Jump to content
MaximusNerdius

Balanced PvP Destruction System

Recommended Posts

I have made my point and stand by it. Those for whom it is intended will see it, and don't see any reason to further argue it in format current discussion has taken.

As I have mentioned in my first post, I don't see how full open no-rules PvP can work in mainstream MMO for reasons given there. And yes, neither do I want game to be such even if it was viable. 

 

And for the record, I don't expect ground combat to be something fundamentally different from space. If space is based around EvE-like lock-on system that is easier to implement and doesnt cost much network and processing, so will the ground. Ground combat is ALWAYS more complex than space in implementation. If they made ground combat as something realtime twitch based, there would be no reason not to make space as such. And I respect positives it brings (not being twitch based...) along with negatives.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made my point and stand by it. Those for whom it is intended will see it, and don't see any reason to further argue it in current discussion.

As I have mentioned in my first post, I don't see how full open no-rules PvP can work in mainstream MMO for reasons given there. And yes, neither do I want game to be such even if it was viable. 

 

And for the record, I don't expect ground combat to be something fundamentally different from space. If space is based around EvE-like lock-on system that is easier to implement and doesnt cost much network and processing, so will the ground. Ground combat is ALWAYS more complex than space in implementation. If they made ground combat as something realtime twitch based, there would be no reason not to make space as such. And I respect positives it brings (not being twitch based...) along with negatives.

 

Cheers!

While you have a point, you are forgeting that ships fire turrets - semi-automated turrets, which would require the EVE lock-on, cone of fire system the devs go for. Ground combat is direct. They could add a TERA lock-on on the ground, which gives the impression of an FPS gameplay, but it's actually working by "locking on" your target only if they are inside your crosshair by the end of the "casting" of your attack's animation. And yes, ground combat is a part of the game. You can take a planet, but you have to either make sure the enemy surrenders without any fighting and damage to infrastructure going on, or risk going down there in the death trap of urban warfare.

 

Nobody wants to conquer ruins you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Back to the original statement which you quoted, but clearly failed to understand ... "This, after all, is a GAME, not a job. Game = entertainment = fun = enjoyment."

 

I am switching back to giving my input on the forum discussions when necessary.

 

Peace brother, you can have the last word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original statement which you quoted, but clearly failed to understand ... "This, after all, is a GAME, not a job. Game = entertainment = fun = enjoyment."

 

I am switching back to giving my input on the forum discussions when necessary.

 

Peace brother, you can have the last word.

Kthnxbai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If space is based around EvE-like lock-on system that is easier to implement and doesnt cost much network and processing, so will the ground.

 

GAMEPLAY FEATURES: Immersive first person view in a futuristic sci-fi universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The same cannot be said for the attacker because both Builders and Fighters will have to spend time acquiring gear and upgrading skills.

If it takes Builders 40 hours to build contstructs and Fighters 5 minutes to destroy those contrsucts - Builders will stop building. It's not worth the effort.

Blatantly unfair for Fighters to have their fun in a handful of minutes while it takes builders tens of hours to have their fun.

The devs will definitely balance that since they've stated that Dual Universe is as much a building game as it is a PvP combat game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, there has to be a delicate balance. People will want to form settlements, cities, stations, and NQ recognise these things will take time, so in order for civilisation to take effective root in game, there has to be a balance between pvp and building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same cannot be said for the attacker because both Builders and Fighters will have to spend time acquiring gear and upgrading skills.

If it takes Builders 40 hours to build contstructs and Fighters 5 minutes to destroy those contrsucts - Builders will stop building. It's not worth the effort.

Blatantly unfair for Fighters to have their fun in a handful of minutes while it takes builders tens of hours to have their fun.

The devs will definitely balance that since they've stated that Dual Universe is as much a building game as it is a PvP combat game.

 

Remember though, that you will only have to design the building once, and that is the only part that takes active playing time.  After that rebuilding a destroyed construct can be automated if you have a construct snapshot or blueprint.

