Jump to content
MaximusNerdius

Balanced PvP Destruction System

Recommended Posts

I've been playing games a long time and in recent years I've spent a lot of that time playing survival type games that had some sort of construction / building system. Minecraft, DayZ, Space Engineers, Ark Survival Evolved and many others. All of them have the potential for being really great games, until you introduce players that take pleasure in doing nothing more than destroying other people's work and generally griefing other people. I'm one of those players that enjoys both PvE and PvP... but I get tired of PvP devolving into nothing more than offline base raiding and general trolling, instead of actual intense fights.

 

The thing that I've noticed is that most systems in place in these games tend to favor the attacker over the builder. Take an example from Ark that happened just last night. A group of friend and I spent 4-5 hours working on building up a decently sized base, essentially building a large aviary structure that was going to house our Quetz (very large flying dinosaur). We were still putting the roof on when we were raided by a group flying a Quetz with a ballista mounted on it and several other flying mounts. They managed to take out the lone turret that was set up and then our 2 flying mounts before we could mount an adequate response. I give the credit for a well coordinated attack, they managed to kill all 6 of us when there were only 3 of them. While frustrating, I can enjoy PvP that happens in this way - being a PvP server, they were surely within their right to attack us. It was our fault for not having more defenses set up and a sentry for watch. But what happened next is where the issue arises...

 

We had just spent 4-5 hours expanding our base that we had already put probably another 6-8 hours into. So a lot of effort was spent on this base. In the 15 minutes after they killed us all, they managed to knock down half the base, destroy every container and every "machine" we had built. 2 days of work destroyed in 15 minutes. As typically happens in this situation, all of us were so frustrated by this that we pretty much agreed to move on to another server. I've seen this type of thing happen in multiple games, especially DayZ (Epoch mod) or Space Engineers.

 

I would like to ask that the devs for Dual Universe discuss / plan for a system that does not give such a favorable outcome to the attacker. While I understand PvP typically leads to destruction.. it is "war" after all, this is still supposed to be a video game where we come to play and have fun. Where is the fun if a individual or group ends up leaving the game because of this type of situation? I know it isn't something easy to address, as you need to balance the game for PvP overall..  but please don't make something a builder spent 2 weeks or a month building last only seconds or even just a few minutes.

 

My suggestion is that structures, especially those composed of harder / tougher components, should have a much higher damage resistance. Steel should not crumple at the first blast of laser fire, or leave a big gaping hole when the first missile impacts. Whatever advanced materials we have so many years from now would be even better at resisting damage. I'm not asking for it to take 2 weeks of steady attacks to destroy a single wall... but please make it take a lot more effort to destroy someone's primary base of operations than most current survival games.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm some kind of fan of "risk" and thus PVP mechanics that could be forced onto others depending on where they go or who they run into.

 

But at the same time I can understand these concerns as someone who is rather interested in creation rather than (mindless) destruction. I also played Minecraft on a server community that added things via plugins: An economy, politics, player factions. I've seen myself how ... destructive players can be. We had our headquarters near the main city (only safe place, where all new players that enter the server also spawn or where people go to trade safely).

 

It was right down the coast a bit, perhaps a minute on foot. So you had to expect traffic and of course PVP was allowed there. But yet the senseless aggression and the attempts to hurt us or destroy our property were mind boggling. It's part of the game but it doesn't mean you have to mindlessly do it all the time to everyone in my book.

 

Luckily we were superior and / or more lucky somehow and they never managed to really hurt us while we eventually beat all their asses. Each group that attacked us for no apparent reason got some of their own medicine afterwards.

 

Others didn't have such luck. And the only reason PVP was even remotely interesting or similar there was because of the faction plugin and how it worked. Depending on faction size you could claim "chunks" and thus certain areas. Anywhere where there wasn't a safe zone (set by admins, in this case just the city). You could even claim the territory (if you manage to get on it) of other factions if their power is less than their claimed territory. Each member gives 10 power units. If a member dies somehow (no matter how), they lose a few power units. If you're no part of a faction you cannot modify any block in their, the only thing you could do without attacking them individually was fire artillery at their blocks.

 

So the result is simple: Fight enemies, make them die, they lose power, try to claim their areas ... if they're too reinforced, use artillery to make some hole first. Despite doomforts with water shields (that blocked artillery) fighting was somewhat dynamic and you had a chance to fight back. Though in theory offline base raiding was still possible if you used artillery on unprotected areas or bases. But you were primarily forced to fight people to lower their power.

