Jump to content

Why DU's PVP isn't as fun as pre-shields.


 Share

Recommended Posts

Speed changes are coming.  They are confirmed.  The voxel tanking was removed, and for good reason.  S and M cores will be the main pvp ships.  Thats just the way its progressing that way you can start to form balanced gameplay.  L cores will be niche roles, best suited for sieges in their design for TW or for carriers.  Having the ability to use a L core to be the fsastest, most dps, and tankiest all at the same time is TERRIBLE game design, and why its being removed.  Also multi crew of old days just lend to even more advantages to people with greater numbers.  I dont know who OP is but seems he is crying because now his ships are dying when before you could just use 100k voxel and safely fly about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:


Ahahah, it's always very funny to read that

 

i bet you think arranging voxels in a certain way actually effects how a ship performs dont you? haha.  Anyone who actually pvp'd before shields knows it was just mass and how much voxel you had was your "HP"  then you brought 10k T5 scrap to keep guns/engines alive which also added millions in add HP.  Then after that you just added enough elements to get your desired speed and brake.  Then placed you adjusters.  As long as it wasnt blocked it didnt matter.  You could burry voxel around elements but how you shaped it matter ZERO.  A cube with the same stats as the gold skull performed 100% the same as that ship,  Literally the same.  And you know it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

i bet you think arranging voxels in a certain way actually effects how a ship performs dont you? haha.  Anyone who actually pvp'd before shields knows it was just mass and how much voxel you had was your "HP"  then you brought 10k T5 scrap to keep guns/engines alive which also added millions in add HP.  Then after that you just added enough elements to get your desired speed and brake.  Then placed you adjusters.  As long as it wasnt blocked it didnt matter.  You could burry voxel around elements but how you shaped it matter ZERO.  A cube with the same stats as the gold skull performed 100% the same as that ship,  Literally the same.  And you know it. 


 

Once again you show that you are only there to troll.
 

Walter says with picture as an example that ships looked much better before this mess of shield, nano & cross section.
 

And you come just to insult the shipbuilders. Nobody cares what the meta was like before and if it was skill or not to build a ship.
 

Besides, shipbuilding is even more ridiculous today. If you think you are smart because you put 2 railgun M gunners on a ship. Sorry to disappoint you but everyone knows how to do that too. As much as stacking voxels with the old meta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:


 

Once again you show that you are only there to troll.
 

Walter says with picture as an example that ships looked much better before this mess of shield, nano & cross section.
 

And you come just to insult the shipbuilders. Nobody cares what the meta was like before and if it was skill or not to build a ship.
 

Besides, shipbuilding is even more ridiculous today. If you think you are smart because you put 2 railgun M gunners on a ship. Sorry to disappoint you but everyone knows how to do that too. As much as stacking voxels with the old meta.

 

The point is ships die now.  Thats a huge step in the right direction.  Second, we need the speed changes in first as they said are coming.  Once those are in with testing, then balance passes can begin with CCS, voxel hp, and shield HP.  Perhaps regulating shield size to core, maybe ore maybe not.  Then hopefully some unique pvp elements or mechanics also introduced, things we have speculated on are ways to slow ship down, or legit warp interdiction gameplay.  That is the path to go for a more balanced pvp gameplay.  Not going back to the shitty days of old.  This game is on life support as is, we need new gameplay, and to move forward. Not go back. 

Edited by VandelayIndustries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beauty of a sandbox is that we have a huge PvP zone here in DualUniverse, but we can use it the way we want. Meaning, you can attack anyone you want in the PvP zone, but you don't have to. We could also make our own rules as a community and say we are building a peaceful society and sort of ignore the ability to PvP. (I'm not talking about we have to do it that way, just that the option is there).

That you can't completely enforce and control this is of course something I'm aware of. Also, that there are already "organizations/alliances" that want to enforce something like this more or less for themselves internally by simply saying "the whole PvP area is ours" and then shooting down everything accordingly that hasn't joined that alliance.  So would it make sense if everyone joins this alliance and then suddenly there is peace, because there is no one left to fight? Interesting idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, VandelayIndustries said:

 

image.thumb.png.ee37f0bbe8aa6abba2584e1e913f643c.png

What? Reducing speeds on larger constructs why? That will be horrible please don't it will take ages to haul Aphelia missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Walter said:

What? Reducing speeds on larger constructs why? That will be horrible please don't it will take ages to haul Aphelia missions.

