Jump to content

Why PVP is important to the game.


Recommended Posts

On 4/17/2021 at 1:38 PM, UnscriptedVert said:

Finally, someone who understands the real problem here. And to add to this, the reason people come and go, is because of the old timers who are not saying anything constructive to help the devs, they are basically being toxic players that run off the new players. I have seen a lot of new players come and go, and their reason ? Toxic Players. It has become a vicious circle.


Ahem... and there we have it... blame the players, not the game! Best strategy ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2021 at 1:09 PM, Taziar said:

Someone built a small city (including monorail) in this game, it is not as different from Second Life as one would imagine.  It just has a bit more focus on actual gameplay (which feels odd to say considering the state of this game).

 

A lot of people have built a lot of cities, the problem is.... they are useless. And they are namely useless because they are not necessary. As long as DU remains a game where a stronghold / city is not necessary, it is not a civilization building game.

 

Civilization doesn't just come out of nowhere, there are some very important selective pressures that generate civilization: geography, weather, environment, neighboring tribes... war, scarcity, uneven resource distribution, etc etc... None of this is in the game. Placing higher tier ores on different planets is a bit of a lazy way of doing things, but so far that's the only attempt at a civilization driving factor, even that is done poorly. There is no danger at all, apart from game bugs or someone too asleep at the pilot seat to realize they're about to smack into a planet.
Cities don't just appear, there is a process by which they did appear out of necessity and natural growth. Just because someone placed a few constructs on the ground with fancy voxels and lua doesn't make it into a city. Empty museum, sure, not a city though. Moscow was not built as Moscow... it was an intersection of war and trade paths that necessitated a trade hub and then grew into a stronghold and then into a sprawling city, again, by natural necessity. The result of years and years of strife and trade was a bustling city with input and output, supply lines and social hierarchies and distribution etc etc.. Driving factors. Selective pressures... they don't exist in DU. It's mostly rp and rich players making "plans" and building empty voxel museums.


You would think that if the visionary scientist would have set out to build a civilization building game maybe he'd start off with first principles and ask questions like: what is civilization? what factors cause it? What are its characteristics? And when these questions are answered, maybe the important / realistic causes / characteristics can be picked out and gamified into a coherent system. Something screams at me that this process never happened. It was.... oui... cities.. civilization.... lessss goooo sacrebleu! More than 20 million dollars later we have what we have.

 

Fundamentally DU is a tech demo purported as a game because it's treated like a game (payed subs). There are expectations of a game that is treated as a game, especially when people are paying for it.... meanwhile still a tech demo. As far as I see it, the premise of this 50 concurrent player quota single shard mmo mining simulator is that its vision will be accomplished when there is a player generated city bustling with players, with supply lines constantly feeding it, and top tier production exported as product for the general population to use, organizational and governmental structures, etc. If DU can actually achieve that, it would be a good score. Perhaps it can't and the devs will hire level designers to "build" cities for the remaining playerbase. But at that point you can't call this game a "player-generated" content game... you'd have to clean out and erase a lot of marketing and the whole premise of the kickstarter.

All this to say, pvp is necessary as a driving force for civilization generation :) Along with geographical differences that matter... along with weather... along with horny T-Rexes roaming the jungles of Alioth and eating innocent virgins...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, IvanGrozniy said:

A lot of people have built a lot of cities, the problem is.... they are useless. And they are namely useless because they are not necessary. As long as DU remains a game where a stronghold / city is not necessary, it is not a civilization building game.

 

.....


All this to say, pvp is necessary as a driving force for civilization generation :) Along with geographical differences that matter... along with weather... along with horny T-Rexes roaming the jungles of Alioth and eating innocent virgins...

From the front page ... 

Create entire cities, giant space stations, massive warships,

underground bunkers or… flying cars!

it is a sandbox - you do what you do within the rules allowed. No mention of evolution - just building.

