Jump to content
MaximusNerdius

Balanced PvP Destruction System

Recommended Posts

Slowing things down might work, but then I worry about being too long. For two very well defended forces, what's to prevent a battle lasting hours or even days? It would get pretty boring. For a grounded base, running away from a fight isn't an option. Will players be forced to remain on-site as a battle goes on? Several concurrent battles could be going on... That would be too slow of a pace of battles.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I think hour long battles would be fun. I used to head into Alterac Valley battles that lasted 3 days. People would leave, go to dinner, come back, same fight going. Leave again, go to bed, go to work, get off work, play wow and enter the same fight. Those were the best battles imo.

 

As far as the bases. I dunna, give bases a permanent buff through a design change. Being planted on solid ground with concrete buildings has to count for something. Spaceships have the ability to run, that is their strength. Bases do not so make them more fortified. They can't run, that is their strength.

 

I would argue that spaceship on base sieging should be the hardest fight in the game. I am not talking about a tiny camp, but a city or a large city like fortress.

 

But all of this is pointless talk. We don't know how they intend to balance the game and it's not my business to tell them how. But what I do know is people and if you disenfranchise the PVE crowd or have no intent on catering to them, then don't expect a huge return on your investment. PVE simply sells more than PVP, and let me be clear I am and always have been a PVP person first. I did PVE to supplement my PVP habits so I am by no means a PVE apologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think hour long battles would be fun. I used to head into Alterac Valley battles that lasted 3 days. People would leave, go to dinner, come back, same fight going. Leave again, go to bed, go to work, get off work, play wow and enter the same fight. Those were the best battles imo.

 

As far as the bases. I dunna, give bases a permanent buff through a design change. Being planted on solid ground with concrete buildings has to count for something. Spaceships have the ability to run, that is their strength. Bases do not so make them more fortified. They can't run, that is their strength.

 

On the first point: Oh god no. I want to play a game, not watch a movie.

 

Second: Perhaps the devs will decide to differentiate bases from ships to do that. But if they don't then players will also be able to put concrete in their ships. Albeit they would be very slow, but some players would try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first point: Oh god no. I want to play a game, not watch a movie.

 

Second: Perhaps the devs will decide to differentiate bases from ships to do that. But if they don't then players will also be able to put concrete in their ships. Albeit they would be very slow, but some players would try it.

 

 

If you have never had a full day siege in PVP, you don't know what you are missing out on.  Some of the best fights were those long ones. Sure as hell beats fast matches that go by so fast that the only commentary after the match is "yo bro, did you see how fast he went down?" "ya, man..I was like ?!?!?!@#!@#?"

 

Well. I think if they implement weight to voxel material types there is no way concrete would work. So much mass would not be able to fly a ship, maybe in space sure...but they would never be able to enter atmosphere. So, problem solved. Concrete is cheap and easy to make. It would not make sense that the most amazing material in game could be used on ships. if  that was the case, everyone would use cheap old concrete like we have since the Roman Empire. I mean, nuclear bombs can't even take out fortified concrete structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. I think if they implement weight to voxel material types there is no way concrete would work. So much mass would not be able to fly a ship, maybe in space sure...but they would never be able to enter atmosphere. So, problem solved. Concrete is cheap and easy to make. It would not make sense that the most amazing material in game could be used on ships. if  that was the case, everyone would use cheap old concrete like we have since the Roman Empire. I mean, nuclear bombs can't even take out fortified concrete structures.

 

So then don't enter the atmosphere, or rather, the gravitational well. You can keep the concrete on the ship, slow as it is. Also: steel is denser than concrete, steel gives better radiation protection than concrete, and modern concrete structures are reinforced with steel. Keep your concrete. I want steel! I doubt an engineering staple such as steel would be removed from ship construction. But I can still see devs adding in some super dense, super material to fill the role. And I refer back to my first sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kiklix

@ShadowLordAlpha


Guys, meet Tsar Bomba. 

Tsar Bomba , meet the guys.

Tsar Bomba is a 27 metric tons of pure hell in a bus sized bomb.

Fat Man, one of the two occasions of nukes being used in live combat, was 21 kilotons of TNT worth of explosive yield and it didn't obliterate much of its target city. 

Tsar Bomba was (hopefully, not IS still) a 50 MEGATONS of pain, achievable with tech in the 50s. 

Fun fact : the RnD on higher yield nukes kinda stopped on 1961 that Tsar Bomba was tested. Yes. Russians declared Game Over on higher yield nukes.


