Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

40 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

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

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.

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.

Apologises, the way it read sounded like you were referring to my first post, not to my reply to you (not my first post)

Quote

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.

You know we are agreeing right?
I literally said if one side thinks of a way to overcome the defences in a novel way tough luck to the other?
You are also missing the idea that "1 hour between 2 people" =/= 1 man hour, it = 2 man hours.
Your applying peoples skill, and other variables to the mix. Which is what is complicating aspects. The example with the m4 I posted above should illustrate what I mean.
 

Quote

time investment is a terrible way of measuring

What metric would you like to use? As how a game "feels" is not measurable in a reliable format


I see we are taking different attitudes;
I want this game to be successful, with a strong player base that encourages all players to "get good" (god awful phrase btw) and not get totally disheartened when they lose something

It sounds like you want a game in which you can smash whoever you see fit (fair enough) regardless (ends up with being limited target pool), which does does attract a lot of people, but they are mostly playing EvE Online already :)

 

35 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:

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

 

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.

The fact that this is an open world sandbox game, you can do whatever you want. If your wanting to ask if it is ethical, that is not in the scope of the format currenty :)
 

Quote

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?

That is one way that people approach it, unfortunately it takes less effort in many games to burn someones house down than to build the house, so the house builders leave and you have a housing shortage.

Zamarus has posted as has ShioriStein so will respond to those now, am a few posts behind, sorry!
 

Share this post


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

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. 

You are taking the point off subject through.  He, and I have said Many times now that the balance is applied before the human element.  The power to keep a shield up vs the power of the bullet hitting it, and the cost of the resources of those things.  You keep talking about the incalculable value of the Offense, and Defense as a whole.  If we were talking about that you would be right in that it can't be calculated, but we're not.

 

4 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

 

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.

The point for some of us is that you just burned down hundreds of hours worth of effort by starting a fire with a almost no effort of buying the lighter.  This is a real world example though, and in the real world very few people run around town burning peoples houses down for no reason.  In games this is not only common, but almost pervasive and much less stoppable behavior.

Share this post


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

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. 

 

You are also factoring in additional elements, a baseline does not factor skill variances, or player activity in to it, it is a baseline of equal variables (skill, prescence).
It is not about "getting your times worth" it is about feeling that your time is not spent "pissing in to the wind", which will cause players to leave, or not join, which is what we are trying to avoid surely?

 

Quote

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.

 

In the real world, they are somewhat endless (limited by ethics and situation) in a sandbox they are limited by the structure that has been built around it. Saying they "are endless"is only true if your actively developing the game code to make the opportunities endless. They are, inherently, limited by the code of the game and the developers scope.

 

6 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:

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

Of course not, but your putting additional variables into play
 

Quote

I dont know what your 'man hour' mean,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-hour

A unit of measurement to work out efficiency of options
 

Quote

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

I am normally very good at it, suspect the may be a crossing of wires to be honest;
You are describing asymmetrical combat (again)
Which I have said, is not what I am talking about. I agree that in "real world" (you know this is not real right?) combat is never symmetrical, but when your creating a system you need to create a basis of which to measure things from. That basis has to have as few variables as possible in order to most accurately measure what your trying to measure. Thus the "theoretical" examples I am been using.
 

Quote

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'

No they will not, but yet again that is factoring additional variables beyond the scope of what I am talking about

 

Share this post


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

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.

so the guy with the burned house should have played differently BECAUSE the guy next door was a psycho? Your side of the argument is that one person gets to play however they want, and other people don't. Seems about right.

Share this post


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

so the guy with the burned house should have played differently BECAUSE the guy next door was a psycho? Your side of the argument is that one person gets to play however they want, and other people don't. Seems about right.

Actually, and what is really scary, is the "method of play" that Zamarus is talking about often causes the player who lost his house to "rage quit", after spending dozens, or hundreds of hours, building his beloved house, after checking with his neighbours they were okay to do it, or often doing it when the were no neighbours.

 

Then the person burns down his house, with everything inside it and is told "build a better house", "hire mercenaries", "forgive him" (& start again), "fight back" (with what, it was in his house remember), "move somewhere else" (can do that, just also the same as "start again").

