Jump to content
JoniAdama

PVP possible in "Safe Zone"

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Anopheles said:

It was an example as the forum couldn't cope with listing every single exemption on the planet.

 

Not that I could give enough examples to change a fixed and limited, and if I may, bigoted outlook.

 

Most of the clans I've been in have been full.of mature individuals with families and employment which indicates a certain ability to socialise normally.

So why do those ppl dedicate massive daily hours to DU instead of paying attention to their families and RL activities? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

So why do those ppl dedicate massive daily hours to DU instead of paying attention to their families and RL activities? 

I dont know, they don't tell me anything.

 

Look, I realise you think that question was a laser like burst of ultimate truth or proof or whatever, but it really isn't.

 

Some people have x amount of free time due to individual circumstances too myriad to list.  Sometimes it's their only free time interest, sometimes like me, they get an hour a two a day - if that.

 

Also, It's also worth saying that playing for longer than this =/= no social skills.  The only thing it proves without doubt is that, for the moment, they have a lot of free time.

 

Also, also, a lot of these people are communicating and socialising whilst playing, further making your point worthless.

Share this post


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

Also, also, a lot of these people are communicating and socialising whilst playing, further making your point worthless.

The unanswered question proves my point. 

Its my opinion. It may not be yours. 

 

What ever is the reason why ppl spends hours in this game, i have a feeling its not gunna help their "civilization building" skills. 

And i still think NQ needs to give up on this lazy non interference overview and start thinking very seriously in guiding mechanics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

The unanswered question proves my point. 

Its my opinion. It may not be yours. 

 

What ever is the reason why ppl spends hours in this game, i have a feeling its not gunna help their "civilization building" skills. 

And i still think NQ needs to give up on this lazy non interference overview and start thinking very seriously in guiding mechanics. 

It was answered.  That you dont like the answer is a different thing.   I prefer a positive outlook.  I dont know of your negative viewpoint of human behaviour is affecting your ability to socialise though.  I wouldn't make such a stupid assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2020 at 6:28 AM, blazemonger said:

The problem is NQ has rushed to open beta because they needed the funding and thus have left so many gaping holes in the game mechanics that we will be seeing exploits like these (and worse) for some time to come.

Off topic, but is this true? If so, I'm not sure how a $20/3month (~$7/month) sub will seriously help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously exploiting to me. Game warns us about other dangers and if this was intended they would have warned us about it. Simple unless your the type of person who loves to grief and those anti social types don’t help games last or communities 🤮

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks,

 

first of all: don't tell others their statement is "bullshit" or that their assumption is "stupid" - this doesn't help anyone. Keep it nice and let the other party know that you disagree with them in a polite way. Thanks! ;)

 

Now on topic

All I can tell you so far is that a formal policy will follow soon.

 

I don't speak for NQ now, but I want to help evaluate the situation for the time being. It's a bit of a long read, but there will be a short version at the end - don't jump there if you don't want any spoilers ;)

 

As I see it there is a very basic concept to consider. First of all there's the question of what we do know and what we don't. Next how to make an educated guess about things we do not know for sure just yet. Since @NQ-Naerais gave a very clear statement about the "zero tolerance policy towards cheating and exploiting" in that previously linked announcement, I think it would be a good idea to start with the definition of exploits, because I don't see this provided by NQ yet. In case I just missed it, please point me towards it - thanks in advance.

 

In order to make an educated guess about what might or might not be considered an exploit I'll just use the first reference that comes to mind: Wikipedia article "Video game exploit"

And I quote the first sentence:

Quote

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.

I don't know if NQ shares this exact definition, but I think it's good enough for this evaluation.

Now that we got this covered it leads us to the next question: What is the intent of the game's designer here?

 

Having read this thread I think everyone agrees that the intent of the maneuver permission on own tiles is to enable landowners to move all constructs out of the way that are parked on their tile. So far so easy.

 

Where people seem to disagree is on the question if this permission is intended to allow docking such constructs in order to take them away far outside the boundaries of the maneuver tool and the owned tile(s) on or for which the permission has been granted in the first place.

 

But there's a problem - I can't find a Wikipedia article about NQ's intent regarding this. So if we want to proceed to evaluate the situation before that formal policy is released we have to find a different approach.

 

Again, having read this thread I took note about your opinions and while some aren't exactly clear, I found that 4 people are in favor of this being intended/allowed, while 11 people oppose that assessment/opinion. Further I found 1 "probably in favor" and 3 "probably against" as well as 2 more people against it who added some constraints like "stealing in general would be cool, but not like this" or "against it but don't think it's an exploit". Don't confuse these numbers with a vote tho - it's just an observation and I don't even guarantee that I got everything right ;) 

 

So this is just a very rough approximation, but to sum it up:

5 people think it's more or less ok

16 people think it's not ok

 

Now I could try to make an educated guess based on this and say that the landowner's maneuver permission is probably not intended to be used for docking. That right to maneuver is probably just intended to be used to maneuver constructs off the landowners claimed tile in order to solve another issue and nothing else. So just based on your comments here the probability for this being an exploit is rather high.

