Jump to content

NEW SCHEMATICS - Discussion Thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Saedow said:

So what about our current very very expensive schematics where we put our saving in... will those be lost?

And how will this new schematic system save the market? the market is still not alive.

They will be wiped!  Introducing a new schematic system was the primary justification for a wipe, the argument being that updating schematics and keeping the current ones is too hard.  Now here is an article about schematics without a single mention of what happens to the existing ones.  After they already tested the talent point retention after wipe system in the latest update.

 

Why they don't just admit it is beyond me.  It has reached the point where it is outright insulting for them to pretend they haven't decided to wipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the now coming is that it tries to showhorn an EVE style BPO/BPC system into a factorio style industry system.

 

The blueprint system work sin EVE because there is no differentiation between compenents as to where they are built. It also works because in EVE people playing theIndustry game will generally focus on making X by buying what is needed to make X an ssell it back to market, And X can be anything between a ship and a subcomponent used to make modules.

 

Research blueprints in order to optimize them and maximize their yield and cerate copies of these optimized blueprints with Y runs is a separate loop entirely.

 

 

DU however is designed for players to always work towards an endproduct by producing everything needed for that in a chain. And simply copying the base system EVE uses is not going to work for that.

 

I also found the post on this to be very misleading. I do not see where at any time, NQ listened to feedback or came to their current new implementation based on feedback. The seeming emphasis on reduction of schematic cost mere days after intrroducing them, due to the fact players abandonned the game in droves, was a knee jerk reaction to stop the bleeding, not "listening to feedback". It was self preservation which effectively took away most of the purpose and effect schematics were to have.

 

And it sound like this is yet another "play in the UI" change, moving more action away from the actual world and just use an interface without the need to travel and get the schematics you need. Another boring greenish UI box .. yay /s

 

 

But as I expect that the 4 hour maintenance coming tomrowwow will drop the new system on the game and throw it into turmoil and chaos once again, mere weeks before a planned release, will only backfire in a big way. INdustry is becomeing a chore even more than it allready was, it becomes tedious and a job. And with it a good few sho are still around will decide it's not worth their time and move on.. again.. 

 

 

Yes, a game like DU needs quanta sinks and faucets. But this is not what should be a sink, this is what shoudl be part of the buy and sell economy and as it seems to be designed now, it wil not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between what we have now for schematic handling/purchasing and what is outlined for the future... I would prefer to keep what we have. This has the potential to be a BIG time waste for larger factories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like these schematic changes.  Doubtless they will get some fine-tuning over time but I think they are going in the right direction with limits on a character's manufacturing capability and requiring actual effort to maintain mega-factories which increases with factory complexity, size and alt count.  It will force people to stop and think about what they do and don't want to make rather than flooding the market with every possible thing because each individual line is low effort.

 

It's a shame this is happening now rather than 1 year ago when the schematic haters were still paying attention!

 

I still think that NQ have missed the point about 0.23 somewhat.  You said yourself that players were making their own backyard industries and you wanted to stop that.  That was the mistake.  The game is about players creating a civilisation and civilisations evolve and develop.  NQ should have looked at what the players wanted to do and enabled, encouraged and built on it rather than trying to tell players how to play the game and trying to force market centric gameplay.

 

There were a lot of players who came from games like minecraft or survival games like Ark where the default is to do all of your own industry.  That's the sort of game they wanted to play and when you took it away a lot of them stopped playing altogether and won't come back without that gameplay.  But it wasn't true that these people weren't interacting with each other.  Some were also using he market too sometimes.  A lot were in orgs doing mining ops, building cities, talking in discord, etc and when those people stopped the other players who were playing with them lost a lot of interactions and they quit too.  The markets were actually a lot busier with the larger population than at any time since.

 

You didn't have to chase these people away by telling them how to play the game.  You could have just said anyone can make anything but it costs 3x the materials if you have no schematic.  I think people would be OK with that and it gives plenty of space for a market to evolve.  You could still do that with your new system by making inefficient copies which can be created from nothing instead of being copied.

