I already wrote it here. It is nothing more than stroking the ego phallus.
If you want to get the attention you get on twitter or similar social media about how great you've built something and then get likes, go for it.
But then you don't have to be surprised that you now have Landmark in space. With the difference that Landmark still had pvp...
And Dhara hits the nail on the head: it's your own fault if the game can't keep players. It was laughed at back in December 2019 that pvp has no influence, now everyone is demanding it. And NQ listened to the wrong people.
I'm so tired of this discussion. You all see the state of the game right now, right? It's because of a lack of decent PvP. Carebear builders don't want to actually PLAY this game with us. They just want our adoration - of their empty, useless buildings.
See, I'm not a PvP player. I am a builder. And a pretty darn good one (if I say so myself). However, I am NOT satisfied building an empty city no one will ever use, let alone visit. I don't care how many "likes" I get on Twitter for my skills. That is the ONLY end-goal in a building game without PvP; Likes, adoration, popularity and logging in every day to see how awesome people think you are. You don't want an actual game, you just want to showcase your building skills somewhere. And then you call people like ME toxic because you don't like it when I defend the vision this game is built upon.
If you want an economy, politics, civilization, you have to have PvP. If you want your builds to MEAN something and have purpose, you need PvP. Period. That is exactly what builders like me came to this game for. Please, for the love of God, please just go find one of the many building games without PvP in them and go play those. Quit trying to ruin a game that is already on its last leg. Many of us builders came here specifically so our builds can have purpose. I want to see if I can build beautiful buildings that can actually protect my belongings, my org and my city. I WANT people to attack them to see if my designs are just fluff or if they can stand up to the challenge.
This is why this game is so f'd up right now. The more NQ listens to people who signed for this game only to try to change the vision, the faster this game will end up in the tank. Seen it happen. Every damn time. No one wants to EVER let builders who LIKE PvP actually have a game where you can build AND have PvP. I'm so sick of trying to play games with these people who are so afraid of digital bullets running their digital buildings that don't mean anything at all except something to look at. What a waste of my time to even think that carebear pve players would let us alone and let us have a game built for just us for a change.
Well I'm sure you're going to get your wish because game devs fall for carebear threats of leaving every damn time. I predict that very soon the only threat to your builds will be the game being shut down due to lack of players. And when it that happens, please remember that YOU had a hand in its demise.
NQ has been quite clear since the beginning of Beta that there was no promise that they would never wipe. They have always said they might if they need to.
And IMO they really, really need to at some point. Some might quit, yes, but I bet a lot who have already quit will come back as most of us quit because of the schematics and the related debacle that gave other orgs a SEVERE advantage over the rest of us.
Why, exactly, will you be broadcasting asteroids that players spend time, quanta and resources to find themselves out to all the pirates so they can come take it? Wouldn't it be only fair to require pirates to spend some time, quanta and resources to find US?
True. Ignoring all RL economy issues and regulation created to compensate.
Ignoring other games similar to this, having all having NPC stores for basic supplies.
Takes allot of "dont want to see" to not see.
NQ has been quite clear since the beginning of Beta that there was no promise that they would never wipe. They have always said they might if they need to.
And IMO they really, really need to at some point. Some might quit, yes, but I bet a lot who have already quit will come back as most of us quit because of the schematics and the related debacle that gave other orgs a SEVERE advantage over the rest of us.
NQ has been quite clear since the beginning of Beta that there was no promise that they would never wipe. They have always said they might if they need to.
And IMO they really, really need to at some point. Some might quit, yes, but I bet a lot who have already quit will come back as most of us quit because of the schematics and the related debacle that gave other orgs a SEVERE advantage over the rest of us.
NQ has been quite clear since the beginning of Beta that there was no promise that they would never wipe. They have always said they might if they need to.
And IMO they really, really need to at some point. Some might quit, yes, but I bet a lot who have already quit will come back as most of us quit because of the schematics and the related debacle that gave other orgs a SEVERE advantage over the rest of us.
