Felonu
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Felonu
-
-
AI does not mean sentient AI. They are very much different things. AI has been used for decades to describe the logic (simple and complex) of scripted automated actions in gaming(the AI in x game isn’t smart enough to walk around x to get to me, etc..). Making an assumption about the complexity of an AI when someone mentions it is a mistake. A drone being able to follow a person is a basic AI. Then if it is given the logic to travel around intervening objects it is made into a less basic form of AI. I read people dismissing ideas completely too often because of assumptions.
Back to subject: I believe NQ’s wording was that they wouldn’t add any npc life except possibly some wildlife. This seems to imply that the life would be more cosmetic than for the purposes you described.
-
I think food/water/oxygen would have a good benefit to the game if implemented correctly. As long as it doesn’t feel like you have to struggle to maintain it. If it takes a small amount of resources to maintain your levels for a week or so, and you don’t loose levels while offline it just becomes a minor thing you deal with occasionally, but would add the ability for people to have functionality like farming if that’s what they want to do. It would also add an aspect to longer sieges. Blockades, and blockade runners would have more value with these mechanisms also.
I think it is something worth debating the pros and cons.
-
1 minute ago, Hades said:
The less emergent part rears it's head when you realize hostile takeover is practically impossible. If it takes an entire fleets ammo supply to destroy a few ships, you're not going to be taking over a city.
In order to receive tangible effects on whether or not PvP occurs you need to have extremes. Take an arena game for example. Say the staked bid to enter was 1,000 (but it takes around 10 minutes to farm 10,000). If they upped the bid to 1,500... the same amount of people will probably enter the arena. If you move the stake to 100,000... far fewer will join.
Similarly, let's take Face of Mankind for example (this was a game I was active in). It is important to note that I was part of the Colinization and Mining Guild for the majority of my gameplay. This means I created armor, ammo, weapons etc. Now, there were markets with high security where everyone who was in good standing with LED (the player ran law enforcement agency) were able to trade. This basically means you didn't run around killing and stealing. At these markets I would have to sell at market price. However, on the outer reaches (uncontrolled by LED) I could sell ammo for double if not triple the amount as on Brooklyn or NYC. These rogue players did not have an issue spending a little more for ammo, as it truly was minuscule in the end.
I don't think extremes are required to see tangible effects, but that is part of the balancing that I'll leave up to NQ. It is NQ's vision that will make this a great game or not. It is also their vision that will determine whether or not it is balanced in a way that I or you will find enjoyable. We cannot represent all sides of the discussion on a forum, because not everyone is involved. I simply pointed out a way that NQ COULD if they decided to make the OPs desire to walk safely in a forest possible. I don't know what the balance is that I want yet. I have never found a game that was PvP oriented for more than a few weeks because I've always gotten tired of not even having the time to figure out how to start the game because of non-stop ganking. I know that because of that I am biased, and I should not be the judge of where balance is.
-
6 minutes ago, Hades said:
It really does impact emergent gameplay. Ammo isn’t going to be expensive to create, that would cause an uproar both from people now... and months after launch new players will be wondering why they could create such a beautiful ship but can’t defend it, since ammo is so expensive.
I can actually picture it now... poor chap created his ship but a mob of thug rats are punching the juice out of his ship. It’s a shame he can’t just shoot them all.
That doesn't say how it makes less emergent gameplay. Punching a ship would be emergent gameplay that came out of a really lopsided scenario. I think you might have misunderstood that in every one of my examples I specifically pointed out that I was going extreme in one direction or the other. I was doing this to emphasize the idea so that it would be easier to grasp. I wasn't saying that any of these examples should be followed as written or ever close. I was going lopsided like 99% toward one direction or the other, but thought that it would be clear that I wasn't trying to say that it would be balanced that way. I always tried to point out that it will be NQ's job to do the balancing and it needs to fit with their vision.
-
2 hours ago, Zamarus said:
What you view as balanced is probably not what i view as balanced. You did even give examples of what kind of "balance" you wanted. Of course im taking that as you wanting the expense of PvP to suit you, don't hide it under the term "balanced" because that is to a large extent subjective.
I never gave an example of the kind of balance I wanted. I gave several examples of unbalanced in both directions. You are correct though that our opinions of balance are probably different, but I have always stated that it is up to NQ to take what they consider balanced in line with their vision.
2 hours ago, Hades said:That’s pretty interesting because NQ has a pretty straightforward definition of Player driven and emergent gameplay. Literally 4th bullet point of the Kickstarter. This isn’t even considering the videos and other avenues of communication they have given on the topic.
“Emergent gameplay: economy, trade, territories, politics and warfare are all player-driven. Both PvP and non-PvP will be possible.”
