Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kleves

PVP VS NON PVP

Recommended Posts

PvP is great for people that love it. Not everyone likes it. Can we have it both ways? armed ships vs cargo ships. Or is it just going to be a game for one class of player. I would like to see a option to be free of ganks. because some people in this world can not be happy unless they are ganking others. and some people would like to have a time sink that has some reward for time spent that is not ripped away the first time they go outside.

 

 

Share this post


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

PvP is great for people that love it.

Yes, and this game is focused more on those people than...

11 minutes ago, kleves said:

Not everyone likes it.

...those.

11 minutes ago, kleves said:

Can we have it both ways?

Yes. With conditions. Pervasive free-for-all PvP is always going to be a thing. It's always been advertised as being a thing. That isn't going to change, I'm confident of that. There will be places that are generally free from disturbance. Until player-run enforcement agencies are patrolling in deterrent strength, though, space won't be one of them.

11 minutes ago, kleves said:

armed ships vs cargo ships. Or is it just going to be a game for one class of player. I would like to see a option to be free of ganks.

You can be free of ganks by several means.

 

The easiest is to never enter PvP space. Nothing anyone needs is currently unavailable in safe space. All the minerals exist on the celestial bodies currently in safe space, so anything you want can be made there. Eventually, that will decrease to only the Sanctuary moon and maybe (part of) Alioth. At which point the Sanc Moons will be reliant on imports of things over T2, and even for large quantities of T1 and T2. But you can do most things with T1.

 

Evade it. People do traverse PvP space without getting ambushed and killed, and without having to fight.

 

Get help. Lots of people like to fight, and would happily escort a juicy target, in the hopes that someone tries to kill it. At which point, even if you do get killed, you've not been "ganked", you've simply failed to defend yourself, which will happen to everyone.

 

If you don't want to bother to do any of these things, this is not the game for you. The President, founder and Creative Director of Novaquark has very recently said that he wants people to be prepared when they enter PvP space. If you do enter PvP space how about not taking stuff you aren't mentally prepared to lose with you?  You aren't special, and you don't get special treatment. If you make yourself an easy mark, someone will bounce you if they get the opportunity. It's not about "only being happy if they are ganking others", there are plenty of raiders who do other stuff too. And most of them are as happy to fight other armed ships as they are to unload on a fat, slow, unarmed freighter. At least right now; that may change when conditions do.

 

But if you "don't like PvP" have a serious think about whether you're happy to play in this game's mechanic-moderated safe zones, which will become smaller and smaller as time goes on. But bear in mind that most people in a "real" civilisation don't have to engage in PvP, because they have soldiers and police to do that for them, and NQ are aiming to have Dual Universe be similar (probably more soldiers and police, as a proportion of the population, than the RW, cos there will be more hostile powers and predators as a proportion, too). Whether that goal can be realised remains to be seen.

 

 

Share this post


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

But if you "don't like PvP" have a serious think about whether you're happy to play in this game's mechanic-moderated safe zones, which will become smaller and smaller as time goes on. But bear in mind that most people in a "real" civilisation don't have to engage in PvP, because they have soldiers and police to do that for them, and NQ are aiming to have Dual Universe be similar (probably more soldiers and police, as a proportion of the population, than the RW, cos there will be more hostile powers and predators as a proportion, too). Whether that goal can be realised remains to be seen.

in the real world that I live in 100 million people vote and about half go one way and the other half go the other way. so only half are happy with the outcome. I don't want half the gamers to join. i want them all. so a way to please both sides make more money for the game owners. just good business.

Share this post


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

in the real world that I live in 100 million people vote and about half go one way and the other half go the other way. so only half are happy with the outcome. I don't want half the gamers to join. i want them all. so a way to please both sides make more money for the game owners. just good business.

Only it's really bad business to make promises to people and then break them. The people who backed this game, you know, the people who spent 60-plus dollars on something that might never have seen the light of day, did so, in very large part, on the back of the USPs of the game, one of which was pervasive, FFA PvP. They would be right to feel betrayed and quit the game entirely if that promise was reneged upon.

 

How hard is it to realise that the thing that sells this game is the vision of its producers, mostly in the person of JC Baillie? He wants to make a game that encourages societies to form and govern the space they putatively control. He doesn't want the game to do the governing for them. If PvP is restricted, there will be no need for society in the endless space that is non-PvP-enabled, since anyone will be able to have what they want off their own bat, eventually. Because if it's a half-and-half game, the new territory they open up has to have "room for non-PvP" too, else the non-PvPers will eventually exhaust the starting areas and legitimately (because they've been sold a non-PvP game) complain there's nothing in the game for them.

