Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 month:1 day is wishful thinking imho.  Pretty sure it will take rigorous effort to protect an installation/city with adequate defenses.

 

Most bases/installations will probably have to settle for a couple of turrets and hope it scares off a few raiders.  

 

This is all coming from someone who plays on the down low with just myself and perhaps a few friends.  I understand that I won’t be able to create some invincible barrier to protect my assets.  

 

Similarly, ships will not require some ridiculous amount of resources to destroy... if a passing group thinks I’m a tasty target, I better get those engines burning.  It would be ridiculous if you had to spend 2 hours to take out a single ship.

 

This game is not for those who want an easy-coasting type gameplay.  You will have to work to keep what’s your own.  Whether this is by using extreme might, or incredibly cunning behavior... that’s up to you.

 

You don’t have to take part in conflict, but if you want to avoid it you will have to be cunning.  NQ isn’t going to put some arbitrary special protection in game for those who want an easy way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also to add. If you are annoyed that you can't defend your base it's not because NQ made it unbalanced. It's because you didn't solve your own problem with lack of defenses. Hide your base underground, fly off to another planet. Ally a powerful org to protect you, hire mercs to defend you. The opportunities are endless. But calling for PvP regulations is just being lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zamarus said:

Also to add. If you are annoyed that you can't defend your base it's not because NQ made it unbalanced. It's because you didn't solve your own problem with lack of defenses. Hide your base underground, fly off to another planet. Ally a powerful org to protect you, hire mercs to defend you. The opportunities are endless. But calling for PvP regulations is just being lazy.

Precisely.  Protecting a base doesn’t have to be with mighty defenses.  You can hide it in an obscure asteroid, create a base deep in space off the beaten path that has some kind of protection against radar or something.

 

An even better idea is to not have all your eggs in one basket so to speak.  Scatter your assets.

 

As a small time player, these are play styles I’m well familiar with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, Captain Jack said:

What part of PvP matters in this game? I want to be farming in a forest and see big space ships flying overhead and feel small. Not threatened. Is that possible?

 

It's definitely possible. I'm sure that we'll see that happen more often above the Arkship Zone area and being less and less probable the further away.

 

I'm hopeful that we'll see that quite often after official release and it doesn't stop... does give you a sense of scale being in that position and seeing massive wars above in space...

 

 

Cheers,

Comrademoco

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

Also to add. If you are annoyed that you can't defend your base it's not because NQ made it unbalanced. It's because you didn't solve your own problem with lack of defenses. Hide your base underground, fly off to another planet. Ally a powerful org to protect you, hire mercs to defend you. The opportunities are endless. But calling for PvP regulations is just being lazy.

I never talked about adding regulations or anything else.  How much energy it takes to power a shield, and how much metal it takes to make a bullet are all I'm talking about.  You are right that people can be cunning and figure out better ways to do defense and offense, and that makes for better gameplay than the other: I have a 100 bullets that cost 1 unit of a very common metal and that destroys your shield that took 1000 units of rare energy source to power.  This balance exists because there is no way for it not to exist.  Like I said a lot will be determined where NQ puts the balance.  If people come up with good strategy and do a good job then they can shift the power toward their side of the spectrum, and that is what makes for good gameplay.  

 

My point was that we don't know where NQ will put the balance, and we'll have to see what comes from where they do put it.  Hopefully they think about how different resource costs of offensive and defensive measures will affect the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Felonu said:

My point was that we don't know where NQ will put the balance, and we'll have to see what comes from where they do put it.  Hopefully they think about how different resource costs of offensive and defensive measures will affect the game.

My point is that the balance while should be done right is not as relevant as the player-factor. If it favours offense then you'll have to simply adapt and either go on the offensive back or find alternatives. Don't expect a perfectly balanced PvP tech wise because they simply cannot in the end really know what is balanced and not in the hands of the players. They can calculate exchanges of bullets and shield durabilities and what not but that is not gonna be as big of a factor as the players themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zamarus said:

My point is that the balance while should be done right is not as relevant as the player-factor. If it favours offense then you'll have to simply adapt and either go on the offensive back or find alternatives. Don't expect a perfectly balanced PvP tech wise because they simply cannot in the end really know what is balanced and not in the hands of the players. They can calculate exchanges of bullets and shield durabilities and what not but that is not gonna be as big of a factor as the players themselves. 

