Jump to content
Vorengard

It's a Problem that Ship-to-Ship Combat is a Stretch Goal

Recommended Posts

Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.

 

That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system.

 

For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone.

 

It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look.

 

I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is it will be months before anyone gets to outer space, but its actually Construct vs Construct, which means no tanks or mechs until they add it. 

 

I prefer that they get the fundamentals working before adding to the game.   Other developers have promised everything under the moon, and look where that got them. 

So, I'm willing to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually expecting this to be whether it is included in the full game, or instead in a future expansion.

 

Being subscription based means regular funds going in for expansion content. Hitting this stretch goal means having those funds available sooner, and as such having that content sooner.

 

Also I think it would be kind of funny for there to he a period of the game before ship weapons become a thing. To hurt someone you would have to get out of your ship to do it :) lemme pull over real quick and give this guy a piece of my mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even begin to describe how much the OP irks me. It is not only misleading in some cases but downright wrong. Hopefully due to a misunderstanding.

 

NB: No Construct vs Construct combat does not mean no PvP. There will be PvP in the form of Avatar vs Avatar combat. E.g. Boarding crews etc.

 

NQ has been blatantly transparent as to what features will be included and when. One reason for this is to set expectations. If Construct vs Construct combat cannot be added due to (seemingly) budget constraints, I am happy to wait as it will be one of the first things added after release. Don't want to wait? Get even more backers.

 

Does not having Construct vs Construct combat right out the gates suck? Hell yes. We all want it. But even mentioning NMS is not helping anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even begin to describe how much the OP irks me. It is not only misleading in some cases but downright wrong. Hopefully due to a misunderstanding.

 

NB: No Construct vs Construct combat does not mean no PvP. There will be PvP in the form of Avatar vs Avatar combat. E.g. Boarding crews etc.

 

NQ has been blatantly transparent as to what features will be included and when. One reason for this is to set expectations. If Construct vs Construct combat cannot be added due to (seemingly) budget constraints, I am happy to wait as it will be one of the first things added after release. Don't want to wait? Get even more backers.

 

Does not having Construct vs Construct combat right out the gates suck? Hell yes. We all want it. But even mentioning NMS is not helping anyone.

 

What kind of space game doesn't have space ship combat?

 

Yes, I know the answer to that question, but the vast majority of people don't. They will see a game with pacifist space ships and say "what the heck, this game sucks, why can't I put guns on my spaceship?" And, from a limited perspective, they will have a point. Launching the game without combat will be just as bad as launching the game in Alpha state. It will feel unfinished because it will be unfinished. I don't want to play a space ship game with spaceships that can't blow each other up, especially given the overwhelming number of competitors that will have this feature. I cannot express with words how much launching without ship combat will hurt the future of this game.

 

I mention NMS because it will be the first game to come to people's minds when they hear about DU. As soon as they hear the phrase "limitless universe" they'll say "oh no, I fell for this once and I am NOT going to go there again!" Du will have to overcome the massive distrust and negativity that is the specter of No Man's Sky, and "not talking about it" will not make that problem go away.

 

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but these are real issues for a lot of people, and we need to talk about them right now, not after launch when it's already too late. Hopefully we reach the stretch goal and this whole thing becomes irrelevant, but as of right now the Kickstarter has earned less than $5,000 in the last 24 hours, so something is clearly wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of space game doesn't have space ship combat?

 

Yes, I know the answer to that question, but the vast majority of people don't. They will see a game with pacifist space ships and say "what the heck, this game sucks, why can't I put guns on my spaceship?" And, from a limited perspective, they will have a point. Launching the game without combat will be just as bad as launching the game in Alpha state. It will feel unfinished because it will be unfinished. I don't want to play a space ship game with spaceships that can't blow each other up, especially given the overwhelming number of competitors that will have this feature. I cannot express with words how much launching without ship combat will hurt the future of this game.

