Jump to content

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Felonu said:

Because that engulfs everything else in PvP.  You are doing the exact thing from a different perspective that you accuse @MookMcMook of doing.  I think we've all put our points of view out there now, though, and we'll have to rely on NQ and their vision to decide how they implement it.

Yes, I can back this up:-

 

1. I'm assuming Building WILL be a bigger population of games players capture than PvP (reasonably from previous games)

2. I'm also assuming that the voxel gameplay if it works will be magnitudes more interactive adding to the above... (add lua)

3. Then I'm taking a basis of Building stuff that does stuff being the basis for a Virtual World with stored value(time/money and more from players) driving the growth of the economy, itself an enormous driver (incentives).

4. We know that with Player population growth you have World Size Growth which means more building required for complex large group sizes and dynamics and services: Manufacturing -> Processing -> Marketing + Services etc.

 

We can call this Social Cooperation and MMOs have barely tapped this to the Scale they're able to USP compared to other game genres.

 

From this we then move onto exciting visceral and vitality pressures on this from such as combat, market capture (aka market pvp) where a small(er) force can have a much bigger effect on all the above.

 

@Zamarus : Your sentiment: "absolute - trump => subjective desire..." leads to "globalization of this to "population who need to learn about protection simulation". This rhetorical misconstruction of my post which merely attempted to set some productive technical terms for language for communication. Eg Secondary does not refer to some sort of priority, it's merely the case of:-

 

* Proportional to player numbers

* Precedent to natural development of simulation systems

* Dynamic feedback system in balance of growth not stagnation or limiting factors.

 

In fact, to completely turn your rhetoric against itself: By adopting this progression, there will be MORE PVP - not less and more diverse likely hence too.

 

Will say your contribution has been effective in creating a busy forum post thread with multiples of replies, which is fun too, I enjoy the passion and respect everyones' views - I just believe there's more reward in successful communication happening!

Share this post


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

 

 

@Zamarus : Your sentiment: "absolute - trump => subjective desire..." leads to "globalization of this to "population who need to learn about protection simulation". This rhetorical misconstruction of my post which merely attempted to set some productive technical terms for language for communication. Eg Secondary does not refer to some sort of priority, it's merely the case of:-

 

* Proportional to player numbers

* Precedent to natural development of simulation systems

* Dynamic feedback system in balance of growth not stagnation or limiting factors.

 

In fact, to completely turn your rhetoric against itself: By adopting this progression, there will be MORE PVP - not less and more diverse likely hence too.

 

Will say your contribution has been effective in creating a busy forum post thread with multiples of replies, which is fun too, I enjoy the passion and respect everyones' views - I just believe there's more reward in successful communication happening!

Then please explain how your statement of

 

"Primary

 

Dual Universe is primarily a building game due to voxel space. We can tag this "SANDBOX"

 

Secondary

 

Dual Universe is secondarily an interaction game due to freedom of player interactions possible: Trade, Combat, Politics. We can tag this "SIMULATION""

 

Doesn't warrant my responses. Because i most definitely think your statement is false. And remember that when writing something like this without mentioning that its your opinion you WILL be taken for trying to state facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the impression is that Dual Universe is not a PVP combat driven game, like other status quo space games, it is a player driven civilization building game. PVP is only one of many game mechanics in DU.


Also, I think many people are looking past the fact that this game has an extremely Advanced Voxel building system. like wow its pretty impressive. An so far, the Voxel building is the most in depth and notable feature of the entire game. Its the thing that Novaquark is spending the most time developing, making combat a secondary thing (not less important, just secondary). Which makes sense for a game focused on Civilization building.


People aren't naive, they understand this game will have weapons, and combat, and you can run around killing each other if you choose to. I think players are concerned that this game could turn into a PVP gankfest with no depth or substance. I think most Players are showing increasing interest in this game because of the Voxel mechanics, civilization building, Macro based warfare concepts. There are many things about DU that sets it apart from most space games.


