Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
plmkoi

Proposal: Standings and security status

Recommended Posts

Abstract/TLDR Version:

 

          The purpose of this proposal is to give a general simple system that will empower player organizations/provide a little security, but without the use of some structure like Eve empire npc space + npc police. I recommend utilizing a standing system and a security status based off of player actions. With the security status being independent and completely regulated by the game. I also understand that there were previous threads related to this, but in my perception it seemed overly complicated and sometimes, I wasn't sure if they were trying to create npc mission mechanics. Both of these are standings with one being automated by the game and the other players or player run organizations labels and their perceptions.

 

 

Part One: Security Status

 

          I completely understand a lot of concerns when it comes to pk’ing and griefing. Turning the lands into a Mad Max world, of players brutalizing other players for no other reason than just for the “lolz”. To combat this I recommend putting in a security status that starts at 0.0, which effectively means you are neutral. All players entering into the game will start here and they won’t be flagged and are effectively considered non criminals.

 

 

         Now, what happens when players go below 0.0? Well this is where they are flagged as a criminal for their actions (I will put numbers only for examples and allow others dev & community to decide). So players that might engage another player by firing on them might drop the security status by .5, which now puts the individual at -.5. Killing a player results in a -1.0 and this will also include looting (might as well loot them if you kill them). After a certain point like -5.0, these players are considered a pariah. So basically it becomes a shoot to kill and anyone can engage, whether you are a pirate or a law abiding citizen.

 

 

         So now we know the penalties of engaging in pirating, how do you raise your security status? Here this might be controversial, but this is because of the detrimental flawed system that Eve currently has. I recommend that it is time based and the reason being that the actions to consequences has to be significant. This is also a good way to rehabilitate players in regards to committing anti social behavior. Length of time is up to the developers/community on the gains and since we are doing time based skills, well in my view it only makes sense that your reputation should be the same. This doesn’t prevent people from living an outlaw life style, and only requires commitment.

 

     

        Now, what is the benefit of implementing this system? Well for one, it encourages players to build large cities once the developers add certain modules (Automated turrets). This creates an environment of security and encourages the devotion of said resources. To prevent the possibility of players being duped or brain dead the studio can implement a tutorial that explains the system. We can also go as far as a safety system that Eve has ,akin to a safety on a gun. Where a new player entering will automatically have it set to green on their U.I and a notice will pop up if they decide to shoot someone or etc. They can click on said said button that allows them to do w/e they want as acknowledgment that they understand the consequences for their actions.

 

 

       Each entity can decide what the bar is for access to their territories. It can be draconian and that anyone not a neutral will be killed on sight by modules or players. Or tolerance for the criminal elements and anyone from neutrals to hardcore criminals being allowed. I recommend player enforcement over modules use and modules only has a yes or no of security status enforcement. Purpose is to make cities taking the support anyone route serious devotion and a page out of history that pariahs being forced to live out in the wilderness. I would only implement this automated mechanic on a planet that has an ark ship or a player controlled territory. Being in space and planets with no safe zones, I would consider to be the equivalent of null and so it should go wholly off player/organizations standings.

 

*additional info= only applies to something like a small moon and once off planet it becomes lawless or w/e. Point is to give a significant area for "carebears" to live on. 

 

 

 

 

Part two: Player Standings aka labels

 

       Now for the standing system. The purpose of this is to allow player organizations to set standings on a scale of -10 to +10. This can easily be expanded on by allowing people to edit and gain certain privileges set by certain roles instead of typing each individuals name. As we all know that some player organizations might hold grudges from a previous incident or rivalries.

 

 

       The purpose of including said system is to utilize the same modules (automated turrets), a player run organization has more control over their territory. They can determine what other player run organizations are friendly and in their eyes trustworthy so the said modules doesn’t open fire on them. The process can be as simple as someone with the authority like a diplomat can set individuals or an entire organization as red hostile or blue. Doors and other amenities provided by the entity setting the standings can also be denied. This also can be applied to setting preferential rates/discounts for allies utilizing services like a refinery, a factory, real estate taxes, and etc. This also allows player territories that are unable to utilize modules to have some enforcement of unsavory characters that live the outlaw lifestyle. Here we can probably throw in a bounty system where the Tortugaisque city to deal with players that can’t follow said rules.

