Jump to content

Warden

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Content Count

    823
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Warden reacted to blazemonger in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    How is that a problem? It's as if you would be validating a terrorist's complaint that today's airport security is too tight for them to get an explosive on a plane.
     
    People hiding bases deep underground is absolutely not a 'problem'. Part of the need/wish to do so stems from the war-mongering and apparent desire to turn the game into a big battlefield as quickly as possible quite a few are advocating here.
  2. Like
    Warden got a reaction from RJ_RodassonJenkins in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    It's not just EvE, plenty of games offer(ed) that in the past or present.
     
    I like to use DayZ as (another!) example. There, you do really start with nothing and have to find it all yourself (or bet on the work of others). And if you get shot and assuming no ally or friend salvages you? It's all gone, you start with nothing again.
     
    Of course there is the option to store excess gear in barrels or tents, and perhaps soon (with beta) bases. But you have to place those somewhere on the map and even though there are some good hiding spots, anyone can in theory find and access those.
     
    It's not as large as EvE Online in terms of scope and not fully comparable but I think can serve as good example of how fast you can maybe find a fortune and then lose it.
     
    Of course one could find other examples with base building, PVP, emergent gameplay and of course potential or very real asset loss, partial or full. DU will offer it's fair share of this but also offer compromises.
     
    I suspect it will therefore attract a somewhat diverse crowd of people, even though the average player would have to accept risk assessment and asset loss.
     
     
     
    Same, to be honest, despite EvE's grand scope, I could never get into it and immerse myself into it - simply or most notably due to you having to control a space ship in third person and clicking around. It all became rather "technical" or detached for me. I like the first person experience by default, and want to construct my own bases or vehicles, and be able to land (and run around) on planets, etc.
     
    DU seems more like my cup of tea.
  3. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Happiness in Neutrality Signs?   
    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?
  4. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Supermega in Neutrality Signs?   
    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?
  5. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Lethys in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    A relatively healthy way to operate or value assets, I think.
     
    Of course it should not turn into a real paranoia for some, but in general, one should be aware of potential risks if assets are not in any are where hard mechanics basically protect them from outside damage.
     
    Many people would refrain from having assets outside of those hard safe zones but at the same time I can see plenty of room or situations where people take risks and where many benefit from having something like potentially contested (field) bases and whatnot. Depending on how easy they would be to maintain and repair and assuming you do not put all your valuables into those, it wouldn't be a huge loss for groups to operate bases in such unclaimed, potentially un-safe areas, if you ask me.
     
    And since not all want to or can stay in hard safe zones, we'll see enough infrastructure or assets in potential combat zones.
     
    I think in the end, a lot depends on your personal mindset: willing to take losses or not?
  6. Like
    Warden got a reaction from RJ_RodassonJenkins in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    A relatively healthy way to operate or value assets, I think.
     
    Of course it should not turn into a real paranoia for some, but in general, one should be aware of potential risks if assets are not in any are where hard mechanics basically protect them from outside damage.
     
    Many people would refrain from having assets outside of those hard safe zones but at the same time I can see plenty of room or situations where people take risks and where many benefit from having something like potentially contested (field) bases and whatnot. Depending on how easy they would be to maintain and repair and assuming you do not put all your valuables into those, it wouldn't be a huge loss for groups to operate bases in such unclaimed, potentially un-safe areas, if you ask me.
     
    And since not all want to or can stay in hard safe zones, we'll see enough infrastructure or assets in potential combat zones.
     
    I think in the end, a lot depends on your personal mindset: willing to take losses or not?
  7. Like
    Warden reacted to Lethys in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics   
    Ppl would just create alt orgs and give full rights via RDMS to the main group. Then you have invasion/attack forward bases which can't be attacked for a month. 
     
    I assume that almost every group will have a safe haven in some safezone, to train newbros and to have one Base which can't be taken by any means to build up again If you get killed. 
    To me living outside of those safezones just means that the moment i build something, I already mark it as a loss in my books. 
  8. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Supermega in Neutrality Signs?   
    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.
  9. Like
    Warden got a reaction from CoreVamore in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    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.
  10. Like
    Warden got a reaction from CoreVamore in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    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.
  11. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Vyz Ejstu in Neutrality Signs?   
    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.
  12. Like
    Warden reacted to NanoDot in RolePlaying, My hopes and Dreams from this game.   
    If your "RP" makes you an easy target, you will get hit.
     
