Jump to content

Warden

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Warden

  1. An interesting promotional website and of course organization idea, something we seem to relatively lack compared to other things. Of course, a lot is yet uncertain (to me anyway), making me wonder how feasible such ideas might be as standalone version. But time will tell, in the end. We as organization will very likely acknowledge and support such groups if all goes well and if those groups and we make it to and past release, of course. Even if groups can later mostly rely on themselves or may not need such a service, it adds some kind of organizational diversity to the community and caters to a certain interest group I would describe loosely as "EMT players". Basically those who pick doctors, EMTs, maybe firefighters in games where this is possible just like some people like to play as cops. You can see those roles (and players) or game modes in some RPG communities in "Armed Assault (3)" or "Garry's Mod", for example, and those roles usually serve some practical game play purpose or are an integral part and are not just there for fluff or "RP". To advertise this and encourage people who might be uncertain about it: As someone who played firefighters, EMTs and cops in various games with practical game play I can tell you or generally summarize that those jobs or "shifts" are sometimes menial or uneventful, and at other times the most challenging and rewarding. Either way, you never know what might happen next.
  2. Just out of curiosity: So given the size or rather technical limitations, you apply a restriction and only visualize data pertaining organizations with X+ members. Can it be done in reverse to only show or map out groups and connections with organizations that have X- members, e.g. 11 or less, but not more? If so, you could consider having a second version. Not that it would be as potentially interesting as the big one, but data is data.
  3. Warden

    In-game voice.

    It's always worth it, most notably in first person based games I suspect where you can run into people and potentially attack anyone without artificial restrictions (safe zones aside) - in my view or book anyway, that is. Whether it is worth it for NQ, time will tell. What would ARMA (any title, with or without RPG modes), DayZ, Squad, countless other comparable games be without local VOIP to give an example. Mumble, Teamspeak, Discord, all useless if you run into someone where the next or immediate communication might matter or decide the outcome. You can't always type or always have the luxury of typing. And one should not always think so limited to only consider group play where you sit in your (insert third party software here) channel with your pals or allies. Even then I could argue that in larger operations where you have to have people split among different channels (opposed to all being in one), it could be beneficial if you run into other teams. Instead of having to tab around to switch channels and be distracted, you could simply speak to them locally as you run into them. Or just use some appropriate in-game text channel where you can reach 'em. "Squad" (the game) is a good example. You join a squad and unless you are the squad leader, you can only communicate in your squad. As SL, you can communicate with the commander and other squads (their SLs), in turn. Naturally there are situations where different units from various squads meet or have to interact, and for that you can use local voice chat, which works well. Call me biased, but given the vast tactical advantages or potential immersion or simply quick responses and interactions that can stem out of a voice chat feature, "cost factor" should not be a general reason to say "no". With that, I mean: If it is considered and they try to see how they could implement it into the general framework, and whether it is possible and would work later on, and they come to the conclusion that it won't work well or is an obstacle too big at that time and they won't do it, then it is what it is. Just saying "Well it could cost them time and they could spend that elsewhere" isn't a convincing reason to me who'd like to see some feature like that, however. On a closing note, I'm no real development expert. Will it cost them time and maybe result in a few sleepless nights or headaches? Probably. But other games offer this. Of course, "other games" might not be as vast in scope or have that many components you have to consider and "harmonize", but this would be exactly the argument I see to justify it: The big scope of the game. If games with smaller scales have it and have it "justified", would this not be justified here the most? I also think no one is really saying "Drop anything else and work on integrated voice features!" It's just that I (and not just me) see a huge potential and demand for this, and many people would benefit from it. In turn if you don't want it, you could mute it or lower the volume.
  4. I was never really fond of what could be dubbed karma mechanics, often highly subjective or controversial to begin with. Hard game mechanics like above could never fully cover all the potential justifications 'bad deeds' might have.