Agreed, as I said player skill and tactics are the interesting and fun part of PvP.  I really hope there are really cool tactics and really skilled player moments that come out in this game.  That isn't a mechanic and can't be accounted for without interfering too much in the game.  Overall though, I believe that cost of resources will make the overall gameplay tend more or less PvP focused.  If you don't think they matter then you shouldn't have any problem with them making defenses cost significantly less than offenses when everything else is removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, when it comes to balance I hope they try to make it as BALANCED as possible.  If it takes a month to create defenses, it should take a “month” of preparation for an offensive raid. 

 

However, what takes 1 month for one group to accomplish, another may take a week.  Thus the quotation marks.  The same effort to build should be required to destroy.

 

Mmm, with some caveats of course.  Shouldn’t take hours to destroy a ship that’s not taking considerable evasive maneuvers :P

 

Similarly we have to remember there will be hacking and circumventing protections IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hades said:

Also, when it comes to balance I hope they try to make it as BALANCED as possible.  If it takes a month to create defenses, it should take a “month” of preparation for an offensive raid. 

 

However, what takes 1 month for one group to accomplish, another may take a week.  Thus the quotation marks.  The same effort to build should be required to destroy 

This is almost never the case.  Because on top of losing the defenses, you lose the structures, and the resources that are taken.  If it is exactly equal, then everyone should always be offensive.  There will be no reason to do anything else, because you will get more every time than what you expend.

 

Anyway to pull it back to the OP.  These ways I describe are ways for what you are asking for.  We don't know yet what the balance will be, but many of us others also would like to see it generally feel safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Felonu said:

This is almost never the case.  Because on top of losing the defenses, you lose the structures, and the resources that are taken.  If it is exactly equal, then everyone should always be offensive.  There will be no reason to do anything else, because you will get more every time than what you expend.

Errr no, because the thing about defenses is that on top of circumventing those unmanned defenses you have to worry about the people as well.  A group isn’t going to sit idly by as their defenses are taken.

 

Also, structures have nothing to do with it.  Most won’t want to destroy the city, as that’s a loss of future profit.  Sure ownership changes hands but the underlying commerce and structure will remain.

 

Welcome to PvP, if you can’t defend it... don’t have it all in one place.  Or pay for others to defend it... 

 

Also, it’s almost ALWAYS the case.  And I hope, and imagine, that will be the case in DU as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the times what will trully dictate the outcome of a battle is good positioning of mobile and stationary turrets and the quantity of people manning them.

I believe that PVP in DU will be less focused in infantry combat and more on mechanised assets.

I'm assuming there will be very little for ground infrantry units to do against mechanised squadrons especially if they're eqquiped with "Anti Personel Weponary"

Of course,there will be cases when people succesfully infiltrate a base using "cloacking devices" but would be extremely scarce as they're difficult to pull through.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Armedwithwings said:

Most of the times what will trully dictate the outcome of a battle is good positioning of mobile and stationary turrets and the quantity of people manning them.

I believe that PVP in DU will be less focused in infantry combat and more on mechanised assets.

After all,there's hardly anything for infrantry units to do against enemy mechanised squadrons especially if they're eqquiped with "Anti Personel Weponary"

Of course,there's gonna be some cases when people succesfully infiltrate an enemy base using "cloacking devices" but they would be extremely scarce as they're difficult to pull through.

 

Idk man, it depends on what is allowed inside of these protections.  Are you allowed to fire?  Maybe? Are you allowed hand to hand combat?  Maybe?  Are you allowed to use construct weaponry?  Probably not.

 

It also depends on where the “shield generator” is located.  Is it within the shield?  Or is it external?  If within, infantry will be invaluable.  Even if it’s external, perhaps infantry would be recommended.  Who wouldn’t want to simply take down the shields?  And acquire them for yourself?  Heavy machinery would end up damaging the unit during battle, I’d imagine.

 

Similarly if you’re taking over an area with simply turrets that defend it, what if you wanted to simply take control of the turrets?  Having to rebuild them would be costly 

 

My hope is that there will be EMP weaponry, disable the defenses while you take control etc.  Taking too long?  Oops, they powered back up

 

Anway, that’s all speculation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Aetherios said:

PvP is not a touchy topic.

 

18 hours ago, Aetherios said:

Make no mistake, I do not support glorifying the ego of players in Eve who want CCP to push out all the new players from high sec so that they can populate their killboards.