So, there was something who came up with an idea in the DU Discord about something called "mass lock". Essentially, the mass of the ship and the playing field, in combat, will reduce the max speed of a ship. Otherwise, max speed isn't affected. Only in combat does it change. So if you have a massive fleet battle with 40 ships, the effective max speed is heavily reduced for high mass ships and less so for smaller ships. The actual impact of such a massive change would be very difficult to judge. It could go really badly, go really well or have no or little change to PVP overall.

Just wanted to jot this down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EasternGamer said:

So, there was something who came up with an idea in the DU Discord about something called "mass lock". Essentially, the mass of the ship and the playing field, in combat, will reduce the max speed of a ship. Otherwise, max speed isn't affected.

Ahhh.. localized Space Jelly then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be thousands of ways to implement speed reduction in play.
 

I don't know an idea that comes from writing these lines :
 

Can be implanted with space territory warfare a new item that will activate a V-max nerve and / or vessel acceleration.
 

It will cover a certain area (a few SU), and will activate when the area is in its vulnerable state (allowing it to be attacked). The owner can decide to activate this state or an enemy can trigger it.

People venturing into this "combat" zone have their V-max and / or acceleration significantly reduced.
 

This will allow you to have low speed battles, taking advantage of all the advantages that this brings in depth to the gameplay.
 

And that doesn't hamper PvE carriers in a vacuum in terms of speed either.
Of course, this will not prevent a freighter from entering such an area accidentally and seeing its speed reduced, but it will be just enough time to cross it before recovering its original speed. It is up to the player to check before their journey if they are not crossing territories that may be hostile, and to anticipate a detour or even attempt to cross it.
 

Voila, just a few ideas written on paper as I wrote these few lines.
I imagine that people whose job it is to make a fun video game will have much better and deeper ideas than they lead.
 

There are plenty of possibilities to implant this "nerve" of speed in a way that will appeal to many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 12:40 PM, Honvik said:

 

This.

 

Builders have quit the game who built amazing ships because we are driven to tiny cross sections to take part in PvP.

 

Anyway.

 

I enjoy DU PvP occasionally it is very expensive because there is no firm goal yet ( roll on roadmap for TW) but equally I get the lean towards the past.

 

The advantage of needing voxels and losing them means ore is used and thus industry is needed.

 

Anyway Shield levels are fine because Shields strip very fast as NQ increased weapon damages drastically from patch to patch.

 

Still some good thoughts there N19 and welcome back to the game.

 

Honvik

Premier of the Empire Org



not to toot my own horn, but I have built low cross section ships that do not look like element-only shoeboxes. There is a certain challenge in building pretty low cross section ships, I agree. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. And I do NOT want to see cross section become irrelevant again for any reason, simply because it makes logical sense that it gets harder to shoot something that is smaller.

 

As mentioned before, you can still rock LARGE ships because with enough voxel you have more than plenty of HP to your CCS to tank long enough. Also once your shields are depleted you can VENT your shields. During that process you can tank and survive with such big tanky ships perfectly fine (all the while you might get a few brand-new windows aka holes) and your shields come back with 50% hp. If your ship is tanky enough it can do that very process multiple times during battle, actually. It's just that large ships are expensive to warp, so the easier method right now is to make a lighter, smaller ship and add tankiness through damage evasion. And that is good!

Examples of low cross section ships I built, all of which are M core - btw I love how M cores are now relevant due to current shield tanking situations, the ability to squeeze out 1.2-1.4su range with M rails and the dps increase to smaller weapon sizes a while back (exo precision M rails do 130k damage with talents) and giving larger cores a hit probs malus for targeting a smaller core.

1 of them has 138m² frontal cross section, so when you point your nose (and guns) at the target they have a hard time hitting you at all, especially since it rocks an L shield. Means it's practically even tankier. Uses 3 M rails and 1 M Laser.