 

I hope some fitting compromise or option will be possible here, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well pvp is a sensitive issue, I can see it being very sensitive in this game especialy.

Imho there the only restriction should be the arkified zones- the rest of the world free for all.

 

Because:

 

The world sugested in this game is MASSIVE, I do not think a lot of you gave it much though how big "few million" planets universe actualy is. And planets being planet size (or close) you can most certainly hide prety well. Just think of a human size entrance at the side of a mountain under the trees... no one will see it from the air. Fortiefied bunkers and so on.

The other thing is developers seem to be aiming at automating a lot of thing as it is apropriate for the sugested era of AI and robotics. So a small group of people could have super heavily fortified base with automatic defences. You can program perimeter defences, drone support all sorts realy. That will only need some carefull planning and strategy but once your outpost is set up you should be ok.

 

The above examples given by fellow colonists I do not realy like, because it seems you were not ready! The game cannot protect you after certain point and it should not. But you can! Establish defences first, plan ahead and you will be good.

 

I play eve in the lawless of eve spaces wormholes, pvp in null sec and pirate in low sec - it is not that bad, you just need to learn to adapt, and be smart about it.

 

I do agree that what ever the "armor" or "reinforced" building material will be in DU it has to be tough, as it looks like damage will be applied to the area and not the whole structure at the same time. What is very cool by the way! ;)

 

p.s. I suppose a repair/builder bots could be something like "active tanking" in eve repairing damaged modules etc in fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not asking for protected zones. You're reading it completely wrong. I am a PvPer, I've played Eve, heck I played Ultima Online before the no-PvP Trammel world. I enjoy the heck out of PvP. I'm just asking that something we spend weeks gathering resources for and building not last such a short time. I'm all for base raids - but you shouldn't be able to take down a base in 15 minutes when it took 3 days to build it. That was my overall point. It should take a lot of time and effort to actually destroy a base, especially the upgraded walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's to keep me from surrounding all of my critical elements with "hardened elements"?

 

It may look like a house, but it flies like a tie fighter  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's to keep me from surrounding all of my critical elements with "hardened elements"?

 

It may look like a house, but it flies like a tie fighter  :D

 

Physics. Hardened elements would provide more mass than lesser hardened elements, which means you will need more thrust to move / stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics. Hardened elements would provide more mass than lesser hardened elements, which means you will need more thrust to move / stop it.

Well we do not know that yet. This is far in future and armor could be lights, could be reactive, could be active there is a lot off speculation. We just need to wait and see I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is like that the game evolved it's on safe guards such as maybe your sector is owned by the raging barbarians guild so you petetion them for defence since it's their sector these guys are straying into to kill you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like forced safe zones at all.. when okaywrs themselves at some point will have the universe divided up into fleets and then those should provide security for their own sectors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should make a show on youtube when the game comes out, called "Dual the Universe, Quadruple the Drama". I can see us having four factions. The PvP, the PvE (Forced to PvP), The Artsy Builders (Who will probably build a frigging tower defense around their planets) and the rich industrialists who will sip their wine and watch as the three factions fight for our amusement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should make a show on youtube when the game comes out, called "Dual the Universe, Quadruple the Drama". I can see us having four factions. The PvP, the PvE (Forced to PvP), The Artsy Builders (Who will probably build a frigging tower defense around their planets) and the rich industrialists who will sip their wine and watch as the three factions fight for our amusement.

Thats a great idea, and im sure it would be very amusing to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should make a show on youtube when the game comes out, called "Dual the Universe, Quadruple the Drama". I can see us having four factions. The PvP, the PvE (Forced to PvP), The Artsy Builders (Who will probably build a frigging tower defense around their planets) and the rich industrialists who will sip their wine and watch as the three factions fight for our amusement.

Agree :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the system should favor the defender, but I am not sure how easy it would be to implement. If Ark survival waned, they could easily make weapons weaker and walls stronger, but this is not the case here. Consider that the most likely tool of attack (a ship) is built the same way as the likely target (base) with the same elements and construction tools, how do you add anything that favors one over the other? Any type of wall, armor, shield or turret you provide will be used by both, the attacker has the advantage of mobility and the most vital ability to determine when the fight ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth would you want to favour one side? ....

