Supermega

So the impression is that Dual Universe is not a PVP combat driven game, like other status quo space games, it is a player driven civilization building game. PVP is only one of many game mechanics in DU.

Also, I think many people are looking past the fact that this game has an extremely Advanced Voxel building system. like wow its pretty impressive. An so far, the Voxel building is the most in depth and notable feature of the entire game. Its the thing that Novaquark is spending the most time developing, making combat a secondary thing (not less important, just secondary). Which makes sense for a game focused on Civilization building.

People aren't naive, they understand this game will have weapons, and combat, and you can run around killing each other if you choose to. I think players are concerned that this game could turn into a PVP gankfest with no depth or substance. I think most Players are showing increasing interest in this game because of the Voxel mechanics, civilization building, Macro based warfare concepts. There are many things about DU that sets it apart from most space games.

But, Griefing is a valid and reasonable concern, when you look at other sandbox  games. It happens way to often in the gaming community, where pvp players show up and turn ever game into a combat focused game, even if that wasn't the developers goal. An, that usually causes a mass exodus as the player base gets fed up an leaves, and the only thing left is pvp, gankers, and trolls. Even in games that are 100% PVP focused, you still see this problem where griefers will abuse the mechanics and then laugh and say "hey this is part of the game, deal with it", and Developers have to backtrack and/or add additional mechanics to balance things out.

Right now Novaquark seems to have put allot of thought into how they plan to implement things. So, I'm not concerned with the development or game mechanics, I'm more concerned with the mindset of the player base in this game. So far, most of the people I see and talk to seem to want to just have fun, and are drawn to idea of building and exploring, and that makes me optimistic.
 

 

So the impression is that Dual Universe is not a PVP combat driven game, like other status quo space games, it is a player driven civilization building game. PVP is only one of many game mechanics in DU.

Also, I think many people are looking past the fact that this game has an extremely Advanced Voxel building system. like wow its pretty impressive. An so far, the Voxel building is the most in depth and notable feature of the entire game. Its the thing that Novaquark is spending the most time developing, making combat a secondary thing (not less important, just secondary). Which makes sense for a game focused on Civilization building.

People aren't naive, they understand this game will have weapons, and combat, and you can run around killing each other if you choose to. I think players are concerned that this game could turn into a PVP gankfest with no depth or substance. I think most Players are showing increasing interest in this game because of the Voxel mechanics, civilization building, Macro based warfare concepts. There are many things about DU that sets it apart from most space games.

But, Griefing is a valid and reasonable concern, when you look at other sandbox  games. It happens way to often in the gaming community, where pvp players show up and turn ever game into a combat focused game, even if that wasn't the developers goal. An, that usually causes a mass exodus as the player base gets fed up an leaves, and the only thing left is pvp, gankers, and trolls. Even in games that are 100% PVP focused, you still see this problem where griefers will abuse the mechanics and then laugh and say "hey this is part of the game, deal with it", and Developers have to backtrack and/or add additional mechanics to balance things out.

Right now Novaquark seems to have put allot of thought into how they plan to implement things. So, I'm not concerned with the development or game mechanics, I'm more concerned with the mindset of the player base in this game. So far, most of the people I see and talk to seem to want to just have fun, and are drawn to idea of building and exploring, and that makes me optimistic.
 

 

So the impression is that Dual Universe is not a PVP combat driven game, like other status quo space games, it is a player driven civilization building game. PVP is only one of many game mechanics in DU.

Also, I think many people are looking past the fact that this game has an extremely Advanced Voxel building system. like wow its pretty impressive. An so far, the Voxel building is the most in depth and notable feature of the entire game. Its the thing that Novaquark is spending the most time developing, making combat a secondary thing (not less important, just secondary). Which makes sense for a game focused on Civilization building.

People aren't naive, they understand this game will have weapons, and combat, and you can run around killing each other if you choose to. I think players are concerned that this game could turn into a PVP gankfest with no depth or substance. I think most Players are showing increasing interest in this game because of the Voxel mechanics, civilization building, Macro based warfare concepts. There are many things about DU that sets it apart from most space games.

But, Griefing is a valid and reasonable concern, when you look at other sandbox  games. It happens way to often in the gaming community, where pvp players show up and turn ever game into a combat focused game, even if that wasn't the developers goal. An, that usually causes a mass exodus as the player base gets fed up an leaves, and the only thing left is pvp, gankers, and trolls. Even in games that are 100% PVP focused, you still see this problem where griefers will abuse the mechanics and then laugh and say "hey this is part of the game, deal with it", and Developers have to backtrack and/or add additional mechanics to balance things out.

