Warden
-
Posts
823 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Warden
-
-
3 hours ago, 0something0 said:
There is that small group that ruins the fun for everyone(that homicidal group of EVE players, the griefers on 2b2t, etc)
I think one should not overly exaggerate and have a bleak outlook, which is implied by messages like them between the lines on a soft level at least.
Just by looking at the make up you provided, it seems rather unlikely to me to happen, as I doubt a "small group" can terrorize "everyone", thus a larger majority, and if they try or do, it would be a question of time until severe repercussions begin.
While some like to think of themselves as superior wolves ready to slaughter all lambs, don't underestimate pissed off people who may eventually "have had enough of their shit" - unless you actually consider yourself a defenseless lamb. If you already give up before the (real) fighting started...
If you perceive a threat and suffer due to it, do something about it. Fight back. Rally others around you, find a common cause, at the same time (or alternatively), lower the damage you get and try to evade, yadda yadda. I will never forget (and often, continue to tell others) my experience on a Minecraft server with certain plugins to simulate an economy, factions, emergent gameplay. Countless random people came by trying to attack us, I guess you could potentially label them "homicidal" or "griefers". Sure, it ma not be nice, you can not always immediately fight back or win. But you can either be sullen about it or fight. Maybe you can't take them down but I think having the right mentality from the start is vital to preserve your "fun". In a defeatist mood it surely won't be fun. If you consider it as interesting challenge where you view setbacks you may endure as part of the game, then you will likely get by better. Mentally and otherwise.
Spreading possible optimism aka storytime - in spoilers so I keep this post shorter. Wall of text n' all.
How your mindset can dictate conflicts - or "kicking ass if people annoy you"
We, back in the day, were lucky and smart enough. Luck always plays a role even if you do your best, as you have to hope your opponent, in the end, is simply not better all in all or vastly superior in numbers, if not both. So we happened to kick their asses in about 99% of the time. It was a diverse enemy makeup, from a bunch of kids you could easily beat or demoralize to moderate threats and even tough nuts you had to crack with carefully organized campaigns and operations, where you had to go through several fights to win the war.
While each story is unique, some of them would surely fit the bill of "griefers" or "maniacs" as they attacked others who were not with them, on their team. No matter the reason they might have had, you didn't attack them first, I guess that is what matters. But all of them are people, even if they have an aggressive playstyle, they also look for something and if you eventually stand up and say "no more", they'll think twice of bugging you at least.
To give an example, one of the events I can remember from that blocky game a response to an increasingly aggressive group of raiders that also attacked our base randomly, but didn't do any notable damage. We talked them down, they moved on. Yet, they continued to raid other people who didn't have a secure installation or "doom fort" - and what does the best fortress help if you are beyond its walls, running around outside, right? They built up some reputation and were eventually known in the region. By then we had created a defensive league, pact, alliance, call it whatever you want, as together we were able to act better and could project more power, and it paid out.
We had a bit of experience with it before, so we organized an operation that was intended to break them. The event became known as the "Ten Hour War" on our server community, which consisted of scouting out their base and then applying tiered strikes against their outer districts or areas, then their core base. You could already tell it was going to be fun as you entered their valley, as they put up burning crosses all over, as far as they eye could see. The gist of it is: We would've never been able to do this as just one small group - others helping us, our alliance, those pissed off at the same people, yeah, those, we all together, managed to pull off placing their base on siege mode for 10 consecutive hours.
We didn't even destroy their main installation. Mission failure? Nope, still a success. This show of force was enough to seriously make them consider attacking us (the alliance as a whole and any member of it, at least) again. We jokingly agreed to never have a ten hour war again as it was a bit of a strain for both sides. Jokingly? Yes, it turns out we both laughed when certain things happened because some actions had comedic value. For example, after a few hours we eventually began to shoot at their core module where they were holed up later as we controlled the other sectors, it was their only safe space left. We set up makeshift trenches and walls, a bit like sandbags, from where we exchanged shots. Artillery wasn't available that far into their area or would've been useless due to superior shielding.
So as we have a fierce ranged fight, one of them inside starts to turn on a music box. Given MC's limited audio playing capabilities for their music boxes, you had random tones play. It was so odd and out-of-the-world, I could only grin in reality. We all laughed at it. We both had fun at one point. I'm sure we went in at least slightly pissed for their actions, but at one point had fun together.