  5. I feel that's where trying to create player states or notable organizations in such sandbox / emergent gameplay games like DU will probably conflict with that aim, sadly. From my estimations and partially also from my experience, trying to start a project or organization from zero or scratch takes a lot of work. Technically even trying to grow or maintain a classic organization that is not resembling some big state or project can be or will be a full-time job if you want to invest the most into it. Technically there is always something to do. Think of new ads, marketing campaigns, try to establish ties with other people, find new (ideas for) products, create new websites, be present in community hubs, etc. And all of that doesn't include one bit of game action or gameplay. So in addition to that you have to add all of the gameplay relevant actions like building, mining, being present in-game, talking to people in-game, shipping goods, fighting or helping people actively, etc. In other words, I don't think there's really any maximum time cap. It's open ended. Usually progression is faster the more time you pour into it. If I'm gone and not doing anything, not much is done. Someone else either has to do it, or there is no real progression. In other words, I just think then genre of this game makes it "like a job" once you plan to do certain things - like build a giant city or create a player state. That's just what it is. Even later on in large groups where many burdens are shared across many shoulders, I suspect that some positions still could equal something "like a job" time-wise, meaning that you can in theory never pull enough time into it, there would always be something or more to do. Brings me to the next part: I suspect many of us have such commitments in reality, and many have to find a good balance. But once you try to accomplish some things in-game, it's basically like a work or job commitment. With the previous things in mind, you better be sure you want to proceed with this in the position you aim for (founder, leader, something comparable). Of course trying to get the most of the time is legit. We all want a good time in games, more or less or if all goes well. Before I end up writing more of the same, my point basically is, TL;DR: Some things we attempt, depending on the scale and who backs us initially or later on, is more or less like a real job - in my eyes, anyway. And maybe we should realize that and change expectations. I believe doing so helps one mentally shoulder this big amount of work or stress better instead of expecting an easy ride through the themepark, in figurative terms. I would like to end with an example. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Number crunching or some stuff I have to work a set amount of hours per day on average. Sometimes less, often more, it depends on what happens. In addition, I add travel times, break, etc, taking 5 days, a normal work week. On average I'm gone 11 hours per day, which would be 55 hours a week. When it comes down to it, rather more if more work is there and if I thus stay longer. So for the sake of it, let's go up 5 hours and use basically your schedule of 60 hours a week. Do mind that in my example I have travel effort included. If you did not add that in your case, it would be more, unless you basically live right next to your work place or something. 60 hours That's like two and a half days non-stop where I am not home. Or 12 hours per day. Gone half a day each day during the week. Holy moly, if I think about it. I should really move closer so I can at least reduce that number a bit! But think about what I could do in a game or for an organization each time, and live as things unfold, not always just notice them when they happened as I come home, if I had that time for an organization or game instead. Where I could be if I actively invested just half of that or a quarter more each day, counting release and the ability to build in-game. I don't need to be "on it" 60 hours like some sort of job replacement, but more time always helps in such cases where you want to establish organizations or projects, or maintain them. The point here basically is to show that there's usually no real hard cap and that you can, in theory, always invest time into an organization or project, healthy breaks included of course. So if there's usually no hard cap and if "the more the merrier" applies, I think it can basically be seen as "job" to some extend. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Now before this text blob becomes bigger, I really wish you good luck and well in your endeavors. The more people help, the easier it becomes to solve tasks or share burdens. But I still believe it's basically like a second job at that point. If 60+ hours are already used up, I believe you can only get far if you have enough supporters. Otherwise, growth would be very slow or stagnant as most tasks would fall on your plate as "main initiator" or "founder", basically. Text blob signing off.
  6. Warden

    In-game voice.

    In a nutshell and my book, the technical obstacles or effort of implementing such features (with, perhaps, additional customization or scaling options for the user to decide or set) is worth it as many players would benefit from some sort of integrated voice feature. While NQ surely has bigger fish to catch (problems to solve) right now, it is vital to speak about this early as, as soon as possible, and bring it up on the plate, as this (assuming it will be accepted) allows you to integrate or plan integration early on into the general framework of the game. Furthermore, I am happy to see that all the "lobbying work" wasn't futile - thanks to all bringing it up: * That's no definite "approval", there's no time-frame, but it is on the plate (being considered), and that is what counts. * The picture wasn't taken recently, so it's not literally yesterday. It was sent to me some time ago via Discord, around May 13.
