Jump to content
Ripper

"Auto-Turrets" and Artificial Intelligence in games

Recommended Posts

Single player ship size is not restricted.

Yes, yes it is kinda restricted.

 

NQ has said Warp Cores will be something that will require a dedicated crew member  or members to take care of it. Singleseater craft, like the starhoppers from Star Wars, would not need the crew to maintain the warp core, but they have size limitations as of what their warp cores can handle.

 

And that's how it should be in my opinion in regards to ship. Otherwise the game will be a rampart Pay-2-Win nightmare, where the people who can pay with more DACs can buy the bigger "most guns on them" ships. And AGAIN, NQ's design choices show they have foreseen that.

 

And the fact only Archonious is in favour of rampart automated battleships and a guy who's clearly inspired by the Borg, it's not very encouraging.

 

 

But jacobean brought up another important point for static bases:

Obviously NQ already provides "protection bubbles" for that situation, but I think these are only good for short protection, to give the defenders time to react.

However the attackers are always in favor, as they can plan their attack during a time where the defenders are in lower numbers (eg. 5am).

To counteract that the defenders could "transfer" their firepower to others, when they go offline. Of course only for static constructs and for 4-8 hours to prevent abuse.

 

An example scenario would be a big mining station with 50 players that gets attacked during the night: The miners placed temporary automation scripts into the turrets as they expect pirate raids. 3 players from other timer-zones play "night guard", to keep the scripts running.

Then a group of 10 pirates try to loot the mine. They break through the defenses and loot some minerals, but as the automated cannons are still dealing damage to them, they have to retreat. If there would be no defense at all, they would've been able to level the place to the ground!

 

Again, BALANCE IS KEY. We need to provide mechanics that are the most fun for ALL types of players. ;)

You are right. Balance is key. So what you are saying is, a MINING STATION, should have the same defense capabilities as a STARBASE.

 

Nope, nothing broken there. I mean, you are inspired by the Borg, so I get your mentality of "I want drones. Drone everything. Real people are a weakness, I need not to socialise, if I can drone the shite out of everything in-game".

 

Also, your ridiculous example of "night guard players" is what we, here, on the real world, who are not naive, call it "HEY GUYS, I HAZ HOSTED GAME CLIENTS IN RENTED SERVERS, I CAN NOW HAZ 100 ACCOUNTS RUNNING 24/7 WITH AUTO TURRETZ. I WIN GAMEZ BECUZ I HAZ 100000 DOLLARINUITOS INCOME A MONTH. DUAL UNIVERSE BEST GAME EVER. GIT GUD POOR PPL".

 

Nope. You are definitely not the kind of person I was referring as "antisocial multiboxer". 

 

Also, explain why would you be having a MINING STATION, in a place where you are constantly attacked. Please, do explain, I'll be waiting for you elaborate non-sequitor answer as of why would anyone build a MINING STATION in a hostile territory, prone to harrassment by third parties. It's like building an oil-rig in Somali pirates' territories.

 

Also, Protection Bubbles are meant for TERRITORY TILES. Anything else, including Constructs, is only subject to SHIELDS that take FUEL. So no, you can't have a space station that's empty that has a protection bubble around. It makes zero sense to claim such an example. It's like that one guy asking for "Crowd Noise Units", so they can make a city that nobody lives in it. You don't get magical protection, not until NQ implements space claims, which is, in my opinion, a tough pony to subdue.

 

Let me show you how your arguement sounds to me, if I was to use your reasoning and examples :

 

"GUYS, WE NEEDS NO AUTOMATIONZ, BECUZ SKYNET ILLUMINATI LIZARDZPEOPLEZ WANTZ TO TAKEZ OVER THE WORLD. WAKE UP SHEEPLE".

 

Nice try multiboxing enthusiast. Nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite ironic there. You have all this time been arguing for only one sort of player. The "i must always strive for a bigger ship" solo player. I think there's a much broader variety of players you would hurt by having it your way than vice versa.

Yeah, if to read with closed eyes or while flying in silly dreams =)

Most of the times I wrote examples when everyone will get profits - as low time players, as average players, as nolife players.

 

If you will open eyes and read again, you will see the idea is not about "Solo player on big ship", but about very flexible system, when player can control few system if he/she has enough multitask skills and ingame skills. I would mark "IF HE/SHE HAS ENOUGH SKILLS".

