Jump to content
Anopheles

The right to be evil

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ostris said:

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?

The most agressive form of PvP possible would be a 100% no limitations one, no safe zones, no protection bubbles, no bounty system, 100% of the inventory would be dropped on death, etc. Just purely up to the players who dies when and not. Also there would not be any griefing rules like when they mentioned that repeated killing of the same target could be considered griefing, etc. 

 

What i am saying is that you are treating everything that isn't the PvE friendly environment you are looking for as maximum PvP and it's not a factually correct or even figuratively correct description. I think that they have taken plenty of measurements already to ensure that people have the option to live safer than they would be in a "most agressive form" of PvP. Just look at the safe zone around the arkship which will be gigantic, the planned sanctuary moons. Whatever solution they finally decide on for base protection in the end and more. It's easy to see past what tools you actually have to avoid PvP and act like you have nothing going for you when its not true.

Share this post


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

The most agressive form of PvP possible would be a 100% no limitations one, no safe zones, no protection bubbles, no bounty system, 100% of the inventory would be dropped on death, etc. Just purely up to the players who dies when and not. Also there would not be any griefing rules like when they mentioned that repeated killing of the same target could be considered griefing, etc. 

 

What i am saying is that you are treating everything that isn't the PvE friendly environment you are looking for as maximum PvP and it's not a factually correct or even figuratively correct description. I think that they have taken plenty of measurements already to ensure that people have the option to live safer than they would be in a "most agressive form" of PvP. Just look at the safe zone around the arkship which will be gigantic, the planned sanctuary moons. Whatever solution they finally decide on for base protection in the end and more. It's easy to see past what tools you actually have to avoid PvP and act like you have nothing going for you when its not true.

So just to be clear you think i want a PvE friendly environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ostris said:

So just to be clear you think i want a PvE friendly environment?

Not necessarily. I'm challenging your statements. "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"  For example

Share this post


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

Not necessarily. I'm challenging your statements. "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"  For example

I see, would one of the most aggressive pvp systems be more preferable? Cause I'm ok with that, i guess I am being a little loose with the absolute nature of my statements in that post. I was speaking very generically about full loot pvp systems being pretty hardcore by comparison to the vast majority of games that either offer non full loot pvp or pve only servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ostris said:

I see, would one of the most aggressive pvp systems be more preferable? Cause I'm ok with that, i guess I am being a little loose with the absolute nature of my statements in that post. I was speaking very generically about full loot pvp systems being pretty hardcore by comparison to the vast majority of games that either offer non full loot pvp or pve only servers.

Pretty sure it's not 100% drop on death though, more like 75-80% from what i remember them saying in videos. If you consider open world pvp one of the most aggressive pvp systems then be my guest. I still wont agree with it but i can accept you having your approach. 

Share this post


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

why can players not control this?

Because;

Players would not be able to run and organize police, or law enforcement in general.

Players have no means or method to act against known pirates inside safe zones.

Players would not be bale to hold responsibility across the game for overall game play and mechanics.

Players would not have the means to implement and enforce rules or regulations deemed needed/wanted.

 

I could go on for a while.

 

 

What I generally feel is taken as automatic or expected is that the universe outside the safe zones should/will be a lawless free for all. I believe this will not be the case at all. For one, the TCU should implement and apply Law&Order in accordance to what the TCU owner sees required. If a TCU owner feels known pirates should not have a home on his territory he needs to have a way to enforce this by being able to identify pirates as such, a system as I suggested would do this.

 

It would be reasonable to assume there will be a good number of essential 'everyday' items and services which will be much cheaper or more readily available in safe zone markets for what I would consider obvious reasons. By creating a system that would make it more difficult for pirates to move around safe zones freely and unchecked you implement a mechanic players can use to balance the play style and 'life' if you will pirates choose to live.

 

 

The role of the game developer here is to provide balance and a reasonable control mechanic. This does not mean the game controls what happens, it means there is a way for players to do so. One option would be what I have mentioned before but there are other mechanics. A basic bounty system would not work as it would hardly affect those living outside the safe zones.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to voice my opinion:

 

1. Any automatic reputation system is going to fail at identifying who's really the bad guy. And I don't want such easy to go around system to decide on quite core game mechanics (like ark safe zone).

