Jump to content

Captain Jack

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Captain Jack

  1. 3 hours ago, CalenLoki said:

    The point of my post was: "town" is a place where a lot of semi-independent entities (players, small orgs, large orgs) build stuff right next to each other.

    If just one org build huge trading hub, with many enormous storage buildings, that's not a town. That's a base. And there is no reason for anyone else to build stuff around, because that base handle all the trade, storage, refuelling, repairing and respawning.

    That is a pretty solid point, though one reason people build stuff is because they simply want to build stuff. There will definitely be a place for orgs to plop down bases and offer it's services to all it's members, which is great, but if those orgs can extend their protection beyond the base so that the... peasants, er... commoners, can build their own non-militarized infrastructure, that would be kinda cool too. It kinda goes back to medieval times with a castle on the hill, but it does fit the rebuilding of civilization mold.

  2. 1 hour ago, NanoDot said:

    I'm basing my view on what we currently know regarding the DU design.

    We know DU will have PvP and non-PvP areas.

     

    1 hour ago, NanoDot said:

    At this point, we know the game world will be massive, but the "safezones" only cover a tiny % of that play area. That is the current reality, and NQ have not given any indication that the ratio will change significantly.

    Well, they recently expanded safe zones to moons. That seems pretty real.
     

    1 hour ago, NanoDot said:

    Sure, creative games like Minecraft have become hugely popular, but none of them are set in a single-shard FFA-PVP environment.

    So lets just build another Eve and call it a day?  Why would you NOT want to cater to those players the same way the game caters to the hard core PvPer? Creative people don't need much (because they're creative). Just look at the recent city event. Most online PvP games are segmented anyway with the hardcore doing their super serious secret society thing, the small timers playing with their buddies, the lone wolves/griefers/gankers having their own version of fun. DU won't be any different in that regard, but it could be if it had a social/creative element where all those groups could mingle together from time to time. Bringing players together is something all MMO's, including DU is trying to achieve. The incentive is a larger player base, and a much more accessible game.

  3. 6 minutes ago, vylqun said:

    sadly both kind of players need completely different game mechanics,

    Adding clothes for example, doesn't require a complete redo of flight mechanics or anything. If PvP players don't care about that kind of thing, so what? My guess is PvP officers want to look the part, as do space pirates. To get that shiny new suit, a shop in the city seems like a great place to get it. Food can exist without tying it to a survival mechanic, but they could tie it to minor stat buffs, which are likely a mechanic that's already planned for other things.

     

    12 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:

    this whole building side of gameplay is not MY main interest at all,

    Bingo. Join an org, peruse the ship showrooms in the city and pick out a ship. Off you go soldier.

  4. 3 minutes ago, Lethys said:

    Except for orgs living in safezones though - those cities might only need electricity/power supply for the industry and production while all other mined resources can (and will?) be used for "pretty" buildings. No need for a military or defensive buildings (except maybe for the looks).

     

    Orgs living in UA will definitely need more resources and may be also dictating the price, depending on how the population is distributed (UA <-> ASA/MSA). So builders and architects may face high prices (especially for rare material - naturally)

    Very good points. Socialites are likely to congregate in the safe zones to avoid PvP shenanigans, but they will need resources that (hopefully) can only be obtained from elsewhere. Safe cities will need outside supplies. Supply shipments will need protection from a military contingent. While safe cities won't be subject to PvP annihilation, controlling the surrounding areas will be key to keep the city alive.

    Citizens of safe cities will certainly be at an economic disadvantage as they will rely on outsiders for resources, but their cities will provide social services and a refuge from the chaos. Big orgs might want control over safe cities, for prestige sure, but also to serve as a trade hub or a place to conduct business. Providing builders, architects, and socialites, with resources on the cheap, will likely attract more members and more citizens. It just might be a wise investment for large orgs.