The other one has 158m² frontal cross section and is a pvp-fitted replica of a "The Expanse" ship (Morrigan-Class Patrol Destroyer), could only fit a M shield though but rocks 16.8g of thrust with 2 Lasers and 2 Rails. Both work perfectly well as fleet support or intercept ships for piracy needs.

And even my Rocinante PvP-fit replica has 220m² frontal cross section, which makes her useful enough with her L shield and 2 Lasers + 2 Rails.

Ship building ALWAYS comes with compromises, more noticable with PvP ships and haulers than with anything else. If you want PRETTY then you have to accept you will always perform (at least slightly) worse than an element-only shoebox or an element-only "hauler".
Builders have quit over MANY other reasons than a shift to small cross section meta...




 

dualuniverse_2022-01-13_16h43m27s.png

dualuniverse_2021-12-27_15h07m53s.png

dualuniverse_2022-01-07_15h10m20s.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 7:55 AM, Zarcata said:

The beauty of a sandbox is that we have a huge PvP zone here in DualUniverse, but we can use it the way we want. Meaning, you can attack anyone you want in the PvP zone, but you don't have to. We could also make our own rules as a community and say we are building a peaceful society and sort of ignore the ability to PvP. (I'm not talking about we have to do it that way, just that the option is there).

That you can't completely enforce and control this is of course something I'm aware of. Also, that there are already "organizations/alliances" that want to enforce something like this more or less for themselves internally by simply saying "the whole PvP area is ours" and then shooting down everything accordingly that hasn't joined that alliance.  So would it make sense if everyone joins this alliance and then suddenly there is peace, because there is no one left to fight? Interesting idea.

 
Bruh, as long as HUMANS play this game the human nature of greed and conflict will prevent your utopian hippie vision. When 1 faction is oppressively controlling space there will always pop up factions to rage against that machine. And that is good. I am fairly certain there are PvPers in the community that would quit such an all-in-one alliance just to form a front against it to get some PvP content out of it.
Really silly post there, bud. This game isn't a John Lennon song.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 3:38 PM, EasternGamer said:

So, there was something who came up with an idea in the DU Discord about something called "mass lock". Essentially, the mass of the ship and the playing field, in combat, will reduce the max speed of a ship. Otherwise, max speed isn't affected. Only in combat does it change. So if you have a massive fleet battle with 40 ships, the effective max speed is heavily reduced for high mass ships and less so for smaller ships. The actual impact of such a massive change would be very difficult to judge. It could go really badly, go really well or have no or little change to PVP overall.

Just wanted to jot this down.


I think linking and limiting max speed to construct weight is the way to go.
Going by core sizes is the easy way, but would also [filtered]-punch L cores completely across the board, as they would not be able to keep up with smaller cores no matter how fast or small you build your L core, you also get a significant hit chance malus with your L weapons against smaller core enemies and L cores and elements are also more expensive and heavier by nature. It would over-shift the balance and ruin any incentive to ever strive to be able to build bigger core ships, making the longer training time requirement of being able to use L cores a ridiculous notion.
So going by construct mass seems the way to go here. That way a big and heavy and size-maxed S core would not be able to outrun a super light M or L core.
However, I do like the idea of this only coming into effect once pvp is involved. Otherwise any (mission) haulers will have their slowboating times INSANELY increased, making an already 3-5h slowboat to the outter planets into an all-day procedure. That is a no-go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to ruin the game and finish destroying it:

- Keep the cross section
- Do not rework the shields
- Add speed limit based on weight.

Congratulations, you will never again be able to make a ship bigger than 5% of the construction box. Except beautiful haulers with engine wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Knight-Sevy said:

How to ruin the game and finish destroying it:

- Keep the cross section
- Do not rework the shields
- Add speed limit based on weight.

Congratulations, you will never again be able to make a ship bigger than 5% of the construction box. Except beautiful haulers with engine wall.


Well, I strongly disagree with you here on multiple points of yours, but I accept people have different views on matters so I only will inquire about the cross section.

