blazemonger

Hoe is either term homophobic though, planting that idea is really not appropriate or applicable here.

I generally do not appreciate the broadstroke labelling of players but in this case I'd make an exception. The instigator here really seems hellbent on making her quite narrowminded opinion heard in a provicative and generally ego-centric way, even when it has absolutely no relevance to the topic at all. She pretty much asks for the response she gets. That does not make either side right and it's kind of amusing to see how some will just jump on the bandwagon and take the bait, especially when their MO is pretty much identical. And yes, it seems that NQ has no issue with this at all as they allow the likes of these to juist continue their antics and so we see a good example of a two people who are very similar but on opposite sides of the coin talk to their respective mirrors. And then there is @Lethys who just fans the flames .. I do agree with his point here though. You can't judge one side without also judging the other as both are equally guilty of the same thing here really.

It's very clear NQ is moving towards what they will consider a "release ready" game. It will have most of what they committed to over time on paper but effectively only tick the box with a very, very thin pencil and be far from complete or deep as far as gameplay goes. Everything is geared to making this happen at minimal cost and thus there is no room to devote serious time to actually laying groundwork for proper and versatile gameplay,. That has been the pattern pretty much from the moment they went to "beta" and frankly, it remains to be seen what will end up being released end of this year will actually be something worthy of having that label, even when NQ will just call it a "release". Then they will sit back and pray they will be able to attract enough of a paying player base to allow them to try and actually make the game. The excuse will be "A MMO is never really finished, this is just the starting point" and the fanbois will just eat it up and parrot that ad infinitum. NQ as a company may be "in no danger financially" but being able to exist does not mean you have the funding and ability to actually do what you should be doing when creating a game the scale of DU. It's pretty much a case of "the lights are on, but no one is home"

We know, says who, sure and no, realism was actually part of the KS pitch and _many_ of us original backers specifically came to the game because of it (and many left the game behind due to the lack of it by now). As a relative newcomer to the game, you sure seem to pretend to speak for all of us/claim to know it all (unless you had to create a new account due to your original being unavailable to log in with). The game applying Newtonian physics was actually a part of the original pitch during KS and throughout communication leading up to and during Alpha. And here we go again.. as you run out of arguments you just start polarizing again.. No, I'd not have a problem with AGG if it had cost attached to using it, and not be some magical force that just "is". AGG was supposed to be (heavily) reliant on energy/power management systems and NQ never brought that to the table, still you still are able to float in the air without cost. I'd not have a problem with linked containers not being a thing but frankly, it is a requirement for the game to work as you can't carry enough components to spawn a blueprint in many cases and NQ has never brought the "promised" factory units to solve that issue. Space breaks are just engines really. I would actually prefer to see proper retro thrust mechanics or requirement but as it is, they are just engines. Setting speed caps based on the core size if inherently going to be upsetting the game balance as it puts game variables in a place where they should not be. But it is the easy way out of a problem for NQ, so they take it instead of a more elegant and gameplay driven one. The objection is not "just" because it's not "realistic", it's because NQ is continually choosing cheap exits to "solve" a problem by just making it a number in the database, instead of creating a game focussed solution. You continue to fail or ignore the reasoning behind arguments and just rip a part out of context in order to generalize a group of players and polarize the discussion.

True, but.. semantics .. and keyword there is CAN Your interpretation here is obviously not mine. I can also see we will not agree on this.. ever .. so.. whatever..