Why, exactly, will you be broadcasting asteroids that players spend time, quanta and resources to find themselves out to all the pirates so they can come take it? Wouldn't it be only fair to require pirates to spend some time, quanta and resources to find US?
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
I knew they would fuck up Asteroids. They don't have enough development sense to make a fun and engaging longer range radar scanning system, to actually go out and explore the depths of space to find asteroids. Putting the ground work on a scanning system would then lead to also scanning for possible NPC wrecks, other player ships, anomolies, etc etc that could make space exploration actually fun, exciting, and dangerous. Things I would want in a space video game.
No no no, lets just "broadcast it for everyone" so they can check off a box and make it probably a small event then be done with it.
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
Why, exactly, will you be broadcasting asteroids that players spend time, quanta and resources to find themselves out to all the pirates so they can come take it? Wouldn't it be only fair to require pirates to spend some time, quanta and resources to find US?
Why, exactly, will you be broadcasting asteroids that players spend time, quanta and resources to find themselves out to all the pirates so they can come take it? Wouldn't it be only fair to require pirates to spend some time, quanta and resources to find US?
Why, exactly, will you be broadcasting asteroids that players spend time, quanta and resources to find themselves out to all the pirates so they can come take it? Wouldn't it be only fair to require pirates to spend some time, quanta and resources to find US?
Probably the best break down of the current situation of the game that anyone has posted. It sums up the thoughts of just about every former player I know.
About a year ago I fell in love with DU's tech and the promise. Launched my organization (DIA) with the beta. I have grown it to a relevant proportion. I then left the game due to what's basically a lack of content. This devblog series does not rekindle my hopes for the game. Here is what I think about the game's current state and my open letter to NQ and response to the devblogs.
Is DU a Tech Demo, a Beta, or a Full Launch?
Dear NQ,
A fundamental thing about why this game is losing so much momentum is you calling a tech demo a beta, then expecting players to actually play it like a fully launched game.
From a game mechanics perspective, Dual Universe is a tech demo. The only sustainably enjoyable and interesting gameplay has been construct building. Most playstyles this game should have been featuring are out of balance, boring, or nonexistent. Player support is a nightmare. The game regularly experiences bugs and exploits most of which affect the universe and enjoyment of all players, not just the ones who interact with the bugs.
From the your official perspective, DU is a beta, because you wanted to be able to charge the players for the game, yet make drastic changes to the game without angering the playerbase.
But from the player perspective, DU is a fully launched game, because you are letting players accumulate wealth, experiences, organizational structures; and carry it over to the actual launch. Let me explain why this matters so much.
Why Would People Play DU?
Your failure to recognize the fact that this game isn't a beta for the player showcases a fundamental lack of appreciation on why people play single shard sandbox games. People do not and will not play DU for the immediate experiences of mining, building, industry, ship flying, or PvP. Your main problem isn't the immediate "gameplay loops" that the players are put into. These are not the primarily outstanding features of DU gameplay. There are much better games out there for each. I could play Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous if I was super into spaceship flying. I could play Satisfactory for a way better version of DU's experience of industry. Literally any game has better PvP than DU.
[I exclude construct building from the above list of activities as it is pretty high level compared to games of similar nature, such as Minecraft. And guess what; it's your most time-invested and early-developed feature.]
We are early adopters of this game, because we want to play a game which we don't just log in and do our favorite activities, but we also want a game in which doing these activities matter in the context of the greater sandbox universe. The ore I collect could fuel a war. The PvP I do could save or collapse an organization. The ship or LUA I designed can be adopted by thousands of players, ultimately be used to tremendous ends. The factories I build could be the backbone of my space empire. We are here waiting for this emergent content to emerge. We are want to get ahead, be relevant, be famous, be helpful in our different ways in this universe. We want to be a part of something greater. That's what a single shard sandbox is about. The fact that whatever you are doing matters in a greater scheme of things, is why we are playing this game. This is also why game changes, exploits, lack of support and lack of content matters so much.
