Sigtyr

The argument whether there will be a 3rd person view or not is moot as JC has said in one of the GSN interviews there will be.
 
I think there needs to be a clear definition of what 3rd person view is in this case. For me it is unlocking the camera POV from the players head looking forwards to being able to move and zoom the camera 360 degrees and in a reasonable ranged half sphere around the player or construct being flown as the focal point. That would make sense and IMO is a requirement for the game to succeed and be viable for content creation.
 
Another thing is being able to completely disconnect the camera from the player and have it literally act as a separate person/entity being able to move away and observe events miles away from the player location. While I personally would not have any issue with it and can see a lot of cool use for it, I can see how that is something that impacts strategy and PVP in a way some may not want or think is unfair. As a compromise I could see availability of this mode being controlled through rights management and require a TCU to be active for your org. The range of the camera would in that case be limited to the edge of the hex the TCU controls. As a balance activating this would mean activating it for anyone in the claimed area.

Hello all. I've come to this place of all the places to choose to confirm I am in fact.....real?

Anyways, hope everyone reading this is having a good morning, afternoon, or evening.

Hey, I'm Himoverthere. Looking forward to meeting all of you

I also came from Landmark. I bought the Alpha and had to upgrade to get it to run but I am finally able to play. Unfortunately I am needing some guidance on how to play. If I could get any help I would greatly appreciate it. 
 
I built the house in the picture based on a home I found online. I wasn't able to finish it but I was able to get some screenshots before the game shutdown. I have some more of the backyard if anyone wants to message me to see them.

So is every one scattered all over the place?
 
Do we have a  guild, or a place where most of us are playing?
 
Also my build from landmark,  The queens castle!  
 
 

Really? I have never seen a game that requires 24/7 attentions, or maybe have they all failed hilariously? I think NQ is wise enough not to attempt that because hardcore players in the end, are minorities
 
You would be dreaming to believe that they designed NQ so people need to play it 24/7
 
 

Well, not everyone would have time and energy to deal with things like this, you are definitely one of the lucky ones that can group up quickly and stop the griefing, most, especially casual players who's simply just here to play and enjoy, would just complain and leave and it wouldn't take more than a few dozens for NQ to start swinging ban hammers, and that's not exactly a solution either (see how quickly Conan Exile's population drops when griefers abuse the bugs and made everyone quit the game), especially not a P2P game
 
Again, I'm not saying a Karma system would completely solve this, but it could have a chance rather than letting them freely roam and attack until last person left on server. In BD you lose the most precious thing if you are neg karma and dies (drop enchantment level) and we certainly could have something similar, something that makes people fear to go full neg and plan their attack carefully

Wait until someone claim all 6 hex around your city and no one in your city can get out
And wait until an org camps your base all day long, kill you again and again everytime they see you until you quit
And wait until an org camps the starter planet and kills everyone that tries to get out
Wait until an org finds your temporary resurrection node in a pvp zone, kills everything except that and force you to repeatably spawn and gets killed
the list goes on...
 
People need to realize that without a rule, a game fails quickly and soon you will have to find your own friends to kill because no one's left to play with you.
People who calls those anti-griefing system "nanny system", are the ones who wants grief everyone, but cries so hard like a baby when they get griefed, or if they have to do any kind of pve grinding to get to a state when they can properly pvp, I usually call them the "pvp kids"
 
If you are those teabaggers who called the enemy "noobs, ggez" after a matchup then I don't have anything to say. This is DU , some are here to play, have fun and enjoy the game, and some are just here to commit crimes they can't do in real life and they are the first I will block if such feature is implemented
 
 
If you want to cause chaos, sure, you can certainly do that! The "Nanny System" isn't going to stop you from doing that, but you won't 100% get away with every destruction you do, like hit and run
 

@blazemonger Once again you are attributing to me something i never said and arguing a point i never made. When I say the game wont be safe your response is essence is you probably won't die. Probably is not 0%. In other games you are 100% safe to mine, 100% safe to play the game loop(at least from other players). Not 99.99999% safe. I am not afraid of any type of player dominating the game. And never said i was. I'm "afraid" about the disconnect between the world NQ is putting out and the world I think they will get. The game can work with lots of pvpers everywhere or lots of p+e players everywhere. With things being safe OR nothing being safe. I'm ok with all of it. The game world should match the game they want to make. If they want it to be a civ building game first and pvp second then the game world should not be structured the exact opposite. PvP in 99% of the game world with small protected areas.
 
