Jump to content

Revolutionary Idea for a More Balanced PVP


Hirnsausen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear NQ Staff, as you see this thread attracts a lot of resonance. Please consider this suggesttion.


In any average game, PVP guys can attack anyone. But why would have DU be just like an average game? It already walked its own innovative path in so many ways. Here is my suggestion how to make PVP different than in other average games.

Any ship inside the unsafe zone can attack only armed ships. If a ship is not armed, it cannot be attacked (an "intergalactic charta" prevents that).

Sounds simple. But it will lift PVP to an entire new level. All those who love destruction and killing are confronted with their own kind, and can have much more challenge than ever before. The idea came to me when I looked at the current situation: a very few but almighty PVP groups control a vast part of the game universe, disabling effectively all other players to do what the game offers to them. With this small change I suggestion, the entire situation will change - PVP guys can still have their fun in destruction but more is now possible, for more people who pay to play DU.

At the same time, the unsafe zone opens up to more players in unarmed ships, however, now as the risk of PVP involvement is gone, the unsafe zone becomes now available for "other" challenges that NQ still has to create. I could think of micro asteroids fast as a bullet and potentially harming or destroying ships. Or an occasional drifting ship wreck, but highly radioactive and able to kill anyone coming too close, or harassing the ship's electronic and LUA.

Being in the unsafe zone, we could now even think about ship races where, at one point, bandits can shot with small-caliber weapons (and very limited line of fire) on the racing ships, as seen as in Star Wars with its Tatooine ground race (an exception to the general charta that prevents attacking unarmed ships).

 

We came up with the idea, to further enhance the adrenaline of PVP: that unarmed ships - at the brink of total loss - can self-detonate and create a huge area of destruction, destroying loot, ship, but also many of tthe ships around. This naturally makes PVP more balanced, and adds to the excitement and adrenaline push. No PVP hero with repution wants lame, unarmed ships only. So, instead of weapons, those slow ships would use just another way to add to the challenge. We do not see anytthing wrong with that. There is no monopoly for destruction just on one side, in a good, PVP-driven game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Horrible idea, and suggests you don't really appreciate the potential of DU in terms of a civilization building game. There's plenty of Safe zone to play the game in if you want to avoid conflict, but outside of that is where there is so much potential for CU in terms of civilization building and that really needs unrestricted conflict from a game mechanics perspective. Any restrictions need to be imposed by the players and policed by them. That is what part of building a civilization game is.

 

If you want to see such laws in the game, build an in game organisation and alliance and impose it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 2:49 AM, Endmyion said:

 

- potential of DU in terms of a civilization building game.

- if you want to avoid conflict

 

Errmmm, wrong, EndMyIon. Wrong. Destroying what normal, nice other people have built is not the meaning of "building a covilization". That is just sick destruction and killing. Somethign we usually enjoy doing when we're small toddlers. Building a civilization, to use your example, means to respect each other and build things together, to strife for higher goals. PVP weirdos are more the exact opposite.

So, if you enjoy the conflict, why then you do not attack those who are armed, then? Because they can shoot back at you? So you go for those who cannot defend themselves against a hoard of weirdos who love destruction and are against civilization? Looks so. Mentally still toddlers...   ?

But again, look at my proposal. You can still have your conflicts and destruction. And you get challenge, as your targets are armed, too. They, too, enjoy destruction, just as you do. So why are you then so afraid of that? At the same time, we normal humans can go into the unsafe zone and meet a number of other challenges, as described before, which also can kill or get an astronaut stranded in the nowhere. UNSAFE does not mean PVP alone. Widen your view point. It can mean many other dangers. My suggestion has the potential to add a lot to the gameplay, while PVP weirdos still can do PVP among themselves. So where is the problem?

