Hades

Honestly, just let it play out and see how it all goes guys... Cause of right now, you're just going to keep beating the horse over and over based on theories, beliefs and wants... 
 
Will pvp be as bad as some are making it to be? Who here really knows for sure? Legitimately. Who here 100% knows what the universe is going to evolve into?
 
Or at least wait until NQ releases the devdiary/blog regarding griefing, maybe it'll answer some questions, maybe it won't...
 
Again, the main point being, we don't know for sure what the universe will be down the road.
 
Just ponder on that.
 
 
Cheers,
Comrademoco

I don't quite get why one would need to take guesses here.
The safezone will be there from day 1.
Weapons will be there from day 1 (your nanoformer is a weapon).
Everything else will be emergent - and as I already said: it's not NQs job to prevent pvp outside the safezone. It's our job as players. NQs job is to come up with emergent, fun, balanced and fair mechanics. And again: being able to attack someone outside the safezone is NOT unfair. nor unbalanced

Emergent:
"in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent."
 
Emergent Gameplay: 
"Complex situations that emerge from simple mechanic interactions"
 
 
As many stated DU is NOT this first then that second...
 
Whilst a simple headline - like the one used above as an example - can lead someone to believe DU will be a building game first. You have to understand the whole in order to understand the meaning of what that headline means or is trying to portray...
 
 
So what does this mean?
 
Well, it means that during the first couple of months, maybe even years, the primary focus of the emergent gameplay maybe be building... and not in the sense that everyone is making it to be but as building (the process of creating - not physical items - but the emergent gameplay that will play the bigger part, of the later years of DU) the universe. You can't have warfare, politics, trade and pvp without having built the emergent player driven universe first. And sure, that building process can even entitle physical building of constructs as part of the building process of the "emergent universe". 
 
So again, while that headline in the website says "Building MMO" understand the context of it: DU is a "Civilization Building" MMORPG. What emerges from that... it is up to the players to decide when they interact with the simple mechanics of the game; trading, building, exploring and warfare. Who knows! Maybe it'll be more building of constructs, maybe the clashing of big empires and alliances, maybe it'll be a universe run by pirates full of pvp... The point is, we dont know what DU will be in the later years... we have to build that emergent universe ourselves and see what it turns out to be.
 
 
 
 
Cheers,
Comrademoco
 

What you view as balanced is probably not what i view as balanced. You did even give examples of what kind of "balance" you wanted. Of course im taking that as you wanting the expense of PvP to suit you, don't hide it under the term "balanced" because that is to a large extent subjective.

Huh? It's fine If i have to buy nice ships but it's not ok if someone has to pay for protection?
When I want to fly better ships or some fancy stuff then either I Git gud (which i won't) or buy those ships. There's no alternative here and I definitely don't want NQ to change smth in the game (make it easier for example) just because I suck in doing it. 
That's just the game ad it is and i love it for that. 
 
I don't mind all that stuff that I'm not interested in, I knew what Du is about from the start. 

I think super understands that the game’s core is emergent and player driven.  Which means there won’t be some arbitrary feature in place to make combat more difficult than building.  If you want something protected, you have to protect it.  Whether through your means, or riding off the coat tails of others.  Now something might be more difficult to destroy because it’s player driven.  Such as someone wedging a base in between a canyon or something.
 
This isn’t landmark in space, and I do think some people think it is... which is a problem, and it will be rectified quickly upon release haha.
 
It won’t take hours to destroy a standard single seater ship, it won’t be more costly to make bullets than it is to make a ship.  And there certainly won’t be a NQ built punishment system in place.  Defenses are going to be costly, weaponry is going to be costly.  If it’s any other way, we have a dull game on our hands and it goes against the vision brought out in Kickstarter videos

I think super understands that the game’s core is emergent and player driven.  Which means there won’t be some arbitrary feature in place to make combat more difficult than building.  If you want something protected, you have to protect it.  Whether through your means, or riding off the coat tails of others.  Now something might be more difficult to destroy because it’s player driven.  Such as someone wedging a base in between a canyon or something.
 
This isn’t landmark in space, and I do think some people think it is... which is a problem, and it will be rectified quickly upon release haha.
 
