Jump to content

The right to be evil


Anopheles

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Lethys said:

Break others rights? Which one's? That Made me curious.

It was in general terms, as he wrote "the right to be evil".

 

And I agree, there's no a question of rights, when you have different zones, to please every styles of player.

 

The sense of my message pointed to other things, issues of conscience or awareness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Anopheles said:

I have awareness that this is a game and a realm of play.   I'm quite capable of using the correct register of behaviour in play and in real life, thanks.

No doubt about it. I hope you didn't take personal my point of view. I was only sugesting you to consider something.

I'm not concerned with your behaviour nor anybody else's, anyway. Have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lethy

 

I never said, or insinuated that Dual Universe was a Building only game!!! so whats you're problem? My statement was purely a rebuttal to you're pvp driven arguments. I've always said, in many posts, that this game is a civilization building mmo, as stated on the website and by the developers.

 

I'm not sure what you're problem is, seems like your trying to argue for the sake of arguing. Anyway, good day to you sir.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, supermega said:

@lethy

 

I never said, or insinuated that Dual Universe was a Building only game!!! so whats you're problem? My statement was purely a rebuttal to you're pvp driven arguments. I've always said, in many posts, that this game is a civilization building mmo, as stated on the website and by the developers.

 

I'm not sure what you're problem is, seems like your trying to argue for the sake of arguing. Anyway, good day to you sir.

 

 

And i never said you did that - i only pointed out the various quotes from NQ themselves that everything is equally important to them (and proved you wrong with "PvP IS a small Part").

 

That doesn't mean that everything will be equally important to players, it depends what we do with that sandbox. 

 

ASA and MSA (read the devblog) are NQs answer to the fears of players that they can't build and do stuff in peace. 

You can do everything you want there without being shot. If you want to See and use the "cool" stuff (rare resources) - Go outside. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to be evil in-game, be evil. As long as the EULA is not broken then go ahead.

 

However.

 

Actions have consequences. That ship you ganked might have a nation of allies that will happily return the favour on you and yours. You might be the target of a bounty or three. Or a completely random person might pick up the distress call and run you through. This is called emergent gameplay. Expect reactions.

 

And for that non-PvPer travelling alone?

Actions have consequences. You could have done a little research and been warned that there was pirate activity on that route and taken a different route. You could have hired some mercenaries to keep you safe(r). No guarantees though, but the reward of those precious minerals are worth the risk, right?

 

Personally, I would like the chat button to be as easy, if not easier, to press as than the fire button. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the saying - there are sheep (just wanna do their thing in peace, and not have to do a thing to protect themselves) there are wolves (just wanna shoot everything in sight - only rule is what a man can do and what a man can't do savvy) there are sheep dogs (dangerous people that have fun protecting the weak and innocent and hunting wolves)

Looks like we have plenty of sheep and wolves already, if we get enough sheep dogs things can be well balanced without needing too many silly artificial rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only one thing that will stop DU from becoming "Rust in Space", and that's very careful game design.

 

That does not imply "rules to prevent PVP", but rather mechanics that make it less attractive as a primary game activity.

 

Let's face it, if destruction is easier, cheaper and more fun than building, we'll very quickly establish a dominant playstyle in DU.

 

Very few players are going to last long in DU if they never leave the arkship safezone. There are only basic resources there, and it represents... maybe 1% of DU's entire game world ? The MSA's have no resources at all, so what will anyone do all day if they don't leave that safezone ?

 

I have no idea what NQ have planned with regards to keeping DU balanced, but a handful of safezones is certainly not going to cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

I have no idea what NQ have planned with regards to keeping DU balanced, but a handful of safezones is certainly not going to cut it.

Don't know that yet. I think you and many others are overestimating both the frequency and reason for offensive gameplay. Quite honestly people are probably more than well equipped to defend themselves if they are not careless, they even mentioned potential shield domes players could create to get a response timer to react.

Either way i heavily disagree with the sentiment some portray that NQ needs to create a scenario where people can be wherever and not partake in the open PvP. Get a crew, build a hidden base, hire mercs, store your valuables inside the safezone or on a moon. The possibilities are endless to avoid losing your "hard earned belongings". You may want to take an extra look at what player driven means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nanoman said:

What I don't get is why people find it so difficult to grasp the difference between pvp play and being an abusive jerk. And why they get up in arms about it to defend their positions when you simply argue in favor of a healthy conducive game environment

No one ever defended that gameplay style. Problem is though: to you an "abusive jerk" is something completely different than to me. 

 

Griefing in the sense of repeatedly and steadily killing, stalking, annoying and destroying others is Not okay, and No one wants that.

Bounty hunting (thus stalking, hunting and killing) a few times, open PvP, piracy, scamming, awoxing, lying, ... - is ok and adds to gameplay.

 

I'm not sure how they wanna do it, but NQ wants to "discourage" griefing and let the guy face heavy consequences (some devblog me thinks), but they don't want to stop it completely. Plus ppl have to do something about such ppl themselves too. Like kurock already said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One mechanic I could see work would be a mix of the bounty, killright and wardec system from EVE.

 

If a person aggresses you without an existing  war between your org and his (including either not being in one), getting killed or having your poperty destroyed will give you a killright on the aggressor's life. This killright would be active anywhere, includung in safezones.