 

I will put this here again https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/18-devblog-arkship-security-or-where-does-pvp-start/:

 

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

Remember though, that you will only have to design the building once, and that is the only part that takes active playing time.  After that rebuilding a destroyed construct can be automated if you have a construct snapshot or blueprint.

 

"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."

 

I do not believe anyone here has issues with spending the cost or time to build things, the topic at hand is more about the time required to destroy that item. Given all the other stats being balanced, skills, etc, we are seeking a balance of construction vs destruction when the creation skill and destruction skill is on the same level. If that balance is not there, the builders side of the game will be more likely to leave because it isn't worth their effort to waste their time. This game will not be much of a game, especially when the devs keeps using "Minecraft" in their promotions and all you have is trigger-happy PvP players.

 

EG: If it takes a player 40 hours to build a building that is rated at 100 armor, it should take just as long for an attacker with 100 armor destruction power to take that building down, not 5 mins, 1 hour, or 5 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

 

I do not believe anyone here has issues with spending the cost or time to build things, the topic at hand is more about the time required to destroy that item. Given all the other stats being balanced, skills, etc, we are seeking a balance of construction vs destruction when the creation skill and destruction skill is on the same level. If that balance is not there, the builders side of the game will be more likely to leave because it isn't worth their effort to waste their time. This game will not be much of a game, especially when the devs keeps using "Minecraft" in their promotions and all you have is trigger-happy PvP players.

 

EG: If it takes a player 40 hours to build a building that is rated at 100 armor, it should take just as long for an attacker with 100 armor destruction power to take that building down, not 5 mins, 1 hour, or 5 hours. 

You can make something else than make up HP for buildings. You can actually put logic in building. 

 

 

Make a frame out of reinforced steel. Make floors out of concrete or whatever you prefer. Put reiforced materials on the outside of the building to withstand attacks. Similar to real life architecture. (Unless you put bombs on the connecting points of the I-beams and bring the building down from the inside #Infowars)

 

Sure, it wil ltake time, sure it will be difficult from a logistics stand point. But you can't expect making a wooden scyscraper and expect for it to last against an orbital strike.

 

Plus, this mechanism will prove you as a good builder, giving people insentive to buy your designs, instead of Johnny B. Derpson going out and building things out of scrapsheet that  fall over with the slightest windage.

 

Same mechanics could be applied to crafting ships. You make a frame, you put reinforced plating on the outside with lighter elements used for the interior to keep balance of mass (tihs is a physics game, remember that, mass plays a role).

 

 

But when it comes to a building, you don't have to care for mass and thrusters. You build the thing out of rhenium diborides for all I care. It's your building. Put windows made of bulletproof glass. Put golden foundations. It will make the thing so heavy, that pesky orbital strikes will bounce off of it (possibly, don't quote me on that, I'm not a civil engineer). The point is, having skill in building a tower, should play a role than simply "adding blocks to achieve it and calling it has an imaginary armor rating".

 

 

Good job AttacKat, you proved me wrong. You CAN make constructive criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

 

I do not believe anyone here has issues with spending the cost or time to build things, the topic at hand is more about the time required to destroy that item. Given all the other stats being balanced, skills, etc, we are seeking a balance of construction vs destruction when the creation skill and destruction skill is on the same level. If that balance is not there, the builders side of the game will be more likely to leave because it isn't worth their effort to waste their time. This game will not be much of a game, especially when the devs keeps using "Minecraft" in their promotions and all you have is trigger-happy PvP players.

 

EG: If it takes a player 40 hours to build a building that is rated at 100 armor, it should take just as long for an attacker with 100 armor destruction power to take that building down, not 5 mins, 1 hour, or 5 hours. 

 

First let me state that I do agree there needs to be a careful balance between destruction and construction.  With that...

 

Are you talking about 40 hours of real time waiting, i.e. automated building time, not actual playing time?  You cannot equate automated building time with active playing time.

 

Destruction is always quicker and easier than creation, that is a fact of life.  There does need to be a balance, but you cannot sum it up to a simple equation of 100 armor vs 100 bullets, or 40 hours vs 40 hours.  Things are never that simple.

