Zamarus
-
Posts
677 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zamarus
-
-
3 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:
That seems right to me, but where people seem to disagree is on "how long all that will take to emerge": Hence safety-zones will probably be a major feature in the beginning (more than they probably are envisioned currently). That would be my educated guess.
Actually i don't think that is necessary. You must realize also that people won't exactly start with a fleet and an Arsenal of weapons. Peoples capabilities for combat will be pretty low because players have to get weapons themselves
-
34 minutes ago, Felonu said:
I explained what I said in the paragraph you quoted... I always said these are things NQ CAN do to adjust balance. I didn't say they should do anything but not make it extremely cheap. What I think NQ should do would be off topic since the OP was asking if a thing would be possible. I was explaining a way for it to be possible. I think, or at least attempted to always say that the balance would have to be decided by NQ. I might have expressed general opinions that you took to mean that I want it to be expensive, but I don't. I want it to be balanced.
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.
-
Just now, Felonu said:
That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I don't think I ever talked about wanting anything specific. I kept saying that it would be up to NQ and their vision. I only said I didn't want the extreme the other way. I also said that having PvP be expensive would reduce the amount of things like griefing. I never argued for or against anything except especially inexpensive PvP.
I don't see how that is a misrepresentation, you literally advocated for expensive PvPing, that NQ should balance it so that killing people would yield little.
-
1 minute ago, Captain Jack said:
Spoken as if care-bear concerns aren't welcome on the game's official forum.
The implication was people were bringing up pointless or invalid concerns
-
19 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
That's what the Safezones are for.
Good, then i see where you stand excuse me. Because i recalled you arguing the same as Felonou, if not i apologize.
What they argued was for offensive PvP to be costly and/or yield little. Which i thought was absurd, if you understand the safezone and potential future safezones i think we agree for the most part.
-
Just now, Atmosph3rik said:
That IS what I said...
Alright, because that's not the picture i get from earlier in the discussion. Building and PvP will happen all around us unhindered, are you okay with that? Just checking here.
-
1 minute ago, Atmosph3rik said:
See I don't think it is being crammed down your throat.
As long as doing those things aren't required to enjoy the game. You might not have the bests scripts or the pointiest spaceships, unless you buy them. But that's fine right?
I honestly dont know how you can say that about building and not PvP, both are available to do whatever with, neither is crammed down your throat.
-
7 minutes ago, supermega said:
Dual Universe is a Civilization "BUILDING" MMO, as stated by Novaquark.
Taking shit like this out of context is why we have all these care-bear concerns on the forums. I've argued plenty already so i will be a bit brash but listen to their videos from the kickstarter ffs.
-
24 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:
1. The webpage calls the game "civilization BUILDING mmo".
You don't usually call mmo's pvp mmo's, just look at all of them pvp is factored in the term "mmo" per automation.
26 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:5. Initially and indeed currently there's zero combat and building hence building is precedent to combat/pvp. Just read the latest game update notes.
Because in game development you test destruction before construction? No of course building is tested first, even in a full fledged PvP-prio game they would do it in that order, not saying DU will prioritize that but its absurd to think that its an indicator.
28 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:Now, finally that out of the way: We look at what NQ is planning for pvp and getting it under control: They talk about bubbles of safety. I think they'll have to start with more bubbles of safety than initially suggested so far but with greater reward in resources "further out" so to speak... then over time as large groups coalesce then such bubbles can be reigned back (some lore reason eg the tech of the predecessors starts fading etc).
You'll start with one protection bouble, the arkship safezone, they've been talking about discovering others but that is something you cant rely on for a long time. Build your own shields, fortresses and so on, a player driven sandbox doesnt need to have safezones everywhere, in fact if players are meant to build civilizations what you former thought was a need for devs to provide for you a large org might be strong enough to have a secure large open city you can use the same way. Isn't that cool to think of?
31 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:Finally I was not talking about fact, but about prediction which seems obvious considering how much future development is still come.
"Not talking about fact but it was an obvious prediction"
If that's what you are saying i disagree with the latter and it still sounded like the former.
