virtuozzo
-
Posts
77 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by virtuozzo
-
-
2 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:
Here is how we view the situation at Novaquark: monthly subscription model has been on the decline due to nearly no clear innovation in the MMORPG industry during the last decade. As new MMORPGs had to offer something different than those already well settled in the market (World of Warcraft, EVE Online, etc), if they weren't going to offer something really new, they had to be different on another level: monetization model. That's how the Free to Play games wave began. Many marketing representatives said many times that "Free to Play" was the future and most people believed it. Inconvients of such model were put under the rug... for a time. The question "Is F2P good or bad?" is irrelevant. Free to Play is a good monetization model good for some kind of games. We just don't think MMORPGs is among those. When you aim to have a game lasting for decades, you need to have steady income for decades as well. Free to play game incomes are too fluctuant, especially because they rely on the success of cosmetics (which is a everlasting gamble for a company as no one knows for sure in advance if players will love the new cosmetics and how much income it will generate before they hit the shop) and lootboxes.
Ironically, there has been recently a huge witch hunt about lootboxes. While we totally understand the reasons, it's a bit surprising that this problem has been exposed only recently, as lootboxes are as old as the Free to Play model and represents nearly always a (very) large part of F2P or B2P game incomes. Surprisingly, with this kind of monetization now forbidden in a growing number of countries, discussions about monthly subscription model are a thing again for many studios and publishers.
Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.
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 hours ago, blazemonger said:
If NQ follow CCP in cost a monthly sub would be €15 with DAC at €20.
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.
-
5 - 10 Euro will be fine tbh
-
"Hello"
-
6 hours ago, Warden said:
A good point. A comparable scenario:
In DayZ on a private shard with RP elements and player factions (that you prolly don't see as much or distinctive on your average public server), you basically had this overrun or lost province of a nation ravaged by zombies, where various people and factions try to get by, from government / military remnants or loose units to average people, from locals to foreigners, to crime people or outright terrorists, raiders, savages and anything in-between and perhaps not mentioned.
In some reports I received some people put on cop uniforms (or soldier uniforms) and held people up or spread terror. That particular group simply did what they wanted within the ruleset: they held random people up if they wanted to, spread chaos or terror, fought other groups, had a "murder boner" for any state remnants and generally were a thorn in the side of many people. They didn't do it often, actually, rarely, but as someone playing a separated cop in that setting and rolling with military remnants, you can imagine how tricky your work or damage control can become if 'the enemy' starts to wear your colors or "flags" and tricks or abuses others with those.
Long story short, if it can be done, it will likely happen. In such games where there are in theory no real limits in what players will be able to do, I have to actually ask who really expects people to play along according to their expectations or moral compass with so many players and factions later interacting with each other.
There's always the more criminally or chaotic players and player factions in such games and DU would be no difference. It would be foolish to assume no one would potentially try it or actually DU it, but it would be pretty good to expect this and plan along or simply 'accept' the possibility. That's part of emergent gameplay. Maybe it'll happen randomly or rarely. Maybe some group starts to actively or constantly try to do it. Then, you might have several options, including trying to apply pressure on them to change their ways, get them blacklisted in other groups due to such crimes, etc.
A living and breathing world - where anything within the technical parameters or social frame of the game could happen or not. But most of that depends on the players, if not all.
In short: (Some) people will simply play dirty or try anything to achieve some goal, annoy or trick others. That's just how it is.
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
-
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
-
Welcome to the next universe
You'll find it contains quite a few old souls from another
-
3 hours ago, Davis said:
It's not really a learning curve, that suggests it can be mastered with time. Without a way to communicate with you troops, squads and fleets instantly then you are putting your players at a disadvantage. If this was your average MMO with questing with a max of 10 players in your squad then I'd agree, Discord is fine. But what happens when the Terrain Union mobalizes it's entire fleet of (just guessing) 300 enlisted troops and flies out with 190 ships? You can't slap them all in one discord channel, and you can't tab to switch between channels and honestly typing just isn't a viable communication channel in a PVP situation where every second counts. Have direct voice comms with either just people in your organization or people in proximity is a must for a game like this, it's completely about efficient communication.
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.
-
51 minutes ago, dw_ace_918 said:
@Warden I understand your point, how in game responsibilities can be tantamount to a job. I guess where I define the job vs fun time aspect is the motivation and purpose behind why I am doing something. Although I enjoy my job and like the people I work with, it is a job and I do it for income not fun.
Now, I play games on my own terms, to enjoy myself and socialize. When it is no longer fun, I find a different game.