 

 

      Example, a player run organization (A) that preys on new players for the “lulz”. Another entity named (B) doesn't condone such activities and flags the entire organization red at -10. So this effectively flags them from access inside structures and kill on sight if they decide to enter said organizations territory. Even if a player leaves said organization the negative standings of the other entity will not change. This will require a player to contact the diplomat and request to have their name taken off the list. This is to prevent dodging being flagged by bailing out of said organizations and as a way of corp history, which at this time I am unsure if it will be implemented. I will state that this is a label that only impacts the player in the player organizations territory when it comes to shoot on sight or utilizing their services. In Space it is irrelevant other then maybe war declaration mechanic or if you want to kill them just because.

 

  

       I have read other proposals and in my perception, they are overly complicated. Eve kept it simple, your standings with a player or organization start out as neutral. Now if you decide to join an organization that has set you -10, that is their prerogative and it is nothing more then a label outside of their territory, whether it is from an individual or organization. The standings should only come into play when accessing that organizations territory for services or not to be shot on sight. You can change it as an individual at any time so you know that person has done something wrong to you and you can choose to add a reason or not. Player run organization can also change it at anytime, but it is not mandatory for it to be reciprocated and so your members might be confused when the other organization that is marked friendly is killing your members. This will make handing out a diplomat position a position of serious trust.

 

 

   Conclusion: 

 

      I see both systems as being crucial because it gives the players the tools to run everything themselves outside of the starting zone of no pvp. I also believe that these features can be expanded on and is a simple system that isn’t overly complicated. Now, there are assumptions that abuse would be minimized or creative solutions can deter such activities. Example I.e a neutral player is already in the city and a diplomat sets the standing negative to pk the individual. So make standings take a downtime or certain length of time to be enforced and the player notified of the negative standing being set on them.

 

      Without the said system I fail to see what the incentive is to avoid tribal instincts i.e shooting anybody not apart of your player organization and allies. These systems will automate a lot of the interactions, with in my view minimal intervention of the leadership in a player run organization. This may also be the first time where a system can be setup that encourages a completely player run system, just using these tools to exclude certain unsavory characters and encourage lone wolves not to be killed on sight and partake in trade, social engagement, and etc. So any lone wolf that doesn’t want to be apart of any player run organization can still visit a city of entity X to trade or w/e.

 

 I will attempt to answer any concerns and would very much like to hear any criticism over this idea. This can help us as a community to either refine this idea or scrap it for a better system to manage large swathes of players. I am also reserving the second post as this discussion might actually produce things that I never thought of or other input that is much more creative and so I would like to post changes here for people to see as they go through the discussion (of course citing the individual responsible for credit).

Edited by plmkoi
Added additional clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a good idea. The rights system will take care of things. Too many exploits with security status. And there is no "empire" space. Leaving out bullshit status and letting players decide things thru the rights management is way more emergant gameplay...and that's the way this game was originally pitched.

Share this post


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

Not a good idea. The rights system will take care of things. Too many exploits with security status. And there is no "empire" space. Leaving out bullshit status and letting players decide things thru the rights management is way more emergant gameplay...and that's the way this game was originally pitched.

I have read through the rights management and find it a great tool to manage your own groups, but when trying to apply it to other organizations/players, it is in my view quite tedious. I would believe that it is easier to just right click an organization or player and set the standings over creating tags for every organization or individual. I see the tagging system as tedious bureaucracy that adds a lot to the workload for leadership and we are already seeing how that is killing Eve. But I will wait until seeing a video that goes into depth of everything you can do with the tagging system and how it is streamlined before I drop the standing proposal.