 

Here's an idea.  NQ have already said that there will be invulnerability timers for Territory Units, similar to reinforcement timers in Eve Online.  Let's say a building takes 40 hours for an auto-rebuilder to build assuming it has all the resources it needs.  That building will have an invulnerability timer of up to 40 hours.  If attackers reduce the building's health down to 50%, the building becomes completely impervious to harm for 40 hours (during this time it also cannot be healed so it stays exactly at 50%).  This gives the defenders a chance to negotiate with the attackers, call in reinforcements or allies, rearm/repair defensive structures, or move their most valuable items to a safe place.  After 40 hours the attackers can come back to finish the building off.  The actual time spent by the attackers to destroy the building could be 100 hours, it could be 10 minutes, it depends on PvP balance factors, not on building time.

 

All static, fixed constructs can have an invulnerability timer based on the time it takes an auto-rebuilder to build it.  If it is a tiny hut that can be built by an autorebuilder in 5 minutes, its invulnerability timer is 5 minutes.  If it is a large house that takes 20 hours to be auto-built, its invulnerability timer is 20 hours.  What I'm unsure about is whether there should be a maximum time.  I mean if there is a truly gigantic structure that takes 3 months of real time to be auto-built, should its invulnerability timer be 3 months?  I don't know... maybe?

 

Any thoughts on this idea?  If this post gets a few likes then I'll post it as its own idea thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me state that I do agree there needs to be a careful balance between destruction and construction.  With that...

 

Are you talking about 40 hours of real time waiting, i.e. automated building time, not actual playing time?  You cannot equate automated building time with active playing time.

 

Destruction is always quicker and easier than creation, that is a fact of life.  There does need to be a balance, but you cannot sum it up to a simple equation of 100 armor vs 100 bullets, or 40 hours vs 40 hours.  Things are never that simple.

 

Here's an idea.  NQ have already said that there will be invulnerability timers for Territory Units, similar to reinforcement timers in Eve Online.  Let's say a building takes 40 hours for an auto-rebuilder to build assuming it has all the resources it needs.  That building will have an invulnerability timer of up to 40 hours.  If attackers reduce the building's health down to 50%, the building becomes completely impervious to harm for 40 hours (during this time it also cannot be healed so it stays exactly at 50%).  This gives the defenders a chance to negotiate with the attackers, call in reinforcements or allies, rearm/repair defensive structures, or move their most valuable items to a safe place.  After 40 hours the attackers can come back to finish the building off.  The actual time spent by the attackers to destroy the building could be 100 hours, it could be 10 minutes, it depends on PvP balance factors, not on building time.

 

All static, fixed constructs can have an invulnerability timer based on the time it takes an auto-rebuilder to build it.  If it is a tiny hut that can be built by an autorebuilder in 5 minutes, its invulnerability timer is 5 minutes.  If it is a large house that takes 20 hours to be auto-built, its invulnerability timer is 20 hours.  What I'm unsure about is whether there should be a maximum time.  I mean if there is a truly gigantic structure that takes 3 months of real time to be auto-built, should its invulnerability timer be 3 months?  I don't know... maybe?

 

Any thoughts on this idea?  If this post gets a few likes then I'll post it as its own idea thread.

Territorial Units can be an improptu "Force Field" over a city. (visually at least). Which would make sense that damanging the force field, would bring down the invulnerability. Perhaps, having Personal Claims in a Territory would act the same, with a force field that has to be taken down to destroy the building.

 

But my idea on materials playing and architecture playing a part on the building's durability is more organic I believe, instead of a an RPG idea of HP. Which would make sense, since the ships can be partially damaged, why shouldn't buildings act the same way as ships? I mean, NQ also confirmed that there are "Constructs", they don't recognise a ship made out of voxels differently than a building made out of vocels. So it's safe to assume that building a scyscraper should take into account its endurance on an attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Territorial Units can be an improptu "Force Field" over a city. (visually at least). Which would make sense that damanging the force field, would bring down the invulnerability. Perhaps, having Personal Claims in a Territory would act the same, with a force field that has to be taken down to destroy the building.