How is this vital? Your mood can dictate how conflicts end, by and large.
If we were to go in totally bitter and angry, perhaps mistakes on our end may not have made it a ten hour war at all. The reason I mention emotions now is because that is how it influenced our war with them: we became friends.
"What? They raided you, your friends, everyone and their mother, you organize a large fight going on for hours and then you become friends?"
Why not? Best case scenario: A tough nut becomes your ally and kinda joins your alliance. This was only possible because we both realized we had fun at one point. If we were to remain bitter and angry, this may not have happened because there would not have been any motivation on our part to pursue friendlier relations. We ended the conflict with them and then also had them as friends.
Because we fought back or did something about a problem with others instead of accepting it and letting them win - over us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize not all situations may end like that. In retrospect, I think we were darn lucky. So many factors to consider, one action done just at a slightly different time or done in another fashion could've changed everything, like actions at the right or wrong time can change a lot in reality. Causality, yadda yadda. In short, not everyone may be as lucky as we were, but it is the attempt that counts. If you do nothing or not much you lose, so if you do your best, can it get worse compared to that? I don't think so.
But my main point is the mood you apply or have. If you take some things as interesting challenge, you'll have a better time in the game. At the end of the day, this is all part of such games with competition. Who was to complain in our example? The guys we fought back and even destroyed? They took the risk of severe repercussions by attacking another unknown faction. Would we have to complain if some faction overcomes us instead? About them perhaps, but not the game itself because we decided to move beyond the only safe zone and build up a base with what could be compared to a TCU, but not a permanent safe zone like the Arkship would be. So it's not like anyone could run up to your base and just "mine" or build themselves in, but at the same time you had to be ready to defend your property. Artillery could rain down on it, etc.
Again, the mood and morale is a vital aspect, even if you do not like anything PVP related a lot. If you just want to design, build, create, you will also find your place, I am certain. TCUs and safe zones allow this. But accept that in between those areas you could be shot down, no matter the reason an attacker might have. At the same time, due to emergent gameplay, you can do something about it once some entity, player or faction alike, starts to actively annoy or target you. You can organize to fight back, directly or indirectly, try to come to a more diplomatic or business oriented solution where you come to terms with them or you evade them, move away.
I could go on now but would likely repeat myself and this post has to end eventually. I wonder who read all of this, as longer texts are usually not so well perceived in this day and age it seems.In short, morale, point of view, expectation and mood. Try to think less of problems but challenges.
-
As a thought: Why not join a group that covers whatever goals and dreams you have in mind? I may have missed or forgotten previous posts where you lift the secret whether you want to do your own thing or join up with a group right now or later, but "maintain my protection systems" implies you running them (alone?).
You'll probably have a better time with others together where you can benefit from easier maintenance of such systems, shared cost and so on.
And if you're more into creative designs and whatnot, not so much combat, there's still plenty of groups to cover your needs by that preference. We also recruit (those interested in leading).
#shamelessad
#micdrop
But in all seriousness, loners often had the disadvantage by default in such environments unless they act a bit like freelancers or offer their services to the right folks for the right conditions at the right times while staying independent, I suppose.
The disadvantage is still apparent: Manpower. A task that might take you a week, a larger group might be able to pull off in 2 days, 1 day or just a few hours.
-
41 minutes ago, 0something0 said:
I'm honestly not that worried about big orgs. What I am worried about however is the people who do it "for the lulz/because they can". I don't really see any way to guard against them without joiking latge orgs or spend a lot of money hiring mercs 24/7 (assuming we dont have autoturrets)
36 minutes ago, Ghoster said:Same here. I don't mind being punished by deliberately flying on some guarded territory owned by org, or get destroyed by mining on territory claimed by some org, or get destroyed by provoking someone to attack me by being totally reckless. I just don't want to be trolled and destroyed because some small amount of players simply enjoys ruining other's game experience, and they do it, because the game mechanics is perfect for their playstyle, and very risky for mine.
That is simply the risk that you have in many other sandbox games with the slightest aspect of PvP and territorial behavior - at least most I can immediately think of.
If you alone cannot maintain 24/7 coverage, other people might be able to. You can (try to) hire them if you can't do it yourself. If you don't want to hire others and can't do it yourself, join up with a bigger entity (in an alliance) that can guarantee a good coverage.
