Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by virtuozzo

  1. Well fuck me sideways Hey Manny!
  2. In regards to the monetisation model and the F2P angle. Having facilitated between investors and the industry in regards to IPO rounds and the evolution of subscription models to hybrid/F2P, it isn't everybody's cup of tea. NQ is very right to be very careful in its considerations, particularly considering the sandbox foundations of its venture. F2P in an MMORPG venture is a subtle application of the same sales & marketing psychology which introduces cocaine to the whales in order to get everybody else hooked up on other variations on the type of trigger. In an environment where behavioural interaction is the key that comes at various innate costs. On the lootboxes matter, that is actually very simple. The user segments which are exposed to them, interact with them, are not the same segments (generally) as those which express concern about the concept (and the forms of implementation). It simply took a while for the proverbial parent to figure out the proverbial kid and talk with enough similar parents for the matter to surface to attention levels elsewhere. Plenty people warned in plenty places ahead or at introduction, but were ignored. It isn't a late reaction, it is merely so that it took time for perception to correct and receive a platform.
  3. Considering NQ will have to aim very well to create more than one type of momentum after release, settling for the same ranges strikes me as somewhat less than optimal. I'm sure NQ does its research on targeted demographics, but one thing on the evolution of EVE always stuck in my mind. EVE took off with younger rather than older customers. In fact, as the original playerbase segments grew up, so did the cost of CCP's sales & marketing investments go up to compensate for the factors of acquisition/retention of older players. With less time, but more money. Another big factor is how economies of scale is applied to accounts and account subscriptions. Over the years CCP was always smart with pushing those envelopes cheaply but effectively. Then again, I haven't paid for any account in EVE ever, which means I never developed the inclination to figure out optimal costing. I do like the idea that NQ want to aim for a slightly higher price level for the DAC than subscription. It's something which as a mechanism can have enormous effect on a sandbox, that kind of thing. We'll find out at some point. Things are picking up, but it is early yet.
  4. Never underestimate the level of organisation and preparation people will invest in for nefarious purposes. In truth, because a sandbox is a behavioural ecosystem there's strong stimuli for people to overcompensate in this. For some that will mean morality, for others shortcuts - which tends to present choices which can conflict with morality - of others or self. Only the very few seek the mud in all that. But a large segment will simply forego moral choices ... remember the gratification pull
  5. It is a sandbox. It is what you make of it. It's like a pressure vat filled with behavioural and social psychology soup. So while I encourage the effort, bear in mind that there will be people who will use that flag for nefarious purposes, who will ransom it, kill it What drives the sandbox is creating and sharing stories, experiences, perspectives. It's the balancing act in all aspects which does exactly that, people's choices matter tremendously. So, kudos, all the best. Fly happy, but be wary
  6. Welcome to the next universe You'll find it contains quite a few old souls from another
  7. The learning curve I referred to is that of human organisation and professional organisation, it's part of the development curve of whatever human groups put together. Ad hoc types won't bother, but smart ones will use out of game communications to facilitate community, collaboration, etc. Mumble, Teamspeak, Discord, all sorts of tools. If you put that in game, fine. But it does add a cost factor to game development. The question for NQ is whether that is worth it. In terms of precedent, it is notable that most of game community infrastructure uses non-game solutions these days. Even CCP Games pulled the plug out of its in game voice thing. It had a positive effect and a positive use in the beginning, but it couldn't stand up to tech competition and adoption rates. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather see NQ spend the resources on something else.
  8. It's just (restricted to) roleplaying anyway, so as long as people have a bit of common sense to not go overboard there's plenty room to have fun.
  9. That's just a learning curve, a community concept and a marker to differentiate between focus / form / profession / professionalism of organisations. I'd leave it up to players to pick their options. Don't provide an in game solution. Yes, it decreases tresholds. Yes an argument can be made in relation to new player experience. But it adds costs, it constricts the sandbox dynamic and it doesn't provide the kind of tech push needed to build communities that go beyond the pixels.
  10. Basically this is just roleplaying with available features within the dynamic of a sandbox.
  11. Can I have your stuff? Have fun!
  12. In EVE's it's prevalent because while there is collision detection, there's no offset, no cost to it. So bumping and ramming tactics aren't simply viable, they're wierdly applicable to many circumstances and target selections. It's something which really makes me wonder. NQ made clear there's not going to be any ramming as such. I get the idea, but there's still going to be collisions anyway. Even if it were to cancel out factors like speed, it still creates an effect which people will use. If it simply has an angle effect, that too. I suppose I'm just not seeing how within what is currently known of the physics model there's not going to be room by default for such things unless there's a cost attached to it.
