Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pantydraco

Balancing for different player types.

Recommended Posts

Balancing for different player types.

 

In spirit of "balanced pvp destruction system"

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9398

Important: parts 1 - 3 is purely theoretical game design nonsense. 4 is game mechanics thoughts. 5 is whole thing conceptually summed up

First, some important notes:

1) Very little reasoning of 'why?' will be given. Generally, "all successful mmos do this" will applicable, and they have their reasons. Most  of those reasons also apply to DU.

NOTE: or so I wrote initially... in practice it turned out to be a 'why?' behind my previous posts. Oops...

2) The ultimate goal of this nonsense is "Maximize player count while maintaining intended creative direction."

 

With this out of the way, lets get started.

 

Part 1: abstract nonsense

(2) means players of vastly different type and behaviors are target audience.

Each of their very different experiences must be built to be enjoyable and complete.

 

Many gameplay systems involve having "negative outcome" for some of the participants.

Possibility of failure is natural part of 'game' concept, and is usual way of how sustained 'excitement' is achieved.  

With that said, there are many things to be aware of:

1) Actual negative outcome generates negative feeling in player. While impact of abstract 'you lose' is very small, actual loss of time causes big frustration.

2) Excitement generated by negative outcome comes solely from 'possibility' of it, this means:

    -negative outcome must not guaranteed.  

    -it is beneficial if player is involved in the process, and outcome is determined by his actions.

        -well designed feedback loop is desired in such case. Self-improvement is one of the ways long-term engagement is maintained.

3) Highest excitement doesn't equal best experience. Exciting gameplay should be balanced with relaxing gameplay. Another note, this balance is different for different players.

.

.

Part 2: different player types.

 

Obvious conflicting player archetypes:

PvE <-> PvP

Group <-> Solo

New <-> Experienced*

...

These archetypes do not describe game-mechanics, but player outlook. Same mechanic can be experienced and will be different to different archetypes.

Those archetypes are not binary, players often enjoy mix of outlooks. Again, balance varies by person.

 

PvE outlooks are mostly interested in game-world interaction. This in different proportions involves interest in:

-exploration of game world (which may come in many forms, sometimes unexpected, like politics)

-creativity (again, many forms)

-amassing in-game possessions

 

PvP outlook on the other hand finds npc game-world boring, and gets most enjoyment of challenging other people. It may come in many forms, and players can make pretty much anything competitive.

-most common PvP activity is player-vs-player battles, in which both sides risk losing in-game possessions

    - is one of the players was not willing participant, his previous gameplay is interrupted(bad), and in case of loss that gameplay cannot be resumed (very bad).

        -above does not apply if danger and risk are important part of the gameplay experience. Such experience is not desirable for many (arguably most) players, but it does open new possibilities.

-PvP outlook is not interested in earning assets PvE way, and PvP itself is asset sink.

 

Group outlook enjoys communicating, and by extension cooperating with other players during gameplay.

 

Solo outlook on the other hand does not enjoy mixing player-communication with gameplay, or more commonly people who want to experience game through their own strength and knowledge.

 

*While not a personality trait, player skill largely remains more or less constant during play session, and has arguably the most impact. That's why it should also be designed around.

 

Part 3: Archetype balance.

What was said above together with common sense (Ha! more like me not wanting to explain myself) translates into:

    -PvE players should be able to engage in desired PvE gameplay with minimal PvP risk. This should be true for any player skill level and group preference

    

    -PvE players may instead choose different, risky option that has bigger in-game reward. This should be true for both solo and group players

    

    -most of in-game possessions of PvE players should be protected, and have reasonable progression. Independent of player skill level and group preference

 

    -some in-game possessions should be contestable, and also give reasonable benefit. Both solo and group players should have contestable possessions. Player skill should greatly determine safety.

 

    -PvP players should have expected PvP activity points, where there is constant PvP action. This applies to both groups and solos of all skill levels.

 

    -PvP players should have a way to earn valuables via PvP activity. This should apply to both groups and solo, but is dependent of skill, as all such valuables come from other players.

 

    -It is desirable that most of those points come from flexible and not binary system, in order to suit most players.

 

    -Losing possessions without owner's involvement and chance to defend is pure negative

 

    -Group play should reward reasonable material benefits. It is because of inefficency that comes with groups, as well as extra effort, time and risk required to set it up

    

 

Applying those arguably universal (in MMO sense) points to Dual Universe creative design, that's what I came up with:

 

Part 4: Actually sensible stuff

 

I - Safe zones must exist and be readily available, where:

Assets in liquid form (materials) should be mostly untouchable.

Small ships should be mostly untouchable online, and fully untouchable during normal offline period.

Players can build small structures and ships in relative safety without hiding.

