Jump to content

The biggest problem is that people can do everything ....


Verliezer
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Overstimuloredom said:

There allready is that in the game, using different tiers of industry is talent gated as well as different sizes of assembly... 

Except it's not talent gated. Oh sure there are a couple skills needed to open up different machines, but those are hour long trains. And speed skills mean nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 7:07 AM, Verliezer said:

Just as in real life, limit what you can become...

 

 

And this is where your argument falls apart, at least as far as I'm concerned.

The only limits on "what you can become" in real life, is your ambition, hard work and determination.

Every time you tell yourself "I could never do that", you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

Disclaimer: this obviously does not extent to achievements that are not within your biological abilities, but anything other than that is fair game.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 8:13 AM, Jake Arver said:

As a side effect new players get no incentive to choose a "career path" as is the case in EVE for instance, where you buy the skillbook first, which is a first gate to drive choice, and then skill towards what you want to do.

Your analogy to Eve is flawed, as Eve allows you to 'do everything' without necessarily 'choosing a path'. I've played Eve for a great deal of time and I can see that I can do pretty much the same in DU, should I choose to spend the time on the appropriate talents - including chopping and changing my path.

Indeed, the difference to Eve is the talents don't cost anything to start training, so you actually have more freedom to choose your path in DU.

 

And responding to the OPs claim that DU should be 'more like real life' in that we shouldn't change our career path at all easily- why? This is a game set on a new frontier, where we have been tasked to rebuild - or more rightly just flat out build anew. Surely the idea would be to have a society able to rapidly respond to changing demands on that society, as it grows. Having a monolithic society, that has deliberate blocks and inertia to career change is a script for stagnation and boredom - as can be seen in the 'real world' you seem so eager to replicate.

This is a game we play to escape that monotony, why would you want to bring the limitations of the world into the entertainment we indulge in to escape it?

Edited by Dracostan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dracostan said:

 

 

 

 

And responding to the OPs claim that DU should be 'more like real life' in that we shouldn't change our career path at all easily- why? This is a game set on a new frontier, where we have been tasked to rebuild - or more rightly just flat out build anew. Surely the idea would be to have a society able to rapidly respond to changing demands on that society, as it grows. Having a monolithic society, that has deliberate blocks and inertia to career change is a script for stagnation and boredom - as can be seen in the 'real world' you seem so eager to replicate.

This is a game we play to escape that monotony, why would you want to bring the limitations of the world into the entertainment we indulge in to escape it?

 

 

I'm not so sure you are right about that.  I'm pretty sure being tasked with rebuilding or building anew wouldn't involve taxes, or schematics priced with a year return.  This game has no premise.

 

Edit: I'm still howling about you saying "This is a game we play to escape that monotony".  That's like saying we moved to Greenland to escape snow.

Edited by Kruzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gaming has nothing to do with the real world. You build a game based on solid design, not how closely it matches the real world. The best games ever made are not great because of their fidelity to reality. 

 

Forced specialization won't magically "fix" the economy and even if it did....so what?

 

DU's biggest issue isn't an unbalanced economy. If the economy were perfectly balanced tomorrow, how would the game change, exactly...? There might be more engagement around the markets, but mostly you'd be stuck with all the same problems. 

 

NQ deserves a lot of crap for some of their design choices....but game design isn't easy even for simple concepts. 

 

DU's "biggest problem" is not the economy, specialization/balance, or even its lack of content....DU's "biggest problem" is the concept itself.

 

Full open world PvP combined with voxel builder was always a tough concept for most people -- 3,000 pages of forum discussion are proof enough of this.
Single shard was never going to work at scale with open world PvP, no matter what claims of "magic cutting edge" technology. 
Player-run 'everything' with "no NPCs" was always going to require an intense depth of features to make up for the lack of NPCs and enable players to "do everything". 

 

The bold premise is probably what lured everyone here, but it wasn't realistic for a first-time studio to make a game like this -- especially when the few well-known vets they had left the company so quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, blundertwink said:

DU's "biggest problem" is not the economy, specialization/balance, or even its lack of content....DU's "biggest problem" is the concept itself.

 

I mostly agree with this. But the original premise for DU still has a solid scientific foundation.

 

And that premise is that you can make complex systems by combining many simple ones. So in a MMO game scenario that means that NQ would focus on making lots of tools for the players to express themself with, and a complex system of game loops would naturally evolve from that. Has this ever been proven in a MMO? Nope, but the premise (complex systems evolving from multiple simple ones) still holds.