The big factor in how this game will look on this scale depends on organizations. I do not intended to slave for some organization. I would be happy to pay a tax to be part of an organization that promotes player freedom and provides various functions such as justice, military and leadership. In such a case, my involvement would have to also be voluntary, otherwise I could focus on building my own business and enjoy gaming with others.
In any case, I guess my ultimate point in this thread has nothing to do with this specifically.
The game should not be like a job, so we where discussing how organization structures and features could help make the game as a whole more enjoyable as well other tools and features we hope to see from dev in regards to organizations.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Davis said:
In-game voice would be nice to have for battle. People will say discord is the way to go, but when you get fleets of 100 plus kids it'll be hard to communicate clearly.
Something similar to Squad would be ideal, but I'm not sure on how applicable that is in this games coding.
Or just local voice comms would be good to talk to people outside of your discord channel when you see them. Text is great and mandatory but in my experience having comms allows for fast communication versus typing it all out.
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.
-
Basically this is just roleplaying with available features within the dynamic of a sandbox.
-
Can I have your stuff?
Have fun!
-
4 hours ago, NanoDot said:
It remains to be seen what kind of a thing bumping will be in DU.
It was widely used in EVE (still is ?) to interrupt ships spooling up for a warp jump. We don't know yet how warp mechanics will work in DU, so we don't know if those tactics will work in DU.
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.
-
On 21-5-2018 at 10:14 PM, MaximusFireFight said:
When I first saw a video about this game, I was absolutely crazy. I felt immense excitement and thrill at the idea of such an immersive space business. But I had one issue nagging at my mind. I love..LOVE the player interaction, but there does not seem to be any other way to play it. It seems you HAVE to rely on others to grow any larger than a small business. There should be AI that can manufacture, defend and complete tasks on their own. I want to be a one man empire, or at least only have a small knit group of trusted allies. I quite honestly hate the idea of having to rely on an army of other players for several reasons. While AI have no other mind but to serve, players are ALWAYS looking to grow and rise in the chain of command. Betrayal is 90% a possibility, and 100% possibility if given enough time. Every user is only loyal to themselves, and while I can understand it, I am also frustrated at this downside. I might be wrong? Maybe there are ways you can run an empire with only AI? I also understand this may take away from the fun, but everyone is different. I am sure there are people here that are like me, who like going slow paced, and running a business. In my point of view, having to worry about being betrayed by other and looking over your shoulder or trying to command hundreds of other players..it is impossible. I am not criticizing the player to player format..not at all. I just wish there were more options for people like me, who want a more AI running business. Of course I still want to interact with other players and deal with others and go to war with others, I just want an empire to myself. If there are advanced AI and this option is available, please by all means set me straight.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Warden said:
I've seen the underlying argument a few times here so far, if my memory doesn't fool me right now. And of course I must admit that:
1) the abstract risk is there and that
2) it all heavily depends on the situation, all involved actors, the circumstances, etc
But at the same time I can imagine situations where there's absolutely little to no threat involved just having a "third (neutral) party" drive by or be in the area temporarily to do whatever they do.
My point or appeal is that you later on may not have to automatically shoot anyone else not on your side (a third party) due to potential risks. There isn't always a real threat in any encounter or situation. Say you have someone wave their neutral or white flag. They are at a distance, not running over to you. What threat or risk is there? Them working for some hostile side and telling them how many you are? They're further away and perhaps do not move closer to you, but keep distance themselves. By that point they see what they can see. If you engage them it won't change much or perhaps they see more of you, making it "worse", potentially. By the time you both acknowledge each other, they could already transmit said information or just your general presence is my point.
Again, it all depends on the situation and all that jazz in the end, no doubt, but my key point is you don't have to always shoot anything not on your side and supposedly neutral in some conflict or area, just passing by or minding their own business. Chances are they are indeed neutral or do not want to get involved in combat.
You can of course also engage (yes, I know, depends on who, when, situation, etc
) any third or neutral party because they can be a potential risk or threat, but that will likely not net you any flowers in the long run.
I would never underestimate public perception or reputation, assuming you do care about it at least a bit on the larger scale. I have seen countless examples where very reckless factions raided or engaged or tortured anyone and their mothers in games and that brought people against them in alliances, pacts, coalitions, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it's quite fascinating, isn't it?
Think about it. Any decision or action you take or do not take can have lasting effects. I think that is causality in a nutshell. Will engaging that third party in a situation be helpful? Are they spies? Could engaging them prevent them from relaying more information, assuming you can destroy them locally?
