My two cents: PVE would be interesting, PVP would kill the game. Having military engagements as a resource sink and additional manufacturing tree, especially if it could be oriented toward the mid game, would be very interesting and I think very fun to a lot of players. A while ago, I made the following suggestion, I think something like it would create enough variety and excitement for players while not creating the problems we have seen with direct PVP competition.
3 Likes
I think it would be best to first test PvE combat and concentrate it into a closed enviroment (void sectors) so that if weird things happen nobody except the people that opted in are effected. A side effect would be that it would make void sectors interesting again because of new and higher yield taps in the new systems.
These would be a no from me or at least a very big opt-in.
1 Like
I think at first it would be a bit of a challenge, but eventually it would just become a routine part of things. Part of the reason I designed it the way I did was so that it scales well as the game grows. Early game, there wouldn’t be many if any planets, capable of spawning pirates, it wouldn’t be until later in the game when that happens, which incentivizes late game coordination of planetary settlement.
1 Like
-
I voted “for” competition - but NOT conflict. (which was impossible on your poll).
-
I have no problem allowing for competition among companies/corporations - but there should not be conflict that impacts individual players.
-
I think there should be hard limits on the ability of players to “grief” other players - but I am not entirely sure about the mechanisms. The problem with having multi-player parliaments because if there is only one governor - if there are issues with the population the governor can have things done against them - with a parliament the question is who do you blame if there are unemployed.
-
I tend to allowing competitive play - but I do think that players who just want to toil away should be protected from being impacted - maybe allow players to “opt-in” to aspects of competitive play?
-
I would have conflict at the Faction level - but use it abstractly - where the factions have “fights” and based on the amount of resources at the faction level could determine if planets change allegiance to factions. Corporations would compete on things. I am open to the idea of individuals competing - but that would need to be described in how things are actually run.
-
Yes - it is absolutely essential that players who don’t want to take part are unaffected. It would be too basic a change to a game which has long been a refuge for players from Eve who liked the economics but didn’t like the combat.
-
Too many variables to determine.
-
Maybe allow corporations to become their own factions as well? Allow new factions to be created.
4 Likes
If the play is “You are doing X and I am doing Y and we are in competition and both having fun”, then fine…
If the play “You are doing X and in doing so impose Y upon me making my experience unfun” then I do care…
Much of the discussion of conflict by those who want to bring it into the game has been around using their power in whatever form the game presents to make it unfun for that person there. Yes, I realize that this is a bit of a strawman.
A hypothetical “I’m going to spend $$$ and blockade Promitor and so you can’t land on it unless you’re using a 100t ship with Advanced Cloaking Gear” … that’s unfun for a lot of people. If that was changed to “Ok, not Promitor - that’s a special planet…” and instead changed that to XG-326e … well, that person is picking specifically on me (I’m the only person with a base on that planet).
If the goal of adding conflict is the ability to smash people’s sand castles… that’s something that some subset of the game will be looking for a different game to play.
2 Likes
Poll seemed to close pretty quick? Well I personally would love to see in game events, kinda like natural disasters in a sim city game, maybe stuff like solar flares cutting off power to a planet for a short period of time, alien invasions that would require money to be spent on defense?
I really don’t like the idea of destroying property, I think events should have very minor downsides, but decent good sides if we complete the event. Maybe the end of a solar flare could be a big party that increases morale and efficiency for a bit? the end of an alien invasion we get salvaged tech to bolster our stockpiles?
1 Like
I’m afraid that the undercurrent to your poll results is that players are bored, which is hardly surprising. A lot of games use PvP as a way of keeping people entertained in between content updates. Since that doesn’t really exist here, we have discussions like these instead.
I opted not to vote in the poll, as I found the question and provided answers vague. Instead, I will explain my perspective on this and ask some questions of my own.
Competition and Conflict are (in my opinion at least) not interlinked, which was the first issue I had with your question. Competition already exists within PrUn (simply look at LEAD) but that may be the wrong level of engagement and interactiveness that some players expect. How involved do you want these systems to be, and how meaningful the impact, matters - the more involved the more time spent on the game and the more meaningful the system the more impact you have on the opposing side.