Oh and nukes are usually meant to be deployed about 400 feet above the ground, so to avoid shattering tectonic plates, possibly creating a mess of earthquakes rippling from the point of impact.

I don't see why a hostile nation/empire to yours, would care for destroing YOUR planet by deploying nukes on surface level, ON TOP of your bunker. Sure, the blast might not reach you deep ungerground, but good luck not suffering vital systems malfunctions and hopefully, there won't be a second nuke, as the enemy digs craters until it finally reaches the point the very roof above your head on the bunker is exposed to a nice, juicy, 50 Megaton Spacetsar Bomba.


So no, reinforced concrete won't help much if a nuke blasts off right on top of your bunker. The good news are that you will boil and explode by the heat unleashed on you and die without knowing when.


There's a reason in Fallout universe, Vaults are usually REALLY deep underground or located in remote areas.


I hope people in the game, realise that and build underground tunnels, leading to underground bases, stockpiled with ammunition, gear and an emergency respawn facility, so they can fight the invading forces in case of such a mass scale of invasion and destruction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AttacKat

Why should the Devs ballance build vs destruction time? How many man hours of planning and construction time did it take to build the twin towers? How long did they stand after 9/11? It is always easier to destroy something than to build, its a fact of life and a law of thermaldynamics.

 

Bottom line, protect your assets, but be prepared to rebuild them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AttacKat

Why should the Devs ballance build vs destruction time? How many man hours of planning and construction time did it take to build the twin towers? How long did they stand after 9/11? 

 

According to what they say on Wikipedia, it would seems quite a lot...
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read the post I was refering to with this, instead of just straight on denying. It depends what you build and so the time is just as a reference point helping to get better perspective.

how do i know what's the post you were referrig to, if you didnt quote any?

 

It doesn't take monhs to BUILD(without taking count of the resources gathering and crafting time) a WORKING ship. That flies and shoot. Basic.

If you want to build a good looking ship then it may take months.

You're likely not forced to build with 25cm blocks in the game, i'm sure there'll be opions to drag surfaces or to build with bigger blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to what they say on Wikipedia, it would seems quite a lot...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11_attacks

Correct, but the same can be said of any attacker here as well, the complaint was it takes 5 min to destroy what someone spent 40 hours building, not giving any consideration to the time it took the attacker to get his weapon and skill to use it.... So i would say there does not need to be any game desigined balance for pvp, it will sort itself out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could just make up some BS about engines messing with high level shields or something. The timer system in eve is the one mechanic that really makes that game playable at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tgey could also allow buildings to have more armor, based on a max weight to thrust ability of an engine. Tgat would give buildings a reasonable reason to be tougher. Also, tgere could be bunker type buildings etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tgey could also allow buildings to have more armor, based on a max weight to thrust ability of an engine. Tgat would give buildings a reasonable reason to be tougher. Also, tgere could be bunker type buildings etc...

 

I believe sir, the greater defense for a bunker are 100 feet of soil between you and the surface. But yes, there should be a "mixing concrete" sorta mechanism, where you make more enduring metamaterials. Or adding turrets on the top of towers. I mean, if your grid can afford it, go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Risk vs reward is sometimes used to describe what is being discussed here, but that term is incorrect here IMO.

 

Players (PvP and PvE) who play survival games have vastly different priorities and win/lose conditions.

For PvP player, win scenario can be described as taking something from another player (incorrect), or as engaging in fulfiling PvP action (correct). Having proper lose/win consequances sure makes PvP more fulfilling, but is not core of it. For example, in EVE null warfare, meeting the enemy and dying in a fight in way more fun than spending days upon days upon days capturing nodes with no enemy contact in recent sov system. Lose condition on the other hand is not having fulfilling PvP encounters(duh), and there is no reason for dev not to minimise frequency of Lose situation, because it is not in direct conflict with Win situation.

 

PvE players on the other hand have no desire to experience PvP at all and their win/lose conditions look something like this. Win condition is being able to play pve aspect of the game, with most of the ingame rewards it entails. Lose condition is not playing the game they want, which means either disliking the game they play, or not playing at all. Second is surely worse, but both are utter failures from game design standpoint.

 

Which is why in ALL succesfull mmo projects never pit pve players vs pvp, allow to experience the game with different playstyles, and cater to vastly different audiences.

Projects that instead put all players in same pvp-heavy environment, with examples being almost all survival games, can be divided into 2 categories.