If I see someone building dirt around my base (or right outside my TCU), I gonna shoot him dead, as it's only way to stop (or at least slow down) his vandalism. And IMO I shouldn't be punished for that.

And don't forget that safe zones are not spread all around the universe. They are around ark, and on moons around Alioth. Pretty far (by that I mean - time consuming to travel) from all other planets. Thus they can be used by pirates quite rarely anyway.

 

2. Protective bubbles are not meant to protect from PvP. They are meant to force PvP, rather than PvOfflineBase.

 

3. Main game mechanics to discourage attacking everyone on sight should be economy.

For example: If ammunition is more expensive than you can ever earn by destroying ship (unless it holds or protects cargo) then griefers will be able to destroy others much less frequently (because they need to earn monies to buy griefing tools).

Or for extreme example: ammunition required to destroy ship is more expensive than said ship. Thus you need really good reason to attack the guy. Otherwise you waste more of your own time than his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Afaik it's not possible to extract or deposit dirt around your MTU without permission to dig or build.

defending your property and territory is not evil nor piracy so it's irrelevant to the topic.

 

2. protective bubble will be a timer mechanic part of PVP yes.. not sure how this relates to the topic discussed

 

3. Don't take expensive ammo to be a pirate/outlaw.. You just shoot/kill whatever for the sake of being able to do so. Your argument here is really not valid nor relevant.

Share this post


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

Because;

Players would not be able to run and organize police, or law enforcement in general.

Players have no means or method to act against known pirates inside safe zones.

Players would not be bale to hold responsibility across the game for overall game play and mechanics.

Players would not have the means to implement and enforce rules or regulations deemed needed/wanted.

1) Why can players form pirate orgs but mining orgs cant have part of their org be guards or hire guards or hire mercs to kill the pirates, all of these actions are effectively policing.

2) Pirates have no means or methods to act against players inside the safe zones. Everyone has to leave the safe zone or use material from outside of safe zones to play the game.

3)I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make. Maybe miscommunication. I am saying players can hold pirates responsible for their actions by killing them for the fun of pvp or because they were paid too.

4)Not entirely sure what the point of this one is but maybe contract system? I'm not saying NQ should have no regulation or power in any aspect of the game. They should leave controlling piracy to players or at least try to before declaring it obviously not possible.

13 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

3. Don't take expensive ammo to be a pirate/outlaw.. You just shoot/kill whatever for the sake of being able to do so. Your argument here is really not valid nor relevant.

I mean its literally the premise of his point that NQ can make ammo very expensive, as in there is no effective cheap ammo....arguments are never valid when you just ignore part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Something right outside my TCU (so still close enough to see it) is not my territory de iure, but I may consider it my territory (as it's clearly visible from my window). Thus it doesn't count as defending my territory. Thus it would lead to me being punished for taking any actions.

 

2. I've just read something wrong, and though someone said they are meant to reduce PvP aspect. Being tired pays off.

 

3. Yes, you shoot whatever. But if it cost to do so, then you need to work really hard to grief. Even harder than the guy you want to grief.

We're talking about ways to give "evil" actions a consequence. "High time investment" sounds like something absolutely relevant.

 

7 minutes ago, ostris said:

I mean its literally the premise of his point that NQ can make ammo very expensive, as in there is no effective cheap ammo....arguments are never valid when you just ignore part of it.

Thanks for clarification. Yes, the point was "no cheap ammo available at all".

Maybe except one that is extremely heavy and bulky (so only for static/super slow constructs). To make sure that attacking side need to re-think if it's really worth attacking, while defenders don't need huge investment to be able to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CalenLoki

So you live across the street, I see you do something you find offensive even if you may be on your own or someone else's property (or on no-one's). It's fine for me to grab a gun and shoot you is what you are saying.

 

Griefing is considered by NQ as off limits. Being a pirate is not griefing, Being a pirate and not having any for of counter against your  actions is bad game design.

 

 

@ostris

1. You are moving the goalpost to win the argument. We are not discussing an org doing mining ops and then being jumped by pirates here. The context of previous posts should make that clear.