-
10 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:
@Zamarus : Your sentiment: "absolute - trump => subjective desire..." leads to "globalization of this to "population who need to learn about protection simulation". This rhetorical misconstruction of my post which merely attempted to set some productive technical terms for language for communication. Eg Secondary does not refer to some sort of priority, it's merely the case of:-
* Proportional to player numbers
* Precedent to natural development of simulation systems
* Dynamic feedback system in balance of growth not stagnation or limiting factors.
In fact, to completely turn your rhetoric against itself: By adopting this progression, there will be MORE PVP - not less and more diverse likely hence too.
Will say your contribution has been effective in creating a busy forum post thread with multiples of replies, which is fun too, I enjoy the passion and respect everyones' views - I just believe there's more reward in successful communication happening!
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
What do you consider the baseline is for an un-interfered-with sandbox then? Is it not realism?
You're talking about being against change. But you're assuming the starting point. Based on what you want
No, i'm basing it on what NQ has said about a player driven world and how that would play out.
5 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:The point of the game is that it's a fun and realistic sandbox. Pvp is part of that, but not all of it. And all the parts have to work together for the game to be fun for everyone.
I think that's all anyone is really trying to say. I'm going to leave it at that.
I don't think I've said it enough times i guess but i never claimed nor did anyone claim that PvP is all of it.
Let me run that back to my previous answer. The sum of it being that all the parts work together from the player using their own brain not relying on the devs holding your hand.
10 hours ago, Zamarus said: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.
-
16 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
Anything short of that is going to require some intentional balancing. There's no such thing as "not interfering". It's a virtual world. The whole thing is designed.
I think you might want to sharpen your understanding of Player Driven, of course a game is designed as a whole, but they are focusing on providing the tools and not designing HOW people should use them in the end.
18 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:By not including permanent death. They're taking the first step towards something other then totally realistic.
Fill me in, i didn't see anyone in this discussion demanding realism.
-
3 minutes ago, Felonu said:
No it wouldn't... i already supplied the math... it doesn't matter who it is I'm not saying you specify some people are "defenseless" by helping the defenseless you only extend PvP battles some and modify the cost/benefit analysis when attacking everyone (aggressors are risking more than defenders, but have the ability to make that decision before attacking. The defender would have to have something valuable for the offensive to be worth it).
I think we should stop arguing these details though. I think people have the information to make up their own minds on what they believe of these systems.
If you don't want to argue anymore then stop replying, meant honest, not derogatory way.
I did not see this math and i do not think its a good idea at all. But what you are right on is that people have plenty to make up their mind.
Just now, Felonu said:No it's not. There are no details about what defensive systems will be in place, what offensive systems there are, and how much resources it would take to power/create the means of both. Those are the only systems we're talking about modifying. You can't "regulate" a system that hasn't been build yet. This is talking about how a system should be initially built, and all of these costs have to be something. The discussion is on what the different costs will be.
You never said more than "make it expensive to attack people" which i won't take as anything else than wanting to regulate PvP. I mean what is the point of saying so otherwise. It's quite obvious what sandbox and player-driven entails imo.
-
6 minutes ago, Felonu said:
Anyway. I feel like I've said my piece, and instead of discussing options and possibilities we are at the point of just arguing over small details and differences of opinions and viewpoints.
Not really, what i've been arguing and some others is for the option of not doing anything. Not interfering with the sandbox we are given, it's at this point pro-change vs no need
Edit: Or let me rephrase myself better. "Pro regulated vs unregulated PvP" -
6 minutes ago, Felonu said:
I don't think my proposal would reduce freedom or cripple PvP. How would Defenses being stronger, or not getting as much resources when you gank defenseless people cripple PvP?
"I already supplied a solution. It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance. This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie."
This would most certainly do that. Because doing this wont just help defenseless people but be abused by everyone. Also how have you planned on making the resources gained difference between defenseless and non-defenseless people here? I don't see how you make the game do that without magic, because all solutions would force you to mess with more game mechanics than you originally were thinking about.
-
16 minutes ago, Felonu said:
Good.... i guess.... I don't know why that matters. I was answering Hades where he was implying that long drawn out battles would be a problem. I was saying that it wouldn't be a problem.
Hey, you realize who is advocating for less freedom here?
16 minutes ago, Felonu said:We're talking about a specific way to build one of those tools that has to be built in some form. This doesn't make it less player driven, it just changes how the player driven aspect is implemented.
