Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
huschhusch

NQ should be an organization in DU!

Recommended Posts

orginal[

Hallo Leute,
Ich finde die Entwickler sollten nicht Gott spielen, denn dann spühren Sie nicht die Auswirkungen ihrer Regeln.
Daher halte ich es für sinnvoll wenn NQ im Spiel eine Organisation stellt die den selben Regeln unterworfen ist wie alle Spieler.
Als erste Verwaltungseinheit besitzt die "Arkship-Org" (ich nenne Sie jetzt einfach mal so) das Arkship selbst und ein paar Hexagonfelder unter der Kuppel.
Natürlich kann Sie Mitglieder aufnehmen und auch Legate bestimmen.
Damit sind die Entwickler Teil des Spiels und es entstehen keine Brüche in der Konsistens (Alpha-Test zeigt es).
]orginal
google-englisch[

Hi Guys,
I find the developers should not play god, because then do not spill the effects of their rules.
Therefore I consider it useful for NQ in the game an organization which is subject to the same rules as all players.
As the first administrative unit, the "Arkship-Org" (I just call you now) have the Arkship itself and a few hexagon fields under the dome.
Of course, you can include members and also appoint legates.
Thus the developers are part of the game and there are no breaks in the consistens (alpha test shows it).
]google-englisch

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently not sure what this would entail in more detail. Could you elaborate further what you have in mind or give specific examples? So far I can assume that you fear that developers might abuse powers and that containing them in their own organization might prevent this, which I consider odd however.

 

I doubt you will see NQ staff go around and just "wreck" things with dev tools or on "cheat mode" basically, and if they individually want to play the game like the others would, they would likely just form a character or maybe join a faction - perhaps even "anonymous" to prevent bias claims. I was an Admin on a more serious Minecraft server community once and I can tell you that bias claims are real or quick to be on the table in general or, specifically, if said faction you are in or that you lead (in my case, I lead it) is somewhat or even a relatively successful or winning fights against other factions.

 

 

I also personally suggest you change your format with the translations a bit, as a different layout could improve "readability". For example, your post could simply look like this:

 

 

English (Translator used)

 

Hi Guys,
I find the developers should not play god, because then do not spill the effects of their rules.
Therefore I consider it useful for NQ in the game an organization which is subject to the same rules as all players.
As the first administrative unit, the "Arkship-Org" (I just call you now) have the Arkship itself and a few hexagon fields under the dome.
Of course, you can include members and also appoint legates.
Thus the developers are part of the game and there are no breaks in the consistens (alpha test shows it).

 

 

Deutsch (or German)

 

Hallo Leute,
Ich finde die Entwickler sollten nicht Gott spielen, denn dann spühren Sie nicht die Auswirkungen ihrer Regeln.
Daher halte ich es für sinnvoll wenn NQ im Spiel eine Organisation stellt die den selben Regeln unterworfen ist wie alle Spieler.
Als erste Verwaltungseinheit besitzt die "Arkship-Org" (ich nenne Sie jetzt einfach mal so) das Arkship selbst und ein paar Hexagonfelder unter der Kuppel.
Natürlich kann Sie Mitglieder aufnehmen und auch Legate bestimmen.
Damit sind die Entwickler Teil des Spiels und es entstehen keine Brüche in der Konsistens (Alpha-Test zeigt es).

 

--------

 

That structure with the big of spacing appears to improve "readability" for me and maybe others, opposed to the brackets ([ and ]) and lack of space(s) between the translations.

 

Probier es mal aus.

 

(That means "Try it out", for those wondering)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limiting the developers to the same rules the players have would be impossible.  They need to create the game and manage it.  They need to fix problems, whether they are caused by the software or how the players use it.  They simply could not do their job if they were limited that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Warden,
First thanks for the formatting suggestion (looks good).