  7. Uh oh, mistake alert! Hang on, a team of highly trained monkeys is on the case. There, done, now people can tell us apart Oh, right, welcome to the community, have fun, Warlden. I also played SWTOR a bit but at one point, it stopped really drawing me in.
  8. A little "resurrection" posting: Since a group picking up the idea changed its concept some time ago, there isn't really (to my knowledge!) any group going for this at this time. There may be German speaking or centered organizations, but those I know of do not seem to fit the bill as they are more so general interest-groups or corporations. The specific idea for this type of state or project is something closer to a classic player run nation with a government, agencies, diplomats, etc and an emphasis on German (and perhaps Swiss or Austrian) cultural elements and maybe stereotypes (in good fun). I still think a good fictional example would be one of the houses (or states) called "Rhineland" from the Freelancer game. I would not even be opposed to making it a "copy" in name, although logos and media should be unique or different to prevent potential issues or just eyes being rolled at it becoming an actual copy. Fictional reference: http://freelancer.wikia.com/wiki/Rheinland Anyone interested at this time? We need founding members. Due to the nature of the project, ideally German speaking ones - for now. I, for one, am interested enough to "kickstart" this project and idea, but cannot possibly do so full-time due to being involved in other numerous projects. So it is very much a collaborative effort. Is it worth it? I think so. It can stand out as one of the more unique 'organizations' over time and serve as hub for not just German speaking players but anyone interested in later visiting a German centered group in-game. Think of it like having a vacation (or business visit) in another country while seeing other cultural impacts. It's often interesting in reality. And we can make it interesting in-game. TL;DR: The creation of a 'classic player state' with an emphasis on German (and maybe Swiss / Austrian) cultural aspects and fictional influences, primarily but not solely for German-speaking players, at least in government positions. Type of government would either be modern or maybe monarchic depending on what an eventual founding team would be able to agree on. References or turns to real extreme ideologies, far left or far right, are not intended at all.
  9. Shh, before people actually get creative ideas OR, god beware, try them. Other than that, people usually go by the low hanging fruits. It is what it is.
  10. That surely is correct or seems logical but I would also consider it tricky to keep a role or power in a authoritarian-minded group or one with a central leader be a serious there, people (have to) rely on that sole leaders by default. In a democratic set up the organization persists and you just change the leader figure or representative. If there is a bad apple in a classic org with one primary leader, then what?
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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?
  14. But are you then not attacking a third party just because "It's not us"? Now this would severely depend on who or what party the "neutral convoy" would be, but at the same time it could be an unaffiliated party in the conflict ("neutral") and you'd just open up another keg of powder or front. The point is you don't necessarily have to mind people passing by. If they involve themselves, the situation can change of course. And truth be told, the red cross example may not make sense in DU. But there's maybe a better or more fitting one. The press There's news organizations. Let's shift away from red cross and perhaps argue with "the press" as it would be more relevant to gameplay. Granted, I have no clue how this would or should be treated, it would severely depend on all involved actors and the situation. I can see factions get pissed if people literally shove themselves into conflicts or areas trying to use "I'm with the press / news org" as "free pass" to get anywhere or up close to certain fights and whatnot. And not everyone would acknowledge every news outfit or grant them certain rights, I think.