 

Granted, it's always hard to guess someone's intent and to base this on the opinions of players instead of Novaquark employees further dilutes the accuracy of this speculation. But if we include the possibility that NQ might take players' feedback into their considerations, it counteracts this dilution a bit.

 

I can't tell you what is going to happen or what that formal policy is going to say, but personally I'd like to strongly advise against using this mechanic to dock and abduct for the time being. At the very best I think it's dangerous to do it - especially since there is a certain level of awareness that there's a good chance it will actually be considered an exploit and it may be hard to claim "But I didn't know!" - pure speculation on my part tho and just meant to convey why I think it's a dangerous path to follow.

 

If you remember the aforementioned "zero tolerance policy" regarding exploits, at least I wouldn't want to take that chance even if I rounded the numbers down to "only" 3 to 1 against me. Or if I move the "3 probably against" from the original numbers towards the "in favor" side it still results in 13 to 8 against and I wouldn't bet my access on odds like these. But it's your account and your own risk to take if you decide to go for it anyways - after all, as moderator, as said repeatedly, I don't speak for NQ regarding game-related things.

 

 

So much for the evaluation. My guess is as good as yours, but if I may further add my own opinion/guess: since construct owners have to deliberately grant the "maneuver construct" permission using the RDMS, it's clear that it's not meant to be granted to enemies. I see the fact that this permission is being granted to landowners as an exception that's solely meant to solve an actual issue and for nothing else. I think it's meant to enable landowners to help them keep their land usable and this permission should not transpire outside the owner's land in any form. That should exclude the option to use it to dock constructs to your own if not granted explicitly through the RDMS by the owner of the parked construct.

 

You remember the "EVE doesn't give you a warning" sentiment on this thread, which was countered by "this isn't EVE"? Just consider that DU gives everyone a distance indication as soon as they approach or leave the PVP Zone. Players flying towards a planet get a notification that reads something along the lines of "You have entered the Safe Zone". Again, not speaking for NQ, but I think planet surfaces so far are "intended to become unsafe" once territorial warfare gets introduced - not before.

 

I think attacking from non-pvp space into pvp space is clearly not ok, but the only thing I actually know is that a formal policy will follow soon. Again, until then I just recommend to think twice about how sure you are regarding the developer's intend.

 

When you confirmed the existence of a "possible exploit" and there's any doubt if this is intended, the safest route to take is: make a report and get permission first before you use it. In that case you will always have the report on your side for the first time you did it, if it remains the only time you did it. This is just in case if it will actually be considered an exploit that you just discovered. I think exploits don't need to be specifically listed in order to be punished, because you can't list anything that has not been discovered yet ;) 

 

Here's the promised short version. The whole essay above boils down to:

Spoiler

The long version above was just an evaluation based on the contents of this thread.

 

Unofficial Results

  1. Always better be safe than sorry! Hence...
  2. Don't do it unless there's official green light.

Neither the evaluation nor these results have been confirmed or denied by NQ.

 

Mellow greetings

Mondlicht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never called anything but my own possible assumption stupid.  A small but significant difference.

 

I'd wished you'd called out the "Anyone spending too long in Dual Universe is socially stunted and/or incapable" assumption instead, but you do you, I guess.

Share this post


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

I never called anything but my own possible assumption stupid.  A small but significant difference.

Thank you for that clarification - in context that nuance slipped past me. When you addressed joao and questioned his social abilities directly, it seems to have biased me a bit towards interpreting the rest as criticism of his character. After that I've read "I wouldn't make such a stupid assumption" as if you were referring to his opinion/assumption about "most ppl playing MMOs". Sincerely sorry for calling that out, but at the same time I'm a bit happy I did too, because this gave the chance to make it perfectly clear. Reading again with your additional statement your comment comes across less aggressive and takes a bit off the edge in the sentence before that. Still a bit fierce, but I guess not enough to be called out like that.

 

8 hours ago, Anopheles said:

I'd wished you'd called out the "Anyone spending too long in Dual Universe is socially stunted and/or incapable" assumption instead, but you do you, I guess.

