Zamarus

Seriously doubt that

Hey hello

Beep boop, welcome fellow fleshling. Beep boop.

Your existence is acknowledged

Pretty sure it's not 100% drop on death though, more like 75-80% from what i remember them saying in videos. If you consider open world pvp one of the most aggressive pvp systems then be my guest. I still wont agree with it but i can accept you having your approach.

Not necessarily. I'm challenging your statements. "In my eyes NQ is going with the most aggressive and divisive form a pvp and it without a doubt will alienate very hardcore PvE players" For example

The most agressive form of PvP possible would be a 100% no limitations one, no safe zones, no protection bubbles, no bounty system, 100% of the inventory would be dropped on death, etc. Just purely up to the players who dies when and not. Also there would not be any griefing rules like when they mentioned that repeated killing of the same target could be considered griefing, etc. What i am saying is that you are treating everything that isn't the PvE friendly environment you are looking for as maximum PvP and it's not a factually correct or even figuratively correct description. I think that they have taken plenty of measurements already to ensure that people have the option to live safer than they would be in a "most agressive form" of PvP. Just look at the safe zone around the arkship which will be gigantic, the planned sanctuary moons. Whatever solution they finally decide on for base protection in the end and more. It's easy to see past what tools you actually have to avoid PvP and act like you have nothing going for you when its not true.

Quick note: I don't think this is a fair statement. They said building and pvping is equally important and neither should shun the other. Your friends seem to have been scared off by the mere presence of open world pvp. This does NOT however mean that NQ view pvp as the highest of importance nor that they are alienating players for it. If they had made the game in a way that would have pleased your pve friends a ton of pvp-audiences would have been alienated instead. Think of that for a second.

I think it's interesting to note that after all these observations you've had you narrow everyone who is for the open pvp to hardcore PvPers. I don't think that's fair at all. I'm also pretty sure Lethys has a way more casual approach to PvP than others in ways. And i'm sure there's going to be people who enjoy the high risk environment because of the excitement of danger and the fact that there's plenty of reward for playing smart. Hell all it would take for a risk-averse player that still wants in on the resources outside the safezone would be to dig a hole in the ground and cover it up, chances would be small that a pack of bandits would run into you that way, even though those chancers were probably low from the start. Also here we go again with the "we don't know anything so lets just wait and see". Stop attempting to shut down discussion because they don't go the way you like them, people are completely free to speculate, pitch ideas against each other and plan all they want.

Don't know that yet. I think you and many others are overestimating both the frequency and reason for offensive gameplay. Quite honestly people are probably more than well equipped to defend themselves if they are not careless, they even mentioned potential shield domes players could create to get a response timer to react. Either way i heavily disagree with the sentiment some portray that NQ needs to create a scenario where people can be wherever and not partake in the open PvP. Get a crew, build a hidden base, hire mercs, store your valuables inside the safezone or on a moon. The possibilities are endless to avoid losing your "hard earned belongings". You may want to take an extra look at what player driven means.

It appears to me that DU is exactly a fantasy land where you can build air castles

I thought the point of having a forum pre launch is for people to speculate, discuss ideas and getting to know each other.

I agree with most of the message here. People shouldn't be safe just because their loot took hours to get. It's up to the player to make it hard for pirates to pirate, not the devs. And i suspect that pirating already from the start won't be as easy as some like to think.

Aye, welcome on board mate

Where were you when hell broke loose? I know i was erasing my enemies in the name of Eldríc Discord: vjFA4UN

Welcome on board dude!

Me neither. If its ensuring gametime you want just get a normal subscription. If you want to buy a DAC or sell one to get advantages ingame it should naturally come with the risk of being lootable, play smart and you wont find that an issue anyways.

Welcome on board my dude.

Welcome to the club

Welcome in here Jack!

Yeah i understand it, i just don't think its a good idea with a SS system

They are strict, and prevents certain playstyles from thriving. No inbuilt system that punishes the player for playing like pirates, outlaws you name it is planned so far IIRC and i hope it wont

Alright so you are advocating for a system like this to be implemented in game. Disagree heavily for many reasons: a.) What Griefing is remains subjective b.) Individual orgs and alliances should get to decide themselves how to treat what they consider to be "criminal acts" c.) the penalties should also be a player driven factor, not a system

Org standings will differ between orgs as i was trying to point out. There simply wont be an universal criteria for being a criminal that every org adheres to.

Well you'll notice that different orgs will consider different things crime and not. This will also differ in enforcement depending on who owns the territory you are on. Universal criterias for being a criminal won't be universal