Jump to content


Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Warden

  1. Might just be the game that will eventually top hours wasted in a video game for me. So far my record holder is G-Mod with something around 4500 hours, I think.
  2. I'm not terribly opposed to this if "integrated well". Of course, this is highly subjective. Considering gameplay, it adds emergent gameplay or potential consequences for your actions if you just can't "go dark" when no one is there (and you know it), risking potential "ghost damage" all the time. Most notably, smaller to moderate groups or organizations or even specific individuals could benefit from some kind of proposed mechanic, but it should feel natural. It basically means "If I do proceed to damage someone's (protected or defended, and I don't necessarily mean with shields or territory protection, more like, hardened, overwatched, camera-ridden) property then I may have to expose my identity and fear repercussions. At the same time it allows the victims to get some rough clue about attacks. Considering "Realism" or "immersion", aka the time we will play and live in in DU, it should be possible tech-wise. Definitely. So I see two positive reasons (if not more) for both gameplay and regarding the technology (whether it should be possible at all from a universe or lore POV). But how should it look like? Now, I just don't propose pure text logging that gives away all information which would feel relatively artificial to me - at least, if we can have more and if the developers deem it possible to implement (without causing too much server problems and so on) and want to implement it. I propose something more "immersive" and still believable. Now, advanced scanners in that day and age or not, we could start simple and have something akin to cameras that allow you different options, such as manually checking areas from some console or, and now it becomes more relevant, trigger when a certain action is taken in visual range. E.g. take pictures that are stored in-game or only log something in text form when, for example, an attack is noted in the radius of the camera or device. Ideally, of course, with a camera you can then have a visual image of a potential attacker. Should a clear name be on it? Here's where I propose another twist: It should be a bit blurry or only partially revealed, making it potentially hard to guess or figure out immediately who was responsible, adding potential investigation work as additional aspect. Maybe other potential identifiers such as ID tags, affiliations, something else. Maybe the longer you attack, the more clear the ID or so gets, as in, more hints are left. You can argue more about this, but my point is to allow for something interesting catering to both sides in that scenario and something that generates more gameplay possibilities beyond having nothing to log attacks and getting literally everything about the attacker. I think something like I proposed, assuming it would be viable from a technical POV, would be a good compromise and create more content for many players.
  3. Are you a creator? Let us together! Our Service branch is responsible for a broad spectrum of tasks, including urban design and construction work. In service to the general public, we create and maintain vital urban infrastructure - and provide many other services in the areas of Security and Science on that note. As not everyone has to always try to invent the wheel anew, we bolster existing projects such as »Tortuga City and stand ready to support it in the future. We have successfully done similar work in the past by connecting areas - and thus, people. We are currently looking to bolster our ranks. If you look for a big challenge in an ever changing international workplace and small team and do not mind taking on responsibility for various projects or people, then contact us at your earliest convenience so that we can create together. More information:
  4. I was wondering how precisely you would define or elaborate on the statement "I want to have fun". I only ask because I am curious and because I feel the need to point something out depending on your expectations. Now, we are all here to have fun in the end, no doubt, and everyone defines fun a little differently. But I was mostly curious if you (just) look at the end goal of you having a working democracy or w/e. Basically, my point is that large(r) projects will lead to challenges and it won't always be "fun" especially if you fail to generate initial momentum. Sometimes, initial momentum can make or break projects or influence long-term morale. We all want to accomplish certain things but unless we are relatively lucky it will be a bumpy ride in two ways: First, all the struggles to establish the idea, state or project must be overcome such as creating an infrastructure in and beyond the game, finding people and backers, etc. And if you do all that, then it doesn't stop. Then you have to keep it alive. Create and maintain. I am sure you are ready to invest energy, time, nerves into the idea(l)s you have but perhaps it's good to mention it here again as some kind of "PSA" for others. And not everyone has to try to invent the wheel anew. If similar groups or projects pop up, join them or collaborate instead of trying to do everything yourself with your name or brand on it. Might sometimes take pride or compromise, but gets you further on average.
  5. @dw_ace_918 Many organizations resort to some sort of formal(ized) application system, just like real companies and institutions. E: 666 posts.