What if it is a bad move and you pissed off the wrong people, leading to a huge decline in public opinion and new enemies? What if those ripples and decisions lead to, in a worst case, complete destruction of your organization (dissolved)? Or what if you did the "right thing" and guaranteed operational security at least for that particular operation or battle?
What if either decision (ignore or engage) doesn't lead to any notable result or change in the big picture?
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.
-
On 24-5-2018 at 11:43 AM, Lethys said:
You can make a ramming ship and you can Drive it deep into another construct and then it will.....bounce.
NQ doesn't want us to build cheap engines with armor to kill other constructs, that's no fun and certainly brainless.
So .. bumping is a thing?
-
On 24-5-2018 at 3:47 PM, Immortal Prospect said:
So this is an idea based on WWI-WWII Hospital Ships. Most people wouldn't fire on them due to the red cross on the side. So this is my Idea:
Should there be somewhat of an established neutrality sign to put on the side of a ship to say it isn't part of any side in a current conflict?
Ex: Two major powers are fighting over some planets with a lot of rare materials in the same solar system. The solar system is also directly in the middle of a major trading route, and merchant ships are being fired on continuously due to both sides thinking they where part of the other. So here is a solution: A trading ship could put a symbol on the side to show it is not part of either side and to not fire.
This is just an idea, but I would love to see what the community thinks.
Much Love, Immortal
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.
-
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.
-
On 15-5-2018 at 12:12 AM, CalenLoki said:
I hope it's the opposite - It's much more fun and challenge when they do apply torque. Especially when there are even more requirements for engine placement (i.e. clearance behind and in front, minimal distance from specific elements, ect.)
Some system of automatic thrust stabilisation should be there of course. Something that will tone down right side engines when left side ones get damaged (or someone just forgot to put them there). But using it should reduce efficiency - it'd be kind of last resort system, not free easy mode.
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....
-
On 12-5-2018 at 4:18 AM, unown006 said:
A main reason I bring this up is because on release space is going to be a hard thing to get so what will you do for six or so months you are on the ground?
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.
-
On 19-5-2018 at 12:32 AM, Dhalic said:
It would be kind of nice to be able to activate a mode which would basically allow you to play only PVE to make this more interesting for those who do wish to PVP a cool design would be if you have the PVE option enabled and another player decides to PVP you essentially your property and you phase out of existence and a AI controlled clone of the property is spawned in its place and proceeds to fight and defend itself these would then de-spawn after a set time, It would probably be good to have a limit on how many times this could occur within a given time as well to prevent possible abuse although this could be setup through the loot system as well.
The main purpose of this would be to reduce any limitations on players who don't want to participate in pvp be it resource wise or area exploration wise.
A bonus to this system would be that it could create a fairly large variety of interesting PVE combat situation's for PVP players since it would allow for a increased number of ship design's and encounters due to not every player participating in PVP and so reducing the weapon's load-out on certain ships rather than arming everything to the teeth to avoid being PVP'd.
For my part the game looks amazing and I am really looking forward to playing it however I have zero interest in PVP , I essentially want to be able to enjoy the game solo and build up and explore the universe.
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.
-
Welcome - and somehow that's two more names that ring a vague bell in memory, heh
-
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
Viewing the markets IS the problem....load all that data into an external program and create a margin trading bot with that info. Park your char at the market terminal and Run the bot 24/7
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.
-
On 10-5-2018 at 6:13 PM, blazemonger said:
Poster is not
This would not apply to the relevant post and you know it. His playstyle and actions in EVE as documented in several places would actually be fed and promoted by the current state of the game. It appears he likes to fly with large groups to build his Killboard through blowing up structures and ships (but then mostly leaving the pod alone) and later ganking miners in Highsec. Mind you, not saying anything against how he seems to enjoy playing EVE, to each his own.
CCP is really good at making huge blunders and basically tripping on the same stones over and over. The EVE community however is strong enough to carry the game almost regardless of what CCP does or does not do. For now NQ can only hope to be able to build the same community and iMO they have a good chance of doing so because they have a shining example in CCP of how to not address of approach certain situations..
That said, outside (and as far as we know) of the skill system, commerce and potentially politics DU is nothing like EVE really. It is much more like Kerbal with the mentioned EVE components built in and the Empyrion building system added, All in all potentially a good mix IMO provided NQ is able to steer clear of the obvious and coming cliffs..
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.
o/
in Org Updates & Announcements
Posted
Well fuck me sideways
Hey Manny!