Jump to content

Why PVP is important to the game.


blazemonger
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Cheith said:

 I don't think the safe zones are the answer either as that certain locks exploration out for non-PvP players.

 

If DU ever get exploration it will need to be in PVP space for the same reasons the good stuff is in Nullsec and Wormholes in EVE. Expecting everything to be accessible without risk is simply not reasonable or realistic. If you want to get/find high value goods, you'll need to take risks. And to be honest, I think the "threat level" in DU is and will be much lower than some PVP players would like you to believe or they would possibly like to see. Pretty much in the same order as venturing into Nullsec in EVE, which is not even close to the level of risk many (new) players think it is. I can honestly say I have never been caught in Nullsec due to surprise or smart opponents, it was always because I was careless, took unneeded risks or made mistakes/wrong choices. And I expect it will be much the same in DU eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

If DU ever get exploration it will need to be in PVP space for the same reasons the good stuff is in Nullsec and Wormholes in EVE. Expecting everything to be accessible without risk is simply not reasonable or realistic. If you want to get/find high value goods, you'll need to take risks. And to be honest, I think the "threat level" in DU is and will be much lower than some PVP players would like you to believe or even they would possibly like to seen Pretty much in the same order as venturing into Nullsec in EVE is not even close to the level of risk many (new) players think it is. I can honestly say I have never been caught in Nullsec due to surprise or smart opponents, it was always because I was careless, took unneeded risks or made mistakes/wrong choices. And I expect it will be much the same in DU eventually.

Hmm ... not sure explorations has to equal good stuff - it could be just that, going places you have never been before. Still exploring. If you remove the opportunities for camping locations maybe - but that was where you would get caught if you were unlucky in EVE - at a camping spot. Once you were in nullsec a different story but getting in could be interesting if you were unlucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cheith said:

but that was where you would get caught if you were unlucky in EVE - at a camping spot.

 

That is not unlucky though, that is taking a risk you should not take. Most camping spots are well known and there are tools that will tell you whether there is a camp up in the usual places well before you get there. Also.. wormholes are your friend in EVE as an explorer, exploration based corps keep very accurate trackers on wormholes for good reason, they are the easiest and best way to get around quickly and relatively safely if you know how to use them. Oh and it's intricate mechanics like that which make EVE the success for all sorts of playstyles. The many seemingly "basic " features have some many potential side effects and uses that it drives gameplay much further than probably intended, something NQ will need to learn to understand if they want to succeed.. 

 

Oddly, when CCP turned off local in NullSec last year, it was us explorers who benefitted the most as many campers and "casual" PVP players stayed away as they were afraid of getting caught. It was quite glorious .. and profitable ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

Also.. wormholes are your friend in EVE as an explorer, exploration based corps keep very accurate trackers on wormholes for good reason, they are the easiest and best way to get around quickly and relatively safely if you know how to use them. Oh and it's intricate mechanics like that which make EVE the success for all sorts of playstyles.

So true. All these little mechanics are missing in DU but made eve so SO much better at Exploration. We were 15 ppl in a c5 and always scannen the whole chain, we got around the whole verse in less than 15 jumps. And it was very exciting because you always had a risk involved of getting caught. But these ppl don't get that, and never will, because they want their playstyle to be 100% safe and they want to do everything with no risk. "But those griefers never build anything and and risk does not involve pvp" - pretty wacky statement for a single shard MMO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blazemonger said:

 

That is not unlucky though, that is taking a risk you should not take. Most camping spots are well known and there are tools that will tell you whether there is a camp up in the usual places well before you get there. Also.. wormholes are your friend in EVE as an explorer, exploration based corps keep very accurate trackers on wormholes for good reason, they are the easiest and best way to get around quickly and relatively safely if you know how to use them. Oh and it's intricate mechanics like that which make EVE the success for all sorts of playstyles. The many seemingly "basic " features have some many potential side effects and uses that it drives gameplay much further than probably intended, something NQ will need to learn to understand if they want to succeed.. 