1) DayZ and the like, games that are designed with inevitable death and loss of all property in mind, that don't have big time-consuming goals

2) Survival-building sandboxes, notably Minecraft and ARK. Notable thing here is openworld PvP community in these games is relatively small; many many many more people play these games in safe spaces, like private servers for friends, or safe public servers.

 

The most hardcore example of players losing their stuff from player encounters in popular mmo market is EVE. But lets look at what can and what cannot be lost in EVE:
1) Skill points, most valuable thing, they cost literally years upon years. Cannot be lost outside specific skills for specifc ship class, T3 cruisers

2) Money. Cannot be lost

3) Stuff stored on stations. Cannot be lost

3.5) Stuff stored on player built stations, citadels. Not lost unless citadel in Wormhole space.

4) Logged out ships - cannot be lost.

5) Player built structures - 100% loss. Defender is always given very very lengthy response timer via reinforce mechanic. Citadels on other hand is built around vulnerability windows, with owner having to set X hours a week timetable citadel is vulnerable. Offense has to win more than one vulnerabilty siege for citadel to fall.

6) Logged on ships - not complete loss, sizable payback from insurance. PvP in highsec, and to lesser extent lowsec has big consequances for attacker.

 

Compared to what has been discussed in this thread, this would be carebear heaven, but even now alot of players are afraid to leave hisec for some reason. Anything that is way more hardcore is death sentence for subscriber count. And for good reason, people do not consider looking over the shoulder every second a good fun.

From what I seen, DU devs are aware of the issue. They mentioned players returning after months of absence, and their stuff being there.

 

Whatever system will be put in place will likely have inbuilt security for player built stuff, all valuables can probably be stored somewhere at no risk, structures will have big(several days) response time, additional systems will be in place to protect new players(ESPECIALLY new players) and small groups  from large group bullying.

 

If anyone is interested, I can write some more about a system I have in mind, that involves area-wide and object-specific security ratings, that are based on regional events and affect how vulnerable stuff is.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested, I can write some more about a system I have in mind, that involves area-wide and object-specific security ratings, that are based on regional events and affect how vulnerable stuff is.

So here goes rough draft:

 

1)PvP taging

Owner can mark any object to be pvp taged. There are 2 types of tags: offensive and defensive. PvP taged defensive objects are usual defense measures: turrets, weapon platforms, patrolling ships, afk battleships left as weapon platforms. Their goal is protect assets in area. Offensive taging is reserved for attacking/raiding ships. Any PvP tag means object is viable for combat.

 

2)Area security rating

This rating shows how safe given area is. It is increased by having many(based on player trafik?) defensive objects, and also no PvP encounters. It is lowered by active PvP in area, especially destruction of defensive objects. In uninhabited systems it sits at neutral 0. Having high positive security rating means non-pvp assets are better protected. For smaller object it means assets cannot be damaged, and very high rating means they will be automatically evacuated when it drops. For bigger it means less defense frequency (we will get to that). At neutral rating, small assets are fully vulnerable (even to non-pvp tagged), and negative gives higher defense frequency for larger objects.

 

3)Object security rating

Recent events may affect how secure given ship is. For example, pvp ship dropping tag will have low security rating for some time. This means revenge can be exacted on raiders to certain degree, even if they try to flee. Battle may happen in their defended syste and they will have advantage due to pvp-taged defenses, but they are still fully vulnerable. The same to lesser instinct goes for non-taged ships that recently engaged in pvp activity in low security regions. Also, zone ownership also boosts rating and is both nice bonus and lucrative target.

EDIT: another important feature is to allow deployment of large territory claim units, that will define who is and who is not desired visitor of area. People marked as hostile won't get sec rating benifits and will be viable PvP targets. That will allow player groups to mantain control over ther secure systems, and get rid of enemies without offensive tag.

 

Whenever small objects sit unused for long time in slightly positive area, they gain high security rating, which means they will be automatically evacuated.

 

For big objects system is different. They operate based on concept of defense frequancy. It may be reinforce mechanic, set by defender (defender may defend at any time during reinforce time) or offender (defender may defend only at the end of reinforce), or weekly timetable that has X hours of vulnerability window total, set by defender with some restrictions.

Big objects are Always lucrative target. High security rating may mean defender-favored reinforce, or less hours on weekly vulnerabilty, or invulnerability in case of high security and smaller structures. But big pinatas are always subject to siege, and should be priority target. Their destructuion will greatly hurt area sec rating on top of normal benifits. They can also be requirements of high sec rating. This way, there are always 2 way to lower are sec rating - either take out defenses, or asault big structures.

