Jump to content

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, 0something0 said:

There is a difference between *can do* and *should do*. Like I said, there seems to be little willingness in the community to prevent griefing/ganking/etc. but rather a mentality of "somebody else do it"....

 

I'm going to be frank here and say that it was a good decision for me to not fund the game.

 

I understand your frustration with this topic, 0something0, however, I wanna suggest the following: take this topic for what it is; a discussion and not an affirmative decision on both NQ and the Community when it comes to PVP, Griefing or Scamming in game.

 

Most of the comments in here might change and the overall response of the community to a better more united one once we near the release of DU. 

 

We've yet to figure out many missing nuts and bolts about how exactly all of this will work out in the end. :) 

 

Remember this is just a discussion and the voicing of the concerns our community has -and its perfectly fine - NQ is definitely listening (or reading in this case) :ph34r:

 

~ Meldrik

Edited by Mod-Meldrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 0something0 said:

There is a difference between *can do* and *should do*. Like I said, there seems to be little willingness in the community to prevent griefing/ganking/etc. but rather a mentality of "somebody else do it"....

 

I'm going to be frank here and say that it was a good decision for me to not fund the game.

I think you’ve misinterpreted much then.  There’s all the willingness to prevent “griefing”.  It just seems like some players want NQ to do it for them... which they have with safezones :)

 

You can keep throwing that veiled threat around all you like, but many of us backed the project because NQ leaves so much up to the players.  It’s truly a civilization building game.

 

If some in-game mechanic made civilization all safe and dandy from the get-go... kind of defeats the purpose and we made a Minecraft in space without zombies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 0something0 said:

There is a difference between *can do* and *should do*. Like I said, there seems to be little willingness in the community to prevent griefing/ganking/etc. but rather a mentality of "somebody else do it"....

 

I'm going to be frank here and say that it was a good decision for me to not fund the game.

Wait - so you want multiple coding languages (because it adds freedom) and let players literally program everything from ground up (No predefined electric system for example - because it adds freedom). But you're against letting players handle griefers and scammers? Whoa, that's some bias there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lethys said:

Wait - so you want multiple coding languages (because it adds freedom) and let players literally program everything from ground up (No predefined electric system for example - because it adds freedom). But you're against letting players handle griefers and scammers? Whoa, that's some bias there.

I was like "If this game is about player made society and whatnot then why not go all in?"

 

This argument seems to be a particularly strong one in the community so I was simply taking advantage of it.:P

 

Aldo, Minecraft in space? You mean 2b2t? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, 0something0 said:

I was like "If this game is about player made society and whatnot then why not go all in?"

 

This argument seems to be a particularly strong one in the community so I was simply taking advantage of it.:P

 

Aldo, Minecraft in space? You mean 2b2t? 

Yeah that's why you have to accept scamming to be a thing , otherwise you're NOT "all in".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

It seems the DevBlog was not clear enough on some points.
We have said it many times before, and we'll continue to say it again:

While many players wants to see Dual Universe with a dominant gameplay aspect, it's important to understand that it's NOT the case. 

 

Building gameplay is as important as Combat gameplay. Not more, not less. Balancing both won't be easy and we are aware of it. No, Building is not the major feature of Dual Universe. If the Building aspect has been made first, it's only because, it was making total sense to start the development with this part: we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology. It was an essential piece of tech to build the base of the game: Voxels were necessary to create editable planets in the first place. Then the logical next step was to develop tools to give players to manipulate voxels. That wouldn't make sense to develop Combat gameplay before the two previous steps because, there wouldn't even something to destroy, or even an environment where the combat could happen.

 

The order in which the features are developed are NOT by order of importance.

It's just a matter of logical game development roadmap.


We have no plan to make Dual Universe a total free for all PvP game, just as we won't make it a whole game universe safe, just because some players want to explore it completely without taking any risk. While we don't plan to make our game some kind of "EVE Online 2.0", we don't want either to make a "No Man's Sky 2.0". We understand this may not appeal to everyone taste, and we totally understand that. However, if there is something that is very unlikely to change, it's the fact that there's no intention to catter to only one specific category of players. 

 

A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 

 

Why not simply remove the possibility of griefing, then?


Yes, it would be clearly easier and quicker to remove the ability to grief other players, but while we have no intention to encourage griefing, removing it totally would go against the very definition of the sandbox concept: players are free to interact in the way they want. If we remove any kind of interaction, then we are not in a Sandbox MMORPG anymore: we would be in a Theme Park one. And that is not Novaquark's vision. We want a game universe where bad behavior is discouraged by game mechanics and heavy in consequences if a player still choose to do so, than arbitrarily forbid the said behavior. We want players to be free but also to live with the consequences of their choices. That's what Sandbox mean to us at Novaquark.

