Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How hard going to space at the beginning should be with the lowest tech/skill? Should it be hard like modern-day with each launch costing a fortune? Should you be able to get into a WWII fighter and go to space?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really don't know at this point.  I imagine you will be able to get to space as long as you can create thrusters/ a ship.

 

In order to do so you might have to create units/factories that can output an engine/thrusters etc.  So it might take some time to get into space... but not too long.

 

The real difficulty comes into play when you think about "what next?".  There's no infrastructure right when we start... 

 

After the game moves forward in time, it will get easier and easier for a player to get on their feet (engines ;)).  All speculation and assumptions on my part 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space being "hard" is relative. We all have our own idea of hard or easy. 

 

I would think reaching space will feel as a personal achievement. If that's one of your goals. As to what exactly you would need to reach space, who knows. :P

 

We can see some elements in the dev dairies but everything is subject to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it should be "hard" to get into space.

 

Space is an integral part of the game play. If everyone is stuck on Alioth for months, players will get bored and frustrated and that just leads to bad behaviour and rage-quitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

I don't think it should be "hard" to get into space.

 

Space is an integral part of the game play. If everyone is stuck on Alioth for months, players will get bored and frustrated and that just leads to bad behaviour and rage-quitting.

 

Frankly, I consider this as part of emergent gameplay and putting more meaningful existence into some sort of "end-game" by dragging out things a bit. Making it easy won't feel like an accomplishment. Then it's a question of doing it alone compared to a collaborative effort.

 

I get that being stuck there for months could turn away players. But effort for a few weeks (as loner, again, without help from others or without a group effort) I consider to be acceptable so far. A struggle must exist on some level and people should perhaps then reconsider or ask themselves when they want or should go for a collaborative effort instead of trying to do it alone if they want something done faster.

 

In addition it won't become that bad anyway. You always have to consider that those who already went there can come back and take anyone with them, so you won't be stuck down there for months unless you want to be stuck there. Besides, if the planet will be large enough there will be plenty of opportunities down there initially and then even later. I'd rather worry about claiming one tile or two on the planet than racing into space initially.

Shockeray likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Warden said:

 

Frankly, I consider this as part of emergent gameplay and putting more meaningful existence into some sort of "end-game" by dragging out things a bit. Making it easy won't feel like an accomplishment. Then it's a question of doing it alone compared to a collaborative effort.

 

I get that being stuck there for months could turn away players. But effort for a few weeks (as loner, again, without help from others or without a group effort) I consider to be acceptable so far. A struggle must exist on some level and people should perhaps then reconsider or ask themselves when they want or should go for a collaborative effort instead of trying to do it alone if they want something done faster.

 

In addition it won't become that bad anyway. You always have to consider that those who already went there can come back and take anyone with them, so you won't be stuck down there for months unless you want to be stuck there. Besides, if the planet will be large enough there will be plenty of opportunities down there initially and then even later. I'd rather worry about claiming one tile or two on the planet than racing into space initially.

 

Space should not be about "getting there" as much as "what to do when you DO get there". How quickly you get to space does not change the difficulty of surviving there.

 

Access to space opens up vast new possibilities for game play. Exploration, colonising new planets, building secret asteroid bases, enjoying the view, and so on.

 

Getting to space should just be a tiny speedbump in your character progression, and it probably will become just that very soon after launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iirc nq said somewhere that getting into space would need some weeks of preparation - if you do it all solo ofc. So that's fine for me.

 

Later new people will just be shipped off planet or orgs might even give them all they need to get to space themselves

yamamushi likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the design of this game is that it's about civilization building.  In order for a civilization to be built there has to be some level of difficulty to travel and resource gathering and services people can perform that have some value to other people. 

 

Why?  Because if you can go anywhere and do everything without having to expend any effort or time or resources to do it then you will and not stick around other people... not rely on those other people... not interact... and no civilization occurs.

 

The amount of resources and the time it takes to gather them and possibly process them into building materials could be balanced for quick movement or slow movement. 

 

I for one think it should be on the slow side. 

 

Lethys and Ben Fargo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fitorion said:

Part of the design of this game is that it's about civilization building.  In order for a civilization to be built there has to be some level of difficulty to travel and resource gathering and services people can perform that have some value to other people. 

