Jump to content

Why PVP is important to the game.


blazemonger
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Shulace said:

Either the devs made the wrong game...

 

^ This. Its even very easy to trace with objective evidence of NQs (JCs) blablabla if you dig in old stuff.

 

Initialy DU was promised as very PvP-centered game (it was main/only reason why some people particiapated in KS). Then its U-turned to some lame Landmark-2 with elements of PvP (and even then most of them heavly downgraded in importance and postponed to somewhere in future).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lethys said:

tell me moar about what I want please - you obviously know way better!

 

again, nope. Never said I want anarchy. Maybe stop interpreting my posts and actually start reading them?

 

RL != a game

 

In a game you have to have some kind of reward for ppl who take risks - Just the way it is

Now that is funny. There doesn't have to be any rewards for randomly shooting at people. It is most certainly not the way it is and doesn't have to be. You get your little adrenaline rush for the PvP itself and that is your reward. 

 

On the anarchy front, it is what you described. Didn't need much interpretation. Civilization implies order and rules and enforcement of the rules. It is really pretty simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, le_souriceau said:

 

^ This. Its even very easy to trace with objective evidence of NQs (JCs) blablabla if you dig in old stuff.

 

Initialy DU was promised as very PvP-centered game (it was main/only reason why some people particiapated in KS). Then its U-turned to some lame Landmark-2 with elements of PvP (and even then most of them heavly downgraded in importance and postponed to somewhere in future).

 

Lol that is unfortunate, money man, all back to the money. They know no one wants to pay sub for a PvP intensive game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cheith said:

I am not saying you can't shoot each other - I am just saying you can't shoot anyone just because you decide you should. I am also saying don't lock up content behind a PvP wall. Of course if there is no content I guess this is a moot point and if the PvP crowd have their way there will be very little content - especially out in the areas they wish to control.

 

I don't think that "you should just be able to shoot anyone you want without repercussions ever" is a feature that folks have really been clamoring for. It's strange that this is such a common response to anything even vaguely supporting the implementation of some form of open PvP in the game. To be clear I like EVE's security system making it extremely costly to even consider fighting someone where NPCs can sniff it out, but it doesn't have to be that extreme to be engaging. I don't want to post 600 more words about this game, but suffice it to say there are many proposals (both NQ and otherwise) for how to make combat an option without opening it up to pure chaos. It'd be cool if maybe some of them were to be implemented some day.

 

Content doesn't necessarily need to be locked behind PvP per se, but some amount of content should be locked behind high risk activity. And given that NQ seems violently opposed to even considering the addition of non-player threats of some sort, that risk is most likely going to be from other players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Splatinum said:

I don't think that "you should just be able to shoot anyone you want without repercussions ever" is a feature that folks have really been clamoring for. It's strange that this is such a common response to anything even vaguely supporting the implementation of some form of open PvP in the game. To be clear I like EVE's security system making it extremely costly to even consider fighting someone where NPCs can sniff it out, but it doesn't have to be that extreme to be engaging. I don't want to post 600 more words about this game, but suffice it to say there are many proposals (both NQ and otherwise) for how to make combat an option without opening it up to pure chaos. It'd be cool if maybe some of them were to be implemented some day.

 

Content doesn't necessarily need to be locked behind PvP per se, but some amount of content should be locked behind high risk activity. And given that NQ seems violently opposed to even considering the addition of non-player threats of some sort, that risk is most likely going to be from other players.

Well some certainly are after 'if it moves I want to shoot it', but I am mostly in agreement with your points. I think though, that it is one thing adding risk it is another thing having something camped by a whole bunch of PvP players - which is what happens in reality. It goes from risk to certain death.

 

As to whether or not we get any game content that provides risk we shall see - to be honest I have no idea whether or not that will happen or not. I know for certain that there will be zero meaningful content from the PvP crowd. Being ganged up on and shot at is not meaningful content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DU's design is pure chaos -- of course there's a wide divergence between die-hard builders and die-hard PvPers. 

 

It's NQ's fault that they decided to make it "only run by players" so that PvP is the only possible avenue for conflict. 

 

Like good stories, all games need conflict to be interesting. It could be conflict against the environment trying to survive, against NPCs, or against each other. Conflict is what drives engaging content, not combat. 