 

I am glad you put the smiley face in ... because PvP is not needed for civilizations - what is needed is a common goal (which may be a threat). Probably the closest right now to a civilization building game is Eco where it is a common threat of a meteor, but no PvP the last time I looked.

 

After all if we are being super-realistic you only get to lose at PvP once - and very few folks are up for that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cheith said:

After all if we are being super-realistic you only get to lose at PvP once - and very few folks are up for that.

 


Eh... false.... A lot of veeeery popular games should have died by now using this logic, meanwhile the reverse is true. Just look at Rust steam charts for example. For all the hate and dismissal that game gets even from numerous people in this community, it's very much alive and growing. Just one example doesn't prove much, but, there's that. I think people downplay the factors that attract people to games that these people don't agree with....

 

4 minutes ago, Cheith said:

From the front page ... 

Create entire cities, giant space stations, massive warships,

underground bunkers or… flying cars!

it is a sandbox - you do what you do within the rules allowed. No mention of evolution - just building.

 

From the Kickstarter (also from numerous JC interviews):

image.thumb.png.45479d13ce7ce8612c040923ae8627a0.png

 

image.png.28123e71e91c80d2f8a1765654026a95.png

 

If civilization building does not imply evolution (which is just incremental iteration) then oranges are actually alien eggs. Address the actual points raised in terms of how and why cities are built, because necessity will drive players into one, or to develop one eventually. MMOs typically have hubs for this reason premade by devs for socializing, organizing gear, buying and selling. etc. If the DU universe is to be player generated, then one of the outcomes for a civilization building sci-fi mmorpg is player made cities.

Why does this imply evolution? Because the converse is stagnation. Cities evolve or devolve, that which is preserved is what we call a historical reenactment or a museum. The natural ebb and flow of civilizations involves evolution and devolution, rise and fall of cities / city states / eventually countries of multiple cities / etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, correct, this game needs gameplay to encourage the building of civilizations or other creative endeavors.  But the idea that the motivation comes from PVP is where your point collapses.  PVP is analogous to war or crime, depending on the type.  Neither of those things is what leads to growth of cities.  Walls, sure, cities not so much.  You even referenced Rust which works against you.  What do people build in Rust?  Meta designed clusters of crap designed solely to make raids more expensive at the cost of functionality, appearance, and creativity.  The only exceptions are when a clan/org becomes totally dominant on a server.  Why?  Because that is what always happens with PVP.  The focus becomes meta and efficiency.  If staircases are cheaper than walls, you build your base out of them.  If covering entire surfaces with torches prevented players from getting in, that would be the prevalent design.  PVP brings singular focus to adapting to PVP.  The closest thing they would build to a city would be a fort or military base.  Or more likely bases owned by powerful Orgs.

 

Cities exist because of resources.  The acquisition, exchange and sharing of resources.  Those resources could be things like food or crafted items, or could be skills such as doctors or craftsmen.  The city grows based upon the need of those resources which draws people in.  Those people then have to provide something in exchange by offering goods or services which then creates additional resources the city has to offer, which draws more people in.  Ultimately to create a city you have to have need.  Need of resources that the city can more easily provide to create draw, reason to go there.  I agree the game doesn't currently create that motivation.

 

So I agree that without need, all you have is a full scale model of a city, basically an art project.  Kind of like every MMO that has an always-empty tavern that just serves as a prop.   Still doesn't work as an argument for PVP though.  Unless you are only interested in creating a wartime industry but that just supports factories which can be created and managed by a small org, no need for others because there is no need for supporting services.  

 

And in case you want to use the destruction brings creation argument, sure after a war ends there is often a period of growth.  But that is after a war ends not a battle, so that would would be akin to a PVP server disabling PVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IvanGrozniy said:

A lot of people have built a lot of cities, the problem is.... they are useless. And they are namely useless because they are not necessary. As long as DU remains a game where a stronghold / city is not necessary, it is not a civilization building game.

 

I like to underscore this whenever I see it because it is true for any building game with claims that players can build cities. The ancient relic that is Terraria is more of a city builder than most because you have to house a few NPCs. 