 

The fact that JC's vision encompasses more than just PvP is attractive to some, it would seem, but it's important to know that you can't have "part of" a vision. Everything is linked in JC's head, and if you try and take away a part of it, you might not get anything at all. That's the way visionaries are.

 

Right now, no one has been sold a non-PvP game. It's as obvious as the nose on Kenneth Williams' face that this game has a strong PvP focus, and only a very little bit of research would tell you that PvP will, in the fullness of time, be very nearly everywhere. If you've bought the game without knowing that, you only have yourself to blame. Or maybe you can blame NQ for making you buy the game before you could ask this question here and be set right as to NQ's vision, aims and goal.

 

I'd suggest that you'll find that less than half the people are happy with the outcome in any democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With current mechanics it will be very difficult for "unsponsored" players to do much.   Including both new players and returning players.

 

it’s a big ask to get a new player into the equivalent of a 0.0 Corp in the month or two it takes them to empty their sanctuary claim, or a returning player in a day or two to return to a 0.0 equivalent Corp since their sanctuary claim is already emptied out.

 

The game also lacks the permeable boarder that EVE has with a large green/yellow/red boarder, and Wormhole systems that increase those number of systems in both mass (number of exits)/randomness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, kleves said:

I don't want half the gamers to join. i want them all. so a way to please both sides make more money for the game owners. just good business.

That's exactly why there is a safe zone, so there already is both.

Share this post


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

That's exactly why there is a safe zone, so there already is both.

Except for sanctuary all other safe zones will probably drop in 6 months with territory control.   And Alioth May stay partially safe zone to have a highly active PvP boarder (rather than to actually be safe).

Share this post


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

in the real world that I live in 100 million people vote and about half go one way and the other half go the other way. so only half are happy with the outcome. I don't want half the gamers to join. i want them all. so a way to please both sides make more money for the game owners. just good business.

Stop comparing things to real life.  No game can get everyone's attention.  Its impossible. Even the most popular games have a large portion of people who despise them. You are akin to swimming up stream if you think using any real life comparisons to limit pvp in DU. JC did an interview yesterday explaining safe zones are going to be reduced. So either deal with it or find a new game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NQ's marketing could be much, much better. 

 

Many players will see text like this:

Quote

"Dual Universe" is a sandbox Sci-Fi MMORPG currently in development for PC, set within a continuous single-shard universe where players can freely edit the world and build any construction they like with no size restrictions, from spaceships to cities to giant space stations.

Most people won't go digging through forums or interviews to try to understand some guy's vision (they don't know or care who JC is) -- they'll watch the one trailer and read marketing text like this (if their attention span is that long), then get angry when they realize that DU isn't the vision they expected. 

 

The fact that many new players seem to be mad about PVP is really telling about what players are expecting and how those expectations aren't being set.

 

If you set an expectation and fail to meet it, people tend to get pissy and bomb you on review channels. No one comes into Rust expecting a peaceful builder game. That's because they are upfront about what to expect: Naked + Rocks + Violence.

 

Yes, JC has made it very clear many times that the game will have FFA PVP, but is that really reflected in the 30 seconds of adverts someone will watch before opening their wallet? Blame whoever you want for idiots with no attention span, that's just how consumerism is today. 

 

No matter what vision is communicated publicly, JC has investors and employees.

 

So...my worry is that NQ's marketing will attract a lot of people expecting a sandbox builder. Then they get mad for not having immortal pixels. Then they bomb the game. Then NQ's investors get antsy and demand that NQ do what it can to build its "mainstream" appeal. 

Andurance Ventures and Azom Partners do not really care about JC's vision...they didn't pipe in well over $11 million to create a niche product with 100,000 subs. 

 

Share this post


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

NQ's marketing could be much, much better. 

 

Many players will see text like this:

Most people won't go digging through forums or interviews to try to understand some guy's vision (they don't know or care who JC is) -- they'll watch the one trailer and read marketing text like this (if their attention span is that long), then get angry when they realize that DU isn't the vision they expected. 

 

The fact that many new players seem to be mad about PVP is really telling about what players are expecting and how those expectations aren't being set.

 

If you set an expectation and fail to meet it, people tend to get pissy and bomb you on review channels. No one comes into Rust expecting a peaceful builder game. That's because they are upfront about what to expect: Naked + Rocks + Violence.

 

Yes, JC has made it very clear many times that the game will have FFA PVP, but is that really reflected in the 30 seconds of adverts someone will watch before opening their wallet? Blame whoever you want for idiots with no attention span, that's just how consumerism is today. 