 

But... Since NQ never made the tools (It was in the cards for a long time, but around 0.23 is when you can see NQ just giving up and starting to change tactics), it also means the premise never stood a chance and was doomed to fail before it even started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I've always defended the fact that it's all well and good to want the great freedom to do what you want on your own, but it's not that (even if you add gameplay) that will create a game with a living economy, interactions between players (direct as well as indirect) ...etc

  • How do you want a player-run economy if no player will buy anything from you because he can do everything himself?
  • Why would players join an organization or play with other players if they can do it solo?
  • Why would players build infrastructure, cities, hubs; FUNCTIONAL and LIVING, if they have no reason to go there, to interact with others ...etc


Various things need to change in this direction, the current "game" is far too based on JC's utopia, which dreamed that in a totally free world the players would play as they wished, together, specialising themselves, creating companies that create circular economies, services ...Etc Except that JC did not have a vision of a game, but of a utopia Players are humans and they are far from respecting utopias if they have no reason to. Besides, he himself thought that pvp should be a small part of the game, that everyone should be a bear, that DRM should not exist and that everything should be shared, even Lua codes...etc

The fact is that if you really consider DU to be an MMO with flow, animation, interactivity, an economy ...etc there are many things that need to change that will "restrict" these freedoms; because it is also a game that lives, these choices and decisions. Most sandbox games where you can do everything so easily, people don't stay for more than a couple of months. DU still keeps its players because of mechanics like voxels and Lua, but otherwise nothing more. And you can see that NQ, since JC's departure, is trying to make DU a game, which it isn't yet. And so that means changes.



And SO, to get back to the topic, if we want a GAME, where there are interactions, direct or indirect (mission, market, services), economies (and stop saying to remove the bots, it will be even worse afterwards as no one will have a reason to buy as long as they can all do it), in-game powers, services, player groupings, living structures ...etc. We'll have to go through a decision tree for the talents And that even if it remains based on time and not actions (because it's difficult to set up a system of experience on all the actions of the game and that it is not exploitable; like piloting? ).


A decision tree would lead players to specialize as they choose the branches they want to play. To give a vague example but for the sake of the idea:
 - a pilot will concentrate on the use and improvement of the performances of his skills, but will not be able to take at the same time the installation or the manufacture of these elements
 - an industrialist will focus on manufacturing but not use
 - an builder will focus on unlock the use of rare materials, rare decorations ...etc
 - a ship builder will focus on place down bonus on elements and get best pvp materials
...etc



A tree does not mean square classes, let us rather say that a tree of decision will lead to arc-types of classes, but which will be composed of various choices of branch.
TRULY! If such a system is implemented, it would make sense to allow players to use a talent point reset token (given for free at the beginning of the game and which could become an item purchasable with real money in the shop once the one offered is used).


And before reading your comments that retort "yes but I want to be able to mine, craft, use the elements of my ship ... etc), you might as well say that you want to play a single player game and therefore do not complain about the lack of "dynamics" to summarize all the points.

To these people I will answer, to give me the reasons of :

  • Why would a player buy something you sell on a market if he can do it himself in your same logic?
  • Why would players group together if they can do everything themselves and don't need anyone else?
  • Why would players create shops when each player can create his own ship? (besides the aesthetics)
  • Why would players use and organize living spaces, flow nodes if players don't need to buy, talents from other players ...etc?

...etc
 

I think that if we want Dual Universe to become a game and not a sandbox based on a stupid Utopia of someone who has thrown promises at everything. I think it's important to accept and push for mechanics that add a need; the need of other players directly or indirectly (if you don't want to play with people, good for you, but the marketplaces where you buy items, or the missions you complete ...etc will be sold by players, or organized by players who need you in some other way; you will interact with them, but indirectly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggest problem is not everyone can make everything.

 

Biggest problem that DU at core super-friendly to alts. It means any fancy ideas/limitations within skill/char advancing systems pretty much irrelevant and will mean just more min max spreading of "roles" between alts. Adding new ones if nessesary. Its like having bucket with huge holes and then inviting creative ways of running with it from A to B trying to keep water. Makes no sense.

 

To add insult to injury, lets be honest here, DU in current state (or historicly) game for older guys with some money and, often -- suprising ammounts of free time. This means that that they ready to face quite a lot of challenges with wallets (throwing alts) and survive time consuming operations.

 

This whole already sad picture even more aggravated by fact, that immense ammount of economic action in game very AFK-heavy.

 

So you have ideal storm: stupid (greedy?) initialy system + population super ready to exploit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2021 at 3:28 AM, Kruzer said:

Edit: I'm still howling about you saying "This is a game we play to escape that monotony".  That's like saying we moved to Greenland to escape snow.

:) I know - but in the beginning, and for a good while, it was a place with a broad range of things to choose from. Now, unfortunately, NQ has successively whittled the spectrum of what ppl can do - in a reasonable time frame, mind - to barely scraping at rocks, babysitting MUs or running missions afk.

As for creative stuff, there simply isn't the player base now to support the number of builders we had even a handful of months ago, because of what NQ have done to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:

End of the afk talent system?
Real interest in raising level 5 skills?

-1: + 3%
-2: + 4%
-3: + 5%
-4: + 6%
-5: + 7%

Rather than a linear thing which recompenses each level as much.

 

Ive said this long ago, if they are sticking with the passive talent point accumulation, it needs to rework the bonus.  If the skill now gives 5% each level, it needs to be changed to 2.5% on levels 1-4 and then 15% for lvl 5.  This will help make specialization matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...