Jump to content
Anopheles

The right to be evil

Recommended Posts

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
37 minutes ago, Felonu said:

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.

So i guess im just reading a lot of these comments different then you. I see several comments about how pvp is a small part of the game/not the purpose of the game:

 

@supermega: "Pvp is one small aspect of the the game"

EDIT: Clarified below by supermega

 

and to a lesser extent @blazemonger " I expect and believe DU will focus around community, building and expansion. With that comes the need to have the ability to go to war when you have to. War is not a goal in DU, it is a tool/a means to an end."

 

And my point isn't really if DU should or should not be pvp focused. My post is about the amount of pvp focus should reflect the level of effort to implement. Since NQ has currently chosen what amounts to one of the hardest and most divisive forms of pvp, the amount of time in game spent on it should be very high, since the time to implement is very high. If NQ wants the game to be much more about building or community as compared to pvp, it might be better to move off such a hardcore pvp system. This would reduce level of effort to implement and better reflect the amount of time they want people to spend on pvp in the game. I don't care which system they implement, i do want some form of pvp. Full loot open pvp I'm ok with and could be fun. More limited war dec and pvp zone style pvp would probably be fun too. NQ just needs to make sure what they choose matches with how they want the player base spending its time.

 

I think pvp should be equal with pve based on level of effort to implement the current system as we know it.

Share this post


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

This entire thread is about the impacts of the Full loot, open pvp system and what should be safe or not safe.

 

Actually, it's not which is why the pro-PVP arguments here are mostly irrelevant.

 

The topic here is that one should be allowed to choose a path of 'evil' in how he or she decides to develop and action his/her character. Frankly, there is nothing to counter that argument as it is completely valid.

 

The point is that by choosing such a path you would need to face and expect consequences where I offered a possible option to balance that game play. You can't and NQ should not prevent or forbid anyone from choosing a certain play style while they should at the same time offer a counter or balance for the receiving end. It can't be that anyone choosing to pirate, rob and steal can get away with anything just because they can. There need to be consequences such as possibly putting risk against it like being attackable in safezones.

 

What's been coming up here is risk vs reward, sure you need to take risk to get the rare stuff but at the same time, a pirate will need to accept the risk of losing free and safe access to markets and facilities in safe zones when choosing the life in game he/she does.

 

How the PVP action/mechanic/method itself is implemented is mostly irrelevant to all this. That PVP should be full loot (related to what you carry on/with you) is not up for debate here and seem pretty much what most want as it makes sense. PVP should never be safe, for none of the parties involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ostris I think I need to clarify my thought process....

 

I wasn't implying that PVP is less important. What I meant is DU has many features/ things you can do, and together all those features together form this complex sandbox game. No feature is more important then the other. My impression is that Novaquark intends for there to be a sort of symbiotic relationship between the features/play styles, where they effect each other in an dynamic an organic way. Hence the use of emergent gameplay to describe DU.

 

In Physics, a Complex Machine, is a combination of Simple machines.... PVP being like one of those simple machines, that makes up the Complex Machine that is DU...  thats was my thought process when I typed that. Not sure if that makes sense? but, apologies on my part lol. 

Share this post


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

 

Actually, it's not which is why the pro-PVP arguments here are mostly irrelevant.

 

The topic here is that one should be allowed to choose a path of 'evil' in how he or she decides to develop and action his/her character. Frankly, there is nothing to counter that argument as it is completely valid.

 

The point is that by choosing such a path you would need to face and expect consequences where I offered a possible option to balance that game play. You can't and NQ should not prevent or forbid anyone from choosing a certain play style while they should at the same time offer a counter or balance for the receiving end. It can't be that anyone choosing to pirate, rob and steal can get away with anything just because they can. There need to be consequences such as possibly putting risk against it like being attackable in safezones.

 

What's been coming up here is risk vs reward, sure you need to take risk to get the rare stuff but at the same time, a pirate will need to accept the risk of losing free and safe access to markets and facilities in safe zones when choosing the life in game he/she does.

 

How the PVP action/mechanic/method itself is implemented is mostly irrelevant to all this. That PVP should be full loot (related to what you carry on/with you) is not up for debate here and seem pretty much what most want as it makes sense. PVP should never be safe, for none of the parties involved.