And perhaps, if you do so or decide not to, a bit of a risk remains depending on where and when you settle down. I do believe keeping your stuff in safe zones or controlled areas will offer you a good amount of foreseeable safety depending on how the mechanics will later look like.
Why do you worry about the intent about some people that much? At least in my book if someone attacks and destroys your property, at that moment their intend seems totally secondary to me. They could have what most could subjectively deem "valid" reason or they may simply have no specific reason.
Does it change the result at that moment? I don't think so. Afterwards and so on? Sure.
In Minecraft (more serious with certain plugins on the server I played, including an economy, factions and one safe city all new players would spawn in or could go to trade, like the Arkship will be) we had our base near the harbor city and thus saw a lot of people coming by since it was on the coast.
And in the end, many of them also seemingly attacked us for no reason, even if it was futile. Because we didn't back down, we took the fight to them and kicked their asses while making sure ours weren't kicked, while making sure that property damage would remain low. My mindset is to overcome temporary setbacks and become better or, if not possible, try to avoid them.
----
In short, I would not try to worry about others who could harm you or their intent so much. Sometimes you can't change it. What you can try is try to prevent it in the first place by picking the right location, friends, allies, not making the wrong enemies, etc. Once it happened, you can try to punish them for it so they might stop or repay you for the future. And if nothing else helps, not trying to be a huge target can also help. And if it still happens and you fall, stand back up and move on. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If someone is out after you or your faction more permanently due to grudges, you can also try to call for help at other groups.
I know it might be stressful and it will likely be at times, but with a bit of a thick skin and somewhat smart manoeuvring, I view it as manageable risk or part of the game.
On another note, if you get targeted by said supposed minority or plague of players just out to cause grief emotionally, the saying "don't feed the trolls" doesn't come out of nowhere. If you give them what they want, it'll likely last longer. If you man up and gulp it down and move on without giving them the satisfaction they look for or by even punishing them later, you'll likely do better.
But that's just me in the end. I still think you'll have a good time with safe zones and TCUs.
-
2 hours ago, gyurka66 said:
I'm like 100% percent sure that everything you wrote will be in the game in at least a text form but i'm not sure about hacking because if that's a thing organizations or teams will abuse the hell out of third party programs like Discord and Skype.
But those can be "hacked", too
-
Of course, at the end of the day, different preferences or ideologies on how some things should be clash with each other. I think neither is really wrong. Some like pizza more than spaghetti, yadda yadda.
Some are more into competition and PVP, others rather want to create, take part in logistics, design things, etc, without much war. Some are somewhere in-between.
Both or many things are fine (to me anyway). While often examples can be exaggerated to prove a point, I think what some people who are rather advocating for PVP mean is that you cannot rely on "safe spaces" once you leave hardcoded safe areas, and from what I got even TCUs are nothing that will last forever without the right care or maintenance. The gist is that at the end of the day, once you leave an area that protects you through certain measures, hard or soft, you'll potentially be on your own or at the mercy of others.
Pick whatever preference you may like, but always keep in mind some areas (or times) are not safe, with the potential to be attacked.
Or perhaps in other words: Some who like PVP or competition and aggressive action might consider some who don't carebears or in the wrong place. Some labelled potential "carebears" or say those who dislike PVP label the other side warmongers or similar.
Those are two exaggerations that some people may represent, but at the end of the day, the "truth" or factual representation might lie somewhere in between. Still, one has to expect to end up in "non-consentual agressive action" once they enter certain areas. That's part of the game depending on where you go.
-
7 hours ago, Setzar said:
PvPer here, probably one of the future bad guys that will be looking to rob, steal and ransom my way to riches.
I walked into Eve's sandbox three years ago with a huge PvE mindset. "Oh, a MMO SciFi Sandbox spaceship game, let me give that a try." I stayed in Hi-Sec, ran missions, went on low-sec roams with my corp, but no PvP focus. Then my corp got Wardecced, and i got caught in my FIRST CRUISER ship and LOST IT. I was disgusted and immediately logged off and didn't log back in for 3-4 days. I was devastated that someone would just kill me for no reason... but I also got a huge adrenaline rush from it. That incident was probably what set me down the PvP path.
