution though. This is a complex problem that requires a complex solution that scales well, I suspect that all of the solutions proposed just don't scale well at all.

 

Wipe: I just assume there won't be a wipe-wipe, as that would create such a sh!testorm that NQ should just close the servers now, as the bad publicity we would certainly generate (just true statements in reviews everywhere, so no libel cases) would make very short work of any playerbase they might attract. And that's just the sane folks that work within the law (please stay within the law!)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cergorach said:

What NQ seems to forget is that the reason why pvp vs haulers is now so bad is because of there just are not so many targets, increase travel time by 50% and you'll get even less targets that come across the target zones. Then there are the haulers that just give up, as they can't make the hauls anymore in the time it takes, as it doesn't line up with their game time... When IF player count ever spikes and there are a LOT more PVPers that hunt haulers, this system would make the hauler loop impossible, haulers leave, no haulers to pvp on, pvpers leave...

+1 Great insight. Being attacked by a PvP'er during a mission must be an exception, not the normal. Anything else would just make running missions pointless.

 

These new rules seem to give PvP'er all the good cards when it comes to missions (just like they already have with asteroid mining), since haulers must now not only build ships for hauling but also defense. Making the ship even heavier, more expensive to lose and not optimal (min/maxed) for any task. I.e haulers are left with all the risk for a payout, and PvP'ers win big with minimal risk.

 

"But why not just have someone protect your hauling ship, you ask? Great for community driven game play!"

Sure, if NQ's goal is to make the cost of safely running missions so expensive that only orgs and alts can make money that is a great idea. And how many people are going to want to be AFK for hours at the time running protection for a hauler?

 

The short answer here is that there are to few players, and that NQ are trying the force the few that are still left into a particular type of game play. Which is going to lead to some very predictable and not good results in my opinion (death by a thousand cuts). Especially when you consider the selling point that initially attracted most players was "make your own 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...