I have exactly the fear that the developers undermine the game or simply cheat. For example unlimited ressources, weapon power or such things to change massivly the gameplay.
If NQ has the same preconditions as every organization in the game, for example through their own organization (which I call here "Arkship-Org") and according to general rules, then they face also the same difficulties as the players and organizations to make similar changes. This would give NQ a better view for the consequences of their changes in the game and its saver for consistency through changes(which is one of NQs highest principles). NQ as an organization can as well include players as members to achieve a certain work (or legates as admins). As a developer, you have the possibility to determine the rules freely anyway.(And therefore could ensure to stay the strongest "Player" in the game")
for example:
Instead of programming NPC traders, the Arkship Org could lead the trade. or
Fix certain hex fields to form roads. etc.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Warden,
erstmal vielen Dank für den Formatierungs Vorschlag (sieht gut aus).

Genau die Befürchtung, das die Entwickler unterminieren oder einfach cheaten, habe ich. Als Beispiel unbegrenzte Resourcen, Feuerkraft oder solche Sachen, veränderen massiv das Spiel.
Wenn alle Veränderungen die NQ im Spiel durch ihre Organisation (Arkship-Org) mach muß und das nach allgemeingültigen Regeln, dann sehen Sie auch die Schwierigkeiten die Spieler und Organisationen haben um ähnliche Veränderungen durchzuführen. NQ kann ja Spieler als Mitglieder aufnehmen um eine gewisse Arbeitsteilung zu erreichen (oder Legate als Admins). Als Entwickler kann haben Sie sowieso die Möglichkeit die Regeln frei zu bestimmen.(und könnte damit sicherstellen als stärkste Organisation im Spiel zu sein)
zum Beispiel:
Statt NPC-Händler zu programmieren, könnte die Arkship-Org den Handel führen. oder
Bestimmte Hexfelder sichern um Straßen zu bilden. usw.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Ben Fargo,

The developers have to try their changes anyway, so why not live on the living object. The theoretical functionality is tested after coding.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Ben Fargo,

die Entwickler müssen ihre Änderungen sowieso ausprobieren, also warum nicht am lebenden Objekt. Die theoretische Funktionalität wird vorher beim kodieren geprüft.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a fear that NQ will cheat in their own game is rational. If they want to cheat... Well that's dumb, it's their own game and that would drive players away. If they have their own organization but they want to cheat, they aren't just going to say "man, I really wanted to spawn some kyrium but I'm stuck in this stupid normal player account and org..." It doesn't make sense that them having their own org would prevent them from cheating if they wanted to.

 

Aside from that, I don't personally believe that any member of NQ would ever ever cheat in the game (at least not on a scale that would have an effect on other players) anyway. It just doesn't seem like them at all; they are spending all this time making this game to essentially be a simulation of a real world economy and infrastructure, why on Alioth would they intentionally screw that up? And I feel like they won't play much to begin with. They build the game, they spend all day working on and in it, I fell as though they really won't have much of a desire to go home and further immerse themselves in their job.

 

Ich glaube nicht, dass die Angst, dass NQ in ihrem eigenen Spiel betrügen wird, rational ist. Wenn sie betrügen wollen ... Nun, das ist stumm, es ist ihr eigenes Spiel und das würde die Spieler wegfahren. Wenn sie ihre eigene Organisation haben, aber sie wollen zu betrügen, sind sie nicht nur zu sagen "Mann, ich wollte wirklich ein paar kyrium, aber ich bin in diesem dummen normalen Spieler-Account und org ..." Es doesn ' Ich mache Sinn, dass sie ihre eigene Org würde sie daran hindern, zu betrügen, wenn sie wollten.

Abgesehen davon, ich glaube nicht persönlich, dass jedes Mitglied von NQ jemals in das Spiel betrügen würde (zumindest nicht auf einer Skala, die einen Einfluss auf andere Spieler haben würde) sowieso. Es scheint einfach nicht wie sie überhaupt; Sie verbringen die ganze Zeit dieses Spiel, um im Wesentlichen eine Simulation einer echten Weltwirtschaft und Infrastruktur zu sein, warum auf Alioth würden sie absichtlich schrauben? Und ich fühle mich wie sie nicht viel spielen, um mit zu beginnen. Sie bauen das Spiel, sie verbringen den ganzen Tag arbeiten an und in ihm, ich fiel, als ob sie wirklich nicht viel von einem Wunsch haben, nach Hause zu gehen und weiter in ihre Arbeit eintauchen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such an org is unnecessary.

 

But I remind you of eve where devs did indeed help player corps. 