 

Clever distribution of resources could bring groups of players together so they take different roles within the chain of production and distribution.  This will get us closer to cities though the end result will be more like interconnected factories within shared fortifications.  True cities will require some kind of NPC presence even if those are only background props that reflect the economy of the area they are connected to.   

 

More to the point of the thread.  PVP is the best way to motivate players to band together and the best way to drive an economy that gives those bands something to work toward and fight for. 

 

Should the game survive and keep going some years I would love to see different kinds of settlements emerge - High population centers - good for research and general goods production and then more frontier type settlements that could be wiped out in wars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IvanGrozniy said:


Eh... false.... A lot of veeeery popular games should have died by now using this logic, meanwhile the reverse is true. Just look at Rust steam charts for example. For all the hate and dismissal that game gets even from numerous people in this community, it's very much alive and growing. Just one example doesn't prove much, but, there's that. I think people downplay the factors that attract people to games that these people don't agree with....

 

 

From the Kickstarter (also from numerous JC interviews):

image.thumb.png.45479d13ce7ce8612c040923ae8627a0.png

 

image.png.28123e71e91c80d2f8a1765654026a95.png

 

If civilization building does not imply evolution (which is just incremental iteration) then oranges are actually alien eggs. Address the actual points raised in terms of how and why cities are built, because necessity will drive players into one, or to develop one eventually. MMOs typically have hubs for this reason premade by devs for socializing, organizing gear, buying and selling. etc. If the DU universe is to be player generated, then one of the outcomes for a civilization building sci-fi mmorpg is player made cities.

Why does this imply evolution? Because the converse is stagnation. Cities evolve or devolve, that which is preserved is what we call a historical reenactment or a museum. The natural ebb and flow of civilizations involves evolution and devolution, rise and fall of cities / city states / eventually countries of multiple cities / etc. 

Umm what? So, which hugely popular MMOs have permadeath? Not just full loot PvP but actually once you die your character and all their stuffs are gone? Stats, the lot. Very few - in fact as far as I can figure out none have it as a mandatory feature at present. So, don't think so. The reality is PvPers want realism for everyone but them.

 

As to Kickstarter - who cares - doesn't mean squat a few years down the road. Games evolve to survive or all the money and the work goes down the drain. Player built civilizations (in a real sense) has to be a joke, or a marketing term anyway. There is nothing in this game (PvP or otherwise) that would provide an evolutionary path to anywhere. I think we are at cross purposes in this discussion as the game has no where near the complexity required to even model a civilization never mind have one evolve.
 

Could you have small communities, maybe, if the tools were there to do everything yourself and then get into cross-community bartering, etc. Then though you have the completely missing gameplay elements of 24 hour security/policing/etc (and other community provided functions) that are impractical as a player function in a GAME that most people will play a couple hours a day. 

 

I just don't see it - the roadmap certainly doesn't see it. Maybe on the extended roadmap somewhere - but where's the food, the power requirements, water, weather, grizzly bears, etc, etc, etc? The game has to provide the environmental things to make all this happen - it isn't a player thing and it certainly has nothing to do with PvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2021 at 7:26 AM, Habitant said:

I own 120 city tiles connected together on Alioth  (i have seen there are bigger areas than me).My dream is to build a big city . I have spent a lot of millions for that .I also spent a lot of time for that . I dont want Alioth to be a condested pvp area .  I am here to build on a persistent world not test my farming skills . And you wanna know what ?

I will definetely join a battle with a pvp org after i feel i want to pew pew but not risking my entire city for a guy who just subbed for the weekend . So Alioth madis thades circle safe zone needs to be that way . Make your pvp game far beyond to places that offer pvp material and good stuff BUT not my building progress cause if i knew that i wouldnt built it in first place ! YOU will not enjoy it also if that happens ... Persistent is the key !