So if job very easy for me, I can do something else as well, at the same time. I don't tell that EVERYONE need to do that, as you do. If I can do 5 tasks at time, I do not force everyone do 5 tasks at time.

You say, EVERYONE need to do 1 task, because somebody want to be engineer (from your example). I say everyone can do engineering and something else, if player can do that (once again, IF PLAYER CAN DO). Comprendo?

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I get this is a very emotional topic for many people, but please let's focus on the actual arguments.
 
@Twerk: Please try not to be biased against me, because of other posts I've made in this forum. I just tried to make a constructive suggestion regarding the game mechanics.
Just because I like automation it doesn't mean I'm antisocial. And to be exactly clear: I am totally AGAINST multiboxing/pay2win. A skynet takeover would be exactly what I do NOT want!
 
But that's nothing to discuss in this topic now... Back to Topic:

You are right. Balance is key. So what you are saying is, a MINING STATION, should have the same defense capabilities as a STARBASE.
(...)
Also, explain why would you be having a MINING STATION, in a place where you are constantly attacked. Please, do explain, I'll be waiting for you elaborate non-sequitor answer as of why would anyone build a MINING STATION in a hostile territory, prone to harrassment by third parties. It's like building an oil-rig in Somali pirates' territories.

I'm more of a peacefull miner type-of-player, so I have a personal interest in the defensive mechanics in this game. Mines are usually placed were the most valuble resorces are, so they are a prime target for pirates.
 

Also, Protection Bubbles are meant for TERRITORY TILES. Anything else, including Constructs, is only subject to SHIELDS that take FUEL. So no, you can't have a space station that's empty that has a protection bubble around.

To my understanding shields and protection bubbles are meant for combat between active players. The problem I am focusing on is how do you defend your bases over night? Protection bubbles are not meant for that.

My example might've been a bit too specific. But more in general: any organization which has mostly players located in one time zone will have problems to defend their constructs!

 

An actually valid concern of my suggestion is that it could be abused by multiboxers. To prevent that I would simply suggest making it harder to activate these automation scripts, e.g. by requiring a very high skill level, making the turret less effective, or making the player die when the activated turret gets destroyed.

Thereby players should only use this feature when it's absolutely necessary.

 

No matter how it's implemented, I think these advanced combat features should be added in a expansion after release. So we have enough time to figure out the perfect system. In the end what everyone wants is a fun, but challanging combat experience.^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I get this is a very emotional topic for many people, but please let's focus on the actual arguments.

 

@Twerk: Please try not to be biased against me, because of other posts I've made in this forum. I just tried to make a constructive suggestion regarding the game mechanics.

Just because I like automation it doesn't mean I'm antisocial. And to be exactly clear: I am totally AGAINST multiboxing/pay2win. A skynet takeover would be exactly what I do NOT want!

 

But that's nothing to discuss in this topic now... Back to Topic:

I'm more of a peacefull miner type-of-player, so I have a personal interest in the defensive mechanics in this game. Mines are usually placed were the most valuble resorces are, so they are a prime target for pirates.

 

To my understanding shields and protection bubbles are meant for combat between active players. The problem I am focusing on is how do you defend your bases over night? Protection bubbles are not meant for that.

My example might've been a bit too specific. But more in general: any organization which has mostly players located in one time zone will have problems to defend their constructs!

 

An actually valid concern of my suggestion is that it could be abused by multiboxers. To prevent that I would simply suggest making it harder to activate these automation scripts, e.g. by requiring a very high skill level, making the turret less effective, or making the player die when the activated turret gets destroyed.

Thereby players should only use this feature when it's absolutely necessary.

 

No matter how it's implemented, I think these advanced combat features should be added in a expansion after release. So we have enough time to figure out the perfect system. In the end what everyone wants is a fun, but challanging combat experience.^^

1)

 

... how does "Peaceful miner" mix with "WE GOT GUNZ THAT'LL SHOOT YOU DEAD IF YOU FIRE ON MY STATION" work? 

 

You are as peaceful as fans of the adage "If you want Peace, prepare for War". The Romans were fond of that quote, the guys who pretty much took Imperialistic violence on a whole new level. I bet you think you'll fool anyone with "but thinks of the weak guys". Guess what, if you don't got the numbers to defend a base, you better do the socialising thing called DIPLOMACY - you know, that thing where you talk with other people? Discussions? No.  you don't do talking with other people. And the mentality of "I am peaceful, I don't want to hurt others, I'll have machines do it for me" is what gave birth to Predator Drones and Hellfire missiles.

 

It's like the game is about politics... guess what, you'll need to talk to people, some of them will just out right threaten you to pay to get protection, if you build your "mining station" in a pirate territory. You don't got the guys to defend it and you lack the ability to talk to other people without sounding like the Borg, demanding something instead of NEGOTIATING - funny how the Borg are adored by antisocial people, huh? - you'll be OBLITERATED, and nobody will feel any sorry. You can't build in MY bakc yard and expect NovaQuark to pamper you.

 

You can't expect to have the same standing like a 500 people alliance, with your 50 people - or more like no people - group.

 

2) making a turret ANY less effective, if it's in large volumes, means NOTHING. Skill Training is passive, and guess what, those EVE multiboxers? They did put their "Sentry Drone Alt #5" on training and 2 weeks later, voila, new alt for multiboxing gatecamps is here.

 

 

3) Protection Bubbles, are player-owned sort of safezones that run on fuel. NQ has said that Shields and Protection Bubbles are not the same. Protection Bubbles are for claimed Territory Tiles. Shields are on Constructs. If you space staiton or ship has the fuel to keep the shields up, it will outlast ibeing fired at. It doesn't ? Tough luck. 

 

Territory Tiles have Protection Bubbles, becayse of the aforementioned and many times discussed "what will happen if I am offline". The latrnative is tobuild in a safezone around an Arkship, but a rent (or something else, NQ has only stated on a rent being apl

 

Will everyone own a Protection Bubble? Not really, it's an organisation goal, NOT a solo player goal. If everyone had a Protection Bubble, nobody would bother setting up cities to keep thier assets safe.

 

4) Your arguement of "I will only use automation when necessary" is so full of bull, it's ridiculous. It's like saying "I want an I-Win button. I will only use it when necessary. Trust me, I won't use it to cheese my way to victory. No sir! Scouts code."

 

 

Yes, everyone wants a good gaming experience in Combat. Guess what, there won't be drones, or cheese automation. NQ has made their statement on this many times in the past, because they know that if people have the choice of "not bothering with other people" they will choose to not bother with other people.

 

In EVE, Coalitions exist of other alliances. One alliance may be heavy in North American Timezones, and another in European ones. Guess what, same thing will go down in DU. One alliance exists to keep watch for the other. That's called "trust", it's belongs in the social part of life. 

 

Talk with people, find out a way to coexist. The game's not "kill or be killed". That's ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR you are keep argueing out of, and it's part of why many EVE players are viewed as a-holes, because of the game being about "blowing ships or being blow to bits" - which DU is not about that. DU is about BUILDING first and foremost.

 

 

And so far, you and Archonious, are the only two people on this thread that seem to not be fans of the whole "Socialising" part of the game. You want protection bubbles and automation in space because you don't really want to have to deal with other players, just like Archonious wants a solo battleship cause he doesn't want to have to talk to other people, let alone have to trust other people.

 

A quote out of http://www.dualthegame.com/

 

"

 

 

Dual Universe is a Continuous Single-Shard sandbox MMORPG taking place in a vast Sci-Fi universe, focusing on emergent gameplay with player-driven in-game economy, politics, trade and warfare. Players can freely modify the voxel-based universe by creating structures, spaceships or giant orbital stations, giving birth to empires and civilizations.

You got that? Good, that means you'll have to deal with other people. It's part of the game. Politics come down to having a crew that follows you and dealing with other people in a way other than through your lawyers, Smith & Wesson, who can only speak one, loud, word. You don't have the manpower to defend your station? Negotiate a Non-Aggresion Pact with the neighbours, heck, maybe a trade aggreement, something to end an encounter in any way other than violence. It's like the game has politics in its description... oh wait.

 

Take a look at Archonious throughtout the thread. That kind of mindset is what belongs in a Call of Duty lobby or a DOTA2 match.. Archonious and others like him are the kind of people who would shoot anyone, and everyone, which is why he doesn't want other people on his ship. His twisted view on "Human Nature", is what I call antisocial paranoia. He's thinking like a cheater, believing everyone's a cheater like him.

 

If you are indeed a "peaceful individual" then you'll find a way to be protected by OTHERS, by making your mining operations something OTHERS defend. That's politics right there.

 

If you are indeed antisocial, you'll only see "politics" as a buzzword and you operate on a one-track mind - just like the Borg - of either getting what you want, or blowing it up.

 

Cheers.

 

This thread makes me trully sad. It's like a majority of the community didn't even check the http://www.dualthegame.com/ ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think automated turrets would be fine as a deterrent so a solo suit can't overrun your entire battleship in a few minutes, but not something you would take into battle.

Makes me think of Planetside where unmanned turrets will shoot with a slow rate of fire, easily dealt with but can give away your presence, and when manned they are much more deadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think automated turrets would be fine as a deterrent so a solo suit can't overrun your entire battleship in a few minutes, but not something you would take into battle.

Makes me think of Planetside where unmanned turrets will shoot with a slow rate of fire, easily dealt with but can give away your presence, and when manned they are much more deadly.

1) Those are two differnet turrets in Planetside 2 and they are anti-infantry turrets, not anti-vehicle. The auto-turrets here are on Construct V Construct Combat. Unless you seen a one man Galaxy bombing a base in Planetside 2 with all its 4 guns, or a solo Liberator bombing  base while its tail gun takes care of pesky ESF and the nose gun takes care of other liberators, the example is rendered irrelevant.

 

2) Anyone would agree that for ground combat, SOME automated features, like the Spiffire Turrets from Planetside 2, could be implemented, so an "engineer" or "mechromancer" role can exist, aka, an Area Denial role.. Automated turrets even on proximity triggers, like laser grids, for ANTI-PERSONEL purposes, sure, they COULD work.

 

But the thread is about CONSTRUCT VS CONSTRUCT TURRTS, guns on ships, not Avatar VS Avatar combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if to read with closed eyes or while flying in silly dreams =)

Most of the times I wrote examples when everyone will get profits - as low time players, as average players, as nolife players.

 

If you will open eyes and read again, you will see the idea is not about "Solo player on big ship", but about very flexible system, when player can control few system if he/she has enough multitask skills and ingame skills. I would mark "IF HE/SHE HAS ENOUGH SKILLS".

So if job very easy for me, I can do something else as well, at the same time. I don't tell that EVERYONE need to do that, as you do. If I can do 5 tasks at time, I do not force everyone do 5 tasks at time.

You say, EVERYONE need to do 1 task, because somebody want to be engineer (from your example). I say everyone can do engineering and something else, if player can do that (once again, IF PLAYER CAN DO). Comprendo?

 

Thanks,

Archonious

You claim to have written many examples where everyone will get profits. Please show me. As Twerk has shown almost all of your examples would hurt all crew roles in a large ship if it were to happen, as well as the overall balance of pvp. I didn't say everyone needs to do one task by the way. No comprendo, that piece of texts is impossible to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim to have written many examples where everyone will get profits. Please show me. As Twerk has shown almost all of your examples would hurt all crew roles in a large ship if it were to happen, as well as the overall balance of pvp. I didn't say everyone needs to do one task by the way. No comprendo, that piece of texts is impossible to understand.

Ok. It looks easier to argue with a wall =))) Words, many empty words only. Nothing about the facts. Just everyone MUST do that because I WANT! All I see egoistic/selfish position. Nothing to talk about! Bye!

 

P.S: Twerk is in ignore list for ages, don't care about this dirty troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. It looks easier to argue with a wall =))) Words, many empty words only. Nothing about the facts. Just everyone MUST do that because I WANT! All I see egoistic/selfish position. Nothing to talk about! Bye!

 

P.S: Twerk is in ignore list for ages, don't care about this dirty troll

By troll, does he mean facts? I bet he does, it's annoying dealing with facts when your arguement is weak. I learned that from the Space Russians in EVE, I guess the pattern applies out of that game after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Those are two differnet turrets in Planetside 2 and they are anti-infantry turrets, not anti-vehicle. The auto-turrets here are on Construct V Construct Combat. Unless you seen a one man Galaxy bombing a base in Planetside 2 with all its 4 guns, or a solo Liberator bombing  base while its tail gun takes care of pesky ESF and the nose gun takes care of other liberators, the example is rendered irrelevant.

 

2) Anyone would agree that for ground combat, SOME automated features, like the Spiffire Turrets from Planetside 2, could be implemented, so an "engineer" or "mechromancer" role can exist, aka, an Area Denial role.. Automated turrets even on proximity triggers, like laser grids, for ANTI-PERSONEL purposes, sure, they COULD work.

