Jump to content

Welcome to Dual Universe
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

"Auto-Turrets" and Artificial Intelligence in games


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1
Ripper

Ripper

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 501 posts
  • Gold Founder

How NQ plans to implement turrets, or combat for that matter is pure conjecture at this point.

 

However,

 

With ANY game that has AI, there is a balance that needs to be achieved.  Since the AI in a computer can be a crack shot, and always place that round through your right eye, programmers need to balance AI accuracy with realism, player challenge, and player enjoyment.   Players want "Realism", but they also want to progress in the game.  They just don't want to progress too easily.

 

An auto-turret should be balanced to provide a realistic result, while not being as "Effective" in combat as a player manned turret.  Effectiveness could equate to less damage, less accuracy, a slower response, or possibly more power/resource consumption.  Maybe it should behave at a skill level of the green newbie straight out of flight school.  Whereas, your teammate, may be an awesome shot with years of experience.

 

Some players believe that auto-turrets will break multiplayer cohesion.  It's very possible that auto-turrets, or scripted weapons COULD do this if not properly balanced.  There are a lot of players that would like to play a game with several teammates manning different parts of the same ship.  They SHOULD be more effective than the same ship with scripts and auto turrets.  You're maximizing firepower and accuracy and minimizing construct resources.

 

But the cohesion of your Organization, could ALSO apply to a fleet of ships attacking the same objective.  In this strategic example, the organization decides to throw more resources at the problem, so they don't have "all their eggs in one basket".  Instead of one highly performing ship, they decide to use multiple inferior ships.

 

Both strategies recognize and depend upon Organization cohesiveness, and both strategies should be a available as an option.  One method should not significantly out-way the other, all other things being equal.

 

I'm sure most Eve players recognize that the Organization with the most resources usually wins the battle.  Don't expect your new Org with 5 friends from school to outperform Band of Outlaws.  You'll never have the resources to compete.  There's nothing prohibiting a large Org from fielding SEVERAL multiplayer ships against your fleet of single player ships.   The winner will most likely be the organization who has invested the most player, voxel, and script based resources to the battle.  Not whether a specific number of ships were multiplayer verses the number of single player ships.

 

Unfortunately, if a game is played enough, there usually ends up being a "preferred" strategy or loadout.  I'm betting you'll find a tutorial on a fan site within weeks of Dual Universes release.  Players find ways to exploit the resources they've been provided.  NovaQuark should focus on providing a balanced solution that has as many variants as possible.  Of course, balance has to start somewhere. 

 

NovaQuark should start out with a couple of options, and then invent new elements that can provide balanced variation.  The more variation you have, the more difficult it is to balance things.  So go slowly, but variety adds to the spice of gaming life.  Variety vanquishes repetitive, boring game play, and it provides the player with more strategic options.

 

In my opinion, well balanced auto-turrets should be a part of Dual Universe.


  • Astrophil and CyberCrunch like this

#2
Astrophil

Astrophil

    Alpha Team Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • LocationUp in the clouds
  • Emerald Founder

Indeed, this is a valid point of discussion to ensure an immersive and realistic yet enjoyable gameplay experience. NQ has stated in the past that scripting turrets will be possible, and they have also said that auto-turrets will not be able to match the quality of a player-manned turret/gun. How they plan to  ensure that is still largely unknown.

 

I did like your ideas on higher power/resource consumption for automatic turrets. Whereas a human gunner would know to properly aim and to use ammunition efficiently, a primitive AI turret might continuously and randomly shoot at the target, perhaps even sometimes confusing a passing cargo container as an enemy vehicle.

 

---------------------

 

On the topic of artificial intelligence, I'd like to also ask about the extent to which AI can operate independently. In other words, let's say I wish to build a train system, and I want it automated. Can a scripted hovercraft move at a set speed along a predetermined path/track, even if no one is present inside the craft?

 

I would assume that a LUA system advanced enough to handle primitive turret targeting would be enough for basic motion automation - it would open up so many more possibilities: train systems, delivery ships, unmanned battering rams, etc.


AlYE7MI.png


#3
Zamarus

Zamarus

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Gold Founder

My two cents on the topic is that if one player is using multiple cannons at the same time using a script, it should only be able to fire on control input (key pressing) and probably be locked in a static direction. If a solo player has the means to launch a salvo with 10 turrets through automation i don't think this game would be the teamwork inspiring game with ship crews as NQ wants. Therefore i don't think you will be able to utilize scripted turrets that well in the game. Logically there's some major limit to it.


Who needs a signature anyways


#4
Lethys

Lethys

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1222 posts
  • LocationAustria
  • Ruby Founder

As already said several times in several topics by several people: NQ said it'll be possible to script turrets for defence (I suspect they only meant turrets as base defense on a static construct). But to me it would make sense if they allowed linking ship turrets together with whatever balancing mechanism (accuracy, power, range,...) to allow players to control several batteries on a side.