It won’t take hours to destroy a standard single seater ship, it won’t be more costly to make bullets than it is to make a ship.  And there certainly won’t be a NQ built punishment system in place.  Defenses are going to be costly, weaponry is going to be costly.  If it’s any other way, we have a dull game on our hands and it goes against the vision brought out in Kickstarter videos

I think super understands that the game’s core is emergent and player driven.  Which means there won’t be some arbitrary feature in place to make combat more difficult than building.  If you want something protected, you have to protect it.  Whether through your means, or riding off the coat tails of others.  Now something might be more difficult to destroy because it’s player driven.  Such as someone wedging a base in between a canyon or something.
 
This isn’t landmark in space, and I do think some people think it is... which is a problem, and it will be rectified quickly upon release haha.
 
It won’t take hours to destroy a standard single seater ship, it won’t be more costly to make bullets than it is to make a ship.  And there certainly won’t be a NQ built punishment system in place.  Defenses are going to be costly, weaponry is going to be costly.  If it’s any other way, we have a dull game on our hands and it goes against the vision brought out in Kickstarter videos

Twitch based?  Popular?  Not necessarily.  Many people PREFER tab target and similar styled games.  NQ never planned on implementing twitch features, so I’m not sure how they could have been sacrificed? 
 
Combat usually comes later in a sandbox game, it’s just how the development works.  You create the world, and then you create the gameplay features of the world.  Even Camelot unchained (the epitome of a PvP MMO) implemented voxel building before combat.
 
Seems like you’re just throwing things out and hoping they stick.
 
It also seems like you’re using a shortsighted view.  Simply from your fear of PvP and conflict.  
 
So let’s get a few things straight.  A city owner (organization, coalition whatever) wants to keep their city limits and the outer reaches safe.  Why?  If traders are downed coming to your city every time, they’ll stop coming.  If they stop coming, your city tanks.
 
Now, you’d probably want to pay a security corp to protect these entrances to your planet/city.  
 
If a distress signal goes off, the paid protection (or internal) attempts to intercept.  Every time an alt is killed, that’s resources drained. 
 
Player driven, that’s what DU is... and that’s what DU will always be.
 
This worked in Face of Mankind, EVE doesn’t really have a comparison afaik... as trade is done in high sec areas?  Can’t remember.
 
PvP is not possible in safe zones.  PvP is possible outside of safezones.  What this entails is dictated by the players, that is NQs vision.  If they go back on that, it’s no longer the project put forth by the Kickstarter.  I’d personally want a refund, as it’s not what I backed.
 
This is what I backed:
“Emergent gameplay is one of the key aspects of Dual Universe. In Dual Universe "emergent gameplay" means that the players are given the power to create and direct the story, major events, and content of the game universe. All of the mechanics in Dual Universe are specifically designing to give the players as much freedom as possible, which produces a game world that is entirely run and managed by the players and their choices.”
 
NQ has alluded that the beginning stages of DU is going to be TOUGH.  There’s no groundwork laid out, organizations will attempt to build stability and others will want that stability for themselves.  This is going to be increasingly tough for the single/small group player as there’s no protection outside of safezones.  That’s not going to change.

Twitch based?  Popular?  Not necessarily.  Many people PREFER tab target and similar styled games.  NQ never planned on implementing twitch features, so I’m not sure how they could have been sacrificed? 
 
Combat usually comes later in a sandbox game, it’s just how the development works.  You create the world, and then you create the gameplay features of the world.  Even Camelot unchained (the epitome of a PvP MMO) implemented voxel building before combat.
 
Seems like you’re just throwing things out and hoping they stick.
 
It also seems like you’re using a shortsighted view.  Simply from your fear of PvP and conflict.  
 
So let’s get a few things straight.  A city owner (organization, coalition whatever) wants to keep their city limits and the outer reaches safe.  Why?  If traders are downed coming to your city every time, they’ll stop coming.  If they stop coming, your city tanks.
 
Now, you’d probably want to pay a security corp to protect these entrances to your planet/city.  
 
If a distress signal goes off, the paid protection (or internal) attempts to intercept.  Every time an alt is killed, that’s resources drained. 
 
