Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by blundertwink

  1. Hah, this whole diatribe is rather hilarious. You actually used the phrase "It's PvE that is massively racist towards PvP." That's really all that anyone needs to read to understand the quality of your..."philosophy" Comparing something as inane as PvP / PvE to racism is a clearly articulated, evolved perspective. Riiiight.... And FWIW, this whole blaming other players for playing the product they paid for as they want is childish and boring. It's NQs job to design the game and they decided on this crude melding between PvE sandbox builder and full open world PvP (with niche, UI-driven combat). It was NQ that pitched being able to do whatever you want and fill any role you want. If combat and PvP were really so utterly fun and interesting, more people would do it and NQ would therefore prioritize it higher. It's not complicated.
  2. Yeah, I think most people get that it was never a real promise or 100% commitment -- certainly not in any legal sense. Yet many people bought into the beta with the expectation that progress would roll over into the live game. Right or wrong, that expectation was set by NQ in the way that they presented the beta and reinforced by the fact that they were charging a live sub. It's on NQ to present the offer clearly and it wasn't clear to everyone. (It probably still isn't clear to everyone) I think you're right that NQ always had this option in their mind, but...it is up to them to communicate clearly, not up to players to try to divine their half-spoken intent -- especially in the context of marketing a paid product. If it were so obvious that they were going to wipe, this discussion (and the 300 billion other threads about it going on for years) wouldn't be a thing. Back in the old days, MMOs would often give credits for issues with stability -- a month of credit for all active subs might be a good compromise between "pause/refund subs now" and "no, you get what you pay for". I don't really especially care, but it might earn a bit of good will with the existing players, which is in short supply right now.
  3. I don't understand your bad attitude, here. You're saying you'd gladly live in a PvP zone full time, but only if the game is different than what it is today...? Okay...but @RugesV wasn't talking about some theoretical version of PvP that doesn't exist. I think the war declaration system is a nice compromise that could bring more life to the org system and bring some level of conflict into the safe zones. It wouldn't matter if you were more polite about it...but then you say these arguments are "the dumbest of the dumb"... "I'd gladly live in the PvP zone...if only PvP had more benefits and also worked totally different than it does today" Basically you talked about how Eve works then called someone dumb...? Not especially productive, polite, or convincing.
  4. Okay, but TW may never be rolled out universally because the game can't physically handle it at scale and possibly never will. There's a reason NQ spawns asteroids and alien cores as they do. I don't understand why you think more PvP will give the game a "boost" in any media channel. I've seen plenty of videos posted to YouTube etc. with very few views...and that's understandable because watching combat in DU is absurdly boring. It's not very watchable or interesting...especially compared to other PvP games. If watching combat is so engaging, why isn't it more popular on media today? Only because TW is missing...? I'm not convinced. Again, this idea that the game will fail without your specific vision for PvP is a false dichotomy -- there's more choices than just your way or nothingness...there's an infinite spectrum of possibilities between. "Selfish" players are those that insist again and again that theirs is the only vision that will work. I don't disagree that the game will end before 2023...but it isn't as simple as merely turning on TW and removing safe zones -- it'll need a lot more than just that.
  5. It's easy to say that you simply shouldn't pay if you don't want to, but some people committed to longer-term subscriptions. If I decided to start a 6 month sub right before they announced that they might wipe, I'd feel a bit ripped off at this point...especially since a big part of the pitch to join early access was persistence. Yeah, in that case I think a refund isn't so utterly absurd. Forums in general are not a place for pure fact and objectivity -- even if they were, it isn't like we have the capacity to know facts beyond what NQ shares with us. Speculation and emotion is a part of every community. Anyone that's ever engaged in online discussion should temper what they read with this understanding. People have a right to be emotional and to speculate -- speculation and emotion is just one element of discussion. Speculation is a useful facet of conversation -- people speculate about history and politics because it leads to interesting thought experiments and "what ifs" that allow us to wonder about an ocean of possibilities. I do agree that there's an important distinction between complaints, emotions, and speculation and outright hostility, lies, and irrationality. An obligatory reminder: this is just a game for us...for those people working at NQ, it's their livelihood and for some, the last 5-6 years of their career. As emotional as players are, those that have spent a lot of time and energy working on the game are even more emotionally invested and likely even more acutely aware of the uphill battle NQ has in stabilizing and scaling their company. So...say what you want, but it's worth remembering that behind this game are a lot of likely overworked and underpaid human beings that have a lot more at stake than any player.