 

As for the security status, I did add that it is put on planets with an ark ship. I haven't seen anything in your post of possible exploits and so not sure what you mean. I only recommend the security status since it will be easier on newer players. CCP is learning as we speak of the bad practices of telling people to HTFU (harden the fu** up) with lowering sub numbers on top of stagnation. But if we are expecting DU to have a life of a decade, then sure we can discard the security status idea. The point is to give newer players a chance to explore and test out the game and minimize the griefing. I would say it is quite naive to assume that player organizations won't set up shop near the initial ark zone just kill players for the lulz.

 

We can do better then other dead sandbox mmo's by providing a small safety net for new people entering into the game. Because there were multiple mmo's that implemented the same system of safe starting town and a gank fest risk free outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standings shure. I think devs will add something like that as a part of RDMS system.

 

But Security Status is not that simple question. Devs have their own view on players interactions including griefing. I would like to see what they are up to. 

Unfortunely SSin Eve did not prove itself. It works like bunch of band aids.

We need new aproach. Old ones discredit themselfs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do ppl always want to copy EVE.... sounds like EVE 2.0 right there with -5/-10 .... 😝

 

22 hours ago, plmkoi said:

it encourages players to build large cities once the developers add certain modules (Automated turrets).

NQ don't want to "add that". That's a player suggestion and NQ clearly doesn't want to have automated turrets in the sense of them being equal to a player operated one. 

 

 

this isn't that hard either:

- shoot everyone

- shoot noone

- shoot only ppl/orgs on my list

- shoot everyone EXCEPT ppl on my list

- shoot everyone not in my alliance

 

give each a color for the org radar and you're pretty much done. everyone knows who he's dealing with. Grey contact? neutral. red. enemy. blue. org. Green. Alliance. Black. Alliance. And so on. Whatever. EZ. No need for standing -10 and -5 crap. If a player does smth wrong and that org wants him out of their turf: mark him as enemy. If he behaves and you trust him again, make him grey again. 

Why introduce an easily abuseable system like in EVE - no need for that

 

EDIT:

oh and before anyone cries out in pain because "griefers!" - markets are run by players, so they will naturally block griefers to access those. Yes they can still use alts and everything freely to get what they need, but this isn't EVE. Griefers will have a very hard time here because ppl can actually block them from getting stuff the easy way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, plmkoi said:

We can do better then other dead sandbox mmo's by providing a small safety net for new people entering into the game.

I think it will be pretty basic, we'll have the complete safe zones, and everything else open. Anyone is a potential threat. As long as new players understand this, they can act accordingly. We just need the option to tag individuals and orgs as friend or foe or default neutral.

 

Security status doesn't work without infallible npc police and security zones. In total unsecure area you need to be able to aggro first to defend, otherwise the attacker can just bide their time knowing that if you attack first you get the security status hit. And a reputation system mechanic would be very abusable. A community/word-of-mouth reputation could be more reliable anyways since you'll know who is giving the reputation and can decide if you trust them.

 

Share this post


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

this isn't that hard either:

- shoot everyone

- shoot noone

- shoot only ppl/orgs on my list

- shoot everyone EXCEPT ppl on my list

- shoot everyone not in my alliance

 

give each a color for the org radar and you're pretty much done. everyone knows who he's dealing with. Grey contact? neutral. red. enemy. blue. org. Green. Alliance. Black. Alliance.

Exactly my idea. But then the first time i told i would shoot anyone not on the friendly list i was almost lynched for not trying to communicate with the incoming blib on my radar.

Still this works best, just shoot everyone not neutral or friendly unless they communicate with you and draw a pact. 

Pretty simple really, if you dont want to get shot just stay away from people who you dont feel like being friendly with else what is keeping you from communicating?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instituting this as a rule doesnt seem like a good idea. As Johnny said, RM covers a lot of this.

 

Although honestly, I see the opportunity for a private business in this idea.