Player driven, that’s what DU is... and that’s what DU will always be.
 
This worked in Face of Mankind, EVE doesn’t really have a comparison afaik... as trade is done in high sec areas?  Can’t remember.
 
PvP is not possible in safe zones.  PvP is possible outside of safezones.  What this entails is dictated by the players, that is NQs vision.  If they go back on that, it’s no longer the project put forth by the Kickstarter.  I’d personally want a refund, as it’s not what I backed.
 
This is what I backed:
“Emergent gameplay is one of the key aspects of Dual Universe. In Dual Universe "emergent gameplay" means that the players are given the power to create and direct the story, major events, and content of the game universe. All of the mechanics in Dual Universe are specifically designing to give the players as much freedom as possible, which produces a game world that is entirely run and managed by the players and their choices.”
 
NQ has alluded that the beginning stages of DU is going to be TOUGH.  There’s no groundwork laid out, organizations will attempt to build stability and others will want that stability for themselves.  This is going to be increasingly tough for the single/small group player as there’s no protection outside of safezones.  That’s not going to change.

Why do ppl always argue what DU is "primarily" or "mostly" or "secondary" ? It doesn't really matter if building attracts more ppl (eve ppl would disagree here either way) - the only thing that matters is the vision of NQ
 
DU is a game. As that, the devs set certain boundaries to it as you can't please anyone. You can't have a single shard mmo where everyone can do whatever he wants, anytime, anywhere. That leads to ppl demanding to be safe anywhere with a magical shield because they don't want to pvp at all.
So DU sets a scenario (as EVERY other game does - that's the basis for everyone): there is an arkzone where there's no pvp. Outside there's the sandbox - do whatever you want (attack someone. Don't attack him. That kind of thing).
The "vision" or baseline of DU is: emergent gameplay and rebuilding society.
 
If the players decide that they want to have a huge peaceful city where everyone can build whatever he wants - then THEY have to do that
If the players want a FFA gankfest outside - then THEY have to do it
If the players want to live in peace on alioth and decide that it's maybe a good idea to let alioth be the "starter" planet for new ppl and the they fight somewhere else in the system - then THEY have to do it
 
That's emergent gameplay - this is what DU is about. It doesn't matter if building is primary or secondary or whatever to NQ - everything is equal at first. It's US PLAYERS who will place building on top.....or pvp.....
"we pvpers" don't force anything on ppl - we play the game. If those mechanics are broken or unfair - it will be patched. I don't expect pvp to be the same after 5 years as it was in the beginning
 
That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules at all - it's the internet after all... that's why there are bounties. That's why there is RDMS.
 
And again:
Anyone believing that NQ will deliberately and intentionally unbalance the game - killing is easier than building thus shifting the favor to the attacker - is a moron. It's common sense to balance it.
Making armor/shields stronger than weapons doesn't really change a thing here. Everyone has that "bonus" - so the newbro may be better defended, as is the pirate trying to kill him. It doesn't change anything in regards to the calculation you have to make: will I lose less than I gain? Bullets won't be that expensive and as "professional killer" you will have skills which boost your damage.
Making shields/armor less expensive may work for newbros - but in the long run it's harder for everyone then to evict those pesky pirates. They will heavily fortify their den.
 
Calculating Risk vs Reward is essential in pvp. If there are no killboards (as in eve) no one (except the occasional " herp derp see what I can do" troll) will kill newbros as they literally don't have anything of value. Merchants, builders and crafters may be a more valuable target - and they can do smth about it.
 
Ppl need to learn mechanics too as I truly believe NQ will make it hard for defenders aswell as for attackers.
In eve (I know, eve comparison *yawn*) I have over 10.000h of gametime. >9500 of those I lived in Nullsec and wormholes (dangerous spaces). At first I got killed a lot of times but then I realized I can counter their tactics. Once I learned that and knew how to react, it was no problem at all. I lived there alone, with no backup and rarely got killed. IF I got killed, it was my fault because I did a stupid mistake.
I went mining in a warzone
Flew C5 wormhole PVE solo (real solo, not even my alt was online)
Stole ships from deep within nullsec territory
If you know the mechanics the game gives you, you can counter nearly everything - that's called balance
 
Facts we know:
- there is ONE safe zone which is huge
- outside that zone PVP is allowed
 
It's not about what NQ gives us, but what we make of it.
 

