Jump to content

Ben Fargo

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ben Fargo

  1. Yes, the effect is the same. The way it is implemented and the reasoning for it are different. If DAC are an in-game item, then there would need to be a reason why they could not be looted. If they are not, then there is not a question whether they should be looted, since there is nothing to loot. They never exist in a character's inventory, in a container or anywhere else in the game. I still do not think it makes sense for a character to carry around a payment for the game they are in. If there was a reason for them to be an in-game item, I agree they should be lootable. I just do not see what that reason would be.
  2. I do not think DAC should be unlootable. That implies it exists as an item in the game, but can not be stolen. I think it should not be an object in the game at all. The reason I say that is I like games to be immersive and I hate having things in the game that deliberately break it. Having a payment for a game's subscription be an object in the game definitely breaks immersion. I would recommend that the first time DAC are sold, they become bound to the account of the person who buys them. That would allow them to serve their purpose of allowing people to exchange quanta for a subscription without leading to speculation by buying and selling them. There will be many in-game items that we will be to trade and transport, so opportunities for risk and reward are already there. Making DAC one more in-game item does not actually add any gameplay. It just blurs the distinction between the game and real-life by letting people steal something that has actual value.
  3. This is just my opinion, but I think DACs should be considered something players exchange. They should be attached to a player's account, never appear in a character's inventory and so not be lost if the character dies. To me, they just do not make sense as something a character would own.
  4. This is a series of stories I have written about artificial intelligences (AIs). Originally I posted each one in a separate topic, but I have gathered them together so I can list them in order. (Thanks to @Kurock for suggesting this.) This story is about the early developers of sentient artificial intelligence. First Choice These stories happen during the rebellion against AIs in 2145. 1. MaybeNextWeek.pdf 2. TheBackdoor.pdf 3. BerryPicking.pdf 4. TheDialog.pdf 5. LastDance.pdf
  5. @Kurock, that is a good suggestion. Thanks.
  6. This story takes place on the Coast, while Spex and Aimie are "berry picking". TheDialog.pdf This story is part of the AI Series.
  7. I found this statement in a devblog. This is from ORGANIZATIONS: PURPOSE & MANAGEMENT. This is a year old ( posted March 31, 2017) and things may change, but it gives me the impression Novaquark was planning for bounty hunting to be a mostly automated system, instead of one where players could place a bounty on whoever they chose.
  8. Welcome, Anna. I've never played Eve myself, yet I feel I'm already more involved in DU than any other game I've played. So it does attract both players from Eve and those who come from very different backgrounds.
  9. Not getting a reward would definitely make this system fail and the system could be automatically collect the penalties. The only reason I suggested not doing that was to create an opportunity for other players to enforce the penalties. However, I do not think destruction of assets would be a good penalty either. If the hunted has enough money, they can restore them, so the effect for them is not much different than just losing the money. The problem is destroying their assets does not provide anything to compensate either the hunter or the ones who were wronged by the hunted. For me, repaying the victims of a crime in some way is an essential part of justice.
  10. I agree capturing the person would be more like actual bounty hunting, but I think paying a fine is a more practical penalty in an MMO than imprisonment. While someone could avoid paying the penalty by transferring all of their money, the bounty would remain until it is paid, so they would continue to be a target of bounty hunters.
  11. There are several qualities I think a bounty system should have. Obviously, it should be profitable for the bounty hunter, but not allow the hunted and hunter to work together to exploit it. I also think it must make the bounty hunter feel they are enforcing the law, not acting as an assassin. This means it should not allow someone to just put a bounty on any player they choose. I am not saying there should be no assassins in DU, but that should be something different than bounty hunting. I would tie bounty hunting into the RDMS system. We usually the rights portion of this, but there are also duties. Warranties can be associated with duties, which establish penalties the player must pay if they fail to perform the duty. I suggest that the penalty would not be taken from the player automatically, but they would be