 

But the thread is about CONSTRUCT VS CONSTRUCT TURRTS, guns on ships, not Avatar VS Avatar combat.

 

I was referring to the base turrets in Planetside 1 that shot at vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, people want to be Captains, nobody wants to be an engineer. It's either EVE Online with Voxels, or it's a sandbox game. 

 

And let's be real here, nobody is gonna add randoms on their ship. If the concept of a role call is unheard of some people, then they'll never crew a ship efficiently.

 

And since it's not EVE, let's also be real here, ships in DU have fuel, and fuel COSTS. Nobody is gonna fly a ship unless in oeprational hours or in a strategic operataion (ala EVE) or in a Call to Arms situation in home defense. So no, you won't have to scrougne for members o na wednseday to crew a battleship.

 

You gotta see a battleship crew as an organisation or a corporation from EVE, only with a GOOD AND VITAL difference. You don't bulk recruit. A spy in EVE can rob you of billions of ISK, in DU a spy can blow your precious battleship with C4 charges on your fuel tank.

 

Your organisation starts small, like a 5 man org. Crew a moderate corvette or a frigate. You move in numbers by recruiting more people? Buy a new ship for your org's size. You may never be able to crew a whole battleship, so you'll stick to a Heavy Cruiser. You may join an alliance, who will buy your ship and field you one of their own, doctrine, Heavy Cruisers, becuase you got the nubmers to crew it and you proven yourself loyal for XYZ reasons.

 

That's called "Ergonomics", greek for "how things should work".

 

Average Joe MacNobody, who plays the games Solo (and not the Han kind of solo, that actually had crew i nthe past), will get the Burn Jita treatment. You play an MMO single-shard as a singleplayer? You'll die. A lot.

 

 

It's like saying "Freighters in EVE should have guns, they are carrier sized ships, so they should have figheers on them, 8000 DPS tank and at least 1 Billion GigaJoules of energy reservers on capacitor". No, that's not how this works. You put guns on a freighter in DU? Get crew to crew them. you put gusn on a battleship? Get crew to crew them.

 

You don't have the numbers to get into freightering in space? Good, be a courier on a planet. You know, them plnaets. You can't expect people to have factories right next to veins of mineral. Someone has to haul it. And planets will be far safer than space. You find other people who like the sandboxy element of Trucking on a planet? Good, form an org, go and start a Space Freighter enterprise on your own small number, again, starting small, going big.

 

 

The problem with the above, is that Ripper on his posts, wants AUTOMATED TARGETING AND FIRING. 

 

It's not a "have a super-jacked Starfighter with 4 nose guns that target at the same direction you look at and firing at them".

 

No, Ripper wants "turrets turn and fire autoamtically at a target, while pilot does a seizure inducing flying maneuver".

 

The superjacked-up starfighter, is something I approve. It's one pilot, controlling four guns at once, aiming at the same direction. Heck, it can also be tied to a missile launcher that the pilot can acces that way. But they are not automated.

 

It's neither "Turret faces a certain direction, if target's are detected at 10000 meters down the range, the turret fires" which is a dumb-firing mechanism.

 

No, Ripper asks for turrets that TURN and FIRE on their own will. That's the problem.

 

Decide, either you'll have a moron of an automation that's as simple as heat-switches for yardlights, or you'll crew a ship on your own. Anythign other than that kind of automation, is EVE 2.0 only 1000 times worse due to depleting resources and rampart alt-frenzy being what made GSF in EVE big. One guy, 10 accounts , then battleships fielded, firing on theiro wn. 

 

Move battleships to a location, go afk, you come back, everything's dead. That's what Ripper and everyone else who keeps asking for automation, single-man battleships, wants.

 

And yes, having automation in the game will just make it like the good old "Guy has 10 Dominix batteshlips on a stargate, camps said stargate solo with his frigate, wtih slaved drones to the frigate, locking a ship that enters a system in 2.1 seconds and blowing it up with 50 Sentry Drones striking at once". Mhmmmm, I bet Goonswarm people reading this had their jimmies rustled. They'll know they found their game if you were to allow it. I mean, depleting resources, blowing up a ship is just 1000 times more painful for a person in DU than in EVE. You may have striken a good vein and mined that Titanium you needed for you ship and you built it very cheap cause of that. But now? Johnny with 10 Accounts blew your ship up cause he has the money to field 10 accounts on his own.