 2/3. You're also reading my comment wrong and again, out of context of earlier posts

4. yes sure but they will need to provide the mechanic for players to do so. Just saying ' should have armed yourself to the teeth because you may encounter a roadside lowlife who jumps you and runs off with  your stuff' is not good enough.

Share this post


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

@CalenLoki

So you live across the street, I see you do something you find offensive even if you may be on your own or someone else's property (or on no-one's). It's fine for me to grab a gun and shoot you is what you are saying.

 

Griefing is considered by NQ as off limits. Being a pirate is not griefing, Being a pirate and not having any for of counter against your  actions is bad game design.

 

 

@ostris

1. You are moving the goalpost to win the argument. We are not discussing an org doing mining ops and then being jumped by pirates here. The context of previous posts should make that clear.

 2/3. You're also reading my comment wrong and again, out of context of earlier posts

4. yes sure but they will need to provide the mechanic for players to do so. Just saying ' should have armed yourself to the teeth because you may encounter a roadside lowlife who jumps you and runs off with  your stuff' is not good enough.

1) I am not moving the goal post you made a statement that players cannot form police. Why? Why can players not form police or at least police like structures? The point i was making is if players can do all this stuff why can they not form police, guards etc? i then listed several police like actions players can take. 

 

And piracy would be considered an act of evil. It was in OPs post about non consensual pvp and piracy. you literally used it as an example of evil:

"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."

So pirates commit acts of evil and the game should punish them by removing the only protection players have, pirates robbing a mining op would be an act of evil and punishable using your own example, or is it only certain kinds of piracy? or are we only talking about griefing now?

 

2/3) 2 to me is just a statement you made. It has no bearing on the discussion as presented. You could provide a reason WHY people need to be able to attack pirates in safe space. Not just state they cant. I literally said i dont understand 3

 

4) I guess i need to quote 4 again because i literally said " I'm not saying NQ should have no regulation or power in any aspect of the game. They should leave controlling piracy and other evil acts to players or at least try to before declaring it obviously not possible." 

 

Why do you literally ignore peoples statements when you offer counter points. You did it in two posts back to back.  I said in 4 nq should be able to provide some mechanics but primarily piracy(the example you have used and OP has used) should be controlled by players or at the very least try to leave it to be controlled by players.

Share this post


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

@CalenLoki

So you live across the street, I see you do something you find offensive even if you may be on your own or someone else's property (or on no-one's). It's fine for me to grab a gun and shoot you is what you are saying.

 

Griefing is considered by NQ as off limits. Being a pirate is not griefing, Being a pirate and not having any for of counter against your  actions is bad game design.

Obviously IRL we have some other ways to deal with things we find offensive. And even in game "killing" is nowhere close to "remove someone from the world permanently" like IRL - more like "kicking someone so hard that he fly to the other end of universe".

If we live across the street, and I wrote on the wall "blazemonger is ******* **** and his mum **** ** ****" would you react in any way, or just let it be? (just example, don't take it personally).

Or if I destroy the road you've built, that was leading through terrain you didn't manage to fence?

How would you react if there was no law and police you can call?

How if you have whole village behind you? How if he has way more support?

How if the only law would be "you can kick only if someone kicked you first"?

What would you do if you are stronger than me or any of my friends alone, but you see that we'll slowly gathering with obvious intention to kick your ass?

 

Or more in game examples: What if you are counter-scout around large fleet/mining operation, and you intercept my small neutral scouting ship "casually flying around"?

 

Griefing is intentionally destroying other players experience without in-game reason. So destruction for the sake of destruction. It's quite broad and unclear term, but indeed proper piracy (where you attack targets that gives you monies) is absolutely not griefing.

There is counter to piracy - just shoot them dead. And repeat until they move somewhere else. It's possible anywhere in the universe, except half of one planet + some of it's moons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CalenLoki said:

If we live across the street, and I wrote on the wall "blazemonger is 

Or if I destroy the road you've built, that was leading through terrain you didn't manage to fence?

 

 

Still not an excuse to get a gun, also you're changing your argument from building a dirt mountain around your TCU to destruction of property and name calling.

 

4 hours ago, CalenLoki said:

How would you react if there was no law and police you can call?

 

Not the case, and exactly the issue we are discussing here.

 

4 hours ago, CalenLoki said:

How if you have whole village behind you? How if he has way more support?

How if the only law would be "you can kick only if someone kicked you first"?

What would you do if you are stronger than me or any of my friends alone, but you see that we'll slowly gathering with obvious intention to kick your ass?

 

Again, changing the argument to win it

 

4 hours ago, CalenLoki said:

 

Or more in game examples: What if you are counter-scout around large fleet/mining operation, and you intercept my small neutral scouting ship "casually flying around"?

 

Provided behaviour is suspicious; ask to move off, try to move off, warn, remove.. again, not relevant to discussion

 

4 hours ago, CalenLoki said:

There is counter to piracy - just shoot them dead. And repeat until they move somewhere else. It's possible anywhere in the universe, except half of one planet + some of it's moons.

 

Options are; bounties, limit offenders options to participate/find safety in a society they choose to live outside off. How this or something similar is implemented is as of yet unknown and will not be until basically everything else is done development wise. We're all speculating about how this may be done but no one knows anything on this yet. and removing the ability (or restricting it) for pirates to mingle and hide in populated areas can be built into territorial mechanics as well, based on owners preference.

Share this post


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

and removing the ability (or restricting it) for pirates to mingle and hide in populated areas can be built into territorial mechanics as well, based on owners preference.

In a game where each player controls 3 characters, how do you deny "pirates, bandits and murderers" access to the safe zone via game mechanics ?

 

If the player controlling that pirate has a squeaky-clean alt, he has 100% safe access to safezones regardless, and that's the usual work-around that "reds" use in games where "reputation" or "killrights" make it difficult for one of the player's alts to enter certain areas.

 

So denying "criminals" access or protection in safezones is largely symbolic, their alts will do the resupplying in complete safety anyway.

 

The player that owns a territory does not need "killrights" to ban someone from his territory, he allows access and actions at his own discretion. He can ban player characters merely because he suspects them of having criminal connections, but a game system administering a "safezone" cannot do that.

Share this post


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

Still not an excuse to get a gun, also you're changing your argument from building a dirt mountain around your TCU to destruction of property and name calling.

Not gun. Gun is meant for killing, in game you can't kill anyone. Not even hurt permanently. It's more of a slap to the face + destroy his clothes + teleport far away.

And for sure I'd slap someone hard and throw him into mud for destroying land around me, if I have means for that and it would be the only way to stop him.

Those are examples someone may find offensive, just as building dicks. And they are performed outside TCU, so doesn't count as "territory defence". So for automatic rep system they are exactly the same.

2 hours ago, blazemonger said:

Again, changing the argument to win it

Just widening it. Giving more examples of complicated situations that automatic system can't get.

2 hours ago, blazemonger said:

Provided behaviour is suspicious; ask to move off, try to move off, warn, remove.. again, not relevant to discussion

It's again very relevant - you want a system that punish player who shoot first or kill. Thus it need to cover all situations and accurately judge who really was the aggressor.

Warning system looks nice on paper (warn -> then attack after certain time without penalty unless enemy moves away). But would be quite easy to go around. In that example I could just fly straight through the fleet, fast enough that the timer wouldn't kick in.

3 hours ago, blazemonger said:

Options are; bounties, limit offenders options to participate/find safety in a society they choose to live outside off. How this or something similar is implemented is as of yet unknown and will not be until basically everything else is done development wise. We're all speculating about how this may be done but no one knows anything on this yet. and removing the ability (or restricting it) for pirates to mingle and hide in populated areas can be built into territorial mechanics as well, based on owners preference.

Nobody argue against manual system where land owner can forbid permission to anyone (i.e. outlaws) via RDMS. Only against automatic system that represents safe-zone.

 

Share this post


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

Thus it need to cover all situations and accurately judge who really was the aggressor.

And that's why a set of "laws" defined in software always fails. They cannot deal with the myriad complexities of context, which means human ingenuity exploits them to the full.