 

Big assets should be touchable when offline to keep universe coherency. Defenders should also be given enough time to respond, so that confrontation is actual PvP. Delayed systems similar to EvE reinforce timers or vulnerability windows are proposed. Safe zone should make it more lax

    All those things should also apply to new and solo players.

 

With all that said, I propose a system be put in place that generates safe zones based on player activity and gives benefits to all players inside(dynamic anonymous player cities, if you will), and also the one that pushes organised territory owners to extend benefits to anonymous players. Very rough ideas: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9515

 

II - PvE activity should cover whole spectrum from safe to risky.

example: mining

    -safest place to mine is within core systems, but benefit is also smallest there. These system require minimum investment, and danger is absolute minimal.

    -secondly, there are many many random uninhabited systems nearby, that scans say are not really rich. Going there should cost non-trivial amount of fuel, as well as risking the ship.

In order to catch you, pirates must either track you there, or must have had scanning satellites there themselves. On the other hand, you can also notice their approach and pre-emptively escape. This should be contest of player skill, with no way one side is guaranteed victory. If you escape, both sides lose because of fuel.

Those systems should be numerous enough that player attacks are really unlikely. On the other hand, losing a ship is also non-trivial matter. Average long term will depend on player skill in those rare instances.

    -thirdly, there is establishing outpost in random system. You can base from there, as well as do basic refining, which will greatly increase profit. On the other hand, this is great investment of time and money, as well as presents bigger risk someone will stumble upon it.

    -then, there are really rich systems in local cluster, that everyone wants to mine. They are few and rich, and also default area for pirates, organised mining groups, really skillful solos, and player organisations. Those system provide a lot bigger profit, but also guarantee a high risk.

    -and lastly, there are universe wide honeypots. Recently discovered regions of great economical importance. They hold previously scarce materials in great quantities. Because of them, price now and half a year from or before now will differ greatly. All biggest political players want and fight for them, with numerous smaller entities also in the chaos. True gold rush, with insane risk and payoffs

NOTE: this built solely upon 3 things: number of systems, their payoff, and investment amount. All those things could be very finely balanced and tweaked with actual testing.

NOTE: this is based upon travel model https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/933-am-i-alone-in-thinking-that-stargate-probes-are-a-bad-idea/page-5#entry9459

 

III - PvP activity should be varied, engaging, and challenging. Pure "I win" mechanics benefit none in the long run.

Just in the above example, hunters have variety of possibilities: pure combat and ambushes of local riches; tracking and stealth of no-name miners, with possibility of siege; high excitement rush of honeypots. Plus mercenary work to counter all of it

Group combat has all of it and beyond, with assaulting and defending territory and static assets getting bigger role.

    Important part is, in every situation, outcome is dependent on skill of both hunter and prey. Even numbers are not "I win", in most of those, detection plays a key rule, so bringing bigger force is automatically detriment to the attacker. On the other hand, it is also not guaranteed win for defender. Stealth is their biggest asset, and a single enemy is enough to ruin it. Sure, hunters get delayed, and miners have a second chance to notice a second approach, but solo pirate still benefits of selling convoy's location.

 

Part 5: Closure & TLDR

In short, what I call for is segregation of player base based on preferences. Players should be given an option of playing safe or risky. Players should be given an option of playing smart or easy. Risky or less profitable. Solo or group. PvE or PvP. And in every case gameplay should accommodate them. Building should be a right, not a privilege. As should be attacking structures. Solos should be protected from group abuse. Groups should be protected from solo trolling. The gamedesign grail lies not in making a single person dream game, but making a dream game of every player.

P.S. Version 1.01 - added important note because I wasn't clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO, from what I gather the questions are :


Part 1 : I don't want to lose often. Easily avoidable, don't leave the safe zone.

Part 2 : I want to play solo in an MMO enviroment, not wanting PvP interferrence to do my stuff. That's easy, It's called Fallout 4, endless grinding hours of Minutement quests, you'll love it.

Part 3 : I want classes in a SANDBOX GAME. 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... always count internally, always

Part 4 : Make Safezones a dull place to live in. Tots agree. Make safezones the equivalent of gullags, where hope, joy and smiles go and cry to sleep. Make everything got reinforcements and make the game the worst part of EVE. Really? Reinforcement times? The game is not going to have I-win buttons anyway, the Territory Claim Unit will take a day to be set up anyway. No need for "reinforcement" times on buildings through the magic of nonsense.


I'll be expecting the hate coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO, from what I gather the questions are :

 

 

Part 1 : I don't want to lose often. Easily avoidable, don't leave the safe zone.

 

Part 2 : I want to play solo in an MMO enviroment, not wanting PvP interferrence to do my stuff. That's easy, It's called Fallout 4, endless grinding hours of Minutement quests, you'll love it.

