Jump to content

Vorengard

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from VisNyliss in What value does sovereign territory have in an infinite universe?   
    Even if the universeis endless, and it's not hard to get around (neither of which are necessarily true according to the devs), there are still plenty of economic reasons why people will want to stay centralized. You can't make money if there's nobody to sell anything to. You'd also have to be entirely self-sufficient in terms of rare resources, construction, even new blueprints. You'd have to design and build everything yourself. Not to mention you'd have a real hard time getting any more recruits, as they'd have to travel all they way out to wherever you are to be worth anything. No, I think people will stay centralized because it will be difficult not to be close to the Hub, which will probably be the Arkship.
     
    To use the EVE example, the closer you get to the trade hubs, the more people there are, Jita especially. Even null-sec entities that base their existence on being on the fringe of space still live as close to the core as they can. Not many alliances have their base of operations out in Cobalt Edge, or the back end of Period Basis, do they? Even if they own sov there, that's mostly for ratting space, and the rest of the time they fart around the high-traffic areas like everyone else.
  2. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from TranquilClaws in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
     
    That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
     
    For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
     
    It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
     
    I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
     
    Thoughts?
  3. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from philux in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    I think some people are missing the point; which is that the lack of space combat at release will turn some people away by default. It won't matter if players won't be able to build ships capable of CvC for months after release, the fact that it's an option will be a draw for some people. If you take that possibility away then those people will never give the game a second look. They'll see "no combat" - and even if the next word is "yet" or "soon" it wont matter, because they are drawn to combat games. 
     
    In a post No Man's Sky world people are afraid to be optimistic, and they're predisposed to not trusting any game that looks anything like NMS. From the surface, DU looks a lot like NMS. So the phrase "soon" will be met with instant distrust. I hope the Devs at NQ understand this and have some plan to deal with that inevitable reaction. I've already seen at least one rant video on youtube about how this game is just another money trap like NMS was, and that's only going to get worse as time goes on.
  4. Like
    Vorengard reacted to Semproser in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    For example in the most recent AMA video he answers questions about the damage model and how its related to voxels. Specifically about how damage actually breaks voxels and makes realistic type damage to blocks and systems. He doesn't mention there that this is something they aren't planning on doing before launch. We've seen ships with gun, and statements like those about how damage affects voxels. Unless you really read into it, you'd think CvC would be in this game. Hence it is misleading and should be addressed. 
  5. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Phroshy in The universal space station cooperative.   
    I don't mean to be Debbie downer here, but if multiple organizations are planning the same thing already, then you'll have to reconcile all those people and get them working together if you want to succeed.
     
    This idea would probably be more successful if there was a single person in charge that everyone trusted to run the thing fairly, like Chribba in EVE. Otherwise there will always be something to gain for someone by messing with the project, starting a competing industry, etc.
  6. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Pheralan in Traveling cities?   
    Building an entire city that floats would be rather difficult depending on how the systems for fuel, lift, and weight work. If there's any system for weight and lift at all, I can imagine that you would need a whole lot of lift generation, which would mean a whole lot of fuel. 
     
    But I can imagine that a traveling refinery or production plant would be incredibly useful, especially once resources start to become depleted near the starting zone.
  7. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from philux in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    What kind of space game doesn't have space ship combat?
     
    Yes, I know the answer to that question, but the vast majority of people don't. They will see a game with pacifist space ships and say "what the heck, this game sucks, why can't I put guns on my spaceship?" And, from a limited perspective, they will have a point. Launching the game without combat will be just as bad as launching the game in Alpha state. It will feel unfinished because it will be unfinished. I don't want to play a space ship game with spaceships that can't blow each other up, especially given the overwhelming number of competitors that will have this feature. I cannot express with words how much launching without ship combat will hurt the future of this game.
     
    I mention NMS because it will be the first game to come to people's minds when they hear about DU. As soon as they hear the phrase "limitless universe" they'll say "oh no, I fell for this once and I am NOT going to go there again!" Du will have to overcome the massive distrust and negativity that is the specter of No Man's Sky, and "not talking about it" will not make that problem go away.
     