 

Why?  Because if you can go anywhere and do everything without having to expend any effort or time or resources to do it then you will and not stick around other people... not rely on those other people... not interact... and no civilization occurs.

 

... 

 

You cannot "force" people to interact if they don't want to. 

 

Those that are interested in the "civilization-building" aspects will engage in it voluntarily, those that are not interested will engage reluctantly (and minimally) until they can get away from it. If it takes too long to "get away from it", they will just quit the game.

 

I'd rather have a game with 1000 players, of which 500 are enthusiastically building civilizations, than a game with only 500 players.

 

More players means more diversity and more market activity. It makes politics and business more varied and complex. The more diverse the population, the greater the chance for interesting "emergent gameplay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NanoDot said:

You cannot "force" people to interact if they don't want to. 

 

Those that are interested in the "civilization-building" aspects will engage in it voluntarily, those that are not interested will engage reluctantly (and minimally) until they can get away from it. If it takes too long to "get away from it", they will just quit the game.

 

I'd rather have a game with 1000 players, of which 500 are enthusiastically building civilizations, than a game with only 500 players.

 

More players means more diversity and more market activity. It makes politics and business more varied and complex. The more diverse the population, the greater the chance for interesting "emergent gameplay".

If they don't like the game they can leave.  The Devs Can make the game favor the play style they want.  That's what Game Devs do... they make the game they want with the mechanics that support it.

 

I said

"if you can go anywhere and do everything without having to expend any effort or time or resources to do it then you will and not stick around other people... not rely on those other people... not interact... and no civilization occurs."

 

You said

"More players means more diversity and more market activity. It makes politics and business more varied and complex. The more diverse the population, the greater the chance for interesting "emergent gameplay"."

 

If all those players have no need to buy anything from anyone else just what market activity do you think there will be?  With everyone having no need to engage in any politics or business and can go anywhere and do anything without needing to rely on anyone else for anything... how much "emergent gameplay" do you think will occur? 

 

The answer is None.  The result of a game without the structures to "force" people together... is a boring... and then a failed game.

 

So you can make a game with the necessary restrictions to movement speed and set the cost to engaging in certain activities to such a level as to encourage a market to occur... to give reasons for businesses to exist... and the conflicts of interest over say... limited resources that cause politics to emerge... or you can make a boring building game where none of that exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this shouldn't be a race to space. We should appreciate all the opportunities that being on Alioth gives us. All future players will spawn there, so we can build a city there that offers services to those new players, in order to get them what they need to start their life within the game. It can also be a universal place that everyone comes to whenever they want to buy more supplies e.t.c. There are already many orgs planning to host events on Alioth & others have construction projects they want to accomplish on the planet, so we can take the time we need to get to space, but while we wait, we can reap the rewards Alioth has in store for us, that is, if we put enough of a community effort into it. We can really make it a nice place for everyone, an Oasis where even veteran players will want to come back & visit. A place where new players can be recruited by other orgs.
 

Ben Fargo likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fitorion said:

If they don't like the game they can leave. 

... 

The result of a game without the structures to "force" people together... is a boring... and then a failed game.

 

...

No, a game with structures that "forces people together" via a limited range of game play options is a game with a small population.

 

Interacting with a market terminal doesn't create a "civilisation". Most MMO's I've played have very active Auction Houses, none of them have anything I would call a "civilisation".

A civilisation is born when a group of like-minded individuals voluntarily decide to adhere to a set of common goals, laws and cultural norms.

 

If you try to force that co-operation, you're not creating a civilisation, you're creating a PUG, which will disband the moment it is no longer convenient or necessary.

 

Delaying access to space is not going to turn a solo player into an enthusiastic group player. It will at most force them to reluctantly group-up until they can get away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interacting with a market terminal is interacting with other people.  Other people made or mined the stuff and put it up on that terminal.  But without a need for any of it then the market will not be active.  How do you make a market be active?  By having an activity that people want to do... such as space flight... take lots of time or resources to do solo... so people will "be forced" to interact with others by buying what they need from the market if they don't want to spend the time to do it themselves.  Then Businesses can exist to service the desire people have for doing that activity. 

 

Civilization exists to facilitate commerce.  To provide a safe structure for such activities to occur.  And it is only necessary due to the hazards, limited resources, and needs people have... that can only be met by other people.  

