Dune Awakening

Great. Take the worst aspect of New World and make it even worse, and a part of base gameplay.

Why do these companies never learn?

edit - in New World, your zerg/forumquest faction basically ran the server, and controlled the towns worth having. They put shitty taxes on everyone who wasn't that faction, so it completely ruined even trying to play normally. The servers also stopped allowing you to create characters on the zerg/winning faction after a point, so if you wanted to play on said server you were basically fucked if you didn't get into the swarm early enough.

it effectively created a snowball effect where if you weren't on the zerg faction, you were going to fall behind in most aspects of gameplay. It's a terrible mechanic and it looks like D:A is taking that retarded concept and pushing it to 11.

PVP continues to ruin otherwise good game ideas.

New World dumped that mechanic years ago. It is also worth noting that the "bingo" board has different things you need to do - a lot of PVPers aren't PVEers and vice versa.

Rezz said:

Shape the Sands! Dune: Awakening Unveils Epic Player-Driven Landsraad & World-Altering Decrees

Get ready to seize control of Arrakis like never before! Funcom has pulled back the curtain on a central, game-defining endgame feature for their highly

www.dailychhattisgarh.com

Great. Take the worst aspect of New World and make it even worse, and a part of base gameplay.

Why do these companies never learn?

edit - in New World, your zerg/forumquest faction basically ran the server, and controlled the towns worth having. They put shitty taxes on everyone who wasn't that faction, so it completely ruined even trying to play normally. The servers also stopped allowing you to create characters on the zerg/winning faction after a point, so if you wanted to play on said server you were basically fucked if you didn't get into the swarm early enough.

it effectively created a snowball effect where if you weren't on the zerg faction, you were going to fall behind in most aspects of gameplay. It's a terrible mechanic and it looks like D:A is taking that retarded concept and pushing it to 11.

PVP continues to ruin otherwise good game ideas.

Click to expand...

Wow, yeah, reading that and that sounds fucking retarded. You can tell they thought they had a great idea, but thinking about it as a player it sounds bad. Really bad.

Cybsled said:

New World dumped that mechanic years ago. It is also worth noting that the "bingo" board has different things you need to do - a lot of PVPers aren't PVEers and vice versa.

Click to expand...

Yeah New World dropped it when they basically fell off a cliff player wise if I remember right. But it doesn't really change the fact that it is going to basically only favor the zerg guilds on public servers with a pretty dramatic impact on the balance of power. To the point where players are likely to just stop playing for a week if something like the 33% damage buff is in effect for one faction. Not to mention that the zerg side is simply going to have the numbers advantage so they'll be able to fill out the required asks faster/better in general.

Everyone knew it was a terrible idea in New World; Funcom just ignoring that and implementing it again in really any form is just them being retarded or trying to stir up controversy. I am leaning towards a combo of the two. I mean of course we need to see the exact implementation before claiming the sky is falling, but any sort of faction control that actually impacts gameplay in such a way is just a terrible idea for any game. It leads to everyone wanting to join/betray over to the zerg side, basically creating single faction servers. And then if you don't join the zerg side you basically have a second class gameplay experience and have to change servers... where then you're almost certainly back to a zerg experience again because at the end of the day, nobody wants their gameplay to be harder because they didn't pick the "right" faction. As was proven in New World when they had to cut off character creation/joining on the zerg side on every server because it made the game less fun to literally be anything other than the most populated faction.

Just retarded design in general that is only going to frustrate/annoy people who don't want to be part of the swarm.

Eh, we'll see how it pans out. They confirmed the deep desert zones do have faction caps, so unless you're making alt guilds in opposite factions to just sit in a zone and do nothing, you can't completely overwhelm unless the other factions are dogshit

Tarrant said:

Considering no one's building on open sand and you've had to drive around the structures they build up against them anyway, I don't understand how this is a thing for you. In all the time I've played (substantially) I've never once thought this. Hell, usually I go see if their stuff is locked. I've pillfered some good resources this way as well haha.

Click to expand...

most resources aren't on open sand. other than spice and flour. so yes it's fucking annoying having to drive your buggy around assholes blocking paths.

DD servers have a limit of 100 players. I going to say most DD servers will be one sided. The clan limit is 32.

Ill drop a pic of walls blocking paths, in the Basin, when the game launches on the 5th. It happens, and it will happen a lot more when the game goes live. there are a few places where it can be really annoying. Everyone mines with a buggy including in the end game. The only difference is that if you are on the last tier you could have a carrier.

Its not as bad as ARK or Rust, but it still happens, and is still annoying to have to deal with.

ili said:

DD servers have a limit of 100 players. I going to say most DD servers will be one sided. The clan limit is 32.

Click to expand...