In Eve, and in DU, when your ship goes BOOM, it doesn't get magically replaced. There is real in-game loss of assets. In WoW, and most other MMOs, you die and you just respawn exactly as you were, or minimal penalties. If it's not something you've experienced before, the loss will probably hit you RIGHT IN THE FEELS. If, and only if, you can realize that it isn't griefing/trolling/harassing just to shoot at other players, but rather a person vs another person fighting within game-established rules and mechanics that gives you that rush of adrenaline, you might choose to compete rather than play a victim.
Learn the game's mechanics. Learn the meta-game. Don't complain about being ganked (gankers love tears), but instead learn how not to get ganked. You'll be playing the game the way NQ designed it, not how you want it to be.
Or don't. I'll be just as happy to kill you and take your stuff.
I like this post because it shows a certain progression (of mentality or mindset) or the difference between two worlds.
But at the end of day, you (individually) either adapt or don't.
But don' t complain to racers that racing is (too fast for) you if you know what I mean. I am not for complete anarchy before anyone gets me wrong but if seemingly unexplained aggression towards you incl. death makes you go nuts, competitive sandbox games might not be your cup of tea.
You died, no matter the reason the killing party may have had. Deal with it
Get over it. It's part of the game. I am not saying it should happen all the time (hence safe or controlled zones and player order in some areas) but it can happen.
In the end, complaining about it out of an emotional response is mostly a waste of time I think, if it is a generalized complaint, that is. To me it would be like complaining about things being (too) fast in a racing game or violence in shooters.
Bit alas, that is just my view on this. I think even those who do not primarily look for fights can find their place and help from others and shrug off potential deaths and losses.
-
15 minutes ago, 0something0 said:
Have you guys heard of 2builders2tools, alos known as 2b2t? It is the 2nd oldest running Minecraft server and is known as an anarchy server (i.e. no plugins). This means that there are no PvP or territory protection found in factions/towny plugins and basically no admin intervention so anything is allowed including hacked clients.
Familar, isn't it?
Not really have heard of it or cannot remember it as old Beta player. I actually often think of a different also kinda long lasting example: the civ(ilization)craft servers that kinda seem close to the ideas and intended game play of Dual Universe. You also had player Empires and certain rules. You could even imprison players "for a while" - in another dimension.
Awesome!
-
Others can see you and you can later likely see yourself in the inventory and or some character (skill or overview) sheet.
In a game where you can potentially create large new player factions and civilizations, where you can have great leeway in building and ship design and where emergent game play is the holy cow, you don't really want most to look the same. Or in other words, more character and outfit customization in both gear and looks is nothing to underestimate and more options attract and bind more players.
For groups, unique combinations of armor or custom designs and insignia add to a group identity, too. Also allows you to come up with more uniforms so you can tell what guy is the captain, maintenance, a medic, someone working in a store, a cop, soldier, etc.
And some just generally want a diverse set of clothing.
They surely have more pressing matters now and for a while but should not neglect the matter in the long run.
-
Time for a little revival. Instead of posting it in the other thread, continuing it here might be better given the content. Also edited the op to include that topic.
Mostly referring to the lower part.
6 hours ago, OnePercent said:With proper asset protections in place and a "join an org or perish" mentality, this would ensure that players can safely experience the game mechanics without interruptions from trolls etc.
It will be quickly realized that the most valuable aspect of the game won't be the leaders or the orgs, or even emergent gameplay, the true value of the game will be the "grunts", the "workers" of each org or lone mercenary orgs. The willingness to give up leading but rather submitting to an org as a subordinate is the most valuable aspect. Organisations should do everything that can to convince players to join their cause.
Not everyone can or wants to lead anyway. Both in terms of character and of course quantity.
My rough stance I used to tell starting organizations in another forum would be: Trying to start your own organization (from scratch) with little support is not an easy thing. You'll have to invest time either way if it is to be more than just a few friends playing together, if you intend to recruit new people and grow business contacts. You'll also face the competition of many other organizations at least indirectly on an abstract level, because they also want to recruit people you could recruit. Only do this if you are serious about it, if you have unique aspects for your organization and / or a history. Something (or several things) to ensure at least remote mid- to long-term success.
Otherwise, don't bother if you don't have to make one and instead join an existing one. Chances are you'll have less stress and a better time, and so will the organization you join as it would be a +1. You don't always have to try to invent the wheel anew.