 

You are correct that civilization would cease to exist if it is not convenient or necessary.  That's my whole point.  Unless the game systems are set up in such a way as to make civilization convenient and necessary then civilization will not exist.

 

IRL people only group up for protection and to have their other needs met.  Remove those needs and everyone becomes solo.  No one is an enthusiastic group player.  Everyone would do what ever it is they want to do with out help from others if they could. 

 

Over catering to "solo play" is the cancer of MMOs.  But no where have I said that it should be impossible... just very difficult/time consuming. 

 

For the easy path "solo play" it should be possible to go to a player run mission/quest board... take quests and turn them in... and earn enough to buy your ship and take on bounties or go asteroid mining or what ever other non-group activity you want... and since you are interacting with others by utilizing player made markets and mission boards you're contributing to the growing civilization. 

 

For the hard path... you can walk out to the middle of no where... after many hours of walking past the city... past the refineries... past the mining operations... you finally find a spot where no one is.  Start mining... get enough to put down a territory claim so you can mine while keeping the friendlier players at bay for a few weeks... maybe get attacked while you're offline or online... and either have some of your resources stolen or fend them off... Maybe you should hire some security... but wait... you're a solo player... so you'll have to do it yourself... (never mind that fighting off your attackers is another interaction with other players) Set up a really slow and inefficient refiner to process your resources into the building materials you'll need to make a ship... All the while having to guard against attack... and you finally do it. How long did it take? a Month? Two?  I don't know exactly how long it should take but it should be long enough to make this option unattractive to most people.   But now what? all those other players have already reached the other planets in the system with their group efforts and the group research project hasn't invented the warp gate to get to another star yet... Maybe you just want to build on your claim and not go flying?  That's fine.  How long can building alone hold your attention? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, that entire post above this one is speculation.  We know it will be easier in a group, but how much easier?  None of us know.

 

I personally don't think NQ will alienate an entire crowd of solo-players.

 

I don't think it will take months to make a ship after things get rolling, maybe a day or two of hard work.  A week of leisurely dedication.

 

Now making a ship that traverses very large distances and can hold a good amount of stuff/players and sustain them for long periods of time?  That will be a project.  A simple ship to get someone in the air/to a moon or something...   should not be painful to produce.

 

The thing is, organizations inherently have larger projects than those smaller groups and single players.  Just my 2 quanta 

 

Speculation on on my part as well of course.  People seem to have different expectations and speculate accordingly, which is fine.  But saying I'm right, or your right is simply false.

 

Edit:

One thing to note.  Although it might take a good amount of time... I believe it will be fun and rewarding.  No matter if you're in a group or solo 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when I think of solo play, I think of living/working but still using goods/services made by othets if necessary.

 

Of course, if going into space using low level tech is as hard as modern day, the whole problem may be sidestepped by having the arkship drop a space elevator from orbit instead of landing on it. Then, people will go down to Alioth for resources extraction and parts manufacturing, then brought up to the arkship via space elevator for assembly and launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 0something0 said:

Well, when I think of solo play, I think of living/working but still using goods/services made by othets if necessary.

 

Of course, if going into space using low level tech is as hard as modern day, the whole problem may be sidestepped by having the arkship drop a space elevator from orbit instead of landing on it. Then, people will go down to Alioth for resources extraction and parts manufacturing, then brought up to the arkship via space elevator for assembly and launch.

I generally think that way too... but then I post something about structuring the game so that people have need of utilizing those goods and services... and suddenly I get responses say that you can't force people together and doing so is anti solo play...

 

So I'm left to wonder what solo play they want if they're against all the things that would have people interact on any level...  And the only thing I can think of is full self sufficiency / creative god mode.  or... a single player non-MMO so there's not even a chance of bumping into someone else ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fitorion said:

I generally think that way too... but then I post something about structuring the game so that people have need of utilizing those goods and services... and suddenly I get responses say that you can't force people together and doing so is anti solo play...

 

So I'm left to wonder what solo play they want if they're against all the things that would have people interact on any level...  And the only thing I can think of is full self sufficiency / creative god mode.  or... a single player non-MMO so there's not even a chance of bumping into someone else ever.

I think we have different interpretations of "solo" play.