 

I bet you don't really want that in DU, right good sir? Cause it will be there if automation is allowed. NQ knows it as well, it's why they ditched automation from the get-go. It's very not balanced to have automation. It can be exploited to a ridiculous extreme. But people are naive enough to tihnk "it will be great! We will all be captains of ships without crews", then they will just whine on the forums about how GSF, or Test, or Palnedmic Legion / Horde members blew up their ships on a gatecamp of 10 accounts being multiboxed by one guy.

 

Yeah, if you can't see the issues of automated turrets on ships and how they'd make an excellent multiboxing cancer, no matter how many facts I throw your way it will ever change that.

 

No matter how you spin it, progress in an MMO should not be rewarded for solo players. You shouldn't be able to do what a 100 people org can do by yourself. If people can't be teamplayers, they should find themselves flying single-seater crafts.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the base turrets in Planetside 1 that shot at vehicles.

Awwwwwwww... that makes more sense now.

 

But still, Planetside 1 was not a Sandbox MMORPG, it was an MMOFPS, you couldn't play as a space station manager, cause the game was either "shoot people dead or be shot dead". Yeah, even if the BFRs were there, they were just another category of "ways to shoot people dead". It was a glorified King of the HIll (with Planetside 2 being a glorified TDM, but that's a whole bag of salt best left unopened). People played Planetside 1 to fire a Lasher, not to man a turret, as Planetside as a franchise, is a never ending session shooter.

 

That's the key difference in DU. Sure, you won't man a turret 24/7 but if you were to be informed of a hostile raid coming to your station, it's the up to the people who live and operate out of it it to defend it by manning those turrets. It's not any different than in EVE, having to form up a Home Defense fleet when people invade your territory. What? You guys want also automated drone ships so you don't have to defend your own territory? I bet some Borg enthusiasts had their jimmies rustled on the idea of Drone Battleships.

 

And I mean, let's be honest, anyone saying "but how will you know enemies are coming", are the kind of people who would not play as gate guardians like people do in EVE, the people who actually take it upon themselves to keep an eye and inform people of incoming hostiles. I mean, take al ook in this thread, or any other thread on automation? Archonious' kind of people will just say "Gute Guardian? LOl, what a noob playing as a [insert Homosexual Slur] Gate Guardian". But then again, Archonious is probably gonna be prime target for GTA practise and shooting practise as well, so he's not the prime example.

 

So, my arguement still stands from my point to Ripper earlier on the thread. It's not a session shooter, you are meant to man those turrets. You are meant to fly the ship, you are meant to mine minerals.

 

But hey, despite NQ saying "No automation" people still ask for automated mining and pretty much "game on rails", like they are not understanding WTF a sandbox is - and given how antisocial many are, I bet they never played in an actual sandbox in a playground to begin with.

 

Having automation in a sandbox game like DU, and saying

 

"it won't be OP to have automation, it's just gonna be less effective, despite the fact I can have 1000 turrets runnig 24/7, making the need for other people pointless"

 

is like saying

 

"hey guys, let's go play in a sandbox, we'll be playing with this pristine, smooth sand, and you guys can play with that coarse and rough sand over there, no, we are not takiing the easy way, if you think about it, both are sand!".

 

Guess with what sand people will choose to play with if you were to allow them an alternative path of least resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. It looks easier to argue with a wall =))) Words, many empty words only. Nothing about the facts. Just everyone MUST do that because I WANT! All I see egoistic/selfish position. Nothing to talk about! Bye!

 

P.S: Twerk is in ignore list for ages, don't care about this dirty troll

The irony is strong in this one. Are you not willing to argue further? Then stop replying or something. You are not going to get anywhere with personal attacks and accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is strong in this one. Are you not willing to argue further? Then stop replying or something. You are not going to get anywhere with personal attacks and accusations.

Yeah, the only way to win this argument is not being involved. It should not be an argument about how the games mechanics should be, but rather a debate showing the pros and cons of different designs where NQ can then draw a verdict. Name calling and personal insults should never be involved. I may be a hypocrite (in fact, many of us are from time to time) but that does not change the fact that we get nowhere when we do not keep this civilised.