It is also odd to me that you accused me of knowing the pvp systems etc which i never said i did. My entire argument is games that allow open world pvp tend to be dominated by it and that runs against the civ style game NQ sometimes markets. That's the beginning and end of my argument, because as you stated we don't know anything else about combat. Your entire post, for it to be true, has to make huge assumptions about how game play mechanics work. You are assuming you can easily hide from those that want to kill you because the world is so large. You are assuming that the game play will support this style of game yet we know nothing of why it will be that way. This is YOUR argument, that I couldn't know the details of the pvp system. Yet somehow you KNOW you can hide. My point does not require any of this, it only requires the clearly stated position of NQ towards pvp and p+e zones.

@Borb_1 I appreciate the way you discuss things. As to your first paragraph, this would be the exact opposite of the stated position NQ has right now. They have stated if you want to gain something of value it must come with risk. The Moon Safe zones, clearly stated, will have NO resources in the ground and the arkship safezone is too small to be relevant in mining for the long term(i don't know if they have provided a clear answer to what resources will be in the arkship safe zone). What your saying in this first paragraph is pretty much what i am saying NQ should do to get the game you are stating DU is. Which is provide the complete or near complete P+E game loop to players with no threat of PvP. So i guess i kind of agree with this.
 
Neither one of you have actually answered the question I asked. You talked about why it SHOULD be the way you say. Why the mechanics of the game, that none of us know, SHOULD lead to the P+E base you say. The point I am making is if primary P+E civ building is the game NQ wants, why implement stuff that SHOULD make it that way instead of implementing stuff that DOES make it that way. This game is vastly different then other games so I agree none of us can KNOW how it will work out(keep in mind you are both saying this is a civ game as if you KNOW it will be). But the question neither of you answered, if you have the opinion that this should be primarily a P+E civ building game with a smaller PvP top:
 
"why have the game world as PvP with P+E zones, and not the opposite?  Why force the PvP in to the P+E game loop? "

Hey guys...we're using this Thread to connect actual Landmark-Builder fans...not to hurl fecal matter at each other like monkeys in cages.  While many like myself were drawn in by the lure of EQ-Next (I do desperately want another GREAT MMO to come out) that doesn't mean the creative side of my personality didn't show thru with my creations.  I very quickly became a fan of just building.  Heck, i'd have loved an EQN World where i was nothing more than an architect for guilds to hire and construct their...whatever.  Castle/keeps/homes/taverns whatever.  Learning how to use the sandbox became the game for me and it was just fine for that.
 
For all the problems it had, there were a hundred great things it also did and i'm posting these NOT TO PAT MYSELF ON THE BACK but to prove a point.  If you or your friends or your enemies are going to sit there and say, "Landmark was garbage you could do nothing with it" then how do you explain the items myself and many other far more talented builders made???  MY personal stuff was by no stretch of the imagination "the best" - there's at least fifty other players that i can think of almost instantly who could out-build me with their eyes shut.
 
But there it is.  Here's what *I* built using "That broken piece of dung Landmark that nobody could do anything with"
This build was wiped in Alpha and re-built several times but this is my first recording of the overall structure:
 
 
This next vid was *not* the final version - but it was the final version i vid-grabbed.  It's the same "Keep" as above but several months have gone by and quite a lot has changed.
 
 
Don't like square corners, blocky structures?  How about something a little more organic like my Kerran Monastery?
 
 
 
VERY VERY VERY Few props were used in ANY of my builds - with the sole exception being the "Monastery" where there was the clear need for an over-abundance of plant-props and other sundries.
 
Everyone knows DBG crapped the bed when they fired everyone worth a hoot - everyone with the dream and the drive to make EQN - THOSE were the people who killed EQN, not SONY.  SONY stopped development on it because they didn't want 20 mil in debt on their books when trying to sell off their game-development division...NOT because Voxels are stupid or unusable or whatever...and oh BTW the Enterprise?  Uses ZERO "Voxelmancy" - that's pure built with the built-in tools.  Don't tell me what i know.  I know what i know.
 
As for Voxel manipulation how bout this?
 