But exactly because of this, PVP is a touchy topic. All Sandboxes I have played so far are torn between the two player bases. The non-PVP people (miners,crafters etc, often dismissivly called "Carebears") and the PVP crowd. If you don't get the balance right, and make both sides welcome, feel like they have a place in the game and their playstyle is viable this can tore the game apart. I think more then one sandbox failed because of this. 

 

18 hours ago, Aetherios said:

CCP did not create bumping, or griefing, or killing sprees.

but they created the environment which makes this possible and even encourages it. You mentioned killboards before and those are a perfect example of this. There are players who only want to boost their killboard, they do not care if their target is worth it, has good loot etc.. They just want the kill to boost their killboard-ego

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zamarus said:

If it favours offense then you'll have to simply adapt and either go on the offensive back or find alternatives.

This statement is inherently missing the point; if you have players who are not PvP pro (or PvP shy to put it another way) your forcing them to do something they do not like to do (go on the offensive) and with so many other games to choose from it will put off a number of players simply because they are being forced to engage in a behaviour that is not in keeping with their nature.

While you may reply "they can go play another game then" that will also miss the point that you need the numbers of resource gatherers to fuel the PvP battles. If those resource gatherers are not there then other people have to fill that space, who do not necessarily want to do it, thus lowering their enjoyment of the game, and further driving players away.

As @Forodrim points out above, you have to have a balance between the two opposing natures of players in these sorts of games. Without either one the game loses its point.

When it comes to time invested; you have to not use singular examples;~

As a PvP player will generally not just be targetting one target (targets of opportunity and all), so it takes a PvP player 2 weeks to get their ship ready, with that ship they can target multiple non-pvp players.

Should it take 2 weeks for EACH non-pvp player to be in the same posistion as the PvP player? In the singular case yes, in the multiple case no.

As you go from one PvP player being able to attack multiple "defenders" (might be best term to use?) who each have put 2 weeks in to building their defences the time balance shifts heavily in favour of the PvP player.

Conversely you do not want the PvP player to feel like they have to spend all this time to get in a position ready to attack, to be left at the end of it being in no "better" position than a singular "defender" player. The PvP player has assumed the risk factor so should be slightly better off (the margin of how much better would be the crux of balance) than the "defender" assuming they can overcome the defences.

This game will be all about working together, so switch out "player "for "groups" if you would like, it does not change the example.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

This statement is inherently missing the point; if you have players who are not PvP pro (or PvP shy to put it another way) your forcing them to do something they do not like to do (go on the offensive) and with so many other games to choose from it will put off a number of players simply because they are being forced to engage in a behaviour that is not in keeping with their nature.

While you may reply "they can go play another game then" that will also miss the point that you need the numbers of resource gatherers to fuel the PvP battles. If those resource gatherers are not there then other people have to fill that space, who do not necessarily want to do it, thus lowering their enjoyment of the game, and further driving players away.

You are deliberately skipping parts of what i'm saying here. Nobody is forced to do jack shit. If people are PvP shy they will have to find their own solutions to staying away from PvP. Be it by hiding, hiring protection or just being friends with your threats. There is nothing stopping a PvP shy person from finding ways to avoid PvP. Just as there isn't and shouldn't be anything stopping Pro PvP players from engaging in it wherever they like (the arkship safezone being the only exception). 

 

 

18 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

This game will be all about working together, so switch out "player "for "groups" if you would like, it does not change the example.

Your example doesn't set the standards for the type of working together. I happen to agree that the game will be all about working together. And that includes working together in PvP, against PvP, building, trading and every other feature. You shouldn't be talking about balance in terms of time taken to build defenses, do not expect NQ to even fights out for you because you don't want to lose vs PvP-ers. PvP-ers have the advantage not because of mechanics or unbalanced weapons in general but because they are focusin on just that, PvP and of course will get more skilled in warfare than non-PvP-ers. I already gave examples of why it's reduntant to speculate about time taken building defenses because frankly its not as relevant as the players own minds, no war will ever be fought on equal terms anyways, all will be assymetrical warfare and pointing at your turrets saying it has too little HP compared to attackers siege weapons is missing the point. Go hide underground or place your base in a better location next time, at some point you have to realize you cant have the cake AND eat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

You are deliberately skipping parts of what i'm saying here.

Apologises, it was simply how I read it.

Now take a breath;

I agree the should not be limitations on where PvP can occur, I never said otherwise, especially as you inherently accept a portion of risk by leaving the "arkship bubble".

