Jump to content

ostris

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ostris

  1. True, ultimately this discussion is hard because there really is no base to work off of, no existing exact match. I think I or place a lot of importance on the stated PvP availability and bias less PvP then more PvP, unless the dev is VERY committed to having heavy(widely available) pvp. Also i am very heavily referring to the stated final state of the game. you perhaps less so on the importance of PvP and are referring to the game as it is now? Correct me if I'm wrong. I really hope it breaks down the way you are saying in the long term. I just hope NQ doesn't compromise game play to make it happen. This is my primary concern and why i referenced FO76.
  2. @blazemonger Once again you are attributing to me something i never said and arguing a point i never made. When I say the game wont be safe your response is essence is you probably won't die. Probably is not 0%. In other games you are 100% safe to mine, 100% safe to play the game loop(at least from other players). Not 99.99999% safe. I am not afraid of any type of player dominating the game. And never said i was. I'm "afraid" about the disconnect between the world NQ is putting out and the world I think they will get. The game can work with lots of pvpers everywhere or lots of p+e players everywhere. With things being safe OR nothing being safe. I'm ok with all of it. The game world should match the game they want to make. If they want it to be a civ building game first and pvp second then the game world should not be structured the exact opposite. PvP in 99% of the game world with small protected areas. It is also odd to me that you accused me of knowing the pvp systems etc which i never said i did. My entire argument is games that allow open world pvp tend to be dominated by it and that runs against the civ style game NQ sometimes markets. That's the beginning and end of my argument, because as you stated we don't know anything else about combat. Your entire post, for it to be true, has to make huge assumptions about how game play mechanics work. You are assuming you can easily hide from those that want to kill you because the world is so large. You are assuming that the game play will support this style of game yet we know nothing of why it will be that way. This is YOUR argument, that I couldn't know the details of the pvp system. Yet somehow you KNOW you can hide. My point does not require any of this, it only requires the clearly stated position of NQ towards pvp and p+e zones. @Borb_1 I appreciate the way you discuss things. As to your first paragraph, this would be the exact opposite of the stated position NQ has right now. They have stated if you want to gain something of value it must come with risk. The Moon Safe zones, clearly stated, will have NO resources in the ground and the arkship safezone is too small to be relevant in mining for the long term(i don't know if they have provided a clear answer to what resources will be in the arkship safe zone). What your saying in this first paragraph is pretty much what i am saying NQ should do to get the game you are stating DU is. Which is provide the complete or near complete P+E game loop to players with no threat of PvP. So i guess i kind of agree with this. Neither one of you have actually answered the question I asked. You talked about why it SHOULD be the way you say. Why the mechanics of the game, that none of us know, SHOULD lead to the P+E base you say. The point I am making is if primary P+E civ building is the game NQ wants, why implement stuff that SHOULD make it that way instead of implementing stuff that DOES make it that way. This game is vastly different then other games so I agree none of us can KNOW how it will work out(keep in mind you are both saying this is a civ game as if you KNOW it will be). But the question neither of you answered, if you have the opinion that this should be primarily a P+E civ building game with a smaller PvP top: "why have the game world as PvP with P+E zones, and not the opposite? Why force the PvP in to the P+E game loop? "
  3. Great post and really well put. The large world will help, but i still disagree on the principal. Mostly because what you are classifying as P+E gameplay, in du with the current described way of handling where you can PvP, are actually P+E + PvP. There is no safe mining, there is no safe scanning, there is no safe hauling. And if you want the things you design and build to be usable in 99% of the game world, pvp must be considered when building and designing. To me what you are describing is a game world much more similar to what I am saying DU should be. Simply put a game world where the game loop can be satisfied without PvP. As it currently stands whatever form pvp may take it will be rooted in every P+E element you mentioned because of the fact that there are virtually no safe zones. The open world PvP style forces PvP in to the game loop. I guess my question to you is. If you see the game world as the pyramid you describe, why have the game world as PvP with P+E zones, and not the opposite? Why force the PvP in to the P+E game loop?
  4. I honestly don't know if you do it intentionally or not or if you are just a troll or what, but every time you reply to pretty much anyone you pick one sentence out of context, greatly misrepresent it or completely miss the point. The only reason I bother replying is that maybe i need to clarify so that if someone else reads this topic they will understand what I am saying. To clarify the only game mechanics i am referring to are if the game is structured as a pvp game with pve zones or a pve game with pvp zones. Currently this is a pvp game with pve zones. The vast majority of the game world is pvp and all/most resources are mined in areas where people can fight. Even if a player doesn't pvp and stays in safe zones, the minerals they build with are acquired by someone who risked pvp. A pve game with pvp zones would be a game where certain planets or spaces are pvp and those planets have some advantage like large amount of high value resources. In that game you could choose to mine in pve zones and build in pve zones and ignore pvp completely.