So one player spent minimal time undoing another players entire enjoyment in the game, leading the game to lose a player, NQ to lose a subscriber, while "psycho" goes on and does this to 20 more houses. Not all will leave, but say 2 or 3.

Now scale it up. To a universe size.

I am not saying it should not be possible, just it should not be easy either.

Share this post


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

The human element

@Felonu
Thank you, was struggling to think of the term to describe the variables stemming from humans, that makes it easier to type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MarrrV Okay i now know your think, and idea too. 

You mean that if a gun and a shield, one man can create it but your idea is that that gun maybe take 0.5 hour to create but use it will cost your another 0.5 man hour, and with the shield it will cost you 1 man hour to create it but you seem dont loss thing when use it to defend again a gun right ? So 1 : 1 raito man hour put into 2 thing to againt each other is worth in time investment to it right ?

Well sorry to misunderstand you, i just put another factor but dont realize you only talk about 'equipment' factor all the time now. Yeb i totally agree with you this point, time invenstment for each should balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:

You mean that if a gun and a shield, one man can create it but your idea is that that gun maybe take 0.5 hour to create but use it will cost your another 0.5 man hour, and with the shield it will cost you 1 man hour to create it but you seem dont loss thing when use it to defend again a gun right ? So 1 : 1 raito man hour put into 2 thing to againt each other is worth in time investment to it right ?

I think so?
If it takes 1 man hour to create the gun and ammo
and
It takes 1 man hour to create a shield
And EVERYTHING else was the same
It would be a draw

It becomes more complicated if I explain it further

Technically as the man hour was used to create both the gun and the ammo the shield would still be standing when the gun ran out of ammo (the gun still exists)
If the gun was then thrown at the shield, both the gun and the shield would "break" and become useless. Thus both parties are returned to the position they were in 1 hour before.

 

Quote

Well sorry to misunderstand you, i just put another factor but dont realize you only talk about 'equipment' factor all the time now. Yeb i totally agree with you this point, time invenstment for each should balance.

Don't worry about misunderstanding, it happens a lot especially when we have people from all over the world, different native languages, alphabets and "turns of phrase".

 

Share this post


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

It would be a draw

It would be draw if we only "pure physic strength" and no tatic :)(I wont say about how sharpshooter the gunner is ) but it is another factor anyway, in term of equipment if 2 both can standing and draw like that it mean yeah it balance now. Because all win or lose equipment still just a factor to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gist of this whole thing seems to be that a game with PvP, has to be played like a hard core PvP game, regardless of other content. There are dedicated non PvP games and dedicated PvP games, but a game with both is decidedly PvP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, once you have established that "baseline" (or starting point) you then have the "human elements" that change the outcome.

Being a sharpshooter (technically would have no affect if the shield was equally spread over the body) is a skill so would be a human element.
Other non-human elements would include things like the environmental surroundings.

2 minutes ago, Captain Jack said:

The gist of this whole thing seems to be that a game with PvP, has to be played like a hard core PvP game, regardless of other content. There are dedicated non PvP games and dedicated PvP games, but a game with both is decidedly PvP.

Hence in a previous comment I used the term "lowest common denominator" (might not have been here, getting confuddled), which in a game things boils down to simply because the are no real world consequences of actions (or so many players believe, that is another whole, off topic, debate). So people get to do what ever they want.

 

Share this post


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

Actually, and what is really scary, is the "method of play" that Zamarus is talking about often causes the player who lost his house to "rage quit", after spending dozens, or hundreds of hours, building his beloved house, after checking with his neighbours they were okay to do it, or often doing it when the were no neighbours.

 

Then the person burns down his house, with everything inside it and is told "build a better house", "hire mercenaries", "forgive him" (& start again), "fight back" (with what, it was in his house remember), "move somewhere else" (can do that, just also the same as "start again”.

Thing is, that scenario should NEVER happen.  It would be extremely unwise for a new player to create their structure in an unprotected area.  Sure, (going back to your example) perhaps another nation state will come in and take over the city where the house resides and burn it down.

