Jump to content
yamamushi

Full PvP or allow player-created PvE zones? (outside of Ark)

Recommended Posts

This is a response to this Devblog:

 

https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2016/02/20/builder-gameplay-voxel-tools-elements/

 

Specifically this section:

 

Beyond the safety of the Arkship, as players explore the universe, we are currently evaluating other possibilities for additional secure areas in the game to protect builders and their creations, as the number of players in game grows and they spread across the universe. We know that each possibility comes with Pros and Cons. Expect the final decision to be announced more or less at the same time we’ll communicate in detail about the PvP gameplay. Here is a brief outline to some safe building zone ideas:

 

Arkification Token: the ability to find tokens (alien relics?) for the players while exploring or mining. They could be used wherever the owner want, and will be destroyed upon use. This would then create an indestructible safe area and anything in it become untouchable by PvP Mechanisms.

 

Alien Ruins: areas on planets containing lost, deactivated alien technology that could be rebuilt/reactivated by players. Once the area is rebuild/reactivated, the area becomes safe and anything in it becomes untouchable by PvP Mechanisms.

 

Virtual Simulator: enabling player to enter a virtual world (call it “inception syndrome”!). While in that virtual space, the player would be able to design any construct, in a completely peaceful setting. This would help builders to design their construct and create their blueprints safely, without being interrupted by any PvP action. For ships, it will also be possible to test their flight mode, without risking a crash or wasting resources!

 

 

 

I think that the Virtual Simulator is ultimately the best choice, as having the ability to turn areas into invincible PvE zones seems like it will have a negative impact on the sovereignty and territorial aspects of DU. 

 

In my opinion, players who want to be protected should live on planets that are heavily defended by alliances, and should build suitable defenses for their own bases as necessary. I think that if players are going to be able to build zones that are PvE locked, anywhere that is PvE locked should be able to have its defenses destroyed and ultimately turned into a PvP zone. 

 

It seems like players who want to build in peace generally will be able to without anyone bothering them. The screenshots make it clear how big planets are, and how heavily forested some of them are. I think that the Virtual Simulator solves the builder protection issue, while eliminating the possibility of introducing a mechanic that players may ultimately end up abusing ("invincible" PvE locked zones). 

 

Ideally players wouldn't even be able to build in the Ark PvE zone, it would only exist as a safe area for players to return to while they are learning how the game works before being able to set off on their own to build wherever they went. 

 

 

 

Does anyone have any suggestions for how a player created PvE zone might work? Ideally, one that could be destroyed by players with enough time and effort (hacking, explosions, etc.)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion Pve players should not be portected by an ingame system,they should be protected by their own defensive structures and even asking for an army in the worst cases.Arent we making Corporations to defend the weak(Terran Union etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it would have to come down to the durability of the resources we can build our bases out of. I think that maybe there should be an option that a lot of games have, where if you don't log into it after so many days, maybe the protection starts fading. Or, have it to where you would have to pay resources to keep the protection.

 

Even if their are "PVE" zones, I think it should only protect the structures, and still allow for player or ship combat. That way people don't take refuge in these zones. Or, have the game set up where if you do enter combat, you get tagged and cannot enter PVE areas until the tag has gone away.

 

I do like the idea of the simulated space, but I feel that people would spend all their time in there and not in the world of the game. Now, a virtual world that is just like say, a large warehouse environment, where you build structures to iron out details would work. BUT, not allow people to make blueprints that are for sale from said place.

 

Overall, you know the risk you are taking playing the game. So, be prepared to defend your stuff. As much as I like just building, I don't believe anyone should be completely immune to being raided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda partial to the security status of the player and of the system that 'Eve-Online' has. The entire solar system, planet by planet or all planets around a star for instance, can be declared a certain type of security zone. Depending on the development an area can have, could determine the status of it. Say you start a house in the deep forest, your alone on the entire planet, of the only planet in the system. In this case your full PVP. But say you took yourself 5 friends, started a small colony and built a functional Stargate on your world. This is owned by a Corporation created by you and friends. Then over time get people to come to your world, pay a small trade tax on transactions through an area wide territorial module that covers the planet or at least the town near the gate which in turn makes this a PVE zone.

To break that PVE zone should take time and effort. I really don't know what could stipulate a territorial change other than to declare war. Payment could stipulate being able to declare war and it could be very steep without having any other structures on the planet for the opposing force. But having a large enough, or meters cubed value of structures and "elements" within those structures could drop the cost to declare war for control of the planet. For example a NPC faction control's the Ark Ship and the first planet and player created factions could potentially control others. In stages of course depending on quantity of elements placed. This could also extend to gravitational orbit for stations near the planet. Stations not created in range of planetary bodies would probably need to be handled differently.

