NanoDot
-
Posts
1025 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NanoDot
-
-
I'd expect that NQ will ramp-up the PR image of DU once we get to alpha, because the game's general exposure will increase massively at that point, given that there will be no further NDA constraints. Traffic on the DU website will increase substantially, and it will be important to make a good first impression on new visitors.
The current "News" page is very dry and unappealing, DU needs a more exciting face to show to the world.
-
9 hours ago, Caldakar said:
Hi there
Wonder will there be any type/form of resource re-generation ? I am not sure how big the safe zone is but with everyone mining I am wondering what will happen to the resources?
thanks in advance for any replies
It's an interesting question that has no clear answer at the moment.
The arkship safezone will have "basic" resources, which will be heavily mined initially, for obvious reasons. It's 100% safe, and will be closest to the arkship market terminals where the NQ buy orders for minerals can be filled in complete safety. The arkship safezone is also the only place where players that want to avoid PVP can live and build.
I'd expect the arkship safezone to be stripped of all resources in the first few months after launch, because it's the easiest and safest way for anyone to "make money" in DU. The NQ buy orders for resources will be the ONLY way to bring new money (quanta) into the game. The only way to prevent rapid depletion of the arkship safezone would be for NQ to not buy some (or all) of the basic resources in the safezone. That would extend the lifespan of the arkship resource deposits a bit. It would give new players the chance to build a basic hovercraft before they venture out into the PVP areas to gather more useful resources.
Other than the arkship safezone, the MSA (Moon Secure Area) safezones will have no resources at all.
Outside of the arkship safezone lies DU's massive game world, where it will take years to strip just one planet of all resources. The "rare" resources may not last very long, but as long as NQ get the balance right, resources should not be a problem in the "starter system" for years, and we'll be expanding the play area to new systems long before that.
The whole concept of "finite resources" is a bit tricky really, because it essentially can't be allowed to "run out" entirely, otherwise the game simply dies.
-
I'll most likely gravitate towards industry/logistics, with PVP in security and recon areas.
It's impossible to tell at this point where I'll spend more time, it all depends on how the eventual game play is implemented. I imagine that the gathering of intel and analysis of that intel will be an important factor in DU's huge game world. My focus will be on the strategic side rather than the tactical.
-
Ultimately, it's NQ who will decide what constitutes "griefing" behaviour. If they feel that the actions of a small group are negatively impacting the game as a whole, they will act.
I don't believe NQ will just sit back and watch the world burn, I think JC's plans are a bit more ambitious than that...
-
7 hours ago, Zamarus said:
Well i get your sentiment here. However keep in mind that in a game like this the players will have to provide the consequences. prepare yourself!
I'm already prepared...
NQ are also preparing, which is why they are implementing things like safezones. Nobody wants to see DU limping along with a tiny player base because a handful of players have dedicated themselves to make the game as unpleasant as possible...
-
23 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
Things are not always as clear cut as it may seem
They usually are, actually.
Most examples of senseless destruction are just that, senseless. There's no intricate scheme behind it all, it's just done to irritate and cause maximum inconvenience.
Most PVP'ers are not griefers, it takes a special kind of mindset to be a griefer, lol
-
3 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
As for the rest, still not griefers, that's emergent game play
lol
Call it what you like, but in my book destruction for the sole purpose of making others angry will always be griefing.
A thief that takes all he can carry is legit, but one who only breaks in to destroy "because he can" is not.
It's like vandalism in RL.
-
9 minutes ago, CoreVamore said:
There are no griefers, or do you mean aggressive players that you did not prepare well enough for?
There most certainly will be "griefers", lol
Those are the ones that break into your base, not to steal, but to delete everything they can find.
The ones who'll deface the land all along the edge of your hex claim, because they want to harvest your tears.
The ones who'll destroy your TCU not because they want to claim the land, but because they know it will make you angry...
-
37 minutes ago, Lethys said:
If there is a way to block players/orgs from using your market terminal (which I think is mandatory and a given considering RDMS) then you'd need that for the auction house too somehow - otherwise you can bypass it again. But that would be hard to balance because there's no "physical" auction house (I image it to be more like contracts in eve)
I don't think you can block anyone from accessing the items listed on your terminal, because the blog states that items for sale will be visible remotely. That makes it sound like EVE's market tab, where buy and sell offers within a certain physical distance can be viewed from anywhere, because the "market window" is part of the player's UI. But perhaps it will be possible to maintain a "remote access blacklist" on your terminals, who knows ?