 

No matter what vision is communicated publicly, JC has investors and employees.

 

So...my worry is that NQ's marketing will attract a lot of people expecting a sandbox builder. Then they get mad for not having immortal pixels. Then they bomb the game. Then NQ's investors get antsy and demand that NQ do what it can to build its "mainstream" appeal. 

Andurance Ventures and Azom Partners do not really care about JC's vision...they didn't pipe in well over $11 million to create a niche product with 100,000 subs. 

 

They do care, it's what was pitched to the investors.  You think they got money just saying "we wanna make a game yo, all da peeps on same server!!" 

 

Things have been pretty clearly defined. And never ONCE have they not been clear safe zones would be small compared to rest of universe.  Game is still beta. If you buy a game in beta without researching it, that's on you.

 

20200921_094049.jpg

20200921_094107.jpg

Share this post


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

They do care, it's what was pitched to the investors.  You think they got money just saying "we wanna make a game yo, all da peeps on same server!!" 

I think the point that's being made is that if the public clamour becomes too raucous, the investors might get twitchy about the eventual popularity of the game because of its many detractors. I hope JC had the foresight to explain how this sort of shenanigans works to the investors, or that they already had experience of it. Or that he's got some great arguments as to why the "anti-PvP" crowd are actually a great advertisement to get the original demographic target really interested in the game.

 

That said, I couldn't agree more that NQ's publicity machine is desperately poor. To the point of not actually having one AFAICT. They don't even tell us anything half the time, and we're right here in their backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kezzle said:

I think the point that's being made is that if the public clamour becomes too raucous, the investors might get twitchy about the eventual popularity of the game because of its many detractors. I hope JC had the foresight to explain how this sort of shenanigans works to the investors, or that they already had experience of it. Or that he's got some great arguments as to why the "anti-PvP" crowd are actually a great advertisement to get the original demographic target really interested in the game.

 

That said, I couldn't agree more that NQ's publicity machine is desperately poor. To the point of not actually having one AFAICT. They don't even tell us anything half the time, and we're right here in their backyard.

He can just show them the YouTube videos ot SWG showing what happens when "outside" people force complete overhaul of core mechanics, and loyal paying fans leave be the droves, eventually causing the population to a fraction of its former self, then servers going offline completely. 

 

They also only raised 22mil before beta to my knowledge. Maybe they just don't have a lot of excess money lying around for more marketing. Perhaps they should start selling premade ships for $500. Works for star citizen right. 

Share this post


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

He can just show them the YouTube videos ot SWG showing what happens when "outside" people force complete overhaul of core mechanics, and loyal paying fans leave be the droves, eventually causing the population to a fraction of its former self, then servers going offline completely. 

Hopefully, that'd do it. 

2 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

They also only raised 22mil before beta to my knowledge. Maybe they just don't have a lot of excess money lying around for more marketing. Perhaps they should start selling premade ships for $500. Works for star citizen right. 

The sort of thing I'm thinking of wouldn't have to be a half a person-day a week. And not a very highly-paid person, at that :)  If they're struggling to shake loose that sort of effort, then we may have problems. I prefer to think it's considered unimportant (and disagree with the assessment).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kezzle said:

Hopefully, that'd do it. 

The sort of thing I'm thinking of wouldn't have to be a half a person-day a week. And not a very highly-paid person, at that :)  If they're struggling to shake loose that sort of effort, then we may have problems. I prefer to think it's considered unimportant (and disagree with the assessment).

 

JC tho just did a very informative interview.  The information is out there.  If someone doesnt look it's their fault. This isnt a released game. Most people will be like " gee I wonder what's to come?" And can easily find that information.  What what's to come ISNT pve.  At least not anytime soon. JC said quests that were created by the players were coming. Are you starting to see a trend trend here??? Player driven.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now our most up to date information about future game mechanics, is from a random YouTube channel not owned by the devs and with an ORG leader that are already selling Shirts/similar  (The most up to date information is only available from a third party source, that is monetizing that update as well).    That's rather silly.

Share this post


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

Right now our most up to date information about future game mechanics, is from a random YouTube channel not owned by the devs and with an ORG leader that are already selling Shirts/similar  (The most up to date information is only available from a third party source, that is monetizing that update as well).    That's rather silly.

For core mechanics.  I dont mind discussion on HOW pvp should work, or it being balanced. What isnt discussed is IF pvp should happen in the majority of the game world, as that has already been confirmed.  DU Is gonna be a dangerous place for those who fail to make plans, or allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish everything here could be about how PvP should work instead of shock that PvP will be a thing! :D 

 

The reason why messaging is so important in the context of investors is that it's a subscription-based service...