But, Griefing is a valid and reasonable concern, when you look at other sandbox  games. It happens way to often in the gaming community, where pvp players show up and turn ever game into a combat focused game, even if that wasn't the developers goal. An, that usually causes a mass exodus as the player base gets fed up an leaves, and the only thing left is pvp, gankers, and trolls. Even in games that are 100% PVP focused, you still see this problem where griefers will abuse the mechanics and then laugh and say "hey this is part of the game, deal with it", and Developers have to backtrack and/or add additional mechanics to balance things out.


Right now Novaquark seems to have put allot of thought into how they plan to implement things. So, I'm not concerned with the development or game mechanics, I'm more concerned with the mindset of the player base in this game. So far, most of the people I see and talk to seem to want to just have fun, and are drawn to idea of building and exploring, and that makes me optimistic.

 

ZWhiHTD.jpg

 

Share this post


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

So the impression is that Dual Universe is not a PVP combat driven game, like other status quo space games, it is a player driven civilization building game. PVP is only one of many game mechanics in DU.


Also, I think many people are looking past the fact that this game has an extremely Advanced Voxel building system. like wow its pretty impressive. An so far, the Voxel building is the most in depth and notable feature of the entire game. Its the thing that Novaquark is spending the most time developing, making combat a secondary thing (not less important, just secondary). Which makes sense for a game focused on Civilization building.


People aren't naive, they understand this game will have weapons, and combat, and you can run around killing each other if you choose to. I think players are concerned that this game could turn into a PVP gankfest with no depth or substance. I think most Players are showing increasing interest in this game because of the Voxel mechanics, civilization building, Macro based warfare concepts. There are many things about DU that sets it apart from most space games.


But, Griefing is a valid and reasonable concern, when you look at other sandbox  games. It happens way to often in the gaming community, where pvp players show up and turn ever game into a combat focused game, even if that wasn't the developers goal. An, that usually causes a mass exodus as the player base gets fed up an leaves, and the only thing left is pvp, gankers, and trolls. Even in games that are 100% PVP focused, you still see this problem where griefers will abuse the mechanics and then laugh and say "hey this is part of the game, deal with it", and Developers have to backtrack and/or add additional mechanics to balance things out.


Right now Novaquark seems to have put allot of though into how the plan to implement things. So, I'm not concerned with the development or game mechanics, I more concerned with the mindset of the player base in this game. So far, most of the people I see and talk to seem to want to just have fun, and are drawn to idea of building and exploring, and that makes me optimistic.

 

ZWhiHTD.jpg

 

The mindset of the playerbase worries me too.  It seems to me like they want NQ to do stuff for them, when NQ has been pretty upfront from the very beginning that this is a player driven game.  Bunch of mindless ganking going on?  Hire mercs or create an organization that patrols these ganking hot zones and take care of it.

 

I like the fact that you highlighted safezones and the fact that they don’t plan on hindering PvP outside of safezones.  That’s precisely how it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hades  I'm not sure why you think that, so far most players seem to be very eager to do things for themselves. Like I said before players aren't' naive, they know what this game will be. The thing about sandbox games it that's by giving player freedom, you also inadvertently give players the power to define what kind of game it will be in the end.

 

So, you're solutions aren't solutions at all. Most players will be in organizations, and most players will be in a group of some kind because you'll need help working on big projects. The problem with your proposal is that, if a player has to spend all there time forming and running a Security Organization, and all there time chasing around griefers solo or with org mates,  or all there money paying Merc's to do patrol and be bodyguards.... Then they wont have much time or money left to do the things in the game that they really want to do.

 

Also,  I knew you would miss the point about the quote that I highlighted, so I'll clarify.  it says "pvp will be possible when you step out of the safezone" , what it does not say is that pvp is mandatory to play the game outside the safezone, it also does not say that everything outside the safezone is a PVP arena, like a theme park MMO.

 

So, as I said before, this game will be defined by the mindset of the player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even it player driven but NQ also had said that if thing is going out of control they will interfere , they said very clear that it is sandbox/player driven but not a game for ruining and spreading chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry been not replying for a few days, had some migraines.

The mindset of the playerbase is worrying for everyone I think.

I, for one, do not want "NQ to do everything for me" I do want NQ to build a game (by supplying the code) that allows us all to interact with one-another in any way we see fit, but more importantly let no-one unfairly feel that one part of the game is being focused on more than any other part.