Right now Novaquark seems to have put allot of thought into how they plan to implement things. So, I'm not concerned with the development or game mechanics, I'm more concerned with the mindset of the player base in this game. So far, most of the people I see and talk to seem to want to just have fun, and are drawn to idea of building and exploring, and that makes me optimistic.
 

 

@Felonu
I couldn't have put it better myself. That's one of the main things that drew me to the game, is that in most interviews JC never really talks much about combat. Even when asked about combat, its more of an after thought, compared to all the other features. Its a stark contrast to the way most space game developers talk. Even on the website, the first thing you see in BOLD letters is "Dual Universe: THE CIVILIZATION BUILDING MMO ". You have to scroll down 7 pages, to the bottom, before it even mentions combat. An even then it doesn't says free for all PVP combat, it says Warfare.
 
I think every player understands that you will have the ability to kill each other. But, I don't think free for all PVP is Novaquark's main focus for DU, based on what they say. Ultimately, it will be the mindset of players who shape this game.
 
@Captain Jack 
The way I see it is, civilizations can only be build if there is stability first. You can't build on unstable ground or in an unstable environment.
 
Scenario 1: If players have no way of securing there build site an resources while working on a project, then what will happen is 90 percent of the player base will stay in the 1 crowded safezone, and the whole Universe beyond the safezone will become a PVP gankfest, with nothing but bases used like combat arena's for PVP. An eventually, gamers may feel DU is no different then other space games, not worth the monthly fee, and move on to another game.
 
Scenario 2: If players have access to good defensive systems (Shield Domes, Ion/EMP cannons, enemy/weapon detection, land/space Mines, etc..) and not just guns, then it should create a good enough balance that players can actually build civilizations outside of the safezone. Grouping up in a Organization doesn't help most of the time, Because you're friends/org mates aren't always online, and if you have to spend most of you're time chasing away griefers, and most of your money paying for protection, then you have less time/money to do anything else.
 
I'm very curious to see what DU becomes, because regardless of all the game mechanics, every MMO is shaped by the mindset of the playerbase.
 
 
 
 
 

And all the other safezones planned that were literally mentioned at the top of this page.
 
Those too. 

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.  

Nope sorry.
 
PVP is optional.  And i'm not really interested.
 
I don't expect to be able to do everything in the game all the time since i'm not really interested in PVP.
 
Why can't you accept that you won't be able to attack everyone all the time?

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.

The gist of this whole thing seems to be that a game with PvP, has to be played like a hard core PvP game, regardless of other content. There are dedicated non PvP games and dedicated PvP games, but a game with both is decidedly PvP.

Actually, and what is really scary, is the "method of play" that Zamarus is talking about often causes the player who lost his house to "rage quit", after spending dozens, or hundreds of hours, building his beloved house, after checking with his neighbours they were okay to do it, or often doing it when the were no neighbours.
 
Then the person burns down his house, with everything inside it and is told "build a better house", "hire mercenaries", "forgive him" (& start again), "fight back" (with what, it was in his house remember), "move somewhere else" (can do that, just also the same as "start again").

So one player spent minimal time undoing another players entire enjoyment in the game, leading the game to lose a player, NQ to lose a subscriber, while "psycho" goes on and does this to 20 more houses. Not all will leave, but say 2 or 3.

Now scale it up. To a universe size.

I am not saying it should not be possible, just it should not be easy either.

so the guy with the burned house should have played differently BECAUSE the guy next door was a psycho? Your side of the argument is that one person gets to play however they want, and other people don't. Seems about right.

WOW! Good discussion here, so far...
 
What gives ones player the right to take whatever they want from another player?
 
It's not PvP that is the issue, it's the attitude on display that gives PvP a bad name, and for very good reason.
 
Exactly. A PvP player out ganking and griefing infringes upon those players that aren't into ganking and griefing. Two different styles of play yes, but one directly interferes with the other. It's not a two way street. The gankers and greifers think it is, and they are wrong.
 
yes, that ^
and back to this. Two people build houses. One person burns the other person's house down and laughs hahaha, welcome to the neighborhood. In order to prevent that, the other person should have become an asshole first?