We came up with the idea, to further enhance the adrenaline of PVP: that unarmed ships - at the brink of total loss - can self-detonate and create a huge area of destruction, destroying loot, ship, but also many of tthe ships around. This naturally makes PVP more balanced, and adds to the excitement and adrenaline push. No PVP hero with repution wants lame, unarmed ships only. So, instead of weapons, those slow ships would use just another way to add to the challenge. We do not see anytthing wrong with that. There is no monopoly for destruction just on one side, in a good, PVP-driven game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you proposing is like stating in an RTS game that you cannot attack the other sides resource collection units. It makes no sense in terms of grand strategy which has to factor into any successful civilization building/simulation game. I'm going to stop replying at this point as i feel if you are unable to grasp this we'll not come to any sort of alignment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hirnsausen said:

Errmmm, wrong, EndMyIon. Wrong. Destroying what normal, nice other people have built is not the meaning of "building a covilization".

You simply don't go into a warzone unprepared. You can build a civilization (whatever that means in a video game) in the safe zone.

 

Honestly from the langauge you are using you are not seeing this as a game but an extension to your real life. This is probably the difference between you and the rest of the world. Games are there for entertainment. Look at board or card games. They are all about destroying the opponent.

This is what games are for. A lot of people (in fact the normal people) play games for fun and also for the destruction.
I think what you define as "normal" is maybe normal in RL. But very "unnormal" in video games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are games about destroying? That is a wrong way of thinking, more suited to the stone age cavemen. Brutal violence to claim territories.

Civilization is to unite, and build things. But again, for those who love to destroy, those can continue - their focus will be armed ships. Not helpless normal humans. If that is too much challenge, I cannot help.

The purpose of my suggestion is, to enrich the unsafe zone with more elements than with just average PVP alone.  Thus the idea to do some shifting. That would allow many more players (those are not your opponents as they never wanted to be involved in destruction)to venture into the Unsafe Zone and meet there many different challenges.  I don't think, we need too much of Somali Pirate mentality in this wonderful game. Why not to give a try and have a different PVP experience than in any other game?

And to my special friend EndMyIon I am saying, that nirmnal humans who want to mine T3 to T5 ore in the Unsafe Zone, are not automatically part of "the other side". Not everyone who is not you is automatically "the other side". That is black-and-white thinking. Start think colorful, as the real life is full of amazing colors of every shade! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2021 at 5:37 AM, Hirnsausen said:

Why are games about destroying?

only because you don't get it or because you dont enjoy it doesnt mean it doesn't have merit.

 

if you don't want to get killed, there are 3 whole planets to build and live your life in a perfectly safe environment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your description contradicts itself, you propose to remove the ability to shoot at "let's say half of the ships" and how should pvp increase? How? If you prohibit shooting at "half" of the targets. And more often than not, conflict and battles take place after the destroyed civilian transport, etc. That is, the current model - it increases conflicts and pvp, you propose the opposite, and you say this should increase conflicts - alas, you are wrong. There should be destruction in games, then the value of objects increases. Now, and so the overproduction in the game and the withdrawal of equipment, alas, still remains in the game only because of PVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More PVP, because the battles will be more challenging for PVP persons, as their victims now start to shoot back and maybe even destroy the ship of the attacker. Which - in return - would be a good elsson for the attacker. As both sides (attacker and attacked one) can fire, more intensity and more material damage which could nicely fit to the model of increasing value of objects and balancing any over-production. If the attackers just go after unarmed or low-armed vessels, damage is only on one side. If damage is on both sides, more value increase and less over-production as the demand increased.

 

I want to use the immense Unsave Zone not just for PVP alone, but that NQ adds many more different types of dangerous challenges there. That can only be if those new challenges are in balance with PVP so the Unsafe Zone won't become a 100% Fail Zone (where loss is certain and not just a possibility). Ttoo much challenge kills the spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hirnsausen said:

More PVP, because the battles will be more challenging for PVP persons, as their victims now start to shoot back and maybe even destroy the ship of the attacker. Which - in return - would be a good elsson for the attacker. As both sides (attacker and attacked one) can fire, more intensity and more material damage which could nicely fit to the model of increasing value of objects and balancing any over-production. If the attackers just go after unarmed or low-armed vessels, damage is only on one side. If damage is on both sides, more value increase and less over-production as the demand increased.