  5. The information on this thread has me a bit worried. I have felt like for awhile that NQ's messaging on the game has not really matched the pvp/safezone system they have planned. If I had no knowledge of the pvp system in this game and i looked at the feedback in this thread I would assume the game is a PvE game with high value PvP planets or zones and mechanics to encourage building in those zones. Every game i have played that allows open world pvp with limited or no safe zones becomes almost entirely about the PvP. Everything in the game gets impacted by pvp. The iron to build a building is really expensive cause its also used in ammo and that pisses off the pve types, as an example. Ultimately, I'm ok with the current system, pvp game with pve zones OR the opposite pve game with pvp zones. I think both can work and make a fun game. But it concerns me when the developer implements one system and then hedges against it. So pvp anywhere except some zones with no resources......but its not just a pvp game guys its about civilization building and crafting. I get the same vibe i got from Fallout76. KILL OTHER PLAYERS - PVP, 2 months later. Well you can slap other players and they can choose to fight back and if they dont its nearly impossible to kill them and if you do kill them they will only drop junk ....soooo dueling we implemented dueling and called it PvP. I'm not getting that bad of a vibe from NQ but I guess I'm sensing it a bit. A clash between saying this is a PvP game, kill anyone, anywhere and trying to make it appealing to pve types by saying its not really a pvp game its a civ game. I don't really care what system they pick as long as its in line with the true direction of the game and the messaging NQ puts out. In short, as the game mechanics are now, I see this game as being a PvP oriented game with, say half the game being about pvp and half being PvE and that is a PVP game not a civ building game. If that's not the game NQ wants they should change the pvp system.
  6. discordauth:tNDmyvu53JM5Rna9mGVhKfwLCmUwQZEkNtvMd8t0j0I=

  7. 1) I am not moving the goal post you made a statement that players cannot form police. Why? Why can players not form police or at least police like structures? The point i was making is if players can do all this stuff why can they not form police, guards etc? i then listed several police like actions players can take. And piracy would be considered an act of evil. It was in OPs post about non consensual pvp and piracy. you literally used it as an example of evil: "What's been coming up here is risk vs reward, sure you need to take risk to get the rare stuff but at the same time, a pirate will need to accept the risk of losing free and safe access to markets and facilities in safe zones when choosing the life in game he/she does." So pirates commit acts of evil and the game should punish them by removing the only protection players have, pirates robbing a mining op would be an act of evil and punishable using your own example, or is it only certain kinds of piracy? or are we only talking about griefing now? 2/3) 2 to me is just a statement you made. It has no bearing on the discussion as presented. You could provide a reason WHY people need to be able to attack pirates in safe space. Not just state they cant. I literally said i dont understand 3 4) I guess i need to quote 4 again because i literally said " I'm not saying NQ should have no regulation or power in any aspect of the game. They should leave controlling piracy and other evil acts to players or at least try to before declaring it obviously not possible." Why do you literally ignore peoples statements when you offer counter points. You did it in two posts back to back. I said in 4 nq should be able to provide some mechanics but primarily piracy(the example you have used and OP has used) should be controlled by players or at the very least try to leave it to be controlled by players.
  8. 1) Why can players form pirate orgs but mining orgs cant have part of their org be guards or hire guards or hire mercs to kill the pirates, all of these actions are effectively policing. 2) Pirates have no means or methods to act against players inside the safe zones. Everyone has to leave the safe zone or use material from outside of safe zones to play the game. 3)I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make. Maybe miscommunication. I am saying players can hold pirates responsible for their actions by killing them for the fun of pvp or because they were paid too. 4)Not entirely sure what the point of this one is but maybe contract system? I'm not saying NQ should have no regulation or power in any aspect of the game. They should leave controlling piracy to players or at least try to before declaring it obviously not possible. I mean its literally the premise of his point that NQ can make ammo very expensive, as in there is no effective cheap ammo....arguments are never valid when you just ignore part of it.
  9. I see, would one of the most aggressive pvp systems be more preferable? Cause I'm ok with that, i guess I am being a little loose with the absolute nature of my statements in that post. I was speaking very generically about full loot pvp systems being pretty hardcore by comparison to the vast majority of games that either offer non full loot pvp or pve only servers.
  10. So just to be clear you think i want a PvE friendly environment?
  11. i feel like saying "the player base can't control this obviously" about a game with really no basis of comparison without even attempting it in alpha/beta is rather silly. I guess ill challenge that statement. why can players not control this?
