vylqun

As i already said once, i don't think my opinion is the non plus ultra, but its based on facts, logic and experience from the last 15 years where such topics arose dozens of times, its empirical knowledge. As scientist, if we observe something happen all the time, then we take that as fact until something different happens. But with the amount of examples over the past 15 years and the development of most mainstream-gamers into people with low or no patience and resistance to hardships its extremely unlikely, that something different will happen. Thus the reasonable consequence from this is, that games with to many annoying mechanics, annoying defined by the majority of players, will only be successful within an small playerbase. But thats something we all wish to avoid. If you can't accept this, then thats fine for me, if you think miracles might happen, then thats fine too. And if that miracle for DU happens, that DU has a massive playerbaser in spite of "eat or die" mechanics and similar, then i sure will be happy for DU. But if that mechanic is something that doesn't add a lot of value to a game but has a big potential of harming it, then sry, the reasonable consequence is to not include it into the game.

no, thats a misconception, let me quote omniscient google on that matter: I gave arguments for an "eat or die" system and arguments against it followed by a logical assessment of both sides with the goal to improve DUs gameplay, which completely qualifies as constructive criticism That said, "hard edges" in disputes aren't nessecarily bad because it means people care for the matter, of course only as long as no personal insults are used. Using double the amount of words to describe something "nicer" just because others might get offended if you formulate it plainly is a waste of effort. That desire to never offend anybody anytime because of any idea is hindering progress and one of the cancers of our current society, especially if those "offensive" things are just plain facts and reasoning without any emotional argument. People who get offended because you refute their ideas with logic and reason should toughen up a little bit, its not like they are insulted or get hurt if someone tells them that their ideas are bad.

yes, thats completely possible with the duties management system.

it sure is hard to discuss with emotional ppl, you just can't accept it, that your arguments are refuted, especially because most of them are based on your opinion, that we will have "millions of players with thousands participating in a single war which lasts for months", which is completely unrealistic. No it won't, with our current technology we will have more efficient indoor farming than outdoor farming within the next 3 or 4 decades. A nice page to get a rough overview is verticalfarm.com. Farming on the surface of planets will definitely not be more profitable if even the real world will archieve this this century. i have to remind you once again, that we talk about a mmorpg, not the real world. Only very few hardcore pvp-player will have the endurance to spend days or even a week to travel to an enemy just to spend months to beat him. That is certainly nothing you would see in the general warfare. You completely overestimate the scale of mmorpgs. I don't know where that misbelief that constructive criticism always has to give an alternative for the matter in question comes from, constructive criticism is giving good reasons why something is bad, so that mistakes can be prevented, it can have suggestions for improvement, but it doesn't need to have it. The goal of constructive criticism is to help to improve something, in that case the game, not a single idea. If its like you say then literally no idea is allowed to be refuted completely, no matter how bad it is, because thats "bad" criticism. And sry, thats just false. If someone comes to the conclusion, after considering all facets of a topic, that its bad for the game no matter how its designed, because the core mechanic itself is the problem, then there is no logical reason to suggest improvements, because those would still be bad for the game. Its a bit as in science. If you have a hypothesis then its nothing fatal if some of the predictions are wrong, you can always modify the hypothesis, so that it first the experiments. But as soon as the core of the hypothesis is refuted by reality then there is no need to work on it anymore, its plainly wrong.

So people who mine and build basically have to eat all the time while people who only engage in pvp or explore are completely spared from this? Such inequality isn't good for the community.