 

I want to use the immense Unsave Zone not just for PVP alone, but that NQ adds many more different types of dangerous challenges there. That can only be if those new challenges are in balance with PVP so the Unsafe Zone won't become a 100% Fail Zone (where loss is certain and not just a possibility). Ttoo much challenge kills the spirit.

Way off the mark on the idea here. Your suggestion would literally be the end of the game / final nail in the coffin.

 

A suggestion would be rather than trying to come up with a hard barrier to pvp, think of ways NQ could add some more cat and mouse gameplay in too it. How can people who want to avoid combat in contested territory keep themselves undetected from putting in effort to do so? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PVP does not equal to contest territory. Two different things despite that the border between both is diffuse.

We came up with the idea, to further enhance the adrenaline of PVP: that unarmed ships - at the brink of total loss - can self-detonate and create a huge area of destruction, destroying loot, ship, but also many of tthe ships around. This naturally makes PVP more balanced, and adds to the excitement and adrenaline push. No PVP hero with repution wants lame, unarmed ships only. So, instead of weapons, those slow ships would use just another way to add to the challenge. We do not see anytthing wrong with that. There is no monopoly for destruction just on one side, in a good, PVP-driven game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tribes

-Larger Tribes

-Kingdoms, think detroit with a king basically.

-Larger "Provinces" 

-Alliances

-Kingdoms

-Nations

Each one dealing with consolidating or increasing the scale of conflict conflict until we are where we are today, a stalemate between nations. PVP? Yes, that's what built the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you like your possessions being taken away, your parents being killed, your children being slaughtered, your wife being abducted and then killed, and all that? And say, at the same time as you see that happen in front of your eyes, "oh, how great PVP is"? Yes, that is what you call "PVP" in our world to which you referred. You are very very strange.

You do not take any distance to the bead things happening in real life, but you enjoy them so much, that you're eager to bring these bad things even into games, and proudly refer to these real world things. That is why I wish, these bad real world "PVP" things will happen to you. Since you enjoy them so much.

Just THINK* what you say, before you speak. THINK*.

* (only applicable if such procedures exist inside a PVP guy's rudimentary proto-brain otherwise please dismiss)    ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to my suggestion. It stands, even more when reading what weird characters are here, and with what weird comparisons they try to use for their behavior against thousands of normal players. Dear NQ, dear GMs, this game for sure should create a new type of PVP, that confronts PVP lovers with their own kind. And at the same time, opening the stage to create different dangerous threads inside the Unsafe Zone so we normal players can find plenty adventure and riches there, as well as 10,000 different deaths (and not just PVP death). We want a game that sets new dimensions not only in ship building but in other categories, too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hirnsausen said:

We want a game that sets new dimensions not only in ship building but in other categories, too!

yup. That's why we want the promised FFA pvp territory where ppl create the laws and enforce it. And that's why we want those wars with 10.000 concurrent players without TiDi in a single shard universe. Doubt that will ever happen tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 12:22 AM, Hirnsausen said:

Any ship inside the unsafe zone can attack only armed ships. If a ship is not armed, it cannot be attacked (an "intergalactic charta" prevents that).

I made this suggestion a few weeks ago on the subreddit and got roasted by the downvote brigade, but I still think this idea has merit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2021 at 11:54 AM, FerroSC said:

I made this suggestion a few weeks ago on the subreddit and got roasted by the downvote brigade, but I still think this idea has merit. 

Yes, these folks do lots of lobbying. For them, only their own fun matters, at the cost of all others. We call their mentality "Somali Pirate" mentality.

I am happy that you write your support for this great suggestion. The more we write, the better it is for this suggestion, so don't stop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2021 at 8:13 PM, Haku0814 said:

-Kingdoms, think detroit with a king basically.

If this is anything like detroit michigan, 'warlord' would probably be more apt.

 

On 9/20/2021 at 11:30 PM, Hirnsausen said:

So, you like your possessions being taken away, your parents being killed, your children being slaughtered, your wife being abducted and then killed, and all that? And say, at the same time as you see that happen in front of your eyes, "oh, how great PVP is"? Yes, that is what you call "PVP" in our world to which you referred. You are very very strange.

You do not take any distance to the bead things happening in real life, but you enjoy them so much, that you're eager to bring these bad things even into games, and proudly refer to these real world things. That is why I wish, these bad real world "PVP" things will happen to you. Since you enjoy them so much.

Just THINK* what you say, before you speak. THINK*.

* (only applicable if such procedures exist inside a PVP guy's rudimentary proto-brain otherwise please dismiss)    ?

For all intents and purposes, the world in which humanity exists in is very much PVP orientated. While a smattering of civil safe spaces do exist, those are not inpregnible beyond the application of a given amount of force by anyone determined enough.

 

In the civilian world, civilization is generally upheld by the acceptance of various rules and regulations. Then there's the ~1% of the US population (2.3M, based on 2020 data, I also use US data because we have the highest incarceration rate worldwide) that thinks they are beyond the rules. While a fair amount are locked up for things like drug offenses, simple possession, and other various self-harms or even non-harms respectively, you have your other crowd that puts innocent people in danger.

 

While the rules in place to maintain orderly civilization exist, it is important to note that they can be freely broken, even in areas of high protection and regulation. Indeed, the only hard limits that exist really come down to our technology and imagination. There are no truly safe spaces when it comes to humanity, we are deceptive, cunning, intelligent, and a whole lot of other adjectives.

 

We like to consider our homes relatively safe. They have windows and doors, both with locks on them and surrounded by walls to protect what's inside from what's outside. While various measures can be taken to protect your home without turning it into a fortress, home invasions and burglaries still occur.

 

Exiting the privacy of our own homes the private sector plays host to a variety of security zones from completely undefended to active and visual protection. If you think 'America' and 'pvp', one of the first things that comes to mind which I'm reluctant to discuss, is the multitude of shootings you've probably seen in the news over the years. When the pressures of conformity from society are rejected and non-active security measures are ignored or bypassed altogether, what puts down a bad guy with a gun is usually a good guy with a gun. This can come from either a member of the general public or the civil authority.

 

Speaking of which, while bastions of the civil authorities are generally very well protected, in America recent riots and occupations of such areas in recent months and years by 'hostile' forces have proven these areas not always so secure.

 

Stepping things up a level to military instillations, incidents in 1995 and as recently as 2018 where individuals ended up commandeering armored vehicles without prior authorization and putting the public in danger.

 

Again, we occupy a distinctly PVP world because we are a distinctly PVP orientated species. If we did not spec up in the form of PVP required aspects, then our ancestors would not have survived this world which is filled with animals (PVP), dangerous landscapes (PVE), and a changing and hostile climate (PVE). Why you don't see people killing people everywhere is due to the afore mentioned pressures of civilization. While we have the means to easily take another persons life, we are expected to follow within a set of rules where without such there would be anarchy.

 

The barista that made your coffee, do you think they're out to get you? Did they add a drop of poison to your fancy and expensive frozen whipped cream carmel covered mochahopafropakappahappasuperduperfreakyexpensivelatte? Are they out to engage in PVP with you, or are you just another person of the thousand that they'll meet today, some of whom they'll never meet again? I don't think they tainted your morning joe, what would they have to gain from that, more importantly, what would they have to lose? 

 

This is turning into a rant isn't it?... I could go on and on, but simply put, this is a bad idea. While the idea of perpetual safety is great, it's impossible since it will lead to almost zero economic churn, prices will crash since sales aren't being made, profit isn't being made so supply isn't being generated because its a waste of time and production then becomes a matter of individuals. You building everything you want to build, do everything you want to do, then what?