 

Don't be scared by people not using the market.  At the moment industry gameplay is one of the good bits of the game, so people who do industry are more likely to be playing.  Like with builders.  If you want 90% of players to just use the market you need to give the non industry players more to do.  Add more exploration, accessible casual PvP,  perhaps PvE or even huntable space-whales!  That will attract non-industry types and they will be more market focused.  It will develop over time.

 

/rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

NQ-Entropy:

"When we released schematics in 0.23, it was to address a problem that had the potential to adversely affect Dual Universe as an MMO. Players were able to be fully self-sufficient with ‘build-it-all’ factories, reducing interaction between players in the game’s economy."

 

This I do not understand.

 

We were  supposed to enter totally empty alien planet in a spaceship and start there from the scratch.

In this original scenario only way to proceed is to be self-sufficient.

Bigger goals maybe by small groups or later in orgs, but self-sufficient still.

 

Now we got tens of fully furnished markets all over the planets in this whole solar system. Who build them. Not us; which we were supposed to build.

 

If ever we can find a new solar system or new planet, will those be full of Market buildings even before one human has stepped down from a ship after finding it?

How to colonies new planets if we can not be self sufficient?

 

This handhelding Themepark game is not what I opted in at Kickstarter.

 

Before 0.23 there was lots of in-game interactions. Game was alive and fun. Schematics killed all of that. 

 

Interactions between players will newer happen by force. No way!

NQ: Stop this interactions by force nonsense

 

Interactions will only happen if we, the players, choose to do so.

 

Edit:

ps. How will using markets create interactions between players???

I can do most of my business anonymously and remotely. Even if I visit marketplace I newer interact with a player "because doing business." Current markets just do not need or enable player-interactions.

 

Before 0.23 we had lots of group-game-play operations, Mining ops, Hauling stuff for org members (way before missions), building together, helping to fix ships, rescue missions, manufacturing for other org members, you name it, we did it.

None of those required interventions by Aphelia nor using Markets.

 

We avoided markets because of all that junk and lag there. Some created own in-org markets by using dispensers in a creative way.

I created small factory and org members started to bring in ore and I manufactured (only) what they needed.

Our small org had only 3 factories, other members were using our services.

Building "‘build-it-all’ Mega factory" was in our plans as a Shared Org - project. What was wrong in that???

 

We did not need guidance by Aphelia or NQ.

 

Who ever said there was not enough interactions before 0.23 did lye.

 

Secondly:

 ‘build-it-all’ factory manufactures nothing. Nothing at all. Running that kind of factory is a huge effort which only few players want to do.

‘build-it-all’ factory actually creates interactions and enables group-game-play. Manufacturing only few items and selling them at markets kills interactions.

Also factories mostly produce elements which have no use as they are when they appear into container. Those elements only enables further more advanced game-play such as PVP, ship building (both for pvp and other ships) . etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheHoneyThief said:

In the 80's, people would hit their televisions when they went on the fritz.

 

Then they acted surprised when the TV broke.

 

Please, NQ, try a little harder, eh?

I used to hit my TV all the time.  It worked and didn't break the TV.  Eventually I replaced it with a shiny new flat screen.  My son hit it once after losing at FIFA and it smashed.

 

I don't even know what the lesson is here but it sounds like there might be one somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of this imbalance in the economy could also be remedied with actually adopting lives for elements like it's supposed to be. But the game being poorly optimized and crashes happening randomly and frequently this can't be used to actually get the market moving to replace the loses, because there are never losses. The elements live forever.

