If you lose your equipment to a player in either game, it's gone. yes and no but both are less forgiving than Star Citizen. then you just get to hike back to them for potentially literal hours before you can even recover your equipment. Tarkov does but you only get your gear back on tarkov if the person who killed you didn't take your gear for themselves.ĭayZ doesn't have it at all so yeah, you're right back in the action, but your gear is gone forever unless a friend can recover it for you. There will never be a better challenge than an experienced player pilot or a skilled FPS player tracking a bounty into a bunker. The AI missions, the environmental hazards - it's all flavor and some nudges for players to do certain things in certain ways but. You have to plan for how you're going to handle player interactions from what ships you use to whether or not you ask someone in a fighter to hang out with you while you pick up a major shipment. With current player caps, the stanton system is big enough that you can reasonably avoid players but you might run into people at any given point. If someone pops up on your radar, you don't know if they're friendly or a pirate or if they're just roleplaying a 9-tails member causing havoc - you don't have to shoot on sight but you have some decisions to make. Half the fun of open world games like this is the fact that, in addition to the environment and built-in challenges of missions, players are wild cards. Have you ever played DayZ? or Escape from Tarkov? It remains to be seen what kind of balance is actually the most fun, but there should be a range of security levels throughout the verse. We'll see.įor personal weapons, a lot of the more organized places will require you to either leave your guns on the ship or leave them with customs, though they also plan to include ways to bypass customs in some situations, which could be interesting.īasically the plan is that security won't be perfect in most places, it'll just be enough to make life more difficult for PvPers but not totally impossible in order to keep things interesting. Point is they are thinking about it and they want it to be as "organic" as possible - like, "armistice zones" don't exist in lore afaik, nor do "weapons nullifiers." EMPs do exist, though, and may factor into defenses as you suggest. Could see distortion weapons on those turrets, who knows. I believe the plan is to have automated turrets that will be strong enough to dissuade random griefers, though a coordinated attack could get through. what's the point of these massive space stations if they can't keep a ship trying to dock on their station from getting attacked mere meters away? My concern isn't about the "effectiveness" of the station's defenses, but about the protective measures the player can rely on. Okay, I've thought a very simple solution of a preventative measure - You should have to disable your weapons when within the arimistice zone of a station, and if you fail to do so after a certain amount of time - or you fire them - you get crimestat and the station's defense systems engage. Otherwise the victim has no choice but to fight or die, which frankly just isn't feasible in some ships. There needs to be some way to 'run to safety' for people. I feel like stations, at least when in close proximity, should have the same weapon nullifiers that cities have. Sure the greifer get's punished, but not before geifing someone, which to me kind of feels like it defeats the point. Specifically those around stations, where a majority of the gameplay interaction takes place? You can still be attacked - and most likely killed - while in an "armistice" zone, so what's the point of the distinction in the first place? Them getting a crimestat for engaging doesn't help the victim if they're already dead.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |