Jump to content

plmkoi

Member
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About plmkoi

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Alpha
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

85 profile views
  1. "I don't need to describe anything here how griefers will be blocked - because I already did that by saying: " markets are run by players, so they will naturally block griefers to access those "- lolz Now I hope you aren't seriously going to believe in this, reality is going to disappoint you. I have seen that thrown around so much, I really tried to research where people came up with this idea and from what mmo. Literally every FFA/pvp heavy mmo market access is never an issue and you don't have to just base it off games, you can see it in reality. ISIS was terrible in many people's opinions and it still didn't prevent them from utlizing the market. It is human nature that, as Gekko said, "greed is good". As for the reputation system, yes the RDMS is strong, but it is too much micro and with loop holes. But like I said, I will wait for a better in depth video where it isn't utilizing a system that would be amazing for a games scale of Space Engineer's and more to an actual Civ building game that they are advertising. Again, the Sec status is limited to one planet or whatever and it can easily work, as many games have done it. Again, I am unsure what mmo's you have played, but it is apparent that it was never a sand box/pvp centric. Nothing to do with punishing players as even the Eve sec status doesn't stop suicide ganking, if anything, it just protects the new players of that area. 20 km sounds like a lot, but it won't be as surprisingly there are a lot of "carebears" and with enough time you can convert them to pvper's, I had done it in Eve. As for the final paragraph, it is obvious you never played Eve, as organization's are going to enact a NBSI policy 70% of the time. The ones that don't will still do business with people like me, as the morality of griefing in reality, is inconsequential to many people and you see it in Eve. Only snowflakes believe in that crap that the community will police up griefers and it is the most delusional thing I have read in the forums after tons of titles that had FFA pvp are dead (eve isn't FFA). This whole Org/alliance doing the policing people touted on these forums are in my opinion, people who never played Eve online or anything similar. The ones running these organizations are going to have a rude awakening when they encounter the meta game actual Eve players employ. People fail to realize the point of Eve's sec status implementation and that is usually because of people playing the game after 2012. It is to prevent easy griefing, which meant it required some actual effort. Stuff like this helps ensure that the game will always have a higher success chance of converting players into the long haul. You are probably unaware, but Eve is in decline because of the poor foresight of the studio to change the toxic HTFU mentality. We don't have to follow in CCP's footsteps and we can actually have a higher conversion rate then CCP will ever have. This game is quite capable of catering to both "carebears" and "pvpers" and "sociopaths". At the end of the day I am still confident the game is going to be 90% null and 10% empire, I just would like to increase the latter slightly. As for Novaquarks "wants" in all honesty we don't know for sure as they have changed things and adapted, which a competently run studio should. They have considered putting in automated turrets that everyone here has said shouldn't be in the game, but they are going to put mechanisms in to make it work in DU from the explanations.
  2. Yes, to get any type of money, but what I am referring to is faucets, that means creation of currency. Faucets are non player controlled ways for the game to inject cash into the game and you have sinks that removes the money from the game to avoid devaluing the money. If the only method of generating cash is through the sale of ore to npc's, I expect people to just hoard the cash. People afraid of "infinite currency" have obviously never played any mmo outside of a theme park. I believe the developers are going to have to put more thought into how they are going to inject cash into the game. If you want to get a better idea on how a sand box economy works, this guy does a okay job explaining it.
  3. Well if that is the case, sounds like it would be better to just have a rail system implemented into the game. The videos already makes gas very expensive.
  4. Isn't the game only being tested for player load on the server? A lot of the video they showed off was just players walking around in a small area, I would assume problems start to crop up as soon as you have pvp combat. I would assume that adding physics like the above video would be an issue for a small company with finite resources, not to mention the amount of programming adding nice physics to the game.
  5. I think the fear should not be the infinite money, but the lack of money. I really do hope that the studio really looks into another faucet besides just relying on ore buy/sell orders. Sounds like hell if I have to dig for rocks just to make some cash. That is going to kill game pr: Noob: How do you make money? Vet: Go out into the wild and dig for rocks and sell it to npc's. After doing that 150 times you can finally afford a speeder.
  6. I think everyone is blowing the rmt'ing way out of proportions. I played Eve since 09' and while yes the plex created a black market, it was no where close to Wow's or any other theme park mmo's scale. All the game's you mentioned were mainly theme park mmo's and the leveling could be done if you paid someone to power level for you. DU is copying off Eve's model for a good reason, that skills/abilities are time based. This in itself is a major deterrent for a lot of players if DU decides to go heavy handed with a ban or CCP's method of draining your account of all the illicit cash you paid for even if it goes into the negative. If anything the bot's are going to make the studio filthy rich because those accounts are going to have to resub and players punished for buying dirty currency will have to climb out of that hole with game time sales on the forum. If they do what CCP does, it will be wait for a couple months as they collect all the id's of players selling/bot farming (insta ban) and players purchasing the dirty money. They would then ban those accounts and by that point players have used the dirty currency and so if you don't have that amount in your wallet, well you are going to be in the whole for a lot = aka sell game time on the market or quit and lose that investment of months or years for that account. Plus from what I am seeing so far how the game's vision/development. Botting is going to be very challenging endeavor based off a lot of the mechanics that requires some active participation. The only thing this studio has to do different from CCP, is to make sure that they look into player organizations trying to launder that dirty money and punish the leaders.
