Jump to content
Anopheles

The right to be evil

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, vylqun said:

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

I've never seen a system where things like "killrights" couldn't be exploited in some way... ;)

Share this post


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

wouldn't help much - see eve. I had 10 or 15 KR active on me at some point 

 

the wardec, bounty and killright system of eve are the worst mechanics ever - 

 

 

 

If implemented right it will mean it becomes increasingly risky for pirates to show themselves in safezones.

 

Not saying these work well in EVE nor is that part of the discussion here.

Share this post


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

I've never seen a system where things like "killrights" couldn't be exploited in some way... ;)

and so any discussion about it is fuitile? let me guess, ballons and fantasies? ;)

Nearly every system is exploitable, but a killright system at least guarantess that the person it works against was in any way a "bad guy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vylqun said:

and so any discussion about it is fuitile?

Essentially, yes ! :D

 

The moment you start chipping away at the "safezone" protections  by implementing elaborate rulesets to govern its function, is the moment you open the door to exploitation, and that exploitation is easiest to achieve against those who don't fully understand the rules (i.e. new players).

 

If DU gets "killrights", it won't be long before some creative individual devises a way to trick new players into losing their safezone protections. That I don't doubt for a single moment.

 

The current implimentation of the safezone is simple and straightforward: there's nothing remotely complex that new players need to grasp. There's no exceptions or special circumstances or arcane rituals needed to make it do what it does flawlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want any kilright systen to be restrictive because I can see a legitimate use for it in game. 

 

Namely,  you are in a resource rich but personnel poor group that is in conflict with a larger group for whatever reason. 

 

You place 'letters of marque' against members of the larger organisation at an attractive rate and suddenly that group is involved with a lot of minor skirmishes and can't concentrate on you which gives you time to relocate your base or have a recruitment drive or what have you.

 

You could even do it Sub Rosa to weaken that group before a play.

 

Which has given me a brilliant idea...

Share this post


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

The current implimentation of the safezone is simple and straightforward: there's nothing remotely complex that new players need to grasp. There's no exceptions or special circumstances or arcane rituals needed to make it do what it does flawlessly.

simplicity is not always good tho, and tricking new players into killing someone? That requires a certain grade of stupidity on part of the new players if they think thats a good idea.

Share this post


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

simplicity is not always good tho, and tricking new players into killing someone? That requires a certain grade of stupidity on part of the new players if they think thats a good idea.

So you're suggesting that "killrights" are only awarded when you actually blow up someone's ship ?

 

Lol, sounds very "simplistic" to me...

 

Just go out in some cheap hunk of scrap that's already at 10% hull, and fire a popgun at the newb, he'll return fire and instantly blow you up. Now you can kill him anytime in the safezone !

So you can randomly fire on anyone and take them down to 10% hull, as long as you don't kill them they'll get no "killrights", so you'll still have 100% protection in the safezone ? 

 

That's why "killrights" inevitably become ever more complex systems, in attempts to plug the loopholes. But all "killrights" systems have one fundamental flaw: they cannot cover all aspects of the context of engagements, and that's why they're always exploitable.

Share this post


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

So you're suggesting that "killrights" are only awarded when you actually blow up someone's ship ?

Didn't i just say simple is not always the best? Why would i suggest something so stupid? Ofc killrights involve more than just killing someone, but killing someone is a definite part of it...

Please read what i write before answering, i don't even understand how you would have the idea that selfdefense would lead to a killright, thats plain stupid O_o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Nanoman said:

These debates were going on before I first came here, then I joined in here and there for a week or so in my naive attempts to contribute something. Now I'm bored with it but it seems like all the same people are still making all the same arguments back and forth ad nauseam.

In truth, these debates have been raging since the dawn of MMO's, lol

 

And they will continue endlessly for as long as there are games that try to combine fundamentally different play styles in one game world ! :D

 

UO realised the futility of it all decades ago, and just split the playerbase into their respective preferred play styles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, Nanoman said:

I never attacked those types of play. That's just the assumption that hardcore PvP-ers like yourself make, to defend their sacred positions against straw men and take all nuance out of the discussion. "Oh so you want everyone to just be safe everywhere and do everything without consequences"... duh no, nobody said that.