A single sector in the DD has a limit of 100 players, not the entire DD. I think there are 9 sectors in the DD. Each sector is also faction cap limited AND you can attack your own faction

It's going to be more of a clan/allied clan vs. clans type of deal. But allied clans will still be tricky because friendly fire is on and ingame there are no UI elements to distinguish friendlies.

Cybsled said:

Eh, we'll see how it pans out. They confirmed the deep desert zones do have faction caps, so unless you're making alt guilds in opposite factions to just sit in a zone and do nothing, you can't completely overwhelm unless the other factions are dogshit

Click to expand...

I mean... how do they determine who gets to take part in said faction in each area? In NW, it was basically the leadership of the controlling company/etc, which meant you typically had the most geared/best players on the zerg faction vs. the best players of the other factions.... and everyone else had to sit out. The zerg factions would have a much larger pool, and thus fielding a better squad, almost all the time in NW.

It doesn't sound like D:A is doing anything different with the Deep Desert stuff.

Is it straight first come/first served on a per faction basis? Are there timelines/etc when people can zone in? Do you have to be "let" into the zone if you are part of the zerg faction?

Will be interesting to see how it plays out live. I'm betting heavily on it being a clusterfuck, however.

There isn't any permanent ownership in DD and if stuff is going on simultaneously in different parts of the deep desert, you're going to be spread thin. The most valuable stuff is farther in, so it isn't really viable to blockade the zone-in regions (and the devs did mention they would keep an eye on stuff like that if people did figure out a viable way to gate off the entire deep desert)

As far as I know it is a first come, first serve situation in any given region of the deep desert.

And again, factions only mean so much. Attraides can kill Attraides and Harkonen can kill Harkonen if they want...it's not like New World where if you're purple, you can't declare war on a purple town or kill other purples in influence runs. Sure, you might get some people aligning temporarily to make sure a faction gets the vote, but all the clans who contribute can submit a vote as far as I know in terms of the weekly rules. You'd basically have to politics the entire server cluster

Cybsled said:

A single sector in the DD has a limit of 100 players, not the entire DD. I think there are 9 sectors in the DD. Each sector is also faction cap limited AND you can attack your own faction

It's going to be more of a clan/allied clan vs. clans type of deal. But allied clans will still be tricky because friendly fire is on and ingame there are no UI elements to distinguish friendlies.

Click to expand...

The Lead Producer said it was 100 per DD server/grid. Max of 300 across all servers / the whole grid. So you can't enter that area if you are player 101 or any part of the grid if you are player 301. Now what happens to your character if you try to cross into a full server, one of the grids, who knows. It can hold more but that's the cap right now. He also said the 50/50 split per faction was incorrect. There is no such thing. There is no limit on the amount of the same faction that can be on the same server. So you could have 100 of the same faction per server, or 300 of the same faction across all the server.

I guess we will see how that plays out.

It'll go the same way ALL these mass PvP games go -

A few squabbles and skirmishes will break out amongst factions/guilds, drama and politics will ensure for a bit, until eventually a mega alliance/zerg dominates the server. They'll eventually get bored because it kills the server once there's no competition/ways to compete, then they'll transfer to another server to repeat the cycle.

There's still plenty of fun to be had on the PvE side of things, but the PvP will play out exactly as above.

Around 30 minutes they explain that the DD is segmented and each segment is 100 cap. The problem is the term "server" is being used interchangeably depending on context.

One thing from this interview that made people say "huh" was he talked about a 300 cap for DD, but previously they said 900 total for DD

Ok now that I'm hearing more about the Deep Desert, it clears some things up.

Still sounds very exploitable, but 36:02 the guy mentions that you can only have a 50% presence. Ie, 50 Harks vs. 50 Hawks. You can't actually flood the zone (which was my initial fear) based on faction. Still sounds like it will massively benefit the zerg side but could come out better balanced.

I'm still very, very, wary about the Landsraad stuff. Which as an adult who loves Dune sounds great, but as someone who has spent a lot of time in vidya games, still sounds like a massively terrible idea.

Rezz said:

36:02 the guy mentions that you can only have a 50% presence. Ie, 50 Harks vs. 50 Hawks. You can't actually flood the zone (which was my initial fear) based on faction. Still sounds like it will massively benefit the zerg side but could come out better balanced.

Click to expand...

That's weird becuase he said that wasn't the case at all.

Ole Andreas — 5/30/25, 8:20 AM​

The 50/50 population split per faction was incorrect info, there is no such thing.

Color me disapproving.

Just saw a blog post - private servers will be available in early access. They aren’t run locally, you rent per month.

Basically you get a private Hagga basin and you can tweak 3 things: PvP enabled, taxes disabled, sandstorms disabled. The towns and deep desert will be shared with other private servers

Seems like this will be the biggest benefit for streamers