Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Wraithbane wrote:

As I stated, this game needs either a Dev, or an experienced, well connected CM to handle dealing with the player base, and providing information and insight into the Dev's vision for the game. Absent that, most people will assume the worst, and thats not good for the games business model.

I think this is a very good point. Managing expectations is a very important part of good business, and that never happened here, so we led ourselves into believing that the game would become what we wanted it to be.

I think having someone deal more openly and consistently with the players would also help to avoid rumors of 'bias' or other underhanded dealings.

Nevertheless, I can't blame the devs for this- they are a small group, after all, and are rightly spending their time on the game itself. Gamers, on the other hand...

All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful - Kohelet Rabbah 7:16

"My transaction log shows all my NIC was from selling kernals.  All of it."
"Savin's outrage tears are the best tears." - Anonymous ***

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

The game plays like this, but I want it to play like THIS.

When everything is abundant there is little conflict.

The one great tool the Dev's have for controlling the meta game, alliances, are resources.

But even without that, if you read through the forums, the limited outposts have been major players in the internal alliance conflicts; even though they have no real strategic value.

Previously Norhoop alliance worked because there was plenty of resources, there was no reason to fight over prime spots since a single Red Epitron tile could be mined for hours. Technically the only reason to fight at all was for fun or an outpost.

Without conflict the game stagnates.

I think everyone will agree, the most excitement happens when there is strife in an alliance, and a member breaks off and stirs things up.

As of now there are still alot of spare minerals floating around the system, but once those are depleated the cost of everything will go up and alliances will be stressed.

28 (edited by Arga 2011-02-10 02:58:19)

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Savin and Wraith are making excellent points too.

The devs have alluded to new content coming out based on the lore of the game. This may change the way it is played and entice some players back.

Wouldn't it be great to log in and have the islands over-run with non-respawning adds... thousands of them, finally defeating them with a server wide alliance, to find new land masses...

edit: that is the land masses only show when there are enough players on the server to defeat the poop-pile load of adds.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Arga wrote:

Without conflict the game stagnates.

Absolutely. And the patch definitely added some conflict- I think it made many PVPers happy, and will continue do so for a while.

I think that you are right about scarcer resources testing the bonds of an alliance; perhaps it will turn out that way. Unfortunately it appears that there will be a race between dwindling resources and a shrinking player base, so the lack of resources may ultimately not be felt at all.

Also, I have to disagree with you that adding new content will cause players to return: the game is simply moving in a direction that will have a minimal attraction to PvE players.

All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful - Kohelet Rabbah 7:16

"My transaction log shows all my NIC was from selling kernals.  All of it."
"Savin's outrage tears are the best tears." - Anonymous ***

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Arga wrote:

Previously Norhoop alliance worked because there was plenty of resources, there was no reason to fight over prime spots since a single Red Epitron tile could be mined for hours. Technically the only reason to fight at all was for fun or an outpost.

Without conflict the game stagnates.

I think everyone will agree, the most excitement happens when there is strife in an alliance, and a member breaks off and stirs things up.

As of now there are still alot of spare minerals floating around the system, but once those are depleated the cost of everything will go up and alliances will be stressed.

now dont you go getting your hopes up that norhoop will turn on each other like a pack of dogs.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Dev's listen up.

Pure pvp based mpogs dont work. You need a PvE layer underneath with the associated carebears for the pvpers to feed off.  Its not a FPS. The game mechanics dont transfer over the same. If you want population make it fun for the carebears as the player base will always have them as the majority.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Wraithbane wrote:

Absent that, most people will assume the worst, and thats not good for the games business model.

hmm, i didn't know that Wraithbane and Savin are "most" here.

Ingame, a DEV already announced that next patch will be about PvE issues. I did quote him somewhere too on that.
Im just waiting for the DEV blog entry about that.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

33 (edited by Alexander 2011-02-10 14:11:45)

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Full PVP games do work but the human race is breed to fear death and losses to the point they won't play them unless they're of the higher form of humanity. This is not a full PVP game. It's just a large part of it. This games circle of life includes PVP in most areas. Market, resources and combat.

People that can't accept loss can go back to a fluffy cuddly game. This game is no way full PVP and new PvE content is coming in all the time.

EVE has open-world anywhere PVP but also punishes you for it. EVE seems to work in my opinion. At least on Alpha we can't alpha-strike you and loot you lovely corpses.. Yet.. Roll on wars. Nowhere will be safe.

The Game

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

What I would like if islands are added is to get the the wild wild west feel like in the 1700's and 1800's in the US west.

Untamed, lawless islands with no outposts (except maybe those built by players).  Lots of good mining (maybe even spontaneously growing Noralgis) and good spawns to attract the industrialists which in turn draw all kinds of pvpers.

Good stuff.

"...we will take undefended gammas and stations."  -Cassius of STC

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Yep Mongolia - thats one of more immersive approaches - and with some additions surely the way to go.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Intruder wrote:

now dont you go getting your hopes up that norhoop will turn on each other like a pack of dogs.

I only point out that it will be stressed.

How your leadership responds to the stress is up to them, but something will have to change. I know what I would suggest, but I'm not your leadership smile

Something will change, and change is good.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Savin wrote:

Also, I have to disagree with you that adding new content will cause players to return: the game is simply moving in a direction that will have a minimal attraction to PvE players.

I have nothing but hope left. smile

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Annihilator wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:

Absent that, most people will assume the worst, and thats not good for the games business model.

hmm, i didn't know that Wraithbane and Savin are "most" here.

