Jump to content

PvP System


Captain Jack

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Felonu said:

I explained what I said in the paragraph you quoted... I always said these are things NQ CAN do to adjust balance.  I didn't say they should do anything but not make it extremely cheap.  What I think NQ should do would be off topic since the OP was asking if a thing would be possible.  I was explaining a way for it to be possible.  I think, or at least attempted to always say that the balance would have to be decided by NQ.  I might have expressed general opinions that you took to mean that I want it to be expensive, but I don't.  I want it to be balanced.

What you view as balanced is probably not what i view as balanced. You did even give examples of what kind of "balance" you wanted. Of course im taking that as you wanting the expense of PvP to suit you, don't hide it under the term "balanced" because that is to a large extent subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emergent:

"in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent."

 

Emergent Gameplay: 

"Complex situations that emerge from simple mechanic interactions"

 

 

As many stated DU is NOT this first then that second...

 

Whilst a simple headline - like the one used above as an example - can lead someone to believe DU will be a building game first. You have to understand the whole in order to understand the meaning of what that headline means or is trying to portray...

 

Quote

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.

 

In 2537, Earth has been destroyed. As a Novean, you’re part of a unique space colonization program, designed to rebuild civilization. You have awakened on a new planet, after a cryogenic sleep that has lasted 9,854 years. This is your chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure...

 

The vision for Dual Universe is to create the first virtual online civilization. At the heart of Dual Universe is a truly innovative proprietary technology, which was developed to lay the foundations of the game. The CSSC (Continuous Single-Shard Cluster) manages one single universe with potentially millions of people interacting in it at the same time. 

 

A multi-scale voxel engine enables players to physically modify the world; dig a hole, carve up a mountain or build anything they want, from spaceships to orbital stations, at any scale they desire. 

 

For the first time, everybody plays at the same place, at the same time. No instances, no loading, no transition. Everything is persistent, so everything matters. And that changes everything.

 

So what does this mean?

 

Well, it means that during the first couple of months, maybe even years, the primary focus of the emergent gameplay maybe be building... and not in the sense that everyone is making it to be but as building (the process of creating - not physical items - but the emergent gameplay that will play the bigger part, of the later years of DU) the universe. You can't have warfare, politics, trade and pvp without having built the emergent player driven universe first. And sure, that building process can even entitle physical building of constructs as part of the building process of the "emergent universe". 

 

So again, while that headline in the website says "Building MMO" understand the context of it: DU is a "Civilization Building" MMORPG. What emerges from that... it is up to the players to decide when they interact with the simple mechanics of the game; trading, building, exploring and warfare. Who knows! Maybe it'll be more building of constructs, maybe the clashing of big empires and alliances, maybe it'll be a universe run by pirates full of pvp... The point is, we dont know what DU will be in the later years... we have to build that emergent universe ourselves and see what it turns out to be.

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

Comrademoco

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

No of coarse not.  Come on now.  Are we even having the same discussion?

 

That's what the Safezones are for.

 

Hindering PVP.

 

Not cramming things down people's throats means that you'll have to accept being hindered a little bit.

 

If I can accept being hindered, then you should be able to also.

So much for hindering PvP, I've hinted previously that I predict the current safezone bubbles are incipient ideas which will become more developed ideas when the rubber hits the tarmac or the spaceship equivalent of that (!).

 

I'm fully aware of what NQ has said on this subject to date 01-2018 but come 01-2020 or later:  I don't stop considering what they said now to what might be then,  is worth noting.

 

In fact, I can go further and say I fully expect the game world to divide between the playing population and a consensus agreement being formed during the early years of the game. I'm sorry if people feel that is not what they want from the off, I'm just stating that's what I think will happen and probably MUST happen to THEN arrive at what we see in the design notes specifically on SIMULATION > Combat > PvP {within this lots of sub-types}.

 

To say why I state a fairly confident if controversial speculation: I said before the scope of gameplay interaction in the voxel building is going to add a whole new MASSIVE to MMO. There ARE more reasons but keeping this short is useful: That alone is going to be good enough reason for any speculation, which all of this thread is.

 

The Builder Players are going to arrive in DU and they're going to have so much to enjoy in these early years. I see that as a very necessary result in the beginning.