  6. The exhibition hall likely required very little actual dev. Especially with manual moderation, they probably had to write little to no code. I agree 100% that there's better ideas, but as we're all aware, NQ is focusing mostly on optimization and performance prior to release (they have a lot of work to do there). They probably believed this was a good way to feature player content without any strain on limited dev resources. Integrating DU-creators sounds like an awesome idea, but there's logistical complexity and developer cost to that. Do they have an API already? How robust and scalable is it? Who pays for it / owns it? What if it goes offline? What if DU explodes in popularity and they demand more money or they'll take the service offline? Or their site gets hacked? Or they simply get bored and don't want to maintain it? Granted this isn't an overly complex site and NQ could develop it themselves, but that goes back to developer resources (and game devs often don't know web development). I personally wouldn't be eager to integrate any third party system into a commercial product -- there's a lot of business and technical caveats that would create a lot of headaches.
  7. And let's be real...sniping mission runners is PvP only in the lamest sense. It's puzzling how some PvP players complain about players "not wanting to take risks" when many pirates operate the exact same way... I agree that risk vs. reward is way out of balance with DU. The best PvP games embrace loss -- especially in a context where there's zero way to practice combat other than PvP, loss needs to be less of a grind and annoyance. Reality is that it's not 1999 anymore...if you want to be a massively multiplayer game, you need to design for the gaming mentalities that exist today. A boring grind to replace a ship after being ganked (or simply losing a battle) has little actual game design justification -- how does that improve engagement when the 'grind' is mostly just waiting for AMs to churn out ore, anyway? If DU really wants to be so niche, that's fine...but then it should have never been an MMO to begin with.
  8. PvP doesn't have inherently more merit than PvE and the implication that it does is really tiring. If you really want skill-based PvP, try playing a game engineered and balanced for PvP, because DU is hardly the epitome of skills-based PvP. It barely holds interest for most people for a reason. It's like there's this implication that if you don't want to PvP it means you have no skills or are too emotional to "play the real game"....which is a baffling attitude in this of all games, where PvP is an obvious afterthought, shallow in both skill and strategy, and immensely non-performant. "When the game works better" isn't an excuse by the way, it's an obvious reality to anyone that's ever played this game. No one needs an "excuse" to avoid engaging in a game mechanic that's boring, poorly designed, non-performant, or simply not fun. If there is a group of players that's too "emotional", I think we know which group it is...but most PvP players are reasonable and realize that enjoying PvP doesn't make you any more or less of a "real player" especially in this shoddy little game where combat is mostly terrible.
  9. It is sad. It also makes very little sense to me. They're sabotaging their own PR and it's bizarre -- whatever damage they believe would come from announcing a wipe is minuscule compared to the lack of engagement on this topic breeding wide discontent and mistrust (not to mention bad reviews). NQ's had a reputation for not engaging the community for a long time now....which is a choice they've made, many times over many years. They don't think players have much to offer -- they think we're "know-it-alls" with too many opinions that don't understand how hard their jobs are. It's easy to take criticism personally, but professional companies know how to push those personal feelings aside and process customer feedback to improve their product. Their inability to process feedback or engage with their own customers is really obvious in the state of their product today. Painfully obvious. Players on release will boot this up and believe that it is fresh from a tiny dev team, not that they've spent 6+ years in dev and 2 years in beta. NQ shouldn't be shocked if the game gets bad reviews as soon as release drops...it may be the only way this company finally cares about customer engagement.
  10. I would suggest that Sanctuary's big numbers were driven by the initial public beta launch. Things were busy back then -- the game actually had a large number of players joining. Around 40,000 is reasonable in that context. I'm not saying alts haven't contributed, but I'd guess that ~40,000 is an okay ballpark estimate for how many people joined public beta in the early days. It wouldn't surprise me if it was substantially more, since many of them didn't get past the "speeder phase". Even paying for a longer sub, I think most of them didn't play more than a day or two. Good thing the new FTUE fixes this by giving players a tile and outpost as their first thing...! That won't lead to clutter and lag at all...!
  11. The exchange makes a certain sort of twisted sense -- because the game isn't going to be performant enough to handle player-run markets. It's the same strategy as alien cores and asteroids -- NQ spawns the stuff because the game doesn't want to handle players meeting up in anything other than designated zones. They know player-build markets would be better...but they probably fear what popular player markets would do to performance. Just as they know space TW would be better than alien cores...but again, that would mean more player interactions outside NQ's control and therefore more cost. These might not be solvable issues to be honest....NQ knows they aren't about to get a million subs on release and their making choices based on cost accordingly. They are actively avoiding features they know would be popular because they don't want to pay huge infra costs to support them. IMO....they kind of know that release will bring new players that don't stick around for very long. In that context, they want to lower costs so that some new player that only sticks around for 1-2 months still generates positive ROI, and that means limiting cost as much as possible, as we've seen with the last few updates.
  12. Yeah, I hear you there....but at the same time, 'player driven everything' was always going to be a tall order with the way NQ imagined it. NQ decided to equate "a world driven by players" with "a world without NPCs" and that was never going to work from a design perspective. NPCs fill a lot of roles in a typical MMO -- they drive combat and conflict and the economy. They drive narratives, give quests, sell items, and "print" currency. They fill out an otherwise empty world. In DU, they obliterated the concept of NPCs without ever replacing them with any equivalent system. The missions system is a joke. The ability to set up your own market? Not even that. PvP? Riiight, such a wildly popular and slick feature, that... 🤷‍♂️ In many ways, their quest to make the game "player driven" was counterproductive from the start. It started as too vague an idea with no details and therefore the result is this...shell of a thing that isn't a cohesive game at all. I do think a "player driven" game would would work, but only with player-controlled NPCs....even then, it needs at least one powerful NPC faction to ensure that the game is fair for new players and to enforce balance (especially in a single-shard environment!). An MMO where players shape the world and build civilization is a fantastic idea....but that doesn't mean you throw the concept of NPCs in the trash because in reality they are very much required for any MMO that hopes to capture the first 'M' in that acronym. I respect NQ for trying to innovate in their design, but some of this innovation really set them down the wrong path from the very beginning and there's no finding the right road now. They can only make the best with the journey their on.
  13. Not really a viable solution, though -- it isn't like it's easy to spin out a separate stack, alter the rules for one server only, create the UI to allow people to select a server, etc. The work to "turn on Atmosphere fights according space rules" could take a very long time by itself. If it seems like it ought to be simple, it probably isn't...especially for a software stack that's 6+ years old. Further, this would have a huge impact on cost. Not just with spinning up a separate batch of hardware, but with how the game scales. They made alien cores and asteroids work the way they do for a good reason -- DU has never handled combat in a performant way and more PvP more places with more players could make the game unsustainable, especially with today's level of optimization. Even if players did flock to these PvP servers...would it mechanically work? Could it scale gracefully? I'm not optimistic it would. There's been so many changes even to the vanilla game focused on infra cost...even the game as it is today probably won't scale! And that's with very limited instances of PvP or player interact in general. Spending months to create a "trial" doesn't really make sense, and yes it would take NQ months to make this a reality. They wrote this game with the presumption of single-shard and introducing server-specific mechanics wouldn't be a quick thing. It's just too late for them to even consider going down this road.