 

 

Now unto how this is intended to play out: peaceful players would try to settle in populated peaceful areas to minimise property risk. Defenses will be build to mantain rating and protect against small ganks. Or in remote unknown areas.

After PvP, ships remain unsecure and can be fought in otherwise safe territory, but territory owner will be unhappy either way, as pvp lowers sec rating

In uninhabited regions there will be pvp for online objects with no mechanical consequences, but there may be societal.

Small assets and majority of goods stored in secure areas, or being left alone for a long time in slightly secure areas will be protected

Immobile structure (that may also be battleships that havent moved in a long while!) will operate as they do in EVE, with big response timers, and maybe multiple sieges.

Big faction warfare will be a mix of systematic destruction of defense, sieges of major structures, and frantic evacuation of everyone before rating drops

 

Cheers!

EDIT: how the hell did I bust line spacing...

EDIT2: added territory ownership case into Object security

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Compared to what has been discussed in this thread, this would be carebear heaven, but even now alot of players are afraid to leave hisec for some reason. Anything that is way more hardcore is death sentence for subscriber count. And for good reason, people do not consider looking over the shoulder every second a good fun.

From what I seen, DU devs are aware of the issue. They mentioned players returning after months of absence, and their stuff being there.

 

Whatever system will be put in place will likely have inbuilt security for player built stuff, all valuables can probably be stored somewhere at no risk, structures will have big(several days) response time, additional systems will be in place to protect new players(ESPECIALLY new players) and small groups  from large group bullying.

 

Basically ^^ this ^^. No player is going to stay and play a game, if what took them hours/days/weeks can be gone in minutes. This, after all, is a GAME, not a job. Game = entertainment = fun = enjoyment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here goes rough draft:

 

1)PvP taging

Owner can mark any object to be pvp taged. There are 2 types of tags: offensive and defensive. PvP taged defensive objects are usual defense measures: turrets, weapon platforms, patrolling ships, afk battleships left as weapon platforms. Their goal is protect assets in area. Offensive taging is reserved for attacking/raiding ships. Any PvP tag means object is viable for combat.

 

2)Area security rating

This rating shows how safe given area is. It is increased by having many(based on player trafik?) defensive objects, and also no PvP encounters. It is lowered by active PvP in area, especially destruction of defensive objects. In uninhabited systems it sits at neutral 0. Having high positive security rating means non-pvp assets are better protected. For smaller object it means assets cannot be damaged, and very high rating means they will be automatically evacuated when it drops. For bigger it means less defense frequency (we will get to that). At neutral rating, small assets are fully vulnerable (even to non-pvp tagged), and negative gives higher defense frequency for larger objects.

 

3)Object security rating

Recent events may affect how secure given ship is. For example, pvp ship dropping tag will have low security rating for some time. This means revenge can be exacted on raiders to certain degree, even if they try to flee. Battle may happen in their defended syste and they will have advantage due to pvp-taged defenses, but they are still fully vulnerable. The same to lesser instinct goes for non-taged ships that recently engaged in pvp activity in low security regions. Also, zone ownership also boosts rating and is both nice bonus and lucrative target.

 

Whenever small objects sit unused for long time in slightly positive area, they gain high security rating, which means they will be automatically evacuated.

 

For big objects system is different. They operate based on concept of defense frequancy. It may be reinforce mechanic, set by defender (defender may defend at any time during reinforce time) or offender (defender may defend only at the end of reinforce), or weekly timetable that has X hours of vulnerability window total, set by defender with some restrictions.

Big objects are Always lucrative target. High security rating may mean defender-favored reinforce, or less hours on weekly vulnerabilty, or invulnerability in case of high security and smaller structures. But big pinatas are always subject to siege, and should be priority target. Their destructuion will greatly hurt area sec rating on top of normal benifits. They can also be requirements of high sec rating. This way, there are always 2 way to lower are sec rating - either take out defenses, or asault big structures.

 

 

Now unto how this is intended to play out: peaceful players would try to settle in populated peaceful areas to minimise property risk. Defenses will be build to mantain rating and protect against small ganks. Or in remote unknown areas.

After PvP, ships remain unsecure and can be fought in otherwise safe territory, but territory owner will be unhappy either way, as pvp lowers sec rating

In uninhabited regions there will be pvp for online objects with no mechanical consequences, but there may be societal.

Small assets and majority of goods stored in secure areas, or being left alone for a long time in slightly secure areas will be protected

Immobile structure (that may also be battleships that havent moved in a long while!) will operate as they do in EVE, with big response timers, and maybe multiple sieges.