At this point: we’ll just see.  PvP won’t be a ridiculous hard venture, nor will it cost more than defenses.  Building has always been the major capital resource sink and always will be.  Conflict will be the major asset resource sink.
 
At this point: Seems like people are taking small snippets and misconstruing it to feed their own agenda.  Myself included.

At this point: we’ll just see.  PvP won’t be a ridiculous hard venture, nor will it cost more than defenses.  Building has always been the major capital resource sink and always will be.  Conflict will be the major asset resource sink.
 
At this point: Seems like people are taking small snippets and misconstruing it to feed their own agenda.  Myself included.

At this point: we’ll just see.  PvP won’t be a ridiculous hard venture, nor will it cost more than defenses.  Building has always been the major capital resource sink and always will be.  Conflict will be the major asset resource sink.
 
At this point: Seems like people are taking small snippets and misconstruing it to feed their own agenda.  Myself included.

At this point: we’ll just see.  PvP won’t be a ridiculous hard venture, nor will it cost more than defenses.  Building has always been the major capital resource sink and always will be.  Conflict will be the major asset resource sink.
 
At this point: Seems like people are taking small snippets and misconstruing it to feed their own agenda.  Myself included.

Then please explain how your statement of
 
"Primary
 
Dual Universe is primarily a building game due to voxel space. We can tag this "SANDBOX"
 
Secondary
 
Dual Universe is secondarily an interaction game due to freedom of player interactions possible: Trade, Combat, Politics. We can tag this "SIMULATION""
 
Doesn't warrant my responses. Because i most definitely think your statement is false. And remember that when writing something like this without mentioning that its your opinion you WILL be taken for trying to state facts.

So create a law enforcement agency of some kind.  The whole point of this game is it’s player directed.  So direct.  I don’t think it will be much of an issue, but if you do... create an organization that enforces newbie protection around the starting planet.  Would be pretty easy to accomplish... could create a terminal at the ark ship that someone can submit a claim to your organization.
 
It would start it reactive, but once word spreads...

I think that fear is irrational. Seeing as with the vast space provided with the travel distances, cover to hide and be protected by environment you're not very likely to be attacked very often as any individual located somewhere outside the safezone in the universe

I think NQ understands this, and in the end that’s all that matters.  NQ wants an impactful game, and we are going to get it :).  The game won’t be easy, I think they’ve stated that in every single blog ever.  Especially so for the single players, small packs.  I’m primarily a small group player, and I understand what that means... it just seems these people don’t.  Which is fine, they’ll find out for sure.
 
When NQ says it’s a difficult game for single players it’s not because production times are higher.  If that WERE the case, they’d say it’s more time consuming, not more difficult.  The reason it’s difficult for single players and smaller groups is because they need to be novel when it comes to protecting their assets.
 
If that worries you, just stick to safe zones primarily... as apparently there will be multiple.  However, the most profitable adventures will require stepping out of that safety.

Actually no. I'm not downplaying building at all, i'm saying that all major features both building and PvP isn't above one and another at all and players will have to solve every situation in the game with their own brain. What has been advocated is for PvP to be secondary to building and with that ways of protecting the building element from the evils of PvP. Vastly different

Hi everyone, 
A Devblog is coming (very) soon about griefing protection (and more info about the differences between Secure Areas and Non-Secure Areas).
 
@Hades:
There will be only one Secure Area (around the Arkship)... at the beginning. More can be discovered later by the players, once the game will be officially launched.
 
@Captain Jack:
To answer the question of your first post in the thread
If the forest is located in a Secure Area, yes it will be totally possible to be in this kind of context
That's the whole point of having Secure Areas in the game.
 
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar
 

Mmm, but there’s only one truly safe zone in DU and that’s the starting planet.  You can’t arbitrarily create an invincible safe zone as far as I know.  You can create a protection field that has a 48 hour counter after its attacked... but I imagine those will be extremely spendy to create.
 