 

Habitant

Habitants Organization

OK, I certainly don't want to knock anyone's efforts so please don't take it the wrong way, but I think one player being able to have 120 tiles is a big problem for the game.  IMO owning that many tiles should require a whole organisation of people working together and paying upkeep in some way or other.  Perhaps have tiles immune to territory warfare so long as a fee is paid every month on them and when it stops being paid people can come and contest the territory.

 

Why?  Because at the moment territory is too easy and cheap to claim and once claimed it can be held forever.  I've claimed a few tiles myself -- it works out at a little over 500,000 quanta per tile and you can keep scaling that out forever by creating more and more sub-orgs.  I'm not a particularly rich player, but using just the spare money I have in my wallet at the moment I could go out and claim 2,000 tiles right now.  Madis moon 1 has less than 1,500 tiles and moon 2 has under 2,000.  So I could go out now and claim a whole moon for myself (except the territories which are already taken ofc).  Then I could leave the game and that moon would be unusable forever.  

 

Or I could start having fun by picking out city projects like yours, claim whole rings around them and put up big walls, loads of those ugly spike things people build or whatever and there would be nothing at all you can do about it.

 

Now bear in mind that there are players who made 10s of billions out of getting schematics for 1% of the normal price.  Those people can claim a *lot* of tiles now if they want.  Whole planets in fact.  That can't be a good idea can it?

 

Like I said, I'm not suggesting that everything should be vulnerable all the time, but that there should be a mechanism where people who want your tile can contest it and where you can do something to keep it safe.  Be that actual PvP (and you have a week notice and can hire mercs and are then safe for a period after) or some sort of money based system.

My preferred way would just be to limit orgs so they have to have one subscribed player in every org.  Since one player can only be in 5 orgs, the costs of tile ownership would start to escalate quickly as more were claimed (as the devs intended).  And have rent work the same way.  To have hundreds of tiles you would need to get other players to join sub-orgs so you could scale out without it getting madly expensive.  And if those players stopped playing you'd need to recruit more, etc.  The 'pvp' approach here would then be for someone to try to recruit your players away from your org so you couldn't afford to keep the tiles any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, IvanGrozniy said:



All this to say, pvp is necessary as a driving force for civilization generation :) Along with geographical differences that matter... along with weather... along with horny T-Rexes roaming the jungles of Alioth and eating innocent virgins...

Seriously NQ, can we have those T-Rexes please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeddrick said:

please don't take it the wrong way, but I think one player being able to have 120 tiles is a big problem for the game.

 

Of course i wont take it the wrong way  :D ! That is why we are here discussing things in a polite way and share our thoughts for a game we like.

Now as for the number of tiles a player can have i think is maybe a matter of luck ... I will explain :

As far as we know NQ is planning to keep the safe zone in Alioth madis thades circle. That comes from a statement from NQ in the 3rd part where they say there will be asteroids in safe zones with lower quality ore of course. So from this statement we get that this safe zone will probably stays there.

Also there is no statement that a tax based system will be implement on occupied tiles . And until now the number of tiles a player can have is subject to the amount of money they spent.

Take also in mind that mining units are incoming without also hearing any limitation for that makes me then have 2 thoughts :

1) Large number tile claimers will be the next billionaires ( X number of tiles x 2.000.000 ore (minimum Alioth for example) x 25 price = 50 million per tile )

2) Or they will be surprised by an upcoming change that brings limitations to this and this will no longer be an issue

Thats is why i said it is a matter of luck and i would say investment made claiming these tiles the only factor we have so far implemented . There is nothing else taking place .

I guess we need to wait for the patches that are coming to be able to say anything else about this.

But until now an investment of lets say 120 tiles is :

1) Tile claiming amounts 64.000.000 ( 120 x 533.000 using org to claim them because of the character limitation on claiming.)

2) 120 territory units  6.000.000 (strategically bought at 50k or less if you can)

3) some fuel and a cargo ship

Now if you say me that if i invest 70 million in order to be able to receive an amount of aproxx 5-6 billion in the future then put me in for that ! Add the cost of mining units also ...