Big faction warfare will be a mix of systematic destruction of defense, sieges of major structures, and frantic evacuation of everyone before rating drops

 

Cheers!

EDIT: how the hell did I bust line spacing...

Go play in a PvE server in WoW, nobody will touch you there. Sandbox games are clearly not for you mate if you wnant PvP to be "tagging". Learn what the word EMERGENT means. Your "PvP tagging" is the exact opposite. So, I want to invade your planet and take your resources, but FIRST, I have to make an appointment on your schedule? You want your turf to be safe? Put turrets and mines. THAT is emergent.

 

You know what else is emergent? Having settled near a hornet's nest of Griefers without using your higher-mental functions Mama Nature and evolution bestowed you. So what? You become immune? No, you get wrecked and relocate, this time, joining an Empire and moving behind their borders, deep where everything is safe. There you will find your peaceful coexistence and THAT AS WELL, is emergent. 

 

Basically ^^ this ^^. No player is going to stay and play a game, if what took them hours/days/weeks can be gone in minutes. This, after all, is a GAME, not a job. Game = entertainment = fun = enjoyment.

That's why they have discussed how Territory Claims work and how you can be forced to relinquish control and become an eparchy of an empire or outpost for an organisation. If you don't want to play s sandbox MMO, that's fine, but stop trying to claim "nobody will play the game". That's your opinion. You are talking of a sandbox MMO with EMERGENT GAMEPLAY. If you don't like EMERGENT GAMEPLAY which includes people nuking your city, then don't play it. Or even better, go play Landmark and enjoy no PvP and pretty much NOTHING at all due to that.

 

 

 

On a side note, please ignore AttacKat, he's an obvious troll. He's argueing against any suggestion while clearly stomping on the game's core principle of a sandbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking of a sandbox MMO with EMERGENT GAMEPLAY. If you don't like EMERGENT GAMEPLAY which includes people nuking your city, then don't play it. Or even better, go play Landmark and enjoy no PvP and pretty much NOTHING at all due to that.

On a side note, please ignore AttacKat, he's an obvious troll. He's argueing against any suggestion while clearly stomping on the game's core principle of a sandbox.

 

EMERGENT = in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent. A pretty open statement with no clearly defined limits/goals/direction, IMHO.

 

As for me being a troll, again, that is your opinion and you are entitle to it, as much as I am entitle to mine in this forum and post my PoV just you have the rights on yours.

 

BTW, calling me a troll is a personal attack, which is something this forum does now allow. So please retrain from personal attacks when you cannot agree with other people's PoVs or statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go play in a PvE server in WoW, nobody will touch you there. Sandbox games are clearly not for you mate if you wnant PvP to be "tagging". Learn what the word EMERGENT means. Your "PvP tagging" is the exact opposite. So, I want to invade your planet and take your resources, but FIRST, I have to make an appointment on your schedule? You want your turf to be safe? Put turrets and mines. THAT is emergent.

 

You know what else is emergent? Having settled near a hornet's nest of Griefers without using your higher-mental functions Mama Nature and evolution bestowed you. So what? You become immune? No, you get wrecked and relocate, this time, joining an Empire and moving behind their borders, deep where everything is safe. There you will find your peaceful coexistence and THAT AS WELL, is emergent. 

 

That's why they have discussed how Territory Claims work and how you can be forced to relinquish control and become an eparchy of an empire or outpost for an organisation. If you don't want to play s sandbox MMO, that's fine, but stop trying to claim "nobody will play the game". That's your opinion. You are talking of a sandbox MMO with EMERGENT GAMEPLAY. If you don't like EMERGENT GAMEPLAY which includes people nuking your city, then don't play it. Or even better, go play Landmark and enjoy no PvP and pretty much NOTHING at all due to that.

 

 

 

On a side note, please ignore AttacKat, he's an obvious troll. He's argueing against any suggestion while clearly stomping on the game's core principle of a sandbox.

Wow.... just wow.

 

I describe a system where both attacker and defender get chance at success, defender has means of making himself safe (not completely in most cases), and PvP is not insta gank of everything and anything. The system is basicly "blow defenses first, then move for juicy stuff, but defender gets reasonable response time". But the response is telling me to GTFO from this game, because its not for me (so, you decide for who this game is?). Impresive thing is that you didn't really read into it. Otherwise advice moving more safer space away from griefers (while mocking mental functions? nah, its just the tone), is exactly what I described. This protection system is exactly about safer spaces. If there are griefers operating nearby, it's impossible to have hi security rating. The high rating literally means "lots of people live here and nobody kills others". Perhaps you should put more effort into describing system that actually works? Outside of whole "atacker owns everything". And while at it, explain how exactly my claim about no popular MMOs with free high-consequance combat is incorrect, and how your vision will be fun.