 

I beg to differ (and yes, I'm well aware that some quotes lack the general context - see end of post)

On 22.4.2018 at 7:34 PM, blazemonger said:
  •  
  • That some seem to think this means you can just gang up and attack/destroy anything or anyone who is doing anything outside the safezone is also not fine.

 

 

On 23.4.2018 at 12:33 AM, 0something0 said:

Well, strangled by one type of player that goes around harming all the other players, leaving with only that type of player and a shrinking playerbase

 

23 hours ago, supermega said:

Risk vs reward is not just about shooting each other in the face for stepping outside the safezone. Builders and Non-PVP players don't need the treat of being attacked as a risk, they already have many risk to deal with that don't involve combat.

 

Those 3 quotes alone suggest exactly that. It may be out of context a bit but in this discussion every word of explanation is needed (especially when dealing with different nationalities and non-native speakers). So everyone knows what is meant by such statements. the non-pvpers misinterpret what the pvpers write and vice versa.

 

And to me it's not spinning yarns when I cite official news, posts and pics, but that's just me.

 

Agreed, @NanoDot

Share this post


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

I know and maybe I'll be playing some of them too. I never attacked those types of play. That's just the assumption that hardcore PvP-ers like yourself make, to defend their sacred positions against straw men and take all nuance out of the discussion. "Oh so you want everyone to just be safe everywhere and do everything without consequences"... duh no, nobody said that.

 

I don't take sides in polarized discussions, in fact I usually avoid them like the plague because they just suck up energy and keep everyone stuck in a perpetual stalemate. So if you're pegging me as on or the other then that's your mistake, not mine. ;)

 

These debates were going on before I first came here, then I joined in here and there for a week or so in my naive attempts to contribute something. Now I'm bored with it but it seems like all the same people are still making all the same arguments back and forth ad nauseam.

 

And while all this is going on, most of the people that will be playing this game are probably the ones that you barely hear from. Because they are simply going about their lives until the game gets closer to release (which won't be any time soon), instead of spinning yarns out of thin air.

 

Anyway I'm sure NQ already has plenty of ideas that we don't know about yet. In fact we don't know much at all yet. So it seems to me that, for now, all we can really do that has any basis in reality whatsoever, is wait and see what the missing components of the game will look like.

 

I think it's interesting to note that after all these observations you've had you narrow everyone who is for the open pvp to hardcore PvPers. I don't think that's fair at all. I'm also pretty sure Lethys has a way more casual approach to PvP than others in ways. And i'm sure there's going to be people who enjoy the high risk environment because of the excitement of danger and the fact that there's plenty of reward for playing smart. Hell all it would take for a risk-averse player that still wants in on the resources outside the safezone would be to dig a hole in the ground and cover it up, chances would be small that a pack of bandits would run into you that way, even though those chancers were probably low from the start.

 

Also here we go again with the "we don't know anything so lets just wait and see". 

Stop attempting to shut down discussion because they don't go the way you like them, people are completely free to speculate, pitch ideas against each other and plan all they want. 

Share this post


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

I'm also pretty sure Lethys has a way more casual approach to PvP than others in ways

psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst - don't tell them I'm a carebear! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lethys said:

 

 

I beg to differ (and yes, I'm well aware that some quotes lack the general context - see end of post)

 

 

 

Those 3 quotes alone suggest exactly that. It may be out of context a bit but in this discussion every word of explanation is needed (especially when dealing with different nationalities and non-native speakers). 

The three quotes you pointed out were all saying very specifically that it doesn’t need to be 100% one way or the other.  You quoted people saying they are against 100% pvp as an example of people being 100% against pvp.  The person you responded to was talking about how there is granularity that can be taken into account and it doesn’t have to be a for/against debate.

 

 I just wanted to point out the fallacy of the all or nothing context of your response to the idea of moderation.  

