MookMcMook

NPCs for blueprints is no doubt part of the economic apparatus. It's not PvE combat content. I'm sure NQ have auxillery ideas about PvE combat content... but like I said it's a non-starter for the next few years: Let's review how much money NQ has to make DU actually first of all work via the tech, increase the performance, THEN get onto the complex game systems ALREADY feature set as per the front page of the new website eg politics, combat (war) etc and THEN ensure they're FUN and integrate holistically with the rest of the game's systems over the long-term too. That's why I think Twerk's level of SINCERITY is admirable: It's actually conducive to expectation setting and useful ideas being shared FROM what the devs have actually feature set for the scope of the game. There's the categories that are non-starters and actually counter-productive:- * I want my own single-player server DU. * I want a complete F2P non sub payment for DU. * I want PvE AI combat because other players combat PvP is stressful to me. As much as everyone wishes for their own preferences for whatever reason, it's heedless to not check the FAQ (well the new one is under construction perhaps atm) nor meet the devs on their own terms. If I walk into a Steak House and start making requests for Vegan Food, what does that make me? We're not talking about what is actually on the menu. I suppose all the above preferences are a form of "special pleading"? Which is all I'm trying to point out, and believe to be the correct categorization involved here.

There's a certain amount of very USEFUL sincerity in Twerk's reply here: Let's base our ideas and our interests in the game with WHAT the devs have explicitly made clear is WITHIN the game's scope and "Vision Mission Statement". Anything outside of this, is a non-starter or a distraction: Nothing can be all things to all people, there has to be limitations, but given the design of DU what is within it's limitations appears to be truly mass scale scope of possibilities, more than enough for most people who are wiling to use a bit of imagination and a bit of effort to "connect" with others. The other critical point above, is the "connection as opposed to disconnection" of a suggestion with the economics in game, too. The old pve and pvp guises are limited categorizations here, they fail in context of systems with other systems.

This is an immensely helpful comment to clarify what perhaps the OP is asking for, or to define it more strictly the description of what is being talked about:- 1. AI Combat is very challenging to programme for the output of quality gameplay. 2. It appears there are many players who might find pvp combat stressful due to fighting other humans (for whatever underlying reason) whereas a dumb AI does not. This happens in board gaming too, interestingly. 3. PvE combat against AI is an attempt to solve the problem of mining pve (aka player interacting with the environment to secure resources) via some sort of AI combat stimulating challenging = reward of resources, without this apparently being a grind. Let's assume AI combat is a non-starter for the next 2-3yrs due to scope limitations and the fact it's not essential to the game design vision. In the absence how can resource extraction be made stimulating? Well apparently mining triangulation scanning skill-training will be interesting itself. Secondly purposeful logistics of organizations creating supply chains successfully itself will be very stimulating too? Thirdly this will lead to direct combat/pvp itself stimulating as well. Though of course stressful for those who don't like combat against other humans. All in all, there's some audience who want pve combat and it will be their loss to not have it, but I would say that is the FLIP SIDE to the main face of the game which seems on balance it will be more than adequate without such PvE Combat programming development work as per the extraordinary work involved for this scripted content from developers themselves: Which keeps in line with what the devs envision: No dev created structures bar the Arkship? I was also glad to hear JC in an interview point out to a question no "Halloween events" in game: The Virtual World of DU as per it's own background history lore is it's own rationale in game. I like that sense of respect for this creation and it's own internal coherence: This is great world-building ala "Mythopoeia" .