  14. Well....that's not really an example of emergent gameplay. That's an example of classic gameplay. Emergent gameplay is gameplay that arises from mechanics in ways the developer didn't explicitly implement. Alien cores aren't that...they work exactly as the devs intended. Racing in DU is an example of emergent gameplay, alien cores really aren't. This sentence...doesn't even make sense to me, but there's a love of false dichotomy when discussing valid criticisms of DU's implementation of PvP. The reality that PvP in DU is underdeveloped, buggy, not performant, and boring doesn't mean we loathe the concept of PvP. That's the classic false dichotomy -- "if you don't agree that safe zones need to be abolished, you hate PvP and therefore the game will fail". No, that's not it at all. Personally, I like PvP games -- but I play games designed for PvP where teamwork, skill, and strategy make all the difference. Games where your opponent has as much chance to win as you do. Games with mechanics designed around PvP and balance. DU isn't that. It isn't anything close to that. It's an obscure, niche implementation in an already-niche game that only will ever appeal to a highly niche group of players. You're allowed to believe ripping down safe zones will inexplicably and magically make this game popular...but calling everyone that doesn't share that view self-absorbed and "embittered" is exactly the sort of ad hominem that makes people think PvP players are childish. Anyone that's played DU's version of combat and believes "yeah, this is what will make the game popular!" is not seeing some obvious realities about the gamer market and the ability for combat in DU to support a paid monthly sub.
  15. Always the same two things around here...if it isn't people arguing about a wipe, it's arguing about PvP. Now that the wipe has received 1500 posts with little hope of answers from NQ, it's back to debating about PvP. I don't get why there's such an obsession with tearing down the safe zones as if that's the only thing the game needs. Every piece of evidence and history suggests PvP is a niche activity within an already-niche game...combat in DU just isn't interesting to me. It's boring. It's slow. It doesn't perform well. I play a good amount of actual PvP games. I'm not risk averse or shy about competition or teamwork, and I do wish PvP in this game was better...but the actual mechanics just aren't developed enough. Combat in this game has very little depth. All that aside, removing safe zones is kind of a moot point when there's no prospects of territory war. Why does it matter where there's safe zones when there's literally nothing to fight over...? Alien cores are DU's only version of territory war for the foreseeable future. Alien cores might be the only version of TW that DU will ever see, period. I see no evidence that they'll magically resolve the many performance issues around combat, and unless they do there's no way they'll roll out TW universally. Maybe we'll see TW in space someday. Big maybe. TLDR: It's great if you like PVP, but IMO it isn't nearly developed or mainstream enough to "save" this game.
  16. I hope NQ actually moderates a bit, because this sort of post is so needlessly hostile and arrogant and so clearly against the terms of use. You aren't capable of determining who is a cheater based on the tone of their post. You don't get to silence people because of your puzzling, evidence-free belief they are a cheater. Stop with the personal attacks -- there's no reason to get so angry and certainly no reason to attack anyone like this. It's hard to believe any of your "arguments" are based on anything other than your emotions with reasoning like this. It's just plain rude.
  17. NMS built their initial product with about a dozen employees over 3 years, including creating their own engine tailored to the game they wanted to create. This is the difference experience makes -- it doesn't matter how accomplished JC was in robotics and AI, he was a novice in gaming. By contrast, Murray was already an experienced developer when he founded Hello Games with two other experienced developers. They knew how to build games from the start. JC made a basic prototype and believed he could create an MMO from it...that was hubris, not ambition. DU's problems start at the very beginning as they so often do. We're far beyond "the design of this game needs to change" at this point -- at this point, I'd be surprised if the game was able to physically run on release, never mind if people actually stick around for more than 1 billing cycle.
  18. Yeah the number of players today is....not great. I agree that no one will get super excited about LUA refactors, but this again speaks to NQ's quest to reduce infrastructure costs (has been a main focus since they added auto-miners!) as much as humanly possible. I think they are concerned about the game scaling knowing that most new players won't stay for longer than 1-2 months....if it costs them money to acquire those users (e.g. via ads) it's very easy to imagine those new users costing NQ money instead of earning them money...hence why they're cutting costs as much as possible. So I agree that they need to focus on feature depth and that they've needed to focus on that for months and months now...but they're still stuck trying to get this thing running efficiently enough to generate any sort of revenue and I think even with all their efforts here the game will not run well on release...