 

DU's combat model is crappy, frankly. It's a niche within a game that's already too niche for its own good. There's a reason the only social posts about DU are builder creations.

 

When I do see someone posting PvP videos...it reminds me why I don't do more combat. Slow, boring, and if you're an unlucky gunner? An extra side of slow and boring. 

 

It's possible to have combat without meaningful conflict -- asymmetrical battles can feel greatly unfair when there's no true conflict, e.g. being ganked or one-shot. The nature of this game means most battles will be asymmetrical -- that's just how it goes when players build their own ships and not everyone has a full crew. 

 

Is it realistic? No one cares; well designed games aren't driven by realism. 

 

NQ decided to build this game without having a real idea for how to drive conflict. That's like writing a story with no antagonist. There's no simple solution, here...simply adding more opportunity for PvP won't completely work, IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not really a PvP vs carebear argument, it’s Alpha vs Beta.

 

Alpha were promised and paid for a heavy PvP game.

Beta players were promised a building and social game.

 

Somebody said maybe NQ built the wrong game. Yes they did, they didn’t build the game they promised the Alpha players who initially supported it. By the time they went to beta the marketing was different; so you have people with completely different expectations.

 

Can they bring them together, maybe; hope so, as other wise one of the two groups are going to be very disappointed, and they can’t afford to lose that many.

 

As for why we don’t have a lot of work on PvP currently? My personal believe is it’s because they can’t work out how to do it with the single shard server tech they are developing. They are avoiding pushing PvP right now because there code isn’t up to it.

 

small fights work, big fights don’t. So they aren’t good ng to open up and push PvP until they can figure out that issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Cheith said:

Now that is funny. There doesn't have to be any rewards for randomly shooting at people. It is most certainly not the way it is and doesn't have to be. You get your little adrenaline rush for the PvP itself and that is your reward. 

So no rewards for ppl who take risks then too. Great, boring game where nothing ever happens and noone ever does anything because everything is accessible anyway. Only prearranged fights. Wooooooooooooooow, that is sooooooooooooooo coooool 

 

16 hours ago, Cheith said:

On the anarchy front, it is what you described. Didn't need much interpretation. Civilization implies order and rules and enforcement of the rules. It is really pretty simple.

Then work for it and do it. Enforce rules. Get ppl together and build that civ. But don't expect everyone to salute you. It is really pretty simple 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no. I think as long PvE and PvP players do not meet in game, all is fine. No whining, no griefing, no ganking. Like in ESO for example PvP folks have their own continent/land and in this case would maybe have their own space/planets.

 

Resource and gathering: I would as PvE player not like it to cross boarders into dangerous zones ruled by PvP gankers. Dangerous zones by PvE pirats/ missions and their danger - yes. I am fine with that. As long no one is forced to PvP if he/she not wants to. It is just the griefing and ganking PvP players are always up to. PvE pirates do not show such behavour.

 

And never forget: PvE players also build your bad ass PvP ships you blow up in 1 minute :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't want to sound salty/nothing personal (+ I kinda semi-retired for summer)...


But. Thats almost intolerable to read how misguided some of you, guys, are.

 

Whole idea of single-shard-player-driven-whatnot-game is literaly self defeated if you start to divide "pvp" and "pve" players for matters of "mental peace and conviniece", especialy -- economicly (something NQ methodicly doing for some time, and this is grave mistake). Because this degrades whole experience to pretty much isolated, instanced gameplay, where nothing beyond your own bubble affects you. Sure people can visit each other, show off their stuff, but thats it. You can do it in every not even true multiplayer, but just coop game.

 

Moment players get enviroment with no risk or barriers to get stuff, they naturaly disperse for solo/small group play. Orgs just can't offer real benefits beyond being some loose "interest clubs" and die as meningful entities. 

 

Ofcourse, SZ must exist on level of "building museum" or "reserve storage base", space to learn how to fly in safety, fool around, socialize. Yet ast same time SZ must allow only minimal economic activity (idealy -- nothing beyond some basics that important for true noobs).

 

New -- have your time.

Come just for building decorative stuff in peace -- welcome.

Want to be at least somewhat rich and impornant, produce stuff en-masse? Go and actualy risk your fat ass.