 

To me, solo play is simply what happens when I'm not playing as part of an organised group (usually referred to as a guild in older MMO's). That means I'm not subject to the rules, duties, activity schedules, rank privileges, drama, politics, etc. that exist in a formally organised group. My time is my own and I can do what I please whenever I please.

 

A demand for self-sufficiency is not part of my solo play needs in an MMO, in fact, it would detract from my enjoyment of the game. The presence of other players around me makes the game world feel alive and dynamic. I still compete with other players, but the level of that competition is determined by my agenda, not the agenda of some formal group that I belong to.

 

I spent half my time in EVE (3 years) as a "solo" player. During that time, I "interacted" with the markets constantly, but spent comparatively little time interacting directly with other players. I have no idea who supplied the things I bought every day on the market, or how they were made. I had no idea who bought the things I produced. I simply looked at supply and demand, and at the bigger picture of what was happening in the game at any given time (by reading the forums). Sometimes I temporarily co-operated with random other "solo" players for a while to get certain things done.

 

Game play in MMO's is not a binary activity: you don't either play as member of a formally organised group (org) or else try to avoid all contact with other players. There are many shades of grey between those two extremes. Trying to force everyone into formally organised groups is just an attempt to impose a preferred play style on the game.

Oije likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NanoDot said:

I think we have different interpretations of "solo" play.

 

To me, solo play is simply what happens when I'm not playing as part of an organised group (usually referred to as a guild in older MMO's). That means I'm not subject to the rules, duties, activity schedules, rank privileges, drama, politics, etc. that exist in a formally organised group. My time is my own and I can do what I please whenever I please.

 

A demand for self-sufficiency is not part of my solo play needs in an MMO, in fact, it would detract from my enjoyment of the game. The presence of other players around me makes the game world feel alive and dynamic. I still compete with other players, but the level of that competition is determined by my agenda, not the agenda of some formal group that I belong to.

 

I spent half my time in EVE (3 years) as a "solo" player. During that time, I "interacted" with the markets constantly, but spent comparatively little time interacting directly with other players. I have no idea who supplied the things I bought every day on the market, or how they were made. I had no idea who bought the things I produced. I simply looked at supply and demand, and at the bigger picture of what was happening in the game at any given time (by reading the forums). Sometimes I temporarily co-operated with random other "solo" players for a while to get certain things done.

 

Game play in MMO's is not a binary activity: you don't either play as member of a formally organised group (org) or else try to avoid all contact with other players. There are many shades of grey between those two extremes. Trying to force everyone into formally organised groups is just an attempt to impose a preferred play style on the game.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my posts.  None of them were about forcing everyone into formally organized groups.

 

I think we have the same definition of solo play... but maybe a different definition of interact.  Also maybe a different definition of "together."  Anything within eye sight fits my definition of together...  it does not refer to groups.  And you disagreeing with my assumption that solo play is desired to be close enough to other players to be able to use market terminals... and seeing them walking or flying about... lead me to think your definition was absolutist solo as nothing else could make sense.

 

If your position is as above then you should have agreed with:

 

On 10/8/2017 at 11:23 PM, Fitorion said:

Part of the design of this game is that it's about civilization building.  In order for a civilization to be built there has to be some level of difficulty to travel and resource gathering and services people can perform that have some value to other people. 

 

Why?  Because if you can go anywhere and do everything without having to expend any effort or time or resources to do it then you will and not stick around other people... not rely on those other people... not interact... and no civilization occurs.

 

The amount of resources and the time it takes to gather them and possibly process them into building materials could be balanced for quick movement or slow movement. 

 

I for one think it should be on the slow side. 

 

 

Because disagreeing is advocating for no restriction on movement and easy self sufficiency so you don't have to buy from any markets or compete with anyone else.  

 

Edit it add some color highlight to the key part of my post that should have indicated I was talking about the basic fundamental structure of the game and not about organizations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fitorion said:

...

 

I think we have the same definition of solo play... but maybe a different definition of interact.  Also maybe a different definition of "together."  Anything within eye sight fits my definition of together...  it does not refer to groups.  And you disagreeing with my assumption that solo play is desired to be close enough to other players to be able to use market terminals... and seeing them walking or flying about... lead me to think your definition was absolutist solo as nothing else could make sense.