  13. AI in a sandbox? We'll have to build it. I seriously doubt that we humans would create an AI with a mind to but serve. Let's be honest, human nature. Even if we didn't screw it up, the moment the thing becomes self aware and looks at its creator it's bound to go "oh boy, no ffing way, be gone with that shit". Everything else, learn to sandbox It's not the only game based on this concept. If you want an empire to yourself, by all means. Create it. Lots of people try to play with just themselves (this probable came out wrong, but I trust people get it). But the idea that you can do this and be left alone is not compatibel with the sandbox concept. In truth, the point is that it's a pressure vat of inescapable behavioural psychology. Doesn't mean that you can't dodge interactions, it's a big universe. But there's only one guarantee: the sandbox rules.
  14. It makes for meaningful choices and storytelling. Which is exactly what makes the sandbox work and grow. Choices, actions, consequences. We all take part in exactly this. But it also because of these reasons that no sandbox should ever have arbitrary mechanical concepts that "pause" or "limit" it.
  15. Sure. But keep in mind there's never any magic guarantees. In life itself the Red Cross and its alternate services get shot at, get kidnapped, get ransomed and so forth. A sandbox is what people make of it. Personal perspective, if on a battlefield I were to encounter someone who puts up a flag of neutrality I'd include him in the target list by default. There's just too much meta and tactics possible to warrant the risk. Plus, there's also the part of storytelling. Even if an organisation would be party to some type of accord, conditions of war, combat and other types of conflict would quite simply go over any such stipulations. Just common sense.
  16. Let's talk about this again when people develop the technology to create planets and the first science team puts the prototype of (that's not a) moon together. That said, I do wish gravity would be part of the physics model. Same as solar storms or gaseous drift. But that's just me having had a look at Starborne's gravity pull concepts.
  17. Torque only makes real physics sense in air/water environments. Not in space, there vectors are prime. Also, NQ isn't going to require players to become professional pilots or mathematicians just to fly and move around....
  18. For one, I'm hardly going to be alone Teamwork takes care of a lot of things. On top of that, I sincerely doubt it'll be 6 months on the ground. I will be very surprised if we spend more than 6 days there, then having one day of rest and taking off the morning after that. Serious though, in a sandbox a huge part of getting things done comes down to economies of scale and optimisation. Even if getting up in the air might take a bit longer, there's both a development and an efficiency curve to it, offsetting ground / water based infrastructural requirements or mobility alternatives. Especially as for a lot of us the point will be to get up in orbit and take it from there. Keep in mind that a lot of experimentation can already be done in alpha and beta stages. The learning curves aren't that big a part of challenges.
  19. Missing the point: it's a sandbox game. Think of it as a pressure cooker of human behaviour, where the soup requires each and every type of behaviour to interact. So, no. Not gonna happen. Not ever.
  20. Welcome - and somehow that's two more names that ring a vague bell in memory, heh
  21. I'd agree. But something's nagging in the back of my mind. Sandbox and NQ's statements on raw economics in relation to what is currently known of potentially available game feature scopes. It's quite possible that they would take a page from the book of real life (tech curves, socio-economics, technical economic models etc) they would open the door completely and leave the door towards a programmative niche entirely open. Not only would that present a rather unique approach in this industry in terms of game development, it would also expose people's behaviour in the sandbox on a groupthink level to the same impulses and choice challenges we see in our own interactions with such mechanisms in the real world. While fear of that is perfectly understandable, it is not something NQ would not be able to provide its players the means with to face such choice challenges and deal with those. Truth be told, it's something that would very quickly take the reigns from EVE away in terms of potential / attention / research opportunities in relation to virtual economics.
  22. That's merely the one account. EVE's always been an ideal dynamic for professional schizofrenia It's something I am very curious for in DU, how NQ will handle multiple accounts and identities. I think it's fair to say that in any sandbox there is meta. But one thing I have learned in EVE is that at some point the ability to go nuts with multiple accounts starts to negatively impact the value of experience and the meaningfullness of stories created. From what I've read and heard NQ is very aware of the importance of community and communications. DU isn't at a point yet though where this is a big factor. It could use more exposure, but that's a different topic. And perhaps it's even good to have less exposure during alpha. As I said, NQ is in a good position to not reinvent wheels and stumble in the same pitfalls. Truth be told, I like the building concepts as currently outlined. It is a subtly different driver of behaviour than what's available in EVE, and I do think this will provide a lot of strength to DU. Particularly since CCP is moving away from these kinds of gameplay drivers. Here's a big advantage for DU, no matter what people have done or what stories they have made in EVE, DU does not have those yet. Even to someone who's seen and done pretty much everything everywhere in 15+ years of EVE (from tanking Concord in M0o to CA, Burn Eden, BOB & ASCN, PA, Xetic, PH to Code and the rest) that is something very attractive. Maybe even particularly to someone from such a background.
  • Create New...