Well, he said "most ppl" and not "anyone doing x" - a small but significant difference as well. But yes, it's not ok to storm into a biker's bar and announce something negative starting with "Most bikers..." either, as too many might feel addressed and provoked by this. When doing something like this one should at least start with "In my opinion..." or provide some statistic to back up the claim. Even better to replace "most" with "many" or if not provable "some" at best, just to make it less bold and keep it humble, which always sits better on the receiving end and takes them into maybe fruitful consideration instead of defense.

 

However, choice of words ain't always perfect (especially since many of us don't have English as their native language) and the receiver might make a mistake too - as seen above that doesn't exclude me either. So by default I'd prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I should have doubted my initial interpretation of your posting when writing that small foreword above my wall of text ;)

 

Mellow greetings

Mondlicht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 1:20 AM, Mordgier said:

NQ-Naerais confirmed that this is not intended use of the mechanic allowing territory owners to move ships.

So what. "Not intended use" is not equal to bannable offence.

Still doesn't mean anything as long as its not explicitly stated by NQ that it's forbidden. They really should grow some balls and rewrite that eula

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2020 at 3:43 AM, JoniAdama said:

Hello everybody, 

 

Today i woke up, and learned some lesson in "Hard way" 

 

I was flying around on Alioth with my Medium sized ship, that had some nice L sized parts on it, some of them were Military grade, + territory scanner. I was scanning some unclaimed territories for ores, and found 

3000 KT of Hematite, landed my ship there and started to mine on that spot, I mined for an hour or so, and got only 100k of that hematite in my ships container. It was late, and I thought I am gonna go to sleep and then return on morning to continue my findings to that big Chunk :) 

 

Woke up, and territory was claimed by another player, also noticed that my ship wasn`t there anymore, I thought hmm strange... :) At the end i checked Discord some help, and in notifications window i saw that my ship was destroyed by another player.

 

So, what happened is, I left my ship on unclaimed territory and went OFF , then some other player found me, Claimed that territory while i was offline, then using Maneuver tool moved my ship and placed it on another Dynamic Construct, which on this case was L core sized ship, took it to space outside of safezone, attacked it and destroyed it, and claimed it, at the end they got all my parts from ship. 10 or 12 Vertical booster L, 8 atmo engines L, 2 Military grade Atmo engines L, 4 Space Engines L. 1 Space Engine XL, Large Container with 100k of hematite in there and Territory scanner.

 

What do you think ? Is it and exploit ? 

 

Personally I think that`s and amazing stuff to do in this game, never ever have thinked about this one. Even i learn`d it in hard way and the loss was pretty painful.

That's an empty camp raid which is the essence of what so called PVPers think is game play. That's why open world PVP doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this dyng fire requires is a Daphne grenade to put it out.

 

I do feel for you Daphne, forced at gunpoint to play a game with explicit open world pvp in it.  Especially one with extensive safe zones where you can sit tutting to your heart's content.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Anopheles said:

What this dyng fire requires is a Daphne grenade to put it out.

 

I do feel for you Daphne, forced at gunpoint to play a game with explicit open world pvp in it.  Especially one with extensive safe zones where you can sit tutting to your heart's content.

 

It's ok, because even Daphne Muses in her own discord about getting into a pvp ship and 'griefing NG logistics's.... 

 

Good luck :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Anopheles said:

What this dyng fire requires is a Daphne grenade to put it out.

 

I do feel for you Daphne, forced at gunpoint to play a game with explicit open world pvp in it.  Especially one with extensive safe zones where you can sit tutting to your heart's content.

 

It really is the non-pvpers who are the most toxic. I have a decade worth of eve experience and evidence backing it. Instead of daphne finding a game that's fun for her, she has to go to the forums of a game whose gameplay she doesn't agree with and tout "it never works" and thinks no person should ever be allowed to play a game with open world pvp, and those who do and play games like eve are psychotic.  Me on the other hand, understand that people have different tastes and while I personally dislike games like WoW or fortnight, am glad they exist and are there for people to play who enjoy them.  I stick to playing games I'm interested in, like a normal well adjusted adult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2020 at 4:55 PM, JohnnyTazer said:

Nice generalizing.  I've had great and many social groups throughout my life.  In Highschool, in college.  I also love sports and often go to Football games with friends.  In my younger years we would go to Concerts.  Weekends in my 20s were spent a decent amount of time at bars socializing with friends.  I've met friends IRL thru games like EvE online, and also still have a few life long friends from when I was 5.  Seems like you are projecting.  Normal well adjusted adults know the difference between real life and video games.  We can handle "losing" pixels in a game, and understand and enjoy competition.  MMO's of these sorts are similar in other competitive shooter games that have become wildly popular.  To win at a battle royal, someone has to die and lose.  Are those people toxic or lack social skills? No one makes you play.  Its also Beta, so people pushing things to the limits is actual helpful, so NQ can see these things, then make judgments and make stances on their rules.  If you can't handle it emotionally, then maybe its you that needs to take a step back and re-evaluate how you see things. 