 

AI/fully automate turrets would still be a bad idea imho, but if they did it this would be a major point in balancing those turrets (astrocat gave some examples). DU shouldn't end with a meta like "100 yolo solo ships kill all" - but ofc you never know what players will exploit and how they will evolve the meta.

Balancing is critical here so that DU doesn't end up with a general meta of solo ships nor with a reign of ONLY multicrew capitals



#5
Archonious

Archonious

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationUK/LV/RUS
  • Ruby Founder
Maybe I miss understand something. What is this thread about? AI need to be balanced and most richest organisation wins. Ok. Is there somebody who didn't kniw that?

Where is idea? I am bit confused

Thanks,
Archonious

Strength and Honour

photo-675.png?_r=1473452128

*We would start our activity in Alpha stage. But if you are interested in game testing and work in the team, you are welcome. Contact me for more information.

*Currently we are on early team development, so we are welcome active members (officers and team leaders).

*Organisation main direction is written on the community site, but the detailed role of the organization will be discussed with officers and team leaders during alpha/beta stage.

*You can always join to our Discord Server to discuss your experience or just to talk.


#6
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3484 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Deal with it, you won't fly solo a battleship. It goes against the nature of the game.

The only people who want this, are pirates, like some of my fellow BOObians. And, no, it's not because of "oh pirates be pirates arrrrr, they be wanting to fly battleships to gank smaller ships arrrrrr", it's because they are pirates and would rather gank up to one guy who can't fend off a boarding party and keep fighting other ships, so they can win far easier.

Also, you assume turrets are simulated on their projectiles. They are not. It's a hit chance, based on geometrical measurements and velocites. Players on Turrets only affect those chances with tiher timing and skill training and the pilot affects their chances by knowing how to position the ship in regards to a hostile (travellign at the same direction, at the same angle to another ship, means you got no moving penalty on hit chance).

How do I know that? They spoke of it in the Kickstarter updates about CvC combat.

And speaking of Kickasterter information...

Their Kickstarter video is also talking of living the battle from within a ship as an engineer. Your very IDEA, is killing off the biggest part of the game, the multicrew ships, not to mention you piss in the face of the Lore the devs have as of why AI is not part of the universe and why manual control is needed.

And yes, having "one guy shooting the guns and everyone else are their healer bitches" is what your mentality still devolves into.

You want to command a battleship? Get in good graces with people and learn to be a team leader. You won't farm the resources for a battleship alone, you won't be buying a battleship on your own and you won't be crewing a battleship by yourself.

A good chunk of your thread is the EVE cancer of "you are not a player in a fleet, you are a human drone waiting for the FC to tell you "hit that" . That's what One Man Ships come down to in EVE. And anyone who's here from EVE, do not want DU to be EVE 2.0., cause EVE's pvp system, is atrocious cause of that.

So, you want a system that :

1) removes player roles from the game.

2) relegates crew positions as "the healer bitches"

3) multicrew gameplay is only part of mining - which I guess you also need to be automated, cause you ain't gonna mine the battleship materials otherwise.

4) you assume teamwork and conditioning is the same. Cause the EVE system of "fleet of solo man ships, coordinate" is out right EVE's model, only 1000 times worse cause of the depleting resources. You just rob people off materials and make small ships obsolete or "ghetto ships"., meant for poor people who can't afford paying in DACs to buy those battleships, hence, the game is P2W, or a grindfest that shames Korean MMOs.


Cheers.

P.S. : You play an MMO, not a session shooter like War Thunder. Accept the fact it's a team game and you won't be doing a team's job on your own.

P.S. #2 : NQ needs to comment on this and put the nail on the coffin of automation on turrets.


  • elDunco and Sketch like this

#7
Ripper

Ripper

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 501 posts
  • Gold Founder

Wow!

 

You need to wipe the foam from your mouth.

 

Thank God NQ isn't making another Eve.



#8
Lethys

Lethys

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1222 posts
  • LocationAustria
  • Ruby Founder

Wow!

You need to wipe the foam from your mouth.

Thank God NQ isn't making another Eve.


Exactly cause in eve you have automated turrets. Sorry, couldn't resist :P
  • Kuritho, CaptainTwerkmotor and Zamarus like this

#9
vylqun

vylqun

    Alpha Team Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Silver Founder

it'd be logical for auto-turrets to have a higher energy consumption as well as a "lock on"-time which manually fired turrets wouldn't need. Maybe even a smaller range as the firing range for auto-turrets isn't defined by the weapon but by the sensors used to acquire a target. I don't see a logical reason for limiting the accuracy tho.



#10
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3484 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

it'd be logical for auto-turrets to have a higher energy consumption as well as a "lock on"-time which manually fired turrets wouldn't need. Maybe even a smaller range as the firing range for auto-turrets isn't defined by the weapon but by the sensors used to acquire a target. I don't see a logical reason for limiting the accuracy tho.

That's besides the point. It's still gearing the game away from the MMO it advertised itself as (kickstarter video or any interview JC gave). It locks people out of roles and delegates anyone to a repair role and one guy operating all the sihp like it's a Battleship-sized Starfighter.