I don’t think we can make those conclusions at the moment, combat isn’t even in the game yet.  Constantly killing newbies won’t be how organizations fund themselves... I imagine newbies will create the most basic crafts... why would you even want them?  Furthermore, what’s stopping you from creating a law enforcement organization or coalition?
 
Don’t like some behavior in DU?  Change it.

Yeah. Everything can be seen out of context.

Thing is, that scenario should NEVER happen.  It would be extremely unwise for a new player to create their structure in an unprotected area.  Sure, (going back to your example) perhaps another nation state will come in and take over the city where the house resides and burn it down.
 
Unlikely?  Extremely.  For one, it has to be worthwhile to take over the city.  For two, it’s unlikely they will burn down the house.  Why?  It’s rather simple, why burn down the city you’re taking over?
 
Unfortunately, as the game starts out these protected areas will be non existent.  It will be our jobs to create them.
 
I think everyone is in agreement that it should take roughly the same effort to build as destroy.  However, the interesting thing is that there will be methods one group doesn’t think of and that puts the other at a disadvantage.  
 
The defender might have been cunning in their setup, using the natural landscape as a bottleneck into their assets.  In another scenario the aggressors realized they could avoid the turret fire or some other defense due to the nature of their setup.
 
 
 

"
Hello, Forodrim. 
 
I agree with your views, but I fear I disagree with what you are implying here. Would you rather that all elements of PvP be removed from Dual Universe and replaced with NPCs? I don't mean that is what you are asking for, but it lies along the lines more than you know. Perhaps, you would prefer if the game was tilted towards those who did not want to PvP, and mechanics were put in place to hinder - however slightly - the possibility of conflict? No, you don't want that: you said it yourself that the game should be balanced for both sides. However, seeing as you support a balance in both PvP and non-PvP activities, I must be missing something here - because I fail to understand exactly what makes PvP a touchy topic, as you said. Could you offer a little more explanation on this? 
 
There can be an NPC element in the game - I am not against this. What I do find to be distasteful are games that: 
Are advertised as fair and balanced, while being biased towards one side.  Promise something and don't deliver.  Dual Universe promised freedom to shape our own stories. That's why I am here. It would seem I have misled most people here into believing I am a PvPer for life. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I do PvP, because I enjoy it. Others avoid it because they don't. I love trading, and I love creating - however, I know that my wealth or creativity is irrelevant without protection, hence, preparation for PvP. My organisation isn't PvP only, either. Trade is the other of our two main points of interest. But, we know that no matter how many fully-laden vessels we send in convoys, all wealth is lost without adequate protection. So, we prepared for PvP, one by getting members interested in it, and two, by joining a larger alliance. If by any chance, you think it's impossible for PvP and non-PvP players to live in harmony there are several organisations that would change your opinion on that, mine being one of them. 
 
I am fully aware of my killboard status - and believe me, it's not an impressive sight. But, the losses don't stop me from seeking out fights, or putting myself in situations where I know I will be in danger (in a team or when I'm roaming solo). The losses are okay, as long as I'm learning something, and that's the endgame of all PvP occurrences in Eve: learn something about yourself, about your enemy, about the mechanics of the game, about strategy...learn and enjoy. It's important because no matter how much you enjoy doing PvP, if you don't learn from it, you'll keep losing - and we as humans, don't like losing. 
 
Industry? Learn something. Trading...? Learn. It is possible for a player to produce tonnes of finished products and end up making devastating losses due to ignorance or laziness. Real gamers - not just PvPers - learn, and most of the people that abandon complex games leave because they failed to learn. Of course, there are cases in which games are severely troubled by design and balance issues. DU is not one of those games and the level of involvement NQ has had with the community and other developers show that DU will not be one of those games. 
 
A game is about fun. If I decide to have fun learning to PvP, why should the developers bias the game towards non-PvP actions? Seeing as they promised a balanced way to shape our stories? If I love trading, why should the developers tilt the mechanics towards PvP when they promised to give us the keys to our future? What I and most other players interested in PvP are arguing for is a balance. Don't skew the game against us, don't skew the game towards us: let everyone be free to do what they want. Should players decide to make an API for the most constructs/blueprints sold by players, they should be able to; without complaining that PvPers are addicted to their own version of Zkillboard. 
 
Cheers.
"