I think the point he was attempting to make was that most of the interesting stuff you mentioned happened to you (and other people like us) in our pasts... 

 

thus with little going on in your current life, you (we) tend to spend (inordinate amounts of) time interacting with random people you have never met online in a computer game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get official NQ reply on this ? WTF is "not intended game mechanics ?" It's a sandbox, it doesn't play by intended mechanics. Discord is not a thing to get data from, I am not to about to scroll 100500 pages.

 

Do I get a ban for doing it ? If someone does it to my ship does he get banned ? We need a clear answer here.

Share this post


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

It really is the non-pvpers who are the most toxic.

Too many years of gaming has shown me otherwise.

 

Countless times I see a 'carebear' (a term pvp'rs came up with mind you), make mention of an unfair or unruly action which boils down to just a few despicable people griefing those who are not griefers. Pretty much like this thread was about someone doing something questionable in the name of lulz.

 

This mention is then immediately attacked by all the pvp'rs, throwing insults, name calling, and taking that mention into new heights of flaming high trolldom. Generally.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

PS: I've done my fair share of pvp, trolling, griefing in my life... I'm just too old to give a shit now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this slightly unexpected result of combining different mechanisms of the game actually makes it more lifelike - if you leave your bicycle unattended in remote area, it would also get stolen and police would not help you. Anything which moves this already amazing game closer to absolute virtual reality is cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A workaround is, claiming a tile and parking your ship there if u logout without leaving the planet.
problem solved..

cept.. everytime i'm mining underground, out of range of the surface minimap.. i am always afraid that someone will come along, claim the tile and tow my ship into pvp space.
it's a very active fear and one im sure many share.
If i suddenly couldn't mine, it would take me too long to clamber up to the service to claim my ship.
This is very wrong and slightly not fun.

The only workaround would be to place a territory unit on every tile you land on. Add, remove, add, remove.
Which i suppose is feasible. sad, but feasible.

On 10/2/2020 at 12:20 AM, Mordgier said:

For what it's worth - NQ-Naerais confirmed that this is not intended use of the mechanic allowing territory owners to move ships.

Tick tock, hopefully there will be a preventative measure added, before too long.

On 10/4/2020 at 8:34 PM, GoonChee said:

I think this slightly unexpected result of combining different mechanisms of the game actually makes it more lifelike - if you leave your bicycle unattended in remote area, it would also get stolen and police would not help you. Anything which moves this already amazing game closer to absolute virtual reality is cool.

cept IRL u get to chain it to a tree. which circles back to having to place a temp TU on every tile u land on.

Share this post


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

A workaround is, claiming a tile and parking your ship there if u logout without leaving the planet.
problem solved..

cept.. everytime i'm mining underground, out of range of the surface minimap.. i am always afraid that someone will come along, claim the tile and tow my ship into pvp space.
it's a very active fear and one im sure many share.
If i suddenly couldn't mine, it would take me too long to clamber up to the service to claim my ship.
This is very wrong and slightly not fun.

The only workaround would be to place a territory unit on every tile you land on. Add, remove, add, remove.
Which i suppose is feasible. sad, but feasible.

Tick tock, hopefully there will be a preventative measure added, before too long.

cept IRL u get to chain it to a tree. which circles back to having to place a temp TU on every tile u land on.

 

Dont forget that "temp TCU" is there for 7 days before you can lift it (or so says the text when you place it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

51 minutes ago, Talonclaw said:

cept.. everytime i'm mining underground, out of range of the surface minimap.. i am always afraid that someone will come along, claim the tile and tow my ship into pvp space.
it's a very active fear and one im sure many share.
If i suddenly couldn't mine, it would take me too long to clamber up to the service to claim my ship.
This is very wrong and slightly not fun.

 

I'm sorry for your paranoia. It's entirely unfounded.

 

 

The odds of this happening to you while you are actually there are astronomically small. 

 

Neverminded that you could waypoint your ship and if you happen to see it drifting - just force respawn and fly it to safety.

 

This issue has been entirely blown our of proportion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mordgier said:

 

 

I'm sorry for your paranoia. It's entirely unfounded.

 

 

The odds of this happening to you while you are actually there are astronomically small. 

 

Neverminded that you could waypoint your ship and if you happen to see it drifting - just force respawn and fly it to safety.

 

This issue has been entirely blown our of proportion.

 

It has been, but his paranoia will be very real when he tries to mine when atmosphere pvp is introduced and he lands on a random unclaimed tile. I suspect pirates will roam planets just as much if not more than space when they can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...