Jump to content

MarrrV

Alpha Tester
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MarrrV

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • backer_title
    Gold Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

414 profile views
  1. Note to all; Never insult someone you disagree with, it does nothing to strengthen a position, only undermines the credibility of the person casting the aspersions . Amendment to "Fact we know" above; "The is ONE safe zone" TO START WITH - dev in this very thread stated the will be more
  2. Sorry been not replying for a few days, had some migraines. The mindset of the playerbase is worrying for everyone I think. I, for one, do not want "NQ to do everything for me" I do want NQ to build a game (by supplying the code) that allows us all to interact with one-another in any way we see fit, but more importantly let no-one unfairly feel that one part of the game is being focused on more than any other part. This entire thread is discussing multiple different aspects of these "ways of playing". The is the debate that people should not be forced in to certain behaviours to succeed The is discussion of what metrics you use to determine "balance" (which in its self is debated as to what balance is, how you establish such a concept in an asymmetrical warfare system, and that the "human element" is not applied when determining the basis of it, as that is an unlimited source of variables) The is a large confusion, over the idea that some people do not want this to be X or Y, when it reality we are all wanting it to be a free-form as possible. I think we are all in agreement that what this game should NOT do is make players, be they veterans, or new players, feel unwelcome, because of the methods in which others choose to play. That will simply reduce the player count (Targets if you will) and reduce NQ's revenue stream. How to have a system in which repercussions exist; that it a tricky one because we do NOT want NQ to install one, so the conversation refocuses on it taking more "work" to destroy than to build, simply because if it takes equal or less work to destroy than build, people will stop building (&/or leave the game). This leads to less targets for PvP'ers to enjoy, a smaller world and a diminished experience for all. Which would make this fantastic opportunity we all have to shape a game pointless (and make me sad that we wasted a fantastic opportunity) I really am enjoying the fact that people are passionately debating this tbh Edit; re the mindset of players; If you create a game that makes PvP easy and encourages people to do it, you will attract PvP minded players If you create a game that makes building easy and encourages people to do it, you will get a lot more "builders" but still some PvP'ers. The issue would be that people do not like easy games, and it is focusing on one playstyle still. If you create a game that makes PvP challenging and rewarding, while making those building things feel like they have a chance (and it is a chance not a certainty) you will still get PvP players (personally I prefer a good challenging game to one that is easy) and you will get those who build the ships for PvP, and the targets for the PvP'ers to try to attack (but again it is try, for it is not a certainty either). The game needs to be a challenge for all, enjoyable for all and most importantly not feel like any one group is being favoured over any other (could use a issue in Elite:Dangerous at the moment for an example if you wish). If it was easy, the game would already exist
  3. @HadesGood point re defences first, think that is second nature to anyone who has played games like this by now Just I do not thing we will be building literally houses made of straw to be burnt down either. The example was just a good way of describing the issue via the metaphor of the house. @Forodrim Your right that this is a minefield, always has been always will be. People often, so I am told, have trouble seeing things from multiple perspectives and thus can not "see the other point of view". PvP needs to be a fun activity that is accessible to all and not restricted (too much?) while at the same time not putting off those who do not choose to engage in pvp unless forced to. The issue tends to the those attitudes of those are often contrary to each other. Thus a minefield.
  4. I note your denoting the player who is quitting as a "new" player. That is not necessarily the case, especially if spending hundreds of hours building his "house". The "burning down" was more towards griefers I believe than the "standard pvp player". Other than that, I agree with what you say especially as you have understood the separation from human elements modifying the outcome from the base.
  5. Yes, once you have established that "baseline" (or starting point) you then have the "human elements" that change the outcome. Being a sharpshooter (technically would have no affect if the shield was equally spread over the body) is a skill so would be a human element. Other non-human elements would include things like the environmental surroundings. Hence in a previous comment I used the term "lowest common denominator" (might not have been here, getting confuddled), which in a game things boils down to simply because the are no real world consequences of actions (or so many players believe, that is another whole, off topic, debate). So people get to do what ever they want.
  6. I think so? If it takes 1 man hour to create the gun and ammo and It takes 1 man hour to create a shield And EVERYTHING else was the same It would be a draw It becomes more complicated if I explain it further Technically as the man hour was used to create both the gun and the ammo the shield would still be standing when the gun ran out of ammo (the gun still exists) If the gun was then thrown at the shield, both the gun and the shield would "break" and become useless. Thus both parties are returned to the position they were in 1 hour before. Don't worry about misunderstanding, it happens a lot especially when we have people from all over the world, different native languages, alphabets and "turns of phrase".
  7. @Felonu Thank you, was struggling to think of the term to describe the variables stemming from humans, that makes it easier to type.
  8. 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.
  9. You are also factoring in additional elements, a baseline does not factor skill variances, or player activity in to it, it is a baseline of equal variables (skill, prescence). It is not about "getting your times worth" it is about feeling that your time is not spent "pissing in to the wind", which will cause players to leave, or not join, which is what we are trying to avoid surely? In the real world, they are somewhat endless (limited by ethics and situation) in a sandbox they are limited by the structure that has been built around it. Saying they "are endless"is only true if your actively developing the game code to make the opportunities endless. They are, inherently, limited by the code of the game and the developers scope. Of course not, but your putting additional variables into play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-hour A unit of measurement to work out efficiency of options I am normally very good at it, suspect the may be a crossing of wires to be honest; You are describing asymmetrical combat (again) Which I have said, is not what I am talking about. I agree that in "real world" (you know this is not real right?) combat is never symmetrical, but when your creating a system you need to create a basis of which to measure things from. That basis has to have as few variables as possible in order to most accurately measure what your trying to measure. Thus the "theoretical" examples I am been using. No they will not, but yet again that is factoring additional variables beyond the scope of what I am talking about