 

A reputation list of sorts seems like something a private org could operate and run - keep tabs on other players actions somehow and, in exchange for a fee, players can access someones reputation or said list. Obviously there's a lot of problems to be solved here (information exchange with other orgs?), but it's something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 11:09 AM, Lethys said:

why do ppl always want to copy EVE.... sounds like EVE 2.0 right there with -5/-10 .... 😝

 

NQ don't want to "add that". That's a player suggestion and NQ clearly doesn't want to have automated turrets in the sense of them being equal to a player operated one. 

 

 

this isn't that hard either:

- shoot everyone

- shoot noone

- shoot only ppl/orgs on my list

- shoot everyone EXCEPT ppl on my list

- shoot everyone not in my alliance

 

give each a color for the org radar and you're pretty much done. everyone knows who he's dealing with. Grey contact? neutral. red. enemy. blue. org. Green. Alliance. Black. Alliance. And so on. Whatever. EZ. No need for standing -10 and -5 crap. If a player does smth wrong and that org wants him out of their turf: mark him as enemy. If he behaves and you trust him again, make him grey again. 

Why introduce an easily abuseable system like in EVE - no need for that

 

EDIT:

oh and before anyone cries out in pain because "griefers!" - markets are run by players, so they will naturally block griefers to access those. Yes they can still use alts and everything freely to get what they need, but this isn't EVE. Griefers will have a very hard time here because ppl can actually block them from getting stuff the easy way.

 

 

Well I am only going to say that it is common sense that video games build on the forerunners of previous games. Let's make sure we use that grey matter and remember that a portion of the concepts in this game comes from Eve. As for automated turrets, it has already been put in that it will be added to the game, but not as effective as a human controlled one from what I understand. I don't think you even bothered to read the suggestions as ExtendedBacon seems to get the idea. As for your last point is moot as just claiming that griefers will be blocked and not putting in your own words how, proves the age old concept, that it is easier to tear down other peoples idea, then putting in your own solutions. 

 

You are already showing support for the rep system with the color coding which is why I question if you actually read or understood the post. Your answer is silly as this makes a player run organization having to micro manage over just having 2 systems that one is server controlled and the other stream lined by something that a diplo can actually do.

 

It would also behoove you to read up on the Eve forums/reddit more often. It has been discussed that another reason for Eve's gradual/substantial decline in population is corp management/leadership. Yes, it is fun for the first year or few, but then it becomes not fun and a chore and results in burn out. People who claimed to play Eve usually never played in a serious leadership position and the tedious work does burn everyone out.

 

On 9/12/2019 at 12:03 PM, Haunty said:

I think it will be pretty basic, we'll have the complete safe zones, and everything else open. Anyone is a potential threat. As long as new players understand this, they can act accordingly. We just need the option to tag individuals and orgs as friend or foe or default neutral.

 

Security status doesn't work without infallible npc police and security zones. In total unsecure area you need to be able to aggro first to defend, otherwise the attacker can just bide their time knowing that if you attack first you get the security status hit. And a reputation system mechanic would be very abusable. A community/word-of-mouth reputation could be more reliable anyways since you'll know who is giving the reputation and can decide if you trust them.

 

We don't need the npc police as that is a waste of dev time in my opinion. The point is, to utilize the security system so that players who just want to grief or w/e would just be flagged for no consequence kill on sight and allow players who doesn't want to service griefers with their structures to ostracize them. As for the attackers can bide their time, that right there just means it is working as what else could the griefer do? Going to just keep bumping you? Call you mean names? 

 

The rep system is irrelevant outside of the players territory, so this makes me wonder if you have actually read through the suggestion. Community word of mouth is highly unlikely as most of the mmo games tend to be tribal. The whole point of putting in this system is to avoid the pitfalls of tribalism that is currently killing Eve right now. Once this studio releases the game it is next to impossible to fix the game later down the road. CCP obviously never thought that far ahead and so at this point all they can do is wait till the sub base can no longer pay the companies bills. 

On 10/21/2019 at 1:35 PM, ExtendedBacon said:

Instituting this as a rule doesnt seem like a good idea. As Johnny said, RM covers a lot of this.