I am not adverse to PvP, I am simply taking a objective overview of balancing time investment from multiple sources vs expected outcomes. You also factor in risk vs reward as well as player natures and psychologies.

The thrust of what I am saying, which seems to be missed, is that you have to have a balance which feels fair to all, else you will loose that portion of the player base. Without which the game will be hamstrung.

I am not saying the method that needs to be employed (HP etc).

Speculation on theoretical issues is kind of the way that people discuss things, speculation is inherently inaccurate due to it being speculative, that does not make it redundant. (Also I missed exactly where you said why it is redundant, will look back again but could be helpful if you link it please?)

I agree warfare is asymmetrical and always should be.

As for the cake comment... seriously?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

 

Thing is here. I already in what you first replied to did say i also think they should do a good job balancing the values when it comes to resources put in and outcome, that is quite reduntant because obviously the developers would aim to do so to their best extent to the start. What is done here i feel which i was commenting on from the first place is stating the obvious and then adding concerns to it, which i think will yield nothing and you need to understand that whatever you personally feel is balanced will differ from player to player and ultimately in the end the balance wont be the key factor to PvP but what methods and strategies the players develop. PvP in a game like this factor in much more than just defensive structures versus offensive weapons. The whole 2 weeks to 2 days, 2 weeks to 2 weeks balance theorization is flawed because not only can you not perfectly measure that in assymetrical warfare (trust me the devs will try and i think they should) but there's also elements that can factor in the fight that you dont even think of from the get go. Lets say someone built a fortress strong enough to hold a 2 weeks offensive resources value attack but the attackers figured out that they can maybe just build a siege engine taking them a day that renders your set-up useless because they figured out how to shield themselves from turrets. Or maybe they do a drop from above straight into the base skipping the turrets altogether. What then? Then you have a one day effort outdoing a 2 weeks worth of defenses, should they start balancing that too then? Not really and you simply have to learn from that or maybe prevent that by other means, like partially building your base into the ground or whatnot. Point as always being that "a objective overview of balancing time investment from multiple sources vs expected outcomes" is not the way to solve PvP inbalances in the end, but being a clever player that learns from experience is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry for the time to reply I have had to break your wall of text up to understand your points.

Quote

I already in, what you first replied to, did say i also think they should do a good job balancing the values when it comes to resources put in and outcome

 I was not replying to anyone in my first post, I was making a statement from what I gathered from the thread so far.
We are all in agreement they the needs to be a good balance; no one is disputing that and yes stating that balance is needed is redundant, what is not redundant is discussing how to do it, the implications of it and how to measure "balance".
I am trying to not offer a personal opinion as to what is balanced, I am trying to outline issues with not remembering that the games asymmetrical nature in resources required to do certain activities being represented accordingly.

Quote

The whole 2 weeks to 2 days, 2 weeks to 2 weeks balance theorization is flawed

Unfortunately it is not, to rephrase;
Use the unit of "man hours" which is commonly used to determine efficiency within the real world.
If something takes 40 man hours to create, and another party can destroy that creation with only 20 man hours invested, it is not balanced as at the end of the day we are humans looking to invest our time in to an artificial environment for the purpose of enjoyment.
The methods used in game are pretty much irrelevant beyond using a common standard. In the real world we use currency (old debate about currency just being use to represent man hours can be had).
 

Quote

Your asymmetrical example

Tactical thinking will always allow for inventive methods to approach problems. That is fine, and should be encouraged.
However that is getting ahead of what I am trying to explain.

If you spent 40 man hours building your fortress that can last x length of time but did not account for the attackers having a novel or inventive way to attack, then tough luck.
If you spent 40 man hours building your fortress that can last x length of time, but the attacker attack you in a expected manner, can manage to overcome your fortress with only 20 man hours of investment, that is not ok.

I think your drawing on what others have said and are applying to what I have said, hence the clarification in regards to time frames; that the "2 weeks to 2 days" is trying to state is "time invested" needs to be balanced, or at least FEEL balanced.