Notice that they explicitly mention PvP and non-PvP as both being player driven. This is solidified in dev diaries and blogs if you sift through them.
Yes, both will be possible. I have said that I want a balance between both. I provided ways that NQ could do that without implementing any additional mechanics, or artificial gimmicks. Again, I will say that the amount of ore it takes to make a bullet CAN NOT be player driven. It is a base mechanic of the functioning of the game. I keep saying that my idea of how to balance the game has nothing to do with Emergent gameplay, and either you or Zamarus (I'm not sure who at this point, possibly both) has said that my idea would make the game less Emergent and player driven. That is the disagreement about the definitions of player driven and emergent I was talking about.
-
2 minutes ago, Zamarus said:
I don't see how that is a misrepresentation, you literally advocated for expensive PvPing, that NQ should balance it so that killing people would yield little.
I explained what I said in the paragraph you quoted... I always said these are things NQ CAN do to adjust balance. I didn't say they should do anything but not make it extremely cheap. What I think NQ should do would be off topic since the OP was asking if a thing would be possible. I was explaining a way for it to be possible. I think, or at least attempted to always say that the balance would have to be decided by NQ. I might have expressed general opinions that you took to mean that I want it to be expensive, but I don't. I want it to be balanced.
-
7 minutes ago, Zamarus said:
Good, then i see where you stand excuse me. Because i recalled you arguing the same as Felonou, if not i apologize.
What they argued was for offensive PvP to be costly and/or yield little. Which i thought was absurd, if you understand the safezone and potential future safezones i think we agree for the most part.
That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I don't think I ever talked about wanting anything specific. I kept saying that it would be up to NQ and their vision. I only said I didn't want the extreme the other way. I also said that having PvP be expensive would reduce the amount of things like griefing. I never argued for or against anything except especially inexpensive PvP.
-Added for clarification-
And what I mean by especially inexpensive is a small ship with a gun on it only takes an hour of farming mats to build, and is able to take out a city.
-
We all have different ideas of what things like emergent, and player-driven mean. It seems like these differences have become the core argument of this thread. I don't think this gets resolved by us trying to convince each other at this point. I stopped posting here a couple pages ago I think because I said all I wanted to say about my opinions of how the PvP can be handled, but it seems like the discussion hasn't moved at all.
We'll all have to see what NQ decides these things mean to them, and their vision. It could end up being a lopsided newbie gank-fest that isn't any fun to try to start for new players, a builder only game where the PvP never gets implemented enough to keep PvP players interested, or an anarchic mess where everywhere outside of the Ark-zone is at such violent war that noone ever feels safe enough to spend time trying to build anything. If any of these things happen I believe the game won't be even close to as successful as it could be, and I don't want it to turn out like any of these thing.
- MarrrV, Supermega and MookMcMook
-
3
-
1 minute ago, Zamarus said:
If you don't want to argue anymore then stop replying, meant honest, not derogatory way.
I did not see this math and i do not think its a good idea at all. But what you are right on is that people have plenty to make up their mind.
You never said more than "make it expensive to attack people" which i won't take as anything else than wanting to regulate PvP. I mean what is the point of saying so otherwise. It's quite obvious what sandbox and player-driven entails imo.
Fair enough.
-
5 minutes ago, Zamarus said:
Not really, what i've been arguing and some others is for the option of not doing anything. Not interfering with the sandbox we are given, it's at this point pro-change vs no need
Edit: Or let me rephrase myself better. "Pro regulated vs unregulated PvP"No it's not. There are no details about what defensive systems will be in place, what offensive systems there are, and how much resources it would take to power/create the means of both. Those are the only systems we're talking about modifying. You can't "regulate" a system that hasn't been build yet. This is talking about how a system should be initially built, and all of these costs have to be something. The discussion is on what the different costs will be.
-
1 minute ago, Zamarus said:
"I already supplied a solution. It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance. This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie."
This would most certainly do that. Because doing this wont just help defenseless people but be abused by everyone. Also how have you planned on making the resources gained difference between defenseless and non-defenseless people here? I don't see how you make the game do that without magic, because all solutions would force you to mess with more game mechanics than you originally were thinking about.
No it wouldn't... i already supplied the math... it doesn't matter who it is I'm not saying you specify some people are "defenseless" by helping the defenseless you only extend PvP battles some and modify the cost/benefit analysis when attacking everyone (aggressors are risking more than defenders, but have the ability to make that decision before attacking. The defender would have to have something valuable for the offensive to be worth it).
I think we should stop arguing these details though. I think people have the information to make up their own minds on what they believe of these systems.
-
Anyway. I feel like I've said my piece, and instead of discussing options and possibilities we are at the point of just arguing over small details and differences of opinions and viewpoints.
