Jump to content

Captain Jack

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to wizardoftrash in PVP timers confirmed! What should we call them?   
    I kinda like "Wall". Not everything high tech needs a long name.
  2. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from Hades in PVP timers confirmed! What should we call them?   
    stasis barrier?
  3. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to Hades in PvP System   
    Have to love NQs vision, it truly is unprecedented in many ways.
  4. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to NQ-Nyzaltar in PvP System   
    Hi everyone,
     
    It seems the DevBlog was not clear enough on some points.
    We have said it many times before, and we'll continue to say it again:
    While many players wants to see Dual Universe with a dominant gameplay aspect, it's important to understand that it's NOT the case. 
     
    Building gameplay is as important as Combat gameplay. Not more, not less. Balancing both won't be easy and we are aware of it. No, Building is not the major feature of Dual Universe. If the Building aspect has been made first, it's only because, it was making total sense to start the development with this part: we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology. It was an essential piece of tech to build the base of the game: Voxels were necessary to create editable planets in the first place. Then the logical next step was to develop tools to give players to manipulate voxels. That wouldn't make sense to develop Combat gameplay before the two previous steps because, there wouldn't even something to destroy, or even an environment where the combat could happen.
     
    The order in which the features are developed are NOT by order of importance.
    It's just a matter of logical game development roadmap.

    We have no plan to make Dual Universe a total free for all PvP game, just as we won't make it a whole game universe safe, just because some players want to explore it completely without taking any risk. While we don't plan to make our game some kind of "EVE Online 2.0", we don't want either to make a "No Man's Sky 2.0". We understand this may not appeal to everyone taste, and we totally understand that. However, if there is something that is very unlikely to change, it's the fact that there's no intention to catter to only one specific category of players. 
     
    A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 
     
    Why not simply remove the possibility of griefing, then?

    Yes, it would be clearly easier and quicker to remove the ability to grief other players, but while we have no intention to encourage griefing, removing it totally would go against the very definition of the sandbox concept: players are free to interact in the way they want. If we remove any kind of interaction, then we are not in a Sandbox MMORPG anymore: we would be in a Theme Park one. And that is not Novaquark's vision. We want a game universe where bad behavior is discouraged by game mechanics and heavy in consequences if a player still choose to do so, than arbitrarily forbid the said behavior. We want players to be free but also to live with the consequences of their choices. That's what Sandbox mean to us at Novaquark.
     
    Best Regards,
    Nyzaltar.
  5. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from sMax in PvP System   
    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.
  6. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from Razorwire in Ruins from the past (re-claimed TU)   
    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?

     
     
    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.
  7. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from Fishyy in PVP timers confirmed! What should we call them?   
    stasis barrier?
  8. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from Hextaku in Ruins from the past (re-claimed TU)   
    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.
  9. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from SimonVolcanov in Ruins from the past (re-claimed TU)   
    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?

     
     
    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.
  10. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from Staples in Ruins from the past (re-claimed TU)   
    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.
  11. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to CoreVamore in Another Fabulous Poll!   
    With a small group of two to three thousand friends.
  12. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to Hades in Another Fabulous Poll!   
    All of the above.
  13. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to NQ-Nyzaltar in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    To give a clear image of what we have in mind, here is an example:
    Let's say you want to build a car.
    With low resources in an ASA, you will be able to build this:

     
    This will do the job as a car. 
    However, don't expect high performances in speed, security, comfort and such.
    Don't expect either to win a race, or any competition with it.
     
    However, with high value resources you will be able to build this:

     
    Now with this car, you will be able to compete with other players in a race.
    The car will have far better speed, better security and comfort, due to high quality Elements crafted and used in it.
     
    So with low value materials, you will be able to do things that you could with high value materials but with the minimal specs you could ever imagine, just to get started.
    We hope this give a clear idea of what we have in mind now
     
    Best Regards.
    Nyzaltar.
     
  14. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to NQ-Nyzaltar in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    Hi everyone! 
    Here are some answers to your questions and additional information to your feedback

    @FleetAdmiralCoke
    We are not sure to understand what you call "safe building zones to very small areas in very specific places". Moons having MSA will have thousands of territories each. Arkship Secure Areas will also contain thousands of safe territories. Those are not particularly "very small" areas. Planets will be huge, and safe areas, while limited, will be huge too.
     
    About choosing the location of a city outside the MSA and the ASA, it has never been confirmed that we will let players choose a place for a city, then make it officially invulnerable. The idea may have been mentioned somewhere, but it was just an idea and with this idea comes a lot of issues of game balance. The most obvious possible abuse is the following: 
     
    If we let players choose which location should become permanently safe, then you will have very big organizations, able to mobilize hundreds or even thousands of players installing invulnerable cities just next to their smaller opponents, giving endless possibilities of harassing theme easily. That would give an unfair advantage to big organizations. Abuses can be made by installing invulnerable cities on high value resources with no revert that once it has happened. Unless we find a reasonable way to prevent such issues, it's unlikely that the Secure Areas location could be decided by players.
     