To add my own view, a lot of issues with ideas come from at least 2 major sources:- 1/ Number One: Defining the Scope and overall Game Vision FOR development itself (resource balance to success). 2/ The language of communication itself: Lack of rigour leads to lack of understanding and misunderstanding exchange. Let's use egs:- 1/ DU = "Civilization Sandbox Building MMO" + "Virtual World Simulation" The first bit is permissible due to the voxel objects the world is made of. The second bit is the player scope for behaviour themselves. Hence already looking at the second bit, AI and ideas of traditional PvE are moribund... AND outside the scope itself (Cost of PvE Content to longevity is aweful). Additionally the problem is not defining all the scope of human interaction ALREADY possible within the virtual simulation which I expect to be very wide already without need for "so-called extra diversity balancing of types of content" that is the inherent assumption in the OP. Which I'll assume, fairly safely from past mmoRPGs, again is less dynamic and longevity and diverse in any case. 2/ Let's now look at the language of communication of PvP and PvE. This is part of the problem as well as if this is the point to begin from. Both are apparently a subset of Combat interaction. Let's check: With voxels and lua we can build and script the environment/world and constructs. With mining again voxels we merge towards pure sandbox with simulation via the economy... All without any pvp or pve !!!! The language of pvp and pve is broken itself, limiting the exchange of ideas too. I guess PvE should be more clear: "A request for combat against AI objects". See scope. Combat should be destructive against player created Constructs and other player avatars themselves: Part of the Virtual World cycle itself as per the Game Vision: itself.

More jazz: And playing is knowing.

Ladies and Gentlemen... get ready tooo:-

The LUA scripts on screen for bespoke player-made tutorials? That might be stunning. A lot like player made "quests" but designed to teach and learn the basics effectively in more dimensions of gameplay. I really do think a stunning introduction to new players on Alioth will be worth it's weight in gold.

You may very well be right: Perhaps mining on Alioth's various (and suddenly numerous) moons?

Thank you Forodrim, that is a weight off my mind, overloaded with info as I currently am. Who knows perhaps Alioth itself could have zero mining, regulated building (imported materials) and zero pvp and expand the whole starter zone ; newbie experience to the entire planet (in time)? Or perhaps organizations might all agree to enact such a policy through sheer player-driven choice sans any special rules?

Yup I was one of those people who tried EVE (a very long time ago!) and despite it's great design, thought I'd prefer to hear about others playing it than play it myself. So how do many veteran players get to play for free via PLEX? Doesn't that lead to CCP losing revenue from these players? tbh it's been about 5-6yrs since I last looked at how the PLEX system works? As for DU, it has the building gameplay and it's looking incredible fun already because it's so multi-dimensional and stimulating... Easy: Get new players into a big built up spendiferous place buzzing with players high and low, palaces a plenty, kings a.... you get the picture! Get them building and having fun and socializing and buzzing with fun! Straight away looking at all these fabulous creations in a safe space *shudders at that phrase in rl!!* High conversion under such conditions I suspect. :-)

If I remember, some of the problems about EVE:- 1. Complexity for NPE (new player experience). 2. The EVE revenue model requires new players (older players can plex to zero cost?) 3. The best game play is huge fleet battles but these are extremely expensive and make the servers creak hence Time Dilation? So it's limited frequency. 4. The image of PvP gank-fest / ".xlsx the game" reduces the appeal to a significant segment of the mmo market without even going to step 1 from this step 0. Maybe there's more some other experienced EVE players might be able to summarize? Of course we talk about EVE because it's worth it, where it has problems it also has triumphs:- 1. Story generationDualUniverse/ 2. Emergent player behaviour 3. Social orgs 4. Scale is much bigger than other games etc Coming back to DU: With the innovative combination and use of new tech: I expect with the correct incentives and reducing the alienating pressures (similar to EVE) we might very well see a game with x10 (perhaps even more?) the total population of players / accounts / subscribers than EVE at it's peak. Let's just say x10 for the purposes of comparing rather than predicting. Even in this scenario what you see happening is a large proportion of those extra players gravitating towards building/creating/socially collaborative/cooperative (as opposed to competitive). This is good for everyone as @Falstaf just pointed out! It involves DU pulling off the new tech and positive design successfully, but as important avoiding problems already identified from previous games (not false 'positives' of negative outcomes either). As said the most negative outcome is empty worlds because of a disproportionately dominant dynamic that leads to extinction of the player base over time, irrespective of all the other positive designs. Personally, as per the AMA CvC answer: I can't wait to see a planetary war erupt involves hundreds of hulking Constructs (war of the worlds style) and perhaps thousands of avatars too. Life exists in motion, not in a static void: Where there is life there is problems.

Lol, you guys!