 

...  

There's the binary state again: "If you don't want to be within constant eyesight of all other players, then you obviously want to be self-sufficient, anti-social and avoid all contact with other players". Nothing else makes sense, eh ?

 

What if I want to build a cabin in the woods, and go to market three times a week to buy and sell stuff ? What if I agree to go mining with 10 other players every Saturday ? And hunting with another group of 5 every Wednesday ? I don't mind the extra travel times, it gives me an opportunity to see what others have been up to across the landscape...

 

A civilisation is not defined by the proximity or size of its population, nor by its market activity. It's defined by shared goals, culture, laws, norms, etc.. People have to actively co-operate and agree to bring all those things into being. It doesn't spontaneously happen because a group of disparate individuals are concentrated in a certain area. You have to BUILD a civilisation, it doesn't build itself.

 

It is my contention that you cannot build a civilisation without being part of a formal group (org or alliance). That's because a civilisation is an organised entity which has clearly defined attributes that all members are required to adhere to. Each formal group is a community, and has the potential to evolve into a civilisation. The population of the safe zone is not a "civilisation" by default, it's simply a temporary concentration of players.

 

If people don't WANT to build a civilisation or abide by its conventions, they will leave that area and/or group at the first opportunity. No amount of roadblocks will change someone's preferred play style, but those roadblocks will have a direct impact on their decision to continue playing...

 

Making it "hard" to get to space is just a roadblock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NanoDot said:

There's the binary state again: "If you don't want to be within constant eyesight of all other players, then you obviously want to be self-sufficient, anti-social and avoid all contact with other players". Nothing else makes sense, eh ?

 

What if I want to build a cabin in the woods, and go to market three times a week to buy and sell stuff ? What if I agree to go mining with 10 other players every Saturday ? And hunting with another group of 5 every Wednesday ? I don't mind the extra travel times, it gives me an opportunity to see what others have been up to across the landscape...

 

A civilisation is not defined by the proximity or size of its population, nor by its market activity. It's defined by shared goals, culture, laws, norms, etc.. People have to actively co-operate and agree to bring all those things into being. It doesn't spontaneously happen because a group of disparate individuals are concentrated in a certain area. You have to BUILD a civilisation, it doesn't build itself.

 

It is my contention that you cannot build a civilisation without being part of a formal group (org or alliance). That's because a civilisation is an organised entity which has clearly defined attributes that all members are required to adhere to. Each formal group is a community, and has the potential to evolve into a civilisation. The population of the safe zone is not a "civilisation" by default, it's simply a temporary concentration of players.

 

If people don't WANT to build a civilisation or abide by its conventions, they will leave that area and/or group at the first opportunity. No amount of roadblocks will change someone's preferred play style, but those roadblocks will have a direct impact on their decision to continue playing...

 

Making it "hard" to get to space is just a roadblock.

stuff in Red

I did not say that.  You are now Inventing a position I don't hold and haven't advocated for and then arguing against it.

 

You went to the market... you are together.  Oh look that person walked past. You are together.  While out in your cabin... see that building on the ridge?  or the orbital station over head?  You are together.  Mining together and hunting?  Just what is your point of disagreement? 

 

People only have shared goals due to shared hardships.  Remove the hardships and you remove any reason for people to have any goal to share.

 

If access to markets were restricted based on org then I'd say your were right...  But I don't think they will be.  But then again by definition of being in the game you are part of and subject to the rules as set by the game itself... so in a formal structure just by default.  If people don't want to play the game they are free to leave.  If people don't want to join an org they are free to not join.  If people find another org over there is more to their liking then they can go join that group.  But there would be no reason to join if there weren't shared hardships that different people and organizations can choose different methods of solving. 

 

Difficult space travel is just a hardship... a hardship shared by all which can be solved different ways and at different speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally think getting an org to space will be just as difficult as getting a solo player to space.  Now if an org worked collectively to get a solo player to space, that would obviously be worlds faster.

 

At least, that's how I think it should be.

 

This whole discussion is moot until we get there though, balancing will come... at a later time.  And trust me, if people find it to laborious they will lash out.  As is the case in every game ever 😂 

 

We don't know anything at the moment, so arguing over speculatives is pretty useless imho 

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

×