 

Oddly, when CCP turned off local in NullSec last year, it was us explorers who benefitted the most as many campers and "casual" PVP players stayed away as they were afraid of getting caught. It was quite glorious .. and profitable ;)

Ah wormholes - largely after my time. I was out of nullsec by the time they arrived so no help to me. There were also no tools to tell you who was camping what then either. At the time I originally went in there was an alliance that didn't shoot everyone on sight and that is how we got in and helped them out on occasion in return. By the time I was finished they were gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lethys said:

So true. All these little mechanics are missing in DU but made eve so SO much better at Exploration. We were 15 ppl in a c5 and always scannen the whole chain, we got around the whole verse in less than 15 jumps. And it was very exciting because you always had a risk involved of getting caught. But these ppl don't get that, and never will, because they want their playstyle to be 100% safe and they want to do everything with no risk. "But those griefers never build anything and and risk does not involve pvp" - pretty wacky statement for a single shard MMO 

Do you even know what a single shard is? All it means is that there are no instances. It has nothing to do with game mechanics at all. You can box PvP into a single hex in the entire game and it would still be a single shard. Geez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheith said:

Do you even know what a single shard is? All it means is that there are no instances.

 

Actually that is not what a single shard is at all. In fact EVE proves that point as each star system is actually a separate instance and you  could argue that each node in the DU server tech is one too. The only way you could achieve what you describe as a singe shard would be for the entire game world to run on a single server which is simply impossible. 

 

Single shard means that the same data is persistent across any of these and that you can reach anyone anywhere if the technology exists in game to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

Actually that is not what a single shard is at all. In fact EVE proves that point as each star system is actually a separate instance and you  could argue that each node in the DU server tech is one too. The only way you could achieve what you describe as a singe shard would be for the entire game world to run on a single server which is simply impossible. 

 

Single shard means that the same data is persistent across any of these and that you can reach anyone anywhere if the technology exists in game to do so.

Now that is quibbling - there is no traditional instancing in the game where you can have different views of the 'universe' depending on what shard you are on. An instance in of itself implies that there are multiple copies of a single 'template' (much as in object oriented programming) each with their own distinct data. If we have to quibble on details.

 

So, technically, EVE does not have instancing. EVE has multiple servers sharing a single very custom RDBMS - not the same thing at all. From what I remember an EVE server hosted a variable number of solar systems depending on their expected population. One of the reasons why the GMs typically wanted to know where large battles were going to occur so that they could pre-set those particular systems up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheith said:

Now that is quibbling - there is no traditional instancing in the game where you can have different views of the 'universe' depending on what shard you are on. An instance in of itself implies that there are multiple copies of a single 'template' (much as in object oriented programming) each with their own distinct data. If we have to quibble on details.

 

So, technically, EVE does not have instancing. EVE has multiple servers sharing a single very custom RDBMS - not the same thing at all. From what I remember an EVE server hosted a variable number of solar systems depending on their expected population. One of the reasons why the GMs typically wanted to know where large battles were going to occur so that they could pre-set those particular systems up.

 

 

 

 

Yup, they also have a soft limit of around 6400 players per system, after that you can't really get in. All sorts of things start to break and it is soul crushing to fight in the ensuing time dilation. I enjoy dropping capitals in those fights but after sitting 12 hours of waiting just to jump, I was done. 1 cycle of a 10 second gun takes over 10 minutes in fights like that.

 

In premise, its amazing, in reality its just so bad. That is what happens when you let alliances grow to sizes where just 1 side of a conflict has enough players waiting that can soft cap a whole system and break it.

Then CCP PR department cums in their pants and spreads it all over the news about how record breaking the fight was when it was really absolute dogshit to be a part of even though a lot of supers were lost due to server melting as in the case of M2-XFE.
 

oakq4unv0e961.jpg 

 Source[Reddit]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cheith said:

Do you even know what a single shard is? All it means is that there are no instances. It has nothing to do with game mechanics at all. You can box PvP into a single hex in the entire game and it would still be a single shard. Geez.