 

I mention NMS because it will be the first game to come to people's minds when they hear about DU. As soon as they hear the phrase "limitless universe" they'll say "oh no, I fell for this once and I am NOT going to go there again!" Du will have to overcome the massive distrust and negativity that is the specter of No Man's Sky, and "not talking about it" will not make that problem go away.

 

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but these are real issues for a lot of people, and we need to talk about them right now, not after launch when it's already too late. Hopefully we reach the stretch goal and this whole thing becomes irrelevant, but as of right now the Kickstarter has earned less than $5,000 in the last 24 hours, so something is clearly wrong.

;) we'll get there, wether they hit the stretch goal or not it'll eventually be a part of the game. Flipping out probably won't do us much good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;) we'll get there, wether they hit the stretch goal or not it'll eventually be a part of the game. Flipping out probably won't do us much good

 

I'm really surprised by how completely unconcerned you are about this. You can't publish a space game under the guise of "one day we'll have combat." Sure, I believe the Devs when they say that. But how long will it take, and what happens to the game in the mean time? These are serious questions that I think we need answers to, and it absolutely makes the game harder to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch

 

That is just wrong.  

 

I know it's rare these days but it is actually possible to create a product that is successful because it's GOOD and people are happy after they buy it.  Not just because of internet hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised by how completely unconcerned you are about this. You can't publish a space game under the guise of "one day we'll have combat." Sure, I believe the Devs when they say that. But how long will it take, and what happens to the game in the mean time? These are serious questions that I think we need answers to, and it absolutely makes the game harder to sell.

So you are freaking about whether or not this function will be added... in a game that won't be out in at least 2 years... And you think it'll fail if it isn't there on launch...

 

Sure I'll bite.

 

How much are you helping right now? What is your expected or desired result here? Do you think the devs will look at your posts and think "hey this guy who is giving us no credit is right! We'll just go ahead and promise to do whatever people ask for in the forums!" This would set a lousy precident. Up until this point they have done a great job being transparent and staying HONEST. Is your intent to start a mob or a flame war? Are you trying to cause a panic, becase i can read outrage but no real support from you there.

 

Do you think they were proud to make ship-ship combat a stretch goal rather than a confirmed feature of their game? If I were them, that is not how I would have gone about it. I would have been less realistic or I would have straight up lied, because coming out and saying that a core element if their future game is a stretch goal is incredibly emberassing. The only explanation I may have is that they are being honest and realistic about ther current limitations, which is the opposite if what NMS did. This could hurt them, but it is incredibly brave (perhapse too brave) that they disclosed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's too much of a gamble to release without any form of combat.  I think they will have something, even if it's crude.  It will be a hell of a challenge though but I think this company is up to it.  The saving grace is that DU does so many other things too.   I'll admit a space game without space combat does sound kind of strange.  O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with OP here. 

as stated on the kickstarter:

 

 

 

"Construct vs Construct" combat is a the first stretch goal. If it's not reached during the Kickstarter campaign, it might be added later, after official release.

 

Personally, I think that's fairly ridiculous. Without this, avatar vs avatar combat will be the only alternative, and therefore boarding will be the only real combat. And any fight fought between two warrior groups with their warships will resemble old fashioned galleon boarding. Cool as that may sound, that being the only option really isn't favourable at all. CvC really is essential here. It can't just be an afterthought.

 

(edited because of extreme format failures)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess you should do all you can to make sure they reach the stretch goal then.

I'm getting married in october, but I decided to bite down and up to ruby despite my impending financial madness. Worth it! I'm doing my part!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much are you helping right now? What is your expected or desired result here? Do you think the devs will look at your posts and think "hey this guy who is giving us no credit is right! We'll just go ahead and promise to do whatever people ask for in the forums!" This would set a lousy precident. Up until this point they have done a great job being transparent and staying HONEST. Is your intent to start a mob or a flame war? Are you trying to cause a panic, becase i can read outrage but no real support from you there.