notified they owed it. If they do not pay it, a bounty is placed on them. The amount of the bounty would be part of the RDMS system, so the player would know what it was when they accepted the duty. A bounty hunter would be able to see a list of outstanding bounties and choose one by paying a deposit. The hunter would be able to see who was hunted and how much the bounty was, so they decide if it would be worth the risk of accepting it. The bounty hunter would need to ensure that the hunted paid the penalty, which would now be increased to include both the original warranty and the bounty. If the hunted dies, amount would be taken from their account. It would not matter how the hunted dies, so they could not escape the hunter by forcing a respawn. If the hunted was not able to pay the whole penalty when they died, the penalty would be reduced by whatever they could pay and the hunter would get the corresponding portion of the bounty. The goal is to collect the penalty, not kill the player, so the hunter could also use intimidation or persuasion to get them to pay. If the hunter fails to collect the bounty in a set time, they lose their deposit and the bounty returns to the list of those that are available, so another hunter can choose it. Since the hunted pays the bounty, it should be difficult to exploit it and since they effectively accept the bounty by accepting the duty it is attached to, it seems to be very fair.
  12. Congratulations to Kurock and thanks to everyone who entered.
  13. I think we tend to look at this question backwards. Instead of asking if it is better for an MMO to be a sandbox or a themepark, we should ask if it is better for sandboxes and themeparks to be MMO's. A sandbox definitely needs to be an MMO. The places people visit and the action that happens there is all created by other players. As the video pointed out, sandboxes can not survive if they lose their population. It is not clear what a themepark gains by being an MMO. Most themeparks rely heavily on various forms of instancing to create the kind of experience players want. Some forms are so subtle and common that we usually do not think of them as instancing. An example would be the NPC who gives the players a quest and rewards them when they are done. Often there will be players being sent on the quest and others being rewarded for it at the same time. Since all the players see the NPC and the other players, this may not seem like an instance, but the NPC is having very different conversations with different players. Everyone knows this, but each player just ignores the others, because otherwise their quest would seem ridiculous. Both sandboxes and themeparks provide enjoyable experiences. Some people prefer one kind, others like both. However, allowing huge numbers of people to play a game together adds a lot of difficulty that developing a single player game would not have. If the enjoyment of a themepark depends on ignoring the other players, why should it be an MMO? Could the same experience be presented better as a single player or small party game?
  14. Hello, Feral Crow. I hope you enjoy being part of DU.
  15. I have posted another story in this series. Berry Picking
  16. This my third story taking place during the AI rebellion of 2145. It happens shortly after the lockdown in The Backdoor is lifted. BerryPicking.pdf This story is part of the AI Series.
  17. Thank you for your comments and thanks to everyone who has read my stories. I have started the next one in the series, but I don't know when it will be finished.
  18. This story follows the events in Maybe Next Week as the opposition to AIs grows fiercer. TheBackdoor.pdf This story is part of the AI Series.
  19. Hello. I hope you succeed with your organization.
  20. In the Pro Tip: retrieving your ship section, I'd suggest adding another option. When that happens to me, I deploy a static core, enter build mode on it and use it to fly up to my ship. Then I delete the static core. For me, that is the easiest way to reach the ship.
  21. @MarcovitchI do not see how your suggestion could work as a tutorial for DU. The players will have arrived on the same arkship, so we will not be alone on a planet.
  22. First, organizations are not limited to being the kind of guild or alliance found in most games. In DU, an organization is a group of people of any size for any purpose, so the small companies you are inviting to your registry are organizations, just like the big unions and empires are. For example, I belong to the Blue Moon Crew, which is a trade and transport company that currently includes three people, but it is an organization. That means we do have a page in the community portal to promote ourselves. When organizations are implemented in the game itself and not just in the portal, it will be possible for organizations to be members of other organizations. Since we already have the community portal page, I wonder the same thing that Kurock did. What will be the advantages of being in this registry?
×
×
  • Create New...