Zamarus
-
Posts
677 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zamarus
-
-
3 hours ago, blazemonger said:
The questions I have are:
Why are "PVP oriented players" so focused on being able to target those who have no counter/recourse? Are you looking for kills more than fight maybe?
Spoken like a true person who hasnt PvPd ingame much. The large part of PvP atm from orgs like NG and DSI is either arranged for the fun of it or people hunting whatever they can find because the space is SO limited. Ask a hundred PvPers. Most will tell you they care less about the loot itself and more about the thrill of fighting. Absolutely bottom tier take on the matter.
5 hours ago, CptLoRes said:Sorry to break it to you all, but DU is fundamentally made be a building game more then it is a PvP game.
And the problem with building vs destroying is that when it takes 5 minutes to destroy months of work, builders leave the game.
Also a bland old take on the subject matter. There's a balance and the game is not even 1% PvP right now. And why should it not be easy to destroy such work? Instead of having people organically learn how to defend themselves, hire mercs, befriend the right people, take safer routes, etc, etc. You think its healthy to have people run around the entire world for free constantly like a massive creative sandbox? Months of work mean absolutely nothing when theres no risk to it. Because there will come one day where many people are saturated on building, or the resources and territory are dry. People like you will ask for one of two things at this point. 1) Respawning resources or getting a new system with the same safety principles. 2) Wiping territory on release because all the main system stuff is already claimed by that time.
The world will never have a real timeline if things cant both be built and withered down. It will just be one long session on creative mode and it will never rise to what it could be
- JohnnyTazer and Aleksandr
-
2
-
10 hours ago, Demlock said:
Well,
I'm glad that everyone is at least posting thoughts and ideas about how to address it aside from the initial view that my posting this was simply to moan and complain about X,Y,Z.
My time is rather limited and writing a long diatribe about my views of PvP in DU to date in extreme detail with well thought out analysis is not something I can do at the moment.In all honesty, getting people riled up over something that's not 100% complete sometimes leads to more astute minds shining through to offer perspectives leading to a better way forward.
As nearly all responses here have had either a hint of, or a sound take on PvP most can agree it needs more work. I'm glad to see that the discussion is being had at the end of the day on how to make something we all enjoy better for the future.
Do I hate the borg cubes?
Yes, its absolutely ridiculous
Do I want a PvP system that pushes people to work towards ships that are effective, practical and have more than just 6 sides to it?
Yes
Are there ways to do so?
Yes
Is that my main point for this whole post?
No
I am glad you posted the topic tho, Cubes really do need to be dealt with somehow. From what i've seen there are challengers in terms of design out there, but its extra effort vs the easy and cheap performance with cubes.
-
Most of your suggestions as of how are pretty ba, I dont think it would work out with targeting the design by identification. The only good suggestion imo is core size locking weapon size. And also as Olmeca wrote, make thinner ships harder to hit by proxy of voxel width on the different axises from the shooters perspective. Together it would keep small ships able to exist in a battle with larger ships but also big weapons being exclusive to larger cores would make bigger crewed ships worthwhile more than just flexing.
-
1 minute ago, ShibbyGuy said:
I would be perfectly fine without the stealth thing myself, I prefer full chaos believe it or not... however, I do try to vouch on both sides here to seek true balance and think of what people would complain about honestly. If I had it my way the current solar system would be full of chaos, but lets be real doing that would kill of a lot of players, and you want a game that supports all kinds of players with how they like to play. So it's tough. NQ has a lot of thinking and planning to do. I"m simply trying to make this game successful with my own personal thoughts and ideas. Maybe it will help them. With this thread it basically makes the current solar system a "Soft" verison of PvP, then when you jump into "New Space" its all out chaos, with ONE safe planet there. No protection bubbles around planets. Only the Main hub. So you would warp form this safe planet for instance to an unprotected planet, with full atmopsheric pvp and so on when u arrive.
Catering to both sides is not only difficult but in practise pretty impossible and non-organic. Its wagering between "do we force PvPers to look for scraps of battle" or "do we force carebears to learn how to play safe and build their own protected hubs".