And its a single shard with a huge pvp zone where all the juicy stuff is. Time to deal with it and not trying to change it after the fact. It was always advertised as such and ppl bought into it because of it. Maybe you could've informed yourself better beforehand, changing this now will not benefit du at all. 

 

We can talk mechanics all day and what they might do, but ffa pvp and juicy stuff being there is jut what du advertised 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lethys said:

And its a single shard with a huge pvp zone where all the juicy stuff is. Time to deal with it and not trying to change it after the fact. It was always advertised as such and ppl bought into it because of it. Maybe you could've informed yourself better beforehand, changing this now will not benefit du at all. 

 

We can talk mechanics all day and what they might do, but ffa pvp and juicy stuff being there is jut what du advertised 

As far as I can tell I am perfectly entitled to try and change what has not yet been implemented. I pay my money, I get to voice my opinions and have forum discussions. If you don’t like it maybe you should avoid the forum.

 

As to what was advertised I have seen opinions that are different from yours. In the end it is still a game - I’ll play it while I enjoy it and stop when I don’t whether there is PvP or not. My time may just be shorter if it impinges on my gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cheith said:

As far as I can tell I am perfectly entitled to try and change what has not yet been implemented. I pay my money, I get to voice my opinions and have forum discussions. If you don’t like it maybe you should avoid the forum.

 

As to what was advertised I have seen opinions that are different from yours. In the end it is still a game - I’ll play it while I enjoy it and stop when I don’t whether there is PvP or not. My time may just be shorter if it impinges on my gameplay.

See, That's the difference. I dont play at all because du is just boring af 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cheith said:

As far as I can tell I am perfectly entitled to try and change what has not yet been implemented. I pay my money, I get to voice my opinions and have forum discussions.

 

 

Yes, you get to voice your opinion certainly. Expecting that NQ would consider changing the plans they laid out for the game as far back as 2016 when they presented their pitch for backers on Kickstarter is at best an unrealistic one, especially when you consider that everything we have seen and know tells us that PVP is here, will stay here and will be a big part  of the game.

 

What you do not seem to (want to) understand is that the ideas and mechanics you seem to be against are by no means what NQ has in mind for the game. You are "fighting" ideas that are mostly assumptions by some of the combat PVP community based on what they'd like the game to be like. If you follow the progress of PVP and listen to the many, many signals on where NQ feels they should take PVP eventually you will know that most of these assumptions are at best unrealistic and that PV will play a role, but not one that dominates the game, in fact I'd say PVP will be a supportive mechanic more than a leading one.

 

And you pay your money to have access to the game, it does not entitle you to set or alter the direction of the game which is and was well documented long before you decided to subscribe for access. You do not get to decide how a baker prepares his produce just because you buy your bread there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blazemonger said:

 

 

Yes, you get to voice your opinion certainly. Expecting that NQ would consider changing the plans they laid out for the game as far back as 2016 when they presented their pitch for backers on Kickstarter is at best an unrealistic one, especially when you consider that everything we have seen and know tells us that PVP is here, will stay here and will be a big part  of the game.

 

What you do not seem to (want to) understand is that the ideas and mechanics you seem to be against are by no means what NQ has in mind for the game. You are "fighting" ideas that are mostly assumptions by some of the combat PVP community based on what they'd like the game to be like. If you follow the progress of PVP and listen to the many, many signals on where NQ feels they should take PVP eventually you will know that most of these assumptions are at best unrealistic and that PV will play a role, but not one that dominates the game, in fact I'd say PVP will be a supportive mechanic more than a leading one.

 

And you pay your money to have access to the game, it does not entitle you to set or alter the direction of the game which is and was well documented long before you decided to subscribe for access. You do not get to decide how a baker prepares his produce just because you buy your bread there. 

No, I do get it, but sometimes you just feel like feeding the trolls.