 

You can either return the favour where the opposing party can't aggress in safezones unless aggressed first or you can sell the killright for a bounty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

If a person aggresses you without an existing  war between your org and his (including either not being in one), getting killed or having your poperty destroyed will give you a killright on the aggressor's life. This killright would be active anywhere, includung in safezones.

that would be ok i guess, the question is if that should always happen or only if you someow identify the attacker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "griefer" is a bit subjective. To some it simply means a pirate because they cause you grief by taking your stuff, right? I would rather go with what NQ have defined in their EULA for what defines a griefer. Intentionally killing the same player over and over again is an example, though they will still need to look at it on a case by case basis. Another is having in-game unpleasantries spill over to the real world. Don't do it. This is how people get banned.

 

Point is, some players will be villains. To have good heroes you need great villains. And honestly, if a pirate robs you in such style that you are left amazed, that is the start of a legend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

This killright would be active anywhere, includung in safezones.

wouldn't help much - see eve. I had 10 or 15 KR active on me at some point and couldn't care less about it. I have no problem with some KR being active even in safezones - as that's only a one time thing and easily avoidable.

 

the wardec, bounty and killright system of eve are the worst mechanics ever - borken af at first and then just utterly useless. there are no bountyhunters in eve because it's meaningless.

 

bounty hunting should be rewarding, the hunt should mean something and it should be exciting for people so they actually do it. Every system can be abused and betrayed, if not then it's most likely just useless (as in eve).

I'm for a complete player run bounty system: give us the tools to do it (contracts at the level of RDMS in order to set everything up correctly) and then let players run the businiess. Make yourself a name as the best BH. Make yourself credible and increase your reputation for being fair and good at what you do while never betraying anyone. Or betray them in the end....up to you - emergent gameplay.

 

the wardec system of eve is rly bad too and mostly used only by gankers to wardec noobs. I don't really see the benefit of such a system in DU - the safezones are ALWAYS safe and outside you can attack them anyway. Rules are made by players anyway, there's no sec-hit or anything

It's only good for visibility/propaganda/official means to "declare war on xyz" - that's it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to "change the game", all I'm trying to do is to make sure that prospective DU players understand what they're getting into.

 

DU is a FFA-PVP game with loss of all items on death. If you're not comfortable with that, don't play.

 

NQ seem to have some idyllic notion that DU can support all playstyles, but that is a pipe-dream at this point. And it will remain a dream unless they have some highly original game design ideas that have yet to be revealed...

 

If you give players guns and buckets as tools, those that pick up the guns first will also eventually own all the buckets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lethys said:

I'm for a complete player run bounty system: give us the tools to do it (contracts at the level of RDMS in order to set everything up correctly) and then let players run the businiess. Make yourself a name as the best BH. Make yourself credible and increase your reputation for being fair and good at what you do while never betraying anyone. Or betray them in the end....up to you - emergent gameplay.

 

but there still should be the possiblity to get revenge in secure zones, be it personally or with a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vylqun said:

but there still should be the possiblity to get revenge in secure zones, be it personally or with a contract.

yeah I'm fine with that for the character in the game (because that's not really a big deal for those who are hunted) - but as soon as you potentially could attack buildings/constructs in the safezone it will be abused

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lethys said:

buildings/constructs in the safezone it will be abused

I would go with not being able to attack static constructs, but for dynamic constructs they should be attackable, else it wouldn't make sense at all, because nearly no one will walk if they can fly^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vylqun said:

I would go with not being able to attack static constructs, but for dynamic constructs they should be attackable, else it wouldn't make sense at all, because nearly no one will walk if they can fly^^

if that would be implemented, fly it to your base in the safezone, close doors..... doesn't really impact the game at all, only lets you kill careless ppl - which they probably aren't because they got that killright for a reason...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lethys said:

if that would be implemented, fly it to your base in the safezone, close doors..... doesn't really impact the game at all, only lets you kill careless ppl - which they probably aren't because they got that killright for a reason...

maybe, but there still is a chance, and dedicated headhunters can camp their bases to wait till they leave or try to construct stuff. Otherwise its absolutely impossible to do anything to them as long as they are in those zones. turtling in a base or just being restricted to the arkship and sanctuary moons is a big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vylqun said:

maybe, but there still is a chance, and dedicated headhunters can camp their bases to wait till they leave or try to construct stuff, but otherwise its absolutely imopssible to do anything to them as long as they are in those zones. turtling in a base or just being restricted to the arkship and sanctuary moons is a big difference.

true - good point.

Yeah, as said: that's all perfectly fine. Such players won't be in the safezones anyway, have alts there or at least friends who can buy stuff for them.

But that's exactly what this whole thing is about: consequences. A pirate might face consequences - he can't enter the safezone anymore with his valuable gear because he might be shot. He has to find other ways to get or sell his stuff -> emergent gameplay. He might even be expelled from the biggest (player run!) market there and the intel- departments of orgs might find his alts too. That's why DU is so interesting to me - because it's all player driven and you have to live with the consequences of your actions.

 

Same thing goes for a builder/trader too: face the consequences of going into UAs. Hire ppl, find a group, hide, build a stealthy ship, gather intel,... or just go there and test your luck. Whatever you do - it's fine. But live with the consequences.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, vylqun said:

but there still should be the possiblity to get revenge in secure zones, be it personally or with a contract.

Then the "safezone" will become meaningless, unless there's a whole slew of artificial game rules to regulate the placing of bounties.

 

If bounties can be placed freely and then be pursued in the safezone, people will be placing bounties on random n00bs just for the fun of harvesting tears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NanoDot said:

Then the "safezone" will become meaningless, unless there's a whole slew of artificial game rules to regulate the placing of bounties.

 

If bounties can be placed freely and then be pursued in the safezone, people will be placing bounties on random n00bs just for the fun of harvesting tears.

then you didnt really understand the context of the last few posts, it was related to blazemongers suggestion about killrights.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...