If something has way more negative aspects than positive ones it is not efficient to look for the few positive traits. Criticism doesn't always need to give a better possibility to realize something, when its way better to just let it be. (If someone wants to cut his veins you wouldn't tell him how to do it with less pain, you would stop him) Because it isn't. And even, if by some miracle, it happens, then those players wont spend several weeks on the battlefield, and even if a single campaign might take a week its still completely possible for the players to take the food needed by themselves. I mean, look at your 1-week food shopping in real life, its a big basket, not more. And that includes 3 meals per day! There is no need for the leadership to organize food support. Optimism is one thing, but designing a game around the chance that a miracle might happen is just unreasonable and wrong. I don't act like some all-knowing being, i just give logical arguments for my point of few. If you feel that this crushes your dreams then thats sad for you, but i don't belong to the people who keep their opinion for themselves just because they don't want to hurt others, especially if the topic is quite important. You seem to be quite emotional about it, which is probably why you won't accept the lack of real value of a food system . I will once more repeat my reasoning from the other thread, so its completely in this one, feel free to refute them, up to now you just ignored them saying that those wouldn't be proper criticism (which is certainly wrong). Negative Aspects of a food/water mechanic: Positive Aspects: - a food/water mechanic serves as a very limited market (limited because the most basic food would satisfy the demand), still, a little bit of trading would be possible - it gives additional demands for the design of exploration ships and for exploring unchartered regions of planets - it allows people to become chefs and create their own dishes/buff food Negative Aspects: - a chore for everyone who wants to build/farm/research/pvp because they regulary have to buy and ingest food without any value for them - chores like regular intake of food deter a lot of players who just want to build or pvp In my opinion those 2 negative Aspects far outweight the 3 positive aspects, because the market will be enormous, food would only be a really small, neglectable part of it and explorers also only are a minority in the playerbase, and most of them probably dont want to take tons of food with them either. Concerning the profession as Chef, thats something thats nice for the single player but has no impact at all on the whole playerbase, it maybe would be nice, but definitely not worth the "eat or die" mechanic, its completely enough if food would be for buff purposes only. Now the arguments which you gave why a food system would be good for the game: It needs to be included in the planning of large scale pvp - i already said something about that, its just wrong. The duration of campaigns in an online game is not compareable to real live, it wont take several months, thus every player is completely able to take his own food with him without having to use up to much space in his inventories or storage. Any dreams of pvp battles with several thousand players which take long anough that those players aren't able to carry their own food are just that, dreams. It would make green planets more valuable for farming - would be true in a mediveal game, but not in science fiction. We could build hydroponic farms literally everywhere, and if not that even the nanoformer could create basic organic material, which might not taste good but serves its purpose. Feel free to answer on my reasoning, but content-less sentences like "you're arrogant", "you give no alternatives" etc. are nothing that would do anything to support your case, so i'd suggest to keep them to urself, they're just meaningless.

ok, so u weren't the one with the food, will take that back then, the rest of my post is still valid tho.

Oh, don't oh, don't say that, i played anarchy online for several years, and we had quite some parties there (official and inofficial ones), without a real need to eat food

you can have that without the actual need to eat food.

now really? you were given several arguments exactly why food and water doesn't add anything valuable to the game and would rather decrease the playerbase, and you claim no one gave constructive critizism? Are you trying to troll the community? There was a logical answer to every argument that was given for a food mechanic, are you really going to ignore that and say that there weren't any? How should we take your posts serious if u behave like that? And then you come with the reasoning that players want to loot something? What would you rather loot after killing a player and/or destroying his ship, ressources, components, blueprint files, weapons etc. or some cereals? As if food is anything that'd be desired by pirates. For food to be something desireable, that people would kill for it, it has to be at least uncommon. If food is uncommon its even more so a reason to not include this mechanic, because then besides the need to always carry the food, you have to put in the effort to actually get it somehow. Thats just ridiculous.

A mmorpg can't limit their playerbase to much, else it will vanish within a few years. Every Tag you slap on a game reduces the number of potential players. Science fiction is already a genre which has far less players than fantasy, remove instanced pve dungeon and another big chunk of players is gone. The tag voxel builder game also decreases the amount of potential players. If you want to slap a complete survival tag on it, with the nessecerity to eat/drink/sleep etc. then another big amount of players will be gone, and you will most likely never have more than a few hundred players play the game. Some mechanics found in survival games might be ok, like a certain space suite to visit harzadous enviroments is ok, it fits well in the exploration theme. But those hardcore survival mechanics are a no go. Just as example, Space engineers has in average 4k-5k players online, guess how many would quite the game if they had to interrupt their shipbuilding just to look for food or water somewhere. Believe me, they wouldn't be able to keep that number of players.

You talk about warfare with armies thausand of peoples strong over a course of months, you don't really expect that to happen right? A war effort in DU wont take longer than a few days, if you have to eat once every 24 hours then its hardly an effort to organize it and it certainly doesn't have enough weight to influence you in any way. If you want to increase the amount people must have to eat to make an impact for warfare, then sorry, no one will play the game except for some extreme roleplayers, because then you'd need several kg/day. You seem to have the assumption that there are millions of people to feed, which simply isnt the case. Reeeeaally big wars in DU will most likely involve some hundred players (and thats highly unlikely already). Even if they stay in the warzone for a week without returning that means maybe 1000 kg of food or water, thats nothing compared to the ammonition and fuel needed within that week. So concerning the construction of ships (non-exploration ones) and for wars food is neglectable in amount and weight. And the Value of planets for growing food? Please, we have a scifi game, even if food is needed people would just put a hydroponic farm in a desert and thats it. Doesn't make green planets any more valuable. So all in all, food adds nothing of value to the game.