The game's tagline is MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER. If people have a problem with the fact Battlesihps need an actual crew and they'll have to invest  time to learn people and recruit good gunners, then they should seek another path in the game. It's not a Spaceships battles game only - that's EVE and it gets tedious after a while.

But oh well, people would rather have Mass Effect like dialogue options with NPCs and bitch about "how limited these options are", instead of actually bothering talking to other people. And this is where this idea hits a brick wall at full speed. It's suggested time and time again by people who don't want to socialise in an MMO.

Guess what folks, it's a sandbox game. You either socialise, or you are left out of a majority of what the game has to offe and the endgame of socialising, is getting to be a captain of a battleship, crewed by actual people.


  • Zamarus likes this

#11
Volkier

Volkier

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gold Founder

That's besides the point. It's still gearing the game away from the MMO it advertised itself as (kickstarter video or any interview JC gave). It locks people out of roles and delegates anyone to a repair role and one guy operating all the sihp like it's a Battleship-sized Starfighter.

The game's tagline is MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER. If people have a problem with the fact Battlesihps need an actual crew and they'll have to invest  time to learn people and recruit good gunners, then they should seek another path in the game. It's not a Spaceships battles game only - that's EVE and it gets tedious after a while.

But oh well, people would rather have Mass Effect like dialogue options with NPCs and bitch about "how limited these options are", instead of actually bothering talking to other people. And this is where this idea hits a brick wall at full speed. It's suggested time and time again by people who don't want to socialise in an MMO.

Guess what folks, it's a sandbox game. You either socialise, or you are left out of a majority of what the game has to offe and the endgame of socialising, is getting to be a captain of a battleship, crewed by actual people.

 

Twerky Kitty, that would be a dream come true for me - just being on a such ship crewed by other people who you play with on a daily basis. I'd love nothing more than that. But we all know how hard it is to get random people from your guild / corp / alliance to turn up for a raid or join up a fleet in MMOs - let alone finding a consistent crew who are online consistently at the arranged time. RL unfortunately takes precedence for a lot of people, even if you find a great group of people who are just as passionate and willing as you are. Which is why MMOs all have some form of 'solo content', and while it obviously needs to be a rewarding experience for people to group up, solo players shouldn't be completely pushed out the door - despite the game being an MMO.

 

So on that note, no I would never want to see huge battleships be anywhere remotely effective on the battlefield - to the point of being more of a hindrance than help - when crewed by a single pilot. It's a giant slow moving target, with hardly any defenses online, that is easily incapacitated due to having no engineering, and perhaps even easily taken over. But at the same time, I feel that a single seater small fighter shouldn't be able to take out or safely go up against a giant battleship for the sheer fact that it's a giant battleship in space - regardless of how many people are piloting it.

 

Basically I want people to play within their means, and taking perhaps what would be greater risks for greater rewards. But I would also want to see players being able to evolve and be rewarded for the effort they put into the game. So as a hypothetical (and vastly exaggerated for the purpose of making the point) example, someone who spent a month mining and traveling across various parts of the galaxy in order to build a reasonable sized ship (nothing battleship sized, but say something with a kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms, and a reasonable cargo hold/garage), should not struggle against five guys who mined a safezone for half an hour to make a flying contraption with rocks and duct tape, just because "they are five guys".

 

All that said and in a nutshell, I think it's really more of a question of "where do you draw the line", and it's way too early to even be asking that. Hence why I didn't even bother addressing the "automated turrets" discussion itself - as I think that's part of a discussion to a response to a question which is too early to ask. If that made any sense :P



#12
Lethys

Lethys

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1222 posts
  • LocationAustria
  • Ruby Founder

Twerky Kitty, that would be a dream come true for me - just being on a such ship crewed by other people who you play with on a daily basis. I'd love nothing more than that. But we all know how hard it is to get random people from your guild / corp / alliance to turn up for a raid or join up a fleet in MMOs - let alone finding a consistent crew who are online consistently at the arranged time. RL unfortunately takes precedence for a lot of people, even if you find a great group of people who are just as passionate and willing as you are. Which is why MMOs all have some form of 'solo content', and while it obviously needs to be a rewarding experience for people to group up, solo players shouldn't be completely pushed out the door - despite the game being an MMO.

 

So on that note, no I would never want to see huge battleships be anywhere remotely effective on the battlefield - to the point of being more of a hindrance than help - when crewed by a single pilot. It's a giant slow moving target, with hardly any defenses online, that is easily incapacitated due to having no engineering, and perhaps even easily taken over. But at the same time, I feel that a single seater small fighter shouldn't be able to take out or safely go up against a giant battleship for the sheer fact that it's a giant battleship in space - regardless of how many people are piloting it.