And then say i just lost a Large core ship in pvp worth 70 million if i loose my  investment .

In fact you dont really need to sell the ore if you are planning to build something big ! That is  why it is a double investment !

Also take in mind that if you wish to claim a large connected area within safe zone then Alioth is a must ! Everywhere i looked simply you cant have a large area in a connected way except Alioth.

I know that this is something some players will find is bad for the game but it isnt ! Alioth is occupied at 13,77% in present time which leaves plenty of room for new players to proceed. Unless we reach a number of 90% occupation i dont think there is a reason this is bad for the game.

I am not suggesting players to do that but it is something i took the risk and done it ...

Luck Favors the Bold !!! 

 

Habitant

Habitants Organization

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cheith said:

Umm what? So, which hugely popular MMOs have permadeath? Not just full loot PvP but actually once you die your character and all their stuffs are gone? Stats, the lot. Very few - in fact as far as I can figure out none have it as a mandatory feature at present. So, don't think so. The reality is PvPers want realism for everyone but them.

 

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this here... I wasn't even talking about perma death or full loot... I was mainly offering a rebuttal to your statement that "After all if we are being super-realistic you only get to lose at PvP once - and very few folks are up for that.". That statement is simply false.

 

7 hours ago, Cheith said:

The reality is PvPers want realism for everyone but them.

 

What are you even talking about? Where is this coming from? Like... why? What realism? Why so antagonistic about pvpers? Sounds like you're grinding your axe there? 

 

7 hours ago, Cheith said:

As to Kickstarter - who cares - doesn't mean squat a few years down the road. Games evolve to survive or all the money and the work goes down the drain. Player built civilizations (in a real sense) has to be a joke, or a marketing term anyway. There is nothing in this game (PvP or otherwise) that would provide an evolutionary path to anywhere. I think we are at cross purposes in this discussion as the game has no where near the complexity required to even model a civilization never mind have one evolve.

 

Kickstarter is important because backers paid a lot of money to support this game, and last I checked JC's "vision" for this game remains the same, this whole game was meant to be a civilization building game with 6 pillars.
This is taken directly from their marketing (timestamped to relevant part): 

 

image.png.3c47f1b6c069acd46b392a924593312c.png

 

 

As for your statement here: 

8 hours ago, Cheith said:

There is nothing in this game (PvP or otherwise) that would provide an evolutionary path to anywhere. I think we are at cross purposes in this discussion as the game has no where near the complexity required to even model a civilization never mind have one evolve.

 

This is absolutely true, not necessarily in terms of complexity but in terms of selective pressures that generate civilization. These things can be gamified and progression can be done well to facilitate actual civilization building. None of which exists in DU. The game is basically just another mmo with an outdated inefficient voxel "feature" that does not scale for an mmo population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, IvanGrozniy said:

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this here... I wasn't even talking about perma death or full loot... I was mainly offering a rebuttal to your statement that "After all if we are being super-realistic you only get to lose at PvP once - and very few folks are up for that.". That statement is simply false.

 

So, losing at PvP in a more real world is permadeath - you lose you're dead. End of character. I obviously didn't make that clear originally as to where I was going, but the original statement is still true. Most folks aren't up for it - they are fine with destroying the creations of others that took months of effort but not their own creations (the character itself). I have no problem with PvPers except when they decide everyone must participate to have a meaningful game experience. There is just no justification for that - evolutionary or otherwise.

 

11 hours ago, IvanGrozniy said:

 

 

Kickstarter is important because backers paid a lot of money to support this game, and last I checked JC's "vision" for this game remains the same, this whole game was meant to be a civilization building game with 6 pillars.
This is taken directly from their marketing (timestamped to relevant part): 

 

image.png.3c47f1b6c069acd46b392a924593312c.png

 

 

 

You're referring to a 2019 marketing presentation? One it is marketing and not reality (imo marketing and reality are only lightly connected). Two visions are just that, visions - things change, visions evolve. Funny you talk about evolution and fail to recognize the possibility in the development of the game. Kickstarter has lots of caveats and as long as a game is delivered  that is vaguely in the same ballpark as the marketing they are fine (from a Kickstarter perspective). The fact you personally funded it while relevant for you doesn't really mean that much in the longer term.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2021 at 7:39 PM, Cheith said:

PvP needs to be fenced in if you want a large enough player base - even EVE has its PvP fenced in, or to be more accurate maybe its non-PvP fenced in.