 

It will take a bit longer for the type of game I personally crave to arrive on top of that, again to anticipate and manage expectations in a way I think is realistic.

 

We'll build lots of civilizations. In time some of these civilizations will be destroyed.

 

@Comrademoco
 

Quote

 

Well, it means that during the first couple of months, maybe even years, the primary focus of the emergent gameplay maybe be building... and not in the sense that everyone is making it to be but as building (the process of creating - not physical items - but the emergent gameplay that will play the bigger part, of the later years of DU) the universe. You can't have warfare, politics, trade and pvp without having built the emergent player driven universe first.

 

Sounds about right to me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MookMcMook said:

As someone said, NQ's vision is an emergent player-driven simulation game ontop of the sandbox stuff. Though PvP players should ply some patients for the next few years and carefully bide their time.

I’d argue the PvP is going to be far more cut throat in the early days.  It will also be much more imperative that organizations have the protection they need to build cities, institutions, and order.

 

3 hours ago, Captain Jack said:

 

You're using "seems like" as a way to discredit the value of other's input. It's insulting no matter how you try to disguise it. I have no beef with you personally, but the behavior is unbecoming.

Not sure how that’s insulting, but I’m sorry if I offended.  Perhaps I should have just said “you’re throwing things out and hoping they stick” and “you are entirely biased from your fear of PvP”.  You can (and probably will) encounter PvP outside of safezones.  You are entirely in the hands of other players, and the defenses (and skill) you employ.

 

I might have personal bias, but I’m not really a PvPer, so I’m not sure where that would come from.  I just happen to know what I backed.

 

3 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

See I don't think it is being crammed down your throat.

Yes, it really is.  You have to build in order to have a ship... in order to PvP.  Of course you have the option of just buying a ship... but you also just have the option of buying protection from mercs.  It’s LITERALLY the same thing.

Quote

 

The only thing in this thread I have issue with is this idea that if people don't like PVP they should just git gud and defend themselves, or pay someone else too.  Or go hide underground or something.

 

You can do that if you want.  But that's an activity.  Part of PVP

 

Those options are only there if you don’t want to go to a safe zone.  Not really sure what you’re arguing, you could also just leave your base (outside of a safe zone) in the complete open.  That’s your prerogative.  Just like a pvper has the option of building a box, attaching an engine... and maybe a laser to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hades said:

I’d argue the PvP is going to be far more cut throat in the early days.  It will also be much more imperative that organizations have the protection they need to build cities, institutions, and order.

That's an interesting consideration: There may be more safezones and more cut-throat pvp in richer resource areas as a consequence of those safezones paradoxically (the demand outstripping the supply for more diverse and useful resources in specific locales). All to the good.

 

I think the scale of building might be truly huge. Which will mean huge safezones for a large population of players at the beginning.

 

Once this matures then the simulation can start to take over the "automatic safety net" idea.

 

One of the things that pops up is comparison to EVE. But because of the building gameplay I see the development of DU panning out differently to reach a similar final simulation connectivity of gameplay eg where there's cause and effect on things driven by players. Ultimately that's the best result, but as said "ultimately" not "primarily".

 

At some point those large distances may indeed become another successful player-driven safety-net assuming a large playing population and a number of years of growth of the game world space.

 

I cannot wait for when spaceships get weapons systems!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zamarus said:

What you view as balanced is probably not what i view as balanced. You did even give examples of what kind of "balance" you wanted. Of course im taking that as you wanting the expense of PvP to suit you, don't hide it under the term "balanced" because that is to a large extent subjective.

I never gave an example of the kind of balance I wanted.  I gave several examples of unbalanced in both directions.  You are correct though that our opinions of balance are probably different, but I have always stated that it is up to NQ to take what they consider balanced in line with their vision.  

 

2 hours ago, Hades said:

@Felonu

 

That’s pretty interesting because NQ has a pretty straightforward definition of Player driven and emergent gameplay.  Literally 4th bullet point of the Kickstarter.  This isn’t even considering the videos and other avenues of communication they have given on the topic.

 

“Emergent gameplay: economy, trade, territories, politics and warfare are all player-driven. Both PvP and non-PvP will be possible.”

 

Notice that they explicitly mention PvP and non-PvP as both being player driven. This is solidified in dev diaries and blogs if you sift through them.