 

Basically I want people to play within their means, and taking perhaps what would be greater risks for greater rewards. But I would also want to see players being able to evolve and be rewarded for the effort they put into the game. So as a hypothetical (and vastly exaggerated for the purpose of making the point) example, someone who spent a month mining and traveling across various parts of the galaxy in order to build a reasonable sized ship (nothing battleship sized, but say something with a kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms, and a reasonable cargo hold/garage), should not struggle against five guys who mined a safezone for half an hour to make a flying contraption with rocks and duct tape, just because "they are five guys".

 

All that said and in a nutshell, I think it's really more of a question of "where do you draw the line", and it's way too early to even be asking that. Hence why I didn't even bother addressing the "automated turrets" discussion itself - as I think that's part of a discussion to a response to a question which is too early to ask. If that made any sense :P

 

Even though your points are exaggerated and I know what you meant by it, I just have to write this.

 

While I agree to some extent on your well made points, I first want to highlight that part you said: Bottom line is - they're still 5 and you're alone. The balancing you are asking for is just not possible. Numbers will always win, no matter the mechanic. They can only dampen the effects of the blob. Where would you draw a line here? 10v1? Why should 5 well trained pilots with good skills not be able to take on a single guy? Here's the MMO aspect again: get an escort. In your example of a highly sophisticated ship against duct tape junk, 2 well made fighter escorts should suffice - because quality/efficiency > lowtech/cheap (that's balancing)

 

Timezones/RL happen and are indeed a problem for such ships. You can't force people to play every day at the same time and because of TZs they can't even participate even if they want. So either you have a crew of 500 people on board so that at any given time there are 50 players online, or...... ??

This is not a problem only because of turrets. It also affects ammunition, piloting, navigation, boarding parties, engineering, repair crews, captains, .... All of those are either dependent on another group or on each other. If one guy doesn't show up, you can't use the ship properly. And since constructs stay in space I, as a pirate, would attack in their weakest participation hour.

 

So how to solve this problem?

In my opinion, you can't. That's why I always said that I doubt we'll see many huge ships. The only solution would be that the game somehow allows some "bots" (AI, npcs, scripts, whatever you'll call it) to man those stations so that a few players can at least run the ship with its basic functionality.....


  • Kuritho and Volkier like this

#13
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3484 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Twerky Kitty, that would be a dream come true for me - just being on a such ship crewed by other people who you play with on a daily basis. I'd love nothing more than that. But we all know how hard it is to get random people from your guild / corp / alliance to turn up for a raid or join up a fleet in MMOs - let alone finding a consistent crew who are online consistently at the arranged time. RL unfortunately takes precedence for a lot of people, even if you find a great group of people who are just as passionate and willing as you are. Which is why MMOs all have some form of 'solo content', and while it obviously needs to be a rewarding experience for people to group up, solo players shouldn't be completely pushed out the door - despite the game being an MMO.

 

So on that note, no I would never want to see huge battleships be anywhere remotely effective on the battlefield - to the point of being more of a hindrance than help - when crewed by a single pilot. It's a giant slow moving target, with hardly any defenses online, that is easily incapacitated due to having no engineering, and perhaps even easily taken over. But at the same time, I feel that a single seater small fighter shouldn't be able to take out or safely go up against a giant battleship for the sheer fact that it's a giant battleship in space - regardless of how many people are piloting it.

 

Basically I want people to play within their means, and taking perhaps what would be greater risks for greater rewards. But I would also want to see players being able to evolve and be rewarded for the effort they put into the game. So as a hypothetical (and vastly exaggerated for the purpose of making the point) example, someone who spent a month mining and traveling across various parts of the galaxy in order to build a reasonable sized ship (nothing battleship sized, but say something with a kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms, and a reasonable cargo hold/garage), should not struggle against five guys who mined a safezone for half an hour to make a flying contraption with rocks and duct tape, just because "they are five guys".

 

All that said and in a nutshell, I think it's really more of a question of "where do you draw the line", and it's way too early to even be asking that. Hence why I didn't even bother addressing the "automated turrets" discussion itself - as I think that's part of a discussion to a response to a question which is too early to ask. If that made any sense :P

The point is, people want to be Captains, nobody wants to be an engineer. It's either EVE Online with Voxels, or it's a sandbox game. 

And let's be real here, nobody is gonna add randoms on their ship. If the concept of a role call is unheard of some people, then they'll never crew a ship efficiently.

And since it's not EVE, let's also be real here, ships in DU have fuel, and fuel COSTS. Nobody is gonna fly a ship unless in oeprational hours or in a strategic operataion (ala EVE) or in a Call to Arms situation in home defense. So no, you won't have to scrougne for members o na wednseday to crew a battleship.

You gotta see a battleship crew as an organisation or a corporation from EVE, only with a GOOD AND VITAL difference. You don't bulk recruit. A spy in EVE can rob you of billions of ISK, in DU a spy can blow your precious battleship with C4 charges on your fuel tank.