 

They need to test the game too but iimho the only way to go is by tagging them clearly as devs so everyone knows exactly with whom they're dealing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello ATMLVE,

I hope my English translation is not as cruel as your German.

Unfortunately I had to experience in Elite Dangerous that the developers do not play their own game real, as many effects had completely idiotic effects or simply did not work as they should. The alpha / beta will eliminate most of the errors, but never all. Therefore, an organization that moderates acts more believable than invisible changes through divine hand.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo ATMLVE,

ich hoffe meine englisch Übersetzung ist nicht so grausam wie deine deutsche.

 

leider muste ich in Elite Dangerous erleben das die Entwickler ihr eigenes Spiel real nicht spielen, da viele Effekte völlig idiotisch Auswirkungen hatten oder schlicht nicht funktionierten wie sie sollten. Die Alpha/Beta werden die meisten Fehler beseitigen, doch niemals alle. Daher ist eine Organisation die moderieren wirkt glaubhafter als unsichtbare Veränderungen durch Gotteshand.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
Just your example shows very clearly that the rules in EVE probably not synonymous by the developers were examined. You can only find out if you play the game as well as the players and not just in a test bed.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Lethys,

gerade dein Beispiel zeigt doch sehr deutlich das die Regeln in EVE wohl auch nicht durch die Entwickler überprüft wurden. Das findet man eben nur heraus wenn man das Spiel so spielt wie die Spieler auch und nicht nur in einem Testbett.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because eve devs played anonymously and not as officials - ofc you can't deny them playing at home with an account. 

 

It's sufficient if the devs just have normal chars with special tags - they can always test with those too. 

It doesn't make sense at all to test a game only in godmode - they won't do that. 

I get what you mean, but I don't think it'll be aa problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
I do not want to paint the devil on the wall, but all actions in DU are persistent, so I would already know who made changes that affect me. There is then an organization which is already known for the Consistens of the DU universe already important.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Lethys,

ich möchte hier nicht den Teufel an die Wand malen, aber alle Handlungen in DU sind persistend, daher möchte ich schon wissen wer Veränderungen die mich betreffen gemacht hat. Da ist dann eine Organisation die bekannt ist für die Konsistens des DU-Universums schon wichtig.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they change mechanics and that patch affects you - which will happen - so what? That's the point of a patch? And you know who did it....

 

I really don't know what you meant there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
Changes to the software are not the problem, in this case only the functionality (rules) of the game is changed.
The danger I see concerns the status or possession of a player or an organization which is changed by the developers without the normal game mechanics (ie God's hand). This approach angered players very much. In the case of similar power conditions, however, an organization can defend itself, and I consider this possibility to be more consistent than an overpowering developer who simply interferes with the game.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Lethys,

Veränderungen an der Software sind nicht das Problem, hierbei wird ja nur die Funktionalität (Regeln) des Spiels verändert.

Die Gefahr die ich sehe betrifft den Status oder den Besitz eines Spielers oder einer Organisation die durch die Entwickler verändert werden ohne die normale Spielemechanik einzuhalten (also Gotteshand). Dieses Vorgehen verärgert Spieler sehr. Bei ähnlichen Machtverhältnissen kann sich eine Organisation aber wehren, und diese Möglichkeit halte ich für konsistenter als ein übermächtiger Entwickler der einfach mal so in das Spiel eingreift.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be times when the developers will need to change things outside the rules of the game.  For example, suppose there was an error in the software that under some unusual conditions caused your entire inventory to disappear.  If that happened, I think you would want the developers to check that it was a software error that deleted it and then restore what you lost.  To do that they would need access to information ordinary players can not see and they would need to be able to make changes players can not make.

 

There is the possibility that someone who has that ability will abuse it.  Companies normally have policies and practices in place to try to prevent that.  The ability to make those changes is usually limited to a very small number of people.  It is generally not something every developer can do.  There are typically approval processes that must be followed before the changes can be made and review processes that must be followed after.

 

So yes, there need to be rules controlling what is change, but they are the rules of the company, not the rules of the game.  Trying to build them into the game is impossible, because developers can not  predict what errors will occur.  If they could predict them, they could prevent them and the software would always work flawlessly, but that is not what happens.  They really need the ability to change anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't really get what you mean.