The Frustrations
We cared about playing in the context of a greater, living universe. So we sucked up the broken mechanics and the lack of content, and started seriously investing our time in DU. This is because if we didn't, we'd have fallen behind. In other words, we had no choice but to treat this game as a full launch in our time investment decision, because otherwise we'd be punished with respect to why we are playing the game. You basically forced yourself into a position which you constantly frustrate players, because you gave them a tech demo but pushed them to play as if it was a full game. Let me elaborate on concrete examples.
The vast majority of specific frustration cases in DU can be categorized into three.
Firstly, there are game design changes that invalidate people's hours. The industry patch, screen updates, and every other perhaps much-needed change that would invalidate hundreds of hours of people's time. Now since the game is mechanically a tech demo, you want to be able to make drastic changes. But since people play it as a fully launched game, they commit their full selves and do become frustrated when major changes that are very much necessary invalidate hundreds of hours of their time.
Secondly, there are bugs, exploits, and lack of support. People derived truckloads of money and benefits off them (e.g. the blueprint market bug, the initial T4-T5 bot ore purchases, old broken industry, and lots more). People who didn't get support fell behind (even in DIA we lost a warp beacon, and we didn't have DRM ownership of our factories due to the lack of support). These exploits and broken gameplay elements aren't things that you can shrug off when you fix them, because their repercussions in the DU universe (aka the illegitimate wealth people acquired, etc.) carry over even into the actual launch. And you didn't (in most cases couldn't) address that in most cases. You didn't remove the profits earned by the exploiters of the blueprint bot order fiasco, for example. When players earn billions off bugs and exploits, that makes the rest of us who has to do legitimate work to earn that income invalidated. That's game-breaking, because again, most of our enjoyment of DU derives from our activities in the context of the greater DU universe than just the activities themselves. Again, you launched a tech demo in which you didn't have the manpower to do cleanups (e.g. deleting the income) after exploits, and players playing it as a full game pay the price.
Thirdly, there is the lack of content because the game is underdeveloped. The path from a tech demo to boredom is pretty self explanatory with this category of frustration.
The truth is many players wouldn't have invested that much time and effort in trying to do things that matter in this sandbox, if the game reset once it's properly launched at an acceptable quality. And no, it obviously isn't enough to argue that "players knew that they were going into a beta" because you committed to not wiping the game, including designs. Because, again, people mainly play DU to matter and to be relevant in a universe, and you left them a choice of either falling behind of that goal, or playing a semi-working tech demo.
Emergent Content
The second big picture issue I see with your decisions is about your views and predictions of how emergent content emerges. Emergent content does not emerge unless the game creates the right conditions for it to emerge. The lack of conflict and content driving mechanics mostly made it impossible for it emerge in DU.
[I am saying "mostly", because the one playstyle which is an exception to this is construct building. Great construct creations (although only in looks, not as much in functionality) are the only emergent content this game provides so far. And guess what, the content around this playstyle (ships, stations, expos) are the only thing NQ Twitter can mention daily.]
For even a beta, DU should have emerged as many stories in war, piracy, theft, great empires, great trade deals, and so on. These are the kinds of things Eve players should be familiar with. The fact of the matter is that for any other single player experience, there is a better game. But for the emergent sandbox-wide content, DU could have been the best game. Meanwhile, we got JC's "puzzles" which were badly envisioned attempts to generate that content. They were one-time events generating one-time content. They were pretty exclusive in terms of the ratio of DU players engaging with it. They were probably a waste of your devtime. An elaborate "puzzle" is an example of how not to introduce emergent content to your sandbox. True sandbox content is typically unintended, unplanned.
Here are some immediate choke points on the game design which makes it non-conducive to emergent content.