And if all other things fail after starting your own, you can still join an existing one then.
What does the DU community think about that topic? What is your stance?
-
20 hours ago, Ghoster said:
A sidenote: I would love to see all social darvinism advocates to reflect upon their glorious ideas by losing their revenue stream due to AI replacing their jobs forever, or losing their homes because some powerful people decide to compete with different powerful people over piece of land through warfare. Or maybe just trying to survive without antibiotics when they're infected with multi-resistant bacteria, which their immune system cannot defeat. Then they would be perhaps able to realize full consequences of preaching social darvinism in 2017.
As Lethys said (and given the context of my post you quoted, that in turn quoted a different post that might give it the proper context): Game "rules" don't automatically equal or touch upon all sorts of values or aspects of "reality" as many like to dub it.
If you happen to get a super resistant disease or if your job gets replaced or made obsolete (for humans) due to technological advances, that is one thing and somewhat dependent on a higher power that you may not be able to influence or control much or at all.
If you start an organization in a game, that's a lot more of control and thus responsibility or blame to bear if things go south due to your own (bad?) decisions that could maybe have been avoided already with sufficient foresight. What I mean is simple: If you try to invent the wheel anew, or, more specifically, try to open up another burger shop while there is 3 others within 500 meters, one should not wonder about a lack of progress or profit, if you get what I mean.
More specifically, if people open up organizations here that by style, design and content are already plentiful and / or they are so by in-game location or if organization leaders are simply inept because of being rather unstable, emotional, lashing out and so on, that's simply tough luck. And given the large influx of organizations to be expected, I must also admit that I could not care less. Not because I want to be cocky or uncaring, but because that is the way things go.
On a game level, that is - before anyone thinks of real life examples that are surely more dire than losing time in some online game due to bad moves.
-
56 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
Well, like it or not, the people who come from EVE will carry that level of culture into DU. It's efficient, it's proven to work and it's for the best.
Your alliance or coalition is above anyone else. That's essentially no different than being fan of a sports team over another, or being an XBOX Peasant fighting with a PS4 peasant over who's less of a peasant.
EVE's players didn't invent tribalist behavior.Neither did they invent xenophobia.
That are, again good points. While I only played EvE briefly and don't like some of the terms or mindsets (or let's say, I never played it enough to really get into and thus used to them, nor some of the advanced mechanics), you have to take some things for what they are:
Universal.
I'm certain DU will establish its own 'culture' and terms while those who might try to copy over hard EvE terms might get odd looks if those terms can't be applied that well, but in the end some things are simply universal.
Simply change the terms, same principle however. And group-think will be a thing in a game where you can potentially lose your complete in-game wealth and thus existence, kinda. Property binds you and here you can lose it all so you'll likely, eventually, seek safety in group affiliation and / or larger numbers.
DayZ is another good example on a different scale I like to think. You could possibly open up a social study about the behavior of people who may or may not lose everything due to trying to interact with strangers. It's why there always was a certain KOS mentality among some people.
"Oh no, another person / group? They could try to overcome us, steal from us, kill us! Better be the first ones to shoot!" - even though someone was just looking for something else or passing through the area. Just because someone could be a threat makes them a relative or definite threat in the eyes of some. "And if you're not with us..."
Let's wait and see, but if DU doesn't fail and reaches a stable working "main release" at one point, as intended and advertised, then we get to see many interesting things in the community and in the behavior of players. You'll just have to wait for many "iconic" forum threads and reddit posts about it.
-
An advanced local and ranged system would be interesting. Another example could be Dayz that hits Beta soon.
Also saw them mention not just PA systems for towns you could operate (and maintain) but also radio backpacks for longer transmission ranges. So far in that game you only really have limited hand held radios that have about half a dozen different frequencies.
Might be interesting to have a similar radio (and then long range) transmission system with a more modern GUI of course. Who knows what local radio waves you might stumble across as you explore in DU?
From a looping automated SOS to some faraway DJ station...
And then you would have local voice chat of course with different settings like whisper, normal, yell as described above.
Not just having unlimited in game transmission ranges from the start also sounds interesting. You might have to build comm sats or dishes, or radio towers first if you want to broadcast signals others could pick up further away.
This would lead to new interesting gameplay opportunities.
