Jump to content

Zamarus

Alpha Team Vanguard
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    677

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Zamarus

    The right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Just now, ostris said:

    I see, would one of the most aggressive pvp systems be more preferable? Cause I'm ok with that, i guess I am being a little loose with the absolute nature of my statements in that post. I was speaking very generically about full loot pvp systems being pretty hardcore by comparison to the vast majority of games that either offer non full loot pvp or pve only servers.

    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. 

    The right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Just now, ostris said:

    So just to be clear you think i want a PvE friendly environment?

    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 right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, ostris said:

    Sorry i may have misspoke when i said the highest importance, i was meaning to say of a high level of importance. not saying its more important then building but that its close or as important.

     

    As far as the second part im not sure i understand your statement. 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. You seem to be implying that there is an option to not alienate a playerbase, or at least that how im reading it? Which is kinda the point im trying to make. I dont think you can do that. If you want pvp as core gameplay with a hardcore pvp full loot system, embrace that and accept the griefing and piracy etc that comes with it. Or if pvp isnt a cornerstone of the game move to something thats a little less hardcore and appeals to more pve players. Don't try to make it "safe" full loot pvp. Could you clarify a bit?

    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.

    The right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    48 minutes ago, ostris said:

    The fact that they have chosen a pvp system that has already scared off a large portion of my PvE oriented friends should be proof enough that NQ views pvp as the highest importance. Why would they alienate the players they want(pve) for the players that aren't the primary purpose of the game(pvp)?

    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.

    The right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Nanoman said:

    I know and maybe I'll be playing some of them too. I never attacked those types of play. That's just the assumption that hardcore PvP-ers like yourself make, to defend their sacred positions against straw men and take all nuance out of the discussion. "Oh so you want everyone to just be safe everywhere and do everything without consequences"... duh no, nobody said that.

     

    I don't take sides in polarized discussions, in fact I usually avoid them like the plague because they just suck up energy and keep everyone stuck in a perpetual stalemate. So if you're pegging me as on or the other then that's your mistake, not mine. ;)

     

    These debates were going on before I first came here, then I joined in here and there for a week or so in my naive attempts to contribute something. Now I'm bored with it but it seems like all the same people are still making all the same arguments back and forth ad nauseam.

     

    And while all this is going on, most of the people that will be playing this game are probably the ones that you barely hear from. Because they are simply going about their lives until the game gets closer to release (which won't be any time soon), instead of spinning yarns out of thin air.

     

    Anyway I'm sure NQ already has plenty of ideas that we don't know about yet. In fact we don't know much at all yet. So it seems to me that, for now, all we can really do that has any basis in reality whatsoever, is wait and see what the missing components of the game will look like.

     

    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. 

    The right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    54 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

    I have no idea what NQ have planned with regards to keeping DU balanced, but a handful of safezones is certainly not going to cut it.

    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.

    The right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Nanoman said:

    And second of all because everyone will have their own ideas about how to play anyway, even without actually knowing anything about the game. And that's not about to change so there's no point trying to convince or convert eachother. It's just empty blah blah and doesn't really amount to anything.

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

    The right to be evil

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    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. 

    Question on losing inventory upon death

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, Lethys said:

    So I don't really get why people want DACs to be unlootable - it only adds gameplay, risk, reward and good stories to the game if they can be looted

    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.

    Bounty Hunting System: A criminal deterrant or RP device?

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Miamato said:

    So if someone rich decides to place bounty on you, then you get killed and lose skills? Pretty fair. Especially for solo players or if someone dislikes you pretty hard and places bounty on you non stop.

    Penalties I've listed are not so strict and don't exclude any kind of community response.

    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 

    Bounty Hunting System: A criminal deterrant or RP device?

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Miamato said:

    Probably you have misunderstood my point. 

    Org standing and Security Status are not the same metrics and do not influence each other directly. Having a positive org standing doesn't mean players cannot attack each other, rather they most likely shouldn't, because it will influence org relations in general. Having negative org standing doesn't mean you can attack opponent with no penalty, but more that your corporations have tensions with each other.

    War declaration may mean that you can attack opponents without issues or SS drop. 

    Security status is more about personal player metrics that is defined by his interaction with other players:

    • If you are griefing - you lose SS.
    • Attacking players without declared war - lose SS, attacked player received time-limited kill right on you.
    • Stealing - lose SS.

    If SS is lower than some threshold:

    • Anyone can attack you and your stuff without losing SS
    • Your property in safe zones is arrested and cannot be used
    • Market interaction is partially blocked or more taxes are applied or you can use only black market

    SS can be gained by some routine repetitive quests, so you should think twice before break the law :)

    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 

×
×
  • Create New...