 

Element balance could also be addressed to limit the necessity for placing walls of elements on a construct. Leaving us the ability to use less of them to achieve a goal. electricity, heat, and fluid (which were added in the Lua in the mercury patch) could also go very far toward balancing the need for the economy to produce massive quantities of elements (limiting the ability for a ship to use an engine wall)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When we released schematics in 0.23, it was to address a problem that had the potential to adversely affect Dual Universe as an MMO. Players were able to be fully self-sufficient with ‘build-it-all’ factories, reducing interaction between players in the game’s economy."

 

I agree 100% with this statement, at the same time I feel I have to suggest that to solve that problem it was enough to modify a few elements: cost and time and the number of sub-components necessary for the assembly of the final product. It was simply enough to be inspired by the industrial model of EvE online, perhaps only partially since in DU it does not exist as a final product from the industry and therefore from the schematic complete and finished spaceships. However I like this change .... now more important is making a change to the mineral resource system, even just making them make their spawn randomly would have a very positive impact on the game's long-sightedness. No less important could be the inclusion of pve missions, just to encourage the fighting aspect in the game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FatRillos said:

Some of this imbalance in the economy could also be remedied with actually adopting lives for elements like it's supposed to be. But the game being poorly optimized and crashes happening randomly and frequently this can't be used to actually get the market moving to replace the loses, because there are never losses. The elements live forever.

 

Element balance could also be addressed to limit the necessity for placing walls of elements on a construct. Leaving us the ability to use less of them to achieve a goal. electricity, heat, and fluid (which were added in the Lua in the mercury patch) could also go very far toward balancing the need for the economy to produce massive quantities of elements (limiting the ability for a ship to use an engine wall)

 

 

 

One good material sink would be Recycling with material loss. Also it would be destroying elements which will not sell and enabling to manufacture elements which has demand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems decent, the main and biggest problem i see is it says that these copy's are put in the machine the same way as before.
if we have to manually add these copies frequently then no way. putting schematics in was one of the most tedious and annoying things, so to have to do this regularly.... not enjoyable process. I hope there's a way to auto load copies from a container into machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This system seems complicated and doesn't really change anything much. I would've like to have seen some energy put into the following:

1) Some components not needing schematics

3) Schematic prices reduced

3) Recycling and Component Upgrading implemented: Manufactured items can be recycled to release materials. Upgrading would be if you want to make a T2 engine it uses a T1 engine with additional components. A T4 would be made with a T3 plus extra stuff. If you wanted to make 50 Tier 1 through 4 engines you've need to manufacture 200 T1 etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna go with... nope not a fan.

 

While others have often complained about the schematic's idea for some time.... most of us have grown accustomed to it. We strive towards what we want to build and then we make the product lines for that. Its diversified enough to allow everyone a chance to get into making items. This will drive industrialists away from making items. Let's take voxels alone.... to make 10,000 voxels of a type how many scheme copies will we need? 10,000 voxels would be realistically the size of a nice medium ship station or ground construct. Now to make that I have to pay over and over and over again to make them. Thats not cost effective and only becomes yet another money hole for players.

How about fuels.... right now, they are not really turning a profit... add to that the cost of making a cumbersome amount of copies just to keep the refineries running.

If you're going to go with copies.... then I say let's do both. I who have spent time effort and money to buy the schemes I want do not need to make copies. Those just getting into it, or to test out some ideas, or make a handful of one-time parts can use copies. True industrialists can save and buy the schematics they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter where NQ sets the cost, an infinitely recurring fee WILL eventually cost industrialists more than a single up-front fee. This change hurts any dedicated industrialists.

 

Meanwhile, the costs of industry machines and just time invested learning about industry make it impractical to simply dabble in industry, even with the reduced costs of one-off schematics. The idea that this change will allow new players to easily build parts just for their own small ships is a fiction. You have to go all-in with industry if you ever hope to make it cost effective compared to just buying parts on the market.

