Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

Nope sorry.

 

PVP is optional.  And i'm not really interested.

 

I don't expect to be able to do everything in the game all the time since i'm not really interested in PVP.

 

Why can't you accept that you won't be able to attack everyone all the time?

Whatever you do,there will be no special button to push as to escape PVPing.

By setting foot outside the Ark-zone you agree on making yourself a killable target and carry the weight of consequence.

Share this post


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

So create a law enforcement agency of some kind.  The whole point of this game is it’s player directed.  So direct.  I don’t think it will be much of an issue, but if you do... create an organization that enforces newbie protection around the starting planet.

That would just give the PvPers an additional objective to draw more fire on the newbies.  But that's not the point.  There are options, but they all involve PvP.  Again that requires a PvP solution and we're asking for a balance between PvP and PvE activities.

 

7 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

I think that fear is irrational. Seeing as with the vast space provided with the travel distances, cover to hide and be protected by environment you're not very likely to be attacked very often as any individual located somewhere outside the safezone in the universe

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

 

3 minutes ago, Hades said:

That’s another really good point.  Why fly all the way back to shoot down a few newbies?  I imagine most of the vets at the arkship will be recruiters.  Shooting down newbies is a poor recruitment tool haha 

That is not the experience I've had with other PvP heavy games.  People regularly farm starting areas, especially if it is a PvP based way to farm common resources.

Share this post


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

That would just give the PvPers an additional objective to draw more fire on the newbies.  But that's not the point.  There are options, but they all involve PvP.  Again that requires a PvP solution and we're asking for a balance between PvP and PvE activities.

 

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree.  

 

That is not the experience I've had with other PvP heavy games.  People regularly farm starting areas, especially if it is a PvP based way to farm common resources.

Then unfortunately outside of safe zones, I don’t think you will find a solution.  I think NQ is being generous with multiple safezones to be honest.

 

As for farming newbies, that’s almost always for kill boards which won’t be in DU I hope.  Also, most games don’t have large travel times upwards of an hour

Share this post


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

Then unfortunately outside of safe zones, I don’t think you will find a solution.  I think NQ is being generous with multiple safezones to be honest.

I already supplied a solution.  It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance.  This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie.

Share this post


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

I already supplied a solution.  It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance.  This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie.

Seems like words to me, not a solution.  What would that entail?  Making ships ridiculously hard to take out?  Great... now major battles will go on infinitely.  Building is much cheaper than destruction?  Yeah that’s not going to happen 

 

I honestly don’t think it will be much of an issue.  The starting planet is huge... it will be hard to gank all the newbies who fly off of the planet. 

 

And once again, I tell you... the solution is by player directive as it should be.  Let’s cry wolf when there’s an actual wolf... you have no idea what player dynamics will enter the game.  Let’s see how the alpha plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep noticing you say you pvpers... yet I’m not a pvper?  I just see things objectively I suppose.  I’ll probably rage a few times when I lose a big haul, or one of my storages goes kaputz... and I will fight when I’m attacked, but that doesn’t make someone a pvper

 

You can’t change an underlying dynamic of the game, and I understand that.

Share this post


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

I already supplied a solution.  It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance.  This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie.

Perhaps a reputation system should be in order.

Then most of the regular folks would avoid meaningless confrontantions in fear of making enemies and subsequently losing their trade lines.

As opposed for the pirates,who would purposelly choose to pursue imfamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until NQ tells us how they plan to do things we really just don't know how this all will work.

 

What we know so far is that they plan to fully support multiple play styles including people who aren't really interested in PVP.  And people who are.  And they also plan to make the game as realistic and player driven as possible.

 

That's going to be tricky.  But like I said at the beginning of this thread that's also what makes DU exciting.

 

No one should have to "just deal with it".  The game should be for all of us.  More people equals a successful game.