 

Unlikely?  Extremely.  For one, it has to be worthwhile to take over the city.  For two, it’s unlikely they will burn down the house.  Why?  It’s rather simple, why burn down the city you’re taking over?

 

Unfortunately, as the game starts out these protected areas will be non existent.  It will be our jobs to create them.

 

I think everyone is in agreement that it should take roughly the same effort to build as destroy.  However, the interesting thing is that there will be methods one group doesn’t think of and that puts the other at a disadvantage.  

 

The defender might have been cunning in their setup, using the natural landscape as a bottleneck into their assets.  In another scenario the aggressors realized they could avoid the turret fire or some other defense due to the nature of their setup.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note your denoting the player who is quitting as a "new" player.

That is not necessarily the case, especially if spending hundreds of hours building his "house". The "burning down" was more towards griefers I believe than the "standard pvp player".

Other than that, I agree with what you say :) especially as you have understood the separation from human elements modifying the outcome from the base.

 

Share this post


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

The gist of this whole thing seems to be that a game with PvP, has to be played like a hard core PvP game, regardless of other content. There are dedicated non PvP games and dedicated PvP games, but a game with both is decidedly PvP.

That is not the gist at all.  The point we are trying to get across (or at least I am) is that PvP won’t avoid you... you have to avoid it.  Create constructs with extra escape maneuvers and abilities (countermeasures, agility, perhaps a decoy? Etc).  Put your assets in areas no major group would run by... put up a few turrets in a bottlenecked area.  

 

Build a base deep in space no where near a planet, or a path between planets.  This base would have some type of radar dampening system and make it black with some white specs ^^

 

As I’ve said a million times, this game isn’t going to hold your hand just because you’re not into PvP.  You can avoid pvp, but it’s on your dime.

 

Honestly, I think some of the wealthiest people will never get involved in PvP... but they’ll be smart about it.  Basically you want large groups to be disinterested, and defenses to ward off small parties.

 

Disinterested isn’t really the right term.  It’s more of, a large group wouldn’t be together where your base is.  When does a large group assemble?  When they want to take over major assets.  So keep your assets scattered and small... located in obscene and unexpected places.

Share this post


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

I note your denoting the player who is quitting as a "new" player.

That is not necessarily the case, especially if spending hundreds of hours building his "house". The "burning down" was more towards griefers I believe than the "standard pvp player".

Other than that, I agree with what you say :)

A veteran would be wise enough to build the defenses first, then the construct.  That would be my assumption anyhow ;)

Share this post


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

Would you rather that all elements of PvP be removed from Dual Universe and replaced with NPCs?

No, not at all. 

1 hour ago, Aetherios said:

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? 

I think it is a touchy topic, because first that balance is easy to miss. If one side feels the other is at advantage, they will complain. The forums of multiple games are full of threads with these complains. Look into the forums of Life is feudal MMO for example. In that game the PVP crowd feels that PVP is to hard and not worth it, so the forum is filled with bitter threads. 

Secondly, players will have different viewpoints when it comes to that balance. Something one player thinks is fine another player will think of as overpowered and unfair. 

Share this post


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

The point we are trying to get across (or at least I am) is that PvP won’t avoid you... you have to avoid it

We are on the same page. One style of player has to avoid the other. One style of play will dictate all others. That is basically what it boils down to. You can say it a different way, but it's still the same thing.

 

I started this whole thing because I was curious how (if) DU was going to address PvP dominating the game. The concept of building a world from the ground up, the good bad and ugly all in one place... except that isn't how it's going to be. Case and point, a few safe zones for non-PvP, and everywhere else for PvP. There is certainly opportunity for various forms of game play to co-exist outside of safe zones, but the greifers, gankers, thieves, and all other manner of scum and villainy... will always have a clear advantage with only their alts to lose, and a constant stream of newbies to fund their trade. The hope was that DU might try and be different in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HadesGood point re defences first, think that is second nature to anyone who has played games like this by now :) Just I do not thing we will be building literally houses made of straw to be burnt down either. The example was just a good way of describing the issue via the metaphor of the house.