  5. What is clear from last weekends city build is that there are people playing the game that enjoy the social aspect that cities provide. It is also clear that cities need planning, a government, law enforcement, garbage collection, entertainment, among a host of other things. All those "things" give players something to do. Some of it is sims in space, but some people like that kind of thing. If DU can get those kinds of people playing the same game as the space marines and quanta miners... it'd be the holy grail.

     

    DU doesn't need reasons to build cities because people want to build cities. What DU needs are mechanics that cater to those people. It was touched on earlier, but in-game communications, yes I know discord, but in-game chat, especially localized, gets people closer together, it's social. Emotes, completely unnecessary, but again social. Trading, bartering, buying, selling, directly between in-game avatars, with goods and services that can't be magically obtained from terminals or email. There are players wanting to engage in those activities, just as there are players wanting to fly around and blow things up. I think there is room in the universe for both.

     

     

  6. 9 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

    It comes as no surprise that everyone here is a fan of "sandbox" games, lol

     

    However, history has shown us that "sandbox" games just don't appeal to the vast majority of players. Everyone of us will have their own pet explanation for why that has been the case in the past, and why it will be "different" with DU.

     

    But I don't think it will be any different at all, actually. To thrive in a sandbox, you have to be creative and self-motivated. You cannot sit back and just consume the entertainment provided by the devs. The vast majority of gamers want just that: they want to be entertained and given clear goals to attain. And it mustn't take too much time to get there...

     

    Well said. DU is trying to get fans of multiple genres to all play the game together. (Yes please.) FPS fans can become fighter pilots and pirates and soldiers and engage in battle after battle, while engineers design ships and buildings, and builders do the building, and the economists crunch numbers and manipulate the market. Spies, assassins, explorers, farmers, thieves, diplomats, accountants... the list goes on. The issue is that each element on it's own pales in comparison to games with a dedicated genre. MMO's typically favor the hack n slash because that's where the money is, behold the hack n slash theme park MMO, everyone else exit stage left. Eve took a different approach and succeeded at being... Eve. If DU can find a way to appeal to, and satisfy, gamers across multiple genres, it would be a game changer.

    The CONS of a sandbox MMO are the requirements: time, dedication, and money

     

    The PROS of a sandbox MMO are its incredibly deep and rewarding gameplay across multiple genres.

     

    Themepark MMO's don't really compare to what DU is trying to achieve.

  7. 3 hours ago, NanoDot said:

    I'd opt for something simple and straightforward, like "Territory Shield" or even "Hex Shield".

     

    Long and fancy names will be ignored by players anyway, because they're cumbersome in chat and a mouthful if you're on voice comms.

    so "Godlike Invincibility Shield of Awesomeness + 12" is out?

    Wasn't "shield" reserved for actual shield tech? I mean it is a kind of shield I suppose, so I guess it fits, but will it be confusing if shields ever come to be? This is less of a shield and more of a forced waiting period.

  8. 41 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:

    Hilarious for me to see some drama on forum about someone get scam by players that never leave the safe zone.

    Disturbing for me that you don't see a problem with that.

  9. 1 hour ago, Zamarus said:

    That is up to the org or player to figure out. If someone can wrong you, you sure as hell can wrong them back

    Except you can't if they hang out in a safe zone.

     

    In the simplest of terms, Player A kills Player B. Player B catches up with Player A some time later and finds that he has made a home for himself in non-pvp space. How is player B going to wrong Player A back?

  10. 1 hour ago, Captain Jack said:

    Do you guys think that PvP thugs and gankers should be allowed to have safe harbor in the safe zones? That one is tricky as not all PvPers are mean people, but providing PvPers the same protections as non PvPers, doesn't seem right either.

     

    1 hour ago, Zamarus said:

    Not exactly sure what you are getting at. Everyone has the opportunity to utilise the exact same stuff in the game, how are you gonna do that

    How will a player organization or individual player for that matter, counter a PvPer that has wronged them, when that PvPer can just hang out in a safe zone? I don't know how the game will handle it, which is why I asked.