 

This system of security status mechanics would really need to be flushed out further and would defiantly take longer than I could possibly post in a single go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against security zones.   not something to be enforced by npc characters.   i'd like the game to grow as a fully human controlled population.   

 

instead of safe zones,  give the cities the power they need to defend themselves.   parts for particle cannons, and all sorts of defences,  and the power generators to run them.  

 

Let guilds patral their own space, and enforce their own zones.   let builders use the natural camaflouge of their planet to mask their appearance from space..  

 

no need to program safety zones if the players have what they need to defend themselves

 

 

i am all for a design module, maybe a secondary program.   black desert did this with character creation long before the game releases and people went wild over it.  i'm the happy owner of a red hulk beserker thanks to some great artist out there that modeled his features  lol   you could have billions of designs saved and ready to go before the game opens doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any kind of safezone, would kill the pvp, the economy and the social aspect of the game. This is one of the most common ways a game fails nowadays.

A complete anarchy should be fine, as long he community will be able to build public and relatively safe social hub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtual Simulator: enabling player to enter a virtual world (call it “inception syndrome”!). While in that virtual space, the player would be able to design any construct, in a completely peaceful setting. This would help builders to design their construct and create their blueprints safely, without being interrupted by any PvP action. For ships, it will also be possible to test their flight mode, without risking a crash or wasting resources!

 

it was already said, that this will be a thing. Other, system-enforced, safe zones outside of the starter area? a big nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that instead of an indestructible shield, we should instead have the Arcification tokens allow for the "protected" area to be invisible to scanning technologies, so that it doesn't show up on the map as a base unless you are in control of that site, directly or indirectly.

 

This will make it so that it's less likely for someone to just show up and start blowing the city apart just because it's there. If you want to destroy a "protected" city you have to find it the old fashioned way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind the ark areas as long as it has a time limit.

 

Think of something like a shield or a weapon disabling field of sort which can hold under fire for 48 hours. Enough to give an advantage for defense over offense (which is essential to encourage players to invest in developing areas), enough so that defending organizations have time to organize a response, and enough that you don't loose everything in your sleep... but in the same time nothing truly indestructible. 

 

Having arkareas and limiting their viability with power requirement and rare tokens just makes it more expensive and more difficult for smaller organizations to have any chance of competing with larger ones. Imagine eve online if the goonswarm was indestructible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind the ark areas as long as it has a time limit.

 

Think of something like a shield or a weapon disabling field of sort which can hold under fire for 48 hours. Enough to give an advantage for defense over offense (which is essential to encourage players to invest in developing areas), enough so that defending organizations have time to organize a response, and enough that you don't loose everything in your sleep... but in the same time nothing truly indestructible. 

 

Having arkareas and limiting their viability with power requirement and rare tokens just makes it more expensive and more difficult for smaller organizations to have any chance of competing with larger ones. Imagine eve online if the goonswarm was indestructible.

 

pretty sure that's what territorial units are supposed to be. When you claim a territory, that is a safezone, but with a window of time of vulnerability. You don't risk to lose your empire overnight if you're sleeping irl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any suggestions for how a player created PvE zone might work? Ideally, one that could be destroyed by players with enough time and effort (hacking, explosions, etc.)...

 

New here, and have not read thru the forum yet, but I feel I need to inject my 2 cents --

 

Being more PvE minded, the game needs to offer players a built-in safe system; or this game will just be another EVE-Online with lawless space, low PvP population growth, and people would rather go play Mindcraft for <$10.

 

It is needed/required because

 

1. New players is not going to have the necessary resources to pay for "protection" money, which is what most of PvPers seems to be suggesting.

2. Protecting money scheme only leads to toxic communities, because it will encourage the PvP groups to earn their money via destruction, not construction.

3. PvE players will not stay if their structures gets destroyed all the time by PvPers, nor will they stay if they have to give up a portion of their profit to PvP groups that leech off of PvE players.

4. IMHO, PvE is what attracts new players, not PvP. People like to create things and see it being used by others, not see their creations get destroyed.

5. Finally, a game and is meant to be fun, and not become a job where we have to work.

 

Even for a well known PvP game like EVE, their PvP population is <15% (null+low+wh) and sat stagnate for in 2014/15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure they said in another pist, that Arkification would only be for people, not organizations. So bases and cities wont be pve, also the ark tokens are going to be rare, so as long as they are RARE i dont see a problem with them.

 

Also from what i understood, but i might be remembering it wrong, in safe areas, you just get flaged and defenses then attack you. It sounded to me when i read it that you can still attack someone in the arc areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from what i understood, but i might be remembering it wrong, in safe areas, you just get flaged and defenses then attack you. It sounded to me when i read it that you can still attack someone in the arc areas.

 

If that was the case why would it need a token? How is that different from just placing defenses and an LUA script to target enemies?

 

 

 also the ark tokens are going to be rare, so as long as they are RARE i dont see a problem with them.

 

 

In a player driven economy rare doesn't mean a golden star only a few lucky ones get to enjoy. Rare just means expensive and more difficult to match the highest bidder. 

 

I am pretty sure they said in another pist, that Arkification would only be for people, not organizations.

 

 

And organizations are made out of what?

 

You can't really introduce this kind of weapon to the game and not expect it to be used to defend key strategic points, even if you completely restrict the transfer of tokens you just end up making the token owner character the asset. I get the idea behind arkification, there is a huge advantage in giving the advantage to the defensive side to encourage players to invest in their environment and creations, but there is a line to be walked between safe areas and safer areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should preface this by saying that I'm not trying to attack you AttacKat, just rebutting your points from my perspective. Please don't take any of this the wrong way. Welcome to the forums! 

 

 

New here, and have not read thru the forum yet, but I feel I need to inject my 2 cents --

 

Being more PvE minded, the game needs to offer players a built-in safe system; or this game will just be another EVE-Online with lawless space, low PvP population growth, and people would rather go play Mindcraft for <$10.

 

It is needed/required because

 

1. New players is not going to have the necessary resources to pay for "protection" money, which is what most of PvPers seems to be suggesting.

2. Protecting money scheme only leads to toxic communities, because it will encourage the PvP groups to earn their money via destruction, not construction.

3. PvE players will not stay if their structures gets destroyed all the time by PvPers, nor will they stay if they have to give up a portion of their profit to PvP groups that leech off of PvE players.

4. IMHO, PvE is what attracts new players, not PvP. People like to create things and see it being used by others, not see their creations get destroyed.

5. Finally, a game and is meant to be fun, and not become a job where we have to work.

 

Even for a well known PvP game like EVE, their PvP population is <15% (null+low+wh) and sat stagnate for in 2014/15.

 

 

Plenty of us want this to be another Eve Online, on a bigger more detailed scale. I don't see how Minecraft is a real alternative for people, it doesn't offer a massive seamless world single shard universe, there's no seamless travel to planets in space and the voxel system is fairly limited even with mods. That's like suggesting that people play WoW instead of Eve Online because one is easier, they're both massive online games but they're completely different. 

 

In fact the same argument could be made by anyone wanting the game to be F2P or B2P.

 

Most of your arguments can be addressed just by looking at this chart from the devblog:

 

builders-pvp-players.png?w=630

 

 

1.) I don't think people are suggesting that PvE players pay for their protection. Being part of a MMO, you should have to interact with other people from time to time, and whether you're trading resources, land, constructions, manpower, etc. It all eventually goes back into the economy which supports any Alliance, without necessitating direct payments to groups for protection. Do you think that alliances in Eve demand money from their tenants? No, they expect their tenants to show up for fights when they need them. 

 

2.) Of course PvP groups are going to earn money via destruction, that's the whole point. 

 

3.) The DU universe is massive, and it seems there is more than enough room for people to build in relative peace without ever encountering another player. Though not wanting to be around other players has downsides, such as limiting the kinds of resources you can get your hands on. Players should have to work together to guarantee they are safe on their planets, or even their cities/homes/whatever. You shouldn't just be invincible because you don't want to have to fight to defend your property. 

 

4.) The economy of the game depends on resources being destroyed, otherwise everything will become stagnant if nothing is ever lost. This is addressed in the linked chart above. 

 

5.) The fun is in working together to survive and be part of a game universe that we can call our own (hence the MM part of MMORPG), not in living by ourselves in seclusion in an MMO that we're paying a monthly subscription for. If I wanted to simply build things to show off to people and never worry about them being destroyed, I'd play Everquest Landmark, which certainly lacks the community feeling that games like Eve Online provide. I'd much rather play with other people, make friends, develop relationships, learn to trust people, be betrayed, wage wars, sign treaties, hold negotiations, etc.

 

 

Everything in Eve Online that happens from a PVE perspective is still there to support the PVP side of the game. The whole economy keeps moving to keep the minerals and materials flowing upwards to support the massive alliance battles you hear about in the news. 