 

As I have said numerous times I am not discussing the existence of PvP just the implementation of PvP and how it interacts with the rest of the game - which you seemed to miss at least in your above comment. 

 

Paying my money entitles me to voice my opinion (as I said). Whether that influences the direction of the game or not is out of my hands and I know that and did not claim otherwise. It is, in that respect, no different from your opinion.

 

The harking back to Kickstarter does amuse me though - a five year old marketing presentation and general direction for a game is, while instructive, not necessarily a definitive guide on where one will end up. Five years is a lot of time and many things change. Assuming there are other private equity investors now involved they will have a lot more say on what happens than anything in the Kickstarter pledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cheith said:

The harking back to Kickstarter does amuse me though 

 

One is making a pledge based on a promise/a pitch to get funding, the other is paying a fee to access an existing service. I feel the point is a relevant one.

 

Yes, you certainly can and should voice your opinion. You should also understand that there is quite a few who got on board for the exact reasons you argue against and so will defend their expectations as something which was part of the promise for what he game would contain.

 

But to get back on topic, what is it about PVP in DU that actually is something you do not see as a viable mechanic and how would you prefer to see it be implemented instead? For me, the current planned implementation, taking the existing available information into account (even when rather minimal) seems fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2021 at 6:05 PM, blazemonger said:

Oddly, when CCP turned off local in NullSec last year, it was us explorers who benefitted the most as many campers and "casual" PVP players stayed away as they were afraid of getting caught. It was quite glorious .. and profitable ;)

Such a shame CCP caved in to the Null Sec cry babies. So many people who had not played for years were starting to come back. CCP should have taken the risk and the game would have so many more people now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blazemonger said:

 

One is making a pledge based on a promise/a pitch to get funding, the other is paying a fee to access an existing service. I feel the point is a relevant one.

You should read the terms and conditions for things like Kickstarter - it is all best effort. The other part in the funding game is that new money always trumps old money - having gone through that particular aspect of things before it was quite educational!

 

5 hours ago, blazemonger said:

Yes, you certainly can and should voice your opinion. You should also understand that there is quite a few who got on board for the exact reasons you argue against and so will defend their expectations as something which was part of the promise for what he game would contain.

I understand. Not worried about it - we are all entitled to have forum discussions. In the end whether they make any difference is questionable. I am always interested to hear the other side even if I don't agree with it.

 

5 hours ago, blazemonger said:

But to get back on topic, what is it about PVP in DU that actually is something you do not see as a viable mechanic and how would you prefer to see it be implemented instead? For me, the current planned implementation, taking the existing available information into account (even when rather minimal) seems fine.

Maybe part of the issue is the loose definition. As I have said I personally don't feel any significant non-PvP content should be locked behind PvP activities. I want to be able to roam around the galaxy if I choose, I want to mine whatever ore I want to mine, and I want to build wherever I want to build without someone turning up and deciding they want to shoot me for reasons of their own.

 

Now, as always, there are compromises to be made but you have to start somewhere and if you start with the compromise it is never where you end up. One, for example, might be high end ores that are only ever used for highest tech weapons and ammunition could be in a PvP zone - I would be fine with that assuming we don't have NPCs to shoot and even then you rarely need the best to kill NPCs.

 

I don't feel the civilization part is meaningful or even thought out as some kind of PvP counter. There would need to be mechanics as civilizations are the opposite of PvP anarchy. In civilizations you put the PvP in arenas, charge money for watching it, and allow people to gamble on the result. Now that would be something I would support - whole lot of game play around that!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FryingDoom said:

Such a shame CCP caved in to the Null Sec cry babies. So many people who had not played for years were starting to come back. CCP should have taken the risk and the game would have so many more people now.

The truth is; the wallet speaks orders of volumes over how hard you can cry over the forums.

 

You see that fact then with CCP and now with Novaquark.