    You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but these are real issues for a lot of people, and we need to talk about them right now, not after launch when it's already too late. Hopefully we reach the stretch goal and this whole thing becomes irrelevant, but as of right now the Kickstarter has earned less than $5,000 in the last 24 hours, so something is clearly wrong.
  8. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from philux in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
     
    That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
     
    For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
     
    It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
     
    I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
     
    Thoughts?
  9. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Kuritho in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
     
    That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
     
    For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
     
    It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
     
    I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
     
    Thoughts?
  10. Like
    Vorengard reacted to Semproser in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    "But granpa, how did you bring down the megalith cruiser of the killsquad clan?" 
    "With THIS KNIFE...and some damned good whiskey" 
  11. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Semproser in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    In response to Danger's comment; I dont disagree with you on any one point. However, you seem to be missing both the tone of this thread and the purposes of a forum like this one.
     
    I did not start this thread to whine about the game and make everyone think it was doomed. I started it to make sure that there is a record of a very legitimate concern that many in the community share. That is the whole purpose of alpha forums after all; to make sure the community shares how it feels about current development plans.
     
    I think you're making a huge mistake by taking the position that skepticism is somehow wrong, or that we should keep our mouths shut about what we consider to be potential problems. That doesn't actually help anyone.
  12. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from ostris in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Additionally, I agree with the above statement that CvC will require a massive amount of balance that should be done prior to launch.
     
    I've had enough experiences with totally unbalanced ship designs and capabilities in EVE. It has serious negative effects on the community and the game as a whole.
  13. Like
    Vorengard reacted to ostris in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Putting this disclaimer on top:
    The dev team has not actually said if CvC will be in alpha/beta just that it may be added post release. They have been silent on what will be in alpha/beta as far as construct v construct. It just concerns me that NQ seems to have an attitude of "it can be added later" when I think this is possibly the most important part of the game because of the time needed to get it right and its impact on everything. For the purpose of this post I am assuming they plan on adding CvC post release with little to no CvC in alpha/beta
     
     
     
    I agree with OP that in videos and interviews they are selling large CvC battles as part of the game. Shipping without it is a huge negative. My concerns go deeper then just the perception of the game at launch. I have serious concerns that CvC will not be implemented in Beta or even Alpha. In my eyes one of the hardest things to do is make pvp combat balanced and fun for everyone. In a game like DU this is much harder because there is so much freedom and creativity in building ships that compounds the difficulty of pvp balance. In most games, take star citizen for example, all the ships are predesigned. This makes balance easier because control of the ships is in the hands of the developers.
     
    In DU I feel like most people will understand that it is an adult game and you will die, people will steal your stuff and that's just the nature of the game. However, no player will or should tolerate losing their stuff because construct v construct combat is a cluster-fuck of balance that was not properly tested and hastily implemented post launch.
     
    PvP is also something that will have an impact on every player in this game that leaves the safe zone. Lets say you want to be a miner, you have no interest in pvp or killing players. You build up defensive skills and a very defensive and safe ship so you can mine and move your cargo. The pvp system has to be able to acknowledge that you should be able to defend yourself from a lot of small ships and low skilled players if you do this. If the system is messed up and not well thought out and some low skilled player can use OP Laser ship A to insta kill all your defenses, you will probably say fuck this I'm not playing till they fix this crap. While I'm sure the dev team is smart enough to now allow something that imbalanced there will be months worth of balance needed for any pvp system to work well.  If you consider the free form nature of the game I would not feel comfortable with the pvp system until it has been tested for at least 6 months to work out all the bugs and balance issues with it.
     
    Ultimately the message that i think OP is trying to get across that CvC shoudl be a much higher priority is correct. lack of having it a launch can simply make the game less appealing or because of the horrid balance issues it could lead to. My hope is they will push hard to get as much CvC in the game pre release as possible.
  14. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Deacon in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
     
    That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
     
    For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
     
    It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
     
    I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
     
    Thoughts?
  15. Like
    Vorengard reacted to le_souriceau in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Epic fail of NMS already gives very negative effect on our KS campaign. Its in the air. If DU Kickstarter started, lets say, year ago, it will be 1 kk USD for same time period, even more. But after NMS people very suspicious, to say at least, liar Murrey crippled genre for years.
     
    So, interesting PvP at start, and overall GOOD start is essential MUST for DU, just for survival at larger scale. Critics, youtubers and other crowd of this sort will be completly mercyless.
  16. Like
    Vorengard reacted to Fitorion in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    The way I see it... there will be PvP... it'll just be person to person... ground based... boarding actions... at the start.
     
     
    But you are right that there being not ship to ship... construct to construct combat at launch is a problem.  People see the trailers for the game and their minds go immediately to imagining all the epic space battles they'll have.  It's an expected ... fundamental feature... which not having will hurt the progress of the game.  The game wont be able to grow very fast without it.
     
    That said... it also has to be done well.  Bad, boring, and superfluous pvp is just as bad as none at all. 
  17. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from le_souriceau in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
     
    That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
     
    For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
     
    It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
     
    I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
     
    Thoughts?
  18. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Hubris in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    My purpose is to make it clear how big of a mistake I think this strategy is. I genuinely believe that this is a serious error, and the whole purpose of this forum is to voice our opinions about the direction of the game. Sitting here, saying nothing and just hoping everything will work out all right is completely unhelpful.
     
    As to your last comment
     
     
     
    And
     
     
     
     
    I have been nothing but supportive of the game in multiple places in this post alone; so if you're going to make accusation, please do your research first. You can disagree with me without being nasty about it. I am not causing a panic, I am expressing a legitimate concern about a legitimate problem.
     
    That being said, I absolutely appreciate the Devs honesty in this matter, and I respect their commitment to telling us the truth even if we won't like it.
  19. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Lord_Void in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
     
    That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
     
    For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
     
    It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
     
    I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
     
    Thoughts?
  20. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from _Crow_ in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    To clarify, I expect to be playing the game regardless of the inclusion of combat at launch. My biggest concern is getting lots of other people to play in the face of that potential absence. I would be happy with anything at launch, because like the Devs, I expect this to be a game that starts small and simple and progresses to something special. If all we get is 2 guns and a basic HP bar, that will still be better than nothing, because the point of DU seems to be very heavily focused on building amazing things, not on destroying things.
     
    I accept that premise. I welcome it even. But creations, be it a building, a ship, or a community, are made truly valuable by standing in the face of adversity. EVE taught me that. By removing adversity, even if only for "a while" as stated by the devs, you reduce the value of player accomplishments. That's why combat matters so much to me.
  21. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Demonneo in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Ok, I'll bite.
     
    You were literally asking the devs to give you, personally, a reason to back their kickstarter. Do I need to point out how radically different our positions are? You, asking for personal justification with no investment; me pointing out a perceived future problem with the game having already pledged my support for the game.
     
    Either way, it makes no difference. We both agree with elements of both posts. So perhaps we can both go back to discussing the merits of this particular problem instead of attacking each other?
     
    The point is that I disagree with this approach. NQ can go forward in whatever way they choose. I neither need nor expect a reply, but the whole point of this forums, or a community in general, is to express their opinions about the game. I have expressed mine because I know 2 other backers (both Ruby supporters) whose plans for this game revolve entirely around combat. I doubt they would continue their support if they knew combat was not going to be a part of the game at launch, which it will not be unless we find another $210,000 in 18 days. This is justifiable skepticism, not arm-flailing panic.
  22. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from Anaximander in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Ok, I'll bite.
     
    You were literally asking the devs to give you, personally, a reason to back their kickstarter. Do I need to point out how radically different our positions are? You, asking for personal justification with no investment; me pointing out a perceived future problem with the game having already pledged my support for the game.
     
    Either way, it makes no difference. We both agree with elements of both posts. So perhaps we can both go back to discussing the merits of this particular problem instead of attacking each other?
     
    The point is that I disagree with this approach. NQ can go forward in whatever way they choose. I neither need nor expect a reply, but the whole point of this forums, or a community in general, is to express their opinions about the game. I have expressed mine because I know 2 other backers (both Ruby supporters) whose plans for this game revolve entirely around combat. I doubt they would continue their support if they knew combat was not going to be a part of the game at launch, which it will not be unless we find another $210,000 in 18 days. This is justifiable skepticism, not arm-flailing panic.
  23. Like
    Vorengard reacted to Semproser in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Gotta agree with OP here. 
    as stated on the kickstarter:
     
     
    Personally, I think that's fairly ridiculous. Without this, avatar vs avatar combat will be the only alternative, and therefore boarding will be the only real combat. And any fight fought between two warrior groups with their warships will resemble old fashioned galleon boarding. Cool as that may sound, that being the only option really isn't favourable at all. CvC really is essential here. It can't just be an afterthought.
     
    (edited because of extreme format failures)
  24. Like
    Vorengard reacted to Hunter in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    I think it's too much of a gamble to release without any form of combat.  I think they will have something, even if it's crude.  It will be a hell of a challenge though but I think this company is up to it.  The saving grace is that DU does so many other things too.   I'll admit a space game without space combat does sound kind of strange.  O.o
  25. Like
    Vorengard got a reaction from ThatAlex in It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal   
    Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.
     
    That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.
     
    For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.
     
    It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.
     
    I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.
     
    Thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...