  10. Apologises, the way it read sounded like you were referring to my first post, not to my reply to you (not my first post) You know we are agreeing right? I literally said if one side thinks of a way to overcome the defences in a novel way tough luck to the other? You are also missing the idea that "1 hour between 2 people" =/= 1 man hour, it = 2 man hours. Your applying peoples skill, and other variables to the mix. Which is what is complicating aspects. The example with the m4 I posted above should illustrate what I mean. What metric would you like to use? As how a game "feels" is not measurable in a reliable format I see we are taking different attitudes; I want this game to be successful, with a strong player base that encourages all players to "get good" (god awful phrase btw) and not get totally disheartened when they lose something It sounds like you want a game in which you can smash whoever you see fit (fair enough) regardless (ends up with being limited target pool), which does does attract a lot of people, but they are mostly playing EvE Online already The fact that this is an open world sandbox game, you can do whatever you want. If your wanting to ask if it is ethical, that is not in the scope of the format currenty That is one way that people approach it, unfortunately it takes less effort in many games to burn someones house down than to build the house, so the house builders leave and you have a housing shortage. Zamarus has posted as has ShioriStein so will respond to those now, am a few posts behind, sorry!
  11. ShioriStein; Which is why you break it down to a common unit that is comparable.... As a common unit it is not 1 hour as a person playing the game, but 1 hour spent in pursuit of that particular goal. You seem to be mixing the concept of a "man hour" with the literal time spent in front of a computer. Was simply carrying on Zamarus's example Could just as easily be two ships fighting, or two people shooting at each other with guns, if you have a level playing field the sides should be balanced (if your both in the open with an m4 you both can kill each other) before you add tactics & player skill (however in m4 example one person is a marksman and knows how to blend in to the grass, thus has the advantage) As for the human nature of asymmetrical warfare; I am trying to find a baseline or more precisely debate how to work out that base line, adding asymmetrical elements in (like tactics) is secondary to the establishment of the baseline.
  12. Sorry for the time to reply I have had to break your wall of text up to understand your points. I was not replying to anyone in my first post, I was making a statement from what I gathered from the thread so far. We are all in agreement they the needs to be a good balance; no one is disputing that and yes stating that balance is needed is redundant, what is not redundant is discussing how to do it, the implications of it and how to measure "balance". I am trying to not offer a personal opinion as to what is balanced, I am trying to outline issues with not remembering that the games asymmetrical nature in resources required to do certain activities being represented accordingly. Unfortunately it is not, to rephrase; Use the unit of "man hours" which is commonly used to determine efficiency within the real world. If something takes 40 man hours to create, and another party can destroy that creation with only 20 man hours invested, it is not balanced as at the end of the day we are humans looking to invest our time in to an artificial environment for the purpose of enjoyment. The methods used in game are pretty much irrelevant beyond using a common standard. In the real world we use currency (old debate about currency just being use to represent man hours can be had). Tactical thinking will always allow for inventive methods to approach problems. That is fine, and should be encouraged. However that is getting ahead of what I am trying to explain. If you spent 40 man hours building your fortress that can last x length of time but did not account for the attackers having a novel or inventive way to attack, then tough luck. If you spent 40 man hours building your fortress that can last x length of time, but the attacker attack you in a expected manner, can manage to overcome your fortress with only 20 man hours of investment, that is not ok. I think your drawing on what others have said and are applying to what I have said, hence the clarification in regards to time frames; that the "2 weeks to 2 days" is trying to state is "time invested" needs to be balanced, or at least FEEL balanced. Adding asymmetrical warfare tactics to the mix is unneeded before establishing a baseline to work from, and as it is ALWAYS there (it is in our nature as humans) it should be allowed to happen in game, and ideally should NOT be balanced as that would remove from its very nature. (Rock paper scissors) The end result is not to make PvP "balanced" but to make it FEEL that all players are investing their time in something that they have a chance to enjoy. The inherent nature of open PvP is that people will have up & downs, that would "win some, lose some", but when it becomes "win most, lose nothing" or "win rarely, lose everything" you risk losing players, which only harms the game
  13. Apologises, it was simply how I read it. Now take a breath; I agree the should not be limitations on where PvP can occur, I never said otherwise, especially as you inherently accept a portion of risk by leaving the "arkship bubble". I am not adverse to PvP, I am simply taking a objective overview of balancing time investment from multiple sources vs expected outcomes. You also factor in risk vs reward as well as player natures and psychologies. The thrust of what I am saying, which seems to be missed, is that you have to have a balance which feels fair to all, else you will loose that portion of the player base. Without which the game will be hamstrung. I am not saying the method that needs to be employed (HP etc). Speculation on theoretical issues is kind of the way that people discuss things, speculation is inherently inaccurate due to it being speculative, that does not make it redundant. (Also I missed exactly where you said why it is redundant, will look back again but could be helpful if you link it please?) I agree warfare is asymmetrical and always should be. As for the cake comment... seriously?
  14. 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.
  15. While not able to give a definitive answer within time frames, I doubt anyone can as even if you brought a "Supporter pack" as soon as it became next available it would not give "pre-alpha" access, which is the phase that the game is currently in. How long for the game to progress from "pre-alpha" to "alpha" will be only known by the devs of the game (I suspect) and even then it would depend on how well the "pre-alpha" testing of things goes. Sorry I cannot give a definitive answer that your looking for, but the very nature of alphas, betas and associated phases is that they tend to take "as long as it takes". If you want a dev response I would suggest tagging one of them in using the "@" and their name, although I do not know how much they will like me for suggesting that
×
×
  • Create New...