 

Part 3 : I want classes in a SANDBOX GAME. 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... always count internally, always

 

Part 4 : Make Safezones a dull place to live in. Tots agree. Make safezones the equivalent of gullags, where hope, joy and smiles go and cry to sleep. Make everything got reinforcements and make the game the worst part of EVE. Really? Reinforcement times? The game is not going to have I-win buttons anyway, the Territory Claim Unit will take a day to be set up anyway. No need for "reinforcement" times on buildings through the magic of nonsense.

 

 

I'll be expecting the hate coming.

"You hit too hard, my friend. You are way too swift in attack and defence.  

 

I appreciate that Pantydraco dedicated his time and effort to this long post in an obvious bid to help others out and seek some clarification. Well done, draco, please keep up with it.  

 

Now, to Pantydraco

 

 

Balancing for different player types.

 

In spirit of "balanced pvp destruction system"

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9398

Important: parts 1 - 3 is purely theoretical game design nonsense. 4 is game mechanics thoughts. 5 is whole thing conceptually summed up

First, some important notes:

1) Very little reasoning of 'why?' will be given. Generally, "all successful mmos do this" will applicable, and they have their reasons. Most  of those reasons also apply to DU.

NOTE: or so I wrote initially... in practice it turned out to be a 'why?' behind my previous posts. Oops...

2) The ultimate goal of this nonsense is "Maximize player count while maintaining intended creative direction."

 

With this out of the way, lets get started.

 

Part 1: abstract nonsense

(2) means players of vastly different type and behaviors are target audience.

Each of their very different experiences must be built to be enjoyable and complete.

 

Many gameplay systems involve having "negative outcome" for some of the participants.

Possibility of failure is natural part of 'game' concept, and is usual way of how sustained 'excitement' is achieved.  

With that said, there are many things to be aware of:

1) Actual negative outcome generates negative feeling in player. While impact of abstract 'you lose' is very small, actual loss of time causes big frustration.

2) Excitement generated by negative outcome comes solely from 'possibility' of it, this means:

    -negative outcome must not guaranteed.  

    -it is beneficial if player is involved in the process, and outcome is determined by his actions.

        -well designed feedback loop is desired in such case. Self-improvement is one of the ways long-term engagement is maintained.

3) Highest excitement doesn't equal best experience. Exciting gameplay should be balanced with relaxing gameplay. Another note, this balance is different for different players.

.

.

Part 2: different player types.

 

Obvious conflicting player archetypes:

PvE <-> PvP

Group <-> Solo

New <-> Experienced*

...

These archetypes do not describe game-mechanics, but player outlook. Same mechanic can be experienced and will be different to different archetypes.

Those archetypes are not binary, players often enjoy mix of outlooks. Again, balance varies by person.

 

PvE outlooks are mostly interested in game-world interaction. This in different proportions involves interest in:

-exploration of game world (which may come in many forms, sometimes unexpected, like politics)

-creativity (again, many forms)

-amassing in-game possessions

 

PvP outlook on the other hand finds npc game-world boring, and gets most enjoyment of challenging other people. It may come in many forms, and players can make pretty much anything competitive.

-most common PvP activity is player-vs-player battles, in which both sides risk losing in-game possessions

    - is one of the players was not willing participant, his previous gameplay is interrupted(bad), and in case of loss that gameplay cannot be resumed (very bad).

        -above does not apply if danger and risk are important part of the gameplay experience. Such experience is not desirable for many (arguably most) players, but it does open new possibilities.

-PvP outlook is not interested in earning assets PvE way, and PvP itself is asset sink.

 

Group outlook enjoys communicating, and by extension cooperating with other players during gameplay.

 

Solo outlook on the other hand does not enjoy mixing player-communication with gameplay.

 

*While not a personality trait, player skill largely remains more or less constant during play session, and has arguably the most impact. That's why it should also be designed around.

 

Part 3: Archetype balance.

What was said above together with common sense (Ha! more like me not wanting to explain myself) translates into:

    -PvE players should be able to engage in desired PvE gameplay with minimal PvP risk. This should be true for any player skill level and group preference

    

    -PvE players may instead choose different, risky option that has bigger in-game reward. This should be true for both solo and group players

    

    -most of in-game possessions of PvE players should be protected, and have reasonable progression. Independent of player skill level and group preference

 

    -some in-game possessions should be contestable, and also give reasonable benefit. Both solo and group players should have contestable possessions. Player skill should greatly determine safety.

 

    -PvP players should have expected PvP activity points, where there is constant PvP action. This applies to both groups and solos of all skill levels.

 

    -PvP players should have a way to earn valuables via PvP activity. This should apply to both groups and solo, but is dependent of skill, as all such valuables come from other players.

 

    -It is desirable that most of those points come from flexible and not binary system, in order to suit most players.