@Forodrim Your right that this is a minefield, always has been always will be. People often, so I am told, have trouble seeing things from multiple perspectives and thus can not "see the other point of view". PvP needs to be a fun activity that is accessible to all and not restricted (too much?) while at the same time not putting off those who do not choose to engage in pvp unless forced to. The issue tends to the those attitudes of those are often contrary to each other. Thus a minefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the whole drama with burning a house. 

 

Can some random guy burn down your house? Yeah. 

 

Will it happen at some point? Yeah.

 

Will it be your neighbour? Most likely not.

 

People who want to build, create and to some degree mine will be in high density areas, or at least with their org. 

They have at least one (Most likely more) shield domes up to protect their land. Those can be attacked and go into an invulnerability mode for 48h after the first attack. After that, they can be destroyed. (For now). 

There will be alot of likeminded ppl around and If some random kills you or burns your house (which He can't in the first place, See above) you Set him KOS. He won't be able to use your market. And everyone in your alliance (your pvpers) will kill him. Over and over and over again. 

This is not Eve where everyone can just buy a new ship with ease. This is Du and PLAYERS decide who can use the Market. 

So If someone griefs everyone is a just annoying af, then He won't be able to Trader anymore.

 

This game needs both and NQ knows that. So i don't rly get the whole "40man hours for 20" either. If you rly think that NQ deliberately and inherently unbalances the game (attack weapons are cheaper or faster to produce as defensive things. Or Vice versa) then pls just leave as this is a given in ANY game

Share this post


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

so the guy with the burned house should have played differently BECAUSE the guy next door was a psycho? Your side of the argument is that one person gets to play however they want, and other people don't. Seems about right.

That's actually exactly how it will be. You are going to be the one bringing the consequences and precautions yourself. The tools are there. You're not going to get an automated retaliation or karma effect versus psychos. You are going to have to deal with the situation by your own choice 

Share this post


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

Actually, and what is really scary, is the "method of play" that Zamarus is talking about often causes the player who lost his house to "rage quit", after spending dozens, or hundreds of hours, building his beloved house, after checking with his neighbours they were okay to do it, or often doing it when the were no neighbours.

 

Then the person burns down his house, with everything inside it and is told "build a better house", "hire mercenaries", "forgive him" (& start again), "fight back" (with what, it was in his house remember), "move somewhere else" (can do that, just also the same as "start again").

So one player spent minimal time undoing another players entire enjoyment in the game, leading the game to lose a player, NQ to lose a subscriber, while "psycho" goes on and does this to 20 more houses. Not all will leave, but say 2 or 3.

Now scale it up. To a universe size.

I am not saying it should not be possible, just it should not be easy either.

Big losses is part of a player driven universe. If you put hundreds of hours into one house you better protect it well or build it strategically because people will be able to and should not be prevented from destroying it if they are capable to. You took the risk and you will have to protect it and if destroyed bring consequences to your own capabilities. 

Share this post


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

We are on the same page. One style of player has to avoid the other. One style of play will dictate all others. That is basically what it boils down to. You can say it a different way, but it's still the same thing.

 

I started this whole thing because I was curious how (if) DU was going to address PvP dominating the game. The concept of building a world from the ground up, the good bad and ugly all in one place... except that isn't how it's going to be. Case and point, a few safe zones for non-PvP, and everywhere else for PvP. There is certainly opportunity for various forms of game play to co-exist outside of safe zones, but the greifers, gankers, thieves, and all other manner of scum and villainy... will always have a clear advantage with only their alts to lose, and a constant stream of newbies to fund their trade. The hope was that DU might try and be different in that regard.

Mmm, but there’s only one truly safe zone in DU and that’s the starting planet.  You can’t arbitrarily create an invincible safe zone as far as I know.  You can create a protection field that has a 48 hour counter after its attacked... but I imagine those will be extremely spendy to create.

 

I don’t think we can make those conclusions at the moment, combat isn’t even in the game yet.  Constantly killing newbies won’t be how organizations fund themselves... I imagine newbies will create the most basic crafts... why would you even want them?  Furthermore, what’s stopping you from creating a law enforcement organization or coalition?

 

Don’t like some behavior in DU?  Change it.

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

×