    Now, all the explanations above are for MSA and ASA, for areas 100% safe with no exception.
    However, that won't prevent players to build heavily protected cities in Unsecure Areas. A city built in an Unsecure Area will still have a chance to be attacked and destroyed. We won't start to give details here of what could be reinforce defense for such cases (cities in Unsecure Areas) but it could be the topic of a new DevBlog in the future. The present DevBlog was released mainly to answer the recurrent questions of "Will Dual Universe be a complete Free For All game ?", the answer is "No, there will be room for very different player types, but it doesn't mean it will appeal to everyone either."

    @Lethys
    - If we were to use domes instead of bubbles, what would happen if an agressor starts to dig a tunnel under the dome?
    - About DPS saturation and the risk of player blobs, we will take that into consideration. For now, it's still too early to confirm how PvP Mechanics will work.
    - MSA can't be placed anywhere as those will be located on specific moons, decided by Novaquark.
     
    @Hades
    It's still too early to give details on the final mechanics for the Protection Bubble. As said to FleetAdmiralCoke, this Devblog was meant to address recurrent questions from newcomers. We won't give right now the details regarding the protection bubble.
     
    @AeonReign
    Well, for game balance reason, basic protection (protection bubble mechanics) should be affordable and not that expensive, otherwise playing in Unsecure Areas will be only viable for people that never disconnect from the game (and we don't want to encourage such behavior).
     
     
    @Takao
     
    Thanks for reporting the typos.
    1) In Arkship & Moon Secure Areas, you CAN'T claim an already claimed territory, for obvious reasons.
    2) If you install Forcefields in a certain manner, it may lead to a situation where you can prevent people to enter a territory.
    3) MSA won't be on every moon. There will be MSA only on moons decided by Novaquark.
    As said to Hades, we won't go into details for now.
     
    @PerksPlus
    Moons with MSA won't be next to planets with valuable resources.
    Or else, it would nullify the concept of "risk vs reward".
    Moons with MSA will be near planets with ASA, or with low valuable resources.
    That means that if some pirate want to ambush miners gathering valuable resources, he will need some time to go back to the safest area (and plenty of time to be intercepted). Moreover, we are considering also game mechanics that could discourage greatly the behavior "Go In/Go Out" from a Secure Area abusively, just to ambush people without taking any risk.
     
    @Shadow 
    @Ben Fargo
    We won't go into the details of the Protection Bubble mechanics yet.
    As said to Hades, this Devblog was meant to address recurrent questions from newcomers.
    There will be another Devblog later giving more details on that aspect, and it will most likely be when we will talk about PvP
     
    @Zamarus
    The difference between ASA and MSA:
    - ASA will get have basic, low-value material in the ground. Players who just want to build things without being bothered by PvP (and aren't interested to compete with other players in terms of construct optimization or combat) will be advised to stay in this type of safe area.
    - MSA are Safe Areas with no other perks than being a safe place. So yes, if you want to build in Sanctuary Areas, it will necessitate to bring resources from outside.
     
    @lethak
    @yamamushi
    @LittleJoe
    Of course, we have considered APIs.
    But as already said before, it means additional development time (far more than just an email alert) and we want to stay focus on the features promised during the Kickstarter first, for the official release. However, there is a high chance that the dev team plan something on this topic once the game will be launched (we prefer to take the proper time to develop one if we want to avoid issues)
     
    @mrjacobean
    @Kurock
    - There will be MSA only on moons decided by Novaquark, nowhere else.
    - If a moon has a MSA, it will cover the whole moon (unlike ASA, which will cover only a part of the planet where it's located).
    - No, "Sanctuary tile" can't be taken by military means, just like territories in an ASA.
    - Moons with a MSA will be always near a planet having an ASA (there might be reasons for that reccuring "coincidence") so only near no to low value resources, nowhere near high value resources.
    - Yes, We plan some means to gain ownership of a Sanctuary tile that is occupied by a owner inactive for a long time (and one of the current idea considered is that inactive user assets will be archived but not lost. The inactive user would just lose the ownership of the territory).
     
    @supermega
    Sending a notification to a Discord in case of agression has been added in the Feature Suggestion list and will be discussed with the developer team. However, depending of the feasibility and the amount of time to develop such a feature, it may or may not be implemented. If the idea is validated, it may also be implemented after the official release.  In any case, thanks for giving the idea!
     
    @Setzar
    the "Force Field" Unit doesn't create a "Safe Zone" (if we stick to our definition of Safe Zone in Dual Universe), it's indeed more like a barrier that prevents entry from unauthorized entity. 
     
    @CyberCrunch
    This is a bit too soon to talk advanced game mechanics regarding cities located in Unsecure Areas.
    Let's just say that the dev team is currently thinking of something that has similar points with what you suggested (not to the point to make permanent Safe Areas decided by the players though), but again, we will talk advanced mechanics in another DevBlog. This one was made to give only the basics
     
    @Fins_T
    We have several Ogame players among Novaquark staff so we know (and understand) what you're taking about
    We totally agree that needing to check regularly if you're attacked is tiring (even if there are fleetsaving strategies and the use of moons to temper that) and that's why Protection Bubble mechanics, with email alert/notification will be put in place: to inform you only when necessary without having to check constantly in-game if you're attacked or not, and giving you the opportunity to manage your real life without being permenanently worried of what's happening to your assets in-game.