 

Currently this fundamental princple that makes keystone sense for true player driven sandbox is absolutly broken, to level of mockery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lethys said:

So no rewards for ppl who take risks then too. Great, boring game where nothing ever happens and noone ever does anything because everything is accessible anyway. Only prearranged fights. Wooooooooooooooow, that is sooooooooooooooo coooool 

 

What risks, pray tell? If you are shooting up an unarmed mining ship it is zero risk for you. Frankly this is the usual PvP bullsh1t. As always you want to force your playstyle on others. Surely the whole point of PvP is to fight other skilled players and win those battles is it not? In which case you are likely not randomly fighting unarmed ships.

 

7 hours ago, Lethys said:

Then work for it and do it. Enforce rules. Get ppl together and build that civ. But don't expect everyone to salute you. It is really pretty simple 

What bollocks - it is a game -  I actually have a job and a real life so I don't play these things to work excessively. The game would need to support that with appropriate content and it currently doesn't. To be honest I have no interest in doing something like 'building a civilization' against a bunch of barbarians - really not interested in a 24 x 7 job thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Cheith said:

What risks, pray tell? If you are shooting up an unarmed mining ship it is zero risk for you. Frankly this is the usual PvP bullsh1t. As always you want to force your playstyle on others. Surely the whole point of PvP is to fight other skilled players and win those battles is it not? In which case you are likely not randomly fighting unarmed ships.

Well, make fun and engaging mechanics first - and DU lacks all of those basics, so this will not happen for a long time. 

Give miners a special voxel to be detected less by radar, cloaking, smaller crosssection, heat signatures,... something so that they have means to defend themselves. 

Yes there will be always ppl who just want to kill easy targets but that can be avoided easily with some mechanics for the pve types so they can run if they watch their back. Or you know, go mining with more ppl (civ builder, remember) to watch over each other

 

22 hours ago, Cheith said:

What bollocks - it is a game -  I actually have a job and a real life so I don't play these things to work excessively. The game would need to support that with appropriate content and it currently doesn't. To be honest I have no interest in doing something like 'building a civilization' against a bunch of barbarians - really not interested in a 24 x 7 job thanks.

But thats exactly what a single shard server with 24/7 access entails. If you want your little territory to be safe in a pvp zone, work for it. If proper mechanics would be in place this would greatly improve the game. Civ builder and all - defend your turf. But I guess you just want instant gratification and everything accessible without risks, which is pretty bollocks to me. (See I can also lay words in your mouth)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lethys said:

Well, make fun and engaging mechanics first - and DU lacks all of those basics, so this will not happen for a long time. 

Give miners a special voxel to be detected less by radar, cloaking, smaller crosssection, heat signatures,... something so that they have means to defend themselves. 

Yes there will be always ppl who just want to kill easy targets but that can be avoided easily with some mechanics for the pve types so they can run if they watch their back. Or you know, go mining with more ppl (civ builder, remember) to watch over each other

 

Makes sense to me. 

 

All good games require conflict to work. Hell, even Stardew Valley has conflict. 

 

Wanting PvP doesn't mean wanting more combat in its current state. NQ needs to understand that they can't design for a hardcore audience as if it were still 2003.

 

There needs to zero "do-nothing" roles like gunners and a lot less asymmetry in ship balance (like Lethys suggests, better defenses for non-combat ships).  

 

When people around here say that DU needs PvP to work, IMO they really mean that the game needs conflict to work...and PvP is the most obvious driver of this conflict. It isn't like they're going to add NPCs, hah! 

 

There's a billion ways to balance against ganking, which seems to be the main concern with PvP.

 

Getting ganked is never fun, especially if the cost of death is super high as it can be with DU.

 

Again, this can't be the hardcore of 2003, this isn't Eve, and DU won't survive without more scale, which means more mass-appeal, which means combat itself needs overhauls...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lethys said:

Well, make fun and engaging mechanics first - and DU lacks all of those basics, so this will not happen for a long time. 

Give miners a special voxel to be detected less by radar, cloaking, smaller crosssection, heat signatures,... something so that they have means to defend themselves. 