 

I admit that many of your comments are correct, your pseudo-science theories are fun, but this one I can't comprehend being ANYTHING close to constructive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EMERGENT = in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent. A pretty open statement with no clearly defined limits/goals/direction, IMHO.

 

As for me being a troll, again, that is your opinion and you are entitle to it, as much as I am entitle to mine in this forum and post my PoV just you have the rights on yours.

 

BTW, calling me a troll is a personal attack, which is something this forum does now allow. So please retrain from personal attacks when you cannot agree with other people's PoVs or statements.

On every thread you go you disagree with anything on the topic and keep repeating yourself. Stating you are trolling at this point is more of a collctive fact on your part. You are simply here to make people angry (and many oh many are angry with you).  

 

Your name is also a dead giveaway. You are like a comicbook villain. Mr. Sinister, Hugo Strange, Donald Trump. You? AttackAt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.... just wow.

 

I describe a system where both attacker and defender get chance at success, defender has means of making himself safe (not completely in most cases), and PvP is not insta gank of everything and anything. The system is basicly "blow defenses first, then move for juicy stuff, but defender gets reasonable response time". But the response is telling me to GTFO from this game, because its not for me (so, you decide for who this game is?). Impresive thing is that you didn't really read into it. Otherwise advice moving more safer space away from griefers (while mocking mental functions? nah, its just the tone), is exactly what I described. This protection system is exactly about safer spaces. If there are griefers operating nearby, it's impossible to have hi security rating. The high rating literally means "lots of people live here and nobody kills others". Perhaps you should put more effort into describing system that actually works? Outside of whole "atacker owns everything". And while at it, explain how exactly my claim about no popular MMOs with free high-consequance combat is incorrect, and how your vision will be fun.

 

I admit that many of your comments are correct, your pseudo-science theories are fun, but this one I can't comprehend being ANYTHING close to constructive

The problem with what you state is a common-occurance of people wanting Dual to be EVE 2.0. Your proposal thorws out of the window any thought of ground combat. I guess for you to play EVE for years you forgot that 3D games can be other things rather than point and click adventures where you pat your pretty ship in high-sec space. and yo uwant to bring high-sec to your all time favourite. No surprise attacks. At this point I'm waiting for you to propose a WoW battleground system and a RvB system as well. Why bother with ideas like sandbox right? Just copy and paste your favourite MMO, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On every thread you go you disagree with anything on the topic and keep repeating yourself. Stating you are trolling at this point is more of a collctive fact on your part. You are simply here to make people angry (and many oh many are angry with you).  

 

Your name is also a dead giveaway. You are like a comicbook villain. Mr. Sinister, Hugo Strange, Donald Trump. You? AttackAt. 

 

LMAO, I have been using this nick name since the 90s, please, dont make any ass-u-me-ptions just because someone do not see eye to eye with your PoV. BTW, it is AttacKat, not AttackAt.

 

This sub-forum, after all, is the IDEA BOX, where players come here to share ideas. There is nothing in this forum states ALL ideas/input must agree with the original idea. My disagreements may not be something you wish to see, but it does high light issues that can become problems in a game if the devs do nothing about it. The mare fact the OP exist, it is asking for people to poke at it and look for possible loopholes so we can all help make the idea better, however the input may sound.

 

Sorry buddy, if you cannot accept the fact that people WILL disagree with you, be it once or ALL the time, maybe posting on forums isn't for you. If you have any more personal matters to discuss about me, take it off line with me personally, and please keep the forum clear of unnecessary drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO, I have been using this nick name since the 90s, please, dont make any ass-u-me-ptions just because someone do not see eye to eye with your PoV.

 

This sub-forum, after all, is the IDEA BOX, where players come here to share ideas. There is nothing in this forum states ALL ideas/input must agree with the original idea. My disagreements may not be something you wish to see, but it does high light issues that can become problems in a game if the devs do nothing about it. The mare fact the OP exist, it is asking for people to poke at it and look for possible loopholes.

 

Sorry buddy, if you cannot accept the fact that people WILL disagree with you, be it once or ALL the time, maybe posting on forums isn't for you.

The hypocrisy on this post made me cringe. 

 

And I would expect you to be trolling for a long time, you seem a veteran in the trade good sir.

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...