No, I know that's the current plan, but my impression is we'll see if/when to what degree they implement combat that affects the building game. Given how much fun gameplay the building and logistics will entail and the potential burst in popularity, is the basis I'm suggesting. I expect combat will be in the game somewhere, and will be tested and iterated too. But I'd be surprised if we do end up as per the current FFA plan outside of small bubbles. I guess it will stretch out longer: We'll have:- * 100% B : 0% C * 90% B : 10% C * 85% B : 15 C * ...... etc, Gameplay { B = Building, C = Combat }

Thanks Twerk! Awesome tech link (my programming knowledge is very shallow but I can follow code roughly). I do have a bro who works in software dev and has experience of Erlang/telecoms as well as other languages, which can be useful too. This is a gold-mine on EQN problems internally: https://eq2wire.com/2017/01/05/closing-the-book-on-everquest-next-and-landmark/ Indeed, SOE had lots of impressive tech, but they were fishing for investors much more than attempting to dev EQN first, ie they knew they needed money first to dev EQN, but did not tell the players they charged to play Landmark... and that was Georgesson's decision to split them apparently, perhaps it was intended to "play for time / EA cash" etc.

You guys are good company but please "tone down the snarl rhetoric": It's a form of fallacy away from increasing profitable communication, though perhaps forums and drama are both peas in a pod at this early stage?! 1. The social form of argument is the type: Two Explorers at the ends of the world in Antarctica: They are safe and snug in their tent/igloo, and one of them says: "To me Bach is the supreme Classical music... just poetic, bordering on the religious." The other explorer, colleague, demurs: "I disagree, as everyone knows, Beethoven reaches the highest heights and transcends everyone else." So the argument goes, and each person throws in more and more technical points and argument techniques and so by the end their argument is bordering on ridiculous dissertation-like lengths!! What's going on here is displacement: There's no outlet or problem to solve or enemy to defeat, so the explorers create a substitute and attack each other. Let's understand when the argument is not an argument but a social exchange. That said:- 2. From NQ pov, they probably want to ensure popularity is peak with the game's appeal. The biggest danger is an empty virtual world. I don't think we'll be short of things to do, those who are clearly far-sighted, ahead of the curve here already discussing the game! But others are not so discerning. 3. The building voxel and lua form of gameplay are "sandbox". This is a huge element of object manipulation, collection, design, creation, collaboration and purposeful function and use at a scale we've likely not seen. This I think will be far more popular than the other side of gameplay that personally appeals to me more, the virtual world side. So I think given 2 and 3 then NQ will seek ways to maximize the safety of players engaged in this type of sandbox gameplay and the PERSISTENCE of stored time/money in developing their personal creations and contributions (aka a form of self-expression in effect). 4. Add to the above SOCIAL interactions of creations eg buildings for people to live or simulate such eg space-stations, trading such is social activity as well as time/money exchange of value in different creation forms. Hence any sniff of PvP by such potential people will put them off. So PvP has to be handled carefully at the beginning. 5. the other side is the simulation gameplay such as in EVE that drives a virtual world through complex systems and player behaviours eg I don't make stuff: I go and take out others and take their creations: Very rewarding gameplay and using my brains and skill is the reason so! Th economy ties in the rate of exchange of value of the different incentives and costs that people choose through their behaviour. This is where emergent player-driven gameplay and story-creation post-hoc as per real life is developed: The Invisible Hand etc. What is the point of all these creations if there is not a cycle of creation, maintenance and destruction?! So these as per the sandbox advocates are equally relevant imo. If we want our creations to "come alive" then this is necessary to animate them. So, my impression is that NQ will start off DU with the building/sandbox side of things and probably come to a realization that this aspect is very popular and successful as well as a lot of work in maintaining it too. All the while they should be testing and developing combat systems to make that fun then considering how to integrate it via gradations into the game community already thriving in the sandbox game while this simulation layer is slowly formed and connected. And even taking one example of that clearly demonstrates that it's worth adding: Huge Fleet Battles are going to be incredible gameplay so long as their role ties in with the virtual world (and oc they're technically possible). I think that's a step-up in entertainment from a film fleet battle, so definitely progressive for a simple argument to make. The value in the game:- * money invested * time invested * economic exchange: potential and persistence * interactivity space and scope * social network organization complexity (pro-social = higher) * story generation quality and quantity * connection to (rw) culture: Creativity ps: apologies if my own tone is "dictatorial"; I tend to keep my mouth shut in rl, but when I speak it's from conviction and over-enthusiasm so no less imperfect either. pps: "wolf vs sheep" might be better "Lion Pride vs Water Buffalo Herd"?

