MarrrV

see
 

The crisis of 2008 was caused by cheap money / credit loaned to subprime customers and the worldwide distribution of derivatives. So I don't think we will have anything like the 2008-crisis in DU. Unless we have a player-run banking and financial system in DU with credit / loaning, shares and derivatives of some sort. Or leveraged speculation on credit of some sort.
Most ressources in DU will be mined/created and then consumed for construction or as fuel. So there will be the lack of and oversupply/inflation of ressources and market crisis/collapse, speculation and all that what Lethys and Zamarus described for sure.
 

See https://www.dualthegame.com/en/news/2018/01/30/our-toughts-on-territory-protection-mechanics/
For further detail

@Zamarus  I understand what you tried to imply, but what you see as pointless or invalid might be just the opposite to someone else. You don't have to like it, or even participate in those discussions, but you don't have any right to discourage them either. The Good Ol' Boys Club in this forum is no doubt strong, but it's not divine.
 
If NQ delivers, I plan on doing everything the game has to offer. I'll likely suck at all of it, but excelling isn't really my goal. Having fun is.
 
As for the game, there is a belief that it will be "player driven" and "emergent" game-play will dictate how the game develops. Those buzzwords are the basis for much of the pro PvP arguments in this thread. Players will be allowed to do whatever they want, including ganking and griefing because in theory, if players don't like it, they can organize and fight it... which is really just the other side of a PvP deathmatch, but regardless, NQ decided that PvP won't be allowed in certain areas. They also said they would intervene if needed. So, isn't the whole PvP freedom already crippled? Why not do away with the safe zones altogether?

Emergent:
"in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent."
 
Emergent Gameplay: 
"Complex situations that emerge from simple mechanic interactions"
 
 
As many stated DU is NOT this first then that second...
 
Whilst a simple headline - like the one used above as an example - can lead someone to believe DU will be a building game first. You have to understand the whole in order to understand the meaning of what that headline means or is trying to portray...
 
 
So what does this mean?
 
Well, it means that during the first couple of months, maybe even years, the primary focus of the emergent gameplay maybe be building... and not in the sense that everyone is making it to be but as building (the process of creating - not physical items - but the emergent gameplay that will play the bigger part, of the later years of DU) the universe. You can't have warfare, politics, trade and pvp without having built the emergent player driven universe first. And sure, that building process can even entitle physical building of constructs as part of the building process of the "emergent universe". 
 
So again, while that headline in the website says "Building MMO" understand the context of it: DU is a "Civilization Building" MMORPG. What emerges from that... it is up to the players to decide when they interact with the simple mechanics of the game; trading, building, exploring and warfare. Who knows! Maybe it'll be more building of constructs, maybe the clashing of big empires and alliances, maybe it'll be a universe run by pirates full of pvp... The point is, we dont know what DU will be in the later years... we have to build that emergent universe ourselves and see what it turns out to be.
 
 
 
 
Cheers,
Comrademoco
 

The big problem is that destruction is so much easier then construction or protection. You(an individual or group) have to spend countless hours building and pay mercs(which I suspect will be costly due to the high demand) or guard it yourself 24/7, which may not be possible, while all it takes is a few people to just log in and open fire to destroy.
 And it seems like some people here are fine with this. I won't say any names but the real problem it seems like is the community's attitude towards the issue which potentially stems from NQ's *marketing* of DU as a "do-whatever-you-want" MMO (at least before the website change).

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.

@Hades I never say that it was, I stated the many other aspects of the game besides building, if you read my comment.
 
Also, I've stated many times before that the game will be shaped my the mindset of the player base, because thats the nature of a sandbox.

Dual Universe is a Civilization "BUILDING" MMO, as stated by Novaquark. It has many gameplay mechanics including voxel building ships, making habitats, and stations, Mining, Crafting, Manufacturing, Exploration, macro and micro Warfare, Territory control, etc....
 
This is the impression players are getting from this game. pvp is not the end all be all of the game, its only one, of many aspects of the game.
 

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

Yes, you can't have a single shard with people being able to run free killing others
 
Dom't force anything except for your will to harm other players. That is the definition of conflict: forcing your will on others when the parties have conflicting wills.
Destruction is inherently easier then construction. Its called entropy.  And balancing it contridicts:
Which will apply not only to cheaper armour but a shift in balance to favor defence.
 
Unless the mechanics make it so you can't counter them.
 
The real question here is: will thesw rules be strong enough?

At this point: we’ll just see.  PvP won’t be a ridiculous hard venture, nor will it cost more than defenses.  Building has always been the major capital resource sink and always will be.  Conflict will be the major asset resource sink.
 
At this point: Seems like people are taking small snippets and misconstruing it to feed their own agenda.  Myself included.

Yes, I can back this up:-
 
1. I'm assuming Building WILL be a bigger population of games players capture than PvP (reasonably from previous games)
2. I'm also assuming that the voxel gameplay if it works will be magnitudes more interactive adding to the above... (add lua)
3. Then I'm taking a basis of Building stuff that does stuff being the basis for a Virtual World with stored value(time/money and more from players) driving the growth of the economy, itself an enormous driver (incentives).
4. We know that with Player population growth you have World Size Growth which means more building required for complex large group sizes and dynamics and services: Manufacturing -> Processing -> Marketing + Services etc.
 
We can call this Social Cooperation and MMOs have barely tapped this to the Scale they're able to USP compared to other game genres.
 
From this we then move onto exciting visceral and vitality pressures on this from such as combat, market capture (aka market pvp) where a small(er) force can have a much bigger effect on all the above.
 
@Zamarus : Your sentiment: "absolute - trump => subjective desire..." leads to "globalization of this to "population who need to learn about protection simulation". This rhetorical misconstruction of my post which merely attempted to set some productive technical terms for language for communication. Eg Secondary does not refer to some sort of priority, it's merely the case of:-
 
* Proportional to player numbers
* Precedent to natural development of simulation systems
* Dynamic feedback system in balance of growth not stagnation or limiting factors.
 
In fact, to completely turn your rhetoric against itself: By adopting this progression, there will be MORE PVP - not less and more diverse likely hence too.
 
Will say your contribution has been effective in creating a busy forum post thread with multiples of replies, which is fun too, I enjoy the passion and respect everyones' views - I just believe there's more reward in successful communication happening!

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.

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?

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.

@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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

@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.

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.

 

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".
 

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.

@MarrrV Okay i now know your think, and idea too. 

You mean that if a gun and a shield, one man can create it but your idea is that that gun maybe take 0.5 hour to create but use it will cost your another 0.5 man hour, and with the shield it will cost you 1 man hour to create it but you seem dont loss thing when use it to defend again a gun right ? So 1 : 1 raito man hour put into 2 thing to againt each other is worth in time investment to it right ?

Well sorry to misunderstand you, i just put another factor but dont realize you only talk about 'equipment' factor all the time now. Yeb i totally agree with you this point, time invenstment for each should balance.