 

EVE has no PVP fences outside of NPC stations and the starter systems, PVP is open anywhere. the only thing in place is that in HS the consequences of opening engagement are quite lethal but there is nothing preventing you from engaging in PVP in HS outside of certain death by Concord. But based on the potential payout, that may be a small price to pay.. Which should be the ultimate reason to engage in PVP (or not). There is also plenty of PVP engagements in HS which will only yield you a temporary suspect flag.

 

IMO NQ should implement consensual PVP within safe zones and use that mechanic to allow players to clean up wrecks and abandoned constructs by adding upkeep for cores which, when it runs out, will open up the construct for PVP/salvage. Interesting twist could be for players who engage in this to get a timed flag opening them up to attack themselves (maybe with exception for Aphelia tiles). Could make for some interesting gameplay, maybe it could be a replacement of the safe zone as a mechanic that will protect you if you are a straight buildier or trader but will impose risk if you choose to go scavenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

EVE has no PVP fences outside of NPC stations and the starter systems, PVP is open anywhere. the only thing in place is that in HS the consequences of opening engagement are quite lethal but there is nothing preventing you from engaging in PVP in HS outside of certain death by Concord. But based on the potential payout, that may be a small price to pay.. Which should be the ultimate reason to engage in PVP (or not). There is also plenty of PVP engagements in HS which will only yield you a temporary suspect flag.

 

IMO NQ should implement consensual PVP within safe zones and use that mechanic to allow players to clean up wrecks and abandoned constructs by adding upkeep for cores which, when it runs out, will open up the construct for PVP/salvage. Interesting twist could be for players who engage in this to get a timed flag opening them up to attack themselves (maybe with exception for Aphelia tiles). Could make for some interesting gameplay, maybe it could be a replacement of the safe zone as a mechanic that will protect you if you are a straight buildier or trader but will impose risk if you choose to go scavenge.

True, from an EVE perspective, nowhere is truly safe - especially if you are hauling large amounts of stuff - but for most people most of the time (especially newer players with no significantly valuable items) you can be pretty much safe in HS. The safety is especially true if you join on of the game's corporations (can't remember what you call them) so you can't be declared on.

 

I actually agree with the EVE HS mechanics - it is actually pretty close to how the world works - for ship vs ship conflict.

 

Attacking constructs in a game with player buildings though is a whole other thing - purely practically people will not spend time building interesting stuff if it can be blown up, especially blown up when they are offline, but just blown up in general. That is a whole other thing that I don't think we have a good precedent for anywhere else - in EVE the closest is player owned space stations but you need a 24x7 corporation for the most part to keep one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm looking forward to the day that PvP is worth doing and is important.  Everywhere is so safe and warp is just so cheap to do.  Does it mean my Org will get whacked?  Yes it will as we are not part of any alliance.  What it will do is we will adapt and force to form alliances and group up more.  Its so solo mode now and the common goals get clouded.

 

Honvik

Premier of the Empire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cheith said:

 - in EVE the closest is player owned space stations but you need a 24x7 corporation for the most part to keep one of them.

That isnt even remotely true. Like at all. In EvE you get to pick when the timer comes out, with I believe a + or - 2h window. So it essentially a 4hr window of your choosing.  So the reinforcement timer will always be during your timezone.  And then its. 15min window for armor timer enemy to hit, then 30min window for final hull timer.  So no, you dont need 24/7 protection at all. Just during a 30min window of your choosing that is known literal days (plural) in advance. 