 

But my idea on materials playing and architecture playing a part on the building's durability is more organic I believe, instead of a an RPG idea of HP. Which would make sense, since the ships can be partially damaged, why shouldn't buildings act the same way as ships? I mean, NQ also confirmed that there are "Constructs", they don't recognise a ship made out of voxels differently than a building made out of vocels. So it's safe to assume that building a scyscraper should take into account its endurance on an attack.

 

Nothing is mentioned in the Territory Control devblog of TU's providing any kind of protective force field over a region and I would very much hope that that is not the case (for reasons you and I discussed in another thread https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/937-territory-claim-unit-function-suggestion/). EDIT: This suggests that TU's will not provide automatic force field protection "You can get control over a territory by "convincing" its owner or administrator to give a delegation to you, or, more traditionally, you can enter it, find the territory unit, destroy it and plant your own, or simply hack it. Expect it to be well hidden and well defended."

 

I completely agree about materials and structure playing a part in how durable and resistant to attack a building is.  But that is a PvP balance issue rather than a building time issue.  What if you value form over function and want to build a construct that is a work of art rather than a sturdy shelter?  Such a thing might take a long time to build or auto-build but only take a few minutes to destroy.  I think that is where some people have concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is mentioned in the Territory Control devblog of TU's providing any kind of protective force field over a region and I would very much hope that that is not the case (for reasons you and I discussed in another thread https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/937-territory-claim-unit-function-suggestion/). EDIT: This suggests that TU's will not provide automatic force field protection "You can get control over a territory by "convincing" its owner or administrator to give a delegation to you, or, more traditionally, you can enter it, find the territory unit, destroy it and plant your own, or simply hack it. Expect it to be well hidden and well defended."

 

I completely agree about materials and structure playing a part in how durable and resistant to attack a building is.  But that is a PvP balance issue rather than a building time issue.  What if you value form over function and want to build a construct that is a work of art rather than a sturdy shelter?  Such a thing might take a long time to build or auto-build but only take a few minutes to destroy.  I think that is where some people have concerns.

I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like emergent gameplay, a set of PvP rules to not attack landmarks. It's farfetched yes, but a way to reign on the chaos and make PvP more civilised rather that "derp-a-herp, shoot that pretty statue". Idk, we'll need to wait and see on that.

 

 

And yes, building a citadel around your TU would be wise. You can't build a citadel and want it to be pretty. PvP is war, and war is messy, war needs function over form. And building defenses should be not a call to fashion. It should be something that means business. 

 

And if you make buildings indestructibe or take 36 hours to take down, that would simply make PvP and invading other planets the but-end of a joke. Build a a kilometer wide structure around your TU. Another org comes and tries to take your planet. They have to wait 2000 hours to take down its HP. THAT is silly.

 

Having different voxels have different durability though is organic. You take your fleet, and focus fire on a point over the TU unit to break through, then your guys go in. Perhaps the opponent has thought of that and build the dome with reinforce materials to withstand anything. That's a way the defends can respond to attacks in time by repairing and outlasting the invaders. Cause remember, missiles are not forever and so is your play-time. Most people don't have time for a 40 hours siege, which gives birth to surprise night raids and having the need for the defenders to plan ahead and put some sort of ion cannons on tthe ground for defense, automated with LUA to strike on targets in orbit that are hostile.

 

Plus, the bombardment could insentivise a region's leader to give up, in fear of his friends and teammates yelling at him for not doing so and having their buildings destroyed during the "negotiations" for his e-pen pride. You know, that's how real life works as well. See Japan and what the reaction of its Generals was to the first atom bomb. On the second they changed their mind quickly.

 

I'm just saying, making a siege last 40 hours via actual gameplay and actively participating and putting a 40 hours timer on a siege has A LOT of difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, building a citadel around your TU would be wise. You can't build a citadel and want it to be pretty. PvP is war, and war is messy, war needs function over form. And building defenses should be not a call to fashion. It should be something that means business. 