Your organisation starts small, like a 5 man org. Crew a moderate corvette or a frigate. You move in numbers by recruiting more people? Buy a new ship for your org's size. You may never be able to crew a whole battleship, so you'll stick to a Heavy Cruiser. You may join an alliance, who will buy your ship and field you one of their own, doctrine, Heavy Cruisers, becuase you got the nubmers to crew it and you proven yourself loyal for XYZ reasons.

That's called "Ergonomics", greek for "how things should work".

Average Joe MacNobody, who plays the games Solo (and not the Han kind of solo, that actually had crew i nthe past), will get the Burn Jita treatment. You play an MMO single-shard as a singleplayer? You'll die. A lot.


It's like saying "Freighters in EVE should have guns, they are carrier sized ships, so they should have figheers on them, 8000 DPS tank and at least 1 Billion GigaJoules of energy reservers on capacitor". No, that's not how this works. You put guns on a freighter in DU? Get crew to crew them. you put gusn on a battleship? Get crew to crew them.

You don't have the numbers to get into freightering in space? Good, be a courier on a planet. You know, them plnaets. You can't expect people to have factories right next to veins of mineral. Someone has to haul it. And planets will be far safer than space. You find other people who like the sandboxy element of Trucking on a planet? Good, form an org, go and start a Space Freighter enterprise on your own small number, again, starting small, going big.


The problem with the above, is that Ripper on his posts, wants AUTOMATED TARGETING AND FIRING. 

It's not a "have a super-jacked Starfighter with 4 nose guns that target at the same direction you look at and firing at them".

No, Ripper wants "turrets turn and fire autoamtically at a target, while pilot does a seizure inducing flying maneuver".

The superjacked-up starfighter, is something I approve. It's one pilot, controlling four guns at once, aiming at the same direction. Heck, it can also be tied to a missile launcher that the pilot can acces that way. But they are not automated.

It's neither "Turret faces a certain direction, if target's are detected at 10000 meters down the range, the turret fires" which is a dumb-firing mechanism.

No, Ripper asks for turrets that TURN and FIRE on their own will. That's the problem.

Decide, either you'll have a moron of an automation that's as simple as heat-switches for yardlights, or you'll crew a ship on your own. Anythign other than that kind of automation, is EVE 2.0 only 1000 times worse due to depleting resources and rampart alt-frenzy being what made GSF in EVE big. One guy, 10 accounts , then battleships fielded, firing on theiro wn. 

Move battleships to a location, go afk, you come back, everything's dead. That's what Ripper and everyone else who keeps asking for automation, single-man battleships, wants.

And yes, having automation in the game will just make it like the good old "Guy has 10 Dominix batteshlips on a stargate, camps said stargate solo with his frigate, wtih slaved drones to the frigate, locking a ship that enters a system in 2.1 seconds and blowing it up with 50 Sentry Drones striking at once". Mhmmmm, I bet Goonswarm people reading this had their jimmies rustled. They'll know they found their game if you were to allow it. I mean, depleting resources, blowing up a ship is just 1000 times more painful for a person in DU than in EVE. You may have striken a good vein and mined that Titanium you needed for you ship and you built it very cheap cause of that. But now? Johnny with 10 Accounts blew your ship up cause he has the money to field 10 accounts on his own.

I bet you don't really want that in DU, right good sir? Cause it will be there if automation is allowed. NQ knows it as well, it's why they ditched automation from the get-go. It's very not balanced to have automation. It can be exploited to a ridiculous extreme. But people are naive enough to tihnk "it will be great! We will all be captains of ships without crews", then they will just whine on the forums about how GSF, or Test, or Palnedmic Legion / Horde members blew up their ships on a gatecamp of 10 accounts being multiboxed by one guy.

Yeah, if you can't see the issues of automated turrets on ships and how they'd make an excellent multiboxing cancer, no matter how many facts I throw your way it will ever change that.

No matter how you spin it, progress in an MMO should not be rewarded for solo players. You shouldn't be able to do what a 100 people org can do by yourself. If people can't be teamplayers, they should find themselves flying single-seater crafts.


  • Volkier likes this

#14
Volkier

Volkier

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gold Founder

Move battleships to a location, go afk, you come back, everything's dead. That's what Ripper and everyone else who keeps asking for automation, single-man battleships, wants.

 

Yep, and I this is the last thing I want to see. I actually wrote a very similar example down before changing it as I'm shit at wording shit - but having "AFK parked auto-cannon racks" on the battlefield should never be a thing. To rephrase, I guess what I was trying to say is I don't mind seeing automated defenses - providing they cannot be efficiently used as an offensive measure, and they have limitations (like fuel) enacted on them. Because I feel that, as mentioned, a large battleship that costs an arm and a leg to just move to a place in fuel, should be able to at least defend itself against a solo small fighter or two regardless of how many people are on board. But no, I agree with almost everything (except for below) you've said - which is also why I didn't address specifically automated turrets. It also depends on what someone defines as "automated", considering NQ did say that it would be a "lock and fire" mechanism, due to the way the engine will have to handle players at close vs long proximity.