Yes, both will be possible.  I have said that I want a balance between both.  I provided ways that NQ could do that without implementing any additional mechanics, or artificial gimmicks.  Again, I will say that the amount of ore it takes to make a bullet CAN NOT be player driven.  It is a base mechanic of the functioning of the game.  I keep saying that my idea of how to balance the game has nothing to do with Emergent gameplay, and either you or Zamarus (I'm not sure who at this point, possibly both) has said that my idea would make the game less Emergent and player driven.  That is the disagreement about the definitions of player driven and emergent I was talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really does impact emergent gameplay.  Ammo isn’t going to be expensive to create, that would cause an uproar both from people now... and months after launch new players will be wondering why they could create such a beautiful ship but can’t defend it, since ammo is so expensive.

 

I can actually picture it now... poor chap created his ship but a mob of thug rats are punching the juice out of his ship.  It’s a shame he can’t just shoot them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hades said:

It really does impact emergent gameplay.  Ammo isn’t going to be expensive to create, that would cause an uproar both from people now... and months after launch new players will be wondering why they could create such a beautiful ship but can’t defend it, since ammo is so expensive.

 

I can actually picture it now... poor chap created his ship but a mob of thug rats are punching the juice out of his ship.  It’s a shame he can’t just shoot them all.

That doesn't say how it makes less emergent gameplay.  Punching a ship would be emergent gameplay that came out of a really lopsided scenario.  I think you might have misunderstood that in every one of my examples I specifically pointed out that I was going extreme in one direction or the other.  I was doing this to emphasize the idea so that it would be easier to grasp.  I wasn't saying that any of these examples should be followed as written or ever close.  I was going lopsided like 99% toward one direction or the other, but thought that it would be clear that I wasn't trying to say that it would be balanced that way.  I always tried to point out that it will be NQ's job to do the balancing and it needs to fit with their vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Felonu said:

That doesn't say how it makes less emergent gameplay.  Punching a ship would be emergent gameplay that came out of a really lopsided scenario.  I think you might have misunderstood that in every one of my examples I specifically pointed out that I was going extreme in one direction or the other.  I was doing this to emphasize the idea so that it would be easier to grasp.  I wasn't saying that any of these examples should be followed as written or ever close.  I was going lopsided like 99% toward one direction or the other, but thought that it would be clear that I wasn't trying to say that it would be balanced that way.  I always tried to point out that it will be NQ's job to do the balancing and it needs to fit with their vision.

The less emergent part rears it's head when you realize hostile takeover is practically impossible.  If it takes an entire fleets ammo supply to destroy a few ships, you're not going to be taking over a city.

 

In order to receive tangible effects on whether or not PvP occurs you need to have extremes.  Take an arena game for example.  Say the staked bid to enter was 1,000 (but it takes around 10 minutes to farm 10,000).  If they upped the bid to 1,500... the same amount of people will probably enter the arena.  If you move the stake to 100,000... far fewer will join.

 

Similarly, let's take Face of Mankind for example (this was a game I was active in).  It is important to note that I was part of the Colinization and Mining Guild for the majority of my gameplay.  This means I created armor, ammo, weapons etc.  Now, there were markets with high security where everyone who was in good standing with LED (the player ran law enforcement agency) were able to trade.  This basically means you didn't run around killing and stealing.  At these markets I would have to sell at market price.  However, on the outer reaches (uncontrolled by LED) I could sell ammo for double if not triple the amount as on Brooklyn or NYC.  These rogue players did not have an issue spending a little more for ammo, as it truly was minuscule in the end.

 

Was it a nuisance for these players?  Maybe... but I can tell you it would be more of a nuisance in DU for new players than for vets who are into thieving.  In FOM, at least the new players had an option of buying market price at a high sec area... DU doesn't have that option.  Well, I suppose it could... if the players implemented such a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hades said:

The less emergent part rears it's head when you realize hostile takeover is practically impossible.  If it takes an entire fleets ammo supply to destroy a few ships, you're not going to be taking over a city.

 

In order to receive tangible effects on whether or not PvP occurs you need to have extremes.  Take an arena game for example.  Say the staked bid to enter was 1,000 (but it takes around 10 minutes to farm 10,000).  If they upped the bid to 1,500... the same amount of people will probably enter the arena.  If you move the stake to 100,000... far fewer will join.