 

    -Losing possessions without owner's involvement and chance to defend is pure negative

 

    -Group play should reward reasonable material benefits. It is because of inefficency that comes with groups, as well as extra effort, time and risk required to set it up

    

 

Applying those arguably universal (in MMO sense) points to Dual Universe creative design, that's what I came up with:

 

Part 4: Actually sensible stuff

 

I - Safe zones must exist and be readily available, where:

Assets in liquid form (materials) should be mostly untouchable.

Small ships should be mostly untouchable online, and fully untouchable during normal offline period.

Players can build small structures and ships in relative safety without hiding.

 

Big assets should be touchable when offline to keep universe coherency. Defenders should also be given enough time to respond, so that confrontation is actual PvP. Delayed systems similar to EvE reinforce timers or vulnerability windows are proposed. Safe zone should make it more lax

    All those things should also apply to new and solo players.

 

With all that said, I propose a system be put in place that generates safe zones based on player activity and gives benefits to all players inside(dynamic anonymous player cities, if you will), and also the one that pushes organised territory owners to extend benefits to anonymous players. Very rough ideas: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9515

 

II - PvE activity should cover whole spectrum from safe to risky.

example: mining

    -safest place to mine is within core systems, but benefit is also smallest there. These system require minimum investment, and danger is absolute minimal.

    -secondly, there are many many random uninhabited systems nearby, that scans say are not really rich. Going there should cost non-trivial amount of fuel, as well as risking the ship.

In order to catch you, pirates must either track you there, or must have had scanning satellites there themselves. On the other hand, you can also notice their approach and pre-emptively escape. This should be contest of player skill, with no way one side is guaranteed victory. If you escape, both sides lose because of fuel.

Those systems should be numerous enough that player attacks are really unlikely. On the other hand, losing a ship is also non-trivial matter. Average long term will depend on player skill in those rare instances.

    -thirdly, there is establishing outpost in random system. You can base from there, as well as do basic refining, which will greatly increase profit. On the other hand, this is great investment of time and money, as well as presents bigger risk someone will stumble upon it.

    -then, there are really rich systems in local cluster, that everyone wants to mine. They are few and rich, and also default area for pirates, organised mining groups, really skillful solos, and player organisations. Those system provide a lot bigger profit, but also guarantee a high risk.

    -and lastly, there are universe wide honeypots. Recently discovered regions of great economical importance. They hold previously scarce materials in great quantities. Because of them, price now and half a year from or before now will differ greatly. All biggest political players want and fight for them, with numerous smaller entities also in the chaos. True gold rush, with insane risk and payoffs

NOTE: this built solely upon 3 things: number of systems, their payoff, and investment amount. All those things could be very finely balanced and tweaked with actual testing.

NOTE: this is based upon travel model https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/933-am-i-alone-in-thinking-that-stargate-probes-are-a-bad-idea/page-5#entry9459

 

III - PvP activity should be varied, engaging, and challenging. Pure "I win" mechanics benefit none in the long run.

Just in the above example, hunters have variety of possibilities: pure combat and ambushes of local riches; tracking and stealth of no-name miners, with possibility of siege; high excitement rush of honeypots. Plus mercenary work to counter all of it

Group combat has all of it and beyond, with assaulting and defending territory and static assets getting bigger role.

    Important part is, in every situation, outcome is dependent on skill of both hunter and prey. Even numbers are not "I win", in most of those, detection plays a key rule, so bringing bigger force is automatically detriment to the attacker. On the other hand, it is also not guaranteed win for defender. Stealth is their biggest asset, and a single enemy is enough to ruin it. Sure, hunters get delayed, and miners have a second chance to notice a second approach, but solo pirate still benefits of selling convoy's location.

 

Part 5: Closure & TLDR

In short, what I call for is segregation of player base based on preferences. Players should be given an option of playing safe or risky. Players should be given an option of playing smart or easy. Risky or less profitable. Solo or group. PvE or PvP. And in every case gameplay should accommodate them. Building should be a right, not a privilege. As should be attacking structures. Solos should be protected from group abuse. Groups should be protected from solo trolling. The gamedesign grail lies not in making a single person dream game, but making a dream game of every player.

P.S. Version 1.01 - added important note because I wasn't clear

 

 

Seeing that we've made peace on that, allow me a few thoughts of my mind:

 

Your first point, dear comrade is great, but ultimately unnecessary.

 

The psychology of negative outcome is subject to personal judgement except in extreme cases. I mean, why would I play a game that gives me constant failures? Answer: I have nothing else to do with my time, or I'm outright mad. Why would I play a game that makes me win every time? Answer: I'm an obnoxious narcissist, or the world gives me lemons every​ time ​or I'm outright lazy and scared.

 

Your second point makes more sense.