In EVE, the items you purchased are collected from NPC stations. Nobody can stop you from collecting goods, as long as you can get into that station. As long as your NPC rep is good, the station will always welcome you. Train the right skills, and you can even remotely setup sell orders, which will automatically transfer the items from your hangar to the "market".
In DU the goods for sale on a terminal are stored in a container owned by the market operator, which is also attached/linked to that terminal. If goods are collected from a "dispenser unit" (also owned by the market operator), you can certainly control access to the area where that dispenser is placed...
That opens up an opportunity for a whole new level of scamming, lol
-
The biggest problem I see with aliens in DU is that it changes NQ's focus.
Currently, NQ provides players with "tools" to create their own content.
Introducing NPC's means NQ has to start generating game "content" for consumption by players, which will inevitably divert resources away from building new and innovative game systems for us to use...
-
6 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:
Black market ...
No wonder why underworld is a thing in real life, first time to see a game that got it own Black Market
That is the logical reason for something like "Project Tortuga" !
A place where nobody is excluded from trading (provided they can survive the shopping trip !
-
9 minutes ago, Lethys said:
well yes, that's what I wrote there
I was agreeing with you and expanding on the idea...
My understanding of that blog is that the arkship terminals will only sell "basic goods". They will in all likelihood not accept player sell orders, because if they do, the arkship will become DU's "Jita" very quickly. And once that happens, it's very hard to change. Plus the goods offered for sale by players would have to be stored in arkship-controlled containers, etc.
There are more questions than answers at this point.
-
55 minutes ago, Lethys said:
As written already, artificial systems of any kind can be abused/circumvented. Yes, some basic ones have to be in place to prevent/enforce certain behavior, but imho the best thing in a game like DU is: player interaction. They run the markets there and TCUs. They can prevent someone from using their market. They can search for alts. They can mark (justified or not) someone as KOS via RDMS (not through lua though) - and so on. So I think that pirates will already have a hard time in or around the safezone
There are many subtleties in DU that are easy to miss, and therefore get lost in the noise of recycled arguments that have been valid in "other games" for decades.
Unless I'm mistaken, ALL market terminals in DU will be player-owned, unless NQ build "arkship market terminals" to compete with players... which would surprise me.
That would mean that DU will be the first game I know of with no "Auction House" provided by the game itself, which would be outside of player control.
That has profound implications, because it means players will decide who gets access to the markets !
So be careful who you offend... or else make sure your alts cannot be identified in the slightest...
-
4 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
Also, you are connecting behaviour of a character to a posdible alt on the same account which really has no relevance either
I took your suggestion as an attempt to not allow "criminal" characters to enjoy the protection mechanisms and market access afforded by the "safezone".
I must have misunderstood.
If you're only trying to prevent "pop-out... kill... pop back in" tactics, then I think NQ are already wrestling with that scenario.
-
How would 2 cloaked fleets find each other to do battle ?
-
29 minutes ago, Korvid Rin said:
You make a very good point @NanoDot. By and large people will do shit that serves no purpose but to hurt others. And yes, I was putting my personal morals into my statement. I apologize.
There's no need to apologise.
But, if you're going to apologise, then I should apologise for my "griefers are everywhere" joke.
The incidents I listed were not examples of "senseless destruction". Both those groups were acting on their own moral codes, and what they did was completely justified in their world view. Probably a very different world view from yours or mine, but perfectly valid and logical in its own context. They didn't do it for the lulz.
But when cultures are so dramatically different, something has to give, else violence is the inevitable outcome. One or the other has to be destroyed or forcibly modified, they cannot co-exist in the same world without constantly crashing into each other.
Much like the "PVE vs PVP" camps in MMO's...
-
2 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:
You wouldn't bomb the Pyramids at Giza, or the Great Wall of China... Those kind of structures should have an approval process to gain protected status.
You might not, but your moral code or sense of aesthetics is not universally shared, unfortunately.
In 2001, the Taliban blew up the "Buddhas of Bamiyan", which were giant statues built in the 5th and 6th century.
ISIS destroyed large parts of the ancient city of Palmyra, a valuable archaeological site.
The list goes on...
It seems that griefers are not only found in MMO's !
It's best not to use RL references to motivate game design on the basis of "people wouldn't do this in RL". Sooner or later, humans will do anything they are capable of doing...
-
14 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:
Thus it need to cover all situations and accurately judge who really was the aggressor.
And that's why a set of "laws" defined in software always fails. They cannot deal with the myriad complexities of context, which means human ingenuity exploits them to the full.
That's why we have human judges in RL, to interpret the context of events and apply the laws accordingly.
