Thokan
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Thokan
-
-
I found playing The Repopulation very refreshing in contrast to run-of-the-mill crafting systems in regular MMORPGs. That shit was intense
-
5 hours ago, 0something0 said:
It wouldn't. The stocks and bonds the OP are describing wouldn't give you any control over the org, just a monetary share of it.
Then the question is, where would this money come from?
-
4 hours ago, 0something0 said:
Yes, I am refering to said elements. I think it would be cool to be able to experiment and build using costume materials and parts and promote emergent gameplay. For instance:
Faction A is at war with B and is short on metal x which is needed for a vital component. However, it can be substituted for metal y at the cost of reduced peformance and lifeslan. Do they accept reduced production by sticking with metal x or risk using metal y?
The addition of custom parts would also diversify the economy everywhere as R&D industries would become more prominent.
And finally, if you can build ships, why not the parts on said ships?
People have such exorbitant fantasies of complex mechanics. I just wanna blast people and take over territory.
Custom parts would flood the markets with unintelligible crap. Also: Balance. -
14 hours ago, ShaylixLinx said:
The thing is, the Terran Union has almost a thousand players. We're in a very unique circumstance where we're going to have a lot of players in our organization. So we do need some sort of enforcement and judicial processes to make sure that players do not go 'willy-nilly.'
That's exactly why you need to not be overly bureaucratic and authoritative. I am not making the argument of having no enforcement and judicial process, I am making the argument of having simple and effective enforcement and judicial process.
14 hours ago, ShaylixLinx said:The problem with this is that some crimes warrant more than just a fine while others warrant less than a parking ticket. It is better to have a diverse system than having a non-bending system. AKA one that can adapt to the situation it is given.
Also, alienating people is wrong yes, but they're alienated because they did something to harm the TU or it's citizens. It's warranted to punish the player if they try or do cause conflict.How is a bureaucratic set of fines and multiple punishments adaptive, bending and diverse contra dialog leading up to kicking individuals out of the guild?
A player breaks the rules once - set them straight. A player continuously breaks the rules and try to cause conflict - kick 'em. It's really that simple.
-
-
Just now, CoreVamore said:
Im not sure if in game chat extends to distances involved for ship to ship comms. So a directed hail could be a good idea.
Normally, a directed "hail" would, in terms of sci-fi tropes, indicate close proximity.
Though, I certainly wouldn't mind a simple system of messaging, or whispering rather, constructs - automatically reaching the crew rather than to having figure out who's on and then messaging them. Indeed.
I don't know if there are any plans for VoIP or anything of the sort. And video-feed would surely be out of the question, technically speaking. -
Yes, I do believe there will be chat in-game
-
-
1 minute ago, Ben Fargo said:
That is you opinion. To me, a simulator for organizations to roleplay governments is a perfect description of DU, although the governments would not necessarily be big or bad.
The point is simple, though. It will have negative consequences to create an unnecessarily bureaucratic and authoritative organization. It's all I'm saying.
-
Stocks and bonds of what?
-
A few points to be made.
There are several problems and inefficiencies with using punishments, fines, blocking, imprisonments and such. First off, how is it in any way an incentive to remain in the Organization if you aim to segregate individuals from the community? Secondly, are you gonna appoint people to track down your own members, give them fines, obstruct them and such? Waste of time and effort. Why would I continue to support an organization that wants to force me to give up my own stuff?
Also, I don't really understand what several of you mean by meta. Sounds like regular gameplay to me, in contrast to semi-roleplaying. Yet another reason why its inefficient and off-putting with minor punishments.
Moreover, a problem is how are you gonna monitor people? A hierarchal, authoritative system, in the terms of handing out punishments to lower members, and also the other way around of handing out privileges and handouts to certain individuals; alienates people and will obstruct you from even detecting transgressions of rules. You see, the more you differentiate between members, the harder it will be to notice when a couple of them are out on their own causing mischief. The more you are all equal, enjoy all the benefits of the organization, and are organized the principles of need and effectiveness instead of titles and privileges, the easier it will be to notice when your fellow members break the rules or just don't simply belong in your organization or the idea of it.
The best method to police your own organization, is imo, simply:
1. Set a simple set of rules. A general rule set, a RoE, et cetera.
2. Appoint an officer with the task to investigate complaints of individuals and actions, coming from inside the guild, but also most importantly, from outside. (How are you ever gonna be even notified about the lurkers who keep to themselves, grief and only want access to your organization infrastructure/buffs/benefits, otherwise?)3. If people can't follow the rules, kick 'em out.
Simple.
All in all, it's a game, not a simulator for organizations to roleplay Big Bad Governments. Unlike real life late-stage-capitalism, there is little incentive to put up with stuff like that in-game. -
As stated above several times - it adds nothing to the game. Only a certain few, a minority, get some roleplaying, immersion kicks out of it.
The only reason this is a debate is because, generally, the people looking for immersion and roleplay aspects are overrepresented in indie, crowdfunded, pre-launch game forums. It won't be the case when the game launches later on.
-
The question is not wether you will be able to build big things, the question is if it would be worth it and how easy it is to just blow up in a few min.
Is it worth dozens of people building and maintaining a huge floating station "for the heck of it" only to see it blown up by a handful of people with resourceful and effective ships?In the end of the day the game mechanics dictate the meta, not only your creativeness.
-
Personally I would deem wheels pretty theme/immersion-breaking anyways. It's supposed to be the future, not a probe-landing-on-mars-aesthetic.
Hover, and only hover, will give a nice, cool sci-fi feel to the ground as well.
-
I think a blueprint/hologram system for building constructs per blueprint recipe is only sensible. However, I'd take it only as a positive aspect of the game if designing an advanced ship would be a organization effort and pooling of organization resources. There's your end-game, gentlemen.
On 2017-11-23 at 8:15 PM, Lethys said:We disagree then, cause I read there that they want teamwork and no singleplayer design tool. If so, it has to be carefully balanced - which I literally said too.
I take it as "open for discussion". True Dev Neutral.
-
Fighters, screens and battleships, what else do you need really? Not that anyone will be able to build, maintain and keep afloat anything like a battleship anyhow, prolly.
The classes, doctrines and combat roles of the navy is based on the conditions of the sea and what not. Stick with fighters and screens at launch and we'll see what the game mechanics and the evolving game meta throws at us.
-
An MMO is too big of a game to have you limited to tedium of refilling bars every minute. If people really want food and oxygen in the design do it more abstract and passive, like mentioned above.
-
On 2017-11-29 at 8:55 AM, Takao said:
When you can only hack outposts / ships, when you are near the core, then that wouldn't be such of a problem, because when you can reach the core, then that means you have overcome the defence systems and could potentially destroy the whole thing, so why shouldn't you be allowed to capture it instead?
Because it's bad gameplay if the tiles switch ownership too much. You claim a tile, and when you can't defend it anymore you lose it.
Having your tile, containing the core of your gameplay, items and in-game activities, switch ownership multiple times because of cat-and-mouse, cloak-and-dagger, ninja gameplay is just vexing.
-
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
It's too soon for space "tiles", but in order for them to work you'd need anchoring (a space Station, a tcu,...). If tiles are 1km again, it's very small compared to the vastness of space but it's sufficient for a station.
Maybe they go without "tiles" and only let you directly Set permissions in the core (as said in several Videos) on Stations for example so only a Few can edit
That's indeed a simple and logical solution for space stations, just do without any territory claim for player-built stations in the terrain-less space.
However, this doesn't solve the problem of asteroids, random objects of random size in space, and how to claim them.
I'd say just let people place a TCU and claim the whole asteroid, or split it in two depending on size and what not. Asteroids obviously won't fit for the system of spherical bodies claimed in hexagons, so make the claiming easy.
-
You know what? Playing train simulator doesnt sound all that bad.
One could easily understand why people would want to have some sort of tram system or the like between outposts on the same planet - as everybody in an organization using aircraft as their main transportation to every single location sounds like quite the logistical problem, indeed.
-
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
Just no ''free'' drones,
.jpg.b513e9fa4db613cb5e5aff14f989e84f.jpg)
Foreman Domai is most displeased.
--------------------------
I do find the notion of drone cameras to be quite immersive. Just camera feeds in general for windowless spaceships would be swell.
-
On 02/08/2017 at 9:51 PM, TrueSkillz said:
ark is pvp centered. people just dont want to waste thousands of hours they spend grinding mats to a stupid fight that might last a few hours.
if you think that large orgs are going to risk thousands of hours of materials and design of a ship to fight another large org you are mistaken. nobody will ever fight a fair fight. and with all the orgs forming alliances even before alpha there is going to be a lack of pvp. play any other sand box game and tell me how much pvp you actually get? not much. other then the super large groups dicking with people that cant even defend them selves. or the lone wolf looking to pick people off that are not even paying attention. the fact that construct vs construct wasnt even planned initial and was an extended goal tends to side with my logic on the game.
Meh, still. Private server hosted Crafting-Survival games like ARK and Conan Exiles, and what not, are terrible examples for comparing with MMOs. The whole dimension of the scale is lost.
Why would they accrue that material if not to defend their territory and acquire more? For most large organizations this will be the main goal. Large organization versus organization PvP. That is, argueably, the end-game of an Open World Sandbox Game with Claims and PvP.
-
1 hour ago, TrueSkillz said:
It seems that you have not grasped the concept of the game yet. I would describe it as a civilization builder highly connected with farming and politic building. pvp would be a mini game for you to take a break from the core game play. Look at ARK, Mine craft, Dark & Light. These are all sandbox games that give you the ability to pvp but the majority of the players rather just build big bases and be creative, and if some troll comes along messing with people pull out their op secret weapon to dispose of them quickly.
I can tell you right now. if you are looking for a game like chromehounds where you can customize your ships to be any size and specific weapons then take them out into space in a pvp match you are looking at the wrong game. 90% of anyones time is going to be in farming resources to build stuff. I can confidently say that as a single person it would take you months of grinding to build a huge spaceship like you are wanting.
The fact that you compare this game to games not PvP-centered does not make DU all about crafting. Heck, those games aren't even MMOs (except maybe that Dark and Light one, looks like a weird mix between a traditional grindfest MMO and ARK) and offer to perspective on the massive Org vs. Org PvP meta that might occur in DU because of it's scale and PvP elements.
Yes, a lot of time will be spent on crafting and resource gathering for most people. PvP will however not be a "minigame to take a break" in this Sandbox MMO PvP Game, but instead a core element - at least certainly for the bigger organizations.
Sometimes I get the feeling people forget this is a MMO.
-
From what can be seen from the videos one can assume it's gonna be pretty standard for this type of game/genre, id est; both maybe. It is a simple and common enough element in this genre that it is to be expected.
A Mechanic That Welcomes Defeat
in Idea Box
Posted
Nah, m8, you explained it perfectly; and it is a good intention.
I would like to add that NQ, in their game design and vision, always somewhere where beaten players can retreat. The beginning zone, the safe moons and the shield bubble for your claimed territory.
Either you like PvP, or you don't. Being good or bad at PvP really doesn't say anything about how willing people are to PvP or their usefulness. If a player gets "beaten" to the extent of not wanting to partake in PvP anymore, that player can always fall back to the relative safety of his/her supposed protected base, or the absolute safety of the safe zones.
The mechanics, resources and ordeal needed to take down other peoples territory claims and bases therein is a deterrent from knocking people out of the game too abruptly.