 

But, the fact remains that Dual Universe is a Sandbox game. The developers have no say in how the players should interact with each other or the environment. Breaking this rule would be unfair and destroy the very essence of Sandbox design and implementation. It's up to you to choose your suitable play style. I played Eve for a some time without really interacting, then I tried again in a wonderful alliance: the experience was the best I'd ever had in an online MMO. If you want to fly solo, by all means, go out on a leg, everyone admires some courage. If you want to join a team, give me a call, join others or form one yourself and invite your friends. Harassing NPCs or real players is up to you to decide.

 

Your third point, great sage is the best of all to me.

 

But, you should realise, we forum members are really keeping the developers on their toes. While PvP specific tokens or biases to larger rewards are generally acceptable, it's going to be tricky to reward PvP leaning players without making the PvE content players feel bad. Again, this is a Sandbox game, it is expected that the system rewards should be mostly neutral whether you engage in PvP or PvE. On the other hand, the large amount of spoil you get from a good PvP raid is matched only with the ease of fighting NPCs. Greater risk = greater reward. Besides, Dual Universe looks set to be majorly PvP. I'm sorry to burst your bubble.

 

Your fourth point is largely verbose.

 

Although, you did mention some interesting points like "offline invulnerability". It would be good to have, but unfortunately for you and I, it's not going to happen. The reason is simple: it would be outright unfair. All I'd have to do is log off in the middle of a battle and pop goes the weasel, I have rubbished all your effort to get through my defences and suffer casualties. The point is to keep people glued to the game, not provide some kind of dubious Insurance policy.(Someone should make an insurance company in game, though. It'll be interesting to see how that goes.) Safe zones already exist: the developers made that crystal clear.

Strategy in attack and defence is open to you to choose. I suggest you read Sun Tsu's Art of War. It'll give you a upper hand in combat.

 

Your fifth point could be done without.

Segregation is largely impossible. It makes the game biased. Sandbox games are all about the freedom of choice, the danger of freedom and the choice of trust.

 

I hope this doesn't put you off from posting, but certain corrections are necessary for your benefit and the benefit of others. Thank you for accepting that fact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But, you should realise, we forum members are really keeping the developers on their toes. While PvP specific tokens or biases to larger rewards are generally acceptable, it's going to be tricky to reward PvP leaning players without making the PvE content players feel bad. Again, this is a Sandbox game, it is expected that the system rewards should be mostly neutral whether you engage in PvP or PvE. On the other hand, the large amount of spoil you get from a good PvP raid is matched only with the ease of fighting NPCs. Greater risk = greater reward. Besides, Dual Universe looks set to be majorly PvP. i'm sorry to burst you bubble.

 

this part stood out to me. While we will have PVE and PVP focused players. I feel it worth pointing out that this game doesn't have any npcs in a traditional sense. maybe animals. In reality I feel that PVE is just another form of PVP in this game. You may not be fighting a "physical" battle with someone but you are still fighting. Against other gather types for a resource or against other orgs or even amongst other members of your org for a better political standing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this part stood out to me. While we will have PVE and PVP focused players. I feel it worth pointing out that this game doesn't have any npcs in a traditional sense. maybe animals. In reality I feel that PVE is just another form of PVP in this game. You may not be fighting a "physical" battle with someone but you are still fighting. Against other gather types for a resource or against other orgs or even amongst other members of your org for a better political standing

"I totally agree."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aetherios


My point is that people want "freedom of warping and choices" and then immediatelly advocate against "freedom of choices" where they due them unfair.

Items dropping is a thing in a sandbox, because there are not "legendary" items to begin with. A rifle is a rifle. Sure, your rifle has a sentimental value, but in the end, it's just a rifle. Let it drop, get a new one, heck, I know I will be keeping a stock full of them. 


Being a lone wolf in an MMO, SHOULD be a hard thing. Strength in numbers applies here. If you are a weak in skill player, you can't ask for the devs to make YOUR solo experience the same level of fun as a team working together. Same thing was tried for WoW on smaller guilds and we ended up with 25 and 10 man raid dungeons. Because some people were too lacking in leading ,they couldn't coordinate 40 player groups. 


The point is, that a city's leadership can choose to a) either let their pretty city and all effort put to it become target practise for the eager mass drivers in the sky or B) forfeit territorial claim at 51% to the guys with the insanely large mass drivers in the sky. Sure, the conquered have to share 51% revenue and their resources, but their EFFORT did not become target dummies. This is far more right and emergent than any invulnerability timers. Even the Devs suggested the "convincing" negotiations between people with siege ships and people on the ground. Make a voting system for democratic leaderships and see how fast the defeated concede.