 

Best Regards,
Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

we are pretty much in R&D field regarding the Voxel technology

@NQ-Nyzaltar Have you considered buying Voxel Farm? There is a version that includes the full source code. They have years of experience with voxel technology.

Share this post


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

@NQ-Nyzaltar Have you considered buying Voxel Farm? There is a version that includes the full source code. They have years of experience with voxel technology.

Yes, Voxel Farm has been considered in the early days of Novaquark. However, at that moment, while Voxel Farm was very advanced on many things (builder tools, etc), performances weren't adapted for a massive, scalable, multiplayer game as Dual Universe. That's why the voxel tech has been done internally, and now, after all the research and work accomplished so far, even if Voxel Farm has improved on the massively multiplayer aspect, it wouldn't make sense to spend money to adopt an alternative tech.

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t mean adopting their tech, because for that it’s now to late.

I mean learning from them how do increase the overall voxel (rendering) performance or how to build tools to manipulate voxels. The basics should be the same?

No matter if you have a singleplayer or mmo, the players computer needs to render the voxels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Takao said:

I didn’t mean adopting their tech, because for that it’s now to late.

I mean learning from them how do increase the overall voxel (rendering) performance or how to build tools to manipulate voxels. The basics should be the same?

No matter if you have a singleplayer or mmo, the players computer needs to render the voxels.

That's not that simple ;)

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

A final word about the griefing and the mindset of the community. Our point of view is that griefing mainly proliferates when it's an easy way to get rewards with little effort, not necessarily because many people really wants to play that way. Of course, there are people who like to grief just for the enjoyment of annoying other players but we are convinced they're not a majority. If game mechanics are designed in such a way that griefing doesn't give easy rewards, then griefing will be naturally limited. 

No, you guys doesn't even understands what is "griefing" if that's what your point of view is.

Griefing has one and only one point: to cause as much damage(not health damage) to one that you can. Getting rewards never was the main point of griefing, and so most doesn't care about it.

 

Just look at eve forexample. ppls suicide gank miners in hs, where the ship that the griefer lose cost more than the whole stuff that the noob had. But that can be said to pretty much all high sec noob attacks. The profit is basically zero, while those t2 equipment cost more.

 

In minecraft, the griefer most of time doesn't even play on that server, and only comes here to ruin others game, as that's the main point of griefing, and not making profit.

Sure if you find some expensive stuff you steal it, to cause more damage, but it wasn't the main point. Profit oriented attack would be stealing or pirating.

 

Not like I would be again griefing, but the real griefers doesn't care whether the griefing is profitable or not, heck even if they lose money this way, they just want to ruin the others game and that's all, so making it hard to get rewards with it not going to change anything.

 

 

 

Actually the few safe space areas aren't really going to make the game appealing for the casuals. As their number will be heavily limited, ppls would fight for that place so most of them will be controlled by the stronger alliances soon enough, making it impossible for later coming newplayers to use it (free), and will be riped out from valuable materials quick.

Whole carebear planets/systems would be more vise choice on the long term.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, THEMADE said:

Whole carebear planets/systems would be more vise choice on the long term.

 

 

No.  Just stop.  Please.

 

NQ has spoken for player freedom.  I back that choice.

 

In the "high sec" in DU, it will be impossible to grief... since combat will be impossible.  I imagine damage to constructs will not be possible within the safezones.  I doubt collisions will be possible even outside of the safezones, as I believe NQ stated collisions may be too resource intensive to implement.

 

Also, NQ literally stated that they will open up new areas for players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, THEMADE said:

Actually the few safe space areas aren't really going to make the game appealing for the casuals. As their number will be heavily limited, ppls would fight for that place so most of them will be controlled by the stronger alliances soon enough, making it impossible for later coming newplayers to use it (free), and will be riped out from valuable materials quick.

Whole carebear planets/systems would be more vise choice on the long term.

There are LOTS of safe zones (ASA ad MSA). Read the blog.

 

They can't fight for those zones as PvP is forbidden there.

 

There are NO valuable materials near Safe zones, as explained by NQ. 

 

More safezones will be opened up later to give new players a home in a safe zone. Again, that's what NQ just said here.

 

Why do people always complain and not actually read (and understand) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind reminder to keep chat friendly and constructive ;) (I feel like it is going to explode soon).

 

As said by Nyzaltar:

Quote

Moons having MSA will have thousands of territories each. Arkship Secure Areas will also contain thousands of safe territories. Those are not particularly "very small" areas. Planets will be huge, and safe areas, while limited, will be huge too.

[...]

There will be MSA only on moons decided by Novaquark, nowhere else.

[...]

If a moon has a MSA, it will cover the whole moon (unlike ASA, which will cover only a part of the planet where it's located).

(source: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/12700-devblog-feedback-our-thoughts-on-territory-protection-mechanics/&do=findComment&comment=77920)

... you should have plenty of safe space.