PvP doesn't have to be all about getting more kills than the other guy.

This statement is inherently missing the point; if you have players who are not PvP pro (or PvP shy to put it another way) your forcing them to do something they do not like to do (go on the offensive) and with so many other games to choose from it will put off a number of players simply because they are being forced to engage in a behaviour that is not in keeping with their nature.

While you may reply "they can go play another game then" that will also miss the point that you need the numbers of resource gatherers to fuel the PvP battles. If those resource gatherers are not there then other people have to fill that space, who do not necessarily want to do it, thus lowering their enjoyment of the game, and further driving players away.

As @Forodrim points out above, you have to have a balance between the two opposing natures of players in these sorts of games. Without either one the game loses its point.

When it comes to time invested; you have to not use singular examples;~

As a PvP player will generally not just be targetting one target (targets of opportunity and all), so it takes a PvP player 2 weeks to get their ship ready, with that ship they can target multiple non-pvp players.

Should it take 2 weeks for EACH non-pvp player to be in the same posistion as the PvP player? In the singular case yes, in the multiple case no.

As you go from one PvP player being able to attack multiple "defenders" (might be best term to use?) who each have put 2 weeks in to building their defences the time balance shifts heavily in favour of the PvP player.

Conversely you do not want the PvP player to feel like they have to spend all this time to get in a position ready to attack, to be left at the end of it being in no "better" position than a singular "defender" player. The PvP player has assumed the risk factor so should be slightly better off (the margin of how much better would be the crux of balance) than the "defender" assuming they can overcome the defences.

This game will be all about working together, so switch out "player "for "groups" if you would like, it does not change the example.

 

But exactly because of this, PVP is a touchy topic. All Sandboxes I have played so far are torn between the two player bases. The non-PVP people (miners,crafters etc, often dismissivly called "Carebears") and the PVP crowd. If you don't get the balance right, and make both sides welcome, feel like they have a place in the game and their playstyle is viable this can tore the game apart. I think more then one sandbox failed because of this. 
 
but they created the environment which makes this possible and even encourages it. You mentioned killboards before and those are a perfect example of this. There are players who only want to boost their killboard, they do not care if their target is worth it, has good loot etc.. They just want the kill to boost their killboard-ego
 

@Felonu
I couldn't have put it better myself. That's one of the main things that drew me to the game, is that in most interviews JC never really talks much about combat. Even when asked about combat, its more of an after thought, compared to all the other features. Its a stark contrast to the way most space game developers talk. Even on the website, the first thing you see in BOLD letters is "Dual Universe: THE CIVILIZATION BUILDING MMO ". You have to scroll down 7 pages, to the bottom, before it even mentions combat. An even then it doesn't says free for all PVP combat, it says Warfare.
 
I think every player understands that you will have the ability to kill each other. But, I don't think free for all PVP is Novaquark's main focus for DU, based on what they say. Ultimately, it will be the mindset of players who shape this game.
 
@Captain Jack 
The way I see it is, civilizations can only be build if there is stability first. You can't build on unstable ground or in an unstable environment.
 
Scenario 1: If players have no way of securing there build site an resources while working on a project, then what will happen is 90 percent of the player base will stay in the 1 crowded safezone, and the whole Universe beyond the safezone will become a PVP gankfest, with nothing but bases used like combat arena's for PVP. An eventually, gamers may feel DU is no different then other space games, not worth the monthly fee, and move on to another game.
 
Scenario 2: If players have access to good defensive systems (Shield Domes, Ion/EMP cannons, enemy/weapon detection, land/space Mines, etc..) and not just guns, then it should create a good enough balance that players can actually build civilizations outside of the safezone. Grouping up in a Organization doesn't help most of the time, Because you're friends/org mates aren't always online, and if you have to spend most of you're time chasing away griefers, and most of your money paying for protection, then you have less time/money to do anything else.
 
I'm very curious to see what DU becomes, because regardless of all the game mechanics, every MMO is shaped by the mindset of the playerbase.
 
 
 
 
 

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.

I never talked about adding regulations or anything else.  How much energy it takes to power a shield, and how much metal it takes to make a bullet are all I'm talking about.  You are right that people can be cunning and figure out better ways to do defense and offense, and that makes for better gameplay than the other: I have a 100 bullets that cost 1 unit of a very common metal and that destroys your shield that took 1000 units of rare energy source to power.  This balance exists because there is no way for it not to exist.  Like I said a lot will be determined where NQ puts the balance.  If people come up with good strategy and do a good job then they can shift the power toward their side of the spectrum, and that is what makes for good gameplay.  
 