 

Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is the fairest way. Because it's a game and people cant be on 24/7. It's worked in eve for decades and DU also being a "persistent universe" should also adopt something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

That isnt even remotely true. Like at all. In EvE you get to pick when the timer comes out, with I believe a + or - 2h window. So it essentially a 4hr window of your choosing.  So the reinforcement timer will always be during your timezone.  And then its. 15min window for armor timer enemy to hit, then 30min window for final hull timer.  So no, you dont need 24/7 protection at all. Just during a 30min window of your choosing that is known literal days (plural) in advance. 

 

Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is the fairest way. Because it's a game and people cant be on 24/7. It's worked in eve for decades and DU also being a "persistent universe" should also adopt something similar.

So, you think most people can plan like that? Some people can for sure but the real world isn't that predictable and it basically makes you a slave to the game. No thanks. Also 'worked' means what - some large corporations like it? Also persistent means it stays - and your actions live on - it doesn't mean we need the mechanics of EVE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cheith said:

So, you think most people can plan like that? Some people can for sure but the real world isn't that predictable and it basically makes you a slave to the game. No thanks. Also 'worked' means what - some large corporations like it? Also persistent means it stays - and your actions live on - it doesn't mean we need the mechanics of EVE.

What are you even talking about? This mechanic literally favors the little guy. If it was like Rust the large corps would steam roll all the little guys as they cant stay logged in 24/7.  I can site hundreds of examples of this mechanic helping the little guy. I have been a ceo of a 30man wormhole corp (considered very small in eve) and the timers are what make owning player stations worth it.  You have no idea what you are talking about. At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

What are you even talking about? This mechanic literally favors the little guy. If it was like Rust the large corps would steam roll all the little guys as they cant stay logged in 24/7.  I can site hundreds of examples of this mechanic helping the little guy. I have been a ceo of a 30man wormhole corp (considered very small in eve) and the timers are what make owning player stations worth it.  You have no idea what you are talking about. At all.

Sorry, but I know a 30 man corp is considered small in EVE (I did play it for 7 years) - but frankly I don't want to have to be part of some random group of 30 people to enjoy the game the way I wish to - and part of that is logging on when I want to. If you wish to be a slave to the game that is up to you - I want to play when I want to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cheith said:

Sorry, but I know a 30 man corp is considered small in EVE (I did play it for 7 years) - but frankly I don't want to have to be part of some random group of 30 people to enjoy the game the way I wish to - and part of that is logging on when I want to. If you wish to be a slave to the game that is up to you - I want to play when I want to play.

Then what the fuck are you even talking about.  Stay in the safe zone thats what it's for. We are talking about pvp, and owning territories, and how NQ said now space pvp territory is coming. And how eve tackles those problems. If you dont want to be apart of that stay in the fucking safe zone.  Reading comprehension isnt your strong suit I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Then what the fuck are you even talking about.  Stay in the safe zone thats what it's for. We are talking about pvp, and owning territories, and how NQ said now space pvp territory is coming. And how eve tackles those problems. If you dont want to be apart of that stay in the fucking safe zone.  Reading comprehension isnt your strong suit I can see.

Ah, the retort of the PvPer - insults. Think you just said it all. I don't want content to be PvP locked. My opinion and I'm entitled to it without some juvenile throwing around insults. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is the fairest way.

 

I'd agree, in EVE the attacker does initiate the engagement in a vulnerability window set by the owner and from there the defender gets to set the time for the actual attack to happen within a specified timeframe. On paper that hardly sounds engaging and fun but in reality for a global /multi timezone game, this is really the only fair way to set this up.

 

It wil be interesting to see how NQ will solve this, I hope they more or less follow CCP's lead as it makes sense but I fear they may only take parts of it and try to "reinvent" the rest.

 

We'll know by the end of the year..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blazemonger said:

 

I'd agree, in EVE the attacker does initiate the engagement in a vulnerability window set by the owner and from there the defender gets to set the time for the actual attack to happen within a specified timeframe. On paper that hardly sounds engaging and fun but in reality for a global /multi timezone game, this is really the only fair way to set this up.