 

I'd actually rather it not favor either side, I enjoy playing both sides (PvP and PvE). But the fact is that 95% of survival multiplayer games favor the attacker over the defender. All I'm saying is that if a player spends a month building a single ship, that ship should not be destroyed to the point of not being repairable in a 10-second battle or even a 5 minute battle. If it requires that type of time investment, it should hold up better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually rather it not favor either side, I enjoy playing both sides (PvP and PvE). But the fact is that 95% of survival multiplayer games favor the attacker over the defender. All I'm saying is that if a player spends a month building a single ship, that ship should not be destroyed to the point of not being repairable in a 10-second battle or even a 5 minute battle. If it requires that type of time investment, it should hold up bet

 

Well DU is not a survival game that one thing. But maby in those susrvival MMO's you are talking about attacking players are simly better at it.

If you spend a month building a ship that in fact you should not be useing it for what ever the reason they you will certainly loose it. If you use it wrong you should and you will loose it in a short time.

 

Plus time spent on building something is a bad indicator how "good" that something should be, somebody can spend 4 months saving for a capital ship on his own, or a corporation can build the same one in 2 days and then you can loose it imediately and that corp might use it for another year. Is 2 days the corporation spent building it mean that it should be that much worse compared to your 4 months investment?

 

Do not fly what you cannot afford to loose! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once, I agree with Sledgehammer. Making a game Survival-themed you ASK for people to gank you non-stop and for the devs would be silly to do so, since the game would be thinned out pretty swiftly from butthurt "survival players" being ganked because "PvP sucks".  Let the game be focused towards construction, utilitiarian and artistic, and economics. Nobody needs survival, we'll have plenty a pirate factions the way I understand humans as it is when it comes to sandbox, we don't need gangs, attacking new players for spare change and a bar of wheat. Kthnxbai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do not fly what you cannot afford to loose! ;)

 

Question: Why would you guys want to leave EVE and come to play this game, if the end result is the same style of game play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Why would you guys want to leave EVE and come to play this game, if the end result is the same style of game play?

Well end result might be similar but not the same. How ever priciples of how to survive and flourish are the same.

 

Mainly eve is finite, its limited (its great but for the love of god its 13 years old), what can be better than to fly your own built ship with custom scripted defences. Or creat your own mega weapons?

Plus DU is not coming out for a while so I will keep playing eve untill then.

 

Arcified safe zones sounds a bit more secure than high sec in eve, it also leaves the space lawless as uncharted frontear should be. Wild wild space :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is my opinion, 

 

There is really not a way to change this, fortification defending will always be at a disadvantage. if you make it harder to destroy fortified building materials, the ships will just be made out of the same materials making it harder to destroy those as well. Saying that material is too heavy for building anti gravity space craft would be ridiculous. 

 

Defenders must think and plan if they want to survive. Attackers are attacking a stationary target so they only need to have numbers and firepower unless facing a fine tuned defense, and even then they face a lesser risk. 

 

poor defense vs poor offense= defense is lost, heavy damage to both sides

good defense vs poor offense= offense is lost, heavy damage to both sides

good defense vs good offense= defense is lost, heavy damage to both sides

excellent defense vs good offense= offense is lost, heavy damage to offense

excellent defense vs Large excellent offense= possible stalemate or offense will win if defense does not include a counter force.

 

because offense is mobile it will be unlikely to be completely obliterated.

 

This is a huge generalization by the way there are many types of offense and defense, using poor good and excellent are not definitive terms but relative.  

I am also not saying that there is no strategy in offense, only that you must be more prepared when defending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Why would you guys want to leave EVE and come to play this game, if the end result is the same style of game play?

 

Because it might actually be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AttacKat

 

Planetside landing. Major upgrade from EVE, no? Mechas as well, no? 

So you bring EVE, Planeside 2, Mech Warrior together into 1 game, but still the same PvP slaughter house game play over players' hours of "Mindcraft"-ing, whats the difference? As someone who left EVE after 2-1/2 yrs, I do not see how this game is going to attract new players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as anywere it is much harder to defend your property if you are not there, no matter how sofisticated the defences are a good organised offence will eventualy over run it. But that were the MMO element comes in, have ppl from differnet time zones etc.

 

Its very hard to get the balance right, but testing might help in the future stages.

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...