Digging up various sources, it was a corporate sell-off. The tech was all incipient and the actual game development plan had no long-term provision as to how to "make it all work" - without huge external investment. Yes impressive tech, but impressive for marketing not actually developing a full MMO, hence the sorry saga of EQN -> LM -> 0 (note the scope implosion) from sales pitch to player experience. What seems so far interesting about DU: JC et al. appear to suggest they have a networking solution that works WITH the voxel data storing from modifications. This was NEVER apparent in EQN. So it's a HUGE difference if DU has this working. So agree with the above quote: In the end players were provisioned with a half-broken/developed demo environment in LM as opposed to a full game system around voxels and single shard massive virtual worlds.

Space as objective space. Space as in possible options of design to shape different game spaces for different players' subjective preferences: I've read JC point out he wants a virtual universe, and I suspect universe will include a lot more of universal/all than just a sci-fi game at some stage ? Though again, I really DIG the sci-fi theme of Dual Universe and the idea of simulating a world of humans recolonizing and ending up doing what we tend to do: Creating 4X outcomes :-P

The evidence says otherwise: If the above, then what other mmorpgs have done is zoned pvp and pve, as interestingly DU is *currently* describing eg 20km Ark radius. EVE has a finer gradation with it's .SEC systems. That or the evidence demonstrates the "anonymous internet deek-wad theory" (some great cartoons depicting this along with summary causes). Actually, it's fairly simple if you apply simple problem solving: "If a lack of consequences (this is the major input disinhibitor on behaviour) leads to anti-social behaviour from drive-by internet users" is the cause of the problem. Then as is well known, PREVENTING is far superior to TREATING as a cure to the problem... as said in-game mechanics treating the problem tend to fail. We come back to agency and the right to earn it leading to value systems. That can't be coded like skill-progression can be. Again money and time in economy also can be harnessed obviously. As can game design focusing on the experience model of the player and again opening up Social Agency options which merge with the META- of the community itself is my preferred suggestion though not the only option and not the simplest either. In fact, I feel there are strong positive reasons for attempting this which have knock-on effects to the game's overall "spell it casts on players". If the player expects a sort of Rust-like environment of FFA PvP then this becomes the norm expectation of values in the community becoming a positive attractor to MORE of these types of players !! And hence the opposite to people who like building and who would be very socially positive. Fortunately DU is going to be a vast Virtual World System, so there will be space enough for all types, eventually if a simpler prevention method is preferred as more obviously resolving the negatives as opposed to amplifying the positives... eg then it's a question of Star Gates and Barriers To Trade etc.

There's no question DU will be served best by starting with ZERO PvP and allowing builders to flourish first. Then working on graduated systems of PvP, not trying to control PvP itself (that cannot work) but putting up barriers and gates to the players who then gain access to PvP. We are afterall "rebuilding civilization" first of all. Bear in mind, those who "pvp the market" will similarly be motivated to dominate this system as well and as game-wide effecting for better or for worse. Voxel building too, it's a running joke that "flying penises in the skies" is the first thing players might try to build in game worlds.

Oh thanks for bringing that up, I'm aware of it but it serves to prove the point about social systems, incentives and economically driven behaviours. Kill boards of course support anti-social behaviour. But I was thinking more in terms of SOCIAL DIMENSION measures/metrics etc. We want a selective "evolutionary system" to mimic selecting higher socially respected players who then can be admitted to PvP gameplay, thus opening the door on positive criteria as opposed to it's opposite the anti-social criteria: Gankers, Griefers who get their payload too easily without social selection beforehand. It's just a theoretical postulation to this problem to explore, not promulgating it as a worked solution! I say this with seriousness: I want to PvP a lot if possible, but I also want it to be meaningful pvp within the logic of the game world itself and to the benefit of the community: Like you said PvP leads to "Safety In Numbers" effects as well as atmosphere of great danger and excitement in lawless areas and so can be immensely positive contribution. And in a simulation system it's mandatory as an economy sink. It falls within the ambit of Agency: Trade = Incredible scope of individual and group agency. Building via Voxels similarly. Combat again such powerful agency of interaction to bestow. DU will not be short for individual agency.