  6. Hi there, I realize it says Discord, but since I'll be on the move and can't use it for half a day, I'll post here in advance. Thing is, with prior experience, we actually wanted to put emphasis on forms for applicants. The idea is to weed out people on different levels while getting to know them through a set of questions, and while checking if they were serious in their interest. Checking if they can (and want to) fill out a form (answer questions) that may perhaps take them a few minutes to 1-2 dozen minutes to fill out, which isn't a terribly lot of time. Before anyone gets me wrong, I'm not implying "how dare you question holy formal applications!" I'm just providing some insights why people go that route, and it doesn't automatically have to equal becoming another cog in some machine. We, for example, are so far tiny in size which kind of negates the one-of-many or cog in machine aspect. But apart from that, we're flexible and have created some categories to fit what you look for. I'm now thinking about something like a solid partnership, contractor status, joint projects, etc. Call it what you want, but basically it would be free reign and working together. Work with, not under a brand. Now, we've both been around a while, right? I have seen you before, and surely you saw me or rather our group before so you can also already loosely judge whether we are interesting for you or not. If you are not terribly against it we can talk more. Why us? We are not big, we do not have a terribly large community imprint on a public level. But we're somewhat handy with multimedia and taking part in some projects like Tortuga or, later on, the Aerospace expo. I think we have a good foothold and good foundation to grow on or from and could perhaps benefit helping each other with projects. We have something entertainment related planned in the future and promotional content is already being worked on slowly. We also do not mind paying for good solid work. Think of "donations", of course mostly meant as small token of gratitude, not large to make it look like a salary replacement or boost. -------------------------- If you (or anyone else reading this) find this remotely interesting, got some skills to bring to the table and/or are willing to obtain them or contribute, then I encourage you to look up "Vulture Corporation" in the org registry here in the forum if you haven't already. I like to think we always had a small community imprint but can have a big community impact if required. We look for creators and those should not mind starting in a small group. In your case, Yama, we can find fitting ways to work together, with little to no paperwork at all. No matter whether you think it fits or not, feedback is always appreciated so that we can improve. I thank you for your attention and will see you in DU either way, while also wishing you good luck in your search and of course future projects. PS: I love typing on mobile. Not.
  7. Indeed, it is DU or don't DU, as Lethys said. The only problem you might have (the biggest problem, perhaps) is convincing others to join your ideas. Marketing. And then managing (people). But chances are something will pop up eventually. In other words, and as the community grows, all kinds of ideas and concepts will be put to the paper and forums, and game. This basically means whatever type of group, organization or state you look for, it will pop up by general concept at least. Make your own. You can't, don't want to do it yourself or it does not work in the long run? Then join an existing group or advertise an idea and have others join up and share the burden or responsibilities equally. But no matter what you or others do, not everyone in the community will like it. And does not have to. E: Uh oh, two posts till ⛥ 666 posts ⛧, brace for impact!
  8. I'm kinda happy again to have picked a "Corporation" as organization entity. While a lot more is possible and feasible, I think it was a good decision even though it could be considered "semi-dictatorship". What the board says goes, but you can still implement "democratic aspects" on many levels without necessarily being "slow" or "complex" by design. In the end, what may work or be good in reality does not necessarily have to do so in this game - even if intentions are noble. I currently like what I have. Dynamic and shifting; be your own "gov" or work under one (on their turf). We also do not have to cover many positions or expectations you'd see or need in a classic democracy, depending on how you define it and whatnot.