 

Which brings me to the next point:

 

No matter how you spin it, progress in an MMO should not be rewarded for solo players. You shouldn't be able to do what a 100 people org can do by yourself. If people can't be teamplayers, they should find themselves flying single-seater crafts.

 

I'll have to mildly disagree on this, since it then becomes a question - which Lethys asked me - where do you draw the line? Should progress for two people be rewarded but not for solo? Or would it have to be ten people before you get rewarded? Or 100? I personally fell that if someone spends a year mining, researching, crafting and whatever else to make a little homely base, it should function just as well as the same base built by 100 people, who only took a week of combined effort to achieve the same step. Yes, it's way harder for the solo player, but it's still possible - albeit not practical, efficient or perhaps even "fun". This makes it still obviously far more productive to band up together, since in that year those 100 players would achieve more than a solo player would potentially in their lifetime - but there is no artificial limits put on this purely based on numbers. I'm also separating this point from the "auto turrets" debate, as I see the later as (mentioned prior) a point of discussion to a problem to a question that is too early to be asked - and on that point itself, I'm still of mixed feelings as... well, I think it's too early to ask that question yet. Hope that clarified what I was trying to say.

 

Even though your points are exaggerated and I know what you meant by it, I just have to write this.

 

While I agree to some extent on your well made points, I first want to highlight that part you said: Bottom line is - they're still 5 and you're alone. The balancing you are asking for is just not possible. Numbers will always win, no matter the mechanic. They can only dampen the effects of the blob. Where would you draw a line here? 10v1? Why should 5 well trained pilots with good skills not be able to take on a single guy? Here's the MMO aspect again: get an escort. In your example of a highly sophisticated ship against duct tape junk, 2 well made fighter escorts should suffice - because quality/efficiency > lowtech/cheap (that's balancing)

 

I used 5 as a hypothetical example to try and illustrate the point - but I guess what I was trying to say is that a months worth of effort of a single player should not be worth 2.5 hours worth of combined effort of 5, simply because it's 5 people. It's not so much the number, but an extreme to try and illustrate what I'm trying to say. Obviously 5 players would be more efficient, and perhaps a week of their combined effort (so about a day and a half each) would be worth the month of the soloer, but I guess I got carried away as that is more of a 'balancing' topic, than this. In fact, I think I got a bit carried away altogether, and treated this as a completely separate topic (as described above).

 

So with that, I guess what I was trying to say, is that I can understand the reason why some people would ask for something like automated turrets, and understand the reason of why the "bandaid" suggestion of automated turrets would be detremental to the game (while not solving the issue itself). So in retrospect, I think that the reason itself warrants further discussion - and it's way way way to early to be having this particular discussion as we have no clue how the game will play.



#15
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3484 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

 

 

I'll have to mildly disagree on this, since it then becomes a question - which Lethys asked me - where do you draw the line? Should progress for two people be rewarded but not for solo? Or would it have to be ten people before you get rewarded? Or 100? I personally fell that if someone spends a year mining, researching, crafting and whatever else to make a little homely base, it should function just as well as the same base built by 100 people, who only took a week of combined effort to achieve the same step. Yes, it's way harder for the solo player, but it's still possible - albeit not practical, efficient or perhaps even "fun". This makes it still obviously far more productive to band up together, since in that year those 100 players would achieve more than a solo player would potentially in their lifetime - but there is no artificial limits put on this purely based on numbers. I'm also separating this point from the "auto turrets" debate, as I see the later as (mentioned prior) a point of discussion to a problem to a question that is too early to be asked - and on that point itself, I'm still of mixed feelings as... well, I think it's too early to ask that question yet. Hope that clarified what I was trying to say.

 

As I said, having a singleseater starfighter with many nose guns, that's acceptable, it's not automation, it's one person, controlling ACTIVELY (manually), nOT PASSIVELY (automation) many guns at once.

Which is what ti is. A SUPER jacked-up Starfighter. It's 10 meters long, it has more tank and / or propulsion, it's capable to deal some serious dmaage, but costs more to make cause of the CPU in-game requiremetns of gimbaling many guns.

A singleseater with many guns operated at ocne by a player, so the guns fire at the same spot the player wants to, is not the same as having a battleship doing that.

I seen people in this community, who played EVE and went "oh, EVE is boring". Yes it is, if you play it as a singleplayer game and yo uare an anti-social CoD-kid, wo can't communicate with another person unless it's to insult them. And so will DU be a boring game for those people, if they want to be a Titan pilot - the number one Quarterback fantasy of lazy people who don't want to work for it and want to fly a Titan in less than a week, yes, there are those people out there, just watch Scott Manley's videos on youtube on the EVE AMA he did. 

Guess what Titans have in common with Battleships of 100 people in DU. Yes, THEY TAKE 100 PEOPLE TO FLEET ONE TITAN.