Imo theres nothing interactive with safezones completely blocking out any risk whatsoever. But on the other hand having people band together to protect common hubs and have player-made player-curated "safe-zones" that still run the risk of being infiltrated or sieged at some point I think is going to be valuable experience for all sides. People are lazy, want the easy way out. Losing inventory sucks but that doesnt mean the developers should hold their hands and prevent that from ever being a possibility. They originally called the beta stage of the roadmap "empires expand" but there's nothing imperial or expansive about everyone down to every single joe being able to hog territory with no risk. I pray for territory warfare to come soon.
A big problem also with keeping Madis and Thades safe is that it limits the options where territory warfare CAN happen. I cant be the only one who sees the problem with oversaturating the world with safety. See a LOT of people have settled on Madis and Thades compared to many remote planets. What this means once territory warfare is out is that ONLY the non-safe planets will be able to be attacked, that means that instead of PvP being spread out more evenly in the system there will be massive PvP pressure on certain planets since those are the only options. this will drive people out of those planets for sure and pack the safe planets to the brim with people trying to keep their assets out of harms way, but not by protecting it, hiding it, befriending the right people like in a organic universe but via the means of dev code.
But thats not all, there's other serious problems with extensive safezoning. Already limited rarer resources will be depleted at a fast rate, many moons are already DRY of T3+ ore, its just a matter of time before the same happens with all planets, simply because people can without any risk other than their own incompetence flying their craft spam scans and strip the planets dry before any meaningful warfare comes around. Now theres ONE bright prospect I can find in this same issue. That is that once the safezone planets are mined dry (which will happen first) people are simply forced to venture to non-safe planets. Knowing NQ's recent actions, decisions and interviews I wouldnt put it past them to replenish ore in some way to let these same people stay within the safe borders forever. Wheres the risk&reward is my question. Normally taking bigger risks, IE flying to outer planets for rare ore would mean you will be able to find the resources to be ahead in tech compared to safezone dwellers, but once that happens people will complain that they dont have access to what PvPers have access to whilst also not wanting to engage in risk.
Catering will not satisfy these kinds of people, they either get what they want and then ask for more time after time, or you force them to learn how to live with risks and avoid danger by themselves, the tools are there. Its not hard to route around, make friends, hire mercs, bribe PvPers to not attack you, or other means. But people will not use these tools or even think of them if they have an easier and lazier way of getting what they want.
-
5 minutes ago, ShibbyGuy said:
I didn't ignore what he said per sae, it sparked an idea for new space for campers that might be waiting there after you warp from the said safe planet in new space. Why would I want to warp to a planet, only to get locked on right away and fired on, with a cooldown on the warp to not escape. That stealth mechanic would at least be nice for a certain duration after warp to prevent insta grief. Also you didn't read fully what I wrote either about the warping in new space. So please read again. New space would not have these "safe bubbles" around each planet making it 0 risk.
The whole thing about raiding and base protection is a topic discussed since old. The devs originally planned for claimed territories to have a timed shield triggered upon attack (territory warfare) that leaves a 24 or 48h window, whichever they said back then before you could actually touch anything inside, giving time for the defenders to plan their defense and father personnel.
Anyways why shouldnt you be able to be camped out of warp? Warp locations are wide and you can approach from many angles. Easy solution is for people to not be lazy and warp the birds path between planets and actually offset their journey, trading travel time for safety. Also thats not really how it is right now, people are capable of warping DIRECTLY from safe space into safe space without any chance whatsoever of being fired upon. That you wouldnt want to warp into getting locked on is not an argument for why it should be risk-less to do a warp. And "insta-grief" is a weird way of saying PvP happened. People not enjoying being shot down doesnt magically make PvP risks griefing
-
6 hours ago, ShibbyGuy said:
The Stealth Mode you mentioned seems like a fair idea if it was to be implemented in the "New Space". After warping from the "Safe Planet" that I mentioned in new space, you ship should enter a state of stealth after the warp (lowers radar signature and radius as you said), so that it can futher elude any campers that may be there after you warp. But it should'nt be so OP that it breaks the PvP.