 

Although honestly, I see the opportunity for a private business in this idea.

 

A reputation list of sorts seems like something a private org could operate and run - keep tabs on other players actions somehow and, in exchange for a fee, players can access someones reputation or said list. Obviously there's a lot of problems to be solved here (information exchange with other orgs?), but it's something.

Yes, your reading is roughly spot on what the rep system is meant for and really has 0 impact outside a players controlled structures. This is a forum and so I hope to see other responses in regards to how this could be improved. This is just in my opinion a stream lined version of the RDMS system as instead of having to type in everyone or organization, you can just use a system that is already in Eve that any idiot (like myself) can do. The difference being that to avoid rep's abuse of jumping out of a organization, so you can utilize the services it will just follow you, over having to manually type that individuals characters name. This is really how the sec status would play off this idea on top of creating actual consequences. 

 

Why does a player that owns a bunch of buildings, has to type in every single name of people that can be taxed using refineries or w/e? Don't want people what wants to pk randoms? sec status = red kill on sight/no access. You set the player org red because they like Harem anime and that is heresy in your eyes? play org = red and if individuals leave to avoid that rep hit to use your facilities has to talk to a diplo that controls that function. 

 

The sec status would just make it easier that anyone that isn't a pk'er can use your facilities and so people that might be from a drastically different time zone and possibly don't speak your language can use your facilities and you make coin from them. I look at both systems as a way to filter out people that you don;t want on your territory. One is the general population and the rep version is to notify that org or player that they are/aren't welcome to weed out undesirables from the general population. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, plmkoi said:

Well I am only going to say that it is common sense that video games build on the forerunners of previous games. Let's make sure we use that grey matter and remember that a portion of the concepts in this game comes from Eve. As for automated turrets, it has already been put in that it will be added to the game, but not as effective as a human controlled one from what I understand. I don't think you even bothered to read the suggestions as ExtendedBacon seems to get the idea. As for your last point is moot as just claiming that griefers will be blocked and not putting in your own words how, proves the age old concept, that it is easier to tear down other peoples idea, then putting in your own solutions. 

 

You are already showing support for the rep system with the color coding which is why I question if you actually read or understood the post. Your answer is silly as this makes a player run organization having to micro manage over just having 2 systems that one is server controlled and the other stream lined by something that a diplo can actually do.

 

It would also behoove you to read up on the Eve forums/reddit more often. It has been discussed that another reason for Eve's gradual/substantial decline in population is corp management/leadership. Yes, it is fun for the first year or few, but then it becomes not fun and a chore and results in burn out. People who claimed to play Eve usually never played in a serious leadership position and the tedious work does burn everyone out.

Yes you can look at other games and use good ideas from them - the rep system from eve clearly isn't one. Neither the rights system.

I don't need to describe anything here how griefers will be blocked - because I already did that by saying: " markets are run by players, so they will naturally block griefers to access those "

 

I don't see any micromanaging in "That org is bad, declare them as enemies". The RDMS is exactly there for micromanaging stuff if you wish. That's why it's SO MUCH MORE powerful than Eves system.

An "automatic" system like the one you described wouldn't work in DU simply because there aren't any game-imposed sec stats like high/low/null. Why decrease a players sec status automatically if he's in pirate territory anyway? They WANT pvp to happen there so why punish players with an arbitrary number/system?

Also: no one can prevent anyone from entering their turf in DU - even with a shield (although I admit that is still up for debate). You can walk anywhere you like, you can't dig, edit, build or shoot there though, depending on where you are (MSA/ASA, TCU of another org,...)

 

To me, a MUCH simpler and better fitting system for DU is using the already planned RDMS for everything: Your Org/Alliance decides who may do stuff in your territory and who may open containers or mine on your turf. Everyone who isn't behaving can be flagged with RDMS. What you describe in your second point (or w/e) is exactly what RDMS does

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 4:59 AM, Lethys said:

Yes you can look at other games and use good ideas from them - the rep system from eve clearly isn't one. Neither the rights system.