mirror, mirror.. But it's OK .. You've proven you think a plan/pitch == design. The PLAN was for AvA with a stretch goal of CvC. As time passed, NQ realized that AVA in the context of DU would not work without some serious work so they decided to, when the time came to actually start designing the combat mechanic, to go with CvC as it actually was more viable even when it was, and is, shockingly clunky. For now, it appears that AvA, and honestly with it TW on planets, is off the table. What NQ is trying to sell as "space TW" really is Asteroids v2.0, it's another bolt on event that is not integrated into the core game at all, it sits on top of it. What NQ calls Space TW has _nothing_ to do with the original plan for TW and it's very obvious. NQ is out of time, out of options and out of room to manoeuvre. They need to release a game in what now is probably about to be a single digit number of months and have very little worth releasing. To see what they have is barebones is being optimistic. They have now gone from declaring a MVP mechanic as "tick the box, done" to spinning words to try and pretend they are able to call something enough of what they said would happen to tick that box. I still hope there is a rabbit in the hat somewhere and NQ can ad will pull it out, but I increasingly start getting the feeling there may not be one. a LOT will ride on what Athena brings, if it is as little as it appears to be.. well.. I think that will be it.. And likewise..

Whatever.. If you choose to prioritize a fantasy "we dream of doing this" over " here is what will happen" then .. sure.. That guy on the left jumped ship very soon after with most of the devs at that time to join a studio working on a tilte for Ubisoft and the guy on the right... Well, he was eventually fired for being an incompetent manager, wasting resources chasing his dream with no sense of reality and repeatedly making promises he could not keep.

Actually The first public discussion about PVP immediately set up the "CvC first, AvA later" idea and HERE it is..

When was AvA ever supposed to come first? AvA has many more factors playing into it than CvC in space. Abd to be honest, seeing how NQ has gutted their server tech in order to be able to keep paying the bills, I doubt they hav ethe headroom to even consider adding it until they will be at a point where the game has showsn to be able to stand oin it's own through sunscriptions and the cash shop. For AvA to have meaning, TW needs to be in place and with it the defensive mechanics and options that allow it to be viable. That whole loop wil take NQ at least a year to design and get in to the game in a basic form. I really do not see that happen until some time after release, if ever. I also question how viable and/or functional AvA will be with Lock-Fire mechanics. That seems to not make much sense.

Not wrong and frankly, it supports my argument in more ways then you may think. I fly in EVE with no weapons. I am confident I will not get caught unless I make a mistake or get unlucky. And I fly pretty much in Null and WH space exclusively as that is where my source of income in game is. The risk of getting caught is such that I can venture out and accept that this risk exists as in the long run it is negligible. Now, if we move to DU, there is no way I will venture out into non safe zone space as anything potentially of value there has the inherent risk of me getting caught or stranded far beyond any possible value of what I may find there and the effort it may take to get it. And I very much doubt what is coming in Athena wil change that, as from what I see now, this content is purely a conflict driver, designed and meant to create pewpew opportunity. You can argue this all you want, but the facts as we see them are that generally the playerbase ignores asteroids outside of the safezone and I expect the same will be true for these "alien cores". The thing is, in EVE, sites like this would yield valuables and commodities that in turn feed into a number of possible other gameloops, and whether I, as an explorer, bring them in or a PVPer who happens to catch me, the items still end up on the market and in the hands of those players for whom they form the bases of _their_ gameplay. Content like this needs to be designed to attract the NON PVP players and in turn give PVP players a chance to find and enage these players. That in itself is something I think NQ wants to achieve for DU (eventually), but they fail to grasp the core concept of this which is obvious by the fact they focus their explanation of this towards the PVP part which really is a sideeffect, or should be. As it is, this seems designed to atrtract PVP players and so, they will find.. each other. And the content itself gets lost in the middle of it.

Keywords .. and in DU, outside of going aroun dthe loooooong way, the risk of "getting caught" is far too great to be worth the risk and the new content seem sto be right up there with asteroids. I am not a PVPer, correct. But then again. DU is not a "PVP game" where it is central to the game, so expecting anyone to come join the pewpew club is at best unrealistic. In the end, if NQ doe snot properly design these mechanics, all they wil see happen is the vast majority of the payerbase reside and never leave the safezone as there is no point or reason.