 

Their core metric is churn -- if revenue drops, the question on any investor's mind will be "what's the churn rate" and "why is churn so high"? 

 

If the messaging is wrong, they'll be inflating their initial subscriber count at the cost of higher churn rate when the first wave of renewals hits. Suddenly high expectations turn pessimistic, and investors want to understand why churn is so high.

 

The easiest way to understand why churn is high is to ask people that cancel their subs. Now you're getting feedback based on a demographic you never wanted to target in the first place. 

 

I hope I've explained my point -- it takes more than interviews on youtube channels; they need to make sure people that aren't as invested in the game still understand what they're buying or it might be a tough year on the business side. 

Of course we can only ever guess on subscriber metrics...I'm only saying this based on the fact that so many people are here complaining about PvP as a concept, which likely means even more are churning because of it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, michaelk said:

I really wish everything here could be about how PvP should work instead of shock that PvP will be a thing! :D 

 

The reason why messaging is so important in the context of investors is that it's a subscription-based service...

 

Their core metric is churn -- if revenue drops, the question on any investor's mind will be "what's the churn rate" and "why is churn so high"? 

 

If the messaging is wrong, they'll be inflating their initial subscriber count at the cost of higher churn rate when the first wave of renewals hits. Suddenly high expectations turn pessimistic, and investors want to understand why churn is so high.

 

The easiest way to understand why churn is high is to ask people that cancel their subs. Now you're getting feedback based on a demographic you never wanted to target in the first place. 

 

I hope I've explained my point -- it takes more than interviews on youtube channels; they need to make sure people that aren't as invested in the game still understand what they're buying or it might be a tough year on the business side. 

Of course we can only ever guess on subscriber metrics...I'm only saying this based on the fact that so many people are here complaining about PvP as a concept, which likely means even more are churning because of it....

That's a good point, people who arent even the target audience giving negative feedback. The target audience is people who want to play a TRUE mmo, where players effect other players and the world around them. 

 

Imagine if instead of people complaining of griefing and pvp, people complained that they went to a hex and the ore was mined. Or someone saw an engine for sale on the market 100k below the current rate, and by the time they flew there someone else bought it, and that person made a rant thread saying how they got griefed cause someone else bought the part. They would be ridiculed here. That's what should also be happening to the non-pvpers who talk about not wanting it outside safe zones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, kleves said:

PvP is great for people that love it. Not everyone likes it. Can we have it both ways? armed ships vs cargo ships. Or is it just going to be a game for one class of player. I would like to see a option to be free of ganks. because some people in this world can not be happy unless they are ganking others. and some people would like to have a time sink that has some reward for time spent that is not ripped away the first time they go outside.

 

 

Im all about being fair and giving every player and profession a chance. 

 

Buf if pvp is not your thing at all, there are pvp free games around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Emptiness said:

Safe ZoneS. S, plural, meaning multiple. Maybe many multiple. Certainly not 'one or two'.

2 is plural.  That could mean sanc moon, and alioth market area. And JC said if sanc moon fills up another sanc moon could be on the table.  They have clearly said safe zones will be smaller then the open world pvp, and in recent interview hinted at only alioth and sanc moon.  Also said any high tier valuables would never be in a safe zone.  Maybe you backed the wrong game.  It happens. Do more research next time.

Share this post


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

...JC said if sanc moon fills up another sanc moon could be on the table...

Pretty sure it was more definite than that: he was talking like they'd started the planning already cos it was noticeably filling up. But yeah, still only plural Sanc Moons.

 

3 hours ago, Emptiness said:

Safe ZoneS. S, plural, meaning multiple. Maybe many multiple. Certainly not 'one or two'.

Certainly not one. Beyond that, it's your febrile speculation. Go find that recent interview. Watch it and actually listen to what's being said by the person who is driving the game. Decide if you can face the DU future. But for Ifni's sake, please stop with the "but I want safety; they said there would be safe places" whining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people buy into games that offer gameplay they do not want and then start complaining about it afterwards?

 

"This great new type of bread has a distinct vanilla flavour"

"Great, I will take two"

"Here you go"

"I don't like the vanilla flavour, can you make bread without it?"

 

If you do not want PVP be a part of games you play that's fine but do not buy in to games which clearly and openly show PVP is an integral part of said games.

 

If you feel PVP currently is not balanced that's different, be constructive and bring arguments to the table as well as idea on how it can be better for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...