I don't need to describe anything here how griefers will be blocked - because I already did that by saying: " markets are run by players, so they will naturally block griefers to access those "

 

I don't see any micromanaging in "That org is bad, declare them as enemies". The RDMS is exactly there for micromanaging stuff if you wish. That's why it's SO MUCH MORE powerful than Eves system.

An "automatic" system like the one you described wouldn't work in DU simply because there aren't any game-imposed sec stats like high/low/null. Why decrease a players sec status automatically if he's in pirate territory anyway? They WANT pvp to happen there so why punish players with an arbitrary number/system?

Also: no one can prevent anyone from entering their turf in DU - even with a shield (although I admit that is still up for debate). You can walk anywhere you like, you can't dig, edit, build or shoot there though, depending on where you are (MSA/ASA, TCU of another org,...)

 

To me, a MUCH simpler and better fitting system for DU is using the already planned RDMS for everything: Your Org/Alliance decides who may do stuff in your territory and who may open containers or mine on your turf. Everyone who isn't behaving can be flagged with RDMS. What you describe in your second point (or w/e) is exactly what RDMS does

 

"I don't need to describe anything here how griefers will be blocked - because I already did that by saying: " markets are run by players, so they will naturally block griefers to access those "- lolz 

Now I hope you aren't seriously going to believe in this, reality is going to disappoint you. I have seen that thrown around so much, I really tried to research where people came up with this idea and from what mmo. Literally every FFA/pvp heavy mmo market access is never an issue and you don't have to just base it off games, you can see it in reality. ISIS was terrible in many people's opinions and it still didn't prevent them from utlizing the market. It is human nature that, as Gekko said, "greed is good". 

 

As for the reputation system,  yes the RDMS is strong, but it is too much micro and with loop holes. But like I said, I will wait for a better in depth video where it isn't utilizing a system that would be amazing for a games scale of Space Engineer's and more to an actual Civ building game that they are advertising. Again, the Sec status is limited to one planet or whatever and it can easily work, as many games have done it. Again, I am unsure what mmo's you have played, but it is apparent that it was never a sand box/pvp centric. Nothing to do with punishing players as even the Eve sec status doesn't stop suicide ganking, if anything, it just protects the new players of that area. 20 km sounds like a lot, but it won't be as surprisingly there are a lot of "carebears"  and with enough time you can convert them to pvper's, I had done it in Eve.

 

As for the final paragraph, it is obvious you never played Eve, as organization's are going to enact a NBSI policy 70% of the time. The ones that don't will still do business with people like me, as the morality of griefing in reality, is inconsequential to many people and you see it in Eve. Only snowflakes believe in that crap that the community will police up griefers and it is the most delusional thing I have read in the forums after tons of titles that had FFA pvp are dead (eve isn't FFA). This whole Org/alliance doing the policing people touted on these forums are in my opinion, people who never played Eve online or anything similar. The ones running these organizations are going to have a rude awakening when they encounter the meta game actual Eve players employ.

 

People fail to realize the point of Eve's sec status implementation and that is usually because of people playing the game after 2012. It is to prevent easy griefing, which meant it required some actual effort. Stuff like this helps ensure that the game will always have a higher success chance of converting players into the long haul. You are probably unaware, but Eve is in decline because of the poor foresight of the studio to change the toxic HTFU mentality. We don't have to follow in CCP's footsteps and we can actually have a higher conversion rate then CCP will ever have. This game is quite capable of catering to both "carebears" and "pvpers" and "sociopaths". At the end of the day I am still confident the game is going to be 90% null and 10% empire, I just would like to increase the latter slightly.