Share this post


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

Seems like words to me, not a solution.  What would that entail?  Making ships ridiculously hard to take out?  Great... now major battles will go on infinitely.  Building is much cheaper than destruction?  Yeah that’s not going to happen 

 

I honestly don’t think it will be much of an issue.  The starting planet is huge... it will be hard to gank all the newbies who fly off of the planet. 

 

And once again, I tell you... the solution is by player directive as it should be.  Let’s cry wolf when there’s an actual wolf... you have no idea what player dynamics will enter the game.  Let’s see how the alpha plays out.

Great.  What is wrong with long battles?  To build a proper spaceship it could take weeks or months to design, and build it.  Why shouldn't a big battle?  You say "that's not going to happen" but it would be one solution, and saying it won't happen isn't a reason for it not to happen. -Edited for clarification-  But my solution is if a ship with a large engine takes about 1000 shots to take out, and accuracy for a common cannon is 70% then you shouldn't get more resources from the broken engine than the similar equivelant of the resources to make 1500 bullets.  The exact numbers, and balance would be determined of course by NQ and be based on their vision.  

 

Now if NQs vision doesn't match that, then I'll be ok with that too.

 

17 minutes ago, Hades said:

I keep noticing you say you pvpers... yet I’m not a pvper?  I just see things objectively I suppose.  I’ll probably rage a few times when I lose a big haul, or one of my storages goes kaputz... and I will fight when I’m attacked, but that doesn’t make someone a pvper

 

You can’t change an underlying dynamic of the game, and I understand that.

Then I apologize for my mistake.  I assumed since it sound to me like you want the game to be mostly PvP based that you must want to do PvP.  I don't want to remove PvP from the game, I just want a balance.

 

Share this post


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

Great.  What is wrong with long battles?  To build a proper spaceship it could take weeks or months to design, and build it.  Why shouldn't a big battle? 

Because construction and destruction is not a linear relationship, better players will destroy worse players faster even if both have two juggernauts for ships.

 

28 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

Until NQ tells us how they plan to do things we really just don't know how this all will work.

 

What we know so far is that they plan to fully support multiple play styles including people who aren't really interested in PVP.  And people who are.  And they also plan to make the game as realistic and player driven as possible.

They want to make a PLAYER DRIVEN sandbox. This means players deal with player-made problems, the tools are there for builders, PvPers and all therein, its up to you how to utilize them.

29 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

No one should have to "just deal with it".  The game should be for all of us.  More people equals a successful game.

You realize that taking away the "just deal with it" aspect would make it less player driven thus not what they have been talking about and theres tons of players that doesnt want to see that happen, you are not ever gonna truly reach "all of us".

Share this post


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

Because construction and destruction is not a linear relationship, better players will destroy worse players faster even if both have two juggernauts for ships.

Good.... i guess.... I don't know why that matters.  I was answering Hades where he was implying that long drawn out battles would be a problem.  I was saying that it wouldn't be a problem.

 

8 minutes ago, Zamarus said:

They want to make a PLAYER DRIVEN sandbox. This means players deal with player-made problems, the tools are there for builders, PvPers and all therein, its up to you how to utilize them.

You realize that taking away the "just deal with it" aspect would make it less player driven thus not what they have been talking about and theres tons of players that doesnt want to see that happen, you are not ever gonna truly reach "all of us".

We're talking about a specific way to build one of those tools that has to be built in some form.  This doesn't make it less player driven, it just changes how the player driven aspect is implemented.

 

Share this post


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

Good.... i guess.... I don't know why that matters.  I was answering Hades where he was implying that long drawn out battles would be a problem.  I was saying that it wouldn't be a problem.

Hey, you realize who is advocating for less freedom here?

16 minutes ago, Felonu said:

We're talking about a specific way to build one of those tools that has to be built in some form.  This doesn't make it less player driven, it just changes how the player driven aspect is implemented.

 

It does make it less player driven if you actively try to cripple PvP in favour of Building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make ammunition expensive. 

 

- In EVE Online ammunition needs to be cheap and plentiful, because of the PvE elements in the game. As far as I've heard, PvE (shooting AI controlled constructs for loot) is not really going to be a thing in DU, therefore it can be expensive enough that shooting some random newbie for a few units common materials is not worth the trouble.