i'd take that 10 dong subscription anytime

As long as you can archieve it with ingame means, yes. If you argue anything else then you would also allow cheating tools. And multi boxing is certainly not something you can do solely with ingame means

its pretty easy actually, for things like ammunition, fuel etc. you chose to need them. You don't need to participate in space warfare or something alike, if you do then you chose to have to organize your ships and ressources for that one war/raid/whatever, and afterwards your free again. For mechanics like food/water etc. you do not chose to do it, you must do it. Always. Whenever you want to play. Please don't tell me, that you don't see that enormous difference^^ Ammo weight, fuel etc. directly impact the design of spaceships and thus the PvP, it makes carriers viable, limits the size of spaceships without any wierd artifical limit and turns war in an all out effort for alliances who need to have the logistics to survive it longer than a day.The impact on War, Organizations and Economy is severe. Food on the other hand, aside from needing a small container to store the food for several days, and having to use it in certain periods adds no value to the game.

there will be research, it wasn't said how exactly it will look like tho.

Don't know anything of whats writtenon facebook^^ but if they consider including some survival elements and keep it at those they named, that means harsh conditions, then its ok, as long as you are within those "zones" you may need more fuel, electricity etc. But that shouldn't carry over to the zones with normal condition

you didn't quite get what i said, its not important if you can join groups and go around killing people, because everyone can do so, even if you had a 100 vs 1 its ok because the one person also has the option to look for 99 other people ingame. Its not unfair, its just a difference in the playstyle. If players can get something by paying money which other players can't archieve ingame, and if that thing gives them advantages, be it in economy or pvp then thats something that shouldn't be supported. you always talk about how players who don't multibox have an advantage if they have the same amount of ships, but that in itself is a problem, because you yourself say it needs more than one player to beat the one opponent, even if the time played is equal. Let me try to ignore the direct pvp part and make an example concerning the economy. At the start of the game, everyone is equal. Some people start mining, some start research, some explore. Then there is one who has 6 accounts and does everything twice as fast. The gain per account is equal, but the multiboxer will pool all ressources, research etc. into his main account, while its very unlikely, that you will find 5 other people who would give up all their work just for you. After a month or maybe two months the multiboxer will have an extreme lead in research and production capabilities and able to dominate the "early game" while it would need a group of people to stop him. Everyone else who hasn't found a group will be powerless. And all that just because he spent more money for gaming than the other players. Thats just unacceptable. And no, the argument that you could join a guild and pool the ressources together doesnt count, because to have a comparison you would have to set them up against a guild of multi boxers with the same amount of real players.

I want to build, explore and pvp, i don't want to have to limit my experience by any mandatory actions that are useless to my playstyle. Even if i only had to eat once a day, i would still have to bother with buying and carrying it, even if there are waypoints where we could log out all over the universe i wouldn't want to bother with looking for those locations to log out etc. It has no value except for survival roleplayers, which isn't what DU is. So to answer your question, every mandatory action which wouldn't be important for any integral part of the game is something that will make a few or many ppl quite the game, me included.

@Warden I as well as many others would never play a game with mandatory food. Even if its DU. But as i said previously: i would like to not turn this topic into yet another thread where such things are discussed, i meant it as a friendly reminder, thats all. There's a pretty big thread about food and related stuff already

i would like to not turn this topic into yet another thread where such things are discussed, i meant it as a friendly reminder, thats all. There's a pretty big thread about food and related stuff already

where does it say, that DU has a focus on food and water

yes, but that doesnt change the fact, that he was able to inflict the damage and went "unpunished" against all those other ships he attacked. He wouldn't have been able to do that if he didn't multibox. And while your corps was able to kill some of his ships, all the other guys before you didn't, they probably weren't amused by that. If he had archieved this by having a superior spaceship, or because he has a group of ingame friends with whom he raids other people, that would be completely ok. But every other player would have this possibility too, they could upgrade their ships or get into a group. There is nothing that they couldn't also do. Multiboxing on the other hand gives you capabilities that others can't gain ingame be it because they dont have the money for more accounts or for a better computer. Thats without a doubt p2w and should never be part of a game where warfare is an integral part of the gameplay.

Sure, how does it feel to lack any proper arguments, trying to "win" the discussion by assuming the role of the poor victim? Hypocrisy is an insult for you too? Then change your behavior.

So in the end a single player managed to destroy the ships of 2 players while fighting against your corps and in his nummerous previous attacks versus single players he never lost anything. Thanks for reinforcing my point about multiboxing in pvp