And safezones, should be challengable. They should be protected by a "force field" that its HP in high enough, but CAN be taken down by a powerful force, at least, player made safezones. Otherwise the besieged will be like "nya nya nya-nya nya" and laugh in your face like the French in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 


What I'm saying is, for people to read the DevBlogs before asking of these questions. It's not THAT difficult. People are gettign turned off by the forums by the same, over and over, repeated questions. It's not Pantydraco's fault on this, it's human nature, being lazy. I know I was lazy and didn't read up on that the game went for a lock-on system and expected it to be an FPShooter kind of thing. But I read everything else and had to compromise.

And this post kind of asks for the game to become, quite literaly, a WoW/EVE clone. Yeah, cause we all know those game have huge success.

Stop asking for the same game in different colours people. Read the DevBlogs. 

If a guy wants to be a sniper/hacker/demolitioner, let him be. If he wants to be sniper/miner/gymnast, so let that person be, don't ask for "archetypes" of classes. It's 2016, we got GTX1080 running on 1 Volt. Let the old century go. Let the "Class" system die along with WoW and all the WoW clones that'll die before it ever will, and let skill dictate your playstyle, not a "flavor of the month" situation.


And I stil lcan't figure out if you are quoting me or responding to the Pantydraco :P Cause my 4th point was not much verbose as Pantydraco's post was >_>

Peace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this part stood out to me. While we will have PVE and PVP focused players. I feel it worth pointing out that this game doesn't have any npcs in a traditional sense. maybe animals. In reality I feel that PVE is just another form of PVP in this game. You may not be fighting a "physical" battle with someone but you are still fighting. Against other gather types for a resource or against other orgs or even amongst other members of your org for a better political standing

Well, PvE stands for Player Versus Enviroment and given the vacuum of space is a death trap, I can only say "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, guess I should have explained myself more clearly.

 

Those parts so not constitute different points, they talk about the same one.

1 - 3 is just abstract game design nonsense that I believe apply to every MMO.

4 is how I believe they can be realised in DU.

and 5 is basic idea summed up.

 

Really, don't read into 1, 2 and 5  too much. And 3 talks about how psychological player archetypes, not in-game classes in any form. 4 is actual game proposal.

 

EDIT: @CaptainTwerkometer please, do not assume my unfamiliarity with materials that have been released. I have read them all. And I not want DU to be like other MMOs just for the sake of it. Perhaps better way to put is "I want DU to be like other good games, in sense that it is good". This post was about how and why I think it can happen.

 

EDIT2: player segregation is unavoidable in game with any variety, this is just how world works. Forget MMOs, let's look at Call of Duty. There are players that play only campaign and never multiplayer. There are players that play hardcore multiplayer only. Those players will never share gameplay experience. And there are players that play casual multiplayer. Put them together with hardcore guys, and you get frustration to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, guess I should have explained myself more clearly.

 

Those parts so not constitute different points, they talk about the same one.

1 - 3 is just abstract game design nonsense that I believe apply to every MMO.

4 is how I believe they can be realised in DU.

and 5 is basic idea summed up.

 

Really, don't read into 1, 2 and 5  too much. And 3 talks about how psychological player archetypes, not in-game classes in any form. 4 is actual game proposal.

Well, for 4 at least, the devs have planned out a possible of 24 hours of a timer for a faction to set up its Territory Claim. But the "bomb them until they yield" tactic can also be applied to speed things up by switching ownerships manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aetherios

 

 

My point is that people want "freedom of warping and choices" and then immediatelly advocate against "freedom of choices" where they due them unfair.

 

Items dropping is a thing in a sandbox, because there are not "legendary" items to begin with. A rifle is a rifle. Sure, your rifle has a sentimental value, but in the end, it's just a rifle. Let it drop, get a new one, heck, I know I will be keeping a stock full of them. 

 

 

Being a lone wolf in an MMO, SHOULD be a hard thing. Strength in numbers applies here. If you are a weak in skill player, you can't ask for the devs to make YOUR solo experience the same level of fun as a team working together. Same thing was tried for WoW on smaller guilds and we ended up with 25 and 10 man raid dungeons. Because some people were too lacking in leading ,they couldn't coordinate 40 player groups. 

 

 

The point is, that a city's leadership can choose to a) either let their pretty city and all effort put to it become target practise for the eager mass drivers in the sky or B) forfeit territorial claim at 51% to the guys with the insanely large mass drivers in the sky. Sure, the conquered have to share 51% revenue and their resources, but their EFFORT did not become target dummies. This is far more right and emergent than any invulnerability timers. Even the Devs suggested the "convincing" negotiations between people with siege ships and people on the ground. Make a voting system for democratic leaderships and see how fast the defeated concede.

 

And safezones, should be challengable. They should be protected by a "force field" that its HP in high enough, but CAN be taken down by a powerful force, at least, player made safezones. Otherwise the besieged will be like "nya nya nya-nya nya" and laugh in your face like the French in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. 