 

Anyway, there are solutions to the multi-boxing turret spam (this isn't EVE, think outside the box). If they are short range, use space artillery. If they are using space artillery, use a bomber squadron. If there is no way around them, hit somewhere else (improving your defense somewhere means you will lack defense elsewhere), such as when the enemy is blockading a gate with static turrets, use a different jumpgate, hit somewhere else or send scrap for them to shoot at so they waste ammo (the tactic used depends on the person in charge). Please note that only static constructs (bases and space stations) would have the ability to have auto turrets, and being static means that they CANNOT MOVE (no jumping, no moving out of position, nothing). I believe that multi-boxing will still be possible in DU, but not feasible. DU is too involved in its interaction for that to be efficient (whereas EVE is just turn-based combat with auto-fire enabled).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)we get nowhere when we do not keep this civilised.

Totally agree with that. So many posts just go back and forth without adding any value to the actual discussion. We should all act like grown-ups and get over this.

 

Back to topic:

The real challenge is how to figure out a system that is fair for all combat situations. Even without automation players who invested the most resources in their ship will always be superior against other players...

Because of limited resources NQ will only be able to provide the most basic combat system anyways. But it will gradually get more interesting, flexible, and engaging through expansions over the years.

My previous suggestion would just add another option for that.

 

For now we already have a primitive mechanic of "over night" protection in the game:

After revisiting the http://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Archive:Kickstarter_Comments it seems protection bubbles are exactly meant for that purpose:

 

(...)a temporary (24 or 48h) indestructible bubble immune to sabotage, meant to let the owner of the area react to the aggression or sabotage (because when this happens, it could be in the middle of the night, or when he/she is at work, not in front of the computer, and we don't want to worry people with attacks when they are offline).

Somehow I had the impression these bubbles would only last a few minutes to have time to get out of the bed and log into the game... but with this mechanic my mine is safe! :P

Waiting 2 days for the attack would create other problems, but this should be part of another topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify the earlier quote:

 

 

About how bubbles being powered: If we keep the current design (but as it is under development, it might change a lot), there might be 2 kinds of bubbles: the one is a permanent energy shield that can protect an area or a space station. This one will most likely be powered by a power source. If this bubble is damaged at a critical level or shutdown, this might trigger the second type of bubble: a temporary (24 or 48h) indestructible bubble immune to sabotage, meant to let the owner of the area react to the aggression or sabotage (because when this happens, it could be in the middle of the night, or when he/she is at work, not in front of the computer, and we don't want to worry people with attacks when they are offline).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

We can't give you details yet about how turrets will work as it refers to game mechanics still currently being designed.

 

However, what we can tell you is what the team is aiming for:

- Giving the ability to players to build some automated defense for their base.

- Avoiding to give the ability to players to have a huge multicrew ship entirely manageable by one player. This would defeat the purpose of multiplayer crew ships, and would end up destroying the team play we are aiming for. People wanting to play solo will be able to do many things, but not everything: piloting alone a multiplayer crew ship with maximum efficiency will be one of the things they won't be able to do. Team play must be rewarded by some exclusive activities and piloting a multiplayer crew ship is the biggest one. Without strong incentive, team play just won't happen.

- Regarding AI, it depends what players are expecting: if it's to help in some basic industrial tasks, or basic automated defense, yes, there will be some - limited - possibilities. However, no AI self-replicating robots, no AI able to replace completely a player in a multiplayer crew ship.

 

We know this isn't much or new info for now, and we will try to update the topic as soon as possible.

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with that. So many posts just go back and forth without adding any value to the actual discussion. We should all act like grown-ups and get over this.

 

Back to topic:

The real challenge is how to figure out a system that is fair for all combat situations. Even without automation players who invested the most resources in their ship will always be superior against other players...

Because of limited resources NQ will only be able to provide the most basic combat system anyways. But it will gradually get more interesting, flexible, and engaging through expansions over the years.

My previous suggestion would just add another option for that.

 

For now we already have a primitive mechanic of "over night" protection in the game:

After revisiting the http://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Archive:Kickstarter_Comments it seems protection bubbles are exactly meant for that purpose:

Somehow I had the impression these bubbles would only last a few minutes to have time to get out of the bed and log into the game... but with this mechanic my mine is safe! :P

Waiting 2 days for the attack would create other problems, but this should be part of another topic...

I believe that the balance NQ will try to strike here is the balance between resources/time spent and manpower. We have no metrics to work with yet, so we don't really have any idea as to what the effectiveness "limit" is for a solo player ship, or what the baseline looks like for a mulit-crew ship.