This entire thread is discussing multiple different aspects of these "ways of playing".

The is the debate that people should not be forced in to certain behaviours to succeed
The is discussion of what metrics you use to determine "balance" (which in its self is debated as to what balance is, how you establish such a concept in an asymmetrical warfare system, and that the "human element" is not applied when determining the basis of it, as that is an unlimited source of variables)
The is a large confusion,  over the idea that some people do not want this to be X or Y, when it reality we are all wanting it to be a free-form as possible.

I think we are all in agreement that what this game should NOT do is make players, be they veterans, or new players, feel unwelcome, because of the methods in which others choose to play. That will simply reduce the player count (Targets if you will) and reduce NQ's revenue stream.

How to have a system in which repercussions exist; that it a tricky one because we do NOT want NQ to install one, so the conversation refocuses on it taking more "work" to destroy than to build, simply because if it takes equal or less work to destroy than build, people will stop building (&/or leave the game).

This leads to less targets for PvP'ers to enjoy, a smaller world and a diminished experience for all. Which would make this fantastic opportunity we all have to shape a game pointless (and make me sad that we wasted a fantastic opportunity)

I really am enjoying the fact that people are passionately debating this tbh

Edit; re the mindset of players;
If you create a game that makes PvP easy and encourages people to do it, you will attract PvP minded players

If you create a game that makes building easy and encourages people to do it, you will get a lot more "builders" but still some PvP'ers. The issue would be that people do not like easy games, and it is focusing on one playstyle still.

If you create a game that makes PvP challenging and rewarding, while making those building things feel like they have a chance (and it is a chance not a certainty) you will still get PvP players (personally I prefer a good challenging game to one that is easy) and you will get those who build the ships for PvP, and the targets for the PvP'ers to try to attack (but again it is try, for it is not a certainty either).

The game needs to be a challenge for all, enjoyable for all and most importantly not feel like any one group is being favoured over any other (could use a issue in Elite:Dangerous at the moment for an example if you wish).

If it was easy, the game would already exist :)
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point: we’ll just see.  PvP won’t be a ridiculous hard venture, nor will it cost more than defenses.  Building has always been the major capital resource sink and always will be.  Conflict will be the major asset resource sink.

 

At this point: Seems like people are taking small snippets and misconstruing it to feed their own agenda.  Myself included.

Share this post


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

Then please explain how your statement of

 

"Primary

 

Dual Universe is primarily a building game due to voxel space. We can tag this "SANDBOX"

 

Secondary

 

Dual Universe is secondarily an interaction game due to freedom of player interactions possible: Trade, Combat, Politics. We can tag this "SIMULATION""

 

Doesn't warrant my responses. Because i most definitely think your statement is false. And remember that when writing something like this without mentioning that its your opinion you WILL be taken for trying to state facts.

It's curious and convenient, maybe, that your avatar is a crusader and mine is the world building image!

 

You attributed some an intention to my post which does not exist. I won't be a builder but a pvp'er if anything, ie it's got nothing to do with my "desires". Like I said "sentiment misdirection" away from the argument about design itself. I think your rhetoric is persuasion about groups of players holding particular positions on pvp and you're attempting to angle for the pvp crowd against the stupid care-bear crowd (I agree btw but that's not the argument about design, it's politics via forums!).

 

Anyway about the statement above:-

 

1. The webpage calls the game "civilization BUILDING mmo".

2. Voxels will likely interest a lot of people whether or not I'm one of them.

3. The voxels won't have much life with out a healthy simulation system which involves pvp combat.

4. Building stuff will take much more time and planning than destroying stuff ... Entropy's a ....

5. Initially and indeed currently there's zero combat and building hence building is precedent to combat/pvp. Just read the latest game update notes.

 

Now, finally that out of the way: We look at what NQ is planning for pvp and getting it under control: They talk about bubbles of safety. I think they'll have to start with more bubbles of safety than initially suggested so far but with greater reward in resources "further out" so to speak... then over time as large groups coalesce then such bubbles can be reigned back (some lore reason eg the tech of the predecessors starts fading etc).