You pretty much ignored what he was actually saying. Warping is way too low risk right now, completely eliminates PvP from the game. But instead you shove one thing into the other and say stealth should be applied ON TOP of the warp. That makes the 0,0001% risk of being caught a dead 0. I think its ridicilous with the idea of as much carebearery as we have right now, safe planets, new space, warp, stealth, it piles up to a game with a glorified arena space where parties have to orchestrate PvP battles on their own behalf, and even then the servers cant take a 50 ship battle as it stands right now.
Originally they said this. That there would only be ONE safe moon (sanctuary) as well as a X KM radius safezone around the arkship. Now the entirety of Alioth, Madis, Thades and all open space in between is safe. We are doubling down on the no-fun allowed and there are plenty of people who dont like it. And dont count PvP oriented orgs out as only engaging in PvP either. Right now bigger PvP orgs boast huge industries, bases and player numbers. Its not like they dont play the game the way others do too, it takes effort and resources to fund PvP since ships can be lost and resources evaporate into the void, meaning you have to constantly gather new ones.
IMO make warp tougher, go back to alioth+sanc only safezones. Dont care if Alioth as a whole has it, but including Madis and thades will prove to be a mistake, you can get everything you need to make space capable ships on Alioth anyways. And give us tech to pull people out of warp with some kind of trapping
-
If you are looking for a nation to fight for. A military to enlist in, or just to run your civilian business under the protection of a proper military? Then you should consider joining us.
-
Greetings from your North-Eastern neighbour
-
Super legate and a broader permissions system has been planned for a long time. The creator of an org can delete it yes but right now you need to get everyone else out of the org to get the option. Regarding alliances, just use your org page, thread, other mediums, etc to tell the world about it
-
If German is all you are looking for have you considered joining Hyperion? Not part of their org but i know they are all Germans and pretty into the game
-
I don't see why its not on topic Kuritho, general should be a good place to help people out about game related info. Now its easy to just google a UTC to PST time converter tho (-8)
-
It's not off topic but yes that is correct
-
8 hours ago, DaphneJones said:
Not scared. Just averse to boring and non-fun game play.
Especially when the "combat" is leveled tab-target BS. That's really just bullying anyway you look at it.
Didn't say you specifically were scared, however plenty of people will play risky, plenty will play less risky. Why would you downplay and laugh at other people for preferring other playstyles?
-
5 hours ago, DaphneJones said:
I guess my res node will stay at the ark ship until I can put one on a sanctuary moon.
I'll be laughing at the rest of you spawning naked while the guys who killed you in the first place stand next to your res node and wrack up free kills. (This is common practice in WoW Ashran - a PvP setting I used to play a lot.)
Sure some people will be spawning naked, but some will overcome that possibility and laugh at the scaredy cats still at the Arkship Zone while they are colonising new worlds
-
https://community.dualthegame.com/organization/the-eldritch-nation#tab-posts
Announcing our participation in a common exodus project with DSI and TU
-
On 10/6/2018 at 11:08 AM, Anopheles said:
Seems like every niche has already been filled.
Who says you can't do the same as someone but better? Or the same as someone but your own touch? Or just the same as someone but for YOUR friends/community?
Just because someone has done a thing already doesn't mean they are entitled to be the biggest in the field. People will be able to start their new things regardless of what already exist because it will ultimately depend on people
-
2 hours ago, DirectorRose said:
I see your point but i dont think that most training for this game is worth being kept a secret, because chances are most people could be thinking the same thing. Besides at this stage all training ideas are pretty much theories and...well ideas. Since no one really knows 100 percent what to expect.
I doubt most are thinking the same thing. In fact i expect most orgs to have vastly different procedures in a bunch of fields
-
19 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
@Zamarus i thought NQ have answer your question about bot already ?!
It does nothing than allow people with backer to join NDA channel. And argument ''Human error is a poor reason'' for automatic process is another poor argument as well to have manual process.
They answered the question but i am not talking to NQ now am i? I was not even asking any questions demanding answers, i'm literally just giving my opinion, which most of my comment actually says i am and wish for others to get to.
Whether NQ answered or not is not gonna magically delete peoples opinions
-
16 hours ago, DarkHorizon said:
The bot has been the defacto standard for the entire community for a long time now, even the members of NovaQuark that we see from time to time have gone through the process without a hitch so now it really just begs the question of why the second standard for which I feel like I answered in the second paragraph and will refer to such.
Only because there's not been any other choice since it was implemented. As i said in the exchange i had asked for manual confirmation WHICH WAS how it was done prior and is still done on many discords.
The concern about human error is to me a poor argument for lack of engagement, MUST we go by automated functions only? I remain sceptic. Also i don't believe it would create a "second class of privileged users" because it is just an arbitrary label.
16 hours ago, MasteredRed said:However we will be fine with you now personally replacing the bot for authentication purposes. We'll require you to take it as a full time job with no pay. Also, you are responsible if you make a mistake, accidentally forget who was authed, fail to account for bans, or so on so forth.
This is honestly just a argument of concern and is not that realistic. Who took responsibility or worked full time prior to the existance of the bot? I don't know exactly Red what you are trying to say here. Please expand and enlighten me on what the exact point with this comment is, i am of course willfully listening.
10 hours ago, Dhara said:Well, the way I see it is that it's NQ's game, NQ's data, NQ's website, and now it's NQ's discord. They should feel free to purchase/use any scripts that they find that they feel necessary to complete their job. If they find one that is free to serve some time-saving purpose, even better. More money for the game itself. They do not need permission to use - or to even tell us - what programming is behind everything they use.
Sure, they can do that, but then they should not be surprised when some people have scepticism. By no means should people get told off, locked out or shunned (which i am not saying they are but it can easily happen) for questioning.
-
Agreeing with Lethys first post in this thread
-
Where do you want to stand in the making of DU's history?
-
2 hours ago, NanoDot said:
I'm already prepared...
NQ are also preparing, which is why they are implementing things like safezones. Nobody wants to see DU limping along with a tiny player base because a handful of players have dedicated themselves to make the game as unpleasant as possible...
I seriously doubt such a tiny dedicated group have the capacity anyways. Hiding and protecting yourself will probably be much easier than you think
-
38 minutes ago, NanoDot said:
They usually are, actually.
Most examples of senseless destruction are just that, senseless. There's no intricate scheme behind it all, it's just done to irritate and cause maximum inconvenience.
Most PVP'ers are not griefers, it takes a special kind of mindset to be a griefer, lol
Well i get your sentiment here. However keep in mind that in a game like this the players will have to provide the consequences. prepare yourself!
-
12 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
I dont think NQ will let players dig deep enough to hit any sort of magna core, more like digging 1km down and thats it (I just pulled that distance out of my head).
Seriously doubt that
Permanent Bubble? They nuts?
in General Discussions
Posted
Problem is not just not listening to players but when they do, which happens I give them that. They tend to cather to select types of players. One being big spenders and the other being people who pretend that the game would be unplayable and paint up doomsday scenarios if their mining runs had even a slight chance of being hijacked/shot at. Now at least they have thought about the subject to a minor degree looking at Spreeezys interview.
Its not just ignoring PvP and letting the world be dangerous in favour of creative mode players. But its also the hesitation, lack of knowing where exactly they want to end up with all of their decisions. Like do they want a builders world with only consensual PvP or should the world be dangerous so people are forced to work together to minimize their risks? Which is more engaging huh? We were promised focus on both building and danger from early days, Crewed ships, big orgs and alliances, friends, bribes, etc. Being the ways to safely get your ores from one planet to the other. A lot of backtracking on early vision and roadmaps has happened. They have to have a big picture and stick to it to a certain degree or they'll end up cathering to nobody