Yes there will be always ppl who just want to kill easy targets but that can be avoided easily with some mechanics for the pve types so they can run if they watch their back. Or you know, go mining with more ppl (civ builder, remember) to watch over each other

 

But thats exactly what a single shard server with 24/7 access entails. If you want your little territory to be safe in a pvp zone, work for it. If proper mechanics would be in place this would greatly improve the game. Civ builder and all - defend your turf. But I guess you just want instant gratification and everything accessible without risks, which is pretty bollocks to me. (See I can also lay words in your mouth)

Don't be an ass - I never said I wanted instant gratification. I just don't consider being shot at by someone part of the necessary work for someone who builds/mines and sometimes explores in a GAME. Sorry 24/7 != game it equals work. If I wanted that I would still be playing EVE and still living in 0.0. I am hoping this does a better job.

 

As far as I can tell the big difference between us (as neither of us minds PvP being there) is that you want your playstyle to be imposed on everyone whether they wish to participate or not and I have the opposite view that I should be able to go wherever I like and choose whether or not I wish to PvP. You know like in most successful games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cheith said:

Don't be an ass - I never said I wanted instant gratification. I just don't consider being shot at by someone part of the necessary work for someone who builds/mines and sometimes explores in a GAME. Sorry 24/7 != game it equals work. If I wanted that I would still be playing EVE and still living in 0.0. I am hoping this does a better job.

Again -  that's what a single shard server entails with FFA pvp. Deal with it. That's why there needs to be very good and balanced mechanics for ppl to live there and to protect themselves. This whole Civ builder thingy won't happen if ppl can lose ALL their stuff within 24h. I once was a proponent of some kind of invulnerability-shield-eve-ish-POS/Citadel mechanic for DU years ago, but this won't work here that well for 2 reasons:

1 - ppl invest hundreds and thousands of hours to build something

2 - even if 1 doesnt matter because you have a blueprint of everything, it's still a considerable amount of quanta. And currently, you can't earn billions of quanta with 1 evening of farming (like in eve for example).

 

So the thing is: PVP space has to be profitable and there needs to be a REASON why I should go or build there but at the same time it shouldn't punish you for some days of inactivity (RL and such)

12 hours ago, Cheith said:

As far as I can tell the big difference between us (as neither of us minds PvP being there) is that you want your playstyle to be imposed on everyone whether they wish to participate or not and I have the opposite view that I should be able to go wherever I like and choose whether or not I wish to PvP. You know like in most successful games.

yup - but I don't impose anything on anyone. This is, again, how the game works. You go in a FFA PVP zone on a single shard server - you have to deal with consequences.

And yes, I STRONGLY disagree that you should be able to do that without preparation or with some kind of PVP switch on/off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 9:17 AM, FredyKyong said:

Yes, no. I think as long PvE and PvP players do not meet in game, all is fine.

 

And here is where I do not agree. PVE content in a game like DU should be designed to carry enough reward to be worth the risk of engaging with the content while at the same time, it provides enough of a challenge and opportunity for PVP players to engage the PVE players in those situations. That is how these mechanics IMO should be balanced. As a PVE player you know you can and will encounter PVP and will lose ships but overall the rewards are worth the risk or the loss.

 

If you want to not be bothered, stay in the safe zone, choose a single player game or a game with a PVE only mode to play, not a game which is clearly and openly advertised as a game with PVP components you may encounter any time you step outside of a safe zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blazemonger said:

 

And here is where I do not agree. PVE content in a game like DU should be designed to carry enough reward to be worth the risk of engaging with the content while at the same time, it provides enough of a challenge and opportunity for PVP players to engage the PVE players in those situations. That is how these mechanics IMO should be balanced. As a PVE player you know you can and will encounter PVP and will lose ships but overall the rewards are worth the risk or the loss.

 

If you want to not be bothered, stay in the safe zone, choose a single player game or a game with a PVE only mode to play, not a game which is clearly and openly advertised as a game with PVP components you may encounter any time you step outside of a safe zone.

 

You done lost your mind.

 

If Dual Universe was advertised as a PvP intensive game when they started selling subscriptions, no one would be here(I certainly wouldn't be here) and as I asked before; where in the tutorial did you learn about PvP to claim this is a first and foremost a PvP game?

I am not asking you how the game should be, I am asking you what the game is and ever was ever since it starting charging people subscriptions. This is actually a GIANT mining/building/crafter game with some trading.