 

 

My purpose is to make it clear how big of a mistake I think this strategy is. I genuinely believe that this is a serious error, and the whole purpose of this forum is to voice our opinions about the direction of the game. Sitting here, saying nothing and just hoping everything will work out all right is completely unhelpful.

 

As to your last comment

 

 

Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed.

 

..............

 

I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision.

 

 

 

And

 

 

... "one day we'll have combat." Sure, I believe the Devs when they say that.

 

 

I have been nothing but supportive of the game in multiple places in this post alone; so if you're going to make accusation, please do your research first. You can disagree with me without being nasty about it. I am not causing a panic, I am expressing a legitimate concern about a legitimate problem.

 

That being said, I absolutely appreciate the Devs honesty in this matter, and I respect their commitment to telling us the truth even if we won't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd find it interesting to see a game its not just about blowing up stuff.

 

assuming the other things that /arent/ blowing shit up get proportionally more love.

maybe it is boring, maybe it sucks. or maybe its awesome and doesnt need combat.

 

we dont know, so we can as well just sit and wait ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

instead of jumping and screaming "the game will fail without combat!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well if you can't be asked to contribute based on what you see then I see no reason why the dev team should bend over backwards to make you happy.

 

I agree, the Devs should be doing more to show off their game. I would like to see some footage, I would like to see some examples of what you can build beyond the three things from the videos. But I don't need to have those things to back the game because I'm not a horrible cynic.

 

Also, coming onto the forums essentially trying to bait the devs into pandering to you is in rather poor form.

 

Despite agreeing with you here, you said this to me on my post earlier, and cant help but think that your last line in that post is hypocritical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite agreeing with you here, you said this to me on my post earlier, and cant help but think that your last line in that post is hypocritical. 

 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

You were literally asking the devs to give you, personally, a reason to back their kickstarter. Do I need to point out how radically different our positions are? You, asking for personal justification with no investment; me pointing out a perceived future problem with the game having already pledged my support for the game.

 

Either way, it makes no difference. We both agree with elements of both posts. So perhaps we can both go back to discussing the merits of this particular problem instead of attacking each other?

 

The point is that I disagree with this approach. NQ can go forward in whatever way they choose. I neither need nor expect a reply, but the whole point of this forums, or a community in general, is to express their opinions about the game. I have expressed mine because I know 2 other backers (both Ruby supporters) whose plans for this game revolve entirely around combat. I doubt they would continue their support if they knew combat was not going to be a part of the game at launch, which it will not be unless we find another $210,000 in 18 days. This is justifiable skepticism, not arm-flailing panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll bite.

 

You were literally asking the devs to give you, personally, a reason to back their kickstarter. Do I need to point out how radically different our positions are? You, asking for personal justification with no investment; me pointing out a perceived future problem with the game having already pledged my support for the game.

 

Either way, it makes no difference. We both agree with elements of both posts. So perhaps we can both go back to discussing the merits of this particular problem instead of attacking each other?

 

The point is that I disagree with this approach. NQ can go forward in whatever way they choose. I neither need nor expect a reply, but the whole point of this forums, or a community in general, is to express their opinions about the game. I have expressed mine because I know 2 other backers (both Ruby supporters) whose plans for this game revolve entirely around combat. I doubt they would continue their support if they knew combat was not going to be a part of the game at launch, which it will not be unless we find another $210,000 in 18 days. This is justifiable skepticism, not arm-flailing panic.

 

I personally think that forums like these for a pre-alpha game should be in some way useful for the developers, which is exactly why agree with you here. It's a post that shows a concern about the game that the devs might not know about, that I agree is a potential problem that they have the ability to change. Therefore it is, at least in intention, constructive. And yes I'll reply, as i'm not here just to throw a hissy fit, I'm here to be constructive.