 

Similarly, let's take Face of Mankind for example (this was a game I was active in).  It is important to note that I was part of the Colinization and Mining Guild for the majority of my gameplay.  This means I created armor, ammo, weapons etc.  Now, there were markets with high security where everyone who was in good standing with LED (the player ran law enforcement agency) were able to trade.  This basically means you didn't run around killing and stealing.  At these markets I would have to sell at market price.  However, on the outer reaches (uncontrolled by LED) I could sell ammo for double if not triple the amount as on Brooklyn or NYC.  These rogue players did not have an issue spending a little more for ammo, as it truly was minuscule in the end.

 

 

I don't think extremes are required to see tangible effects, but that is part of the balancing that I'll leave up to NQ.  It is NQ's vision that will make this a great game or not.  It is also their vision that will determine whether or not it is balanced in a way that I or you will find enjoyable.  We cannot represent all sides of the discussion on a forum, because not everyone is involved.  I simply pointed out a way that NQ COULD if they decided to make the OPs desire to walk safely in a forest possible.  I don't know what the balance is that I want yet.  I have never found a game that was PvP oriented for more than a few weeks because I've always gotten tired of not even having the time to figure out how to start the game because of non-stop ganking.  I know that because of that I am biased, and I should not be the judge of where balance is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ stated that both PvP and non-PvP will be possible. I believe that is inherently false in a player driven game. If people can just start PvP whenever, non-PvPers will either get wiped out due to lack of self-defense or them becoming PvPers to defend themselved. PvP is inevitable unless NQ cuts back on RDM (Random DeathMatch)  rights but then we will have people going REEEE over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 0something0 said:

NQ stated that both PvP and non-PvP will be possible. I believe that is inherently false in a player driven game. If people can just start PvP whenever, non-PvPers will either get wiped out due to lack of self-defense or them becoming PvPers to defend themselved. PvP is inevitable unless NQ cuts back on RDM (Random DeathMatch)  rights but then we will have people going REEEE over it.

we had this already several times now. There are shields with invul timers, there's a safezone, you have other - likeminded - ppl around you. And don't tell me that won't work - just look at what providence does in eve. It's null sec space (no cops, no defense, no npc protection, dangerous space) - run by players who accept everyone there as long as they behave. Kill someone there and you get set KOS so everyone can hunt and kill you for free. Hundreds of ppl go there to get the reward for playing there (better resources, better PVE, more payout) in a safe environment. That doesn't mean they can't get killed at all, but if they follow some basic rules they never have to pvp.

Running such a territory is lots of work for the people involved, as you need lots of dedicated pvpers to constantly scan and roam the territory in order to keep it safe - THAT'S emergent gameplay and that's self defense.

 

People can live in the safezone too - not in the beginning ofc as you can't make profit (bad markets) but later on they might be able to do so ("might" because they still need to be smart). You can do margin trading in the safezone, manipulate the market and can make enough quanta so that you never actually need to leave the safezone at all. Make enough profit there to fund your building projects and you're good.

 

People already go REEEE over pvp now, and it's not even implemented

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

we had this already several times now. There are shields with invul timers, there's a safezone, you have other - likeminded - ppl around you. And don't tell me that won't work - just look at what providence does in eve. It's null sec space (no cops, no defense, no npc protection, dangerous space) - run by players who accept everyone there as long as they behave. Kill someone there and you get set KOS so everyone can hunt and kill you for free. Hundreds of ppl go there to get the reward for playing there (better resources, better PVE, more payout) in a safe environment. That doesn't mean they can't get killed at all, but if they follow some basic rules they never have to pvp.

Running such a territory is lots of work for the people involved, as you need lots of dedicated pvpers to constantly scan and roam the territory in order to keep it safe - THAT'S emergent gameplay and that's self defense.

 

People can live in the safezone too - not in the beginning ofc as you can't make profit (bad markets) but later on they might be able to do so ("might" because they still need to be smart). You can do margin trading in the safezone, manipulate the market and can make enough quanta so that you never actually need to leave the safezone at all. Make enough profit there to fund your building projects and you're good.