 
My train set wound up being a collection of 12 cars each built where nothing is what it appears to be - all of the voxels were offsets or insets or inverted or turned.  Had to in order to make it work the way i wanted rather than the way the Voxel-Farm intended the voxels to be displayed.  Is that breaking the engine?  Or is that expanding it?  Did i build this using nothing but glitches???  DONT TELL ME WHAT I KNOW.  I KNOW WHAT I KNOW
 
Sorry everyone - i'm so sick to ()*#)ing death of the general public ragging on LM simply because they're mostly made up of instant-gratification-required individuals afraid to work their brains a little to figure things out.  Just sick and yeah tired.  Can we please, PLEASE stop with the LM bashing????  
 
I posted these videos to stand up and say to those who made/make those claims, "Yes. You CAN do this.  THIS was made USING LANDMARK and by someone who doesn't know the first thing about "voxelmancy" (I always hated that term btw...called those peeps "Voxelnancies" yeah i'm a child get over it.)  Sure a lot of my builds used fancy bits n pieces all of which i was taught by those specialists i'm referring to.  Were it not for their help, i'd have figured it out - just would have taken a lot longer and hooking up with other builders was actually kind of fun from time to time.
 
Ok stepping off my soap-box now.  PLEASE lets stop with the LM Bashing.  Let the old girl lay in peace.  PLEASE.
 
We're very quickly going to embark into a new world where sandbox building presumably has no limits...we'll see.  We'll see
 
-LK
 

@Anopheles
What you are saying is not really unique, there is many like yourself and that's fine.. You'd come across them in the threads already here.
 
But anyway. since were here and were already getting the usual arguments on this here's my thoughts.
That DU will have non-consensual PVP outside of the safezones is fine. That some seem to think that implies you should be allowed to just put up a blockade and shoot anything getting out of the safezone IMO is not. That some seem to think this means you can just gang up and attack/destroy anything or anyone who is doing anything outside the safezone is also not fine. DU should not become gank central. DU is a social, community and building game with PVP elements which I believe will be implemented to provide a means to resolve conflict when diplomacy fails. ARK style 'wait at the exit and shoot anything coming through' will very quickly kill the game and thus the content you seek.  
That said, from the little we know DU mechanics (for combat) really do not lend themselves well to EVE style ganks and will require actual organisation, command structure, planning and proper execution. I have yet to see any org that gives me the idea they can pull this off but some will try. No 'Wait for it ... press F1 to gank' in DU which is good.
 
Personally I do not buy into the 'all elements of DU are created equal' as some do. I expect and believe DU will focus around community, building and expansion. With that comes the need to have the ability to go to war when you have to. War is not a goal in DU, it is a tool/a means to an end. As such combat, I believe, will be implemented in such a way that it serves the purpose it is intended for and by that definition it will not be a primary function/mechanic in DU. Some, like @Lethys will disagree because it is a focal point for them which I understand and that's fine obviously, we'll see how this develops.
 
Frankly, I  see way more opportunities and profit using PVP in other areas such as markets and economy. Large scale PVP conflict will often be triggered/set up by events benefiting the economy and the players active there, much like in EVE.

The thing about PVPers especially pirates, is that it's a low effort - high reward situation.
As natural,pirates profit from other people's hard work.
So if stealing another man's cargo is not considered a high risk situation,we risk running into a gameplay inbalance.

The first half of your post sounds awesome.  Welcome.
 
As for the rest.  It kind of seems like your setting up an argument where there isn't one.  If you like how DU is currently planning to handle PVP then awesome.
 
If you don't understand why people would seek to restrict a free form sandbox.  I can explain that.  It's because they aren't interested in PVP sometimes, or at all.
 
We don't exactly know everything about how PVP is going to work yet but it sounds like NQ has a pretty good plan to me.
 
But if the kind of sandbox that you are looking for requires 100% unrestricted PVP.  Then you're asking NQ to chase away an entire category of player just to provide cannon fodder for a specific type of PVP player.
 
That doesn't make sense to me.
 
Why do all PVPers have to be pirates anyway?
 
More PVPers need to step up and start roleplaying as mild mannered traders, who are secretly armed to the teeth.  What's the fun in attacking me while i'm trying to build something anyway?
 
 
 
 

Considering they went free to increase the playerbase, I'd say it stands.

Old Landmarkian here, both me and MaryCath are looking at Dual, it seems to have huge opportunities to become something LM never managed to be. It is of course also possible for it to be another "Mongol Horde" Simulator. Have not bought access yet but we are looking at it.

Old Landmarkian here, both me and MaryCath are looking at Dual, it seems to have huge opportunities to become something LM never managed to be. It is of course also possible for it to be another "Mongol Horde" Simulator. Have not bought access yet but we are looking at it.