Industry: All processes in DU leading up to construct building are fully vertically-integrateable solo (if not with a small organization). If you have 10 people, no reason to not to everything in-house. The game should have been designed from very early on in a way which deep specializations are needed to prevent self-sufficiency. Instead, your "gameplay loop" and "DU shouldn't feel like work" worries pushes you to introduce even more self-sufficiency (aka mining units). In a true sandbox people who don't want to mine would have other opportunities of value generation to buy the ore. Moreover, this is a bad case of "listening to players". Most players have no idea what makes an overall high quality sandbox. A builder will just want free materials to build. That doesn't mean that's a good implementation for a sandbox MMO.
Trade: JC's allergy to API, ESI and such removes huge depth from trading for the sake of trading.
Organization-Building: There is no value organizations can provide to members which they couldn't have gotten elsewhere. There is no service and value-generator members couldn't have gotten elsewhere unless they join. And inversely, there is no reason why members should pay "taxes" or invest in their organizations. Thus, there is no point in creating a deeply structured organization. Anything can be done better as 1 or 2 dedicated players, without all the hassle of people management.
Consensual PvP: There is no structure in which players can find PvP. Solo PvP isn't even viable (at least to most who don't use remote controllers) when 2 players can man an L core that can one-shot your ship. It is a huge deal-breaker for a sandbox game if one can't hop on their ship and find daily PvP at their small time window. Frankly I don't see how you will be able to circumvent this problem in the next year or years. The devblog certainly does not provide an answer here.
Organizational PvP: Can be summed up as "nothing to fight over". Even if you introduce territory warfare, huge mining and resource distributions revamps will ne required to make territories worth fighting over.
Non-Consensual and Asymmetric PvP: Piracy is near-impossible because avoiding potential pirates is easy. There is no mechanical depth to generate a meaningful risk/reward space in which some players die to pirates, but not in a game-disabling fashion. Similarly, there are no asymmetric (big org vs. small org) opportunities for the same lack of depth.
No PvE Content: You don't seem to have money for any.
No Exploration Content: You don't seem to have interest for much. One can do construct and planet exploration, but it gets old pretty fast without any reward. Moreover, exploration gameplay was a very low hanging fruit to generate right at the beta launch. Just sprinkle some exclusive rewards in a manner which someone roaming regularly would find these rewards at least once half an hour (and this is how you botched shipwrecks).
The Trajectory of the Game and DU as an Ecosystem
Reading the devblog does not excite me about the future of the game and on whether you learned meaningful lessons. Emergent content will not emerge unless you begin thinking about Dual Universe as an ecosystem. In a single shard sandbox, playstyles and activities should be interconnected in an ecosystem of relations. Yes, you do seem to realize that there is a lack of content, conflict driving mechanics, and more "sand in the sandbox". You don't however, seem to appreciate the role this interconnectedness plays in generating content.
For example, you want to implement space mining, but you don't think about the demand-side. Ore itself is only valuable if there is demand for it. The lack of PvP losses, the availability of ore in safe-zone players, in the market, and in people's long term stashes won't make ore worth fighting over. So you need new things with demand. And even when you meet this challenge, you have to solve the n+1 problem. For players, the optimized way of engaging with big-reward mechanics is creating consortiums and monopolies. Good conflict drivers involve inherent game designs against these. There is nothing for example, that yields advantages to smaller fleets of ships over larger fleets in DU PvP. This example illustrates how sandbox conflict drivers are supposed to be grounded on mindful and deep PvP mechanics, as well as meaningful balance of risk/reward to drive the conflict and the fun. It is unfortunately predictable that you will put some ore (or new items) to PvP space, and wait for people to sustainably fight over them, which won't happen. The nature of the reward and the nature of the PvP to obtain the reward are as much inherent to content emergence as the placement of the reward.