 

 As for Novaquarks "wants" in all honesty we don't know for sure as they have changed things and adapted, which a competently run studio should. They have considered putting in automated turrets that everyone here has said shouldn't be in the game, but they are going to put mechanisms in to make it work in DU from the explanations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, plmkoi said:

"I don't need to describe anything here how griefers will be blocked - because I already did that by saying: " markets are run by players, so they will naturally block griefers to access those "- lolz 

Now I hope you aren't seriously going to believe in this, reality is going to disappoint you.

see RDMS - every market owner can restrict orgs/players/groups/alliances to trade there and get equipment they need. Yes there are alts. Yes it's hard to block a griefer 100%. But it makes his life harder nonetheless. And he will we red to anyone living there anyway. Don't rly know what's not to understand here.

 

7 hours ago, plmkoi said:

As for the reputation system,  yes the RDMS is strong, but it is too much micro and with loop holes

elaborate. What holes? RDMS is there so you CAN micromanage everything if you want to - standings are ALWAYS  subject to change and need attention

 

7 hours ago, plmkoi said:

Again, the Sec status is limited to one planet or whatever and it can easily work, as many games have done it. Again, I am unsure what mmo's you have played, but it is apparent that it was never a sand box/pvp centric. Nothing to do with punishing players as even the Eve sec status doesn't stop suicide ganking, if anything, it just protects the new players of that area. 20 km sounds like a lot, but it won't be as surprisingly there are a lot of "carebears"  and with enough time you can convert them to pvper's, I had done it in Eve.

I come from EVE. 10k+ hours.

Again, even if confined to one planet it's an arbitrary number which is superimposed on ppl just for playing the game. This system works in EVE because of sec status of systems, but will not work out that well in an open world, for reasons I stated.

Sec status also doesn't protect anyone in EVE at any time. It's a bad system which gives the impression of doing smth good while in the end doesn't rly do anything at all.

 

7 hours ago, plmkoi said:

s for the final paragraph, it is obvious you never played Eve, as organization's are going to enact a NBSI policy 70% of the time. The ones that don't will still do business with people like me, as the morality of griefing in reality, is inconsequential to many people and you see it in Eve. Only snowflakes believe in that crap that the community will police up griefers and it is the most delusional thing I have read in the forums after tons of titles that had FFA pvp are dead (eve isn't FFA). This whole Org/alliance doing the policing people touted on these forums are in my opinion, people who never played Eve online or anything similar. The ones running these organizations are going to have a rude awakening when they encounter the meta game actual Eve players employ.

Yes NBSI/NPSI will be a common tactic - so what? RDMS -> set everyone to red -> done. Not much micromanaging involved...

Depends on what you did or where you lived in EVE. I lived my whole career in a C5 with sC2/sC6 and we did police our whole chain. That's everyday business to bring stuff inside or sell. But mainly we did it for fun and shooting stuff.

And this kind of thing won't be as prevailant in DU at first as it is in EVE too. Travel times are real. You can't fly from one planet to another one in minutes in the beginning. It takes hours. DU != eve in this regard and pvp will concentrate at certain points imho (like orbit, ground, later on at stargates and FTL-lane beacons)

 

7 hours ago, plmkoi said:

People fail to realize the point of Eve's sec status implementation and that is usually because of people playing the game after 2012. It is to prevent easy griefing, which meant it required some actual effort. Stuff like this helps ensure that the game will always have a higher success chance of converting players into the long haul. You are probably unaware, but Eve is in decline because of the poor foresight of the studio to change the toxic HTFU mentality. We don't have to follow in CCP's footsteps and we can actually have a higher conversion rate then CCP will ever have. This game is quite capable of catering to both "carebears" and "pvpers" and "sociopaths". At the end of the day I am still confident the game is going to be 90% null and 10% empire, I just would like to increase the latter slightly

And it's the same in DU but for different reasons: griefing isn't easy around alioth imho and the griefer needs to work for it too.

7 hours ago, plmkoi said:

They have considered putting in automated turrets that everyone here has said shouldn't be in the game, but they are going to put mechanisms in to make it work in DU from the explanations. 

some certainly don't want them ingame but most players are fine with auto turrets as long as it's balanced and comes with drawbacks

 

I still don't see any reason to implement such a system tbh - there is nothing to gain, but makes everything worse imho

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...