  7. Unlike those other games you mentioned, they are going to be selling game time for player to utilize for resale in game cash. Only reason why Eve Online is different is that yes they sell game time, but they also have mission running and mining mechanics that can easily be replicated by bots. There are always going to be botting in mmo's, the difference being the scale/amount that goes on in the game. CCP had botting under control for the most part until they allowed limited free 2 play and after that point it is wildly out of control.
  8. My interpretation of this thread (correct me if I am wrong) is people being impatient with the development. If that is, the only thing I am going to add is that if people are impatient in regards to a game that is developing, it is time they put their time into something more productive. I remember when people were impatient for Trion's Rift and End of Nations when it came to testing and development of extra features that were half baked. Well one wasn't too successful post launch and the other was scrapped before many people can play the open beta. If people can wait for Star Citizen, I am sure we can be patient with DU.
  9. Well depending on how much content the dev's put into their game there are a lot of professions you can do. You can slave away mining resources for other players or organizations. Be a weapons or building designer and sell the prints on the market. You can space haul stuff to sell at other systems or build yourself a Millennium Falcon and haul stuff to organization's that are dealing with a space blockade Or be a spai, commit corporate espionage or sabotage another organization's defenses Take bounties on people Like I said it is really going to be dependent on the features as launch and shorty after. All but the designer point were actual professions in Eve before CCP started to kill them, in particular smuggling was pretty cool.
  10. Well this would be too reliant on player run organizations to not kill the game. Sounds like you are just advocating for what Eve already has in place. That is why they need to implement a neutral gate for anyone to get access too. This is the way I see things as well. The dial in feature sounds like a lot of extra work for the developers for little gain in my view. I don't see why they can't just put in neutral gates that were made by the flood, space marines, insert "species" here and allow anyone to use the gates to jump into systems that have a lot of planets nearby. Then have built gates that players can put in, that is connected to another point according to the max distance allowed for the gate, built for organizations to utilize. This prevents people from being forced to rely on player organizations and prevents cheese. This whole idea of letting players control the gates and main modes of travel sounds a bit ludicrous. Allow players to create their own separate gates that aren't connected to the main mode of traveling and they can charge or not. It still gives options for emergent game play, but avoids a situation where the abuse can kill the game or the developers later in an expansion or two has to intervene and get crapped on through PR with the griefing. Why put ourselves in a situation where players has to spend a week to drop another gate to a system, just for that organization to find it and blow it up? This sounds like the same idea of asking for a lot of stealth tech to avoid having your territory claim visible.
  11. Well they have to follow some procedures to take your claim as it isn't permanent, am I right or wrong? I was tracking it wouldn't be any of the shenanigans from games like Rust, where you build something and log off just for someone to tear it down. Or did all this change recently?
  12. Well the DU version of gold is going to be the game time you can openly sale on the market. That is from my understanding the biggest metric on the inflation or deflation of the game and nearly impossible to manipulate if it is transparent. As cool as it would be I don't think it is worth the effort. If I had to spit ball on possible design ideas it would be: Make skill training be very tedious/long in order to be able to sell stocks on an exchange. So a player that wants to take the corp public would take nearly a year to fully train a level 5 skill. This is to prevent multi accounts from starting them up and scamming like you see on Eve. If you decide to take a corp public there has to be a feature where assets are locked down to the corp and not removable and it matches the valuation requested. Assets being sold to another individual has to be approved by share holders. Assets are locked down during the ipo and won't be finalized until after a certain % of shares are sold or time has been past. Basically the stocks that were bought with in game $ is in escrow until one or both above features are met. You would have to put in a lot of effort into making the financials transparent and this is not going to be easy. This is where I leave it to people who actually does trades irl Just from these points it is pretty obvious in my opinion the scale/difficulty of putting these features into the game in any expansions over the decade of this title (if it lasts that long). I think a better use is allowing us to have contracts that we can put up collateral held in escrow and we loan people the in game money with w/e interest rate the players set. They fail to pay off the loan then you own the collateral. This is an easier way to get your business off the ground with a cash infusion from an angel investor.