Adding asymmetrical warfare tactics to the mix is unneeded before establishing a baseline to work from, and as it is ALWAYS there (it is in our nature as humans) it should be allowed to happen in game, and ideally should NOT be balanced as that would remove from its very nature. (Rock paper scissors)

The end result is not to make PvP "balanced" but to make it FEEL that all players are investing their time in something that they have a chance to enjoy. The inherent nature of open PvP is that people will have up & downs, that would "win some, lose some", but when it becomes "win most, lose nothing" or "win rarely, lose everything" you risk losing players, which only harms the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, PvP just a 2 side of a coin. One maybe use PvP to attack loot and grife other player, but also other will use it to DEF, to offer their power in combat for hire. Just like a gun, all depend on how you use it, not it should balance or not. They can use that way of PvP to attack but you also can use that PvP way to attack them too, everything is possible but it all depend on you.

 

20 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

If you spent 40 man hours building your fortress that can last x length of time but did not account for the attackers having a novel or inventive way to attack, then tough luck.
If you spent 40 man hours building your fortress that can last x length of time, but the attacker attack you in a expected manner, can manage to overcome your fortress with only 20 man hours of investment, that is not ok.

Well yeah it may worth but i also disagree. You know attacking manner just a factor right ? IT also depend on what weapon they use and how they use it. But also how you build your fortress. Give that you will worth 30  manhour build it but they worth 10 man hour go robbing/pirate/looting . Hmm it also man power as well but it different right ? One is Builder/miner/non Pvper and other is Pirate/Grifer/PvPer main. A fortress still a factor too, the most important thing is the player who def that fortress for you, you know automate def not good as a player right ?
You say build a fortress to hold them off but it still depend on what tatic you use to defend your fortress. Dont tell me only attacker will be the side got tatic, defend got its art too. So as i say the worth 40 man hour and worth 40 man hour and you think it will all go as you think ? Like during the battle machine start to broken down sometime or your "weak spot" have been detected and spot by enemy so they will change tatic  how they attack you during the combat. And if it dont meet your exception you will say " Unbalance" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

 I was not replying to anyone in my first post, I was making a statement from what I gathered from the thread so far.

Yes you were as i refered to the first one you quoted me in.

13 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

Use the unit of "man hours" which is commonly used to determine efficiency within the real world.
If something takes 40 man hours to create, and another party can destroy that creation with only 30 man hours invested, it is not balanced as at the end of the day we are humans looking to invest our time in to an artificial environment for the purpose of enjoyment.
The methods used in game are pretty much irrelevant beyond using a common standard. In the real world we use currency (old debate about currency just being use to represent man hours can be had).

This is not how games work. You're not gonna get a 1:1 ratio of hours put in to the defense and hours put in to the offense as the variations of both sides are so large that time investment is not a good factor to base it on. A group could invest 40 hours into making fortifications that actually arent that well thought out and smarter agressors find a way to get around it with 10 hours of effort. How the hell do you balance that? One hour isnt equal to one hour between two players when their competence can vary a whole lot. And where do you draw the line to measure this and balance around it? Around the best players? The worst? The majority? Either way you do it people will be able to outdo others with less time investment because they know what they are doing.

 

17 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

I think your drawing on what others have said and are applying to what I have said, hence the clarification in regards to time frames; that the "2 weeks to 2 days" is trying to state is "time invested" needs to be balanced, or at least FEEL balanced.

Mechanics should FEEL balanced in some regard i agree but time investment is a terrible way of measuring it as stated above. 

18 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

Adding asymmetrical warfare tactics to the mix is unneeded before establishing a baseline to work from, and as it is ALWAYS there (it is in our nature as humans) it should be allowed to happen in game, and ideally should NOT be balanced as that would remove from its very nature. (Rock paper scissors)

All warfare will be asymmetrical from the get go, the only way you can have anything else is with two parties voluntarily setting themselves up 100% equally planning the battle together.

21 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

The end result is not to make PvP "balanced" but to make it FEEL that all players are investing their time in something that they have a chance to enjoy. The inherent nature of open PvP is that people will have up & downs, that would will "win some, lose some", but when it becomes "win most, lose nothing" or "win rarely, lose everything" you risk losing players, which only harms the game

If players cannot figure out a way to change their situation and leaves the game that's a natural part of not "getting good". You will never have equality in winning and losing or even close to 50/50 without hardcore developer intervention, and this is a sandbox game where players make their own rules, ships and whatnot, preventing "win, most lose nothing" and "win rarely, lose everything" situations is up to the player and not game balance as i've already stated why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Forodrim said:

 

But exactly because of this, PVP is a touchy topic. All Sandboxes I have played so far are torn between the two player bases. The non-PVP people (miners,crafters etc, often dismissivly called "Carebears") and the PVP crowd. If you don't get the balance right, and make both sides welcome, feel like they have a place in the game and their playstyle is viable this can tore the game apart. I think more then one sandbox failed because of this. 