  9. I would like to provide an example from a different game. Now I don't want people to start comparing the games in great detail, as I do not think they can be compared deeply - at best, they share similarities or universal aspects. My point now is size, however. And control of groups over territory. I will use DayZ as example I will refer to the map you can play in. v Maps in spoiler to keep post short v A wiki entry states the country itself is 225 km2 in size, so the playable map in the first picture above is way smaller. Some google search hinted at it only being 16 x 16 km or so. I currently play it actively in an RP community on a private shard that does well to simulate evolving and growing (or dissolving) player factions. Granted, in this example we have to keep in mind that server population is ultimately limited. Just like map size is compared to DU or comparable games. But the point here is how player factions exert control over parts of the playable areas. For example, in that community there is currently a major conflict going on between "Anarchy forces" who have ties to some communist secessionist movement that grabbed parts of the nation in the chaos following some rabies infection, and some resistance with ties to the original government of the nation - all portrayed by players. For a long while they exerted power over the survivor populace. Only recently, from government controlled areas, paramilitary, government backed forces returned to the province to engage those anarchy forces. In a more abstract or general fashion, we basically had an aggressive group who'd also raid, rob, murder people at will and not everyone submitted to or agreed with them. Some fought. Some stayed away from them. Depending on the player or person you are, you have many options. They were or are a powerful group and good at PVP. They do have numbers and more members than most other groups on average. But the thing is, they can't be everywhere at once. The map above might seem small, especially if you know it well or just look at the map and different scale. But it's still huge in a certain way, with cities, villages and lots of forests. Now not just counting size and looking at player interactions, what happened? A group began to drive others away or piss them off. In that case you can bugger off, join them or fight back. That's what people eventually did - they started fighting back because they grew tired of their antics. This lead to several people and groups forming an alliance to fight those people. And then even other factions joined in, events are generated, content is generated, people are having fun. Instead of complaining about others earning their influence or getting to where they got, people roll with it and incorporate it into their gameplay. But enough of this example now. Dual Universe will be even bigger than just a patch of land in a nation, on one planet. Now I get that there will also be vastly more players and all of them will be on the same server or run around in the very same game universe instead of being separated by servers. The scale therefore goes up. But with theoretically endless space and many options, I really - for now - see little need for panic or above-average concerns for the future. I want to see a large group blockade a whole planet effectively if space will indeed be big in DU later on. And maybe ... if they got to that point ... they even somewhat earned it. I'll worry or consider dev involvement when it actually happens and when a point is reached where gameplay is severely impacted for new players (there). And before "out of game" involvement or concern is or should be a thing, there's plenty of ways to react to a perceived developing threat with game measures. I also still see plenty of room for smaller organizations. Not everyone wants to or can be the elephant in the room, as large communities or organizations can be volatile if the right conditions are met. In other words, Empires rise and fall. As I believe in emergent gameplay in general, I'm also so far against a system to limit organization size by numbers. Again, if people can manage to pull something (large) off and maintain it over time, I see no reason to put stones in their way - unless it turns into an "out of game" problem for new players. But time shall tell. I just see no real need to worry until then, frankly.
  10. I mainly hope enough emphasis will be put on diverse or different armor sets. Regardless of whatever priorities might exist, I simply think having this grand game scale but later only having a hand full of different armor sets (+ maybe some combinations you can get through combining different pieces) would not really 'fit' the scope or idea of the game in my book. But then again with my background I like to put emphasis on having a decent armor and clothing selection in the game to customize your character, appearance and in that sense your position in whatever entity you might be part of. The more, the merrier. As this can also attract a larger audience who like visual customization, I think NQ should eventually put some form of focus on increasing the selection. On an abstract level it can satisfy some players and help in telling stories, and can in turn help in multimedia content and promotion as players share their stories on the net and showcase different outfits. In a nutshell, it makes players happy and / or helps with their media content. In an indirect way, not just the community but NQ would also benefit from that, I think. Of course, "custom armor" might sound a bit odd or tricky. I generally hope for a diverse selection of clothing and armor down the road, but would not be averse to have a special way of requesting unique or specific outfit designs for money that could then be added as a sort of "skin" for existing armor so that the appearance changes, if not as hard armor item for all. This would bind personnel at NQ who are occupied with implementing such skins or armor items per player request. At the same time I see abstract risks, such as potential copyright issues if armor design sources are unclear. It would be cool for the customer, but all in all the measure would seem exotic and could bear abstract risks depending on how this would be implemented or work (if, say, you would supply requests with pictures instead of being able to design armors solely in-game through some tool). In short, I don't see it happening.