 

In some ways I can agree with nanoman and some others here.  I think that 100% protection inside the bubbles doesn’t necessarily mean that we need 0% protection outside.  If that is the case anyone who wants to avoid pvp only gets to experience a very small (<1%) percentage of the game.  I’m hoping there will be some protections outside of safe zones and tcu, and am waiting for more information from NQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NanoDot said:

Essentially, yes ! :D

 

The moment you start chipping away at the "safezone" protections  by implementing elaborate rulesets to govern its function, is the moment you open the door to exploitation, and that exploitation is easiest to achieve against those who don't fully understand the rules (i.e. new players)..

We're not talking about adding elaborate rulesets. We are talking very specifically about not giving those who choose to aggress unprovoked unlimited access and/or safety in safezones. If you choose to be an outlaw or pirate there should be consequences. It can't be that placing youself outside of the community or civilisation you can just use that same community to hide.

 

Share this post


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

The three quotes you pointed out were all saying very specifically that it doesn’t need to be 100% one way or the other.  You quoted people saying they are against 100% pvp as an example of people being 100% against pvp.  The person you responded to was talking about how there is granularity that can be taken into account and it doesn’t have to be a for/against debate.

 

 I just wanted to point out the fallacy of the all or nothing context of your response to the idea of moderation.  

 

In some ways I can agree with nanoman and some others here.  I think that 100% protection inside the bubbles doesn’t necessarily mean that we need 0% protection outside.  If that is the case anyone who wants to avoid pvp only gets to experience a very small (<1%) percentage of the game.  I’m hoping there will be some protections outside of safe zones and tcu, and am waiting for more information from NQ.

Well to me the Post from supermega does say indeed that He doesn't want FFA PvP. But hey, that's just me.

 

And yes, there are means to protect yourself in UA. See the devblog. We're talking since 2,5 years now about protection bubbles. 

Share this post


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

Well to me the Post from supermega does say indeed that He doesn't want FFA PvP. But hey, that's just me.

 

And yes, there are means to protect yourself in UA. See the devblog. We're talking since 2,5 years now about protection bubbles. 

I never said that.... so please don't twist my words to fit you're narrative....

also, Can you please COPY AND PASTE the quote where I said the things you claim, regarding FFA PVP!!!

 

I spoke to what the developers have said about the the kind of game they are making, they are the one's who imply that DU will not be a FFA PVP. I personally never even explicitly stated what type of game I personally want or don't want. An my responses to you were purely a rebuttal to you're statements, do you know what a rebuttal is? Please stop trying to twist what people say, and just use you're own words to make an argument.

 

@Felonu you are correct, thanks for clarifying that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having read through most of this thread at this point it seems to me that two sides have kind of developed. Those who think pvp is core to the game, one of the primary features of the game and those who dont. I honestly cannot understand the position of those who think PvP is not core to the game or how you could think that NQ has a position that pvp is a small, non core feature. In my eyes the highest level of effort for the devs in this game will be implementing combat(exclusively pvp), and how that implementation impacts everything else(ship building, territories etc).

 

This entire thread is about the impacts of the Full loot, open pvp system and what should be safe or not safe. If you have the opinion that PvP is not a core part of the game you should be working hard to have NQ completely rethink its position on PvP. We should implement pvp areas not safe areas etc. Right now the amount of work the devs will have to put in to balance the currently defined PvP, the combat systems around it and the rules to control it (protection bubbles etc) is HUGE. If pvp is implemented poorly it will probably be one of the primary reasons this game will fail. They should not be investing that amount of time and energy in a minor, non core system. Nor risk destroying the core pve gameplay for the non core pvp, which is likely if pvp is not balanced properly. The fact that they have chosen a pvp system that has already scared off a large portion of my PvE oriented friends should be proof enough that NQ views pvp as the highest importance. Why would they alienate the players they want(pve) for the players that aren't the primary purpose of the game(pvp)?

 

If it is accepted that a full loot very open pvp system inherently means pvp is a core game mechanic then i think outside the safezone should be the wild west. No rules or very few. gank harass or do w/e. Inside the safe zone should be safe with the exception of someone who just attacked another player. This is just to prevent people from popping out of a safe area then popping back in over and over. The safe zones should be the areas that those with little interest in pvp have. Or a way to 100% escape ganking/harassing. That area shouldnt be compromised but outside of that anything goes. 