I am a bit surprised that it suddenly is such a point of discussion and discontent, when cross section has always mattered one way or another and if anything people were happy with the change to cross section importance. What had held the impact of a lower cross section back before was the strength of voxel. You could easily just power through with whatever shape and size simply because a bigger cross section meant more voxel and elements to easily tank shots with. Smaller cross section meant you'd get cored easier once you do get hit. And cross section from a core 1 size smaller is not THAT impactful that you would miss EVERY shot.
(Example: we tested targeting my 138m² frontal cross section ship and we would still get a 22% hit chance even at best angle for said ship)
When voxel tankiness got nerfed so hard that one direct hit would cause a massive hole in the ship, that is when cross section became more impactful. And now somehow it is twisted so that cross section is the issue and not the change that happened to voxel and the resulting consequence in ship building philosophy. I cannot really follow that train of thought.
And I mean realistically it just makes SENSE. If the target is smaller you have a harder time hitting it. Why wouldn't that be a thing...

Edited by Metsys
added example
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Metsys said:


Well, I strongly disagree with you here on multiple points of yours, but I accept people have different views on matters so I only will inquire about the cross section.

I am a bit surprised that it suddenly is such a point of discussion and discontent, when cross section has always mattered one way or another and if anything people were happy with the change to cross section importance. What had held the impact of a lower cross section back before was the strength of voxel. You could easily just power through with whatever shape and size simply because a bigger cross section meant more voxel and elements to easily tank shots with. Smaller cross section meant you'd get cored easier once you do get hit. And cross section from a core 1 size smaller is not THAT impactful that you would miss EVERY shot.
(Example: we tested targeting my 138m² frontal cross section ship and we would still get a 22% hit chance even at best angle for said ship)
When voxel tankiness got nerfed so hard that one direct hit would cause a massive hole in the ship, that is when cross section became more impactful. And now somehow it is twisted so that cross section is the issue and not the change that happened to voxel and the resulting consequence in ship building philosophy. I cannot really follow that train of thought.
And I mean realistically it just makes SENSE. If the target is smaller you have a harder time hitting it. Why wouldn't that be a thing...


 

Imagine a ship with a classic SF design. The guy will take 5 times more damage totally free.

The only interesting thing in dual universe is the voxel build. And if you do something bigger than a few hundred square meters (the possible build area of an L core is about 16,000 square meters), you literally kill yourself.

The shield and cross section combo has been destroying the game for 4 months.

A shield L is minimum 20,000,000 hp (not counting dynamic resistances) for 92T and WITHOUT INCREASE your cross section.
The voxel equivalent for the same sum of hit points is a minimum of 400T. And for this amount of resource level shielding you can craft 10 shield L...

Putting voxel on a ship and not playing the cross section is 10 times more expensive, 4 times heavier and 4 to 5 times less efficient defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knight-Sevy said:


 

Imagine a ship with a classic SF design. The guy will take 5 times more damage totally free.

The only interesting thing in dual universe is the voxel build. And if you do something bigger than a few hundred square meters (the possible build area of an L core is about 16,000 square meters), you literally kill yourself.

The shield and cross section combo has been destroying the game for 4 months.

A shield L is minimum 20,000,000 hp (not counting dynamic resistances) for 92T and WITHOUT INCREASE your cross section.
The voxel equivalent for the same sum of hit points is a minimum of 400T. And for this amount of resource level shielding you can craft 10 shield L...

Putting voxel on a ship and not playing the cross section is 10 times more expensive, 4 times heavier and 4 to 5 times less efficient defensively.


That sounds more like a voxel problem rather than a cross section issue. Speaking of Scifi, Expanse ship designs play SPECIFICALLY into that cross section niche. Military vessels are sleek, longer and thin. Reason for that is obviously that you want to give as little surface to get shot at as possible. A difference in that show is haulers, big carrier-style war ships (even those go with a sleek design) and guerilla style pirating vessels (because realistically if you don't expect to be shot back then your ship can be as clunky and big as you want, you wont have to worry about taking shots).
Even in star wars, if you wanna go more with a space opera kinda scifi, the big ships have a hard time hitting the smaller, nimble vessels. They need to deploy small ships of their own that get pretty close in a dog fight to be able to hit eachother.
From a military standpoint it makes sense to put as much functionality and firepower into a small-as-possible frame. I am not sure what you expect here. Anything else defies logic.