 

It wil be interesting to see how NQ will solve this, I hope they more or less follow CCP's lead as it makes sense but I fear they may only take parts of it and try to "reinvent" the rest.

 

We'll know by the end of the year..

Ya, it is the only way. I recently resubbed all my accounts  (CCP thanks you for the money NQ) and we had an armor timer defending our main fortizar from a bigger alliance. We bat phoned, they batphoned. 200+ man fight went down, was a blast. We as the defenders lost more ships and lost more isk, but we stopped them from finishing off the armor hp and it reset so we successfully defended and kept our main staging fortizar.  Meaningful pvp where both sides had time to prepare for war and give it their all over a meaningful objective. That's what DU is missing.  Purpose to do shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Snipey went a little off the deep end.  He is right.   PVP without a purpose or goal gets boring really fast.

 

There is very little piracy due to the massive safe zones and the ease of getting warp drives.   There is zero territory control.  You can't prevent someone from owning or visiting a territory.   Right now pvp is about as bland as most of the meta brick builds.  

 

Add decent mining outside of safe zones in non-warpable fields.  Add choke points where people have to slow down to go through safely.  Decrease the safe zones around planets.  And flat out remove the giant safe zone around the three core worlds.   

 

Then continue revamping and refining the PVP system.  Right now bricks of gold and other dense voxels are the meta, with space engines jutting in every direction and as many adjusters and space brakes as you can slap on.  

 

Even the weapons are pretty meh.

 

Rail gun>Missile launcher>beam laser>cannon.  

 

There is very little reason not to run one of the top two weapon systems.  Power management maybe a good step but it would have to extend past the weapons systems to include all systems on that core.

 

And a personal pet peeves of mine... Space radar and atmospheric radar.  Why can't they be put on the same chair or cockpit if I am willing to sacrifice the capacitor for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2021 at 11:20 AM, Cheith said:

So, losing at PvP in a more real world is permadeath - you lose you're dead. End of character. I obviously didn't make that clear originally as to where I was going, but the original statement is still true. Most folks aren't up for it - they are fine with destroying the creations of others that took months of effort but not their own creations (the character itself). I have no problem with PvPers except when they decide everyone must participate to have a meaningful game experience. There is just no justification for that - evolutionary or otherwise.

 

 

I fail to see why permadeath (character death) is brought up in DU context though, it doesn't exist in DU. I'm also not sure what this argument means "they (presumably pvpers) are fine with destroying the creations of others.... but not their own creations (the character itself)"... ?? Character? I don't get it. If someone pvps they are risking their own creations (in DU context, it is their ship / ammo / guns / whatever is on board). Not sure what "their character" has anything to do with it?
 

On 4/20/2021 at 11:20 AM, Cheith said:

You're referring to a 2019 marketing presentation? One it is marketing and not reality (imo marketing and reality are only lightly connected). Two visions are just that, visions - things change, visions evolve. Funny you talk about evolution and fail to recognize the possibility in the development of the game. Kickstarter has lots of caveats and as long as a game is delivered  that is vaguely in the same ballpark as the marketing they are fine (from a Kickstarter perspective). The fact you personally funded it while relevant for you doesn't really mean that much in the longer term.

 

I also fail to see what's going on here... I was merely saying that the whole premise of the game was civilization building. And that the game has nothing to show for it in terms of that particular vision. It's just another mmo tech demo with voxels. As for evolution of the game, sure I'm all for it. And if they are going a different direction they should say so. Until they do the "vision" remains the same and the game makes no sense. Not sure where you see the irony of me failing to recognize possibility of game developing into something else. Currently it isn't developing in any direction whatsoever. We'll see with the upcoming patches though. With new management the game might take a different route. At any rate NQ has a massive recuperation mountain to climb.... more than 20 million dollars later.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...