 

Games only have 'moments' that people remember and keep playing because what-happened-happened whether it was good or bad. It was exciting and unexpected. Maybe one party didn't find that the case and all their time and work went up in smoke, same thing happens IRL too, learn from it and maybe next time take preventive measures too.

 

As a rescuer, I don't find the idea of someone shooting me and making off with my stuff too pleasant. Now I need rescuing, the person I'm rescuing needs to wait longer, our org is both down a ship and supplies, and needs to make another dispatch to pick up the pieces. We don't put guns on our stuff, but we do fly with folks who do. We take steps like flying outside the pipes to reduce the chance for an interception, we remember the names of those who wrong us, and any time we get knocked down, we look what went wrong to see if we can't make it right next time.

 

On 9/27/2021 at 2:16 AM, Lethys said:

Yes, these folks do lots of lobbying. For them, only their own fun matters, at the cost of all others. We call their mentality "Carebear" mentality.

Ahh, another uno reverse card...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarkHorion, thanks for the long but interesting-to-read text.

Yes, I follow international news closely, among them US news. I am well aware of the huge amount of "PVP" in the US society. I even run a Facebook group that (sarcastically) thanks the NRA for providing all these eciting headlines about mass killings ("PVP"). I think, we all(with exception of NRA and their lovers) agree, that there is way too much "PVP" in the US.

 

Looking to Japan with its strict and almost 100% restriction on guns, it is a big news headline there if one single shooting crime has happened in a year. You simply don't have mass shootings if there are no guns avalable. A better society. Other wrong-doings still, of course. But not all these mass-killings, and not all these many many many gun crimes where low amounts of people are murdered. In  Japan, they have crime where knives are used, but not many, either.  here is no NRA in that country that lobbies, pays and controls politicians.


The problem in our human society all over the world is, that there are too many people who love criome and violence and destruction and corruption. Those are the folks that are holding us back, mankind at a whole. I see those freaks as a kind of prehistoric pre-form of human, not ready yet to be part of a violence-free society. As ,long as those are mixed witth normal humans, any resulting society will have violence and desperation, sadness and hate. Those societies cannot develop as fast as they could do otherwise, and often don't develop into the right direction. China, Russia are great examples for that.

As people love and enjoy violence in real life, so of course their minds enjoy and love violence and misreatment of normal people in games, too. I have serious heart problems, stress can easily kill me, so I even have a real reason not to ever be part of some war or PVP  or crime - it is stress and has the potential to kill me. But also my ideology is strictly against violence, I just don't believe in it, and don't give any rights to it to existt. Violence simply has no, absolutely no, legitimation to exist. It is holding back all of us. I  am a natural explorer, I like to discover new places, meeting people and exchanging knowledge with them (not killing them). My entire life I traveled to other places, lived in many different countries, because I enjoy life. Many people cannot do what I did, as they don't have these possibilities, thanks to societies that are sick and cannot perform well.

In games, I also like to explore. But cannot thanks to those weirdos who control areas and keep them and those resources just for themselves. those acts are what keepp societies ingame and in real life back. We humans are divided in normal people and in "yesterday" people that are still driven and inspired by violence and all such, less developed like normal people. hey, too, are part of us humans, so we accept them among us, but they bring just suffering and pain. There is not much more I need to say about that.

------------

My idea about the self-destruction device ingame is a nice way to bring more balance into the Unsafe Zone. Now, those violent PVP folks have to think twice to attack unarmed ships. hey still can have all the fun they need by attacking armed ships, even a nicer challenge for them. But we unarmed, violence-free people need a way to keep attackers at bay, witthout having to become PVP lovers (meaning, playing by the rules those PVP lovers like to put on us). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Hirnsausen changed the title to Revolutionary Idea for a More Balanced PVP
  • NQ-Nyzaltar locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...