There are very few if any of those. This is not about being "anti-PVP" at all, which mostly missed/overlooked by many and thus is part of the problem Your mission objective is not IN PVP space, you need to travel through it. That is a MASSIVE difference from content IN PVP space which really is only viable for those that choose to pewpew and as such becomes not a goal in itself but just a means to fight over. It overshoots the entire concept of content like this as it will remain mostly untouced, just like asteroids are outside of the safezones. It's pretty much a bone NQ is throwing at PVP focused players and wil lbe ignored by anyone else which limits the function and value of this content.

Here we are again with the one sides simplistic "I want me pewpew" point of view. At present PVP is in a terrible state, it has no recourse, no counters and no value to risk running into an engagement UNLESS you are looking for such engagement. "bring guns, bring friends, take the lloong way around" is not a counter, having the ability to break a target lock, have the option to make your ship less detectable or harder to lock in the first place are. Most players I am pretty sure are not against PVP being an integral part of the game. Most players also understand and respect the chance of running the risk of encountering an engagement. Those of use who are in that corner though do feel that there is currently no value in taking the risk as there is no way to counter running into an engagement. If you get locked, you are dead. "We" do not come out to "PVP space" because we are "carebears" or because we are afraid to do so, we do not come out because in DU, the risk is simply at a level that there is no point and no value in taking it. What is needed to open up the game is ways for "us" to mitigate the risk of running into "them", not to eliminate it. Your arguments are just as one sided as the one you comment on here. And I am pretty sure what @HamyMac is actually saying here is that "we" should have the means to try and release the grip "they" have and get away. And that means having a chance to break the lock and warp off, miond you and before you go and quote out of context again, I said A CHANCE here, not a guarantee. Maybe, instead of polarizing in every sinngle response you write, you should try entering a discussion to make sure you understand what someone is saying correctly and then argue your point instead of just going off on an irant where you just throw insults around. That really does nothing but invalidate anything you say outright.

You always reason from your perspective yes. And refuse to see the bigger picture. These changes will only have one outcome, more players withdraw to the Safezones and only ever com out if they can warp. Not because of "fear of the pewpew", just because it's not worth the risk and/or the effort.

No, "we" (as non-combatant players) want options to mitigate our risk when we travel through space so that if we encounter anything non friendly we have a chance to get out of the situation without having to plaster guns onto our ships and/or "bring friends". PVP players do not scare me nor do I care for them or their playstyle, regardless of that style being entirely legitimate, but I am not going to be feeding them kills for no reason. So yes, PVP ships will generally be tankier, Haulers however would have ways to prevent getting caught and oversizing engines to be able to "speed tank" a potential engagement is entirely within the reasonable range of options in that regard. NQ is once more going to apply an "easy fix, just a number in the database" carpet bombing "solution" where a more "specific to purpose" solution is needed to actually drive game play and make non combatant players venture out to where you might have a chance to try and engage them.

The fact that there is not a single word on any form of defensive counters is a concern, yes. Space will remain mostly empty without it and the mainingredient of this update will be irrelevant to a great many in the playerbase who really do not care for or want to partake in PVP engagements and would look for ways to mitigate or avooid them befrore venturing out.

nvm..

It's somewhat sad NQ is throwing newtonian physics out the window in favor of an easy way to maek PVP "easier" .. There is no difference in max speed for any size vehicle in space.

Sounds like NQ thinks Players will flock to PVE content in PVP zones where the content may be ok, but there stil is no way to get away without engaging in PVP.. Feels like NQ has not learnt much from the Asteroids outside the safezones remaining mostly undiscovered every week. Also.. "Alien core units" sets the expectation for NPC forces to arrive sooner or later.. We'll need to see the details here but at first glance I'd have to pass on this content

I never said that. But to return the favor, I am not really surprised you take part of my response out of context to suit your narrative. It is why many just do not bother even entering into these discussions.