You can be extremely involved, such as setting timers like EVE or WOW for stations/raids. You can also be extremely impactful, such as allowing full loot PvP (or other highly punishing systems). This matters greatly when you ask about if/how uninterested players will be affected. If you are going for an impactful system, you (by definition) reduce the ability to remain unaffected because not engaging with PvP is also a powerful option in itself.
Then you have the cost of PvP, which is rarely considered. How much does it “cost” the attacker if a PvP attempt is unsuccessful, and what are the obvious mitigations? Well, most players will take out the most minimal gear required to attack another, in order to reduce the burden that a loss would inflict on them. They will also bring multiple others (or have them on speeddial) to keep the numbers in their favor. If the cost is too low to PvP, then it will be a PvP paradise and if it is too high than PvP is ‘impractical’.
Once we have an idea of expectations, we can look to developer viability - which is going to take time. People have been asking for system reworks, government reworks, dynamic MMs, endgame content, shipping system, more recipes, more materials, PvP, PvE, etc. Please start ranking your level of desire for these, so the developers can get an idea of player appetite for these systems. The team is only so big, and any proposed system can only start limited.
With regards to the game’s ecosystem, community vitality has mostly been done at the behest of the community. I see a lot of calls for conflict systems from either MMO refugees or from endgame players who have ‘beaten the game’ but are not yet ready to leave. Right now the game is pretty vibrant if you’re looking for something more chill/relaxed but yes, the shine does wear off over time.
Then you have the impacts to game mechanics. As resources are moved to designated “PvP areas” in order to increase PvP interaction you put a lid on tech tree production and increase monopolistic actions. It is in the best interest of a corporation to monopolize when possible, to increase profits and to limit competitors. Something this ‘simple’ can easily reverberate across the current community in ways that may be more detrimental than first thought.
Trying to differentiate between “faction level”, “corporation level”, and “player level” is - at its core - meaningless. Players will be drawn into faction conflict regardless, as a meaningful PvP system would give them little choice. This is because any malus, no matter how small, would be seen as a nerf or debuff - and that won’t stand. The longer a system gives a bonus, the more that bonus becomes the baseline. You impact that in any way, you invite a response.
4 Likes
Disasters are really cool.
- I voted for more competitive/conflict mechanics.
- I’d be happy to see Faction v Faction mechanics or leaderboards of some kind. I prefer that the competitive/conflict mechanics are opt-in rather than mandatory.
- I think there should be a mix of hard restrictions and player tools to manage conflicts and griefing. An example of hard restrictions are the limitations on local rules in faction space, while non-faction space is more open ended.
- I think competitive mechanics done correctly can be good for the game, but done incorrectly would be really bad for it.
- I think Factions, Corps and Individual competition can all be good in their own ways. There could be a place for all of them. It’s worth noting that some corps are split up into subcorps for HQ benefit reasons, so I think corps are the least suitable unit for this, even if they are thematically the best. Corps are also generally of different sizes and primarily used as a badge and for the HQ. If I needed to join a specific CORP to take part in an event, I think that would be bad, likewise if I need to leave a corp to opt-out of an event.
- I think it’s very important to ensure that conflict/competition is opt in. I think it’s very important that someone can ignore these mechanics without being punished for it.
- Depends on how these mechanics are implemented.
- Some of the pushback on this topic is from people who have been negatively affected by recent events. I think this is a good example of why it’s important that someone can play the game without being affected by competitive aspects.
1 Like
First, while disasters might sound cool I think they are a terrible mechanic to add to the game - suddenly your carefully planned production system is disrupted by an earthquake? Good - this ship is delayed - and every ship I have on order (which is normally months out) is now also delayed and there is nothing I can do to fix that. Nope - would hate something like that.