  15. I assume many organizations / players would not really bother utilizing or always checking some database for specific details - when it perhaps could be easier. As for consequences (3.) I kind of agree. I think it boils down to this: Can they get away with it? Multiple times? Broken down it could boil down to "risk vs reward". If no one enforces anything, many would stop caring about your neutral affiliations. Some people respect groups for their ideas by default or automatically, others would perhaps only refrain engaging if they have to fear retribution or problems of any kind. E.g. some respect the group's ideas and do not mind or interfere, others would need fear to not engage or interfere. ---------------------------------------- In today's world, it is somewhat easier with international pacts, agreements and supra-national entities going beyond individual nations. But this does not exist in DU so far - it may perhaps do so on paper in the lore (UMF, etc) but in the end, players need to force consequences and no "paper entity in the lore" can do this if no player backs it up, assuming humanoid NPCs will still not be a thing way later. Perhaps we may never see something akin to the "UN" in DU filled by players, but I can very much imagine general expectations or pacts or agreements between big and / or known organizations who slowly shape regulations, laws and expectations in many areas of space. And if you engage certain neutral people, ships or projects you may indeed have to expect the wrath of many people in many areas. I think that will end up being a notable deterrent for random acts of violence or unneeded destruction targeting said "neutral group". Time will tell. But in the end, just wagging the finger and saying "But, but, you can't do that, we're neutral / the Alioth Red Cross / the press!" will not be enough at one point.
  16. I generally think that big organizations usually, by default, have the manpower advantage and can generate wealth or certain products better, if we assume the average member contributes. Thus you have more people contribute, logically, compared to smaller groups. In a nutshell things would usually always be harder in smaller groups compared to bigger ones. The smaller the group, the more you need luck or the right contacts or the right actions at the right time to be able to "lift off" or get anywhere. Anything is still possible in theory, but maybe harder or easier depending on the circumstances. In most cases, if you want to be a loner or only work with very few people in a classic fashion, it'll be harder in many cases. Achieving things could, at the same time, perhaps feel more rewarding, no doubt. But at the end of the day, (re)building civilization or making big player states, empires or businesses is a collaborative effort where loners or very small groups may contribute, but never really (collectively) shape the landscape and I do not mean that in an all too literal sense regarding "shaping the landscape". Look at the current or future big organizations to get a feeling of what I could mean or try to convey. Compared to them, how can a one-man or very small personal empire really "compete" or "stand out"? You can be successful individually or on different scales and perhaps manage to obtain a core set of supporters, clients, members, etc. But the big groups will still be known by the average Joe sooner or later and people tend to stick to larger groups from what I can assume or assess so far. Safety in numbers n' all. From what I gathered so far, there is no big or any intend to really have AI be a dominating or key aspect in the game later on, at least not in regards to military conflicts or economic aspects - in short, the players may have to do most of the work themselves with various tools or through effort. I would therefore plan for this, all in all, to be prepared. If it changes and becomes easier? Then it gets easier. If not, you planned ahead. ----- In short, anything is in theory possible, but large(r) groups usually have abstract or very real advantages over loners or small teams or organizations. As for the "trust thing" I still suggest to try to slowly change the expectations and take a few risks - might become the greatest time spent online you can have, maybe. The great game is always in motion, whether you want it or not. Just like the river flows and the individual drop of water is unable to stop it, can only really go along with it.