    So weave your RP into the fabric of the game, there will be no "special protections" for RP-centered activities. There's nothing stopping you from integrating a healthy dose of RP in the way you play the game, but it needs to seamlessly fit with the nature of DU's game play.
     
    I'm sure we'll have emotes, and with luck we may even be able to sit in chairs !
     
    As far as MMO's providing specific RP support, that concept died long ago due to the ROI on developing those features. The user base that uses them is simply too small to make it cost-effective.
  13. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Lethys in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    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.
  14. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Nebenfigur in RolePlaying, My hopes and Dreams from this game.   
    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.
     
  15. Like
    Warden got a reaction from CyberCrunch in RolePlaying, My hopes and Dreams from this game.   
    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.
     
  16. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Lethys in Neutrality Signs?   
    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.
  17. Like
    Warden got a reaction from NanoDot in RolePlaying, My hopes and Dreams from this game.   
    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.
     
  18. Like
    Warden reacted to ATMLVE in DU Memes   
  19. Like
    Warden reacted to Lethys in The Only Down Side I See, The AI   
    You can do it already - have an empire on your own with only 5 ppl or so. It just won't be defendable because everyone can just raid you, but you can try....
     
    You seem to think that everyone should be able to do everything and that solo players who don't want to bother with politics, betrayal, emergent gameplay, logistics and socializing should get special treatment to be on equal ground with a larger org. Guess what, that won't happen.
    You can play in a smaller group. You can play solo. But you CAN'T get the same benefits as larger orgs do. That's the thing with DU: make friends, socialize, get to know ppl and think of a RDMS structure that suits you while at the same time makes it very hard to betray. If you don't want to bother with strangers and big orgs, that's fine. But don't expect to be on equal grounds with them if you don't want to invest as much time and brain in the structure as they do.
  20. Like
    Warden reacted to Vyz Ejstu in Heimera Trade Xchange   
    '
    Calling all Hauliers. 
    The Heimera Trade Xchange will be servicing a growing demand for logistics in Dual Universe with progressive updates to the game. Heavy and express delivery; refuelling services and personnel transport within and outside of Band of Outlaws are the current responsibilities of our logistics team. If you believe you have the piloting skills to fly a variety of crafts and enjoy flying in general, send in an application and join our dedicated squad of Alioth freighters on our Discord server and in the game.
     
    Until then, you are welcome to our server here to ship your goods or register your location with the HTX for simplified gameplay. 
     
     
    Spirits, Lavender or Onyx? 
     
    Take that Step.
    '
  21. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Vyz Ejstu in 「Vulture Corporation」 [Security - Science - Service | International ☑ - Immersion ☑]   
    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:
     

     
     
  22. Like
    Warden got a reaction from Vyz Ejstu in Politics, Government and Player Voting Power   
    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.
  23. Like
    Warden reacted to Peregrin in Dual Universe Sleepers   
    I have purged some of the Logs and updated the Previous page, from Sept. 23 to Feb. 2.
     
    It seemed... neater.
     
    "Terrific work, by the way".
     
     
  24. Like
    Warden reacted to Mod-Merwyn in Will Dual Universe Be Free To Play?   
    Hi EchoSpark,
     
    Current packs are for backing the game. Higher packs gives you access to the game in its development version (pre-alpha) which is unfinished and lacks a lot of gameplay and refining.
    Of course, there is no subscription cost before the release.
     
    After release, the game download will be free and you will have to pay a monthly subscription.
     
    ~ Merwyn
  25. Like
    Warden reacted to Agilulf in Novean Dreamers Almanac - issue 3 out now   
    Issue 2 is out now!
     

    (pdf, 2 mb)
     
    Contents: War on the Battlefield & War in the Arena, Non-English-speaking communities
×
×
  • Create New...