Purple Orange brings up a different point - people have multiple corporations so they can have an HQ in different places for the production benefit. Maybe we need to allow corporations to have multiple HQs, but a player can only benefit from one at a time?
Either way - I will clarify that I have been playing this game for a while and am in no way bored - so personally I don’t want competition or conflict in the game. I add my thoughts here purely because I find if you don’t speak up then you end up getting something you don’t want. I would rather the Devs spend their time on other additions to the game (space elevators!).
1 Like
I voted similarly and agree on all points.
Mechanics for commercial competition could add the spice people seem to want in a way that matches the spirit of the game. Corp CXs, terraforming, production moats…I’m a product guy not econ and this is a faster horse issue.
But mechanics for conflict seems a strange thing to ask for. Aren’t there enough places scratching the space combat itch already? I don’t understand the desire to shoehorn something into the one place that’s great in large part because of that thing’s absence.
As others have said, the question is too broad, the problem is undefined, and may be a discussion of solutions looking for problems. Like, if you’re asking for combat mechanics because the game bores you, are you playing the right game? But if you’re looking for interesting and sophisticated ways to compete economically with the resources, production, and knowledge you’ve built…now we’re talking!
Plunderous Prosperous Universe 
4 Likes
I’ve been playing Prosperous Universe on and off for some years now. I really like this game. I don’t like large discord servers so I never took part in the original poll, never even saw it. For what it’s worth, I’d like to share my opinion as well.
If this game had any sort of non-consensual direct PVP, I wouldn’t be playing it. I like this game because it’s completely PVE, with the only “PVP” element being market competition. I wouldn’t be completely against consensual direct PVP of sorts, but only if I could be able to enjoy and participate in the whole game without ever taking part in the PVP.
I’d like to see some more restrictions on the system level for griefing. I agree that direct PVP would utterly destroy the game. I also agree that if direct PVP is added, it should be completely optional, and in no way restrict or affect strictly PVE players. While direct conflict would probably create more avenues for profit (like selling ammo) I would prefer making bullets to firing them. It would be a good money sink for more advanced players, but if it’s to the detriment of the PVE players, then it would quickly ruin the game, like most PVP-based browser games out there.
Thank you for making a post about this here.
2 Likes
I would still say that all faction system (and with that Bastion as NEO would expand into these systems) are a no conflict zone.
And just to make my point clear: I am not for conditionless combat, I am for PvE combat as a opt-in endgame activity and resource sink where the things that were produced matter and don’t just vanish into nothingness like MMs or a simple bar of “who throws more resources in wins”. That is why I am for having combat ships as we already have the modular ship construction and it would provide a lot of room for roleplay and player made lore.
“I built the bridge for the MEC Verdant, the ship that is escorting the Battleship MEC Moria One which is on the way to secure the system XX so that we can mine the newest resource in game”
(MEC = Moria Expeditionary Corps. Let me be,I am not good with names 
)
I am not for combat / piracy in the faction areas and I am not completely against PvP but if then only later and in a limited frame. The core of this game is being a calm production and shipping MMO which is the unique point of this game. Just adding combat to add combat would take away this unique point and could even make it “just another game”.
And I also think it should be a rather low priority, after specialization, plots, corp/gov rework, faction gov, …
1 Like
As one of the strong proponent of competitive/PVP gameplay, I’ll give my two cent.
I agree that a system put forward should make it opt in/out. In a way, that is already the system we have with faction space being much more limited in terms of taxes and gov motions.
My ideal implementation for PVP would go as follow.
- Have a government layer on the system (outside faction space) and have it able to collect its own level of taxes (somewhat limited but worth fighting over)
1a) if affraid of exploitation, set it at a fixed reasonable level - Instead of election, corp should be able to commit resources every month (war supplies for example) to control the system and receive the taxes
- Colour the system the chosen colour of a Corp.
The benefits of this system would be as follow
- Give a vanity goal (map painting) as end game pursuit
- Give a stronger reason to form corps and for them to develop industrial capabilities
- The fight takes place on a level removed from the player so no one is directly attacked
- Makes the universe landscape feel dynamic as you can observe corps fighting and give place to inter-corp politics and alliance
- Would give an outlet to those looking for competitive fights rather than market manipulation or other destructive option possible in the current system
2 Likes
This would lead to:
- small corps dying, as only big ones will be able to do any gov stuff.
- a lot of planets losing COGC and other upkeeps, because ppl can not be in gov without allocating resources to it big scale.
- casual players will leave, because they need to get into corp even if they do not want to (And I do not mean because they are forced into one because of game mechanic, but if this was reality, they would need to so they get any help, as help would probably be bound to membership instead of freely available grants. you now need the money for war after all and you can’t give it to someone who might end up in another hostile corp)
your text sounds like having the taxes available is the reason ppl go into gov. it’s mostly used (except your corp) to pay for the upkeep, not to enrich oneself.
3 Likes
I think my proposition might have been misunderstood. Nothing of the current system would change. It would be a purely additive layer of goverment that one can decide to participate in or not
1 Like
Missed the survey, just dropping my personal 2 cents on the topic. Sorry if I’m repeating someone else’s ideas, I admit I skimmed over half the thread.
Large-Scale Co-Op PvE could genuinely be fun, I’m thinking wrestling over control of random hyperlanes against waylaying aliens or pirates, having a star randomly destabilise and damage ships STLing in the vicinity until we collaboratively dump enough supercoolant into it, something like that. Might lead to specialised actors playing pirate hunters, lots of ideas to explore here.
As for more impactful PvP (combat, blockades, hostile takeovers, …), hard no. Played similar games taking that approach, eventually came here precisely to avoid that, and have a zen garden instead. Inevitably leads to massively increased drama levels and toxicity, especially if we’re talking competitive, increased pressure to regularly log in and check possible attack vectors, burnout follows. I’d much rather play “Cookie clicker with extra steps and a chatbox” for years, than touching eve or ogame again for a week. Although, come to think of it, we could just competitively be nice to each other and compete on getting 5-star reviews on contracts. Guess that’d work.
1 Like
My read of this is “anyone who is not in a large corporation that is able to likewise dump large amounts of resources into ‘defending’ the planets they have colonized can get pushed around by those who do.”
Instead of an election in any of the planets of XG-326 or YI-705 or CH-771, a corporation with money can say “I’m running this” and impose onerous fees/taxes on the residents there.
Players on those planets wouldn’t have the choice to decide to participate or not (unless there is the argument “well, they can deconstruct and leave the system - that’s a choice”). Only players who were entirely within faction controlled space would be able to avoid griefing from those with arbitrarily large resource pools.
1 Like
This is why I said it should be limited. So it becomes a negligeable layer at the level of the individual.
Also my proposed system wouldnt replace election. Would be additive to what already exists. You wouls still have the regular election and planet would still run the same. This level of governement would mainly be for map colour as well as a controlled taxe.
1 Like
(emphasis added)
If I read that correctly, instead of an election, the control and taxes of a planet are determined by some corporation (not necessarily established on the planet) that is collecting the taxes instead of the locally elected parliament. I presume those tax levels would be determined by the corporation that is contributing war supplies.,
For a planet with a small number of players established on it, what would prevent a corporation from “committing war resources” and collecting / imposing onerous taxes on the players who are there?
If there is only one player on a planet not aligned with a corp or in a corp by themselves, what stops a say… 17 or 19 person corp from commiting “war resources” there?
Ahh, that’s so that…
and thus making it so that a player has to join a large corporation in order to have protection.
Negligible if it is an individual is not zero. Some may consider the taxes of 10 to be “neglible” others consider taxes at 100. Being able to decide to not run the necessary workforce programs to fund the planet or turning off the POPI are also ways to grief a player there.
Fundamentally, being able to become the government or impose additional taxes and fees of a planet because some corporation has a bigger bankroll is not fun for the people who are on that planet no matter how “limited” the ability that the government has there.
1 Like