 

~ Merwyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another ASA will not in near future =.= . Player have to discover those another ASA so it will take a long time before new zone can even open but i dont think it will be the matter unless DU have the anomaly player joining .

14 hours ago, THEMADE said:

Just look at eve forexample. ppls suicide gank miners in hs, where the ship that the griefer lose cost more than the whole stuff that the noob had. But that can be said to pretty much all high sec noob attacks. The profit is basically zero, while those t2 equipment cost more.

Well at least they are not majority. They do it for fun but still have to consider because they cant just throw everything away. No-fun in future for them if they do that unless they want to quit game. 

 

14 hours ago, THEMADE said:

Not like I would be again griefing, but the real griefers doesn't care whether the griefing is profitable or not, heck even if they lose money this way, they just want to ruin the others game and that's all, so making it hard to get rewards with it not going to change anything.

and once again they said : NOT MAJORITY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

That's not that simple ;)

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Well my knowledge about Voxel engines is not very good.

So I assume, that Voxels in multiplayer, when the server does all the calculations like in DU, is not just a case of sending a voxel manipulation order back to the clients?

 

Back to the topic:

I think in DU it will be much more difficult to actually catch or even find someone.

DU is not Eve Online. In Eve online you can see if someone is in your system, not in DU.

You can directly see if someone is in over 100 km distance (what is the accurate limit here?) and you can scan the entire solar system with a direction scanner, regardless the distance and light travel time, and see where someone is. That is not the case in DU.

I think (hope) there will also be no interdictor bubbles that prevents ships from using their warp drive or slowing them down.

If you are mobile and don't want to get caught, you will not get caught.

Share this post


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

You can directly see if someone is in over 100 km distance (what is the accurate limit here?) and you can scan the entire solar system with a direction scanner, regardless the distance and light travel time, and see where someone is. That is not the case in DU.

I think (hope) there will also be no interdictor bubbles that prevents ships from using their warp drive or slowing them down.

If you are mobile and don't want to get caught, you will not get caught.

the limit is 14,355 AU in eve - and I hope that there's a limit in DU too (wouldn't make much sense with no limit).

 

NQ already said somewhere that interdiction bubbles will be there in DU. Your statement (especially the last sentence) would create a very boring, tedious game with NO pvp at all. If you're outside of a safezone you don't get magical protection (as NQ said now many many many times) which will hinder everyone to shoot you down.

Maybe there are elements which make it harder for your enemy to slow you down or interdict you, but there won't be a ship which is completely invulnerable to such pvp tactics

Share this post


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

Your statement (especially the last sentence) would create a very boring, tedious game with NO pvp at all.

Why should this be boring?
You don't fight battles in deep space over nothing.

You fight over space stations or above critical locations on planets.

If you need to bring down equipment on planets at specific locations, those ships will need protection. With the somewhat realistic orbits and flight between planets there will be "tunnels" where ships need to get though in order to get from one planet to another, so as an attacker you need to clear them.

Share this post


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

Why should this be boring?
You don't fight battles in deep space over nothing.

You fight over space stations or above critical locations on planets.

If you need to bring down equipment on planets at specific locations, those ships will need protection. With the somewhat realistic orbits and flight between planets there will be "tunnels" where ships need to get though in order to get from one planet to another, so as an attacker you need to clear them.

attacking logistics is fun.

you WANT to fight in deep space and kill that transport

you DON'T want to fight near a space station or a planet

 

I'm glad NQ goes for interdiction as it adds a lot more gameplay to DU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with interdictors in DU is that most travel will be sublight so you can't really interdict a moving hunk of matter accelerating by Newton. Unless you call "putting a hunk of metal in front of the ship" interdiction.

Share this post


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

Unless you call "putting a hunk of metal in front of the ship" interdiction

Or you call it "scifi bubble of engine disruption". It's a game

Share this post


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

Or you call it "scifi bubble of engine disruption". It's a game

 

Woah woah hold on there.  This isn't a game, it's an "emergent player driven sandbox".

 

Developers can't just add things to the game because that would make it more "fun".  What do you think this is one of those carebear themeparks.

 

If you want to stop someone's ship you have to hire other players to form a barricade, or roleplay that you put sugar in their gas tank.

 

Why not just ruin the whole game.  Sheesh.  ^_^

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

Woah woah hold on there.  This isn't a game, it's an "emergent player driven sandbox".

 

Developers can't just add things to the game because that would make it more "fun".  What do you think this is one of those carebear themeparks.

 

If you want to stop someone's ship you have to hire other players to form a barricade, or roleplay that you put sugar in their gas tank.

 

Why not just ruin the whole game.  Sheesh.  ^_^

 

 

 

 

That’s not equatable at all.  With your logic, shields shouldn’t be a thing.  Devs add technology, players run with it. 

 

Debated even replying to this, I imagine you already knew that.  At least, I’d hope so 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...