 

People already go REEEE over pvp now, and it's not even implemented

That seems right to me, but where people seem to disagree is on "how long all that will take to emerge": Hence safety-zones will probably be a major feature in the beginning (more than they probably are envisioned currently). That would be my educated guess. It'll be good for the game being seen as a Building Game by builders (see how that works) so they have fun and pvp'ers are not losing out because those systems won't be fully functional anyway: Win-win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:

That seems right to me, but where people seem to disagree is on "how long all that will take to emerge": Hence safety-zones will probably be a major feature in the beginning (more than they probably are envisioned currently). That would be my educated guess. 

Actually i don't think that is necessary. You must realize also that people won't exactly start with a fleet and an Arsenal of weapons. Peoples capabilities for combat will be pretty low because players have to get weapons themselves 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

Actually i don't think that is necessary. You must realize also that people won't exactly start with a fleet and an Arsenal of weapons. Peoples capabilities for combat will be pretty low because players have to get weapons themselves 

That is may turn out to be the "actualite on the ground (or space!)" but the perception problem is in the beginning as valid a problem: Hence "going large" on the Space Bubble Citizen Protection Program (SBCPP) in the advertising to builders is saying several things at once:-

 

* This game has what you want in it.

* This game has you covered so you can do what you want in it

* We speak your language too.

 

It's all implicit in the communication and given the voxel scope gameplay where pvp will be fairly attenuated to perfect, it seems to get that all important Big Bang launch of numbers queuing up even if not able to all leap in at once as the servers are scaled up in the cloud, then that's the most commercial approach and again better for the long-term of the game.

 

All guesswork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly not getting your last message here. But either way i think NQs plan for just having the arkship zone being a safezone is good as it is. People won't be geared for combat for a while and even when they are the world is big enough that it's unlikely you will get attacked any often outside the safezone even. If you want to NEVER be attacked stay inside the safezone or build in hidden locations 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:

That seems right to me, but where people seem to disagree is on "how long all that will take to emerge": Hence safety-zones will probably be a major feature in the beginning (more than they probably are envisioned currently). That would be my educated guess. It'll be good for the game being seen as a Building Game by builders (see how that works) so they have fun and pvp'ers are not losing out because those systems won't be fully functional anyway: Win-win.

I don't quite get why one would need to take guesses here.

The safezone will be there from day 1.

Weapons will be there from day 1 (your nanoformer is a weapon).

Everything else will be emergent - and as I already said: it's not NQs job to prevent pvp outside the safezone. It's our job as players. NQs job is to come up with emergent, fun, balanced and fair mechanics. And again: being able to attack someone outside the safezone is NOT unfair. nor unbalanced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lethys said:

And again: being able to attack someone outside the safezone is NOT unfair. nor unbalanced

I wonder why people would say that.... *cough cough they wanna gank cuz day can doo so reeeee cough cough*

 

In hindsight it was a good choice for me to not donate to the kickstarter....

 

Besides, what if the safezone becomes unviable like the aforementioned lack of profit or overcrowding in general and people have no choice but to leave. rhe premise of the whole "pvp is fair" seems to be coming from the safezone offering the right to not pvp. Being under constant threat of being killed while practically defenseless is equal to or worse then being forced into pvp. Whats to stop someone from coming in with a big ship and 1shotting me? ("Other players is not a valid answer. Said other players might also kill me. Or unwilling to destroy the shop, Or also get 1shotted.) Do I really have to play cat&mouse with the gankers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly just seems like DU isn’t right for you.  NQ has been upfront from the start, DU is going to be hard.  Especially if you don’t have a major organization to protect you.  You can run into conflict, if that turns you off... DU isn’t right for you unfortunately.

 

Really not sure how you missed that, it’s all over the place.  DU is not going to be easy... and that both excites and frightens me (in a good way).  Normally I’m not a big org player, so I’m excited to find a place in DU, keeping on the down low of course 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Zamarus said:

The implication was people were bringing up pointless or invalid concerns

@Zamarus  I understand what you tried to imply, but what you see as pointless or invalid might be just the opposite to someone else. You don't have to like it, or even participate in those discussions, but you don't have any right to discourage them either. The Good Ol' Boys Club in this forum is no doubt strong, but it's not divine.

 

14 hours ago, supermega said:

@Captain Jack  not sure if you answered this before, but what kind of things do you want to do in Dual Universe?
 

If NQ delivers, I plan on doing everything the game has to offer. I'll likely suck at all of it, but excelling isn't really my goal. Having fun is.