 

People that streamed this game were streaming about building when I started playing, I never even knew PvP existed until I saw a weapon in the assembly crafting list myself. I didn't even know what PvP looked like until I finished my fighter ship and realized you can't shoot guns in atmosphere, I had to Youtube what combat looked like and decided it was actual ass and not worth the time. I legit thought I was looking at the wrong game when I first saw what combat looked like, thinking to myself; "DU is so groundbreaking, this can't be what the combat is right?". Nothing is appealing for the combat, I guess this is why NQ focused on PvE content mostly thus far.

 

You are blaming players for how Novaquark made their game, absolutely absurd.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Shulace said:

 

You done lost your mind.

 

If Dual Universe was advertised

 

1. It was advertised during the KS Campaign in 2016 that it will have a 20km SZ and everything else is PvP

2. There was a pvp Trailer in June 2020 that literally advertised the pvp part.

 

Sources with timestamp:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:

 

1. It was advertised during the KS Campaign in 2016 that it will have a 20km SZ and everything else is PvP

2. There was a pvp Trailer in June 2020 that literally advertised the pvp part.

 

Sources with timestamp:

 

 

 

Sure, what did they eventually release to subscription? Those combat adverts were also deceiving.

 

The point is the game in the adverts is not what was sold as subs, you kickstarter folks got shafted. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to blame pve players for the state of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lethys said:

Again -  that's what a single shard server entails with FFA pvp. Deal with it. That's why there needs to be very good and balanced mechanics for ppl to live there and to protect themselves. This whole Civ builder thingy won't happen if ppl can lose ALL their stuff within 24h. I once was a proponent of some kind of invulnerability-shield-eve-ish-POS/Citadel mechanic for DU years ago, but this won't work here that well for 2 reasons:

1 - ppl invest hundreds and thousands of hours to build something

2 - even if 1 doesnt matter because you have a blueprint of everything, it's still a considerable amount of quanta. And currently, you can't earn billions of quanta with 1 evening of farming (like in eve for example).

 

So the thing is: PVP space has to be profitable and there needs to be a REASON why I should go or build there but at the same time it shouldn't punish you for some days of inactivity (RL and such)

yup - but I don't impose anything on anyone. This is, again, how the game works. You go in a FFA PVP zone on a single shard server - you have to deal with consequences.

And yes, I STRONGLY disagree that you should be able to do that without preparation or with some kind of PVP switch on/off.

Fair enough - I am pretty sure we are never going to agree on this, but let's face it this is not the game you think it is (at least not at present). 

 

Civilizations have rules and breaking the rules usually have consequences. In principle civilization mechanics would allow me to declare you as an enemy of the state and when caught do what most civilizations do - either put you in jail for a long time or execute you. Unfortunately neither would be palatable in a game (obviously being in jail until freed pretty much kills your character) and there aren't many PvPers up for perma death for their characters.

 

Sadly I really don't believe civilizations is what is really wanted here. It is just a fluffy premise with no substance behind it. The usual 'well the players can enforce it' cop out.

 

 

Finally (honest) in a universe of civilizations PvP would not be profitable - it would be a lifestyle choice - outside of organized wars between civilizations and then of course it would only be profitable for one side! For PvP to be profitable you need easy, soft targets otherwise you burn too much ammo and spent too much time with too much risk. Sad fact.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what folks it doesn't matter how the game was originally advertised or what a five year old Kickstarter campaign said you have a game with a lot of people building stuff in it. Generally creative folks who build nice and interesting things do not do much PvP (not none but not much) and don't expect to intersect much with destructive folks who mainly PvP and don't build much.

 

Frankly I seriously doubt you can build a seamless game for both creative and FFA PvP - so this game either has building in it and the ability to wander round as see what folks have built - or it has good old FFA PvP. You can likely get away with it if you corral the PvP somehow into an appropriate box but without that you just end up with all the creative folks heading off into the distance to play something else.

 

There is either going to be a compromise somewhere or I would imagine one 'faction' is going to largely bail.

 

There is a lot of talk of civilizations but civilizations have rules and like order and predictability. PvP outside of wars sanctioned by the civilizations is generally frowned on and the perpetrators permanently removed from society. That all though sounds like a second job not a game - so I doubt that will fly either and again while it could accommodate FFA PvP the downsides are pretty high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Shulace said:

 

Sure, what did they eventually release to subscription? Those combat adverts were also deceiving.