I guess i just feel like the pirates are already taking on risk and don't need gameplay mechanics to have more. They are attacking ships in pvp space so they in turn can be attacked and destroyed. They risk the same thing as miners and transport ships. If you put more restrictions on piracy i would argue maybe the open full loot style pvp that greatly rewards piracy like this is the problem. especially when it is very difficult to implement these systems in a satisfactory way to the player base.

Share this post


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

@ostris I think I need to clarify my thought process....

 

I wasn't implying that PVP is less important. What I meant is DU has many features/ things you can do, and together all those features together form this complex sandbox game. No feature is more important then the other. My impression is that Novaquark intends for there to be a sort of symbiotic relationship between the features/play styles, where they effect each other in an dynamic an organic way. Hence the use of emergent gameplay to describe DU.

 

In Physics, a Complex Machine, is a combination of Simple machines.... PVP being like on of those simple machines, that makes up the Complex Machine that is DU...  thats was my thought process when I typed that. Not sure if that makes sense? but, apologizes on my part lol. 

I understand. ill edit the post.

Share this post


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

They are attacking ships in pvp space so they in turn can be attacked and destroyed. 

That is not a valid argument at all IMO. And I am making a distinction here between those who chose 'to be evil' and hunt/attack others without a reason but that they can. If there is conflict between organisations that is a completely different story. And it's not 'PVP space'. This is a good example of how I feel many seem to not grasp the concept here. DU is not about 'safe space and PVP space', it is not about I can't kill you there but I can here. I maintain the position DU is not about PVP, it is about using PVP elements to settle disputes when they can't be talked through and resolved without. That that will mean that some will choose to place themselves outside of society/community and go be pirates is fine, there will need to be counter to that though.

 

Or are you saying I can just go out and shoot people because I have a gun without any form of consequence as long as I get away clean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if anybody has an issue with me snipping parts.  I'm trying to keep in the context of everything I'm responding to, but don't want my posts to be massive.

 

7 minutes ago, ostris said:

So i guess im just reading a lot of these comments different then you. I see several comments about how pvp is a small part of the game/not the purpose of the game:

-snip-

Those were actually the posts I was talking about when I agreed that some people might be saying PvP was less important.  I disagree with that stance also.

 

 

10 minutes ago, ostris said:

And my point isn't really if DU should or should not be pvp focused. My post is about the amount of pvp focus should reflect the level of effort to implement. Since NQ has currently chosen what amounts to one of the hardest and most divisive forms of pvp, the amount of time in game spent on it should be very high, since the time to implement is very high. If NQ wants the game to be much more about building or community as compared to pvp, it might be better to move off such a hardcore pvp system.

-snip-

I don't consider the information they've given so far to be indicative of a "hard-core" PvP style.  I think full loot drop/partial looting, with safe money/dacs, and with safe storage of goods not to be that hardcore.  Then you add in protection bubbles on some stuff, and entire safe moons, and you have a system that can be balanced and fun for a large population of PvP and non-PvP oriented players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in the end everyone agrees to safezones and protection bubbles. Which we know now for a year and a half?

Only 4 pages, we're getting better at least....

Don't really know that why some made a fuss about it then

Share this post


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

Sorry if anybody has an issue with me snipping parts.  I'm trying to keep in the context of everything I'm responding to, but don't want my posts to be massive.

 

Those were actually the posts I was talking about when I agreed that some people might be saying PvP was less important.  I disagree with that stance also.

 

 

I don't consider the information they've given so far to be indicative of a "hard-core" PvP style.  I think full loot drop/partial looting, with safe money/dacs, and with safe storage of goods not to be that hardcore.  Then you add in protection bubbles on some stuff, and entire safe moons, and you have a system that can be balanced and fun for a large population of PvP and non-PvP oriented players.

Hmm yeah i guess we just have different standards. I consider any game in which i can kill you and take your hard earned stuff as, for lack of a better term, in the top 10% of hardcore pvp. Most games like wow you get nothing and many of the games that have full loot style pvp, have pvp and pve servers(ark/rust). A game that if you want to play required you to accept this type of pvp in my eyes in pretty hardcore. But with your standards of hardcore i can agree with what your saying.

