Jump to content

To pvp or not to pvp ?  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. To pvp or not to pvp?

    • Yes I want pvp under this games Newtonian physics?
      40
    • Please No pvp, i just want to relax, and not get ganked all the time by big organisations, even if game is rewitten to accomodte it.
      17


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, CoyoteNZ said:

Not the best options.

 

what about I want there to be a good PvP system for when I’m in the mood, but don’t want to be forced into it when I’m not?

The answer is simple.  Don't leave the safe zone or just utilize a warp drive to avoid PVP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LouHodo said:

The answer is simple.  Don't leave the safe zone or just utilize a warp drive to avoid PVP.

And this I do.

 

But there are a lot of people on the forums that seem to think my ability to do this is bad and needs to be removed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CoyoteNZ said:

And this I do.

 

But there are a lot of people on the forums that seem to think my ability to do this is bad and needs to be removed. 

I believe there should be an ability to interdict warp drives.  But I also think that system should be a large item that can only be placed on a large core space station outside of the safe zone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the thing with polls, they dont accomodate all the ins and outs. Which would make the poll so fragmented. Its just for a general feel. Judging by current votes, the vast majority of voters wish for pvp, even under the current game mechanics. Lets see what the final results are after 7 days, but atm the pvp'rs have it in the bag.

 

Use Your vote and make Your voice heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpacePirate said:

Thats the thing with polls, they dont accomodate all the ins and outs. Which would make the poll so fragmented. Its just for a general feel. Judging by current votes, the vast majority of voters wish for pvp, even under the current game mechanics. Lets see what the final results are after 7 days, but atm the pvp'rs have it in the bag.

 

Use Your vote and make Your voice heard.

But there is the issue - I am not against PvP but I am against some of what is wished for in terms of the scope allowed for PvP. So, for me, it is a pointless poll with a false choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the "I understand PVP is part of the game and that is fine, but it's not part of my gameplay" option which will apply for many I am sure.

 

Asking a black-white PVP question like this really tells you nothing as myself and many others would not choose to engage in PVP at all but understand it's here and why. If  "forced" between yes/no, I'd go for no as I do not care whether PVP is part of a game or not.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As polls go, I can’t help getting the feeling that these options here are ever so slightly ... lacking in nuance and insight. Lol
 

Not as bad as a poll I saw on another unnamed, still as yet to go beta space game forum:
 

a) Damn straight, I want full PvP. NAU; sign me up.

b) I’m a coward and a poor loser so I can’t face personal conflict and don’t like PvP.

Funnily enough, the game got PvP everywhere (PvP free zones were removed) and now the space ports are drenched with the fetid stench of murder hobos who ram your massive ship at >1000mps while it’s still on the platform in their single seater just as you’re running to get on board. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know the second option already exist right? There is next to no pvp content in the game right now, people go out of their way to stream on twitch to try and draw someone out to fight them. 

 

There is a huge blue bubble in which u can play this game in utter safety. 

 

I don't understand why people insist on extending it outside of that and imposing their preference on the rest of the player base, it is the same as if pvpers wanted the safezone removed entirely, just the positive/negative impact on the populations inverted. 

 

This whole  "I don't want pvp forced upon me" bs, you don't have it forced upon you, it is completely optional. You just stay in this huge safezone and you are golden.

 

I think the only legitimate concern might be those who want to explore in safety, so they want to go visit new solar systems and what have you. We'll have to see, but in my mind being an explorer means being in danger, personal opinion of course. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll hints at the idea that newtonian / physics-based combat just isn't engaging or interesting...I agree with that, but that doesn't mean I want no PvP at all. 

 

For all this endless PvP discussion, there's generally not much discussion about the actual mechanics of combat (or lack thereof). 

 

Combat sucks in its current form -- they need to revamp combat before PvP will even matter in terms of market appeal...and that's what matters for DU's survival. 

 

If DU's style of combat were really so appealing, there'd be a lot more PvP going on and a lot more of it shared in social channels. 

 

If PvP was really so fun, people would seek it out despite the safe zones, especially since there's (apparently) nothing to do in DU. 

 

There's been like 2 or 3 big PvP events organized by players...they didn't make much of an impact, did they? Not enough to keep people playing. Somehow open world PvP will fix this? How? I see people posting their constructions every single day...but so few PvP videos. 

 

PvP or not PvP? It really doesn't matter...not unless you can make a case that combat will actually become engaging vs. a boring lag-fast where you chase radar markers and sit in a gunner chair but don't aim.