 

Finally I was not talking about fact, but about prediction which seems obvious considering how much future development is still come.

Share this post


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

1. The webpage calls the game "civilization BUILDING mmo".

You don't usually call mmo's pvp mmo's, just look at all of them pvp is factored in the term "mmo" per automation.

26 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:

5. Initially and indeed currently there's zero combat and building hence building is precedent to combat/pvp. Just read the latest game update notes.

Because in game development you test destruction before construction? No of course building is tested first, even in a full fledged PvP-prio game they would do it in that order, not saying DU will prioritize that but its absurd to think that its an indicator.

28 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:

Now, finally that out of the way: We look at what NQ is planning for pvp and getting it under control: They talk about bubbles of safety. I think they'll have to start with more bubbles of safety than initially suggested so far but with greater reward in resources "further out" so to speak... then over time as large groups coalesce then such bubbles can be reigned back (some lore reason eg the tech of the predecessors starts fading etc).

You'll start with one protection bouble, the arkship safezone, they've been talking about discovering others but that is something you cant rely on for a long time. Build your own shields, fortresses and so on, a player driven sandbox doesnt need to have safezones everywhere, in fact if players are meant to build civilizations what you former thought was a need for devs to provide for you a large org might be strong enough to have a secure large open city you can use the same way. Isn't that cool to think of?

 

31 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:

Finally I was not talking about fact, but about prediction which seems obvious considering how much future development is still come.

"Not talking about fact but it was an obvious prediction"

If that's what you are saying i disagree with the latter and it still sounded like the former.

Share this post


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

You don't usually call mmo's pvp mmo's, just look at all of them pvp is factored in the term "mmo" per automation.

Because in game development you test destruction before construction? No of course building is tested first, even in a full fledged PvP-prio game they would do it in that order, not saying DU will prioritize that but its absurd to think that its an indicator.

You'll start with one protection bouble, the arkship safezone, they've been talking about discovering others but that is something you cant rely on for a long time. Build your own shields, fortresses and so on, a player driven sandbox doesnt need to have safezones everywhere, in fact if players are meant to build civilizations what you former thought was a need for devs to provide for you a large org might be strong enough to have a secure large open city you can use the same way. Isn't that cool to think of?

 

"Not talking about fact but it was an obvious prediction"

If that's what you are saying i disagree with the latter and it still sounded like the former.

Most mmo-rpgs are "Combat mmos" and some of those are specifically "PvP mmos". Eg Albion Online is a pvp mmo and Camelot Unchained is a pvp mmo, for example within the combat emphasis mmo. Just pause for a moment and consider the voxels + lua + mobile & functional constructs and terraforming and infrastructure building that players are going to be busy with...

 

DU will be primarily a "Building mmo" (sandbox) and then we'll see how successful DU is at extending that towards (simulation) aspects including combat, trade and businesses and services and so forth...

 

We'll see about those protection bubbles, that'll transform as an idea over time I guess, over the next number of years. Eventually safety features along with pvp will roll out. Will be a long duration and lot of dev. One huge simple solution to begin with. Remember with that inside that, amazing things can be built "...to begin with" (extra emphasis).

 

Anyway, I look forward to PvP more than Building, I just want fun ships and battles with lots of ships and crew and cool weapons. But I like an orderly rationale to this as the context, some sort of formal war declaration in a larger flow of coherent events due to the game systems. If I wanted instant and meaningless pvp I'd play battlegrounds or a shooter for higher octane combat.

 

Also, this is just cautionary: The dream of PvP in DU is BIG! Look at SC, they're gutting the persistence of stealing ships and scaling back the interactivity and causal-effect relationship of their sci-fi universe, much to diminishing "the simulation dream" idea. Their off-set is of course high fidelity graphics and high octane combat: I prefer the direction DU is going: It's rooted in world-building, first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do ppl always argue what DU is "primarily" or "mostly" or "secondary" ? It doesn't really matter if building attracts more ppl (eve ppl would disagree here either way) - the only thing that matters is the vision of NQ

 

DU is a game. As that, the devs set certain boundaries to it as you can't please anyone. You can't have a single shard mmo where everyone can do whatever he wants, anytime, anywhere. That leads to ppl demanding to be safe anywhere with a magical shield because they don't want to pvp at all.