Ingame, a DEV already announced that next patch will be about PvE issues. I did quote him somewhere too on that.
Im just waiting for the DEV blog entry about that.

Chuckle... It would hardly be the first(nor last) time that I'm been branded a heretic... ^^  Its been my experience over the decades, that in the absence of information, people will speculate and project. Given this context, and the situation, that does tend to bring out the worst.  Thats not good for a new indy companies business model. Especially when they do not have an established player base yet.

If you can't kill it, don't make it mad.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Alexander wrote:

Full PVP games do work but the human race is breed to fear death and losses to the point they won't play them unless they're of the higher form of humanity. This is not a full PVP game. It's just a large part of it. This games circle of life includes PVP in most areas. Market, resources and combat.

People that can't accept loss can go back to a fluffy cuddly game. This game is no way full PVP and new PvE content is coming in all the time.

EVE has open-world anywhere PVP but also punishes you for it. EVE seems to work in my opinion. At least on Alpha we can't alpha-strike you and loot you lovely corpses.. Yet.. Roll on wars. Nowhere will be safe.

Well, the problem with that is, that as EVE has demonstrated, there are a lot more of us "fluffy, cuddly" CareBears than there are PvP types.  If we leave the game, we take all of our lovely green Money with us.... ^^  Thats usually not considered to be good for a games business model.  Games in which "Nowhere is safe" tend to have a VERY limited appeal, and thus a very limited profit base.  Given what these games take to create and sustain, thats not at all a wise course of action.

If you can't kill it, don't make it mad.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Wraithbane wrote:
Alexander wrote:

Full PVP games do work but the human race is breed to fear death and losses to the point they won't play them unless they're of the higher form of humanity. This is not a full PVP game. It's just a large part of it. This games circle of life includes PVP in most areas. Market, resources and combat.

People that can't accept loss can go back to a fluffy cuddly game. This game is no way full PVP and new PvE content is coming in all the time.

EVE has open-world anywhere PVP but also punishes you for it. EVE seems to work in my opinion. At least on Alpha we can't alpha-strike you and loot you lovely corpses.. Yet.. Roll on wars. Nowhere will be safe.

Well, the problem with that is, that as EVE has demonstrated, there are a lot more of us "fluffy, cuddly" CareBears than there are PvP types.  If we leave the game, we take all of our lovely green Money with us.... ^^  Thats usually not considered to be good for a games business model.  Games in which "Nowhere is safe" tend to have a VERY limited appeal, and thus a very limited profit base.  Given what these games take to create and sustain, thats not at all a wise course of action.

50% of the games landmass is completely safe from players. 50% is mostly safe if you're in an alliance.
Money isn't green either. And nor should be eggs.

The Game

41 (edited by Arga 2011-02-10 23:40:25)

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Wraithbane wrote:

Well, the problem with that is, that as EVE has demonstrated, there are a lot more of us "fluffy, cuddly" CareBears than there are PvP types.

There is a well written thesis paper, which I don't have here at work, about player killers in MMO's. The summary is just what you would expect, although the author goes into some great detail about why, games can only support a limited number of player killers.

Now, the difference between this paper and Perp is that he is talking about gankers. Perp PVP is not truely or fully ganking; which in the context of the paper is non-consensual PVP. By entering the beta islands players are by default agreeing, or at least acknowleding they could be the target of PVP; even if they are trying to avoid it.

Eve has the issue where players can be ganked, the ganker just needs to be willing to accept the penalty of the action. This works because there are relatively few PK'ers/gankers in relation to the population as a whole; that is the Thesis paper predicts that Eve will support this because of a sustainable ratio.

If Perp were to implement a non-consensual PVP mechanic, that is open PVP, then I would agree that the current server imbalance of gankers to carebears would result in an immediate departure from the game of all non-pvp aligned players.

As it stands now, it simply the lack of pve content that is reducing the Carebear population, and not the PVP aspects.

Edit: the thesis paper is not mine, felt it needed clarification as I reread the post

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

But, what about green eggs and Ham. I hear Sam likes them.

Re: Feedback to DEVs after some times playing

Alexander wrote:
Wraithbane wrote:
Alexander wrote:

Full PVP games do work but the human race is breed to fear death and losses to the point they won't play them unless they're of the higher form of humanity. This is not a full PVP game. It's just a large part of it. This games circle of life includes PVP in most areas. Market, resources and combat.

People that can't accept loss can go back to a fluffy cuddly game. This game is no way full PVP and new PvE content is coming in all the time.

EVE has open-world anywhere PVP but also punishes you for it. EVE seems to work in my opinion. At least on Alpha we can't alpha-strike you and loot you lovely corpses.. Yet.. Roll on wars. Nowhere will be safe.

Well, the problem with that is, that as EVE has demonstrated, there are a lot more of us "fluffy, cuddly" CareBears than there are PvP types.  If we leave the game, we take all of our lovely green Money with us.... ^^  Thats usually not considered to be good for a games business model.  Games in which "Nowhere is safe" tend to have a VERY limited appeal, and thus a very limited profit base.  Given what these games take to create and sustain, thats not at all a wise course of action.

50% of the games landmass is completely safe from players. 50% is mostly safe if you're in an alliance.
Money isn't green either. And nor should be eggs.

But what else goes with ham, if not green eggs? ^^ The worlds reserve currency(US dollar) is in fact green.  Thus all roads lead(eventually) to New Rome on the Potomac. ^^

50% is safe so far. But given some of the direction we are seeing, it may not remain that way.

If you can't kill it, don't make it mad.