 

The only difference is that Eve had the population and experience to be able to take a financial hit like that, Dual Universe does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2021 at 12:54 PM, Cheith said:

Maybe part of the issue is the loose definition. As I have said I personally don't feel any significant non-PvP content should be locked behind PvP activities. I want to be able to roam around the galaxy if I choose, I want to mine whatever ore I want to mine, and I want to build wherever I want to build without someone turning up and deciding they want to shoot me for reasons of their own.

 

I certainly agree that NQ is responsible for a lot of the misplaced expectations by not setting clear ones from the get go or correcting them when misinterpretations come up. It takes some digging (unless you watched/listened to all podcasts and interviews) to find any solid information.

 

At the same time I really think that the idea that "non PVP activity is locked behind PVP activity" is not fair or reasonable when you do look at the information we know. The idea here, and this is pretty much a default "operation mode" for MMO style games. is that PVE content would be the source to feed into other components of the game, one being PVP. I get that you would prefer that to not be the case but I do not agree with that. there always needs to be a risk/reward balance. Being able to achieve/obtain top tier gains without any risk just seems wrong to me and I really do not see how that would be fun.

 

 

Quote

I don't feel the civilization part is meaningful or even thought out as some kind of PvP counter. There would need to be mechanics as civilizations are the opposite of PvP anarchy.

This is where IMO the incorrect expectations come in. Civilization is not "a counter to" or "the opposite of" PVP. PVP serves a purpose in the context of civilization building. It is not a goal in itself. Obviously there will be (small) groups which will choose to make PVP they "lifestyle" in game and that is fine as there is a place for that in game too.

 

Overall, I really think you put too much weight on the risk of a combat PVP encounter while exploring or travelling through space. As is well proven in games like EVE it is entirely possible to spend years playing the game, enjoying the company of like minded players, without encountering PVP al that much. It is mostly a case of being prepared and being alert. And to that end it is for NQ to ensure they provide the mechanics and tools which will allow us to evade and prevent combat PVP encounters as long as we pay attention. There's always the chance of getting unlucky and there is always the possibility of a surprise but overall, there needs to be a way out or around encounters and it would then be for the PVP players to find ways to get around that ( and so on ;) )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

At the same time I really think that the idea that "non PVP activity is locked behind PVP activity" is not fair or reasonable when you do look at the information we know. The idea here, and this is pretty much a default "operation mode" for MMO style games. is that PVE content would be the source to feed into other components of the game, one being PVP. I get that you would prefer that to not be the case but I do not agree with that. there always needs to be a risk/reward balance. Being able to achieve/obtain top tier gains without any risk just seems wrong to me and I really do not see how that would be fun.

I am not after top tier gains - I don't think mining any ore is a top tier gain and I don't think exploring the various worlds is a tp tier gain either. I am not even sure from a builder/manufacturer perspective if top tier is even meaningful. Economics wise maybe in terms of money gained - but then a good industrialist should always out earn all the PvP players in the game as PvP should not really be profitable except for the very few who avoid getting blown up regularly. One of the reasons most games have 'rats' is so the bulk of the PvP players can earn some cash to rebuild their ships. Your average builder/miner will not wish to play the role of the 'rat'.

 

1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

This is where IMO the incorrect expectations come in. Civilization is not "a counter to" or "the opposite of" PVP. PVP serves a purpose in the context of civilization building. It is not a goal in itself. Obviously there will be (small) groups which will choose to make PVP they "lifestyle" in game and that is fine as there is a place for that in game too.

I would argue (there is a shock :) ) that PvP has a very small life in civilization building. Relative speaking it is there at the start but then it gets 'regularized' into armies, etc. So yes and no. Not the free-wheeling PvP of ambushing haulers - that gets relegated t a few pirates - but the PvP of pitched battles would still exist. In that scenario you know where the war zones are and maybe you have issues going there while there is an active war but in peace time not so much. Let me rephrase - unregulated PvP is anathema to civilizations.