It does make it less player driven if you actively try to cripple PvP in favour of Building
-
26 minutes ago, Felonu said:
Great. What is wrong with long battles? To build a proper spaceship it could take weeks or months to design, and build it. Why shouldn't a big battle?
Because construction and destruction is not a linear relationship, better players will destroy worse players faster even if both have two juggernauts for ships.
28 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:Until NQ tells us how they plan to do things we really just don't know how this all will work.
What we know so far is that they plan to fully support multiple play styles including people who aren't really interested in PVP. And people who are. And they also plan to make the game as realistic and player driven as possible.
They want to make a PLAYER DRIVEN sandbox. This means players deal with player-made problems, the tools are there for builders, PvPers and all therein, its up to you how to utilize them.
29 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:No one should have to "just deal with it". The game should be for all of us. More people equals a successful game.
You realize that taking away the "just deal with it" aspect would make it less player driven thus not what they have been talking about and theres tons of players that doesnt want to see that happen, you are not ever gonna truly reach "all of us".
-
3 minutes ago, Felonu said:
I truly believe that if people have a chance to get more from a newbie with a barely flying craft that can barely make it off the planet than it takes to kill that ship that it will be.
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
-
Just now, Atmosph3rik said:
And all the other safezones planned that were literally mentioned at the top of this page.
Those too.
When people discover them on remote planets in the distant future or so
-
Just now, Felonu said:
So over 99% of the game should be for PvPers, and the safezone should be the only place you have a chance to not be always killed? Like I said you are advocating PvP to be the feature that trumps every other aspect of gameplay. Remember being in a big org with defenses and protections doesn't actually protect anyone. How about people not demand that almost noone can play the game without threat of PvP shadowing them constantly.
I want there to be a middle ground. I want the game to have PvP available everywhere outside the safe zone. I want there to be a possibility of loss if you leave the safety of the Ark ship. I just don't want to feel like you have to be constantly in PvP if you leave.
Just because PvP is enabled in 99% of the world does not mean PvP will occur on every single cubic meter outside the safezone, people are worrying too much
-
20 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
Nope sorry.
PVP is optional. And i'm not really interested.
I don't expect to be able to do everything in the game all the time since i'm not really interested in PVP.
Why can't you accept that you won't be able to attack everyone all the time?
I already have accepted that. And it's called the arkship safezone, nothing else
-
1 minute ago, Felonu said:
You are doing the exact thing from a different perspective that you accuse @MookMcMook of doing.
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
- Hades, Armedwithwings and Lethys
-
3
-
2 hours ago, Molybdane said:
1 832 years for the whole planet.
Cool stuff man. So if 1832 years is required for 1000 people. Then it means it would require one million players to do it in 1.8 years? That's pretty huge
-
1 hour ago, MookMcMook said:
There's a lot of talk on this subject that simply falls through the cracks, taking side-tangents, specifics too far and losing the overall picture and then the sentiment misdirection when conversing.
Let's use some building blocks:-
Primary
Dual Universe is primarily a building game due to voxel space. We can tag this "SANDBOX"
What you did here is assume building is the absolute feature and trumps combat in every way by saying "the secondary should never engulf the primary"
This is completely subjective to your own desires. Theres multiple equally important major features, building and PvP are definitely two major features, you are disregarding this by categorising major features as secondary like combat and trade to your personal favourite element that is Building in this case. This mindset is something that will lead you to complain about PvP as soon as you feel it hinders you from doing your Building in peace.
Ponder this:
How about people stop demanding to be sheltered and learn how to build while coping with the threat of PvP? Like in a lot of examples from before, make sure you dont chose a dumb ass location to build on, hire protection/hide it if you need to. Even then in the expansive world that is DU chances are nobody will attack you for a long while because of how vast everything is and how long time it may take to gain power enough to cause major damage.
PvP System
in General Discussions
Posted
Honestly not getting your last message here. But either way i think NQs plan for just having the arkship zone being a safezone is good as it is. People won't be geared for combat for a while and even when they are the world is big enough that it's unlikely you will get attacked any often outside the safezone even. If you want to NEVER be attacked stay inside the safezone or build in hidden locations