  11. Do you guys think that PvP thugs and gankers should be allowed to have safe harbor in the safe zones? That one is tricky as not all PvPers are mean people, but providing PvPers the same protections as non PvPers, doesn't seem right either.

  12. 20 hours ago, Razorwire said:

    Love the idea :D

     

    It's have to be done in such a way that I couldn't claim an entire huge starship, or the mats to build one, by just tripping over some ex-player's stuff though.

    Would be pretty cool if it could be made into a long-ish project of refinishing, refurbishing and recommissioning a construct though.

    I'm not convinced someone stumbling upon a massive ship or a stocked base would be a bad thing. The big important stuff is likely to be org owned anyway so it's highly unlikely to happen in the first place. If a player with the capability to build a massive star ship left the game, and another player comes along and claims all those resources... won't that preserve the economy in a way?

     

     

    21 hours ago, Lethys said:

    Would Love that.

     

    But I think that's one of the "not crucial but nice to have" things - so it may never happen

    The "nice" thing would be the non-essential cosmetic derelict part, but not removing structures wouldn't be an additional anything. They are talking about "archiving" peoples stuff when a player skips town, but they could just as easily leave it in place. I know real life sneaks up on people sometimes, but everyone is buying into a persistent universe. That persistence is one of the core elements of the game. Artificially locking up resources for an indefinite period of time seems to go against the DU way.

  13. We are currently discussing the reclamation of territory units when players become inactive. My thought was instead of just clearing the area of constructs, why not replace those constructs with a dilapidated version, or something along those lines, for players to discover. Past civilizations, remnants of the past, partly overgrown by nature, something that indicates that someone was there, but hasn't been in quite some time.

    I don't how exactly, but I bet someone with a big brain could find a way to artificially age constructs. That way, content created doesn't get completely wasted when a player leaves. Just a thought.

  14. 3 minutes ago, Hades said:

    I’d argue that if NQ said explicitly that something is going to be in game, arguing about it is pointless or invalid.

    Buzzwords?  Buzzwords, lmao.  Someone hasn’t watched any of the Kickstarter videos, devblogs, or read the Kickstarter page.  Come on now.

    This is all correct.

    Mind pointing me in that direction?  I’m thinking you either took something out of context, or NQ misspoke.  All of the videos, blogs, and discussions point in the opposite direction.

    I think it's important to provide feedback, even if you feel it's pointless or invalid.

     

    I've watched many a video and read many a devblog. I don't know whats so funny about buzzwords. It's what people in the biz use to get other people to spend money.

     

    JC said in a video that they wanted players to drive the game, but, I'm going to paraphrase because I have CRS, he followed that by saying NQ would intervene if players took the game in a detrimental direction. I'd go and find that video, but meetings are gonna slow that process down. Since you are so well versed, you should know exactly where it is, unless that someone you accused is actually yourself. :o

  15. 17 hours ago, Zamarus said:

    The implication was people were bringing up pointless or invalid concerns

    @Zamarus  I understand what you tried to imply, but what you see as pointless or invalid might be just the opposite to someone else. You don't have to like it, or even participate in those discussions, but you don't have any right to discourage them either. The Good Ol' Boys Club in this forum is no doubt strong, but it's not divine.

     

    14 hours ago, supermega said:

    @Captain Jack  not sure if you answered this before, but what kind of things do you want to do in Dual Universe?
     

    If NQ delivers, I plan on doing everything the game has to offer. I'll likely suck at all of it, but excelling isn't really my goal. Having fun is.

     

    As for the game, there is a belief that it will be "player driven" and "emergent" game-play will dictate how the game develops. Those buzzwords are the basis for much of the pro PvP arguments in this thread. Players will be allowed to do whatever they want, including ganking and griefing because in theory, if players don't like it, they can organize and fight it... which is really just the other side of a PvP deathmatch, but regardless, NQ decided that PvP won't be allowed in certain areas. They also said they would intervene if needed. So, isn't the whole PvP freedom already crippled? Why not do away with the safe zones altogether?

×
×
  • Create New...