  17. I suppose that's one way to put it. Perhaps, to try to explain it to people who do not think they have a solid grasp of what roleplay can be about, here's another attempt to put it and maybe encourage it, at least very very mildly: I want you to think of a great game you have played. An immersive game, perhaps an RPG or just a good shooter with a storyline that gripped you at one point and made you wonder what could happen next. That drew you into the story or plot and your character or the challenges. Now I want you to think of a few good movies that slowly dragged you into the setting or plot. For me, it's usually any good RPG, but it can also be a shooter. I generally like to play roles or mildly pretend or immersive myself in the more modern TES or Fallout games for example. On the other hand, I must admit I had a great time playing Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. I simply liked the plot and changes, and challenges you went through, cliché story or not. In all those games or movies, do you really always mentally detach yourself from the setting? Do you just see protagonist, antagonist, NPC, movie actor? Would that even be fun? I personally doubt it. And that's what, in my book, RP is or should be all about in games and online or even in singleplayer. Try not to force yourself to see yourself as some dude or gal sitting on front of the PC all the time, only playing a game. Well, I mean technically that is what is happening, but with just a bit of "head canon", imagination, that is, it can be so much more fun and you do not have to pretend you're suddenly an actor or a very different person. For me, it's basically a fun booster. A big one, even. And I think more people subconsciously "RP" or apply such elements to their groups than they like to think. At least I get that impression when I look at countless great organization promotions here, including the big ones. Sure, if you read between the lines or take it at face value, many posts or ads do not have to hint at a special RP level or "classic RP" at all - at the same time, all the wordings, promotions, ads look like they come from organizations that would or do basically exist in the game world and all these groups will interact with each other. That's, kinda, already roleplaying. --------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps my point I want to try to get across here to others smirking when they hear roleplay is: In reality, it can be or is much more diverse and dynamic than just a bunch of whiny kids or adults trying to play in their bubble-sandbox and complain when anyone tries to disturb their little dream worlds or playgrounds. Yeah, those people also exist and I kind of dislike them, but on the other hand they usually can be found in classic themepark MMORPGs where they indeed have their "safe spaces". I'm not saying it's bad to have that preference, but these people usually have problems with certain types of conflicts. And with that in mind, (competitive) sandbox games with emergent gameplay and PvP involved are usually not games or environments they end up in or end up staying in. They'll either stick to true safe zones, adapt or leave for some other "haven". TL;DR: RPers aren't all that homogeneous and bad and a bit of immersion never hurts gameplay in my book. I basically RP here in a way where I try to make a group look realistic and the feedback gotten over the years proves this point to some extend at least, while I do not actually pretend I'm some corporate CEO or whatever both on paper and in mindset. I can still shit-chat and yet, dynamically immerse myself in the game and speak to clients in a more business-like approach trying to avoid words that make it clear again we're just a bunch of people playing a game right then. Another example of how I envision adding a level of immersion could be this: You want to meet someone, have business talks maybe. You could just send them a message with all details and have a PM discussion. Or you invite them to a discord chat. That's all fine and viable. And usually done by most people due to practical reasons. What I find or assume is that most people would, however, usually not think about actually meeting in-game in their offices, bases, etc. in conference rooms and talking it out for real, assuming VOIP and so on would be a thing. Even if not, you could chat. Would it potentially be more of a hassle as you have to set up this meeting, find a date, and have to travel there? Sure. But it would feel more natural I think. You actually invite someone or get invited yourself to some high business meetings or diplomatic sessions and debate or argue things out. I think the whole action or intend would get several new vibes if done like that instead of just throwing text at each other in PM or Discord, for example. That's just an example of how people can, in my view, slightly or notably enhance their gameplay. They still don't have to speak all exotic n' crap - not that this would be a medieval setting, just saying. At the same time, if you represent some corporation or player state in some meeting, I wouldn't go "Yooo dude that's a lit base man, how many gaming sessions did it take you to build it?" You can ask the same thing, but worded slightly better or more natural. E.g. "An interesting well designed building you have here. How long did construction take?" ... ... Oh, I'm still writing? Enough text again - for now.
  18. I have not played LOTRO and not much WoW in RP, but spoke to someone who was actively involved in the RP there in some special official event organizer role or similar a decade ago and if I remember his stories right, it was on a relative decline. From my own experience in a hand full of MMORPGs, RP never seemed to be long term Dev focus or officially supported or moderated through employees. And frankly, RPers do not need much if you think about it content wise. Sure, clothing, etc. But RPers mostly generate their own content. The other PvP and PvE crowd kinda expects regular or reoccuring content additions and care. RP servers in MMORPGs were often just labeled as such to let RPers "rally" there, but never saw any special rules apply as far as I know or have seen in a few games. SWTOR even had a disclaimer for this when you clicked on the RP server. RPers may not need much to start doing their thing, but at the same time (or due to this?) never seemed to have received overly much dev attention. They, in the end, just seem like a niche group in comparison to the overall community they exist in. Keep in mind I mean all of this in a subjective and generalized fashion regarding your usual theme park MMORPGs. Exceptions and so on can or will obviously exist.