 

So, there are still no small-time industrialists with this patch, and the big-time industrialists will only suffer because of it...who exactly is supposed to be better off after this change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you not just keep both systems?
Expensive reusable single-part blueprints, and cheap single-use part-range blueprints.
Also, a central schematic database unit, which you can connect to machines so that you can manage all the blueprints in one place, and share the blueprint across multiple machines (but only 1 using it at a time) would be really nice. Especially if you can pick it up and retain the blueprints inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi all
I understand that this is a multiplayer game, but forcing people into the organization is not the best way. and that is the only and ultimate goal of this change. and again the poor will get sand in their eyes and the rich will get rich.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My background. I played Eve Online as a manufacturer/researcher/miner. DU is basically copying Eve Online in the same steps they used to create their system it appears. The reason I left Eve Online is because I had 18 characters (equal to 6 paid accounts) just to build ships that took me and another persons with a set of highly skilled toons to build huge ships. It took 10 months to build and assemble the ships. Blueprint originals, Blueprint copies, Blueprint research and efficiency queues, moon goo mining, mining with lasers, protections to mine, paying people for moons to mine, paying people to live in the sector, paying taxes on everything. Yes I made a profit and I spent $90/month on the accounts and my partner spent another $90/month.

 

Now DU, you can probably see why I left. And my friends left after many years as things kept getting more complex and time consuming. It took way to much time and resources to build anything. It didn't happen in a day, it progressed that way after many years.

 

My recommendation, destroy the schematics, create the machines that will produce the items as you did before with the following changes, A basic level refiner can create basic level ore without schematics (its built into the machine), do this with all the machines. Just tier the 5 levels until the exotics are insanely expensive to limit the use. It still takes a ton of time to create 1 exotic part so the market will not be flooded with T5 and T4 equipment assuming a player base is continually building.

 

Remember KISS. Yes, every programmer, life cycle specialist and computer guru should know this. It also keep the backend mechanics of the game to be cheaper and much easier to change. Also, you can add new parts easily at will. Object Oriented Programming - just add it to the machine.

 

You can also add a T6 BP, that requires all T5 schematics to build super rare and valuable treasures that may be found throughout the world. 

 

I will not play a more complex and time consuming game. Time is to valuable to waste. Complexity is geared towards such a small niche of gamer that I would be afraid the game would not expand its player base all that well.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Peregrin said:

it still means that technology belongs to "Aphelia" just like everything else: the lands, the markets, the wargrounds...

Oh my Gosh. This game is a "KI enslaves us all" Simulation! 
Hello Lambda, are you the boss of NQ? Hello? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is basically a ban on solo players running big factories (like me).
People will be able to make a small range of stuff on the side, but dedicated industry is dead.

I do not think this will lower market prices (on the contrary: material cost is already not in line with the price of higher tier items), but it will succeed in banning industry as an specialism.

Together with the (probable) upcoming wipe it kind of rules me out for coming back to the game because the industry is what I liked most since Alpha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is my feedback and personal opinion on the subject. 

 

First of all, thank you for taking the time to inform the community a little before discovering these new features in the PTS test. That's the kind of feedback we appreciate getting as players.

 

Honestly I don't have too much to say with these schematic modifications. You have found an elegant solution to solve 2 problems:

 

1) The cost of mega industry on the server which is unmanageable in the long run.

 

Indeed all the players adding machines to their industries every day until having a full automatic that manufactures all the items is not viable in the long term.

 

Maybe you should have insisted more on the fact that these changes are almost mandatory and that it's that or no game at all.

 

2) The pain subjects of the schematics.

 

Nothing more to say, we all knew that this is a sensitive point, and that a lot of people were not receptive to the idea of having to invest millions / billions to manufacture an object.
Also it was a bad implementation, because these schematics only delayed the inevitable: the saturation of the servers because of the industry units.

 

_______

 

In short, inevitable change with very little possibility. From all the comments, if we remove people who want to play staisfactorie, it doesn't matter if it kills the game or not. I see very few valid counter-arguments.