  12. This to me is the bridge to what OP said and what many have been discussing. In my eyes its not just CAN you be evil. It's does the game abnormally punish or reward you for for being evil. If you can be evil but every time you kill an innocent ship your avatar is frozen for 7 days i really doubt you would see much pvp, conversely if it rains dacs every time you kill a noob the game would probably be unplayable. I think this is where me and @blazemonger disagree. I think its better left to the player base to control and he would like some intervention by nq in game mechanics to curb this(keeping out of safe zone). Ultimately though the balance of reward/punishment for evil behavior or protection from evil behavior will determine if being evil is really viable...even if it is allowed.
  13. So with some understood elements such as the pirate being in a better ship, had more numbers and is otherwise capable of winning the fight and beating guards etc then yes. At least if NQ wants to implement the current system with our limited understanding of pvp.
  14. Hmm yeah i guess we just have different standards. I consider any game in which i can kill you and take your hard earned stuff as, for lack of a better term, in the top 10% of hardcore pvp. Most games like wow you get nothing and many of the games that have full loot style pvp, have pvp and pve servers(ark/rust). A game that if you want to play required you to accept this type of pvp in my eyes in pretty hardcore. But with your standards of hardcore i can agree with what your saying.
  15. I understand. ill edit the post.
  16. I guess i just feel like the pirates are already taking on risk and don't need gameplay mechanics to have more. They are attacking ships in pvp space so they in turn can be attacked and destroyed. They risk the same thing as miners and transport ships. If you put more restrictions on piracy i would argue maybe the open full loot style pvp that greatly rewards piracy like this is the problem. especially when it is very difficult to implement these systems in a satisfactory way to the player base.
  17. So i guess im just reading a lot of these comments different then you. I see several comments about how pvp is a small part of the game/not the purpose of the game: @supermega: "Pvp is one small aspect of the the game" EDIT: Clarified below by supermega and to a lesser extent @blazemonger " I expect and believe DU will focus around community, building and expansion. With that comes the need to have the ability to go to war when you have to. War is not a goal in DU, it is a tool/a means to an end." And my point isn't really if DU should or should not be pvp focused. My post is about the amount of pvp focus should reflect the level of effort to implement. Since NQ has currently chosen what amounts to one of the hardest and most divisive forms of pvp, the amount of time in game spent on it should be very high, since the time to implement is very high. If NQ wants the game to be much more about building or community as compared to pvp, it might be better to move off such a hardcore pvp system. This would reduce level of effort to implement and better reflect the amount of time they want people to spend on pvp in the game. I don't care which system they implement, i do want some form of pvp. Full loot open pvp I'm ok with and could be fun. More limited war dec and pvp zone style pvp would probably be fun too. NQ just needs to make sure what they choose matches with how they want the player base spending its time. I think pvp should be equal with pve based on level of effort to implement the current system as we know it.
  18. Sorry i may have misspoke when i said the highest importance, i was meaning to say of a high level of importance. not saying its more important then building but that its close or as important. As far as the second part im not sure i understand your statement. In my eyes NQ is going with the most aggressive and divisive form a pvp and it without a doubt will alienate very hardcore PvE players. You seem to be implying that there is an option to not alienate a playerbase, or at least that how im reading it? Which is kinda the point im trying to make. I dont think you can do that. If you want pvp as core gameplay with a hardcore pvp full loot system, embrace that and accept the griefing and piracy etc that comes with it. Or if pvp isnt a cornerstone of the game move to something thats a little less hardcore and appeals to more pve players. Don't try to make it "safe" full loot pvp. Could you clarify a bit?
  19. having read through most of this thread at this point it seems to me that two sides have kind of developed. Those who think pvp is core to the game, one of the primary features of the game and those who dont. I honestly cannot understand the position of those who think PvP is not core to the game or how you could think that NQ has a position that pvp is a small, non core feature. In my eyes the highest level of effort for the devs in this game will be implementing combat(exclusively pvp), and how that implementation impacts everything else(ship building, territories etc). This entire thread is about the impacts of the Full loot, open pvp system and what should be safe or not safe. If you have the opinion that PvP is not a core part of the game you should be working hard to have NQ completely rethink its position on PvP. We should implement pvp areas not safe areas etc. Right now the amount of work the devs will have to put in to balance the currently defined PvP, the combat systems around it and the rules to control it (protection bubbles etc) is HUGE. If pvp is implemented poorly it will probably be one of the primary reasons this game will fail. They should not be investing that amount of time and energy in a minor, non core system. Nor risk destroying the core pve gameplay for the non core pvp, which is likely if pvp is not balanced properly. The fact that they have chosen a pvp system that has already scared off a large portion of my PvE oriented friends should be proof enough that NQ views pvp as the highest importance. Why would they alienate the players they want(pve) for the players that aren't the primary purpose of the game(pvp)? If it is accepted that a full loot very open pvp system inherently means pvp is a core game mechanic then i think outside the safezone should be the wild west. No rules or very few. gank harass or do w/e. Inside the safe zone should be safe with the exception of someone who just attacked another player. This is just to prevent people from popping out of a safe area then popping back in over and over. The safe zones should be the areas that those with little interest in pvp have. Or a way to 100% escape ganking/harassing. That area shouldnt be compromised but outside of that anything goes. If you do not think pvp is a core gameplay mechanic i would advise starting to voice that directly to NQ. if there really is a silent majority of non forum goers that do not view pvp as core to the game as implied in some previous posts, this needs to be translated to the devs so they can remove open pvp and go to a lower effort pvp system the reflects its place as non core gameplay.
