Excavy

You always gotta send it. No hesitation.

Making a profit also isn't considered when looking at if something is fair use or not. Even if you are making money, plenty of people already do that with lots of copyrighted material. That's the world of parody

Stuff like that should fall under parody and fair use. I'm not sure how the rules will work in the future for the EU, with the new controversial copyright law proposals, but as of right now all that kind of stuff is open to recreation in game due to Fair Use law. Its still not best to recreate any copyrighted material in game until NQ gives the okay for it, but so long as NQ is okay with it, there should be no problems. My guess is that NQ is waiting for the EU copyright law situation to be resolved before telling people that they can create whatever. Currently the EU is preparing for a redraft of the proposal, so hopefully things go the way we want it to. Here is a link to an article describing the specifics of the EU copyright law situation: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/5/17535874/eu-copyright-law-article-11-13-rejected-first-vote

No I didn't, did I not just explain it for last time? Read the beginning please Sure dude. I'm completely alone in my opinion and nobody else would be in agreement with me. Its not like only 3 people have been talking, and one didn't even state his opinion, just pointed out something. Making passive aggressive statements doesn't help your argument either. This isn't a popularity contest. I'm just gonna stop talking to you now.

If its not about noobs struggling, then why do you want to give them and advantage? If they really want to stop PvPing, then they can, ya know, leave the PvP zone? You should have to enter a PvP zone knowing that there is always a risk. The kind of players that are going be going after noobs are noobs themselves, or slightly higher level players. I never said I was talking about the best player in the world. I meant a higher level player than a base noob. The "buffer" for noobs is the fact that they are noobs. Nobody cares to kill them except for people close to their level. The higher level players that attack them serve as learning lessons. If nobody ever attacks them in PvP, they are not going to learn. And personally I'd be getting frustrated myself if everyone ran away from me when I tried to fight them because I was a noob. The main point is, its fun for nobody and it doesn't help balance. It also has no player choice behind it, because the game is implementing this "strategy" whether you like it or not. I don't know a single person who would find that engaging.

Welcome DreamCatcher! This community i very welcoming, I'm sure you'll make lots of good friends.

Putting a set in place mechanic is not how you encourage counter-play and self-improvement. If noobs are struggling against higher level players, it is only the fault of themselves. They are the ones who need to get better themselves, not be given an advantage that is simply frustrating to play against. Also there are non-PvP areas if they can't handle having to actually learn how to PvP well instead of relying on a cheap trick

Surprises are fine, but what is the point of giving someone the brainless use to one. Waiting until you get close to pull out your weapon is a tactic. Let them think for themselves. Purposely putting frustrating mechanics into the game is not a good idea. Surprises take planning, accountability of your opponent. What you are suggesting takes no skill, no thinking, and has no disadvantage.

That requires some modicum of thinking. You are suggesting giving people an advantage for free, with no mental effort. That is not strategy. There was no creative thinking on the player's part. Uncertainty is one thing. Having the game visually trick you is another. Not only do you not know what their weapon is, it appears as something it is not. And its not as if your opponent is at all uncertain at all. They know they have the advantage no matter what.

Making noobs "safer" does not make the game fun and does not make for a balanced game. PvP zones should be risky, no matter your skill level

I don't understand how you can argue that it adds more strategy. In order to even begin to strategize around your opponent, you have to scout their gear. If you have no idea whether a part of their gear is one thing or the other due to them both looking the exact same, it cuts off even a chance of strategizing against it. Now I understand this is only one gun, but it is very dangerous to set that precedent. It is not fun to strategize around your opponent, only to lose because of an impossibly easy to pull of trick. There is no strategy put in on the other person's end, and all the strategy of the other person is for naught. There is no counter-play to what you are suggesting other than to take a blind guess or not take the fight completely. Either way, this is not beneficial for neither higher level players nor lower level players. It is frustrating to higher level players and doesn't allow for any real learning on the part of a lower level player since he is either going up against players that are blindly guessing against them or he is just not fighting anyone since they are all scared.

The cosmetic effects the strategical part of the PvP. If you seriously want to argue that changing the cosmetic does nothing, then you're just invalidating your original point. Making two guns look the exact same lowers the skill ceiling of PvP, since it eliminates the choice to play around their weapon's stats and abilities. That's like putting a rifle in the game with a shotgun weapon model. It takes the strategy of playing around a person's weapon out of the game.