-
Update:
Since the idea at its core was so far realized and "kickstarted" by an organization, this will move into the background ("Pending") or can be considered "fulfilled" so far.
Reference:
This here will remain for potential alternatives in terms of style, design or structure (e.g. Rhineland state from Freelancer game) should the need ever arise, by the simple formula of supply and demand: If people have a demand for it, they should get on it to make it a reality. If you don't want to create something new or different, join what's already there
-
2 hours ago, blazemonger said:
Once you built your ship and go out there I think the game will be very much like EVE but with a more first person feel and look. The social and political structures are kind of the same even though it feels to me the average age of DU backers/players is lower than that in EVE where it actually is relatively high for a 'game'.
If there is anything that would concern me somewhat it would be that a lot of (initial) players will be too young to appreciate the concepts and intricacies the game will offer and this can easily be misinterpreted as griefing or trolling. In EVE most corporate and alliance leadership is very mature and has a very 'seasoned' view of the game. DU does not yet have this and the risk is that too many 'wannabee leaders' come in and start being adolescents.
The fact that many organisations are seen to be wanting to expand up and outwards without a solid and responsible core member-group or leadership is a prologue to problems. There are exceptions but I've seen and heard some thing that make me cringe.. Once we get underway I'd expect some big trees to crumble and fall as they are top heavy.
I'd simply call this natural selection on an organizational level. If you try to establish a bad business due to ideas or you lacking the right skills, you will likely lose. Same idea here.
You survive somehow or you fail.
-
58 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
Uh... Fox News Radio???
This is gonna be interesting.It's like: first IGN says "NMS-like", now "Fox news radio".
In all seriousness though, I think this only can help to get the game out there and known to folks.
-
That, too, of course.
But I suppose some people look for "security on paper" if you know what I mean.
Heck, I probably have (indirect) friends I don't even know about yet and just because I know certain people - or at least not have terribly bad reputations or interactions with them. Some other person (I mean, not just him, but to refer to him now) said material value or money isn't even that important in many situations.
Social currency - the people you know and that help you if it comes down to it - that can be even more powerful. Of course, that also means a bad reputation can be anything but helpful in your endeavours on the other hand.
-
I suppose time will tell, in the end.
-
In my book - but then again I cannot look into your head, OP, and only try to assess things from my own subjective view and then your posts so far - it seems you put yourself under more stress than needed.
"So little time, so much to do"
We barely started pre-Alpha and there is still a lot to implement and tweak for the game. I'd honestly worry once we reach early or mid-Beta. But then again I pretty much sit on infrastructure (not in-game yet of course), contacts and so on so I can rather relax a bit, even if mentally. Of course, this is always an on-going process, but once you built yourself a foundation, you can rest easier.
Perhaps if you want to kick start your ideas it's best to be specific about them here because:
On 6.10.2017 at 1:38 PM, lambert514 said:I would like to know who would be interested in forming an alliance and getting to know each other so we can work together to accomplish our goals in game.
is not so specific.
Now unless you want to keep this thread general: What is your group idea? What is the name or, if not set yet, what are the intended names? What are your goals for the group and are there goals going beyond that group? Do you have infrastructure (external website, etc) yet?
Might as well promote the group and your goals here to attract potential clients, buyers, etc.
-
54 minutes ago, NanoDot said:
I don't think it should be "hard" to get into space.
Space is an integral part of the game play. If everyone is stuck on Alioth for months, players will get bored and frustrated and that just leads to bad behaviour and rage-quitting.
Frankly, I consider this as part of emergent gameplay and putting more meaningful existence into some sort of "end-game" by dragging out things a bit. Making it easy won't feel like an accomplishment. Then it's a question of doing it alone compared to a collaborative effort.
I get that being stuck there for months could turn away players. But effort for a few weeks (as loner, again, without help from others or without a group effort) I consider to be acceptable so far. A struggle must exist on some level and people should perhaps then reconsider or ask themselves when they want or should go for a collaborative effort instead of trying to do it alone if they want something done faster.
In addition it won't become that bad anyway. You always have to consider that those who already went there can come back and take anyone with them, so you won't be stuck down there for months unless you want to be stuck there. Besides, if the planet will be large enough there will be plenty of opportunities down there initially and then even later. I'd rather worry about claiming one tile or two on the planet than racing into space initially.