You'll need about 13 years of mining five hours a day to build a Titan on your own, and since you have nobody else to help you, you'll also lose that ship fast as you are done building it. What? Oh yeah, people also think they'll be able to build a Battleship on his own without Pandemic Legion or whoever else wakes up on the wrogn side of the bed goes like "that's a nice ship this nugget is building, let's go steal it, lol" You'll build it in a safezone? Really? How will you lift it off the ground? I bet you don't have enough fuel to life a battteshlip off the planet. So, you'll build it in space. Guess what Space doesn't have. Safezones..

Deal with it people, playing an MMO as a singleplayer and expecting to have the same privileges as a large organisation doesn't work.

Gather all the minerals you want, the game and the devs have made a system that's "cheeseproof". You can't build large ships in a safezone, cause there's not enough propulsion to lift it off the ground, and likewise, ther'es no automation, so people don't have "turret Alt #1" through 5 to keep a Stargate safe from any attacker.

Yes, it may take months or years for a group to organise and have a battleship up and running. But guess what, that's actually called PROGRESSION.

I may not like GSF, TEST or Pandemic Legion, but I RESPECT the fact they're the kind of guys fleeting such capital ships because of teamwork.

Anyone else who wants to be Captain I-Fly-Battleships-Solo, should accept the fact they may have to start small from starfighters and work up to flying a Battleship within an alliance.

And guess what, seeing how many people have a fixation with Admiral Adama, guess what the F Adama flew before he was granted a Battlestar class ship. Not even a Viper, a frigging RAPTOR.

Welcome to a sandbox called Dual Universe, no you can't have giant ships without a large group's logistical support or being granted one such ship without grinding reputation the organic way, by interacting with other players by earning fame (or infamy) in-game by doing stuff in-game.

No, you can't also have "robot" defenders against Boarding Parties. Nope, no bonus to your defese stats so you can 1vs10 a boarding party on equal ground. 



If I was to paraphrase EVE's golden rule of "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose", I'd phrase it as :

"Don't fly what you can't afford to crew".


  • Lethys likes this

#16
Archonious

Archonious

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationUK/LV/RUS
  • Ruby Founder
I still don't understand why this thread in "Idea Box" forum. Basic "General Discussion" thread.

BTW, automatic/nonautomatic (crew control only), both systems has own PROs and CONs. Argue what is better is waste of time, both systems will be bad.

Hybrid system will fit in this game, IMO. Possible auto, which is very weak (maybe except stationary objects), crew control of all systems (as most effective and easiest) and one man control (when player swap every turret, shoot from it, control movement of the ship and other. Lot of duties, more risk, less effectiveness).

So the most laziest players will have automatic systems - less effectiveness.
Solo players or small groups will have opportunities to try bigger ships and put lot of effort to control them - average effectiveness.
The big groups of players who wanna live in game (actually spend in game more than 6 hours a day), can cooperate with others and play game as others go to work (most effective).

In the end:
-lazy players can play
-busy players (2-3 hrs) can play
-nolifers can play
-there is skill progress/improvement

Thanks,
Archonious

Strength and Honour

photo-675.png?_r=1473452128

*We would start our activity in Alpha stage. But if you are interested in game testing and work in the team, you are welcome. Contact me for more information.

*Currently we are on early team development, so we are welcome active members (officers and team leaders).

*Organisation main direction is written on the community site, but the detailed role of the organization will be discussed with officers and team leaders during alpha/beta stage.

*You can always join to our Discord Server to discuss your experience or just to talk.


#17
Zamarus

Zamarus

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Gold Founder

I still don't understand why this thread in "Idea Box" forum. Basic "General Discussion" thread.

BTW, automatic/nonautomatic (crew control only), both systems has own PROs and CONs. Argue what is better is waste of time, both systems will be bad.

Hybrid system will fit in this game, IMO. Possible auto, which is very weak (maybe except stationary objects), crew control of all systems (as most effective and easiest) and one man control (when player swap every turret, shoot from it, control movement of the ship and other. Lot of duties, more risk, less effectiveness).

So the most laziest players will have automatic systems - less effectiveness.
Solo players or small groups will have opportunities to try bigger ships and put lot of effort to control them - average effectiveness.
The big groups of players who wanna live in game (actually spend in game more than 6 hours a day), can cooperate with others and play game as others go to work (most effective).

In the end:
-lazy players can play
-busy players (2-3 hrs) can play
-nolifers can play
-there is skill progress/improvement

Thanks,
Archonious

You define "lazy players can play" based on your idéas. 

 

Lazy and busy players can surely play without your suggestions. The difference is that they will have to settle for less. Which should be natural in comparison to time, effort and teamplay put in the mix.


  • CaptainTwerkmotor and Lethys like this

Who needs a signature anyways


#18
Archonious

Archonious

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationUK/LV/RUS
  • Ruby Founder
You get it bit wrong. If you need to have 10 people crew on ship, it will be real problem for busy people. Because they can't play by schedule. Team work require schedule system. Swaping people everytime won't be enjoyable to anyone - "Today they need you, tomorrow they say ship is packed" or "You missed yesterday, so we don't need you anymore". In both situations there is unhappy person (we speak about unique role, not just for being on the ship).