  11. To summarize or generalize, I personally still think that in many people's heads, there is an abstract wild fear about PVP, being "griefed", ganked, taken advantage of, etc. Now I realize I might have it easy or be potentially biased: I'm no hardcore PvP fan by default or through playstyle. I don't actively look for the confrontation or need it all the time. I don't intend to hold people up, rob them, ruthlessly destroy their creations, etc. But at the same time I do not hide and shy away from a fight. Defend myself or fight back if need be. I'm currently playing on a DayZRP community that goes with its own lore and setting. And boy, it's a blast! But why? It's the conflict, the survival, the unclear encounters. Anything can happen and at the same time, various factions formed that fight for power, influence and control over the region you play in. From government forces to remnants, to anarchists, communists (secessionists, in a nutshell), to psychopath groups or people and groups with their own agendas - so many interactions, so much to do. And at the same time, despite or due to the conflict, plenty to do for people who may not want to actively fight. Logistics, helping others, moving things back and forth in the war, obtaining intelligence. It's just an example from another game, and while DayZ may not be completely or very comparable to DU, some things remain pretty much universal in conflicts. As someone neither totally fond but not totally averse to PvP either, I can only suggest to look past potentially abstract fears for the future and embrace the possibilities you have in a potentially war-torn or always politically and economically contested universe. Don't let your fears control you and embrace the vast options that unfold before you, and you shall truly go through an immersive or epic experience with ups and downs. And when you look back one time, you will know it was worth the time investment. I want you all to eventually look back and say: "...and boy, has it been a blast!" Even if that means you stayed in safe zones most of the time. But that's fine. Unlike in DayZ and other comparable games, here, we have hard, actual or fully safe zones. Really, make the best of that instead of fearing what could happen. And if even that may be "too much" for you, then maybe DU might not be a game for you. For all it's compromises, there's still risk once you go into certain areas. That's just what it is. As for rank structures and taking orders... ...how would you define taking orders? What would be the averse factor, the thing that bugs you there? I'd generalize and say: (Almost) No matter what group you join, you (are expected to) integrate somehow and contribute in some way or form. I think "taking orders" is simply a measure of sharing duties or contributions or managing them. It boils down to the same: You do certain things in the organization or contribute somehow, in whatever pace, in whatever form. My point is, it's likely just "how" the group is organized, but in the end it's still a very much social or collective approach. Less abstract and out of curiosity: What bugs you more? That you are expected to contribute in general or that someone gives you an order or task (with emphasis on how)?
  12. It wasn't terrible - it depends on your (mental) approach, too. Cat and mouse game. Who would try to sneak past your checkpoint, maybe smuggle items into either direction? It could happen any moment. Besides, I was not ordered by a higher unit to do so and did it voluntarily, things kept happening, I kept interacting with people who ventured down or citizens who probed security in the sector, or other units who came by to have a brief small talk. It did leave an impression because I remained at a spot for so long, which wasn't the case for daily duties where most units usually patrolled or were changing location. I still don't think I overestimate it. Mining or building, harvesting resources, repairing damage constantly, could also be considered menial labor and so on. And yet many will do it - have to do it, to get something done or to contribute in the bigger picture. While one could use the GTA example, I don't think it's too fitting for some situations. The direct comparison may not work if you were to try to pull the same thing in some DU city later that would enforce traffic laws (for whatever practical reason or simply for immersion) - which would ironically send player cops (or similar) after you. In GTA SP (and normal MP), no one will mind you for ignoring standard traffic laws. I think I get what you mean to say, I just don't think 'the glove fits well in any situation'.
  13. Does not have to be 8 hours, but generally yes, it can be expected. Maybe you would not do it, maybe - subjectively seen - many others would not like this. But for some it's fun. For some it's RP. For some it's thrill or just what they want to do, or at least do for a bit as they play and do other things. If you can't imagine this, there are easy examples that highlight that people exist that want to do this - at least a bit. Roleplaying games (online), such as MMORPGs. Or, more actively, games like ARMA III (and any version before) where people play online in some sort of "cops vs robbers" mode where civilians can do certain jobs, become criminals or where emergency services exist including police that drive around and patrol, respond to incidents, etc. Then there is private security, mercenaries, etc. It's all players doing this. So with those good examples, I think it can be said that it can generally be expected that people contribute to major projects once they come home, in whatever capacity that may be. And if that may be "menial" guard duty or similar, then so be it. Some people will sign up for it and at least do it partially, and with more people you can have shorter "shifts". Some games will simply be relentless. If no one watches your hide-outs, caches, etc, then someone might steal from them or someone might damage them. To prevent or lower this, you need to deal with better or more coverage. In an RP game (G-Mod, Half-Life 2 RP) I once stood at a subway checkpoint for what felt like 8 actual hours (or must've been between 6-8 hours). It's menial, it's repetitive at times or for many, but so is life. You would not believe how many citizens I kept away from the restricted area just by being there and showing presence, and I could do it all from a comfy control room that would control the doors if need be. For some it is boring, but it still served a vital job in the bigger picture. And if players can understand that those jobs can be very vital, their acceptance may rise notably.