Like, yes, you CAN build a big L core ship but unless you intentionally want to bathe yourself in enemy fire to act as a sort of "tank" in a fleet fight then you always SHOULD try to give as little surface for enemy hits as possible. Also, again, main reason we don't see that in action frequently right now is the added weight adds warp cell cost and makes it very expensive and difficult to move such a heavy tanky ship into a spontaneous combat situation on the fly. But if you do bring a ship that can also voxel tank when the shields are down, then said ship can vent the shields to bring them back at 50% (10mil HP), even possibly multiple times in battle, getting even far more value out of the shield as now effectively your shield has 30mil+ HP in a battle where smaller ships will get cored guaranteed the moment their shields drop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

138m² is not even 10% of the build area of an L core.

Big ships must have problems hitting small ships. Alright.
But they must have a hard time hitting XS or S fighters.
Not on PvP L ships with no voxel and no cross section.

And there is no problem with the price of warp cells. Only that it's a million times stronger to have 100 nano cross section ships for the price of a single voxel ship.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could read you'd see it's 138m² for an M core. As far as I know most currently aim their L cores at ~400m². Again, LOGIC! IT MAKES SENSE

Also if with that M core I target an L core nano I still get at least 40% hit probs, if not more. An L core trying to hit said small cross section M core will have a difficult time, which gives M core the niche to be able to counter L nanos. If my M core would max out the space of an M core construct it might become larger than the INTENTIONALLY SMALL L core and SHOULD get hit equally as easily or take even more hits. In return a 2seater L core with cannons (and maybe some voxel) will shred the M core regardless, as the far higher dps and rate of fire of cannons at same/similar range as M rails will completely obliterate any advantage the small M core cross section ship might have.

There is a system in this and asking for the removal defies any sense of logic.

Edited by Metsys
-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Metsys said:

If you could read you'd see it's 138m² for an M core. As far as I know most currently aim their L cores at ~400m². Again, LOGIC! IT MAKES SENSE

Also if with that M core I target an L core nano I still get at least 40% hit probs, if not more. An L core trying to hit said small cross section M core will have a difficult time, which gives M core the niche to be able to counter L nanos. If my M core would max out the space of an M core construct it might become larger than the INTENTIONALLY SMALL L core and SHOULD get hit equally as easily or take even more hits. In return a 2seater L core with cannons (and maybe some voxel) will shred the M core regardless, as the far higher dps and rate of fire of cannons at same/similar range as M rails will completely obliterate any advantage the small M core cross section ship might have.

There is a system in this and asking for the removal defies any sense of logic.

I see your point of view and agree on the idea there is some Rock Paper Scissors but NQ still needs to go back and revisit the system.
 

What would be beneficial is some solid numbers on TTK, Build costs and speed advantages. To get a more clear picture on where balancing needs to land. 

 

There should be a place for both larger and smaller ships in the pvp arena. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be better if PvP was structured differently in general. You build a ship and the design itself doesn't matter. (Appearance = all) 

Only then come PvP values to it, these result from the core size, number of weapons, number of shields, number of "placeholders, if I think of something".

In itself a ship can be equipped with passive and active weapons:
- there are automatic weapons (controllable by the pilot, can only shoot in flight direction)
- there are usable weapons for players (to put in, aim, load, reload, shoot,....)

Each core (depending on its size) has a maximum number of active elements that can be included. As an example:

5 containers, 5 ammo containers, 5 weapons, 5 batteries, 3 shields = 23 slots.

Accordingly, you can also swap the occupancy of the number, more containers or more energy and more shields, but something else less.

The larger the core, the higher the number of slots. A weapon can only be operated by one player (the only exception is the pilot weapon (automatic)).
Means: A ship with 5 usable weapons, needs 6 players to operate all weapons and the ship. (5 weapon players + pilots)

Likewise, you could bring additional radars into the game, which also need to be manned by a player. An additional radar gives the player more range and more targets.