 

 

What I'm saying is, for people to read the DevBlogs before asking of these questions. It's not THAT difficult. People are gettign turned off by the forums by the same, over and over, repeated questions. It's not Pantydraco's fault on this, it's human nature, being lazy. I know I was lazy and didn't read up on that the game went for a lock-on system and expected it to be an FPShooter kind of thing. But I read everything else and had to compromise.

 

And this post kind of asks for the game to become, quite literaly, a WoW/EVE clone. Yeah, cause we all know those game have huge success.

 

Stop asking for the same game in different colours people. Read the DevBlogs. 

 

If a guy wants to be a sniper/hacker/demolitioner, let him be. If he wants to be sniper/miner/gymnast, so let that person be, don't ask for "archetypes" of classes. It's 2016, we got GTX1080 running on 1 Volt. Let the old century go. Let the "Class" system die along with WoW and all the WoW clones that'll die before it ever will, and let skill dictate your playstyle, not a "flavor of the month" situation.

 

 

And I stil lcan't figure out if you are quoting me or responding to the Pantydraco :P Cause my 4th point was not much verbose as Pantydraco's post was >_>

 

Peace.

 

"I apologise. I was just quoting you as being too hard on the Pantydraco. The rest of the post was directed at him, not you. I forgot to use the multi-quote. I'll fix that now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solo outlook on the other hand does not enjoy mixing player-communication with gameplay.

1: This a poor description of the solo outlook. Solo simply refers to players who don't like to rely primarily on a group to accomplish game objectives. Solo players may -and often do- enjoy communicating with and interacting with other players.

Soloers are especially unlikely to join a group for combat purposes.

 

 

 

In short, what I call for is segregation of player base based on preferences. Players should be given an option of playing safe or risky. Players should be given an option of playing smart or easy. Risky or less profitable. Solo or group. PvE or PvP. And in every case gameplay should accommodate them. Building should be a right, not a privilege. As should be attacking structures. Solos should be protected from group abuse. Groups should be protected from solo trolling. The gamedesign grail lies not in making a single person dream game, but making a dream game of every player.

The segregation we will have will rely on Arkification.

We start the game in an area that is immune to PvP combat - and players will have opportunities to create more areas that are immune to PvP combat.

That allows the possibility for everyone to migrate to areas of interest according to their mood. And also motivates players to actively support their interests - either by creating or protecting safe zones or by taking control of safe zones.

 

Solo vs group will occur organically since players can create their own content and decide for themselves whether their goals can be achieved solo or with a group.

I'm not really sure what "group abuse" means, but individual players can create their own safe havens from groups - whether that's an underground lair, a stealth scout ship or a personal lab on a multi-crew ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this part stood out to me. While we will have PVE and PVP focused players. I feel it worth pointing out that this game doesn't have any npcs in a traditional sense. maybe animals. In reality I feel that PVE is just another form of PVP in this game. You may not be fighting a "physical" battle with someone but you are still fighting. Against other gather types for a resource or against other orgs or even amongst other members of your org for a better political standing

DU has alien ruins - we can expect to encounter citizens of those alien civilizations at some point.

We won't have any NPCs at Alpha. But, expect intelligent NPCs to be encountered at some point - may take a year or two.

 

PvE will literally be playing against the environment for the most part - that won't necessarily entail fighting animals.

It's not really that PvE is another form of PvP, rather it will be that PvP will be split between direct PvP combat and indirect PvP conflict.

Conflict doen't necessarily entail fighting - may not even entail competition.

And it will be possible to become remote hermits who encounter no player competition at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - 3 is just abstract game design nonsense that I believe apply to every MMO.

4 is how I believe they can be realised in DU.

and 5 is basic idea summed up.

I don't agree that those gameplay designs apply to every MMO - they do apply to MMOs designed prior to 2012.

 

 

 

EDIT2: player segregation is unavoidable in game with any variety, this is just how world works. Forget MMOs, let's look at Call of Duty. There are players that play only campaign and never multiplayer. There are players that play hardcore multiplayer only. Those players will never share gameplay experience. And there are players that play casual multiplayer. Put them together with hardcore guys, and you get frustration to both.

Forced segregation, like separate servers or instance also cause frustration.

Arkification is an elegant solution to PvE vs PvP combat. Voxels and the ability for players to create their own interactive content will resolve solo vs group frustrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree that those gameplay designs apply to every MMO - they do apply to MMOs designed prior to 2012.

 

 

 

Forced segregation, like separate servers or instance also cause frustration.

Arkification is an elegant solution to PvE vs PvP combat. Voxels and the ability for players to create their own interactive content will resolve solo vs group frustrations.

Elegant... like... how? Having Safe Zones everywhere will turn the game into a subscription based museum tour. Forget about ground combat as well. Or emergent gmeplay.