I think we actually have very similar positions here: I wanted to highlight what I thought was a current gap in their PR that if filled might GAIN popularity for the game, you wanted to highlight a flaw in their current direction with the game as to prevent LOSS of popularity for the game. In the end its the same outcome, we want more people to like this game. So please don't think I just made my post because I wanted to be a special snowflake that bossed around developers. Even if I'm a blithering moron like you seem to think of me, just like everyone else I am in fact NOT a special snowflake. Therefore no matter how stupid or mislead a thought process might be you can bet someone else will have had the same thought process. Therefore by saying why I personally haven't donated yet, this should highlight why others might not have done so too. And that information should be useful for the devs. 

 

And yes, I'd like to think this is a discussion rather than an argument, so I'd also like to keep things civil. 

 

Back to the real subject here, what would you personally say is your lowest level of combat to keep you interested? I think that's a good point to progress to. As for myself I'd like for the combat to be more advanced than the ship acting as one unbreakable entity with a health bar that just explodes when it hits 0, but I'd settle for something only slightly more advanced than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Back to the real subject here, what would you personally say is your lowest level of combat to keep you interested? I think that's a good point to progress to. As for myself I'd like for the combat to be more advanced than the ship acting as one unbreakable entity with a health bar that just explodes when it hits 0, but I'd settle for something only slightly more advanced than that. 

 

To clarify, I expect to be playing the game regardless of the inclusion of combat at launch. My biggest concern is getting lots of other people to play in the face of that potential absence. I would be happy with anything at launch, because like the Devs, I expect this to be a game that starts small and simple and progresses to something special. If all we get is 2 guns and a basic HP bar, that will still be better than nothing, because the point of DU seems to be very heavily focused on building amazing things, not on destroying things.

 

I accept that premise. I welcome it even. But creations, be it a building, a ship, or a community, are made truly valuable by standing in the face of adversity. EVE taught me that. By removing adversity, even if only for "a while" as stated by the devs, you reduce the value of player accomplishments. That's why combat matters so much to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify, I expect to be playing the game regardless of the inclusion of combat at launch. My biggest concern is getting lots of other people to play in the face of that potential absence. I would be happy with anything at launch, because like the Devs, I expect this to be a game that starts small and simple and progresses to something special. If all we get is 2 guns and a basic HP bar, that will still be better than nothing, because the point of DU seems to be very heavily focused on building amazing things, not on destroying things.

 

I accept that premise. I welcome it even. But creations, be it a building, a ship, or a community, are made truly valuable by standing in the face of adversity. EVE taught me that. By removing adversity, even if only for "a while" as stated by the devs, you reduce the value of player accomplishments. That's why combat matters so much to me.

 

 

This is exactly why a lot of games fail or flourish. Take GW2 for instance. Im so bored with that game its not even funny. Its a pure crafting and mining game with a separate shallow PvP section. On the other hand EvE is very meta combat but its still going strong. I'm not a fan of meta/spreadsheet combat. I look for rich and deep game play for combat that has influence in that universe. We need to help the devs and come up with PvP game play that actually gets peoples imaginations going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After KS, the Devs can sell Alpha Acess for PayPal only users (who cna't access Kickstarter).

They can reach the goal later on.

This, exactly.

 

How much did Star Citizen raise in its campaign? $10 million? Four years later and it's well over $100 million now, on its way to becoming one of the most expensive games ever made.

 

All NQ need to do is get the extra €150,000 for the Kickstarter to be successful, and then spend the next two years showcasing the improvements they're making to the game whilst leaving a Paypal link somewhere on the website. I really doubt CvC combat won't be in the initial launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me PvP is one of the most important themes of the game. Be it the market, PvP, CvC. I'm fine with only having PvP at release, we KNOW that CvC comes at some point. I'm not one of those morons, trying a game and start a flamewar because some shit is not in the game I would want to have. If it comes at some point, no objections.

 

Edit: they said all along that CbC would not make it in the release but was a stretch goal, that's good. They are honest. They need to keep the playerbase updated and they need to be frank with us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...