 

The economy of PvP needs to be tuned to the point where blowing something up is only worth it for political reasons or punishing reckless greed. For example, the ammunition required to destroy the most basics of constructs should always cost more than said construct. If someone is hoarding wealth, they should need to invest a portion of it to protect it, or use some other means to make it not worth the effort, such as setting up in some obscure location. 

 

This obviously wouldn't stop an individual from throwing away their time to blow stuff up without a tangible reward. But, when scaled up,  it does prevent a significant portion of people from spending more time blowing up trivial things, than it does to acquire the tools/consumables to do so.  On the flip side, there is a need for potentially lucrative targets, as well as accessibility for players to engage in PvP for fun.

 

There does need to be some degree of persistence for all players, so blowing someone's stuff up should be a calculated or consensual decision. It's mostly an economic problem that will require a lot of tuning to find the right balance. 

 

I've played in many games where anti-griefing mechanics get abused, so I would first target the problem economically. Also, having an accessible and engaging combat system, where shooting targets that shoot back, is simply more fun than shooting people who are trying to gather resources or flying their first ship, would go a long way.

Share this post


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

Hey, you realize who is advocating for less freedom here?

It does make it less player driven if you actively try to cripple PvP in favour of Building

I don't think my proposal would reduce freedom or cripple PvP.  How would Defenses being stronger, or not getting as much resources when you gank defenseless people cripple PvP?

Share this post


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

I don't think my proposal would reduce freedom or cripple PvP.  How would Defenses being stronger, or not getting as much resources when you gank defenseless people cripple PvP?

"I already supplied a solution.  It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance.  This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie."

 

This would most certainly do that. Because doing this wont just help defenseless people but be abused by everyone. Also how have you planned on making the resources gained difference between defenseless and non-defenseless people here? I don't see how you make the game do that without magic, because all solutions would force you to mess with more game mechanics than you originally were thinking about.

 

Share this post


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

Anyway.  I feel like I've said my piece, and instead of discussing options and possibilities we are at the point of just arguing over small details and differences of opinions and viewpoints.

Not really, what i've been arguing and some others is for the option of not doing anything. Not interfering with the sandbox we are given, it's at this point pro-change vs no need


Edit: Or let me rephrase myself better. "Pro regulated vs unregulated PvP"

Share this post


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

"I already supplied a solution.  It simply has to be worth more to leave most people alone than it is to attack them in standard point and shoot circumstance.  This doesn't take anything away from you PvPers except you would have to make a cost benefit analysis before ganking that newbie."

 

This would most certainly do that. Because doing this wont just help defenseless people but be abused by everyone. Also how have you planned on making the resources gained difference between defenseless and non-defenseless people here? I don't see how you make the game do that without magic, because all solutions would force you to mess with more game mechanics than you originally were thinking about.

 

No it wouldn't... i already supplied the math... it doesn't matter who it is I'm not saying you specify some people are "defenseless"  by helping the defenseless you only extend PvP battles some and modify the cost/benefit analysis when attacking everyone (aggressors are risking more than defenders, but have the ability to make that decision before attacking.  The defender would have to have something valuable for the offensive to be worth it). 

 

I think we should stop arguing these details though.  I think people have the information to make up their own minds on what they believe of these systems.

Share this post


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

Not really, what i've been arguing and some others is for the option of not doing anything. Not interfering with the sandbox we are given, it's at this point pro-change vs no need


Edit: Or let me rephrase myself better. "Pro regulated vs unregulated PvP"

No it's not.  There are no details about what defensive systems will be in place, what offensive systems there are, and how much resources it would take to power/create the means of both.  Those are the only systems we're talking about modifying.  You can't "regulate" a system that hasn't been build yet.  This is talking about how a system should be initially built, and all of these costs have to be something.  The discussion is on what the different costs will be.