 

As for the game, there is a belief that it will be "player driven" and "emergent" game-play will dictate how the game develops. Those buzzwords are the basis for much of the pro PvP arguments in this thread. Players will be allowed to do whatever they want, including ganking and griefing because in theory, if players don't like it, they can organize and fight it... which is really just the other side of a PvP deathmatch, but regardless, NQ decided that PvP won't be allowed in certain areas. They also said they would intervene if needed. So, isn't the whole PvP freedom already crippled? Why not do away with the safe zones altogether?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:

@Zamarus  I understand what you tried to imply, but what you see as pointless or invalid might be just the opposite to someone else. You don't have to like it, or even participate in those discussions, but you don't have any right to discourage them either. The Good Ol' Boys Club in this forum is no doubt strong, but it's not divine.

I’d argue that if NQ said explicitly that something is going to be in game, arguing about it is pointless or invalid.

Quote

 

As for the game, there is a belief that it will be "player driven" and "emergent" game-play will dictate how the game develops. Those buzzwords are the basis for much of the pro PvP arguments in this thread.

Buzzwords?  Buzzwords, lmao.  Someone hasn’t watched any of the Kickstarter videos, devblogs, or read the Kickstarter page.  Come on now.  If it’s a buzzword, it was created by NQ.

 

Thankfully a devblog will be coming out soon on the issue.  Hopefully that will dispel some of this misinformation you have.

Quote

 

Players will be allowed to do whatever they want, including ganking and griefing because in theory, if players don't like it, they can organize and fight it... which is really just the other side of a PvP deathmatch, but regardless, NQ decided that PvP won't be allowed in certain areas.

 This is all correct.

Quote

 

They also said they would intervene if needed. So, isn't the whole PvP freedom already crippled? Why not do away with the safe zones altogether?

Mind pointing me in that direction?  I’m thinking you either took something out of context, or NQ misspoke.  All of the videos, blogs, and discussions point in the opposite direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, just let it play out and see how it all goes guys... Cause of right now, you're just going to keep beating the horse over and over based on theories, beliefs and wants... 

 

Will pvp be as bad as some are making it to be? Who here really knows for sure? Legitimately. Who here 100% knows what the universe is going to evolve into?

 

Or at least wait until NQ releases the devdiary/blog regarding griefing, maybe it'll answer some questions, maybe it won't...

 

Again, the main point being, we don't know for sure what the universe will be down the road.

 

Just ponder on that.

 

 

Cheers,

Comrademoco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Comrademoco said:

Honestly, just let it play out and see how it all goes guys... Cause of right now, you're just going to keep beating the horse over and over based on theories, beliefs and wants... 

 

Will pvp be as bad as some are making it to be? Who here really knows for sure? Legitimately. Who here 100% knows what the universe is going to evolve into?

 

Or at least wait until NQ releases the devdiary/blog regarding griefing, maybe it'll answer some questions, maybe it won't...

 

Again, the main point being, we don't know for sure what the universe will be down the road.

 

Just ponder on that.

 

 

Cheers,

Comrademoco

Fair, I’ve told myself to leave this thread multitudes of times.  Much will be clarified in the devblog, I just hope it matches the vision of the Kickstarter and subsequent videos/blogs.  And I imagine it will, NQ hasn’t bent their will to loud voices yet (mine included). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hades said:

I’d argue that if NQ said explicitly that something is going to be in game, arguing about it is pointless or invalid.

Buzzwords?  Buzzwords, lmao.  Someone hasn’t watched any of the Kickstarter videos, devblogs, or read the Kickstarter page.  Come on now.

This is all correct.

Mind pointing me in that direction?  I’m thinking you either took something out of context, or NQ misspoke.  All of the videos, blogs, and discussions point in the opposite direction.

I think it's important to provide feedback, even if you feel it's pointless or invalid.

 

I've watched many a video and read many a devblog. I don't know whats so funny about buzzwords. It's what people in the biz use to get other people to spend money.

 

JC said in a video that they wanted players to drive the game, but, I'm going to paraphrase because I have CRS, he followed that by saying NQ would intervene if players took the game in a detrimental direction. I'd go and find that video, but meetings are gonna slow that process down. Since you are so well versed, you should know exactly where it is, unless that someone you accused is actually yourself. :o

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...