 

The point is the game in the adverts is not what was sold as subs, you kickstarter folks got shafted. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to blame pve players for the state of the game.

 

Just to note for a moment:
I never blamed the player. The final authority on a decision or course of action has always been NQ and will always be NQ. I also don't want to argue with players because they only end up consuming a product, just as I do. The grievance should not be sought from the playerbase. Every type of player is valid and not wrong. The only question is how the company and the game deals with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shulace said:

 

You done lost your mind.

 

If Dual Universe was advertised as a PvP intensive game when they started selling subscriptions, no one would be here(I certainly wouldn't be here) and as I asked before; where in the tutorial did you learn about PvP to claim this is a first and foremost a PvP game?

 

First off, I never said any of the above and I know exactly where my mind is.. 

 

I never said that DU is/was or will be advertised as a PVP intensive game, I said that DU has always been advertised as a game with PVP being an integral part of the game. PVP is one of the main pillars of the game and always has been.

 

 

pillars.png.ddb7689426d9fdb7008469d36e4e562c.png

 

 

 

The suggestion no one would be here if NQ said as much is factually incorrect, there is many here, like myself, who do not care for PVP at all but understand it is a part of the game and are perfectly willing to deal with it if and when it is encounter on our own terms, that may mean that I'll just surrender whatever I fly and respawn as worst case.. The potential loss to PVP would be a calculated risk for me.

 

 

I also never said, and will actually disagree, that DU is first and foremost a PVP centric game. That does not mean that PVP has no place or function in the game, it means that PVP is not a goal in itself in the structure around which DU is (or better, will eventually be) designed.

 

 

If you want to argue that too many who prefer a PVP playstyle seem to think that the game is all about PVP and that hey seem to want to make the point that without a massive shift towards PVP the game is doomed then you get no argument from me that this idea is based on nothing but mistaken assumptions by others and NQ not clearly correcting set expectations because of that.

 

PVP is very clearly a part of the game structure and design. It's all over the forums and in the many videos as well as the kickstart pages and yes, it is certainly mentioned in the introduction as well.

 

You can play DU without ever encountering combat PVP by staying in the safe zone or by staying within a well defended and set up territory outside of that zone once TW comes into play. I entirely expect NQ will eventually implement Territory warfare in a way that is very much skewed towards  the "defender" by making it very hard and costly for any attacker to even try a basic takeover. They will have to effectively disable the ability for the individual rogue element or small pirate group to take over territory, restricting that activity to big/"state" organisations which as a side effect will allow small independent pockets to mostly go about their business without much risk at all.

 

My expectation will be that NQ will drive "space" TW towards heavily fortified and defended space stations as endpoints for warp jumps and entry points for safe corridors on planets into the populated areas which can also be safeguarded fairly easily (but at cost).

 

NQ will keep PVP out of the populated areas, wherever they are by using mechanics that favour defence seriously. PVP will be in the "wild west" outside of these areas. If they don't all the creative and non PVP population will remain in the current Alioth/Thades/Madis safezone and the rest of the game world will be pretty much empty as the risk would simply not be worth the effort and cost  to build there.

 

PVP will come to planets sure, but the main focus for combat PVP will remain in space is what I expect. At least for the foreseeable future as I do think that AVA will not come in until some time after official release.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blazemonger said:

 

First off, I never said any of the above and I know exactly where my mind is.. 

 

I never said that DU is/was or will be advertised as a PVP intensive game, I said that DU has always been advertised as a game with PVP being an integral part of the game. PVP is one of the main pillars of the game and always has been.

 

 

pillars.png.ddb7689426d9fdb7008469d36e4e562c.png

 

 

 

The suggestion no one would be here if NQ said as much is factually incorrect, there is many here, like myself, who do not care for PVP at all but understand it is a part of the game and are perfectly willing to deal with it if and when it is encounter on our own terms, that may mean that I'll just surrender whatever I fly and respawn as worst case.. The potential loss to PVP would be a calculated risk for me.

 

 

...

 

I think this is important - PvP is a part of the game but it is not PvP centric. It is one part of the game. Indeed you could argue that if it is too big a part of the game some of the other components will fall flat - especially exploration and likely building. I don't think the safe zones are the answer either as that certain locks exploration out for non-PvP players.

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...