Share this post


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

No it wouldn't... i already supplied the math... it doesn't matter who it is I'm not saying you specify some people are "defenseless"  by helping the defenseless you only extend PvP battles some and modify the cost/benefit analysis when attacking everyone (aggressors are risking more than defenders, but have the ability to make that decision before attacking.  The defender would have to have something valuable for the offensive to be worth it). 

 

I think we should stop arguing these details though.  I think people have the information to make up their own minds on what they believe of these systems.

If you don't want to argue anymore then stop replying, meant honest, not derogatory way.

I did not see this math and i do not think its a good idea at all. But what you are right on is that people have plenty to make up their mind.

Just now, Felonu said:

No it's not.  There are no details about what defensive systems will be in place, what offensive systems there are, and how much resources it would take to power/create the means of both.  Those are the only systems we're talking about modifying.  You can't "regulate" a system that hasn't been build yet.  This is talking about how a system should be initially built, and all of these costs have to be something.  The discussion is on what the different costs will be.

You never said more than "make it expensive to attack people" which i won't take as anything else than wanting to regulate PvP. I mean what is the point of saying so otherwise. It's quite obvious what sandbox and player-driven entails imo.

Share this post


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

If you don't want to argue anymore then stop replying, meant honest, not derogatory way.

I did not see this math and i do not think its a good idea at all. But what you are right on is that people have plenty to make up their mind.

You never said more than "make it expensive to attack people" which i won't take as anything else than wanting to regulate PvP. I mean what is the point of saying so otherwise. It's quite obvious what sandbox and player-driven entails imo.

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the thing is for a game to be a truly realistic "sandbox" there would need to be permanent death.

 

That's the only way the cost of going on the offensive vs defensive could really be realistically balanced. 

 

Anything short of that is going to require some intentional balancing.  There's no such thing as "not interfering".  It's a virtual world.  The whole thing is designed.

 

By not including permanent death.  They're taking the first step towards something other then totally realistic.

 

Which is good.  But there's going to be more decisions too.  To make the game fun.  Weeeeee

Share this post


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

Anything short of that is going to require some intentional balancing.  There's no such thing as "not interfering".  It's a virtual world.  The whole thing is designed.

I think you might want to sharpen your understanding of Player Driven, of course a game is designed as a whole, but they are focusing on providing the tools and not designing HOW people should use them in the end.

18 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

By not including permanent death.  They're taking the first step towards something other then totally realistic.

Fill me in, i didn't see anyone in this discussion demanding realism.

Share this post


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

Fill me in, i didn't see anyone in this discussion demanding realism.

2 hours ago, Zamarus said:

what i've been arguing and some others is for the option of not doing anything. Not interfering with the sandbox we are given, it's at this point pro-change vs no need

 

What do you consider the baseline is for an un-interfered-with sandbox then?  Is it not realism?

 

You're talking about being against change.  But you're assuming the starting point.  Based on what you want.

 

The point of the game is that it's a fun and realistic sandbox.  Pvp is part of that, but not all of it.  And all the parts have to work together for the game to be fun for everyone.

 

I think that's all anyone is really trying to say.  I'm going to leave it at that.

 

Share this post


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

What do you consider the baseline is for an un-interfered-with sandbox then?  Is it not realism?

 

You're talking about being against change.  But you're assuming the starting point.  Based on what you want

No, i'm basing it on what NQ has said about a player driven world and how that would play out.

5 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

The point of the game is that it's a fun and realistic sandbox.  Pvp is part of that, but not all of it.  And all the parts have to work together for the game to be fun for everyone.

 

I think that's all anyone is really trying to say.  I'm going to leave it at that.

 

I don't think I've said it enough times i guess but i never claimed nor did anyone claim that PvP is all of it. 

Let me run that back to my previous answer. The sum of it being that all the parts work together from the player using their own brain not relying on the devs holding your hand.

10 hours ago, Zamarus said:

Actually no. I'm not downplaying building at all, i'm saying that all major features both building and PvP isn't above one and another at all and players will have to solve every situation in the game with their own brain.

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...