Jump to content
MaximusNerdius

Balanced PvP Destruction System

Recommended Posts

For who? You, or the people's that spent hours/days/weeks whose work you destroyed in minutes?

 

I'm a pve player, I enjoy building kickass defense and waiting for pvp players to wreck themselves on my defense, while I continue building what I want.

 

@SledgeHammer

you make an excellent point, that is the only thing that can be frustrating. I cannot adjust my defense if I'm not home while somebody is attacking me 5 to 6 times a night just to get through my defense.

 

I was hoping that for smaller factions they may consider some form of invulnerability for the area if All the of the faction members are offline.

Not away from the base, only offline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'v been dreaming of a game that promices as much as DU while playing eve, flying a carrier that can actualy have fleet maintenance bays with real ships landing in mids battle for emergency repairs, ammo... Where the stuff you make is build in a factory you or your comrades have constructed. Where do not need to through a star gate to fly to nother system hence "gate camps" are not viable (gate camps are the most retarded things in eve, its booring if you camp it, its frustrating if you land in one no one wins)

 

I can see many reasons for players to be atracted, that was just a few of my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AttacKat


This game provides the chance for PvE and PvP to work together. PvP are the militia and the PvE the civilians (sort of). his is the selling point here. EVE's PVE is very... well, lame. Planetside 2 has no PVE. And Mech Warrior is an extra, not the core gameplay. Sure, the Metagame may tune to that, who knows, but for the moment, you got to think of planets and defenses there. Just because you took over a fleet, doesn't mean you took over a planet. 


Let's say enemy fleet has medical ships for dead players to respawn into. Sure, it's nice, but if the defenders blow up the Mobile Spawn Point, you practically CUT their respawn capabilitiy permanently. In Planetside 2, you always go for the attackers' Mobile Spawn, you blow that up, you cut their attack short.


And planets being defended would FAVOR the defenders, since the defenders would spawn there on the ground. You STILL HAVE TO TAKE the ground as well. So you see, you have to think in a long scale. Your ship may go down in 5 mins, sure. But you OWN the planet below. You respawn, hop into a jet or a spare ship and go up there again. What the attackers gonna do? And this is the CORE GAMEPLAY. Economics, logistics. Planning an attack in EVE takes weeks and they don't have to account for troop transports. Think how much planning an invasion in Dual will take to plan out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a pve player, I enjoy building kickass defense and waiting for pvp players to wreck themselves on my defense, while I continue building what I want.

 

@SledgeHammer

you make an excellent point, that is the only thing that can be frustrating. I cannot adjust my defense if I'm not home while somebody is attacking me 5 to 6 times a night just to get through my defense.

 

I was hoping that for smaller factions they may consider some form of invulnerability for the area if All the of the faction members are offline.

Not away from the base, only offline.

Arcification tokiens - they are still deciding how it will work, but esentialy you can designate an area of your choise as no pvp area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EVE doesnt even feel like a game, for me I wouldnt be leaving. I will be only starting to play this game.

 

I have tried to play EVE, but you dont play EVE so much as you think about what you are going to do.

 

Click here, click there, you dont exactly fly the ship you just move around.

 

Beyond that the UI in EVE is very unfriendly, cant make the font or bars bigger and you gotta be very specific moving the mouse through the menus to achieve desired results.

 

EVE has some good gameplay ideas and many things that I would enjoy, but EVE and DU are almsot not even competitors.

 

If Infinity: Quest for Earth is still in development, that might be a competitor, but I got tired of checking on their site for news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DU is not a survival game that one thing.

 

A sandbox game... with mostly open world PvP? Gathering resources required to build your base / ship? I guess I'm confused as to why you think it's not survival. But anyways...

 

My point overall with the original post came from a perspective of someone who had played many of the games that DU's concepts are based from. I greatly enjoy many of those concepts, but I felt some of those concepts need a little better design.

 

As to your comparison between a time investment of an individual vs a corporation building a ship, you missed the point entirely. The time spent wasn't the point. The point was I am hoping to see that there are actual battles that take place, not 10-second fights like Space Engineers. Make steel or whatever material we use for construction actually mean something against bullets and missiles. Make mounting an attack on an enemy capital ship something you actually have to plan for because the fight is going to take a couple hours, not minutes. Make strategy worthwhile again. Make fighting interesting, not a simple slugfest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheNudeNerd


Tha game is not even in Alpha yet mate :P We'll need to wait and see how ground combat will work, since this is NOT based on First Person Shooter combat. So stay tight and don't hold your breath, cause it may take a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, I believe players should be left to make their turf safe. Either that, or join up with a bigger faction and become an outpost of sorts. Let's face it, no PvP player would prefer melting his ship in combat if they are offered a non-violent alternative. This is not WoW battleground. This game is aiming for social interaction. Be part of a faction and you have inside trading with them. They are a-holes? Backstab them like knave. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game is aiming for social interaction. Be part of a faction and you have inside trading with them. They are a-holes? Backstab them like knave. Problem solved.

 

Right, so when you cannot beat them, then join them. Nice approach to social interaction.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AttacKat

And then, backstab them. I guess we differ in our understanding of strength. If you want to be strong as the PvPers and be immune to any repercussions, then you are just a hypocrite good sir. If you can't be as strong as them physically, you compromise ,bid your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Then why are you here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come all EVE players are pretty much multiboxing anti-social people who want to play alone and be unstoppable?
Every single time.