 

How will people PvE in an Arkified Zone? You can go into "creation mode" in-game via the Virtual Reality mumbo jumbo, where you can create without interferrence.

 

Also, just because LUA is in the game, I don't think that means there will be giant-sized Pacman machines. It will be minimised to be used for making some password protected doors, ships that got the jukes like Jager and/or some automation on a minimal scale.

 

The point is having a safe zone should be an unlock for a faction that put resources into it and it should not be a "game over", cause it will only make things frustrating in PvP situations. You wanna clean the planet of the enemy faction's troops? Nope, you can't, they went into the spiffy "I can't be killed" area. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe zones won't be everywhere. 

The player-created safe zones will have to be maintained - which provides opportunity for indirect PvP conflict.

 

Players will PvE in an Arkified zone via deconstructing the environment and creating constructs.

 

I don't think I said anything about giant-sized machines. I suggested that once a planet-sized bubble territory is activated, we will be able to use permissions to flag responses to designated enemies. Has nothing to do with Lua scripting.

 

Safe zone isn't really an "unlock for a faction". Players will be able to take measures to activate safe zones - that's not necessarily faction-related.

The devs have already stated that other players will have the potential to de-activate the safety mechanisms. That's why it's elegant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1: This a poor description of the solo outlook. Solo simply refers to players who don't like to rely primarily on a group to accomplish game objectives. Solo players may -and often do- enjoy communicating with and interacting with other players.

Soloers are especially unlikely to join a group for combat purposes.

This is absolutely correct. Solo players are not just ones who don't enjoy communication. Usual reason people play is because they want to experience game solely through their own strength and knowledge.  

 

The segregation we will have will rely on Arkification.

We start the game in an area that is immune to PvP combat - and players will have opportunities to create more areas that are immune to PvP combat.

That allows the possibility for everyone to migrate to areas of interest according to their mood. And also motivates players to actively support their interests - either by creating or protecting safe zones or by taking control of safe zones.

There are 2 problems I see with Arki zones, from how they were presented.

-They are very rare and expensive

-They cover relatively small area

From what I got, primarily use for those zones is building. Things like mining, other resource gathering, and pretty much all PvE will happen outside them.

Solo vs group will occur organically since players can create their own content and decide for themselves whether their goals can be achieved solo or with a group.

I'm not really sure what "group abuse" means, but individual players can create their own safe havens from groups - whether that's an underground lair, a stealth scout ship or a personal lab on a multi-crew ship.

Game balance does not happen randomly. If it is left to be decided 'organically', most likely outcome is that it will be heavily weighted to one side. Infrastracture and investment may be too expensive and restricted. That means people will 'have' to play in groups. Or maybe costs are manageable, but combat heavily favors attacker. In that case, staying anywhere close to society will be negative, and only biggest player groups will be able to progress.  

Game design is about acounting for such cases, thats why I'm talking about how exactly to do this

I don't agree that those gameplay designs apply to every MMO - they do apply to MMOs designed prior to 2012.

Example please. I will gladly study it. 

Forced segregation, like separate servers or instance also cause frustration.

Arkification is an elegant solution to PvE vs PvP combat. Voxels and the ability for players to create their own interactive content will resolve solo vs group frustrations.

I am not talking about FORCED segregation

(why is everyone getting this idea? Whole point of DU is sandbox MMO, which means FORCED things should not exist if there is any other way)

Segregation I'm talking about is the one that happens 'on it's own'. Like my example of Call of Duty, hardcore multiplayer players and casuals do not interject. Because they do not mix. Hardcores hate playing with n00bs and casual hate getting constantly pwned by l33ts. Forcing (Ha!) them together is terrible idea.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Happen on its own" is the same thing as "will occur organically".

 

Playstyle segregation is not really a factor of "game balance".

The balance that DU will provide is the mechanisms that allow players to control both the creation and the destruction of safe zones.

Since both solo players and group players can manipulate voxels and craft constructs - the game is inherently balanced in that regard.

The players will decide the balance of playstyles and how and where they congregate.

 

Call of Duty has forced segregation - Campaign missions are completely separate from Multiplayer missions. That's like having PvE servers that are separate from PvP servers in an MMO. We need to move away from that.

It should be possible for our characters to seamlessly move between playstyle areas as the mood strikes: a completely shared universe.

Conflicts among the playstyles are fine as long as players also have sufficient means to construct safe zones.

The balance, there, being that it shouldn't be too easy for players to make the entire universe a safe zone.

 

If you don't like socializing with hardcores, casuals, n00bs, veterans, whatever... don't socialize with them.

Hardcoded mechanics that force segregation -making it impossible for the various playstyles to freely interact- needs to be obsolete for modern MMOs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...