-
In MMO's, "cloaking" is usually managed by limiting its function via game design restrictions.
For example, only ship class X can fit a cloak, but that class can only mount "small" weapons and doesn't have any "armour slots", etc..
In DU, that management becomes very tricky, because there are no pre-defined ship hulls or "weapon slot" mechanics that can be manipulated to limit the effectiveness of cloaks.
DU will have to balance cloaks by using the attributes of the ship elements themselves. Cost can be a contributing factor, but it's not effective by itself. "Expensive" is relative to the wealth of players at any given moment, but that's a moving target in any MMO, as players have more and more money as the years go by. And DAC can always be used to boost ship construction funds...
-
2 hours ago, blazemonger said:
and removing the ability (or restricting it) for pirates to mingle and hide in populated areas can be built into territorial mechanics as well, based on owners preference.
In a game where each player controls 3 characters, how do you deny "pirates, bandits and murderers" access to the safe zone via game mechanics ?
If the player controlling that pirate has a squeaky-clean alt, he has 100% safe access to safezones regardless, and that's the usual work-around that "reds" use in games where "reputation" or "killrights" make it difficult for one of the player's alts to enter certain areas.
So denying "criminals" access or protection in safezones is largely symbolic, their alts will do the resupplying in complete safety anyway.
The player that owns a territory does not need "killrights" to ban someone from his territory, he allows access and actions at his own discretion. He can ban player characters merely because he suspects them of having criminal connections, but a game system administering a "safezone" cannot do that.
-
2 hours ago, CalenLoki said:
My understanding of @Lethys post (and main point why I disagree with him) was that you can never fit all of them.
That's a vital point though.
If you can change elements instantly anytime anywhere, then the whole premise of different detection types (and damage types) basically falls flat on its face. There's no point in building a ship that's "invisible" to certain scanners if the people searching for you can instantly switch scanner types "on-the-fly".
And what's the point of different damage types if the target can just swap out defensive elements to best counter whichever damage your weapons are delivering ?
The whole point of having fixed loadouts on ships is to introduce uncertainty.
It means there's value in gaining intel on how an enemy's ships are built and what their preferred fits may be.
It means that there's an opportunity to catch a badly-fitted enemy and destroy them easily.
It provides a strong incentive to experiment with different loadouts and tactics that depend on those configurations.
We all want advantages in combat, but if everyone has access to the same advantages, then nobody has any advantage...
-
39 minutes ago, Nanoman said:
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.
In truth, these debates have been raging since the dawn of MMO's, lol
And they will continue endlessly for as long as there are games that try to combine fundamentally different play styles in one game world !
UO realised the futility of it all decades ago, and just split the playerbase into their respective preferred play styles...
-
8 minutes ago, vylqun said:
simplicity is not always good tho, and tricking new players into killing someone? That requires a certain grade of stupidity on part of the new players if they think thats a good idea.
So you're suggesting that "killrights" are only awarded when you actually blow up someone's ship ?
Lol, sounds very "simplistic" to me...
Just go out in some cheap hunk of scrap that's already at 10% hull, and fire a popgun at the newb, he'll return fire and instantly blow you up. Now you can kill him anytime in the safezone !
So you can randomly fire on anyone and take them down to 10% hull, as long as you don't kill them they'll get no "killrights", so you'll still have 100% protection in the safezone ?
That's why "killrights" inevitably become ever more complex systems, in attempts to plug the loopholes. But all "killrights" systems have one fundamental flaw: they cannot cover all aspects of the context of engagements, and that's why they're always exploitable.
-
33 minutes ago, vylqun said:
and so any discussion about it is fuitile?
Essentially, yes !
The moment you start chipping away at the "safezone" protections by implementing elaborate rulesets to govern its function, is the moment you open the door to exploitation, and that exploitation is easiest to achieve against those who don't fully understand the rules (i.e. new players).
If DU gets "killrights", it won't be long before some creative individual devises a way to trick new players into losing their safezone protections. That I don't doubt for a single moment.
The current implimentation of the safezone is simple and straightforward: there's nothing remotely complex that new players need to grasp. There's no exceptions or special circumstances or arcane rituals needed to make it do what it does flawlessly.
Preferred logout mechanics?
in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
Posted
NQ have never mentioned anything that sounds remotely like EVE's "clone-jumping" mechanic. The devblog that deals with resurrection mechanics makes it very clear that death is NOT intended as a "fast travel option".
We cannot predict how DU will change in the first 5-10 years after launch, so clone-jumping may well become a feature at some point in the future, when DU's game world spans 1000+ systems...