 

The main thing to watch out for is that your new game system doesn't make getting schematics back to industries any more tedious. Nottament do not forget that there is still a lot of RDMS management possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo, i would like to have parts schematic except intermediary parts. Indeed, currently, we can't produce more than 1 item with exceptional / functional / structural  / complex parts


If the mecanic of schematic stay in this state, we gonna need only schematics for refiners, smelters and then for warp cells. I don't think it a good things.

Make schematic for exceptional / functional / structural  / complex parts is more logic and could make some specialize industries like the start of the beta.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:

1) The cost of mega industry on the server which is unmanageable in the long run.

 

Indeed all the players adding machines to their industries every day until having a full automatic that manufactures all the items is not viable in the long term.

 

Maybe you should have insisted more on the fact that these changes are almost mandatory and that it's that or no game at all.

 

NQ has not stated that Scemas and industry changes were made to avoid server-load. They were made to fix MMO aspects on game economy. To increase interactions between players.

 

If Indy units creates too much server load it is all on NQ. They did not only enable using those hunderts of indy units, but created it to be mandatory.

 

All those different unit types multiplied by different unit for every tier, multiplied by different parts, products, alloys etc. This creates so very complex need for industry. If server load is the issue, why not create one Indy unit, 3d printer which creates all elements. Then if server-load allows production can be separated again into more specialized indy units.

 

Need/demand for elements is constant. They enable more advanced game-play, PVP, building etc. If element destruction and wear is added it even increases demand for elements and demand for more indy units and more server-load.

 

Making industry game-play less complicated and reducing need for different indy units is only viable solution.

 

After all real game-play is created by PVP:ers and builders supplying pvp and other advanced game loops. Industry is vital part of that, but gets now too much attention. It is only small but necessary part of much more advanced game loops

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:

Maybe you should have insisted more on the fact that these changes are almost mandatory and that it's that or no game at all.

Problem is when most players select the second option and leave. So every time NQ makes a change they need to ask themself, how does this help to make the game fun and make more players want to play?

 

Am I the only one that find it ironic that DU is a so called open-world building MMO with the slogan "make your own game", that has a restrictive and limited scope of game features that forces players to play in a very specific way. And getting more so with every new patch..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

Problem is when most players select the second option and leave. So every time NQ makes a change they need to ask themself, how does this help to make the game fun and make more players want to play?

 

Am I the only one that find it ironic that DU is a so called open-world building MMO with the slogan "make your own game", that has a restrictive and limited scope of game features that forces players to play in a very specific way. And getting more so with every new patch..


 

If a player with mega industry cost 20 times more than what they pay at NQ in subscription.
 

So maybe it's better for us that he quit the game.
 

NQ must be forced to ensure that player cost does not increase exponentially.
They have to keep a check on X subscriptions are paid so X cost in real game.
This goes through X core per player.
This goes through X industry schema available (thus X items crafted by the game).
 

NQ do try to keep the too expensive player by giving him other candy. Maybe it won't work, but at least it's been tried and the bleeding is stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Knight-Sevy said:


 

Precisely the goal is that you cannot have too big a factory.
This makes the costs of running the server fairer. Maybe with your industry at 2,000 machines you were taking up space for another 5 players.

Now there will be the DAC system, you can subscribe 5 more accounts and actually pay what you consume in game resources.

Industrial limitation was a must.

The next will be the energy system for ships (or a capacity cost).

I hope that with all this NQ will have achieved economic stability for their servers.

Otherwise we can all say goodbye to the game.

If there trying to limit the size of factories a single player can run, then ditch the schematics or leave them be and limit the amount of assembler's you can run. But not like the shambling mess the ore miners turned out to be. this game should be Fun NOT time wasting tedium.

 

If it wasn't for the fact that I can skip the silly little mini game to get my miners running by simply closing the interface after spending the charge. I would have stopped playing. 

 

Please don't turn this into some soft of click fest interface. 

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...