 

That's why we have human judges in RL, to interpret the context of events and apply the laws accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An organization that focuses on destruction plus the number of solo players that would be griefers for the convenience lols would be overwhelming to anyone, so all I really care about is if there is a way to always be notified of who exactly attacked your building, and hopefully theres not much multi-logging going on so people don't build troll characters to do nefarious deeds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Circles said:

An organization that focuses on destruction plus the number of solo players that would be griefers for the convenience lols would be overwhelming to anyone, so all I really care about is if there is a way to always be notified of who exactly attacked your building, and hopefully theres not much multi-logging going on so people don't build troll characters to do nefarious deeds. 

hmmm combat log is one thing, keeping track of who dragged their keys across your car door while you not there is somewhat unlikely. This due the certain level of realism they like to implement in the game. Keeping track of such things would be somewhat jarring, design wise.

 

Also, if you want to be evil in this game, you can very well be evil. Be it white-collar zero conscious evil or bush wacker evil.

Share this post


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

In a game where each player controls 3 characters, how do you deny "pirates, bandits and murderers" access to the safe zone via game mechanics ?

Irrelevant as we're not discusding denying access nor was that ever suggested. Also, you are connecting behaviour of a character to a posdible alt on the same account which really has no relevance either and again basically you try and spin/change the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CalenLoki said:

you want a system that punish player who shoot first or kill. Thus it need to cover all situations and accurately judge who really was the aggressor.

you are reading into my points what you want, makung stuff up as you go along and seem to miss what I suggest entirely.

 

Also, this is really not that difficult to address using the option I brought up whuch will by itself also offer a flag on a chracter which would allow a territory holder a simple and effective way to have a character identified if he choses.

 

I am not going to rehash this again as you obviously have no interest in a discussion but just want to push your opinion which makes this pointless.

Share this post


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

Also, you are connecting behaviour of a character to a posdible alt on the same account which really has no relevance either

 

I took your suggestion as an attempt to not allow "criminal" characters to enjoy the protection mechanisms and market access afforded by the "safezone".

I must have misunderstood.

 

If you're only trying to prevent "pop-out... kill... pop back in" tactics, then I think NQ are already wrestling with that scenario.

 

Share this post


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

If you're only trying to prevent "pop-out... kill... pop back in" tactics, then I think NQ are already wrestling with that scenario.

That is part of the issue yes. 

Share this post


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

In a game where each player controls 3 characters, how do you deny "pirates, bandits and murderers" access to the safe zone via game mechanics ?

 

If the player controlling that pirate has a squeaky-clean alt, he has 100% safe access to safezones regardless, and that's the usual work-around that "reds" use in games where "reputation" or "killrights" make it difficult for one of the player's alts to enter certain areas.

 

So denying "criminals" access or protection in safezones is largely symbolic, their alts will do the resupplying in complete safety anyway.

 

The player that owns a territory does not need "killrights" to ban someone from his territory, he allows access and actions at his own discretion. He can ban player characters merely because he suspects them of having criminal connections, but a game system administering a "safezone" cannot do that.

that's exactly the point, I wrote that too earlier.

There are easy workarounds for such things - true, it does "hurt" a bit because it's more work to get your stuff, but it's not that bad either.

 

As written already, artificial systems of any kind can be abused/circumvented. Yes, some basic ones have to be in place to prevent/enforce certain behavior, but imho the best thing in a game like DU is: player interaction. They run the markets there and TCUs. They can prevent someone from using their market. They can search for alts. They can mark (justified or not) someone as KOS via RDMS (not through lua though) - and so on. So I think that pirates will already have a hard time in or around the safezone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours 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. 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?

Yes they should get away clean.   In areas with no law.   

 

In a place with no death revenge is a thing hotter than in real life but the satisfaction is lesser because there is no death.

 

Any consequences (short of permaban) n a game eithout permadeath are not permanent. 

 

Perhaps the answer is permadeath.  Or at least generational death, that is you due and your, secured, holdings pass to you as your son or daughter.

 

I hope for a dynamic universe were there are gradations of safe from total to absolutely not.  Not only that, but those gradations fluctuate irregularly so that the player is responsible for his own research and safety.

 

I can see the benefit of a safe bubble for newcomers (even 2 or 3 if the universe is large enough to support multiple new spawn zones) but we shouldn't be bumping into absolute null violence bubbles in the middle of nowhere.

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...