The second thought to keep them from attacking should be the fact that they have a good gun, not that they are completely clueless as to how powerful the gun is. I don't get why that concept is necessary to protect noobs. When you first start, of course you are gonna be weaker, you have to work your way up by beating tougher opponents. Instead of making a cheap trick that drags down PvP for higher level players for the sake of lower level players, why don't you give the noobs a way to actually outplay an opponent and learn?

It seems a bit backwards to have a gun that does nothing to you in PvP and a gun that can blow you away look exactly the same. I like the idea of giving a progression system to your starting gun, as it will easily allow new players to be able to defend themselves. I just don't think it needs to be some form of trickery. If the gun is enough to push away aggressors, wouldn't it be better for the player to have it look dangerous, so that they don't get attacked in the first place?

In the end we'll have wait to see. Nobody can really say what will happen until the actual game launch

The easiest thing is to shoot and kill of course. But what if you kill somebody from another organization and they get pissed? Things get more complicated as DU grows.

People most likely will take up more of a security role, where they work for their organization part time to earn money and recognition. Some areas will be more like the wild west with it being every man for himself. Some areas will be heavily regulated and managed by organizations seeking to retain their hold on their territory. It just depends

Well yeah that's your choice. You may not trust the police to protect you. Its a risk analysis. Is it more risky to get rid of your guns and hope you don't pick-pocketed or to keep your guns and hope they don't search you. And of course different areas will have different rules

I was talking specifically on personal weapons. For ships, there will be stuff such as anti-spacecraft guns to dissuade ships from acting out. While in a city area it is much easier to hide the use of a personal weapon.

I do I agree that those mechanics should be hard to use and powerful when mastered. What I am proposing for the balance for a mechanic like that, is for it to be very very close range, and have an animation BEFORE it takes effect. The animation and cast time does have an effect, because you could very easily run out of the way of the attack if you react fast enough. Also, I do not think the ability to do this should be common. I think it should either be a hard to master technique or have the action bound to an item of high value that you use. Things like that do have to be balanced to be fun, but I think its better to try and to find out its impossible to balance, rather than restricting options due to the difficulty of balancing around them.

I assumed we were both talking about PvP zones. Even if you are in a city, the risk of being in a PvP zone should always be accounted for. If you are a person who doesn't want to be robbed or kidnapped or have police take you into custody, then it doesn't sound like a PvP zone is right for you. There is always supposed to be a sense of risk in everything that you do. I'm not saying somebody should be able to incapacitate you long range snipe mode. Things like that have to be balanced, and the idea on an incapacitate should be very hard to pull off. You should have to sneak up on them, if you're in a city make sure nobody else sees you, get close enough to be able to perform the action, have an escape route. Its not like the other player has no risk and can just troll you. I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, I think DU sets out to be more allowing in the ways you handle things in game. Organizations that have their police randomly search people will have bad reputations. An organization should go through the extra steps to scout people and make informed arrests, because it will make them reputable. The idea of DU to me is to have social relations impact the game-play more than any other game. You seem to assume that if you allow people to do something, that they will automatically do it. I think DU is set up to be much more complex than that, and make your decisions yours and purposeful instead of restrictive to one way to go about something. Players should have the opportunity to approach a situation in as many ways as possible. When they are given choices, they will be able to learn what way they want to tackle problems. This is what creates diversity in a game. I don't want to walk into a city and have the Police might as well be NPCs because they all go about themselves in the same way as anywhere else. In the end, if I'm stupid enough to go into an authoritative state, I damn better be captured, bound, stripped, and tortured. I don't care about trolling, because if I'm stupid enough to be trolled, then I deserve it. What's fun about games like this for me is learning how to improve, not being coddled because it would be "not fun". That's what the safe areas are for, for people who legitimately don't have fun in PvP areas. I don't see it as beneficial to restrict your options in PvP simply to draw more people into PvP.

I don't mean in an easy way, I mean something along the lines on incapacitating or binding them. It shouldn't be left to a button press, but to an item with a cast time and animation. Also I think most organizations wouldn't have stealing be legal.

That is true. Perhaps only restricting the trade and storage of certain items will be able to be enforced realistically. This of course is all speculation. Maybe in there will be some way to take a person's inventory without killing them, allowing for personal searches.

Yes, that is my point. Although organizations will try to claim safezones first, they will run out of space, necessitating rules surrounding PvP. The most secure way of preventing PvP inside a PvP zone is to restrict weapons. This will spawn black markets and cartels who deal in those weapons.