 

Absolutely, completely agree.  I'm just talking about non-defensive structures though.  NQ have said in the past that players can seek fame by building awesome landmarks.  Those are about form over function.

 

 

And if you make buildings indestructibe or take 36 hours to take down, that would simply make PvP and invading other planets the but-end of a joke. Build a a kilometer wide structure around your TU. Another org comes and tries to take your planet. They have to wait 2000 hours to take down its HP. THAT is silly.

 

Having different voxels have different durability though is organic. You take your fleet, and focus fire on a point over the TU unit to break through, then your guys go in.

 

 

At first I was going to agree with this but then I thought that there is no reason why the two systems can't work together.  Let's use your example of a kilometre radius defensive structure around the TU.  You focus fire on a single point and break through that point.  You don't actually need to destroy the entire wall, just breach it.

 

NQ have said that they aspire to having hulls breachable, so as you say, the same should be true of static constructs.  The total "health" of a construct then relates to the health of the individual voxels that make it up, some of which might be completely destroyed.  Then just make auto-repairing a construct much quicker than auto-building one from scratch.

 

I'm just saying, making a siege last 40 hours via actual gameplay and actively participating and putting a 40 hours timer on a siege has A LOT of difference.

 

Yes, I agree, it's just reconciling the time it takes to create/destroy PvP constructs with the time it takes to create/destroy non-PvP constructs such as landmarks and dwellings and also ensuring that people don't wake up to find all their buildings destroyed over night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, completely agree.  I'm just talking about non-defensive structures though.  NQ have said in the past that players can seek fame by building awesome landmarks.  Those are about form over function.

 

Yes, I agree, it's just reconciling the time it takes to create/destroy PvP constructs with the time it takes to create/destroy non-PvP constructs such as landmarks and dwellings and also ensuring that people don't wake up to find all their buildings destroyed over night.

This is why I suggest the TU to act as force field, more to indicate that the area is shielded from damaging its constructs, with the force field acting as a collectivee shield for all of the buildings in its vicinity to ships firing from above, but allowing for players to pass through on the ground, giving meaning to ground combat as well., but that would mean that arkified areas and TU areas are not capable of being on the same place at the same time.

 

As I said times and times again, I'm in it for the ground combat. And nothing makes me more pumped for the prospect of going into a city and fighting through player-made plazas and having to traverse to the center of the force field projector to take it down. And having TUs act as force fields that need to be taken down in a "king of the hill" situation, makes more sense to me than "The 

 

 

And on the record this one, I do believe Arkified areas should exist to promote and protect player creativity from "pranksters". But make those arkified areas being specific in each planet, without the ability to place TUs in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain why I'm big proponent of reinforce-timer like solutions

 

This is not about what property and how much should be vulnerable, that I wrote up on earlier and still stand by it. This is about how exactly we implement players fighting to destroy and protect property.

 

For me it all comes down to interactivity on defenders side.Most of the time defender will be offline, or just away in the universe. And even in big groups people wouldn't just sit around doing nothing, waiting for imaginary attacker that isn't there. So what happens if we go with 'realistic' destruction system, like in Minecraft?

 

Absolute most of destruction will be done with no player interaction, that's what happens. Even if we make materials super-hard and destruction take hours, defender will just be sleeping. While attacker hammers at metal for hour with no fun or a interactivity. And for defender there is no good feedback and interactivity in building. You build a structure, one day you come back, and it's either destroyed, or slightly damaged and someone else is destroyed.No gameplay, no interactivity, no PvP.

 

Timer system on the other hand allows us to set up engagements both attacker and defender can easily attend, with quite little time expenditure on player's side. After structure gets banged and enters reinforce mode, defenders will have quite enough time to negotiate with attacker, gather friends support(same for attacker), and other things. That's gameplay alreadt without actual combat even taking place. And actual siege will also be actual PvP engagement, and not banging a head against metal wall. And defenders will see and experience how good their designs do in actual combat.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pantydraco


Ask yourself this. What regions will be under attack, if attacked in PvP? Borders.