 

An advanced fighter might be able to destroy a less-advanced 2-crew combat ship in a fair fight, but with what NQ has shared so far regarding their intent, solo ships will be severely limited in what they can accomplish at their most advanced level. This is not going to be a re-hash of how Space Engineers works (where you can STACK a huge ship with heavy armor and AI turrets, piloted by a solo player just fine), nor will this be anything like starmade (same deal, except you can add an AI fleet to fly with you).

 

We are likely to see limitations in how much forward-mounted weaponry can be on a ship, and we are likely to find that ONLY forward-mounted weapons can be used by the pilot. NQ has mentioned 1 crew per weapon system on a ship at some point, meaning a 2-crew ship will have potentially twice the firepower of a solo fighter (or more if swivel-mounted turrets are more effective/less limited than forward mounted) and it goes up from there. This means that the ONLY advantage that a solo player can have against multi-crew ships in terms of ship combat is maneuverability (less weapons means less components, and less mass. less mass means more thrust).

 

This is intended to be a cooperative game, a solo player should not be able to operate a titan-class warship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 NQ has mentioned 1 crew per weapon system on a ship at some point, meaning a 2-crew ship will have potentially twice the firepower of a solo fighter (or more if swivel-mounted turrets are more effective/less limited than forward mounted) and it goes up from there.

 

This is a key take away.  It doesn't matter whether players can control 1 weapon or 100.

 

A single player ship will only be able to control that number of weapons.  A multiplayer ship can have multiples of that "Limit".

 

Here's an example:

 

Your game client may be able to support 10 weapons controlled by LUA.  A multiplayer ship with 10 users (10 clients) would be able to control 100 weapons (10 weapons batteries running on 10 clients).

 

Multiplayer will always beat out single player.  It doesn't matter whether the players are limited to a single weapon or multiples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Multiplayer will always beat out single player.  It doesn't matter whether the players are limited to a single weapon or multiples.

errm well this is not quite the case, because we don't know how much variation there will be in weapon quality. One player in a very advanced/expensive fighter should be able to take on 2,3, even 4 or 5 people in a basic or poorly built frigate. Individual character skill (not just player skill) may also be a key factor here.

 

It might be that a solo player who has nearly maxed out all of their skills relevant to piloting a fighter, while flying an advanced fighter, will be a good match for a crew of 5 newbies. It might also be that the advanced weapons, armor, and thrusters on the fighter would be enough to close that gap.

 

We simply don't know how much of an impact raw metrics will have in these encounters.

 

However if you take a crew of even 3 players, and each is spending time on their own specialization (one on engineering/refining, one on piloting/scanning, one on gunnary) and each player is contributing play time to construct a solid ship, said team should have a colossal advantage over even a theoretically maxed out solo player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

errm well this is not quite the case, because we don't know how much variation there will be in weapon quality. One player in a very advanced/expensive fighter should be able to take on 2,3, even 4 or 5 people in a basic or poorly built frigate. Individual character skill (not just player skill) may also be a key factor here.

 

It might be that a solo player who has nearly maxed out all of their skills relevant to piloting a fighter, while flying an advanced fighter, will be a good match for a crew of 5 newbies. It might also be that the advanced weapons, armor, and thrusters on the fighter would be enough to close that gap.

 

We simply don't know how much of an impact raw metrics will have in these encounters.

 

However if you take a crew of even 3 players, and each is spending time on their own specialization (one on engineering/refining, one on piloting/scanning, one on gunnary) and each player is contributing play time to construct a solid ship, said team should have a colossal advantage over even a theoretically maxed out solo player.

 

The example of single vs multi player combat should be judged with all other things being equal.

 

Of course a player who has spent years in a game will be more skilled than a newbie.

Of course a player who has better equipment will be better than someone who has crap.

 

This is the same as saying  "Our three newly created level 1 characters can't kill his level 75 sorcerer.  Maybe we should nerf the sorcerer."

 

I agree with you though.  Multiplayer will always be better than single, all other things being equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the following: In the lower, there was a giant rebellion against AI control. The devs are also planning to add a Lua scripting element into the game. How about forcing automated systems to be programmed by the players and run on Lua?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the following: In the lower, there was a giant rebellion against AI control. The devs are also planning to add a Lua scripting element into the game. How about forcing automated systems to be programmed by the players and run on Lua?

Depends on the extent of the automated system you will be able to make. Fine for making smaller things easier. Crewing a battleship with 20 automated turrets and full automated maintenance on every part of the ship? No thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...