The community split is not PvP vs PVE but...

[Anopheles]

Those who want civilisation to start from

bloody, chaotic beginnings into something random and those who want a fully fledged and safe civilisation to drop into -skipping all the actual civilisation building.

 

It's not a"murder hobo vs carebear" fight either.   Some, maybe most, on the PVP side want pvp to be and extension of politics so that it's not just dry talking.

 

Even pirates like me would rather pvp was the result of carelessness or insufficient planning on the part of one of the combatants.  I'm even one of those rare pirates happy to see his partner in "surprise trading" survive if they are sensible during the encounter.

 

Not all pve/not interested in combat themselves people clutch their pearls at the thought of PVP, seeing it as a future projection of power or consequence of bad planning (ie, no radar).

 

The squeaky wheels gets the grease, though.

 

I'm also ok with safe zones* btw, though I think it makes more narrative sense for it to be just one planet and one moon.  This should encourage cooperation between manufacturers and people happy to be pewpewers in order for higher tier materials to make it back to the safe zone.

 

Anyway, thought it worth saying before the endless circular conversations begin.

 

*someone in page 2 won't have read the OP and will accuse me of wanting to seal club, guaranteed.

 

[Olmeca_Gold]

There is no tension between "civilization building" and PvP. There is almost no time in the history of human civilization without war. We build stuff and we destroy stuff.

 

All sandbox games will have this dichotomy between the "builders"; people who play to own/build, and the "doers"; aka people who play to have enjoyable experiences (e.g. fights) in a game.  These are just two fundamentally different reasons to play a game like this. It's no different than people who play WoW for items/char building vs people who do so for doing arenas/battlegrounds.

 

A game doesn't have to appeal to both of these kind of people. For example, Minecraft or Farmville is better for the builders. Battlefield or Dota 2 is better for the "doers". But a sandbox like Dual Universe should accommodate both these kind of people. And it's a huge job to find a sustainable balance (there is never "perfect balance") between the two.

 

I'd also argue that people who play to own/build are typically more zealous about their desire for security and non-interruption because pirates don't need to exist for their gameplay to be viable. The fighters, particularly space pirate kind of people, understand that in any such ecosystem hunters are dependent on the prey and thus value a more balanced game where builders have their fair space of existence. Ofc there are always exceptions.

[Underhook]

27 minutes ago, Olmeca_Gold said:

There is no tension between "civilization building" and PvP. There is almost no time in the history of human civilization without war. We build stuff and we destroy stuff.

 

All sandbox games like this will this a dichotomy between the "builders"; people who play to own/build, and the "doers"; aka people who play to have enjoyable experiences (e.g. fights) in a game.  These are just two fundamentally different reasons to play a game like this. It's no different than people who play WoW for items/char building vs people who do so for doing arenas/battlegrounds.

 

A game doesn't have to appeal to both of these kind of people. For example, Minecraft or Farmville is better for the builders. Battlefield or Dota 2 is better for the "doers". But a sandbox like Dual Universe should accommodate both these kind of people. And it's a huge job to find a sustainable balance (there is never "perfect balance") between the two.

 

I'd also argue that people who play to own/build are typically more zealous about their desire for security and non-interruption because pirates don't need to exist for their gameplay to be viable. The fighters, particularly space pirate kind of people, understand that in any such ecosystem hunters are dependent on the prey and thus value a more balanced game where builders have their fair space of existence. Ofc there are always exceptions.

I want PvP but I am not interested in piracy.  I'm interested in War.  Currently I cant see a reason for War.  There does not seem to be any territory or resource vital enough to defend .... yet

[Zamiel7]

I love the idea, personally, but it's just not at all very realistic in terms of getting players to stick around. This is a "civilization" building game in a sense because it's primarily player-driven, but I have absolutely no faith that players, by themselves, will be able to create anything approximating fun or balanced on their own without existing, fairly detailed frameworks created by the devs. 

[michaelk]

It's sad how the OP knows where this topic will probably go...devolving into people raging aimlessly, blaming other players for NQ's objective lack of design leadership.

 

DU is already a very bold promise -- be anyone, do anything, assume any role, etc. etc...We've all seen the trailer. They want you to imagine DU at the grandest possible scale.

 

When people come here to discuss how PvP or PvE ought to work, it's wildly divergent because it's still all a fantastical idea. 

 

Instead of talking about the game as it is, we have no choice but to argue about generalizations and theory...and NQ doesn't help matters by leaving it all an enigma.