  19. Ironically, when writing the post, I even thought about adding something akin to: "... and even then there is no gurantee" but I think in most classic deep or real friendships the possibility or abstract risk of being seriously back stabbed is very very low to almost non-existant by default at least. Some pranks or jokes? Sure. Hard betrayal with lots of damage that would sour the relationship? Why would you do that if you intend to play the game and achieve things together? In short, not saying it can never happen but in the given predictions it would have the least risks or likelihoods in my book.
  20. I see a potential issue with execution of the idea. It is painting symbols. On ships. We do not seem to talk about livery or or color pattern but something even less visible on a ship. We are not talking about more slow paced warfare on the ground where the target may be in good visual range. We talk about space where engaging or spotting distance may be vastly higher with space often being the background. In addition to the potential ineffectiveness comes aforementioned abuse, potentially, and people (some) being wary of this. So what might make vastly more sense or be more effective in more encounters without or in addition to a fitting symbol? The right ID tags or group affiliations you can or may see or scan for later on. Perhaps without the need for visual confirmation. So what do you think about that? Easier to verify and spot.
  21. There is no protection against "betrayal". Sorry, rephrasing: There is no guaranteed ultimate protection against it reaching 100 percent. If or once you start to publicly recruit (strangers) with no deeper 'real' connection to you (in reality, like true friendship or simply knowing that person well enough) you are at an abstract risk for countless reasons. It does not have to happen (to you specifically), but it can. Even if not, someone else could betray you, such as 'allies', clients, etc. Non-members basically. With that in mind, countless people still take that risk and have a great time. Maybe you should not worry about it too much and / or think of ways to lower the risk? In the end, your preferences or expectations are yours. I can hardly say "This is wrong" like I could hardly blame someone for liking a certain music or food, even though I may not share the same opinion or rather preference. But, eh, I'm saying you could have a vastly better time or have more opportunities if you perhaps change the expectations a bit. And in the end, great rewards or profit usually only come with or after taking certain risks. Life is full of abstract or real risks. We have to learn to assess or take them, all in all, I think.
  22. With the game still being in development and a lot uncertain (planned or not, time will really tell), you'd basically have to consider 1) (potential) long range scanning or detection methods 2) People having the same idea If it will indeed become a huge universe to play in (think of like Mine craft's theoretical size of 8 times the size of ?), then I think there will be plenty of spots to hide. But consider the downsides if you want to get back to the 'civilized' worlds. And the thing is you can never really know for certain how long you may or will be 'hidden'. A potential hassle I still see is getting back. If you fly a literal week into one direction you need the same time to get back. That's not even considering (player) hazards along the way, possibly being traced or just logistics. And then getting back again once your business or whatever is taken care of. The longer you intend to travel away from the starting zones, the more vital small resupply outposts might become.
  23. I see no reason why not. I'm not (representing) NQ but I'll basically say "Yes" with 99% certainty. Having a presence there would, in my eyes, seem crucial or helpful. Can't advertise or get in touch with those who already know about it if you're not there, after all, and I found the brief exchange there last year with NQ-Nomad, I think, and looking at some early version, to be refreshing.