Share this post


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

That is not a valid argument at all IMO. And I am making a distinction here between those who chose 'to be evil' and hunt/attack others without a reason but that they can. If there is conflict between organisations that is a completely different story.

 

Or are you saying I can just go out and shoot people because I have a gun without any form of consequence as long as I get away clean?

So with some understood elements such as the pirate being in a better ship, had more numbers and is otherwise capable of winning the fight and beating guards etc then yes. At least if NQ wants to implement the current system with our limited understanding of pvp.

Share this post


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

So in the end everyone agrees to safezones and protection bubbles. Which we know now for a year and a half?

Only 4 pages, we're getting better at least....

Don't really know that why some made a fuss about it then

The OP was a very vague start of a discussion about restrictions placed on what people can do outside of safe zones.  The rest of the conversation was what generally ends up getting brought up about PvP vs non-PvP play styles.  The discussion is still valuable to a point about what should be protect-able, how those protections should be implemented, and where they should be able to be implemented.  All types of protection are a restriction of peoples ability to do whatever they want, and so there is a struggle of different protections vs the limitations those protections enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely.  Protection mechanics are far from fleshed out, but NQ also has an extremely long time to think about those mechanics.  We don't even have combat in the game yet.

 

"Protection bubbles" outside of TCUs may not have the same mechanics as a TCU bubble.  You may be limited to standard shields with x power and y recharge.  Perhaps we will be able to have an alert system that notifies if a shield is below a certain percentage chosen by the owner.

 

I personally don't think "bubbles" should be used on anything outside of TCUs.  If they were, we'd be seeing a bunch of random static constructs that are tedious to get rid of.  If you want long-term and time-gated protection, you should save for a TCU and bubble.

 

What I WOULD like to see is a variety of different TCU and bubble sizes.  Not sure if NQ has alluded to any of that yet, however.  It's basically the same thing as what you're asking for, but a user has to own the land.

Share this post


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

So in the end everyone agrees to safezones and protection bubbles. Which we know now for a year and a half?

Only 4 pages, we're getting better at least....

This was never up for debate nor was there disagreement on this. It's also not the topic the OP raised.

Share this post


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

The OP was a very vague start of a discussion about restrictions placed on what people can do outside of safe zones.  The rest of the conversation was what generally ends up getting brought up about PvP vs non-PvP play styles.  The discussion is still valuable to a point about what should be protect-able, how those protections should be implemented, and where they should be able to be implemented.  All types of protection are a restriction of peoples ability to do whatever they want, and so their is a struggle of different protections vs the limitations those protections enforce.

That discussion only started recently, the first pages weren't about that.

 

And yes that's a viable discussion. To me a invulnerable shield for constructs (same as TCU shield) doesn't make sense and would be hard to balance well. Bases with shields would be mandatory anyway If there aren't any other means (hide/stealth mechanic). So your ship would be safe for at least 24-48h anyway. Depending on the reward Out in UA, that would be enough protection imho. If it's only slightly more than in a safezone then noone would do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me stress again that to me pvp and abuse are two different things. Nothing I've ever said on this forum is against pvp. I haven't even argued for more rules or protection against pvp. Personally I've only argued for balanced game mechanics that doesn't lend itself to abuse and offers due protection/remedy against abuse.

 

One example might be the fact that DU as a whole will be slower paced than other games, there is no instant gratification and reaching your goals takes time and work. JC mentions this in one of his many interviews. If done right, it could already make a difference in that it lends itself less to abuse. At least in theory.

 

One way of distinguishing pvp from abuse might be to say that pvp fits the narrative of the game's fictional universe, whereas abuse does not. If you're in the mood for torturing or murdering noobs just because you think it's funny or because you had a bad day, and all you need is an excuse (if that), then to me that's a clear case of abuse and has nothing to do with genuine pvp gameplay.

 

A true pirate, spy or conman, for example, would scoff at that kind of behavior, imo. They are part of the narrative, and they play their respective roles because they like the play style, the intricacies of their particular gameplay, the thrill of victory, the sense of achievement, etc. It's an art and a science, it's ones chosen field, and the game is meant to support that. That's very different from someone who just likes to ruin other people's game experience, which by definition no game is ever meant to support.