There are people in the game that want to play a certain type of gameplay, like building, or merchants (some of you DO want that), others want to be making super starships and others might want to make fancy sculptures out of voxels, to sell to other players in the game as blueprints. Many of those peoples, do NOT want to PvP, they want to play and relax, have a laugh and socialise. So, why would all THESE people, have a homebase near borders? Which brings me back to my suggestion.

Borders are meant for defenses. You can't anything other than that. Having a fancy trading town on your borders, is like putting a money pinyata to a herd of toddlers with giant pirate flags for bats. They are gonna beat the shit out of it. But, the way the devs spoken of the voxel destruction system, means that borderworlds will be mostly outposts for YOUR side's PvPers, to go and regroup and have downtimes and safe logouts, and let's face it, parking spots :P , in the safety of the TU "force field" (it's not an actual force field, but a claim wide shield, I put quotes there for a reason).

So, with the "force field", you got your opportunity as a defender to respond to an attack, possibly via an alert system to the people that have declared that certain claim as their homebase, that their claim is under attack. No timers with unfair 40 hours countdowns for the attackers. No arbitrary HP for constructs. The system is already there with the way devs suggested voxels will work on terrain destruction, with bleeding "force" after impact on nearby voxels, so the defense system will probably work the safe for buildings made out of voxels.

Like it or not, throughout history peaceful settlements on borders or shores, were usualy the easy targets. Do not build your safe havens of creativity on borders. It's askin
g for viking raids. 


Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about 40 hours of real time waiting, i.e. automated building time, not actual playing time?  You cannot equate automated building time with active playing time.

 

Destruction is always quicker and easier than creation, that is a fact of life.  There does need to be a balance, but you cannot sum it up to a simple equation of 100 armor vs 100 bullets, or 40 hours vs 40 hours.  Things are never that simple.

1: The 40 hours includes time designing, gathering materials and... testing Lua scripting as will likely be the case for ships.

Rebuilding won't take as long designing, but gathering building materials will take hours. And gathering fuel for ships will likely take hours.

 

2: "Fact of life" is irrelevant. Dual Universe is a game; not real life. The devs are going to design the game for what's fun for Builders as well as what's fun for Fighters. The balance of gameplay is not going to be the same it is for games where you can simply purchase a new ship from an NPC vendor. The solution will not be simple, but it will need to be fair. Otherwise, Builders will stop building - and then there's no point in having a voxel game.

 

3: At this time, we don't need a new thread for players to devise "solutions". We need to play the game first to see if the devs' design strategies feel fair and then we can help tweak whatever they've already implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1: The 40 hours includes time designing, gathering materials and... testing Lua scripting as will likely be the case for ships.

Rebuilding won't take as long designing, but gathering building materials will take hours. And gathering fuel for ships will likely take hours.

 

2: "Fact of life" is irrelevant. Dual Universe is a game; not real life. The devs are going to design the game for what's fun for Builders as well as what's fun for Fighters. The balance of gameplay is not going to be the same it is for games where you can simply purchase a new ship from an NPC vendor. The solution will not be simple, but it will need to be fair. Otherwise, Builders will stop building - and then there's no point in having a voxel game.

 

3: At this time, we don't need a new thread for players to devise "solutions". We need to play the game first to see if the devs' design strategies feel fair and then we can help tweak whatever they've already implemented.

 

1: Time designing and testing constructs and scripts shouldn't really be a factor in what happens in PvP, at least not directly.  Only in terms of how effective that construct is in PvP.  If you spend 300 hours designing a gigantic glass building and fail to surround it with an infrastructure of defenses, both military and political, an invulnerability timer is the most you should expect.

 

2: It is true that game balance and fun gameplay are the most important factors when designing game mechanics, but that does not make "fact of life" irrelevant.  JC Baillie himself has said in a few places that he likes to look at the real life for inspiration when trying to find solutions to game mechanics.

 

3: I didn't suggest a new thread to devise solutions.  I suggested an idea to put in the ideas section.  NQ put that section there for players to put their ideas and discuss with the rest of the community.  NQ want to engage with their community and take ideas that they think are good.

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...