  20. I think the hope from nq is that the low level of the initial player base and lack of constructs will make this kind of a task nearly impossible for several months. In some of the older videos JC was saying it may take a month for the first players to get to space. Combine that with the size of alioth and the safe zone, by the time an org was large enough to lock it down there will be so many ways out(MSA, hidden bases etc) that locking down the safe zone will probably not be worth the effort unless its specifically to lock down a single enemy org or something. I think ultimately that is the difference between ARK and DU. The play space, even without jump gates and what not, is so large it will be impractical for one group to try to control things. The problem with ark and rust is that its very very easy for a smallish group of players with a bit of an advantage(first quetz/giga or good blueprint) to control the entire play space.
  21. I agree with @blazemonger , it just shouldn't be a priority. I think the game is ambitious enough, has enough technical challenges, and enough of a backlog of wanted features that will take them after release(like travel from one system to another). Adding on a linux client is just a low priority. I think a crowdfunding might be ok but once you start taking peoples money to promise a linux client NQ has an obligation to complete it. I 100% guarantee the linux client or design of the game to assist with a linux client will be harder then it looks. Simple example would be if NQ has to design its own anticheat due to the unique nature of the game. That will be a lot of work to do with both linux and windows. My primary concern is they promise some level of linux and the unexpected workload for it delays the game for the 90%-95% of users not using linux, or they take a pr hit by failing to deliver an acceptable linux client after crowdfunding to do so.
  22. @Calenloki Thats some good info. I guess we will just have to wait and see about distance between container/dispenser. I would hope they wouldnt give it very long range, it simply seems counter to the idea of the dispenser and very exploitable.
  23. at around 4:30, shows ownership of the tile as a whole not a layer of it.
  24. Ultimately i think @CalenLoki you are making way to many assumptions on how the dispenser/links work. Most everything else you have mentioned comes at a pretty large cost if you cant move resources to your base easily: Assumption 1) Links are not distance locked. There is zero reason to suspect this applies to dispensers. Dispensers are being shown as a control unit not a transport unit. A dispenser dispenses things it doesnt teleport them. If they wanted them to be transporter units they would make them that or make another element that does that. As of now there is no reason to suspect that a link between storage and dispenser can go over long distances, or that such a link exists(is there a video showing a dispenser linked to anything?). The only links that appear to not be distance locked are data links/fuel links, but no confirmation on that. However there is a distinct different between those links and what you are saying the dispenser unit can do. Take the fuel link, allows the engine to use the fuel in the tank. We have never been shown an engine that has storage on it and fuel tanks has been shown in several ship building videos as required(engines blink without the connection in tutorial video). This means when you link an engine to a fuel tank the resource doesn't move its simply consumed by the engine.You cannot transport fuel from the surface to an underground base using an engine, you can only consume the fuel on the surface with an engine underground. So best case you would be able to maybe craft using your dispenser or storage up top if you linked it to a crafting table or w/e underground. Assumption 2) No area damage. Your entire kill room concept is predicated on there not being any area damage in the game. If there is i can use the corner to get a 1v1, 1v2 on your turrets. If your turrets are close to each other i may be able to target one with a missile/explosive and damage everything in a radius around it including things i cant see and cant see me. If they are spread out to avoid this i cant see how you can assure anything more then a 1v1, 1v2. There has been some talk about targeting something will do area damage around it in an interview JC did but combat in general is almost all theoretical at this point so you have to make a lot of assumptions to say if a kill style room will work at all. And lastly something that has been pointed out by others, is you are limiting your own ship use to whatever can fit in your base. If your ship can get through so can mine. I'm not saying an underground base wont be very beneficial. It probably will be, i just don't think its gunna be nearly as game breakingly good as you make it out to be. At the very least i think it will come at a large cost of convenience.
×
×
  • Create New...