 

Even Eve isn't a good example to use while arguing for PVE, because the the whole game is still open for PVP, although you suffer consequences more harshly in some areas for engaging in PVP. That's what we call Suicide Ganking: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Suicide_Ganking_101

 

The only time you are truly safe in Eve is when you're docked in a station and you never leave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detail reply, and it is via discussions like this games can actually improve, and developers gather their necessary input.

 

I myself have been seeking for a replacement game since I left EVE years ago. I played it for almost 3 years, until the day that I was forced to play in the wh/low/null sec and found the PvP part just wasn't for my kind of game play, especially when the game mechanics allows a 100k isk ship to blow a 2B isk ship out of the water like a rock smashing an egg.

 

The chart is a nice chart, but it is just that, a chart. It does not indicated how the game is going to balance the game play. That was the major drawback of CCP. I agree that the builders needs build, but the builders shouldn't be the only ones making the money. The PvPers needs to destroy, but again, they shouldn't be the only ones to spend money.

 

EVE offered safe heavens for the first few months~yr of game play, but to advance ones' character, one must venture into wh/low/null sec for the advance technology, where lawlessness can turn you off from the game in minutes. PvE shouldn't be fail-safe where you can have BOTs running rampant farming up all the resources and cornering the markets with their endless supplies of goods. But at the same time, a PvPer shouldn't be allowed to take out any ship at anywhere he feels likes.

 

There need to be a balance, if that balance isn't there, then you will end up with an niche game. Even CCP themselves stated 50% of their "new" signups quits within a few hours, and then, 50% of their sustained playerbase quits within 2-3 years. Basically, a balance needs to exist that If it is going to take a group of 5 farmers/crafters 40 hours to build a structure, then the game shouldn't allow a handful of PvPers to destroy that structure in minutes. It should take a group of 5 PvPer at least 4 hours, if not the same 40 hours, to destroy that structure undefended.

 

Some materials needs to be farm-able only in PvP regions, giving the PvPers a way to earn income, while some ships/structures should only be construct-able in PvP-safe regions.

 

IOW, we need a symbiotic relationships, not just pray or be prayed. When you have a symbiotic relationship game balance, you attract players from both ends, when you have a pray or be prayed, you will end up being forced to craft/build because you need to do it to up keep your PvP.

 

DU may be massive in *thinking*, but it will never be in reality. EVE online is massive, but 75-85% of their population lives in high-sec. Jita alone was hosting 4K players 5~6 years ago when their concurrent login was at about 15~20K.

 

The questions comes down to is for the Devs to answer is, what kind of game they want this game to be? An EVE Online clone? I didn't sense that, but I still have a lot of reading to catch up on.

 

*may have more to say, need to afk*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that if this game goes as planned, we will have the drama of EVE and the approximate saltiness of a million noobs, crying for nerfs.

Ergo, I suggest the following.

Step 1 : Create a designated area on the star map, give it a catchy name to signify that shit goes down there, like "The Sizzlestars"

Step 2 : Make the Sizzlestars an area where only two things can survive. Salt and conversations on who slept more with whoever's mother (you know tese things happen >_> )

Step 3 : Jack up the prices on minerals and profit from all the testosterone pvpers who will pay hefty prices on resupplying themselves with new ships.

Step 4 : Don't marry Sansa to Ramsey Bolton.

Step 5 : Stay on the path of the original plan by marketing pvp areas and repeating the scam -- I mean masterplan. Yes, totally not a scam to rip off them pvpers.

Step 6 : ??????

Step 7 : PROFIT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that if this game goes as planned, we will have the drama of EVE and the approximate saltiness of a million noobs, crying for nerfs.

 

Ergo, I suggest the following.

 

Step 1 : Create a designated area on the star map, give it a catchy name to signify that shit goes down there, like "The Sizzlestars"

 

Step 2 : Make the Sizzlestars an area where only two things can survive. Salt and conversations on who slept more with whoever's mother (you know tese things happen >_> )

 

Step 3 : Jack up the prices on minerals and profit from all the testosterone pvpers who will pay hefty prices on resupplying themselves with new ships.

 

Step 4 : Don't marry Sansa to Ramsey Bolton.

 

Step 5 : Stay on the path of the original plan by marketing pvp areas and repeating the scam -- I mean masterplan. Yes, totally not a scam to rip off them pvpers.

 

Step 6 : ??????

 

Step 7 : PROFIT

HAHA I like this!