1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

Overall, I really think you put too much weight on the risk of a combat PVP encounter while exploring or travelling through space. As is well proven in games like EVE it is entirely possible to spend years playing the game, enjoying the company of like minded players, without encountering PVP al that much. It is mostly a case of being prepared and being alert. And to that end it is for NQ to ensure they provide the mechanics and tools which will allow us to evade and prevent combat PVP encounters as long as we pay attention. There's always the chance of getting unlucky and there is always the possibility of a surprise but overall, there needs to be a way out or around encounters and it would then be for the PVP players to find ways to get around that ( and so on ;) )

 

Probably and I certainly had few issues in EVE when I wanted to skulk around and there is always the don't fly what you can't afford to lose theory. My big issue tends to be the inconsistency of views (imo) - one sentence civilization the next randomly blowing stuff up. It just doesn't mesh.

 

Frankly in the games I have played with PvP in them if it is not well controlled (and I consider EVE well controlled) you just end up with a cesspit. Played one or two PvP centric games with the promises of player controlled/managed this and that and it didn't happen - it just degenerates to a griefers paradise until it implodes.

 

Don't get me wrong, though, if I am kitted out for combat and looking to fight something or going somewhere I should not then I have no issues losing a ship. It is not that. I just don't want that to be the default for any interesting content.

 

We shall see what happens - as I have said before if it works out then great, if it doesn't well it is one game in a crowded market of games, though to be fair not too many like this in terms of the building and creative aspect - plenty of other shoot it games though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2021 at 4:18 AM, Lethys said:

its a single shard with a huge pvp zone where all the juicy stuff is. Time to deal with it and not trying to change it after the fact.

 

Actually no, that is what was advertised to you back in alpha. When they went to beta their marketing had changed a whole bunch; they were pushing creation and city building. They changed what they were advertise Between alpha and beta

On 5/2/2021 at 12:15 PM, blazemonger said:

Expecting that NQ would consider changing the plans they laid out for the game as far back as 2016 when they presented their pitch for backers on Kickstarter is at best an unrealistic one, especially when you consider that everything we have seen and know tells us that PVP is here, will stay here and will be a big part  of the game

And here lies the problem for you. Let’s be honest, if this game does get released, it’s got another year or more in beta.

 

guess what their income is for that time? It’s funding from VC, and it’s the beta players subscription. Alpha players aren’t paying anymore until release. All they are doing is taking up server resources. The money is coming from VC and beta subscription. Money talks, and that means right now they are gong to be sucking up to and trying to keep the beta players, the ones who are paying; and they were advertised and sold on a different game than the vision you were sold on back in alpha I’m afraid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CoyoteNZ said:

Actually no, that is what was advertised to you back in alpha. When they went to beta their marketing had changed a whole bunch; they were pushing creation and city building. They changed what they were advertise Between alpha and beta

Actually no, that was always a thing and hasn't started with beta. It's called a safezone where builders can do whatever they want in 100% safety. Nothing changed, was the plan from the beginning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lethys said:

Actually no, that was always a thing and hasn't started with beta. It's called a safezone where builders can do whatever they want in 100% safety. Nothing changed, was the plan from the beginning

I know it hasn’t changed, but when the Kickstarter came out they really really pushed the PvP aspect of the game. I saw it, I figured this wasn’t the game for me, thus why I don’t have alpha under my name.

 

when beta came out, there videos had changed, and PvP was hardly mentioned, they pushed hard all the other stuff. That’s when I said, that’s a game I’d like to play so I subbed. That is the issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoyoteNZ said:

I know it hasn’t changed, but when the Kickstarter came out they really really pushed the PvP aspect of the game. I saw it, I figured this wasn’t the game for me, thus why I don’t have alpha under my name.

 

when beta came out, there videos had changed, and PvP was hardly mentioned, they pushed hard all the other stuff. That’s when I said, that’s a game I’d like to play so I subbed. That is the issue. 

Dont you love NQ - promoting pvp so all those ppl join and then advertise this as a building sim to get the pve ppl in. 

 

Still can work if they get the safezones right and create valuable incentive to go outside the bubble tho. Maybe in 3 years or so, we will see

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...