  13. Well even if they don't balance out and space is economically superior to planet side, I think you are misinterpreting the strategic benefits of planets for military. While space is going to be cheaper to produce goods, planets is what I would call "the center of gravity" and here are three reason why. If we take for example planets is Star Wars, they have shields that prevent orbital bombardment and so it requires sending in a ground force to destroy said buildings. If the studio includes automated defenses of a certain scale, they can make planets more strategically valuable, based off resources needed and the scale (think massive batteries or solar farms etc). Easier to just build a large turret next to building A and connect it with wires over another hardened structure to protect said battery/cpu when it is out in space. A planet is unlikely to get destroyed compared to a space station no matter how big. So in a war situation it is more sound to stock pile your hardware on a planet that can be in a underground facility. This then makes the situation more like a war of attrition where the defenders goal is to retain their city and wear out the defender. As long as the city has enough resources, it then becomes a matter of who breaks first. This will also make the Han Solo game play more realistic as the attackers, if they are unable to siege the city, will need to have a blockade to prevent additional resources/reinforcements from coming. Planets are very important for large organizations as you can just use the factories to reconquer the space you have lost. Unless you destroy that organizations center of gravity which is them being on the planet, they will just take back the territory in space. As another organization you also don't want no hardware on those planets as you push deeper into the organization because they will also threaten your "lines of communication" which is a kiss of death of a campaign. I don't think it is necessary to balance out either as just the fundamental game design should be enough. Space is going to be economically superior to build a bunch of stuff and that sounds reasonable with no fuel costs like it is to get goods off planet side. But space is very vulnerable and organizations that are totally space dependent with no planet territories or going to be easily destroyed in a war no matter how big.
  14. Well I am only going to say that it is common sense that video games build on the forerunners of previous games. Let's make sure we use that grey matter and remember that a portion of the concepts in this game comes from Eve. As for automated turrets, it has already been put in that it will be added to the game, but not as effective as a human controlled one from what I understand. I don't think you even bothered to read the suggestions as ExtendedBacon seems to get the idea. As for your last point is moot as just claiming that griefers will be blocked and not putting in your own words how, proves the age old concept, that it is easier to tear down other peoples idea, then putting in your own solutions. You are already showing support for the rep system with the color coding which is why I question if you actually read or understood the post. Your answer is silly as this makes a player run organization having to micro manage over just having 2 systems that one is server controlled and the other stream lined by something that a diplo can actually do. It would also behoove you to read up on the Eve forums/reddit more often. It has been discussed that another reason for Eve's gradual/substantial decline in population is corp management/leadership. Yes, it is fun for the first year or few, but then it becomes not fun and a chore and results in burn out. People who claimed to play Eve usually never played in a serious leadership position and the tedious work does burn everyone out. We don't need the npc police as that is a waste of dev time in my opinion. The point is, to utilize the security system so that players who just want to grief or w/e would just be flagged for no consequence kill on sight and allow players who doesn't want to service griefers with their structures to ostracize them. As for the attackers can bide their time, that right there just means it is working as what else could the griefer do? Going to just keep bumping you? Call you mean names? The rep system is irrelevant outside of the players territory, so this makes me wonder if you have actually read through the suggestion. Community word of mouth is highly unlikely as most of the mmo games tend to be tribal. The whole point of putting in this system is to avoid the pitfalls of tribalism that is currently killing Eve right now. Once this studio releases the game it is next to impossible to fix the game later down the road. CCP obviously never thought that far ahead and so at this point all they can do is wait till the sub base can no longer pay the companies bills. Yes, your reading is roughly spot on what the rep system is meant for and really has 0 impact outside a players controlled structures. This is a forum and so I hope to see other responses in regards to how this could be improved. This is just in my opinion a stream lined version of the RDMS system as instead of having to type in everyone or organization, you can just use a system that is already in Eve that any idiot (like myself) can do. The difference being that to avoid rep's abuse of jumping out of a organization, so you can utilize the services it will just follow you, over having to manually type that individuals characters name. This is really how the sec status would play off this idea on top of creating actual consequences. Why does a player that owns a bunch of buildings, has to type in every single name of people that can be taxed using refineries or w/e? Don't want people what wants to pk randoms? sec status = red kill on sight/no access. You set the player org red because they like Harem anime and that is heresy in your eyes? play org = red and if individuals leave to avoid that rep hit to use your facilities has to talk to a diplo that controls that function. The sec status would just make it easier that anyone that isn't a pk'er can use your facilities and so people that might be from a drastically different time zone and possibly don't speak your language can use your facilities and you make coin from them. I look at both systems as a way to filter out people that you don;t want on your territory. One is the general population and the rep version is to notify that org or player that they are/aren't welcome to weed out undesirables from the general population.
  15. I have read through the rights management and find it a great tool to manage your own groups, but when trying to apply it to other organizations/players, it is in my view quite tedious. I would believe that it is easier to just right click an organization or player and set the standings over creating tags for every organization or individual. I see the tagging system as tedious bureaucracy that adds a lot to the workload for leadership and we are already seeing how that is killing Eve. But I will wait until seeing a video that goes into depth of everything you can do with the tagging system and how it is streamlined before I drop the standing proposal. As for the security status, I did add that it is put on planets with an ark ship. I haven't seen anything in your post of possible exploits and so not sure what you mean. I only recommend the security status since it will be easier on newer players. CCP is learning as we speak of the bad practices of telling people to HTFU (harden the fu** up) with lowering sub numbers on top of stagnation. But if we are expecting DU to have a life of a decade, then sure we can discard the security status idea. The point is to give newer players a chance to explore and test out the game and minimize the griefing. I would say it is quite naive to assume that player organizations won't set up shop near the initial ark zone just kill players for the lulz. We can do better then other dead sandbox mmo's by providing a small safety net for new people entering into the game. Because there were multiple mmo's that implemented the same system of safe starting town and a gank fest risk free outside.
×
×
  • Create New...