  14. I'll have to postpone watching the video (mobile and / or time constraints) but in general (solely referring to the thread title and topic w/o the video), my general stance is that I prefer Sandbox over themepark. I will watch the video later and may comment on it specifically or separately, but for now this is my general view: ---------------- I started off in themepark MMORPGs. You could think I'd be used to them. But in fact, I am not. I never was. My first one was Star Wars Galaxies, granted, a combination out of some sort of themepark and sandbox MMORPG. I am always a fan of immersion or living or going through a story and interacting with others, and building something for yourself. I want an experience. Themepark MMOs or MMORPGs usually had a few disadvantages that ruined that goal or wanted experience for me. Disadvantages because I saw subjectively "better" (more interesting) systems in other genres. "Themeparks" were usually associated with grind and artificial-feeling levels and appropriate zoning (level areas). I had to go through some chores and grind just to get to a point where I could enjoy the game or have the gear or objects I wanted. For many, it's the challenge or fun. I, for one, often or almost always found it to be and feel artificial, with no real meaning to the game world. It's like a hamster wheel. Of course, life and sandbox games can also be a hamster wheel, but often with more twists or freedoms than 'themeparks'. In addition I often found the combat system to be clunky-ish, and the item sharing to be limited as you always had to "trade" through windows. In other games, you can just throw something on the ground so another can pick it up. Less 'restrictions'. But maybe, in the end, I may simply favor or like a specific genre. And that are sandbox games where you can shape or influence your surroundings, whether physically or on a wider community sense. That is what I like. Today I might not even touch themepark for RP, which I like to do on occasion. It's not worth the grind and time investment when I can have more from any time investment in modern sandbox-like games that are also usually more "dynamic" or have a better pace, or more options. To recap, not saying themepark is bad - I simply dislike it and favor sandbox. More options and fun for me.
  15. Hi Guowenn, Saarland, eh? I'm sure DU will become an interesting, great game. Speaking of German-speaking organizations, Hyperion (Corp) is likely one if not the biggest around, so if you don't mind larger groups you should perhaps take a look at them. (No, I'm not a member before anyone gets funny thoughts here :P) But of course, there might also be others that fit your bill. It's just that not many other German-speaking organizations come to my mind right now other than Fenrir Development and 1-2 others. And if you don't mind going international, there's even more choice. But, why go to organizations? Let them come to you! It could be a tedious process (possibly, not always), as soon as you intend to check more than a hand full of groups. So to bring use to another topic, why don't you utilize this thread? In this thread (thanks to the mods / NQ again for picking up the idea upon request cough or coming up with it themselves!), you can post and specify what you want to look for in organizations. You can bet the thread would be monitored by most organizations, or in other words, that your post would then be checked by most organizations. The advantage I see by posting in there is that you can, to great detail, elaborate what you want to see in organizations and not see in organizations, or you can describe what you can bring to the table and cannot bring to the table. This would in theory mean that depending on how you "filter" and describe things, you'd only get fitting organization offers. Why try to swim through the lake looking for fish when you can let the right fish come to you? Try it, lean back and see who replies, then look at those offers and pick the subjectively best. Now, you may not need to do this if you're already set and given that there's likely just a hand full of German speaking groups, you could check those yourself. But for anyone else, especially those with a bigger "target pool", I can only recommend you utilize this thread Anyway, have fun. Viel Spaß.