If NQ removed safezones from outer planets now, al they will achieve is that those who live there retreat to the permanent safezone as tere is nothiung you can do to mitigate pewpew if you ar enot interested in engaging in it. The perception that removing SF from outer planets at this time will grow PVP activity is a false one.

If you want to argue that NQ's "solutions" are driven by financial reasons and ease of implementation and not by gameplay value or building towards a long term strategy then I would not disagree. But it is where they are, there is no budget to actually develop the game, at best they can use what funding they have to maintain what gameplay mechanics they have and hope that come launch at the ene dof the year they will get enough of a playerbase to start building out the game (again). EVerything they are currently doing is all about staying on budget and wher epossible reduce cost. I can't really fault them for that as the alternative is fo rthem to not make it to release, but at the same time one must ask what state the game will be in at release if this continuees for much longer.

If NQ would remove the safe zones now, there would only be one outcome, the majority of what's left of the player base will not leave the permanent safe zone around Alioth/Madis/Thades and the rest of the game world will be.. empty. Asking for the removal of these in the state the game is in now just means your perspective on the impact this has is rather short sighted. The safe zones around the outer planets must stay in place until NQ brings in both offensive and defensive options for combat focussed and non-combatant players alike.

@BertBerto There is no "NPC ports" in Dual Universe. It has been clearly stated for quiet some time that your personal stuff will only ever be safe on your single Sanctuary territory That ships left at markets would in one way or another be lost has also been on the table for a long time now. With the Demeter update, the emails sent out, the devblogs and the discussion here _clearly_ informed that any ships left at arkets woudl be open to be taken by other players after 7 days. I get the frustration and I can also see the argument that what NQ decided to do here is probably one of the worst options they have but also the least effort for them. In the end though, if you choose to take a break and ignore any updates or news coming from NQ, than that is really you choice and you just experienced the consequences of doing so.

NQ has decided to move in a direction which may not be agreeable for some, and guess what.. That will be the case for _anything_ NQ does. I can see how this choice is two faced, on one hand it is a possible turn off for players who left if and when they decide to "try again" and find their stuff is all gone. On the other hand, I can also see how it has always been very clear that the only place your personal stuff is ever going to be really safe is on your Sanctuary territory. I certainly can agree that the feeding frenzy NQ created around markets is the less desirable option and that there have been suggestions of far more elegant and "game play" options to achieve the same result. On top of that, there is no requirement for anyone to make the rounds in person (it's easy to work around that) to reset the 7 day timers on their container or advertisement constructs and so it is not unlikely that in a week or two the whole thing just starts over and the now cleared pads are filled with junk again. NQ does not have a habit of being creative in their solutions, in fact they are not a company to actually deal with issue, they mostly obscure or work around them and the reasons for that can only be speculated about but I think that badly (if at all) documented spaghetti code is probably at least part of that. The funny bit here is that the exact same applies to the current state of combat gameplay in game though, but that is probably something you'd not want to see. There is no "fairplay" in PVP right now. You get locked, you are pretty much dead. If you are a non-combatant, you have no recourse to mitigate the risks of PVP. As it stands, combat in DU is pretty much a one-sided affair if one of the involved parties really has no interest in such engagements. PVP in DU generally is pretty much about " steal things from people who can't defend themselves" outside of arranged fights. I am not sure how this is a problem. If you place trust in people, you run the risk of getting taken advantage of. It's the same thing in many other similar games. A fair point would be to say that RDMS and the options to check on new org members is something that needs work, but in principle, I have no problem with sabotage and spying gameplay. The problem here is the players who can't keep their personal wet dreams in check and just abuse the mechanics to grief "because they can". But that should never prevent those that will "play the game" and RP their way into a position where they can sell out or call in their actual friends for being able to do that. This is a sandbox MMO and the game has clear RP angles, stuff like this come with the territory but as with so many things in the game, NQ really has not fleshed out all the options and facets of gameplay yet. And we can only hope they eventually will, or the game may turn into a griefing party..