I have a pessimist prediction, because any earlier game design decisions involving ore distribution to planets and hexes, territory scanning, bot orders, industry flows, etc; indicate a similar lack in conceiving Dual Universe as a single interconnected ecosystem. Earlier decisions could have easily generated a more meaningful distribution of value to territories (the most valuable hex is cleared in a day, which is also connected to mining mechanics), things to fight over (if we would have construct PvP on asteroids, there is no reason why we didn't have construct PvP on some planets), exploration (for example, it's not costly to add 10 valuable NPC ships with sub-par AI at a given time to orbits of planets), and so on. Similarly, some future plans show the same lack of appreciation to DU as an ecosystem; such as mining units which will predictably devalue mining by underestimating how much effort players (and botters/RMT'ers) would spend to create big passive income setups.
Overall this all just feels like different teams at NQ are given different aspects of the game and they are all implementing their individual designs. There is no wider orchestration from upper level game designers and producers who truly can conceive DU as an ecosystem, and who can appreciate the interconnectedness different systems in the game should exhibit. JC looks like a person who has a great big picture vision, who wants his metaverse, but who does not have the necessary specific visions and approaches to sandbox/ecosystemic game design and development to get there.
DU's Project Management and Finances
As a final remark, it seems that most of this "lack of content" and the launch decisions could be due to high level decision-making for financial or technological reasons. Perhaps you heavily needed the subscription revenue. Or you needed players to truly commit to the game so you can test the tech. Even if so, the plan seems to have failed. The people who pitched the game to investors should have conducted better expectation management and better financial/business planning.
I am speculating JC was put on the bench for related reasons. If so, then that's perhaps a good call depending on who replaces him. If this is the most you could deliver given the money you have, I don't see how using the same money better would have delivered a timely product. The game might have just needed more money and several years more of development to reach a workable design and launch track. If so, then the responsibility is with those who planned DU and NQ as a business and project model.
That said, I hope the investors keep up with it, because I think the initial promise of the game (provided good future game design) is pretty sound. It might need two years more development and a bigger team though.
I'll keep following how the game progresses and I hope it succeeds. I don't find the money I spent on it a waste as I already played hundreds of hours.
I think the solution to this should involve something like the automated mining units, right away.
Leaving free resources all over the ground for new players makes the planets look really messy. And the process of picking them up is pretty tedious.
Add more surface resources and it's just more clutter. Make them less common with a higher payoff and it becomes a scavenger hunt that new players will not enjoy.
Giving new players the means to set up a low tier mining unit, that provides a small steady flow of resources, would skip all that mess.
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
Everyone here has paid to be in this game one way or another and they have the right to offer feedback, post suggestions and join in on ANY conversation they like. It is simply not your place to tell them otherwise.
Dhara reacted to SirJohn85 in Why PVP is important to the game.
Dhara got a reaction from Lethys in Why PVP is important to the game.
Dhara got a reaction from Squidrew_ in THE FUTURE OF DU COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Q&A - Discussion Thread
Dhara got a reaction from Clipper in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread
Dhara got a reaction from DystopianSnowman in THE FUTURE OF DU COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Q&A - Discussion Thread
Dhara got a reaction from blazemonger in THE FUTURE OF DU COMMUNITY FEEDBACK Q&A - Discussion Thread
Dhara got a reaction from Cabana in If you have less than 2 months in this game don't suggest anything
Dhara got a reaction from DrFrigoPorco in If you have less than 2 months in this game don't suggest anything
Dhara got a reaction from Pleione in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread
Dhara got a reaction from CptLoRes in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread
Dhara got a reaction from JohnnyTazer in DEVBLOG: THE FUTURE OF DU - Part 3 - Discussion Thread
Dhara got a reaction from Kurosawa in If you have less than 2 months in this game don't suggest anything
Dhara got a reaction from Supermega in If you have less than 2 months in this game don't suggest anything
Dhara got a reaction from GraXXoR in If you have less than 2 months in this game don't suggest anything