             "I want my small time, 1 man army multiboxing corporation to have the same strength as those 200 guys who work together.  Why not add safe zones everywhere, like EVE? What? This game is not EVE 2.0. and I should stop asking for EVE mechanics in a game that is NOT EVE? I should L2P and learn to not play MMOs if I can't even stand other people? Oh dear, this guy telling me these thing, he is toxic. How dare he call me out on my bullshit?"


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how to solve the "defenders paradox".

The paradox:

The defenders have a stationary heavily fortified base made of a material, lets say, Materialium.

The attackers use "materialium" on their ships as well, making them just as strong as the defenders.

THE SOLUTION:

Make stations have special blocks that have increased armor, and ships won't have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why are you here?

 

Because I left EVE and in search of a good balanced space MMO to play, but I guess this isn't going to be it either, at least not based on what is being said on the forum now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kuritho


Whaaat? O.o


The attackers have their spawn stations with them, the defenders as well. The Defenders are THERE and fortified, the attacker if they lose their respawn stations, they lost. And mass is not the same between a ship and a space station mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come all EVE players are pretty much multiboxing anti-social people who want to play alone and be unstoppable?

Every single time.

 

             "I want my small time, 1 man army multiboxing corporation to have the same strength as those 200 guys who work together.  Why not add safe zones everywhere, like EVE? What? This game is not EVE 2.0. and I should stop asking for EVE mechanics in a game that is NOT EVE? I should L2P and learn to not play MMOs if I can't even stand other people? Oh dear, this guy telling me these thing, he is toxic. How dare he call me out on my bullshit?"

 

 

 

Dude honestly what the hec is your problem? generalising, mucking and stereotyping da heck are you trying to do here? Nobody is asking to imprelement eve like mechanics, unless you call asking for it a discussion of differences. This is what we do here TALK about stuff. Thats what people do, not lash out to different minded or different thinking, that is the social way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how to solve the "defenders paradox".

The paradox:

The defenders have a stationary heavily fortified base made of a material, lets say, Materialium.

The attackers use "materialium" on their ships as well, making them just as strong as the defenders.

THE SOLUTION:

Make stations have special blocks that have increased armor, and ships won't have it.

 

From what the dev's described, there is no special "station mode", a ship is basically a station with an engine. I suppose you could have geothermal-powered weapons and shields requiring a level of energy that wouldn't be realistic for a ship to achieve though, or something of that nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sledgehammer


Read AttacKat's comments. My comment was oriented towards those comments.


@AttacKat


What part of "a sandbox game with Emergent Gameplay" did you not understand? What you are asking is for a stale, stationary world where nothing happens (like WoW). Where PvP is a TDM (Team Deathmatch) or Capture the Flag, in a controlled enviroment, without any real outcome. Is that what you are asking for? PvP without consequences? Cause if so, no, THIS game is not for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a devblog on this topic.  https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/09/13/arkship-security-or-where-does-pvp-starts/

 

This part in particular sums up NQ's vision on base defense and losing constructs.

 

Strategically, a secondary arkship-like defense tower and safe zone will obviously be a target of choice, either for military purposes or simply by griefers eager to set the world on fire. The first type of attack could in principle be settled without much damage for the inhabitants of the zone, if they consent to transfer territory control to the attacker when he has proven to be stronger than the existing defenses. In the second case, ultimate destruction could be the goal of the hostile forces. Players will always be encouraged to take electronic snapshots of their constructions, if not blueprints when appropriate (the difference is that a snapshot cannot be traded, it's a personal asset), together with insurances, in order to be able to rebuild if necessary. However, rebuilding after destruction is costly, as neither the materials nor the time required by the auto-rebuilder can be avoided. It would be better to lose a bit of time and money, rather than losing your magnificent neo-renaissance imperial castle on top of the mountain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CaptainTwerkmotor


What part of "a sandbox game with Emergent Gameplay" did you not understand? ...

Is that what you are asking for? PvP without consequences? Cause if so, no, THIS game is not for you.

 

Read the title, it is asking for "balanced PvP destruction" ... IOW, if it takes a group of 5 players 40 hours to build something, a group of 5 players to shouldn't be able to take it down in 4 hours.

 

If this is going to be the "Mindcraft" of "EVE", then this game needs to have a balance on construction:destruction time frame. 10:1 (or 2, or 5) isn't balanced. "A sandbox with emergent gameplay" indicates nothing on this balance, or the lack of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the easier way is to think about the mass (or the weight, if you are on a planet) of the weapons... And to think about a reasonable payload for the thrusters...

 

With an equal weapons level (number * dimension) a ship needs also to take account of the engine, the fuel, the trusters, and so on...

 

In this way the PvP is still a good option, but you need a little bit more of preparation... Just to compensate the probable absence of the defender in the moment of the fight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AttacKat


Let's say you build a house out of spacesheep turd. Congrats, your house made of spacesheep turd is now a thing. Does spacesheep turd hold up to - I don't know - rocket launchers? Turns out... n-no. No it doesn't. So, you ask of the game, to act as an arbiter, throwing the physics engine down the drain, so your house made of spacesheep turd to be hard as titanium. Is that the balance you are looking for? Cause I can tell you, that if you want your stuff to hold, build them out of metal or something, cause wood catches fire and space turds are still turds.

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...