-
-
If these comments annoy you, you might as well reply to some of them in such a fashion that it "downscales" their argument in whatever constructive fashion that may be.
People fear this will be like NMS? Tell them it's hardly comparable, anything but NMS, more like EvE, etc.
Rather compare it to EvE than NMS at least because that is more fitting or closer. It gives people more positive or neutral vibes compared to NMS. Side effect: You help promote the game and take away some fears the silent readers could generate.
-
Interesting trailer.
22 minutes ago, yamamushi said:I'm happy with the trailer, but some of the comments on twitter about it make me want to pull my hair out.
Sometimes, fighting (providing a different opinion in public or tackling 'fake news' or false information) seems like a waste of time.
But sometimes, it is also a response that will help public perception. I'd always consider if replying to at least a few comments might make sense or help. This goes to all who read this, not just the one I quoted of course.
Of course I'm not saying "be a white knight" or "fanboy" and go on a social media crusade if there are opposing views. Not everyone has to like everything.
But if it's wrong information or a big exaggeration, leaving a mostly constructive comment can sometimes help. Just saying.
-
Implementing basic biome types with basic effects shouldn't be wizardry in general. Whether it will be technically possible without causing major instability or performance impacts here, is another question, that is.
I see this as part of space games that have any sorts of exploration component and sandbox elements.
-
It's kinda stupid and cheap - but I chuckled a bit, on the other hand.
Lyrics (reworked; compare with Original if you want to or enhance it further :D)
Oh, my, God Lethys, look at her pledge
It is so big, she looks like
One of those rich Quanta guys' girlfriends
But, ya know, who understands those backer guys?
They only talk to her, because,
She looks like a total gamer girl, 'kay?
I mean, her pledge, is just so big
I can't believe it's just so large, it's like out there
I mean gross, look
She's just so, KyriumI like big pledges and I can not lie
You other players can't deny
That when a user walks in with an itty bitty pledge
And a poor voxel thing in your face
You get sprung, want to pull up tough
'Cause you notice that construct was stuffed
Deep in the building she's tearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I want to get wit'cha
And share my pre-alpha picture
My orgboys tried to warn me
But with that early access you got makes (me so horny)
Ooh, Rump-o'-smooth-DAC
You say you want to get in my ship?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupie
I've seen her buildin' motivation'
To hell with formal organization invitation'
She's sweat, wet,
Got it goin' like a turbo 'Vette
I'm tired of online magazines
Sayin' flat voxels are the thing
Take the average sandbox man and ask him that
She gotta pack much inventory in her back
So, Arkers (Yeah) Arkers (Yeah)
Has your....Okay, at this point it became too silly to continue.
Your move, community.
- ShinyMagnemite and Code24
-
2
My biggest worry about this game
in General Discussions
Posted
I suppose this wouldn't be terribly hard to implement in a fair or cool fashion, with gameplay in mind.
Technology-wise cameras or some similar automated detection system are things we can expect in that day and age.
1) As first step, I'd be happy to have cameras you can set up and link to monitors with a live feed depending on how you set it up
This does not include further automated features and the like, but simply giving one (or more) people the option to enhance awareness and having different perspectives as long as the monitor or station is manned - better than nothing, kinda
2) Additionally with or without human input or presence, automated cameras that can turn or remain on a fixed angle that can generate system logs or trigger such logs upon certain basic conditions, like a construct or player going into the covered area
3) More detailed features such as conditions of whether the construct or player is registered, unknown, hostile (at war status or simply manually marked as such or as POI) and then maybe conditions such as whether the construct has a certain size, cargo, if construct or player is visibly armed, etc Additionally, trigger other connected functions via scripting or so such as opening doors for authorized personnel or blocking normally open doors for blacklisted or hostile folks.
------------------
Okay, that might be better suited for the relevant suggestion thread regarding cameras, but it's just an example on how you could "keep track". Additionally, the log doesn't necessarily have to show the player name but only a snapshot of the individual without the name or the name has random letters removed and replaced with * or so to not make it immediately apparent. Or you get rid of the whole camera mechanic (that you could further try to sabotage) and just generate a system log at some console once someone attacks or damages. The aforementioned compromises such as making it harder with identifying the culprits outright is simply keeping gameplay and the attacking perspective in mind to make it more interesting.