-
1 minute ago, Zamarus said:
Hey, you realize who is advocating for less freedom here?
It does make it less player driven if you actively try to cripple PvP in favour of Building
I don't think my proposal would reduce freedom or cripple PvP. How would Defenses being stronger, or not getting as much resources when you gank defenseless people cripple PvP?
-
2 minutes ago, Zamarus said:
Because construction and destruction is not a linear relationship, better players will destroy worse players faster even if both have two juggernauts for ships.
Good.... i guess.... I don't know why that matters. I was answering Hades where he was implying that long drawn out battles would be a problem. I was saying that it wouldn't be a problem.
8 minutes ago, Zamarus said:They want to make a PLAYER DRIVEN sandbox. This means players deal with player-made problems, the tools are there for builders, PvPers and all therein, its up to you how to utilize them.
You realize that taking away the "just deal with it" aspect would make it less player driven thus not what they have been talking about and theres tons of players that doesnt want to see that happen, you are not ever gonna truly reach "all of us".
We're talking about a specific way to build one of those tools that has to be built in some form. This doesn't make it less player driven, it just changes how the player driven aspect is implemented.
-
23 minutes ago, Hades said:
Seems like words to me, not a solution. What would that entail? Making ships ridiculously hard to take out? Great... now major battles will go on infinitely. Building is much cheaper than destruction? Yeah that’s not going to happen
I honestly don’t think it will be much of an issue. The starting planet is huge... it will be hard to gank all the newbies who fly off of the planet.
And once again, I tell you... the solution is by player directive as it should be. Let’s cry wolf when there’s an actual wolf... you have no idea what player dynamics will enter the game. Let’s see how the alpha plays out.
Great. What is wrong with long battles? To build a proper spaceship it could take weeks or months to design, and build it. Why shouldn't a big battle? You say "that's not going to happen" but it would be one solution, and saying it won't happen isn't a reason for it not to happen. -Edited for clarification- But my solution is if a ship with a large engine takes about 1000 shots to take out, and accuracy for a common cannon is 70% then you shouldn't get more resources from the broken engine than the similar equivelant of the resources to make 1500 bullets. The exact numbers, and balance would be determined of course by NQ and be based on their vision.
Now if NQs vision doesn't match that, then I'll be ok with that too.
17 minutes ago, Hades said:I keep noticing you say you pvpers... yet I’m not a pvper? I just see things objectively I suppose. I’ll probably rage a few times when I lose a big haul, or one of my storages goes kaputz... and I will fight when I’m attacked, but that doesn’t make someone a pvper
You can’t change an underlying dynamic of the game, and I understand that.
Then I apologize for my mistake. I assumed since it sound to me like you want the game to be mostly PvP based that you must want to do PvP. I don't want to remove PvP from the game, I just want a balance.
-
1 minute ago, Hades said:
Then unfortunately outside of safe zones, I don’t think you will find a solution. I think NQ is being generous with multiple safezones to be honest.
I already supplied a solution. It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance. This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie.
-
8 minutes ago, Hades said:
So create a law enforcement agency of some kind. The whole point of this game is it’s player directed. So direct. I don’t think it will be much of an issue, but if you do... create an organization that enforces newbie protection around the starting planet.
That would just give the PvPers an additional objective to draw more fire on the newbies. But that's not the point. There are options, but they all involve PvP. Again that requires a PvP solution and we're asking for a balance between PvP and PvE activities.
7 minutes ago, Zamarus said:I think that fear is irrational. Seeing as with the vast space provided with the travel distances, cover to hide and be protected by environment you're not very likely to be attacked very often as any individual located somewhere outside the safezone in the universe
Well then we'll have to agree to disagree.
3 minutes ago, Hades said:That’s another really good point. Why fly all the way back to shoot down a few newbies? I imagine most of the vets at the arkship will be recruiters. Shooting down newbies is a poor recruitment tool haha
That is not the experience I've had with other PvP heavy games. People regularly farm starting areas, especially if it is a PvP based way to farm common resources.
-
1 minute ago, Zamarus said:
Just because PvP is enabled in 99% of the world does not mean PvP will occur on every single cubic meter outside the safezone, people are worrying too much
I truly believe that if people have a chance to get more from a newbie with a barely flying craft that can barely make it off the planet than it takes to kill that ship that it will be.
-
2 minutes ago, Zamarus said:
I already have accepted that. And it's called the arkship safezone, nothing else
So over 99% of the game should be for PvPers, and the safezone should be the only place you have a chance to not be always killed? Like I said you are advocating PvP to be the feature that trumps every other aspect of gameplay. Remember being in a big org with defenses and protections doesn't actually protect anyone. How about people not demand that almost noone can play the game without threat of PvP shadowing them constantly.