Do you really think the devs will run around, playing God and killing everyone? There are contracts (IRL- they're employees after all) to prevent that, people can report players and they won't stay dev for long. There's only a very very very small chance that someone abused their insight to help some org in DU with tips but that's all. They can't destroy your experience with the game - because you would know that something's off, report it and they'll get fired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Once again!

Obviously, my concern for some is hard to understand.
NQ as an organization is said to cause two things:
1. Moderation and compensation within the DU universe in the form of an organization (same rules for all!).
If "novaquark-test-sample" is this organization, everything is fine.
2. Penalty for the developers.
Why? Unfortunately it has become in the software industry standard (since Microsoft), quickly times to make changes and then the user test. Fortunately, Jean-Christophe Baillie is an experienced software developer in the industry (there is no such thing). But his people probably not (even games developer). Not that I would like to de-qualify game developers, but no people die with software errors and there is then also the Intension that one can correct it with God's hand.
But there are Alpha and Beta's! There you can try out with the players (many eyes see more) things.
Make the developers but the sloppy and in the normal game then unwanted effects occur, the developers should it by the reintroduction of the rules and by their organization to clean up (punishment) and not by God's hand. This should lead the developer to thoroughly understand their rules and do not produce a quick shot. I hope that by the control of Jean-Christophe Baillie such catastrophes will never occur, because I am very much looking forward to this game and wish Jean-Christophe Baillie success and happiness with this great concept.

 

Hello Ben Fargo,
The NQ organization can give me things back even if it means effort (penalty must be).
And yes, shiksals beats like in real life.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Noch einmal!

Offensichtlich ist mein Anliegen für einige hier schwer zu verstehen.?
NQ als Organisation soll zwei Dinge bewirken:
1. Moderation und Ausgleich innerhalb des DU-Universums in Form einer Organisation (gleiche Regeln für alle!).
Wenn "novaquark-test-sample" diese Organisation ist, alles gut.
2. Strafe für die Entwickler.
Warum? Leider ist es in der Softwarebranche Unsitte geworden (seit Microsoft), schnell mal Änderungen durchzuführen und dann den Anwender testen zu lassen. Zum Glück ist Jean-Christophe Baillie ein erfahrener Softwareentwickler in der Industie (da geht sowas nicht). Aber seine Leute warscheinlich nicht (eben Spieleentwickler). Nicht das ich Spieleentwickler abqualifizieren möchte, aber es sterben keine Leute bei Softwarefehlern und da besteht dann auch mal die Intension das man es mit Gotteshand wieder richten kann.
Aber dafür gibt es Alpha und Beta's! Dort kann man mit den Spielern (viele Augen sehen mehr) Dinge ausprobieren.
Machen Die Entwickler das aber schlampig und im normalen Spiel treten dann ungewollte Effekte auf, sollten die Entwickler es durch Rücknahme der Regeln und durch ihre Organisation bereinigen (Strafe) und eben nicht durch Gotteshand. Dieses sollte dazu führen das die Entwickler ihre Regeln gründlich durchdenken und eben kein Schnellschüsse produzieren. Ich hoffe das durch die Kontrolle von Jean-Christophe Baillie solche Katstrophen nie eintreten werden, denn ich freue mich schon sehr auf diese Spiel und wünsche Jean-Christophe Baillie viel Erfolg und Glück mit diesem großartigen Konzept.

 

Hallo Ben Fargo,
Die NQ-Organisation kann mir die Dinge zurückgeben auch wenn es für Sie Aufwand bedeutet (Strafe muß sein).
Und ja es gibt Schiksalsschläge wie im richtigen Leben.

 

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok and once again,

they can do whatever they want, if they introduce some game mechanics which are broken or unfair, players will rant and report them asap and if they don't fix it, people will stop playing. They can only patch the game in order to introduce new mechanics and if those mechanics have issues and problems, which isn't necessarily their fault, they patch it. I don't see a problem here. And I definitely don't see why they should be punished for that.

 

DU is a sandbox so there wont be any other rules besides the Eula. They won't restrict players with some rules or some behavioral /social restriction

 

ninjaedit:

if they play du as a clearly marked character, they experience the game as everyone else. And if they need to test certain things, they can cheat ofc.