My point was that we don't know where NQ will put the balance, and we'll have to see what comes from where they do put it.  Hopefully they think about how different resource costs of offensive and defensive measures will affect the game.

I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up.  The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game.  One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack.  This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful.  When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might.  It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy.  There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.  
 
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays. 

I think what makes DU so great is that at it's heart, it's about pvp and building.  And exploration, and trade, and harvesting, and community.
 
And you don't have to be into all of those things to enjoy the game.  But the fact that it has all those things will bring more players hopefully.  And I think we all know what really makes an MMO fun is the other players.
 
The game that got me interested in building was Landmark.  and while the building in Landmark was amazing, just building wasn't enough to make it a successful game.  And from what I see of PVP games out there these days, most purely PVP games are popular for a few months and then everyone moves on to the next game.
 
So we need each other.  And we don't all need to force our personal play style on each other.  We just have to give our money to NQ and then enjoy the game.

@Felonu
I couldn't have put it better myself. That's one of the main things that drew me to the game, is that in most interviews JC never really talks much about combat. Even when asked about combat, its more of an after thought, compared to all the other features. Its a stark contrast to the way most space game developers talk. Even on the website, the first thing you see in BOLD letters is "Dual Universe: THE CIVILIZATION BUILDING MMO ". You have to scroll down 7 pages, to the bottom, before it even mentions combat. An even then it doesn't says free for all PVP combat, it says Warfare.
 
I think every player understands that you will have the ability to kill each other. But, I don't think free for all PVP is Novaquark's main focus for DU, based on what they say. Ultimately, it will be the mindset of players who shape this game.
 
@Captain Jack 
The way I see it is, civilizations can only be build if there is stability first. You can't build on unstable ground or in an unstable environment.
 
Scenario 1: If players have no way of securing there build site an resources while working on a project, then what will happen is 90 percent of the player base will stay in the 1 crowded safezone, and the whole Universe beyond the safezone will become a PVP gankfest, with nothing but bases used like combat arena's for PVP. An eventually, gamers may feel DU is no different then other space games, not worth the monthly fee, and move on to another game.
 
Scenario 2: If players have access to good defensive systems (Shield Domes, Ion/EMP cannons, enemy/weapon detection, land/space Mines, etc..) and not just guns, then it should create a good enough balance that players can actually build civilizations outside of the safezone. Grouping up in a Organization doesn't help most of the time, Because you're friends/org mates aren't always online, and if you have to spend most of you're time chasing away griefers, and most of your money paying for protection, then you have less time/money to do anything else.
 
I'm very curious to see what DU becomes, because regardless of all the game mechanics, every MMO is shaped by the mindset of the playerbase.
 
 
 
 
 

RL industries have fared just fine even when much of their market is civilian. There will be demend for products without war thanks to civlian companies looking to expand their assets and people crashing their ships and such. This is especially true if machines have a limited lifespan.

I disagree that it has combat at it's heart.  Yes, PVP will be part of the game, but that doesn't make it the games heart.  Building is this games heart.  When JC talks passionately about the game he talks about coming together to build great wonderful things.  He barely mentions PVP most of the time.  It's the community that try to make PVP the most important part of the game.  I understand that necessity drives innovation, and that PVP will be a large part of the economy.  If you think about the real world though, most people don't fight for their lives daily.  There are parts of the world where they might, but most of the world lives in peace most of the time.  That is because for most people the risk of fighting over a thing is not worth the value of the thing.
 

@Aetherios
 
Yes, a lot of people from Eve are looking at this game for how it can be a better Eve, but a lot of people that have hated there experiences or never wanted to play Eve are also into the idea of this game.  
 
This game can and hopefully will appeal to those of us who won't even consider games that are balanced toward PVP because of our experiences with Eve.  If this game has the same player atmosphere of Eve, then a lot of the interested players will move on.  Those of us who don't like Eve want this game to be more than we believe that game could ever be.  We want it to be oriented toward building and growing a society together.  We don't want the entire game to be about war and destruction.  

I don't think that applies. 
 
Let's say you transport Kyrium from its source to a far of planet. 
If you can change price on every market at the same time why would you work with the local price at all? 
 
You would just make 1 unit price for all locations.