I want there to be a middle ground. I want the game to have PvP available everywhere outside the safe zone. I want there to be a possibility of loss if you leave the safety of the Ark ship. I just don't want to feel like you have to be constantly in PvP if you leave.
-
2 hours ago, Hades said:
I think NQ understands this, and in the end that’s all that matters. NQ wants an impactful game, and we are going to get it :). The game won’t be easy, I think they’ve stated that in every single blog ever. Especially so for the single players, small packs. I’m primarily a small group player, and I understand what that means... it just seems these people don’t. Which is fine, they’ll find out for sure.
When NQ says it’s a difficult game for single players it’s not because production times are higher. If that WERE the case, they’d say it’s more time consuming, not more difficult. The reason it’s difficult for single players and smaller groups is because they need to be novel when it comes to protecting their assets.
If that worries you, just stick to safe zones primarily... as apparently there will be multiple. However, the most profitable adventures will require stepping out of that safety.
First, I appreciate your interpretation of the statements, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion.
Second, I don't have a problem with the game being hard, and I don't think anybody is asking for all risk to be removed. All the OP asked for was the ability to walk through a forest (most likely when noone knows you) and not have every ship that flies over try to kill you just because you're there. Personally all I would really want is for there to be a cost to attacking someone that will make it not worth it to kill every single person you come across. If attacking others doesn't cost much, then people won't need any reason to attack others than that they can. They won't care if they loose sometimes, or they might anger some big org. That is what is fun to some people.
- Captain Jack and MookMcMook
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Zamarus said:
Ponder this:
How about people stop demanding to be sheltered and learn how to build while coping with the threat of PvP? Like in a lot of examples from before, make sure you dont chose a dumb ass location to build on, hire protection/hide it if you need to. Even then in the expansive world that is DU chances are nobody will attack you for a long while because of how vast everything is and how long time it may take to gain power enough to cause major damage.
Because that engulfs everything else in PvP. You are doing the exact thing from a different perspective that you accuse @MookMcMook of doing. I think we've all put our points of view out there now, though, and we'll have to rely on NQ and their vision to decide how they implement it.
- Supermega, Atmosph3rik and MookMcMook
-
3
-
The most obvious to me are transmitting security docking codes that can be stolen be the dirty rebels to infiltrate the star base!
-
1 minute ago, Zamarus said:
Problem is that the baseline does not work the way you think. To even ever accurately getting your time investments worth in a defense against expected offense you'd have to use bots. Because what if your players on the fort are afk, or some of them just are terrible at positioning. They would still feel its unfair but who is the judge of what standard PvP play is? You really cannot expect "to get your times worth" in a game like this. You will never have that 100% perfect attack you geared yourself around. Its enough that a few of the attackers move in a slight off-set manner you didn't count on and you cant measure it anymore.
You are taking the point off subject through. He, and I have said Many times now that the balance is applied before the human element. The power to keep a shield up vs the power of the bullet hitting it, and the cost of the resources of those things. You keep talking about the incalculable value of the Offense, and Defense as a whole. If we were talking about that you would be right in that it can't be calculated, but we're not.
4 minutes ago, Zamarus said:Two people build houses, one burns down the other person's house an laughs.
To prevent that the other player can do the following:
- Move somewhere else
- Fight back
- Hire someone to get back at him
- Forgive him
- Build a stronger house
- Come up with literally any other home-made solution
The possibilities are endless for every situation, you're arguing from the standpoint that you HAVE to be an asshole back. Which is a terribly single-minded way to think.
The point for some of us is that you just burned down hundreds of hours worth of effort by starting a fire with a almost no effort of buying the lighter. This is a real world example though, and in the real world very few people run around town burning peoples houses down for no reason. In games this is not only common, but almost pervasive and much less stoppable behavior.
-
4 minutes ago, Hades said:
Also, when it comes to balance I hope they try to make it as BALANCED as possible. If it takes a month to create defenses, it should take a “month” of preparation for an offensive raid.
However, what takes 1 month for one group to accomplish, another may take a week. Thus the quotation marks. The same effort to build should be required to destroy
This is almost never the case. Because on top of losing the defenses, you lose the structures, and the resources that are taken. If it is exactly equal, then everyone should always be offensive. There will be no reason to do anything else, because you will get more every time than what you expend.
Anyway to pull it back to the OP. These ways I describe are ways for what you are asking for. We don't know yet what the balance will be, but many of us others also would like to see it generally feel safe.
- MarrrV, Supermega and Atmosph3rik
-
3
The new settlers
in General Discussions
Posted
Can you site any sources for this information. I can just as definitively state that the sky is purple, but it wouldn’t make it true.
Now, I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m just trying to be clear that this is your opinion based on your ideas of what the game will be.