 

but they created the environment which makes this possible and even encourages it. You mentioned killboards before and those are a perfect example of this. There are players who only want to boost their killboard, they do not care if their target is worth it, has good loot etc.. They just want the kill to boost their killboard-ego

 

"

Hello, Forodrim. 

 

I agree with your views, but I fear I disagree with what you are implying here. Would you rather that all elements of PvP be removed from Dual Universe and replaced with NPCs? I don't mean that is what you are asking for, but it lies along the lines more than you know. Perhaps, you would prefer if the game was tilted towards those who did not want to PvP, and mechanics were put in place to hinder - however slightly - the possibility of conflict? No, you don't want that: you said it yourself that the game should be balanced for both sides. However, seeing as you support a balance in both PvP and non-PvP activities, I must be missing something here - because I fail to understand exactly what makes PvP a touchy topic, as you said. Could you offer a little more explanation on this? 

 

There can be an NPC element in the game - I am not against this. What I do find to be distasteful are games that: 

  1. Are advertised as fair and balanced, while being biased towards one side. 
  2. Promise something and don't deliver. 

Dual Universe promised freedom to shape our own stories. That's why I am here. It would seem I have misled most people here into believing I am a PvPer for life. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I do PvP, because I enjoy it. Others avoid it because they don't. I love trading, and I love creating - however, I know that my wealth or creativity is irrelevant without protection, hence, preparation for PvP. My organisation isn't PvP only, either. Trade is the other of our two main points of interest. But, we know that no matter how many fully-laden vessels we send in convoys, all wealth is lost without adequate protection. So, we prepared for PvP, one by getting members interested in it, and two, by joining a larger alliance. If by any chance, you think it's impossible for PvP and non-PvP players to live in harmony there are several organisations that would change your opinion on that, mine being one of them. 

 

I am fully aware of my killboard status - and believe me, it's not an impressive sight. But, the losses don't stop me from seeking out fights, or putting myself in situations where I know I will be in danger (in a team or when I'm roaming solo). The losses are okay, as long as I'm learning something, and that's the endgame of all PvP occurrences in Eve: learn something about yourself, about your enemy, about the mechanics of the game, about strategy...learn and enjoy. It's important because no matter how much you enjoy doing PvP, if you don't learn from it, you'll keep losing - and we as humans, don't like losing. 

 

Industry? Learn something. Trading...? Learn. It is possible for a player to produce tonnes of finished products and end up making devastating losses due to ignorance or laziness. Real gamers - not just PvPers - learn, and most of the people that abandon complex games leave because they failed to learn. Of course, there are cases in which games are severely troubled by design and balance issues. DU is not one of those games and the level of involvement NQ has had with the community and other developers show that DU will not be one of those games. 

 

A game is about fun. If I decide to have fun learning to PvP, why should the developers bias the game towards non-PvP actions? Seeing as they promised a balanced way to shape our stories? If I love trading, why should the developers tilt the mechanics towards PvP when they promised to give us the keys to our future? What I and most other players interested in PvP are arguing for is a balance. Don't skew the game against us, don't skew the game towards us: let everyone be free to do what they want. Should players decide to make an API for the most constructs/blueprints sold by players, they should be able to; without complaining that PvPers are addicted to their own version of Zkillboard. 

 

Cheers.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW! Good discussion here, so far...

 

17 hours ago, Hades said:

This game is not for those who want an easy-coasting type gameplay.  You will have to work to keep what’s your own.  Whether this is by using extreme might, or incredibly cunning behavior... that’s up to you.

What gives ones player the right to take whatever they want from another player?

 

16 hours ago, Hades said:

Welcome to PvP, if you can’t defend it... don’t have it all in one place.  Or pay for others to defend it... 

It's not PvP that is the issue, it's the attitude on display that gives PvP a bad name, and for very good reason.

 

3 hours ago, Forodrim said:

There are players who only want to boost their killboard, they do not care if their target is worth it, has good loot etc.. They just want the kill to boost their killboard-ego

Exactly. A PvP player out ganking and griefing infringes upon those players that aren't into ganking and griefing. Two different styles of play yes, but one directly interferes with the other. It's not a two way street. The gankers and greifers think it is, and they are wrong.