  24. Yeah, it's a slight text wall, but potentially interesting for some here. Recap is in bright green down here. If you have problems with colors, it says TL;DR in front of it. Duh. Foolproof. Mostly in response to the last statement, but also the general topic, perhaps it should be said (for the dear reader right now who may or may not have had much RP experience or interest, and even for those with RP experience) that... Many people define or view roleplay in a different fashion I think that's generally the gist of it. A little excursion or addendum - just skip it if you don't want my views on how RP is viewed in general or how you could break it down a bit: Alright, those still relatively short ramblings above kind of describe how I view things. Some people like this, some like that. I, for one, started all that in MMORPGs but when I discovered communities where active gameplay was part of the whole RP shebang, I started to prefer it more. It all had more flow to events, was more thrilling, appeared better than playing a text and walking simulator in some MMORPG in essence. In my honest opinion, with the notable gaps I see between average MMORPG RP and living (and surviving) in such sandbox universes, I don't think the "classic MMORPG RP'er" will be having a good time depending on their expectations. Now, you can throw tomatoes at me, but after years of having been around these and other people, I like to think I can compare a bit. I've noticed that what I would call "average MMORPG RP'er"s usually have less of a thick skin and are relatively quickly offended. Mind you, I do not speak for all but I have seen a few patterns over the time in various people. In most MMORPGs I've seen there may be "RP servers" around, but often those were just labels bumped on a server, there was no deeper "quality control" from the devs. End result was that many non-RP'ers would also play there or people who wanted to annoy RP'ers. In a nutshell, as RP'er you had to share the server with non-RP'ers. Sometimes people (drunk or not) would annoy RP'ers by running around them or shooting some AOE skill with lots of visual effects or noise into or at the characters, to annoy or distract. Some people almost threw hissy fits about it in local say chat or whispered that to me where I could simply blink and shrug. And this ties in to your quote there, to some extend: What I basically want to say is: People who come here with a fixed definition or idea of how to roleplay should perhaps reconsider or expand their horizons or try something new. This isn't a classic RP game or MMORPG-RP scenario where people can live in their bubbles and pretend anything. This will be, very much, an active setting as it's a sandbox game with emergent gameplay. Safe-zones aside, if you run around or mess with people in an RP context or not, then: You will have to expect to lose In other words I'd describe it as "RP-PVP" or something. It's something I personally like, RP'ing in such sandbox games in such a fashion where it is mild and yet very seamless. Some games offer this by default due to how they work, I'd say Star Citizen and Dual Universe would be among such games. People already "roleplay" to some extend by creating groups, cities, ranks, pretend they are someone else or at least appear on state with titles, ranks and so on. With a bit of mild immersion you can already have a blast and good time and lose yourself in the game (world). In the end I don't want to or cannot really convince people with vastly other goals or views on "RP" to change their ways. But I highly encourage anyone to get out of the "MMORPG-RP bubble mentality" if you want to do anything remotely connected to RP in Dual Universe. My suggestion: Embrace the open-ended sandbox or "RP-PVP" mentality that will persist and you'll have a good time if you incorporate losses or the on-goings of the server community into your gameplay and interact with the general community instead of trying to create your sealed (RP) bubbles where you "passive" all day. I mean you can do that and that's fine, but if you're open to more, you'll likely have a better time. TL;DR In a nutshell, my point basically is: Open your mind or expand your horizons and you'll have a better time. Losing can be part of the fun and not everyone can always win anyway - whether in an RP context or not. On a closing note, I also try to avoid using the terms "RP" or "Roleplayer" by and large. In the past in Star Citizen and group promotion, it was shown that the term itself confused some people at times, and as stated way above, there's still wildly different views and (mis?)conceptions about that. I, instead, like to speak or talk about immersion. Something anything can relate to, or do so better at least. I want to mix up things and have a seamless experience where, at a second glance, you make it so that you and those around you already are kind of "roleplaying" by playing what you portray, whether that is some pirate, businessman, faction leader, trader, diplomat, etc. As this is a modern setting, it's also fairly easier to do for all. You don't have to speak in some odd twisted language or wording. You just play your role and immerse yourself mildly at least. You can still do anything including hardcore super serious passive RP, but nothing will really annoy you if you stop expecting this to happen from everyone or everywhere and just laugh at other stuff. Okay, enough text for now. Don't throw stones at me.
  25. As the disclaimer goes, "does not (fully) represent final product" or something. I'd say something like this once an NDA lift takes place and once people go wild with sharing information: You like what you see already? I will get better. You dislike what you see so far? It will likely only get better. In general? Game information is spread, more people will look at it and take part somehow. Unrelated PS
×
×
  • Create New...