 

besides I think/hope there will be a test server like in eve with only 2 planets for testing purposes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (Translator used)

 

Hello Lethys,
Yes it is relative, it is relative, it is relative, it is relative ...

No it is a suggestion! And there are beta's !!!!!!!

I give up on you have won.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Hallo Lethys,

ja es ist relativ, es ist relativ, es ist relativ, es ist relativ...

Nein es ist ein Vorschlag! Und es gibt Beta's !!!!!!!

Ich gebe auf Du hast gewonnen.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol this isn't about winning or something, I just don't get why you're afraid. They'll test everything thoroughly and with normal accounts so ..... I just don get it hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English (son used)

 

Ok, last try :)

 

It´s not the intention to disable the developers from changing the game. And I want to clarify, that I don´t impute any bad intentions of developers to induce negative effects on the gameplay. Bugs, which are still in the game and are reported to the developers, should be patched in a pesistant way! That means, the change will not occur simply by god´s hand, but it has to be caused by an organization which is part of the game itself (and therefore rule-based).

 

An example:

 

Player X discovers a software bug(and uses it), which gets him an advantage in the game - like an advantage in ressources - as for example much Kyrilium. Now one possibility to fix the bug would be simply to take these ressources from the player away by god´s hand. But another possibility would be to fix the bug so that it cannot be abused in future anymore and let the player the ressources. Or if they not want to do that, they would have to regulate it rule-based through an action from their own organization or through assigment of another organization and steal/buy/conquer/diplomatic/etc. the ressources (so in the same way every player can and would have to do it).

 

An use case which shows the effect in form of organizational acting:

 

DU has the possibility trough their organization to build safe houses, so players which are logged off have a place where they are safe as long as they are not in the game. Therefore there would be no use of large zones where the gameplay mechanics are restricted. They could be variable in location and time, because they can build through their players/organization new places. DU would be a regulative institution which is a rule-based part of the game itself without using unfair mehtods.


The keynote, which i´m speaking of, is only that the persistance of the game should be maintained. So out of philosophical aspects of the game the self delimited restrictions of the developers shall not allow changes by god´s hand. Because these changes are in my eyes in contrary to the meaning of persistance, which is one of the strongest principles of the game.

 

 

German (orginal)

 

Ok letzer Versuch :)

 

Es geht nicht darum, dass Veränderungen des Spiels der Entwickler verhindert werden sollen. Demnach unterstelle ich KEINEM Entwickler böswillig negativen Einfluss auf das Spiel nehmen zu wollen! "Lücken" im Spiel oder Softwarefehler, die noch im Spiel vorhanden sind und von Spielern an die Entwickler berichtet werden, sollen persistent geschlossen werden! Das bedeutet, die Änderung findet nicht einfach statt und der Spieler wird vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt, sondern die Änderung muss durch eine im Spiel befindliche
Einrichtung/Organisation herbeigeführt werden.

 

Ein Beispiel:

 

Spieler X endeckt einen Softwarefehler durch dessen Ausnutzung er einen Spielvorteil - meinetwegen einen Ressourcenvorteil - wie eine Menge Kyrilium erhält. Nun wäre es eine Möglichkeit von DU den Softwarefehler zu beheben und X die Ressourcen einfach zu streichen(Gotteshand). Eine andere Möglichkeit wäre es den Softwarefehler zu beheben, sodass durch dessen Ausnutzung zukünftig kein Ressourcenvorteil mehr erzielt werden kann. Dem Spieler könnten die Ressourcen aus Persistenzgründen belassen werden oder DU müsste "faiererweise", AN DIE REGELN DES SPIELS gebunden, durch eine Aktion ihrer eigenen Organisation oder durch Beauftragung einer im Spiel befindlichen Organisation, die Ressourcen stehlen/kaufen/zurückerobern/diplomatisch/etc. (also auf dieselbe Weise wie jeder andere Spieler auch handeln könnte und müsste).