 

You need a new ship? Ok, 15k space bucks. Oh, its for PVP.... we have an additional fee for that.... yes, 1mil space bucks is a lot, but look at what it can do ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHA I like this!

 

You need a new ship? Ok, 15k space bucks. Oh, its for PVP.... we have an additional fee for that.... yes, 1mil space bucks is a lot, but look at what it can do ;)

Not perse. You see, you need to act like a hustler on your trading with PvPers. You give them the first fix for free, or at least, give SOMETHING for free. Don't forget, PvPers hate farming. So, you give them shit for free and they keep coming back, and since they don't understand economics, you rip them off as so. I don't know abbout you, but my space parrot's crackers are not cheap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the ark tokens were connected to the arkship? This way arkification was turned into player made security sec by limited to an area around the arkship, perhaps the solar system or an area within the solar system (Or grow as the game progresses and players start migrating into other solar systems. Perhaps that growth could in itself be a player driven gameplay mechanic). This way you get the benefit of player made safe zones but you can't arkify any strategic asset you want or bring it with you as you expand into the rest of the galaxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other, system-enforced, safe zones outside of the starter area? a big nope.

Oh. Well, that is a big turn off for me then. That's why I don't like to play EVE anymore. The constant fear of being ganked, even though you just want to run a smooth mining operation with friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Well, that is a big turn off for me then. That's why I don't like to play EVE anymore. The constant fear of being ganked, even though you just want to run a smooth mining operation with friends.

Chill bruh, them space white knights will protect you. Or at least, join a faction in the universe, it's not EVE. You can stay on a planet. Unless they add weapons of mass destruction, you are crispy cream safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If safe zones can only be made safe with defence weapons and systems we build, then I'm ok with that as long as a basic defence system is fairly easy to build, because a lot of people won't feel happy risking being ganked all the time. What I personally find at times with PvP, in certain games, the kill-everything-that-moves approach works for me in some games, but in other games I'd prefer people to really only use that for good reasons, such as self-defence, or planned guild/organisational conquests. 

 

There will be times I'm out for "blood" and there will be times I really want to focus on building up my base, or my ship, or working out various technologies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can argue in favor or against them endlessly, I suppose.

 

I'm generally in favor of some kind of safe zone or similar mechanic to protect various areas. It doesn't even have to hinder PVP, it could complement it (compare to Minecraft Faction Plugin and how player factions worked there for example).

 

Doesn't mean you can magically protect everything and just pick the easy way out, but I feel some level of being able to utilize safe or protected zone allows creations to last more and perhaps to serve as possible new trade hubs where players of all (virtual) walks of life can meet and engage without clubbing their heads in.

 

Some may argue that only that should persist what players can actively manage but this automatically excludes a majority of factions or at least a lot due to lack of manpower. Even moderate groups may have trouble if the enemy can just wait and "raid the city at night when no one is there" - lame. "But defenses"... that would resort in turret spam or similar all over.

 

I get that there should be certain risks involved, but at the same time there should be some incentive to create, not purely destroy. If you put a lot of effort into trying to make some city over weeks and within a day a bunch of random people destroys it or significantly damages it so that weeks are lost, chances are you won't try the same again.

 

I'm sure there is some middle grounds. How? That is the biggest question. It could be tied to certain factions or areas in space, it could be tied to faction (man)power, or perhaps to certain technology you have to obtain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill bruh, them space white knights will protect you. Or at least, join a faction in the universe, it's not EVE. You can stay on a planet. Unless they add weapons of mass destruction, you are crispy cream safe.

I totally forgot about planets. Duh. You are right. I still would have tried the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my worry about the ark tokens is really proliferation, sure up front they are said to be "rare" but how about 5 years down the road. would we see entire sections of the starter planet arkified by players who are taking a break or have moved on from the game?

 

for this reason i just don't really like the idea of ark tokens an individual or organization can use. i think we would all be better off if a planet had a small chance to spawn some form of POI like a crashed arkship or alien ruins. once the players find this POI a large scale restoration project can begin where we can either repair the damage or provide the resources required. once the repair is done the POI returns to active status and a new ark zone like the starter planet has is born.

 

with this method its very easy for the devs to control just how much of the world is arkified, ark zones would be for public use so as people quit playing those of us left can continue to use the arksite.

 

if the resource requirement is high enough this would be another step towards bringing civilization to a new system like star gates will be. it would also make these sites very rare on the outer fringes of the space we have collectively explored witch would ensure there was always some form of "wild west" where pvp is the way of life.

 

just my two cents, but i agree we need to find a happy medium between safe and unregulated game area's.

Share this post


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...