 

Every player will imagine something different for what DU should be because it was marketed in such a broad, ambitious way -- combine that with a vastly incomplete product and no details from the development team and of course people will have strong and divergent opinions...not like there's much fact to go on. 

 

My point is that I don't like people reducing this topic to "NQ being yanked around by a bunch of whiners"...

 

Intentionally or not, NQ created the conditions for players to be vocal about the direction of the game by not providing a direction themselves. Not anyone's fault that this ship is being steered by a captain that plots their course on whimsy and rumor. 

[Atmosph3rik]

Seems like a lot of words just for an excuse to post this... 

On 11/1/2020 at 1:34 AM, Anopheles said:

just one planet and one moon.

 

We get it though.  If the safe zones were smaller then there would be more seals to club.

 

And this is still page one ?

[Scarletgreen]

In my opinion:

This one game called DAOC ( Dark age of camelot) did it right with something called rvr (realm vs realm) warfare. and they are still going today whereas a lot of other pvp centric games have failed.

 

Id love nothing more to have a red server, but that would be a bad business model for a game coming out of alpha. 

 

Not to mention we are in a pandemic which has gutted our way of life for the most part.

 

In EQ2 days when we had nagafen and vox I think, it was a newish concept, even then though people only lost coin if they had any on them, maybe an odd heroic item, should they lose a fight.

 

It did not last long though in terms of a business model, even with those protections in place. 

 

They tried 2 more times with its nostalgia/maint mode servers, TLE, it was around for maybe 4-6  months, even less the second time around.  Then they tried a TLE red server on a limited time basis, which was a worst idea in itself.

 

Lots of games have tried to figure out the pvp formula but its going be an uphill battle when 50% of the customers are not going to get that same sensation the other 50% are getting.  I mean they could do participation trophies I guess but even then its not as good as that first place prize. 

 

So how do we fix that in 2020 in a pandemic?

 

Simple,  people love being a part of something and misery loves company.  RVR...

 

We all win or we all lose.

 

Maybe come up with 2 other factions, like Aliens and the other could be robots or AI etc lol.

So humans, AI and aliens wow now you could do a lot with those, lots of expansions, worlds etc.  $$$$ big money!

 

Different strengths and weaknesses, well not to get off topic sori, but I think rvr is the way to go if you want this game to be around 5 years from now.  IMO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anopheles]

5 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

Seems like a lot of words just for an excuse to post this... 

 

We get it though.  If the safe zones were smaller then there would be more seals to club.

 

And this is still page one ?

I'm sorry you are hard of thinking.

[JohnnyTazer]

Whats funny is the term seal clubbing.  It shows utter contempt for the person "dying".  By labeling them "baby seals" you are absolving them of any wrong doing.  Going into a pvp zone, completely unprepared is on the person that dies, not on the person that shoots them.  I often think back to eve in these instances, and so so so so many of the fights/kills ive had are from putting out that "bait" to look like a baby seal.  Then the big bad pvpers attack, then we show a bigger force and fuck them up.  Happens all the time. 

[HangerHangar]

The larger safe zone is fine.   And will only seem smaller and smaller as more areas are added, and people mine it out.   The point of such a large safe zone is to have permeability between the “rule borders”, and the only way that this game can get it is by the size of the area.  

 

  IE: EVE manages   Permeability with around 4 different types of WH systems, have teleportation in the form of cynoing/jumping, and even normal rule space having a considerable number of connections.  And that permeability is used for everything from letting newbies learn the ropes of risk with exploration content, higher end PvE content without the risk of “permanent choke points”,  the ability for smaller corps to get some form of territory control, as a place for hunters to work, or as a way for hunters to break into an otherwise perfectly controlled area.    In other words 20 years of development and emergent mechanics.

 

Essentially the more permeable the boarder is, will result in a higher variety of people operating out of the safe zone.  IE: Sanctuary only a .6SU moon meaning it could be camped with a handful of ships having full visibility of everything entering/leaving,  versus an area large enough to have multiple “shipping lanes” to PvP planets.

 

————

 

there’s also the matter of PvP being so under designed right now that it enables laughable memes like “Gold is the best armor”.  That’s like a punch line to a joke.

[Anomaly]

The point about borders is a good one. Dual doesn't have nearly enough to prevent them from being locked down should PVP come to the planets.  Control of the only source of certain resources and the current 100% loot system is a recipe for PVP stagnation. 

 

The game needs more systems and more features within each system. Asteroids could make up for the small number of planets within each system - especially if they move.  I could imagine resource filled rocks starting from the edge of a system and looping around the star. They could even pass through safe zones to allow newer players a chance to clean up what remains.