 

If you do not think pvp is a core gameplay mechanic i would advise starting to voice that directly to NQ. if there really is a silent majority of non forum goers that do not view pvp as core to the game as implied in some previous posts, this needs to be translated to the devs so they can remove open pvp and go to a lower effort pvp system the reflects its place as non core gameplay.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man they really need to get us some more server uptime before things get any more lord of the flies around here. :P

 

There are people who simply want an endless stream of mostly defenseless new players to execute just for the giggles.  There are also people who want to roam the universe in complete safety without anyone bothering them at all.  And I think there are probably other games out there better suited to both those groups.

 

PVP is a huge part of this game, especially because there is no PVE.  But building is also a huge part of the game, because there is simply no other building game even close to DU out there.  

 

If we want this game to be a success everyone is going to have to consider how something that might enhance their own experience, might also totally ruin someone else's.

 

I might like to be able to build anywhere I want without being bothered by PVP.  But I am willing to give that up to make the game better overall.

 

People should also consider that the safezones are simply safezones.  And if PVPers choose to use them to avoid PVP.  Then those people just aren't playing anymore and you have to move on.  It's a compromise.

 

I promise you there is some amazing mountain top somewhere on some planet that I would like to build on.  But I may have to choose not too because I don't want to have to defend it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ostris said:

The fact that they have chosen a pvp system that has already scared off a large portion of my PvE oriented friends should be proof enough that NQ views pvp as the highest importance. Why would they alienate the players they want(pve) for the players that aren't the primary purpose of the game(pvp)?

Quick note: I don't think this is a fair statement. They said building and pvping is equally important and neither should shun the other. Your friends seem to have been scared off by the mere presence of open world pvp. This does NOT however mean that NQ view pvp as the highest of importance nor that they are alienating players for it. If they had made the game in a way that would have pleased your pve friends a ton of pvp-audiences would have been alienated instead. Think of that for a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ostris said:

having read through most of this thread at this point it seems to me that two sides have kind of developed. Those who think pvp is core to the game, one of the primary features of the game and those who dont. I honestly cannot understand the position of those who think PvP is not core to the game or how you could think that NQ has a position that pvp is a small, non core feature. In my eyes the highest level of effort for the devs in this game will be implementing combat(exclusively pvp), and how that implementation impacts everything else(ship building, territories etc).

 

This entire thread is about the impacts of the Full loot, open pvp system and what should be safe or not safe. If you have the opinion that PvP is not a core part of the game you should be working hard to have NQ completely rethink its position on PvP. We should implement pvp areas not safe areas etc. Right now the amount of work the devs will have to put in to balance the currently defined PvP, the combat systems around it and the rules to control it (protection bubbles etc) is HUGE. If pvp is implemented poorly it will probably be one of the primary reasons this game will fail. They should not be investing that amount of time and energy in a minor, non core system. Nor risk destroying the core pve gameplay for the non core pvp, which is likely if pvp is not balanced properly. The fact that they have chosen a pvp system that has already scared off a large portion of my PvE oriented friends should be proof enough that NQ views pvp as the highest importance. Why would they alienate the players they want(pve) for the players that aren't the primary purpose of the game(pvp)?

 

-snip for brevity-

There have been multiple posts (most of the posts you seem to be taking as saying PVP is a small part of the game) saying that having a balance is important.  I see no posts saying they want safety everywhere.  I do agree with you that some people seem to think PvP is less important than PvE, and NQ says that isn't right.  I kinda get the impression you think the opposite, and that would be wrong too.   According to NQ there is a balance between PVP, and PVE that has to exist in the game.  This balance is the common debate on this subject.  You talk about bringing PvP into the safezones, and some people are talking about safety measures being brought outside of them.  I believe this is a valid debate, and if your PvE focused friends left then it means the balance may not be in the proper place for them.  I personally find it more worthwhile to stick around and make my voice heard on where I would like to see the balance, and see where NQ actually goes with the balance before making any hard decisions.

 

3 hours ago, Lethys said:

Well to me the Post from supermega does say indeed that He doesn't want FFA PvP. But hey, that's just me.

 

And yes, there are means to protect yourself in UA. See the devblog. We're talking since 2,5 years now about protection bubbles. 