 

Ein Anwendungsfall der Wirkung als Auftreten in Form einer Organisation:

 

DU hat die Möglichkeit mit ihrer Organisation sichere Einrichtungen zu erschaffen, sodass Spieler, die nicht Online sind, sich dort abmelden können und somit in ihrer Abwesenheit geschützt sind. So müssten keine Schutzzonen eingeführt werden, in denen man sicher ist, sondern dies kann variabel durch Errichtung einer neuen Einrichtung örtlich aber vor Allem zeitlich veränderlich im Rahmen des Spiels selbst angepasst werden. Im Prinzip ist DU demnach Teil ihres eigenen Spiels um regulierend zu wirken, jedoch nicht mit "unfairen" Mitteln.


Der Grundgedanke, den ich hier anspreche, ist demnach nur derjenige, dass ich grundsätzlich der Meinung bin, dass die Persistenz des Spiels eingehalten werden sollte. Die aus spielphilosophischer Sicht selbstaufgebürdete Einschränkung der Entwickler soll dazu führen, dass keine Änderungen des aktuellen Spiels durch Gotteshand herbeigeführt werden. Denn solche Änderungen stehen in meinen Augen entgegen dem Persistenzgedanken, der wiederum eine starke Grundlage des Spiels definiert.

 

mfG Die Waldfee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forget/ignore certain, vital parts of the game there with your examples:

 

7 hours ago, huschhusch said:

An example:

 

Player X discovers a software bug(and uses it), which gets him an advantage in the game - like an advantage in ressources - as for example much Kyrilium. Now one possibility to fix the bug would be simply to take these ressources from the player away by god´s hand. But another possibility would be to fix the bug so that it cannot be abused in future anymore and let the player the ressources. Or if they not want to do that, they would have to regulate it rule-based through an action from their own organization or through assigment of another organization and steal/buy/conquer/diplomatic/etc. the ressources (so in the same way every player can and would have to do it).

 

Kyrium is the metal the arks are made of and no one knows how this metal is mined/melted/produced (lore!). Even if we assume we can find/mine Kyrium somewhere it would be VERY very rare thus the price on the (player run) markets would be VERY high.

So you're saying that an org which has unrightfully (through a bug, loophole, glitch , w/e) gained thousands of units of Kyrium doesn't need to be forced to give that stack back? Since Kyrium is so rare, there would only be 1000 or 2000 units on the markets for sale - and that org now has 1.000.000 units. They could crash the market with that and, if played right, could end up having more quanta then every other player combined. Then they crash EVERY other market with that money, buy all DACs there are, store them up and resell them later for even more profit. They could just rule every market (or the most viable one) with ease. And don't tell me that can't happen - I did it myself in EVE with 4 products (I had the monopoly on). That was already bad and I can't imagine what it would look like if some org dominates the market with not 4 but ALL products there are.....

They won't give that up "through diplomatic resoning" and if they're smart they just store that stack within the safezone - and no one would be able to take it away from them. So no one can steal/buy/conquer it from them......

To me, that is just a really really really bad idea.

Instead of Kyrium you can take any other valuable material/element....and numbers are placeholders......

 

7 hours ago, huschhusch said:

DU has the possibility trough their organization to build safe houses, so players which are logged off have a place where they are safe as long as they are not in the game. Therefore there would be no use of large zones where the gameplay mechanics are restricted. They could be variable in location and time, because they can build through their players/organization new places. DU would be a regulative institution which is a rule-based part of the game itself without using unfair mehtods.


The keynote, which i´m speaking of, is only that the persistance of the game should be maintained. So out of philosophical aspects of the game the self delimited restrictions of the developers shall not allow changes by god´s hand. Because these changes are in my eyes in contrary to the meaning of persistance, which is one of the strongest principles of the game.

 

Logged off players are safe, they disappear. Their constructs aren't safe because they stay in-game at all times. That's why protection bubbles exist (NOT the safe zone).

Safe zones exist to teach newbros the game and for players to enjoy the game without them worrying about AVA/CVC.

If you want to logoff safely, you can do so - find a protection bubble of your org, store your construct there and log off. Such a mechanic opens up interesting and immersive gameplay - like parking lots, hiring mercs to protect your construct while you're offline and so on.

If anyone could just logoff and all their assets are safe - it would be a boring universe where nothing ever happens. And it would break the persistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...