 

2 hours ago, MarrrV said:

if you have players who are not PvP pro (or PvP shy to put it another way) your forcing them to do something they do not like to do (go on the offensive) and with so many other games to choose from it will put off a number of players simply because they are being forced to engage in a behaviour that is not in keeping with their nature.

yes, that ^

1 hour ago, Zamarus said:

Nobody is forced to do jack shit.

and back to this. Two people build houses. One person burns the other person's house down and laughs hahaha, welcome to the neighborhood. In order to prevent that, the other person should have become an asshole first?

PvP doesn't have to be all about getting more kills than the other guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ShioriStein;

Quote

You know attacking manner just a factor right ? IT also depend on what weapon they use and how they use it.

Which is why you break it down to a common unit that is comparable....

Quote

Hmm it also man power as well but it different right ? One is Builder/miner/non Pvper and other is Pirate/Grifer/PvPer main.

As a common unit it is not 1 hour as a person playing the game, but 1 hour spent in pursuit of that particular goal. You seem to be mixing the concept of a "man hour" with the literal time spent in front of a computer.

Quote

You say build a fortress

Was simply carrying on Zamarus's example
Could just as easily be two ships fighting, or two people shooting at each other with guns, if you have a level playing field the sides should be balanced (if your both in the open with an m4 you both can kill each other) before you add tactics & player skill (however in m4 example one person is a marksman and knows how to blend in to the grass, thus has the advantage)

As for the human nature of asymmetrical warfare; I am trying to find a baseline or more precisely debate how to work out that base line, adding asymmetrical elements in (like tactics) is secondary to the establishment of the baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarrrV said:

As for the human nature of asymmetrical warfare; I am trying to find a baseline or more precisely debate how to work out that base line, adding asymmetrical elements in (like tactics) is secondary to the establishment of the baseline.

Problem is that the baseline does not work the way you think. To even ever accurately getting your time investments worth in a defense against expected offense you'd have to use bots. Because what if your players on the fort are afk, or some of them just are terrible at positioning. They would still feel its unfair but who is the judge of what standard PvP play is? You really cannot expect "to get your times worth" in a game like this. You will never have that 100% perfect attack you geared yourself around. Its enough that a few of the attackers move in a slight off-set manner you didn't count on and you cant measure it anymore. 

 

4 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:

and back to this. Two people build houses. One person burns the other person's house down and laughs hahaha, welcome to the neighborhood. In order to prevent that, the other person should have become an asshole first?

PvP doesn't have to be all about getting more kills than the other guy.

Two people build houses, one burns down the other person's house an laughs.

To prevent that the other player can do the following: 

  1. Move somewhere else
  2. Fight back
  3. Hire someone to get back at him
  4. Forgive him
  5. Build a stronger house
  6. Come up with literally any other home-made solution

The possibilities are endless for every situation, you're arguing from the standpoint that you HAVE to be an asshole back. Which is a terribly single-minded way to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

Which is why you break it down to a common unit that is comparable....

Can you tell your enemy to play fair and fight 1:1 but not to put out everything they got when conflict with other ?

13 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

As a common unit it is not 1 hour as a person playing the game, but 1 hour spent in pursuit of that particular goal. You seem to be mixing the concept of a "man hour" with the literal time spent in front of a computer.

I dont know what your 'man hour' mean, i only know it is the time i spend to do something is my hour worth of it, please englighten me with your meaning about 'man hour'. All i know is 2 job 2 diffrent way of gather resource/thing. If you wanna fast you loot it from other but it will illegal and of course risky, and other is slow like gather resource by mining/trading/thinking way .

 

13 minutes ago, MarrrV said:

Could just as easily be two ships fighting, or two people shooting at each other with guns, if you have a level playing field the sides should be balanced (if your both in the open with an m4 you both can kill each other) before you add tactics & player skill (however in m4 example one person is a marksman and knows how to blend in to the grass, thus has the advantage)

Hmm people fight a battle if they know they got a chance to win. You should find another example, you are really not good in this, you should give a example about a weaponary ship which carry all best gun but it will be bad at def or evading and one is terrible good at def or have high def stats but dont have so much weapon on it. 2 side of the coin, give that  both will each have a same cpu and both have been used all their limit to def or attack so it will come one balance and everything will depend on player and their tatic. Dont give unreal example like both with a same type of ship or a same gun, it not possible.

 

Oh and enemy will not say 'Hello, i'm here to attack you so be ready and put all your best, i will give you time to prepare'

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

×