  16. Interesting, but in that topic I also would not just talk about how to approach recruitment, maybe. Now for the following I don't necessarily mean to imply you should add it to your guide of sorts because it could be seen as another topic on its own, detached from recruitment. I simply want to bring it up here for further discussion and to those "on the fence" about it. It's the question: Do you want to recruit (and in a wider sense, lead an organization or grow it with "strangers") at all and invest the time in the first place? Now, I realize the question or step would be clear to most asking themselves how to recruit, but I'll just throw it in here for all "on the fence" now or later about starting a group, relatively from scratch. If you start with a hand full of people, friends, prior infrastructure, media etc, it is easier. While luck of course also plays a huge role and doing the right things at the right time, I think on average the hardest part is starting from scratch: No (other) members No prior infrastructure to utilize (forums, websites, etc) No prior media work, branding, themes, organization concept (and then) Picking a style or approach that is not so competitive and covered too often or alternatively trying to pick a unique one (from scratch) that is competitive I don't want to write an essay at this time, but wanting to start an organization anew, maybe from scratch, is usually not so easy and should (in my book) only be done if you really have a good idea on how to proceed and what to do and / or if you have that "spark" in you that almost compels you to do it. I would, however, not advise just "randomly" trying to start an organization and just throw time and money into something that may never pick up or be a good idea. If you do not approach that with some sort of basic plan and want to pour your heart into it, it'll likely just fail or never really "live" or "grow" as it could be with more "heart" in it. But no matter of subjective success, growing or not, in almost all cases it's basically apparent that maintaining or growing an organization takes time and work. In short, it's not for everybody and before you likely waste time, it might be better to join one of the existing organizations. It's what I do personally in other games. Of course, sometimes you might never know if it works unless you try, on the other hand. ---------------------------- So in short, I'm not necessarily saying don't try to start other groups (from scratch). I simply mean to say: If you do, you better have a rough plan and are willing to invest time over the weeks, months, years. And acknowledge that setbacks might occur.
  17. Warden


    And if the bed is removed or destroyed during offline-absence?
  18. Warden


    If you're a bitter vet then it's likely that this will be better.
  19. We had the topic before and will have it in the future. I so far do not worry about it too much. It might just happen here and there but in the end, compare to the sheer mass of players not everyone is a little kid (mostly mentally) giggling as they build genitals. Most serious groups or individuals will not DU it and some others might stop if enough people complain somewhere (about them). In the big picture, it should be trivial.
  20. Warden

    Hey there.

    Interesting introduction, and who did not think of grand scenes when informing themselves about the game? For me, it wasn't necessarily combat oriented, however. Not exclusively, at least. I hope you have fun and start or find a fitting organization once that becomes relevant for you.
  21. First off, hi! Sitting here thinking it over, my first impulse or question was: What's with the good old days where you would judge reputation by yourself, with your mind instead of, say, abstract values and numbers. I also think too many aspects that may play a notable role in judging people or making up your mind would be over-simplified or "washed away" in a simplified +/- system where it's kinda like trying to judge something based solely on simple "likes" or "dislikes". Now, if I get this right, you ask for an implemented system rather than people just doing this "somehow", e.g. making notes for themselves or rating things for themselves. You may likely guess what I'm about to refer to at this point: The implementation effort and whether NQ can or wants to cover this at this time, or the near future (not counting if the larger community wants it or not, that is). Of course "it takes resources" cannot be a universal argument or explanation to possibly shoot down ideas that may be interesting or useful for the future, no doubt, but so far I simply think my mind (or manual notes) can cover what you suggest so far. While it might be easier to track a few things with such a system, with a bit of inquiry you could do the same. The possible downside I see is that, eventually, some people or many might rely on it too much. This could, maybe, lead to false conclusions solely based on + or - values. In short, even with that system you'll likely can't stop thinking or inquiring. I can get that it might be a good idea or useful at times, but on the other hand I currently think it can't be "too reliable" in the end.
  22. Oh hi there. A fellow Citizen of the stars! In a certain way I think DU might surpass SC in a few areas, mostly because the players will (literally) shape everything. Of course, SC has other pros or strengths. Just saying, in DU you are not bound by set areas and lore.
  23. I gotta admit, I did not play it forever, but certainly longer than some other titles. It did not bind me for too long, but it was fun. Maybe I will play it in the future again. But with limited time, I'd currently rather focus on other things. Primarily Star Citizen and Dual Universe. And then the odd game in-between like DayZ, etc.
  24. Nice idea, realistic, but maybe a bit too costly in regards of time and effort, given what NQ has to work on all in all. Different idea, less effort: have some sort of planetary or region-wide visual effects, shader, whatever the right term is, to show "pollution" or other negative effects after a while, or bind such effects to certain simple conditions such as certain objects that would produce waste (simplified, production units) if there are many on a planet or in a wider area. You can then check how "industrialized" or populated, say, Alioth is by hand or automatically and apply the moderate or big visual changes when it becomes believable. And maybe remove or lower them when applicable.
  • Create New...