So DU sets a scenario (as EVERY other game does - that's the basis for everyone): there is an arkzone where there's no pvp. Outside there's the sandbox - do whatever you want (attack someone. Don't attack him. That kind of thing).

The "vision" or baseline of DU is: emergent gameplay and rebuilding society.

 

If the players decide that they want to have a huge peaceful city where everyone can build whatever he wants - then THEY have to do that

If the players want a FFA gankfest outside - then THEY have to do it

If the players want to live in peace on alioth and decide that it's maybe a good idea to let alioth be the "starter" planet for new ppl and the they fight somewhere else in the system - then THEY have to do it

 

That's emergent gameplay - this is what DU is about. It doesn't matter if building is primary or secondary or whatever to NQ - everything is equal at first. It's US PLAYERS who will place building on top.....or pvp.....

"we pvpers" don't force anything on ppl - we play the game. If those mechanics are broken or unfair - it will be patched. I don't expect pvp to be the same after 5 years as it was in the beginning

 

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules at all - it's the internet after all... that's why there are bounties. That's why there is RDMS.

 

And again:

Anyone believing that NQ will deliberately and intentionally unbalance the game - killing is easier than building thus shifting the favor to the attacker - is a moron. It's common sense to balance it.

Making armor/shields stronger than weapons doesn't really change a thing here. Everyone has that "bonus" - so the newbro may be better defended, as is the pirate trying to kill him. It doesn't change anything in regards to the calculation you have to make: will I lose less than I gain? Bullets won't be that expensive and as "professional killer" you will have skills which boost your damage.

Making shields/armor less expensive may work for newbros - but in the long run it's harder for everyone then to evict those pesky pirates. They will heavily fortify their den.

 

Calculating Risk vs Reward is essential in pvp. If there are no killboards (as in eve) no one (except the occasional " herp derp see what I can do" troll) will kill newbros as they literally don't have anything of value. Merchants, builders and crafters may be a more valuable target - and they can do smth about it.

 

Ppl need to learn mechanics too as I truly believe NQ will make it hard for defenders aswell as for attackers.

In eve (I know, eve comparison *yawn*) I have over 10.000h of gametime. >9500 of those I lived in Nullsec and wormholes (dangerous spaces). At first I got killed a lot of times but then I realized I can counter their tactics. Once I learned that and knew how to react, it was no problem at all. I lived there alone, with no backup and rarely got killed. IF I got killed, it was my fault because I did a stupid mistake.

I went mining in a warzone

Flew C5 wormhole PVE solo (real solo, not even my alt was online)

Stole ships from deep within nullsec territory

If you know the mechanics the game gives you, you can counter nearly everything - that's called balance

 

Facts we know:

- there is ONE safe zone which is huge

- outside that zone PVP is allowed

 

It's not about what NQ gives us, but what we make of it.

 

Share this post


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

DU is a game. As that, the devs set certain boundaries to it as you can't please anyone. You can't have a single shard mmo where everyone can do whatever he wants, anytime, anywhere.

Yes, you can't have a single shard with people being able to run free killing others

 

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

"we pvpers" don't force anything on ppl - we play the game.

Dom't force anything except for your will to harm other players. That is the definition of conflict: forcing your will on others when the parties have conflicting wills.

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

Anyone believing that NQ will deliberately and intentionally unbalance the game - killing is easier than building thus shifting the favor to the attacker - is a moron. It's common sense to balance it.

Destruction is inherently easier then construction. Its called entropy.  And balancing it contridicts:

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

but in the long run it's harder for everyone then to evict those pesky pirates. They will heavily fortify their den.

Which will apply not only to cheaper armour but a shift in balance to favor defence.

 

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

If you know the mechanics the game gives you, you can counter nearly everything - that's called balance

Unless the mechanics make it so you can't counter them.

 

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any rules at all - it's the internet after all... that's why there are bounties. That's why there is RDMS.

The real question here is: will thesw rules be strong enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note to all;

Never insult someone you disagree with, it does nothing to strengthen a position, only undermines the credibility of the person casting the aspersions .

Amendment to "Fact we know" above;
"The is ONE safe zone" TO START WITH - dev in this very thread stated the will be more

Share this post


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

Yes, you can't have a single shard with people being able to run free killing others

But that's what DU is about. One safezone where it's forbidden by mechanics - everywhere else it's allowed

1 hour ago, 0something0 said:

Dom't force anything except for your will to harm other players. That is the definition of conflict: forcing your will on others when the parties have conflicting wills.

If it's a game mechanic, everyone knows this and I don't force anything - I just play the game.

 

1 hour ago, 0something0 said:

Destruction is inherently easier then construction. Its called entropy.  And balancing it contridicts:

that's why I said it should be balanced....

 

1 hour ago, 0something0 said:

Unless the mechanics make it so you can't counter them.

which is bad gameplay and has to be patched. And no, being able to attack someone outside the safezone is not a bug - that's the vision of NQ. They want to let us players decide what we do with that.

 

1 hour ago, 0something0 said:

The real question here is: will thesw rules be strong enough?

exactly.

I already gave enough examples of why someone will think twice before he attacks anyone. Those alone are enough to keep most people from just running around killing everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if people took the wrong idea from some of the language used, such as primary or secondary. The idea is merely to use words in a way that shows they're equivalent to taking a PRISM and seeing within specific angles of perspective specific "in-sights": Those sights don't define limits or exclusively exist, they're merely associate different sights of the same thing building up a potentially interconnected picture where some things remain undefined.

 

For example, most people thing of MMO-RPG as a world with multiplayer adventures when most of the interaction that is emphasized is "Combat". Few even have developed sophisticated "Trade" for comparison. So to then call DU a primary "Building" MMO is not to demand "gape-keeping" definition rights over how other people will play the game or view the game,  just to point out the difference to the implicit assumption mostly used about mmorpgs and emphasis this comparison is significantly different: Who knows maybe it will have more PvP than most mmorpgs, which oddly would make it "APPEAR" to be a "PvP title" and people might demand that it be called as such, though I think they are looking with too narrow a focus...

 

Next, we know NQ had to get the Tech right for DU - first. The networking shard (multiplayer), The Voxel objects making the virtual world space entirely mutable (and some how storing this data successfully) and thence building and terraforming, then the functionality of these objects all deep within the tech solution.

 

This is a priori hence in-built. Last I looked they'll be wanting to hire a game designer in addition to the current team. Probably with combat systems experience. Looking at the voxel stuff with a huge world system and the wonderful rendering seamless experience: It looks like if we take another new angle through our prism, we then consider that this building looks early on to be a potentially very very fresh game system in an mmo and very interactive compared to what we're used to, and wonderfully inventive and creative: In short it looks like it might have a high success ceiling. Just look at the last batch of pre-alpha creations (some discussing here will have even been involved in those early creations): They are the tip of the ice-berg - all so far without the bells and whistles of missiles and lazers !!

 

I'm looking forward to Building Civilizations and some of those will be war-like I'd guess...

 

That is good for PvP players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DU is a sandbox MMO, not a building MMO, and most definitely not a MMO where building is some primary aspect whether implicit or not.

Share this post


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

DU is a sandbox MMO, not a building MMO, and most definitely not a MMO where building is some primary aspect whether implicit or not.

NQ built a custom engine to handle a single shard voxel based universe. They also sacrificed popular twitch based PvP mechanics in favor of a single shard voxel based universe, where everything is player built, and PvP will come later in development. So there is that.

 

My biggest concern with PvP is that I can load up an alt and grief newbies all day long. When a hired merc or security force comes along and kills me. I can load up another alt and continue getting my jollies. I'd like to hear a player driven solution to that behavior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twitch based?  Popular?  Not necessarily.  Many people PREFER tab target and similar styled games.  NQ never planned on implementing twitch features, so I’m not sure how they could have been sacrificed? 

 

Combat usually comes later in a sandbox game, it’s just how the development works.  You create the world, and then you create the gameplay features of the world.  Even Camelot unchained (the epitome of a PvP MMO) implemented voxel building before combat.

 

Seems like you’re just throwing things out and hoping they stick.

 

It also seems like you’re using a shortsighted view.  Simply from your fear of PvP and conflict.  

 

So let’s get a few things straight.  A city owner (organization, coalition whatever) wants to keep their city limits and the outer reaches safe.  Why?  If traders are downed coming to your city every time, they’ll stop coming.  If they stop coming, your city tanks.

 

Now, you’d probably want to pay a security corp to protect these entrances to your planet/city.  

 

If a distress signal goes off, the paid protection (or internal) attempts to intercept.  Every time an alt is killed, that’s resources drained. 

 

Player driven, that’s what DU is... and that’s what DU will always be.

 

This worked in Face of Mankind, EVE doesn’t really have a comparison afaik... as trade is done in high sec areas?  Can’t remember.

 

PvP is not possible in safe zones.  PvP is possible outside of safezones.  What this entails is dictated by the players, that is NQs vision.  If they go back on that, it’s no longer the project put forth by the Kickstarter.  I’d personally want a refund, as it’s not what I backed.

 

This is what I backed:

Emergent gameplay is one of the key aspects of Dual Universe. In Dual Universe "emergent gameplay" means that the players are given the power to create and direct the story, major events, and content of the game universe. All of the mechanics in Dual Universe are specifically designing to give the players as much freedom as possible, which produces a game world that is entirely run and managed by the players and their choices.”

 

NQ has alluded that the beginning stages of DU is going to be TOUGH.  There’s no groundwork laid out, organizations will attempt to build stability and others will want that stability for themselves.  This is going to be increasingly tough for the single/small group player as there’s no protection outside of safezones.  That’s not going to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told myself I was done with this thread, but it honestly seems like some of you don’t know what you backed.

 

Player directed is the end all be all of DU.

 

Imagine being able to build a prison, agreed upon by the larger corporations.  Now sure, a purp could hop on an alt.. but when that one ends in prison?  They’ll have to wait about 24 hours or whatever is agreed upon.  Player.  Driven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dual Universe is a Civilization "BUILDING" MMO, as stated by Novaquark. It has many gameplay mechanics including voxel building ships, making habitats, and stations, Mining, Crafting, Manufacturing, Exploration, macro and micro Warfare, Territory control, etc....

 

This is the impression players are getting from this game. pvp is not the end all be all of the game, its only one, of many aspects of the game.

 

dWMRh1g.jpg

Share this post


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

Dual Universe is a Civilization "BUILDING" MMO, as stated by Novaquark. It has many gameplay mechanics including voxel building ships, making habitats, and stations, Mining, Crafting, Manufacturing, Exploration, macro and micro Warfare, Territory control, etc....

 

This is the impression players are getting from this game. pvp is not the end all be all of the game, its only one, of may aspect of the game.

 

dWMRh1g.jpg

Building isn’t the end all be all either, that’s the point.  It’s a sandbox MMO.  If they change that direction, I honestly want out.

 

Player driven is the end all be all of the game, that’s been clear from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hades I never say that it was, I stated the many other aspects of the game besides building, if you read my comment.

 

Also, I've stated many times before that the game will be shaped my the mindset of the player base, because thats the nature of a sandbox.

Share this post


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

Dual Universe is a Civilization "BUILDING" MMO, as stated by Novaquark.

Taking shit like this out of context is why we have all these care-bear concerns on the forums. I've argued plenty already so i will be a bit brash but listen to their videos from the kickstarter ffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think super understands that the game’s core is emergent and player driven.  Which means there won’t be some arbitrary feature in place to make combat more difficult than building.  If you want something protected, you have to protect it.  Whether through your means, or riding off the coat tails of others.  Now something might be more difficult to destroy because it’s player driven.  Such as someone wedging a base in between a canyon or something.

 

This isn’t landmark in space, and I do think some people think it is... which is a problem, and it will be rectified quickly upon release haha.

 

It won’t take hours to destroy a standard single seater ship, it won’t be more costly to make bullets than it is to make a ship.  And there certainly won’t be a NQ built punishment system in place.  Defenses are going to be costly, weaponry is going to be costly.  If it’s any other way, we have a dull game on our hands and it goes against the vision brought out in Kickstarter videos

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...