 

I get that some people find it exciting, but we're talking about an MMO...one that needs a level of mass-appeal to survive, especially on a subscription-based monetization model. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What even is the point of a single shard unless there is some sort of conflict to justify being in the same physical space in the first place?  Do people seriously expect a game where you log on to oooo and ahhhh at other people's latest creations? It strikes me as some sort of niche narcissistic indulgence that very few people would give a crap about.   Give me a break.  Any way I think the question and point to be made here are moot... you're not going to get realistic Newtonian physics in a game where you can create such completely customizable objects with variable mass and volume, down to  a tiny voxel. because its too demanding of a simulation and would require an absurd amount of  processing power to pull off even for a single player game.  If it were possible someone would have already done it, and NQ surely isnt competent or capable enough to pull it off...and neither is anyone else for that matter... here's hoping time will prove me wrong. even in the over simplified version we have now the game seems always on the verge of crashing, with things rubber banding all over the place and being completely out of sync all the time, as par the course

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ShippyLongstalking said:

This poll hints at the idea that newtonian / physics-based combat just isn't engaging or interesting...

 

You can't get complaints about non-newtonian physics, if the people in it have not graduated high school. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:

 

You can't get complaints about non-newtonian physics, if the people in it have not graduated high school. 

I think most ppl are too used to see space battles like air battles in tv shows. 

 

Like starwars, when fighters point to the wanted trajectory and burn, instead of doing a 90° rotation and burning perpendicular to it. 

 

The only TV show i have seen with decent space combat is "the expanse" and for the sake of not boring they dont focus that much into space maneuvering and course correction. 

 

In general space combat is boring. There is no cover to get behind. 

There are no atmospheric variations. 

Ships can fire before the enemy is close enough for movement tactics to make a difference. 

Unless someone has a secret weapon or someone messes up really hard, the outcome of the battle is pre-determined before the 1st shot is fired. 

 

For realism sake, DU does it ok. 

For excitement sake, starwars does it ok. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2021 at 10:02 AM, SpacePirate said:

Thats the thing with polls, they dont accomodate all the ins and outs.

 

Your choices are between PVP using Newtonian Physics or no PVP.. These are two entirely different topics as one is around whether Newtonian physics are good for PVP and the second is about PVP in general.

 

So, what is your objective for this poll?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, joaocordeiro said:

For realism sake, DU does it ok. 

For excitement sake, starwars does it ok. 

 

As always, realism has never and will never be the objective for good video games. That's not how game design works.

 

Realism inspires games, it doesn't mandate game mechanics. For every one point of realism in DU, there are dozens of concepts that are obviously unrealistic...but that's because it's a game.

 

Realism doesn't make a game better because real-life mechanics aren't what makes a game good. 

 

We are talking about an MMO -- not a niche space sim that gives us a picture of "real" space battles. That'd be fine for a single player game or small-scale multiplayer game...but we're talking about a sub-based MMO that needs scale to survive. It sure as hell lacks that scale today...and I don't see how it'll ever achieve it being a niche space game with an even more niche model of combat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShippyLongstalking said:

As always, realism has never and will never be the objective for good video games. That's not how game design works.

I agree, but be warned this goes 100% against JC's vision and 100% of what was promissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joaocordeiro said:

I agree, but be warned this goes 100% against JC's vision and 100% of what was promissed.

 

No one should care about the vision of an amateur game designer whose empty promises were never backed by realistic plans. He knew nothing about game design when making "promises" about DU. 

 

His "vision" is the reason he's no longer CEO and the reason why this game has struggled so hard to even define its genre. 

 

People constantly talk about the role PvP ought to play in this game because JC's inexperienced hand at design never bothered to clarify it for us. 

 

As for "promises"...I'd say sorry, but the promises from someone that has no idea what they are doing need to be taken with a grain of salt. We're talking about a commercial product, not some agreement between friends -- there's no such thing as promises.

 

You can call it a "promise" if you want -- I call it a design that won't work and needs to be revised. Changing plans and designs is a reality of this business. 

 

Maybe NQ will alienate some of its most ardent backers...but what has adhering to JC's "promises" gotten them so far? Niche within niche, dwindling subscribers, half-baked designs that will never work at scale, and a product whose genre is a mystery even to its most active players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ShippyLongstalking said:

His "vision" is the reason he's no longer CEO and the reason why this game has struggled so hard to even define its genre. 

 

I fully agree with you. 

 

But this many "powerfull" players strongly disagree. 

 

One of their arguments is that they invested hard on kickstarter in that vision and if the vision changes, they should get their money back. 

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

 

I fully agree with you. 

 

But this many "powerfull" players strongly disagree. 

 

One of their arguments is that they invested hard on kickstarter in that vision and if the vision changes, they should get their money back. 


Fair enough! IMO, these players aren't as "powerful" as NQ's drive to turn this ship around and make a buck. The new finance guy at the helm...he isn't going to give two craps about these people. He sure as hell ain't going to give refunds. 

 

Like...people understand what Kickstarter is, right? There's no such thing as "promises" in KS -- nothing they say there is remotely binding. KS exists to fund projects. That's it.

 

They don't hand-hold backers to monitor if projects are following the "promises" which aren't binding and they simply won't issue refunds...I'm sure the new CEO understands this very well. 

Link to post
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
×
×
  • Create New...