    However, in terms of gameplay, combat mechanics will far more similar to EVE Online than Ogame: You can't just assume in advance what will be the strength of the defense, the number of player coming to defend a territory, etc. Moreover, one player can't have an overwhelming force built by himself alone. So, a combat result will be far less predictable than in Ogame. Player numbers, the involvement, and the skills of each of them are all factor that will impact victory or defeat, because no matter how much spaceships has... it can only use one at a time, and even a huge battleship with lots of weapon turret won't be used efficiently by a player alone.
     
    We don't plan to copy Ogame much in this regard, because in Dual Universe, you play a colonist, not a governor managing an empire with many planets and a whole fleet at your command from the start (unless you achieve the difficult goal of having many real players accepting your rulership to colonize planets and pilot the said fleet under your command, but even then, there will be natural limits of how much firepower you will be able to bring to take down opponent bases).
     
    Best Regards,
    Nyzaltar.
     
  15. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to NQ-Nyzaltar in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    Hi everyone!
     
    A new Devblog has been released on Territory Protection Mechanics: you can find it here!
    As we plan to post now all DevBlog articles directly on the website, we will have one dedicated topic per Devblog.
    Feel free to give your feedback in the present topic for "Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics".
     
    Best Regards,
    Nyzaltar.
     
  16. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to Supermega in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    Thanks for the Blog Novaquark, its always exciting when you put out new info.
     
    So far I like the idea of the force-field unit having a cool down timer, and being indestructible for 24-48 hours, so nothing to add on that point.
     
    My only suggestion would be to possibly add Discord as a notification. The reason being, that most Organizations are already using Discord as a means of communication, plus if you use Discord it would be easier to notify an entire group or Org in the event that a territory unit is compromised.
     
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also here are some ideas for the name of the Force Field Unit:
     
    Terrain Energy Shield
     
    Spacial Protection Field
     
    Agents of Shield
     
    Force Field 2 Electric Boogaloo
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sorry I'm bad with naming things
  17. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to lethak in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    Most MMOs with persistent player owned assets implements a cyclic vulnerability timeframe.
    Traditionally, the owner (or allowed by RDMS) is able to change the vulnerability period once in a while.
    This makes the possession immune to most actions outside of this vulnerability window where it can be challenged.
     
     
    I like the part where NQ plans to alert the player via email. But in truth, in 2018, NQ should implement webhooks and or APIs
  18. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from MarrrV in PvP System   
    @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.
     
    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?
  19. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from MookMcMook in PvP System   
    @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.
     
    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?
  20. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from Supermega in PvP System   
    @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.
     
    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?
  21. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to Comrademoco in PvP System   
    Honestly, just let it play out and see how it all goes guys... Cause of right now, you're just going to keep beating the horse over and over based on theories, beliefs and wants... 
     
    Will pvp be as bad as some are making it to be? Who here really knows for sure? Legitimately. Who here 100% knows what the universe is going to evolve into?
     
    Or at least wait until NQ releases the devdiary/blog regarding griefing, maybe it'll answer some questions, maybe it won't...
     
    Again, the main point being, we don't know for sure what the universe will be down the road.
     
    Just ponder on that.
     
     
    Cheers,
    Comrademoco
  22. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from 0something0 in PvP System   
    @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.
     
    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?
  23. Like
    Captain Jack reacted to 0something0 in PvP System   
    The big problem is that destruction is so much easier then construction or protection. You(an individual or group) have to spend countless hours building and pay mercs(which I suspect will be costly due to the high demand) or guard it yourself 24/7, which may not be possible, while all it takes is a few people to just log in and open fire to destroy.
     And it seems like some people here are fine with this. I won't say any names but the real problem it seems like is the community's attitude towards the issue which potentially stems from NQ's *marketing* of DU as a "do-whatever-you-want" MMO (at least before the website change).
  24. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from MookMcMook in PvP System   
    NQ built a custom engine to handle a single shard voxel based universe. They also sacrificed popular twitch based PvP mechanics in favor of a single shard voxel based universe, where everything is player built, and PvP will come later in development. So there is that.
     
    My biggest concern with PvP is that I can load up an alt and grief newbies all day long. When a hired merc or security force comes along and kills me. I can load up another alt and continue getting my jollies. I'd like to hear a player driven solution to that behavior?
  25. Like
    Captain Jack got a reaction from Supermega in PvP System   
    NQ built a custom engine to handle a single shard voxel based universe. They also sacrificed popular twitch based PvP mechanics in favor of a single shard voxel based universe, where everything is player built, and PvP will come later in development. So there is that.
     
    My biggest concern with PvP is that I can load up an alt and grief newbies all day long. When a hired merc or security force comes along and kills me. I can load up another alt and continue getting my jollies. I'd like to hear a player driven solution to that behavior?
×
×
  • Create New...