Likewise, special ailerons could be introduced for faster turns, these must also be activated and held by players if you want to use them. (Especially useful for large heavy battleships, which would otherwise have an enormous turning radius.

So far understood where the journey is going?

Means, a solo player would sit down optimally in a xs-core or in a s-core, would, the larger the core is, but then several slot possibly not "meaningfully" solo occupy, eg, because he can operate as a pilot no weapons / radars / rudder.

The firing itself then goes according to the principle. put in the cannon, load the cannon with ammunition, unlock and shoot, by thread circle and in the direction where you want to shoot. However, this also means that players sitting in weapons on the left side of the ship cannot hit a ship passing by on the right side, unless the pilot turns or steers the ship in the direction of firing. The weapons themselves then have a maximum turning radius (<) to the direction. 

Means: away from tab-target (click-click-wait), towards real shooting and treamplay. At the same time, I would drastically reduce all the distances at which you can attack ships, so no more 2su, but rather a maximum of 0m - 800m (except, of course, the radar range, which can remain as it is, otherwise you fly blindly through the vast space).

I hope the translator reflects what I want to express. Of course I don't know if this is technically feasible in DualUniverse, maybe someone knows it better).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zarcata said:

I think it would be better if PvP was structured differently in general. You build a ship and the design itself doesn't matter. (Appearance = all) 

Only then come PvP values to it, these result from the core size, number of weapons, number of shields, number of "placeholders, if I think of something".

In itself a ship can be equipped with passive and active weapons:
- there are automatic weapons (controllable by the pilot, can only shoot in flight direction)
- there are usable weapons for players (to put in, aim, load, reload, shoot,....)

Each core (depending on its size) has a maximum number of active elements that can be included. As an example:

5 containers, 5 ammo containers, 5 weapons, 5 batteries, 3 shields = 23 slots.

Accordingly, you can also swap the occupancy of the number, more containers or more energy and more shields, but something else less.

The larger the core, the higher the number of slots. A weapon can only be operated by one player (the only exception is the pilot weapon (automatic)).
Means: A ship with 5 usable weapons, needs 6 players to operate all weapons and the ship. (5 weapon players + pilots)

Likewise, you could bring additional radars into the game, which also need to be manned by a player. An additional radar gives the player more range and more targets.

Likewise, special ailerons could be introduced for faster turns, these must also be activated and held by players if you want to use them. (Especially useful for large heavy battleships, which would otherwise have an enormous turning radius.

So far understood where the journey is going?

Means, a solo player would sit down optimally in a xs-core or in a s-core, would, the larger the core is, but then several slot possibly not "meaningfully" solo occupy, eg, because he can operate as a pilot no weapons / radars / rudder.

The firing itself then goes according to the principle. put in the cannon, load the cannon with ammunition, unlock and shoot, by thread circle and in the direction where you want to shoot. However, this also means that players sitting in weapons on the left side of the ship cannot hit a ship passing by on the right side, unless the pilot turns or steers the ship in the direction of firing. The weapons themselves then have a maximum turning radius (<) to the direction. 

Means: away from tab-target (click-click-wait), towards real shooting and treamplay. At the same time, I would drastically reduce all the distances at which you can attack ships, so no more 2su, but rather a maximum of 0m - 800m (except, of course, the radar range, which can remain as it is, otherwise you fly blindly through the vast space).

I hope the translator reflects what I want to express. Of course I don't know if this is technically feasible in DualUniverse, maybe someone knows it better).

 

If you get within 15km of another ship it will start rubber banding like crazy, 800m is nothing, most pvpers will even say that 2su is a small distance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 5:53 AM, VandelayIndustries said:

 

Hahaha all those pre shields are nothing.  You take the BP and see what the list of elements are and voxels, make it a cube, and you get exact same results.  That's obvious to anyone who actually pvped and you making yourself seem like you never did. 

As far as I know he actually did a lot.

Edited by Zychov
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...