I specifically called out protections outside of safezones and TCUs.  It is the belief of some that protection bubbles will only exist on TCUs since they released the information about those.  I don't believe that was what they meant, but I think that is the point of discussions like this.  Personally I think that if protection bubbles can be applied to ships and if they are not too expensive they would help the PvP/PvE balance quite a bit.  I know there has to be limits on it, though, so that the PvP leaning customers are served properly also.  I want to wait on NQ's ideas on the subject before getting too into the specifics though.

Share this post


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

Quick note: I don't think this is a fair statement. They said building and pvping is equally important and neither should shun the other. Your friends seem to have been scared off by the mere presence of open world pvp. This does NOT however mean that NQ view pvp as the highest of importance nor that they are alienating players for it. If they had made the game in a way that would have pleased your pve friends a ton of pvp-audiences would have been alienated instead. Think of that for a second.

Sorry i may have misspoke when i said the highest importance, i was meaning to say of a high level of importance. not saying its more important then building but that its close or as important.

 

As far as the second part im not sure i understand your statement. In my eyes NQ is going with the most aggressive and divisive form a pvp and it without a doubt will alienate very hardcore PvE players. You seem to be implying that there is an option to not alienate a playerbase, or at least that how im reading it? Which is kinda the point im trying to make. I dont think you can do that. If you want pvp as core gameplay with a hardcore pvp full loot system, embrace that and accept the griefing and piracy etc that comes with it. Or if pvp isnt a cornerstone of the game move to something thats a little less hardcore and appeals to more pve players. Don't try to make it "safe" full loot pvp. Could you clarify a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important for NQ to say that DU isn't a "PVE" game.  So people understand that there won't be monsters or raids to beat or whatever.

 

But in some ways I feel like DU is actually even more PVE then those games.  By the literal definition of the words at least.

 

I mean there will definitely be an environment.  And it's probably not going to make things easy for us.  But PVP is a part of that.  Not something separate. 

 

It's not a PVE game in the sense that the point of the game is to beat the environment.  And it's not a PVP game in the sense that the point of the game is to kill other players.

 

It's just a game.  You do whatever you want.  

 

Edit: It may be impossible not to alienate the type of PVE and PVP players who need a clearly defined and usually easy to attain goal to go for.  But I don't think  that is alienating PVP or PVE players.  It's just alienating people who aren't ready for a different type of game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"DU whatever you want" is quite literally why I backed this game.  Limitless freedom is why I backed this game.

 

Protection bubbles being implemented on constructs poses a few hurtles that need to be thought about, but I'm sure NQ will figure a good balance out.  It seems like it would be possible to implement bubbles that work on static constructs.  This would also allow you to create "garages" for your dynamic constructs, I'd imagine.  Perhaps the timer on these should be different than those on a TCU bubble... but who knows :P

 

However, what happens when someone places a TCU down on a tile that contains a static construct + bubble?  Does the TCU owner automatically gain acquisition?  It would sure seem so, as they gain RDMS rights of the area.  There are issues involved, is all I'm saying.

Share this post


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

"DU whatever you want" is quite literally why I backed this game.  Limitless freedom is why I backed this game.

 

Protection bubbles being implemented on constructs poses a few hurtles that need to be thought about, but I'm sure NQ will figure a good balance out.  It seems like it would be possible to implement bubbles that work on static constructs.  This would also allow you to create "garages" for your dynamic constructs, I'd imagine.  Perhaps the timer on these should be different than those on a TCU bubble... but who knows :P

 

However, what happens when someone places a TCU down on a tile that contains a static construct + bubble?  Does the TCU owner automatically gain acquisition?  It would sure seem so, as they gain RDMS rights of the area.  There are issues involved, is all I'm saying.

I agree with you that there are hurdles and that NQ will find a good balance.  As far as laying a TCU down, I don't think it would work that way.  I would assume it would be the same as someone flying a dynamic construct into an area - The area owner can allow/disallow new constructs from being added, but the original owner still has ownership of his construct as long as it's there.  The TCU owner would be able to destroy the construct however because they have rights to do so in their own territory.

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...