 

Is it subjective? Yes, of course. But is the whole thing one big grey area? No, of course not. I would even go so far as to say that the abusive type of play is pathological. Nobody who is right in the head enjoys abusing other people, period. And the pirate, spy or conman are not about that at all. Likewise, pvp should not be about that, at all, period.

 

You might think that it goes without saying that nobody wants abuse, and that the game mechanics shouldn't lend itself to it. It's an easy thing to pay lip service to. But other games mentioned here such as Ark or Rust apparently fail spectacularly at it. If abuse wasn't the closer to the norm then we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

Share this post


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

This was never up for debate now was there disagreement on this. It's also not the topic the OP raised.

Oh some comments/posts miss certain words, rn this was up for debate because of that (cause ppl can't read minds. Yet)

Share this post


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

The OP was a very vague start of a discussion about restrictions placed on what people can do outside of safe zones.

 

Don't think he was vague at all. His point is that he feels he should be able to conduct his business as he sees fit outside the safezones, be it as a pirate, a trader, a warlord or as 'the genius evil one ..'

 

I do not think there is much to argue about in that at all as NQ has clearly said that that would be possible, you only need to look up the frontpage of the website. What the argument is IMO is whether aggression outside of war should be left un-countered and 'so whatever man, kill whoever and feel free to then walk into a safezone and laugh at all the people buying new ships there'. I for one feel there needs to be a balance there. How to get hat done is really not easy and may take some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

Don't think he was vague at all. His point is that he feels he should be able to conduct his business as he sees fit outside the safezones, be it as a pirate, a trader, a warlord or as 'the genius evil one ..'

 

I do not think there is much to argue about in that at all as NQ has clearly said that that would be possible, you only need to look up the frontpage of the website. What the argument is IMO is whether aggression outside of war should be left un-countered and 'so whatever man, kill whoever and feel free to then walk into a safezone and laugh at all the people buying new ships there'. I for one feel there needs to be a balance there. How to get hat done is really not easy and may take some time.

This to me is the bridge to what OP said and what many have been discussing. In my eyes its not just CAN you be evil. It's does the game abnormally punish or reward you for for being evil. If you can be evil but every time you kill an innocent ship your avatar is frozen for 7 days i really doubt you would see much pvp, conversely if it rains dacs every time you kill a noob the game would probably be unplayable. I think this is where me and @blazemonger disagree. I think its better left to the player base to control and he would like some intervention by nq in game mechanics to curb this(keeping out of safe zone). Ultimately though the balance of reward/punishment for evil behavior or protection from evil behavior will determine if being evil is really viable...even if it is allowed.

Share this post


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

Ultimately though the balance of reward/punishment for evil behavior or protection from evil behavior will determine if being evil is really viable...even if it is allowed.

Abusive behavior doesn't have to be viable (able to make an in-game living off it), it just has to be feasible (doable if you really want to). The bigger issue is what people look for in a game and the mentality they have going in. If a game lends itself to abusive mentality then it will be used that way.

Share this post


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

I think its better left to the player base to control and he would like some intervention by nq in game mechanics to curb this(keeping out of safe zone). Ultimately though the balance of reward/punishment for evil behavior or protection from evil behavior will determine if being evil is really viable...even if it is allowed.

The player base can't control this obviously and such a suggestion is rather silly IMO. And I do not see anyone here suggesting any absurd nonsense counters to wards those who choose to have a career outside of civilisation and go their own way, evil or not. Or are you saying we rely on bounty hunters and hired guns alone for this?

 

If you wish to be a pirate fine, you should have that possibility. There needs to be a balance and consequence to that choice as with anything in game (and life).

Share this post


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

The player base can't control this obviously and such a suggestion is rather silly IMO. And I do not see anyone here suggesting any absurd nonsense counters to wards those who choose to have a career outside of civilisation and go their own way, evil or not. Or are you saying we rely on bounty hunters and hired guns alone for this?

 

If you wish to be a pirate fine, you should have that possibility. There needs to be a balance and consequence to that choice as with anything in game (and life).

i feel like saying "the player base can't control this obviously" about a game with really no basis of comparison without even attempting it in alpha/beta is rather silly. I guess ill challenge that statement. why can players not control this?

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...