Fully automated (equal as manual) will make game as EVE (I think the most boring fights I ever seen). As somebody wrote/quoted "Go AFK, whule ship fighting". Don't want to see this game become as this AFK trash.

Yes lazy players (few hours a week) will need much more time to build, to get used to ship and role.
Busy players (who play few hours a day max) will spend less time than lazy players to rich same targets.
NoLifers will achieve targets faster. So actually they will be most experienced (real exoerience) anyway. They would have schedules to work/play, they will have constand duties and other. They will do everything very well, because they professionals. They have time for that.

If you say, Lazy players must not Build/Control big ships (they have no time to set teams), these players lose motivation to play in one moment. Same with busy players. Less motivation, more players will leave - more players leave, less chances game will survive in long term.
I am strongly against to make game for NoLifers only. And no need to say "They can fly little solo fighters". 99% of players want and will play to build something bigger. Then bigger, ten bigger, then bigger".

If I have opportunity to play on solo fighter only, because I can't spend 6+ hours a day and live by the schedule, I won't be interested to pkay long, I won't be interested to invest in game. How many players will do the same?
If I can build somethibg big and control it, even with less efficency (than full crew), then I have motivation, then I will invest in game. Because there is potential to go forward.

Thanks,
Archonious
  • Aetherios likes this

Strength and Honour

photo-675.png?_r=1473452128

*We would start our activity in Alpha stage. But if you are interested in game testing and work in the team, you are welcome. Contact me for more information.

*Currently we are on early team development, so we are welcome active members (officers and team leaders).

*Organisation main direction is written on the community site, but the detailed role of the organization will be discussed with officers and team leaders during alpha/beta stage.

*You can always join to our Discord Server to discuss your experience or just to talk.


#19
Zamarus

Zamarus

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Gold Founder

You get it bit wrong. If you need to have 10 people crew on ship, it will be real problem for busy people. Because they can't play by schedule. Team work require schedule system. Swaping people everytime won't be enjoyable to anyone - "Today they need you, tomorrow they say ship is packed" or "You missed yesterday, so we don't need you anymore". In both situations there is unhappy person (we speak about unique role, not just for being on the ship).

Fully automated (equal as manual) will make game as EVE (I think the most boring fights I ever seen). As somebody wrote/quoted "Go AFK, whule ship fighting". Don't want to see this game become as this AFK trash.

Yes lazy players (few hours a week) will need much more time to build, to get used to ship and role.
Busy players (who play few hours a day max) will spend less time than lazy players to rich same targets.
NoLifers will achieve targets faster. So actually they will be most experienced (real exoerience) anyway. They would have schedules to work/play, they will have constand duties and other. They will do everything very well, because they professionals. They have time for that.

If you say, Lazy players must not Build/Control big ships (they have no time to set teams), these players lose motivation to play in one moment. Same with busy players. Less motivation, more players will leave - more players leave, less chances game will survive in long term.
I am strongly against to make game for NoLifers only. And no need to say "They can fly little solo fighters". 99% of players want and will play to build something bigger. Then bigger, ten bigger, then bigger".

If I have opportunity to play on solo fighter only, because I can't spend 6+ hours a day and live by the schedule, I won't be interested to pkay long, I won't be interested to invest in game. How many players will do the same?
If I can build somethibg big and control it, even with less efficency (than full crew), then I have motivation, then I will invest in game. Because there is potential to go forward.

Thanks,
Archonious

I dont think everyone agrees with you that Captaining a big ship is the only goal worth playing for 


  • Haunty and Lethys like this

Who needs a signature anyways


#20
Archonious

Archonious

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • LocationUK/LV/RUS
  • Ruby Founder

I dont think everyone agrees with you that Captaining a big ship is the only goal worth playing for 

Apetite growing is human nature. If somebody say "I wanna small ship only", does not mean this person won't say "I want something bigger.

 

So what in your opinion is good? That everyone need to play game same as they work? I need to login to game and wait others of my team? Or search somebody else and kick those who helped me to build ship? If game is not flexible, it could make negative attitude very fast. What the point to play if you can not do "that" or "that", before you start hardly play your time for game? It is very childish attitude, not many have a lot of time to spend it in games (not saying about hard planning of this time).

 

As I said, if you have chance to spend you life in game, do it. You get more profits for that. But if somebody has real life and don't want sit here day and night, it does not mean that some parts of game must be limited (because they become limited by the fact).

 

Thanks,

Archonious


Strength and Honour

photo-675.png?_r=1473452128

*We would start our activity in Alpha stage. But if you are interested in game testing and work in the team, you are welcome. Contact me for more information.

*Currently we are on early team development, so we are welcome active members (officers and team leaders).

*Organisation main direction is written on the community site, but the detailed role of the organization will be discussed with officers and team leaders during alpha/beta stage.

*You can always join to our Discord Server to discuss your experience or just to talk.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users