Jump to content

RJ_RodassonJenkins

Member
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins got a reaction from Alsan Teamaro in Heyho people !   
    Greetings !
    I´m still on the way, soon to arrive at the Arkship and looking forward to see what you already managed to create down there.
    Good to know there´s a pub around - hope you´ve got a well sorted top shelve waiting for me to celebrate my arrival. 
    See you out there folks !
  2. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins got a reaction from CoreVamore in Waiting for DU is like...   
  3. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins reacted to Stig92 in Pre-Alpha RAM requirement?   
    Throwing people out of the airlock, so wasteful. You should watch this PSA (from about 0:20 onward)
     
  4. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins reacted to blazemonger in Pre-Alpha RAM requirement?   
    Actually, the important bit is from1:25  ..
    Best SciFi series ever with probably some of the best writing for TV in any genre btw..
  5. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins reacted to Warden in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    It's not just EvE, plenty of games offer(ed) that in the past or present.
     
    I like to use DayZ as (another!) example. There, you do really start with nothing and have to find it all yourself (or bet on the work of others). And if you get shot and assuming no ally or friend salvages you? It's all gone, you start with nothing again.
     
    Of course there is the option to store excess gear in barrels or tents, and perhaps soon (with beta) bases. But you have to place those somewhere on the map and even though there are some good hiding spots, anyone can in theory find and access those.
     
    It's not as large as EvE Online in terms of scope and not fully comparable but I think can serve as good example of how fast you can maybe find a fortune and then lose it.
     
    Of course one could find other examples with base building, PVP, emergent gameplay and of course potential or very real asset loss, partial or full. DU will offer it's fair share of this but also offer compromises.
     
    I suspect it will therefore attract a somewhat diverse crowd of people, even though the average player would have to accept risk assessment and asset loss.
     
     
     
    Same, to be honest, despite EvE's grand scope, I could never get into it and immerse myself into it - simply or most notably due to you having to control a space ship in third person and clicking around. It all became rather "technical" or detached for me. I like the first person experience by default, and want to construct my own bases or vehicles, and be able to land (and run around) on planets, etc.
     
    DU seems more like my cup of tea.
  6. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins reacted to blazemonger in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    You must have missed this game called EVE Online then I guess
  7. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins got a reaction from Lethys in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    A game like this thrives on the possibilities it offers and people working towards their own and common goals. 
    The less restrictions there are - the more open it is to the nature of human behavior and realism. Here we get the
    opportunity (these days far to rare in a game) to be all we want to be and have this reflected to us by consequence. 
    Humans are it´s worst enemy - Space is the most hostile environment - combine that and inevitably we will face desaster in different forms.
    This game might give us the chance to see how we can deal with this and how to grow a society beyond the restrictions we put on ourselves.
    I find it "refreshing" to have a game where fear to loose your assets is a thing - where people and groups have to get together 
    on a common ground to achieve their goal - where not one singular person has a chance to be the "Master of Universe" because life doesn´t work that way.
     
    Yes, it´s still a game and i want to have fun with it ofcause - but this way of "simulation" appeals to me a great deal to be honest.
       
  8. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins reacted to Warden in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    A relatively healthy way to operate or value assets, I think.
     
    Of course it should not turn into a real paranoia for some, but in general, one should be aware of potential risks if assets are not in any are where hard mechanics basically protect them from outside damage.
     
    Many people would refrain from having assets outside of those hard safe zones but at the same time I can see plenty of room or situations where people take risks and where many benefit from having something like potentially contested (field) bases and whatnot. Depending on how easy they would be to maintain and repair and assuming you do not put all your valuables into those, it wouldn't be a huge loss for groups to operate bases in such unclaimed, potentially un-safe areas, if you ask me.
     
    And since not all want to or can stay in hard safe zones, we'll see enough infrastructure or assets in potential combat zones.
     
    I think in the end, a lot depends on your personal mindset: willing to take losses or not?
  9. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins reacted to Lethys in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    Ppl would just create alt orgs and give full rights via RDMS to the main group. Then you have invasion/attack forward bases which can't be attacked for a month. 
     
    I assume that almost every group will have a safe haven in some safezone, to train newbros and to have one Base which can't be taken by any means to build up again If you get killed. 
    To me living outside of those safezones just means that the moment i build something, I already mark it as a loss in my books. 
  10. Like
    RJ_RodassonJenkins reacted to Anopheles in The right to be evil   
    I like playing evil, on occasion, in games. 
     
    This doesn't mean I torture animals in real lifeel  (anyway cruelty to people pays better and they seem to appreciate it more).
     
    Neither do I play evil for the lulz.  I like to be the consequence of laziness, greed or bad planning.  In one Space game my organization made it so that you could buy a pass to not be pirated and briefly turned a core area of space into the New Caribbean until the developer drained the joy out of pvp and the core professions of piracy.
     
    We were a bad organisation that had a code (more of a guideline, really).
     
    The one thing I like in a game is rules which can be broken and worked around but not so tight that you can't do anything.
     
    We enjoy conflict with security and playing cat and mouse with traders.  But while we enjoy pvp, we didn't (as happened in the other game) want to do it all the time.  We wanted every contact with Traders to be unique-ish.  We weren't murder hobos, we wuz pirates. 
     
    I understand the 'hours wasted' argument against non consensual pvp - i really do - and I like DU's way around it with zones of varying security but I do not understand people who join a free form sand box and start omediately seeking ways to restrict it.
     
    It is upon you to defend your 'hours of work' by use of forethought and care.  It is not for the developer to make a game where you are totally safe all of the time.
     
    A good game has safer and less safer areas.  It also has levels of risk which can be modified by player actions  (forming a convoy, not putting everything you own in one fragile ship).
     
    Adapt yourself and everyone can have the game they want.   Strangle the simulation and you only end up with one type of player and a shrinking player base.
     
    And with that, good day. 
×
×
  • Create New...