  19. You're basically saying that PvP is already fun enough it just needs to be more available. I don't really agree with that. I think combat is far too niche to satisfy the typical PvP-oriented gamer, regardless of how common or restrictive it is. Even if NQ wanted to make this sort of "simple" change, they probably couldn't without jeopardizing an infrastructure that's already vastly unstable and doing major refactors to the codebase...I mean they couldn't even roll out space TW and had to relegate that to alien cores. It isn't as simple as them "turning on planetary combat" -- with how this game has been engineered, that could mean a lot of refactors. Your suggest is basically to roll out TW everywhere and make atmo combat work...they couldn't even roll out space TW and had to do alien cores, so I think the challenges here are immense for NQ. I don't think they can support this vision of combat technically, at least not right now. It might seem these changes would be low in scope, but unfortunately I don't think that's the case.
  20. Regardless of if you think the idea has merit or not...it isn't like NQ has some simple switch to "turn on PvP everywhere". Granted we don't know how NQ coded different mechanics for in-atmo and safe zones, but based on the way they run things...? I think it's safe to assume that features aren't so flexible. So IMO the point is moot because we all know NQ can't just "turn it on everywhere". Reality is they have to focus on bug fixes and performance to prepare for release -- even if they wanted to, they wouldn't have the time to develop this just to experiment. Also, they have been having performance problems for a while now and global PvP will only make that worse. If they wanted you to fight anywhere, they would have implemented proper space TW instead of alien cores. So in addition to NQ lacking the ability to do this with the limited bandwidth they have before release...they wouldn't want to do it anyway because more PvP means more server load and they are really not about that right now. I guess no one told them that a key part of MMOs is player interactions because they just see it as expense.
  21. And that's the core of the problem...NQ's original "idea" for DU was way too ambitious for the resources they had. DU needed a niche...but instead it promised to be a great place for builders, PvP'ers, politicians, pilots, traders, industrialists...when you reach so wide, sometimes your arms break. I'm not saying DU is better off without PvP...but as a small studio, they needed to pick a niche and stick with it because they never had the means to create both a great building sandbox experience and an engaging, robust PvP layer and make the two ideas gel. NQ may not be "indie" with over $20 million in investment, but far more simplified MMOs are built with over 10 times the budget...they needed to focus on one niche/player group instead of obsessing over this fantastical metaverse ideal where "everyone can find something to do". The feature depth required to really bring balance and satisfaction to both player groups was beyond NQ's reach, especially considering that the first years were led by someone with zero experience who didn't understand the difficulties they'd face. That set the stage long ago; NQ today can only change the props and the players, because there's no time to rewrite the script.
  22. They're a scammy, awful company led by an irredeemable ass, with rates twice as high as industry standard because they know game developers don't understand web dev.... 🤷‍♂️
  23. For someone complaining about "whining", that's all this post is. I wouldn't care if it weren't borderline hostile in tone. Like...if the point you're making is that this isn't real life and it's just a video game, maybe chill a bit yourself, too? Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's okay to disagree. But enough with insulting people's intelligence or saying that their posts are BS/nonsense -- stick to the merits of the discussion and don't take things so personally...no one should care enough about DU to get angry.
  24. I agree, the idea of DU is great and it's unfortunate the one of the few games to challenge the boring formula of MMOs has faced so many challenges. Innovation is hard. I also agree that a game like DU will eventually materialize. I believe it will get easier over time to make something like this, especially as technology around infrastructure improves. What DU has tried to achieve is no small thing -- and while they aren't so "indie" with >$22 million, they are indie compared to simple MMOs developed by big studios with over 10 times the budget. I think NQ made a lot of mistakes that would have been avoided if they'd had more experienced leadership from the start, but I do hope that the idea of this project endures in some way, shape, or form.
  25. It's not so clear, though -- you're giving NQ way too much credit, here. It's odd to think of NQ as a studio that only cared about making a great game and it was those big bad investors that forced them to publish early. They had a set runway and spent 6+ years on dev...that ~$22 million wasn't going to last forever. I'm not saying NQ has a real choice, but it isn't investors "forcing them to turn a profit", it's the reality that they are running out of runway. Two offices in big cities with 50+ employees isn't cheap. That's not being forced by anyone, that's the nature of running a startup that they knew about from the beginning. Every startup I've worked at is obsessed with carefully tracking burn rate for a damn good reason. This is just how startups work and if NQ didn't understand that going in, they really can't complain about the outcome or blame it on the parties that gave them the money to begin with.
  • Create New...