Excessively aggressive players over time in an evolutionary system would reduce in frequency, simply because of violent death rates and pressures on social groups to out-compete other groups via greater social success. Obviously with "immortality" this reduces the reduction of such behaviour in populations in persistent games for comparison. I would not be surprised to see building become very important gameplay in DU and the combat pvp gradually developed over a long period of time. Why not introduce a/c privileges and restrictions? Players in the game >2yrs can PvP along with other metrics: Community voting, social complexity produced? etc... spit-balling ideas here. Btw, I very much will enjoy combat, but I think large war decs along formal diplomatic lines and outcomes might be better in large sections of space with the "outer ringworlds /equivalents" and such like more lawless...

Very interesting thoughts. I think marketing of graphics has been quite negative on game design innovation and the amount of investment on graphics. It does sell though, see just shy of 180m of backer money for Star Citizen. You're right SC won't EVER get high player counts and I'm doubtful they'll even be able to get fairly high multiplayer counts and may even be in danger of flunking entirely. So for DU, I don't expect the graphics will be as major a concern as the "game space" explosion in expansion of possibilities we might see in this game. And once that happens and if sufficient players play, then their own investment in the game creates it's own precedence. See WOW for example. tl;dr: Graphics great for sales and immediate impact, the overall effect wears off fairly quickly in my experience. I still love well designed games from decades ago with a clever aesthetic eg Elite with it's vector graphics is wonderful along with it's UX and freedom. As for CCP, if they ever want a new and innovative MMO design that I think will be successful and accords with their own design of EVE and develops this design in another direction, then they're welcome to contact me. :-)

I don't know, without seeing it/playing it. Tbh, even then it's difficult looking at what seems to rake in money in the mobile market then you look at the gameplay and wonder how so many can play and pay such titles, that said I often see posts: "what's an eve for mobile game", "Oh you're after Hades Star" or some other title etc... so it could be off to a positive start, and the collaboration idea seems positive too. I'd be happy to hear of a new and potentially successful project by CCP though. Though seeing what DU is becoming, and seeing what that might do to the current incarnation of the mmorpg market...

Sorry if I've got this wrong, but I did look into a few things some time ago: I thought there was mention of CCP doing a mobile MMO (rpg?) with spaceships. I know nothing of the OP's source reference (nor bothered to check atm as I'm slightly sozzled and stuffed from xmas) but I wonder if the two are the same? Note CCP failed unfortunately with WOD, Dusk 50... and Valkyrie not so great either? Hell doing so many projects around the same time and no coherent vision perhaps was the problem? Mobile makes a lot of commercial sense... just throwing this out there:- https://www.playraven.com/press-release-playraven-partners-improbable-project-metro/ And: https://www.nextpowerup.com/news/38840/ccp-announces-mobile-expansion-for-eve-online/ Well if it's x1 job posting, then it well might be as per DESIGNER for mobile. The thing is your argument suggests for CCP to win big with their next title, then innovate big... but that's risky and not entirely the core rationale at stake here. Mobile they can innovate big in the monetizationfocus combined with the cool IP and confidence of the CCP EVE brand on the burgeoning mobile platforms. As a side, interestingly playraven are using improbable's SpatialOS for project metro next. That all said, what NQ are doing is really substantially game-changing in innovation... obviously the trick is: Will it be dang fun, will it make lots of money. I think the fun will be there, but the money is more tricky, ie it should follow but it does not necessarily which is the nuts world we live in I guess.

Thank you. Interesting, may open up all sorts of gameplay options. Space equivalent of deep-sea fish bioluminescence and camouflage.