Pantydraco

We don't know nearly enough to judge how will market currency work. 3 key points are: -1) How does currency enter economy, in other words how do you earn it. -2) What intrinsic value does currency have, in other word what can you do with it outside player market. -3) Balance between money entering and leaving economy. All of those are critical. If -2) is not there, and your money is worthless, bad things happen. Best case, players do straight items-for-itmes barter. Worst case is trading not happening, as sellers don't sell because what they get is worthless compared to what they give. Maybe people will even create their own virtual currency even. If -3) is too much imbalanced, money is easy to earn, and enters economy in massive amounts, while not leaving it fast enough. This means crazy inflation in most cases. Which also means barter becoming more widespread. At this point I really want to know, how will we earn money and what will we spend it on. Can't really think of anything that will be organic with DU direction. Obviously, it has something to do with NPCs, but it doesn't sit good with players creating and running all cities and infrastructure. Cheers!

I doubt ugly-mining will be a huge problem, because of technical reasons. Planets are 30km radius. This means 11309,4 km2 surface area. That extends 1 km down. That's just one planet. Also, terraforming will probably be reasonably accurate, or it's use is questionable. If terraforming is readily available, almost everyone will do some defacing of starter planet. Lets say, 100k players. Average one will deface is... eh... no idea, but you get my point. What I mean is, with readily available terraforming, gigantic landscapes will end up man-made, with accuracy that looks fine from 2m standing person. And not just continious territories, it will be random mix of default generated and edited. Storing all those changes is possible. Layering player changes over default generation, building LODs, and then constantly providing lanscape data to many many people traveling near and on planet, on the other hand is not. I don't believe it can be done with reasonable user network at all. Another problem, over course of the game there will be many many planets. And many many players. Each player in his life will make great many changes. All those changes off all players must be stored... somewhere. Server costs would be tremendous. All in all, I don't think we will get 'easy' and constant terraforming like in Minecraft or Space Engineers. It will probably be prohibited so that not many people will use it, and not much territory will be changed. Or in such way, that it is wide are, but restricted in finesse, so it doesn't cost much data. And small changes nobody visits will probably be erased. For this matter, I don't think mining will involve destroying terrain in small pieces. Cheers!

First day will be pure chaos, no doubt about that. Lots of arson, murder and jaywalking everywhere from everyone. Oh and first structures will be build. Expect phallic shaped forests. I can't imagine people cooperating for anything else. Seriously though, pre-organised groups will reach space long before anybody else. Expect goons to be among them (ones that are not defacing landscape). Very little war will happen for a while I think, there will be alot more resources and places than players at first. After a while, areas outside starter planet will be divided among factions. Strongest will take the best, weaker will settle for subpar. They will probably raid each other all the time, as will solo players. And I honestly have no idea how will starter planet sort out. Possibilities are endless. I am really looking forward to it. Cheers!

This is absolutely correct. Solo players are not just ones who don't enjoy communication. Usual reason people play is because they want to experience game solely through their own strength and knowledge. There are 2 problems I see with Arki zones, from how they were presented. -They are very rare and expensive -They cover relatively small area From what I got, primarily use for those zones is building. Things like mining, other resource gathering, and pretty much all PvE will happen outside them. Game balance does not happen randomly. If it is left to be decided 'organically', most likely outcome is that it will be heavily weighted to one side. Infrastracture and investment may be too expensive and restricted. That means people will 'have' to play in groups. Or maybe costs are manageable, but combat heavily favors attacker. In that case, staying anywhere close to society will be negative, and only biggest player groups will be able to progress. Game design is about acounting for such cases, thats why I'm talking about how exactly to do this Example please. I will gladly study it. I am not talking about FORCED segregation (why is everyone getting this idea? Whole point of DU is sandbox MMO, which means FORCED things should not exist if there is any other way) Segregation I'm talking about is the one that happens 'on it's own'. Like my example of Call of Duty, hardcore multiplayer players and casuals do not interject. Because they do not mix. Hardcores hate playing with n00bs and casual hate getting constantly pwned by l33ts. Forcing (Ha!) them together is terrible idea. Cheers!

Huh, guess I should have explained myself more clearly. Those parts so not constitute different points, they talk about the same one. 1 - 3 is just abstract game design nonsense that I believe apply to every MMO. 4 is how I believe they can be realised in DU. and 5 is basic idea summed up. Really, don't read into 1, 2 and 5 too much. And 3 talks about how psychological player archetypes, not in-game classes in any form. 4 is actual game proposal. EDIT: @CaptainTwerkometer please, do not assume my unfamiliarity with materials that have been released. I have read them all. And I not want DU to be like other MMOs just for the sake of it. Perhaps better way to put is "I want DU to be like other good games, in sense that it is good". This post was about how and why I think it can happen. EDIT2: player segregation is unavoidable in game with any variety, this is just how world works. Forget MMOs, let's look at Call of Duty. There are players that play only campaign and never multiplayer. There are players that play hardcore multiplayer only. Those players will never share gameplay experience. And there are players that play casual multiplayer. Put them together with hardcore guys, and you get frustration to both.

Balancing for different player types. In spirit of "balanced pvp destruction system" https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9398 Important: parts 1 - 3 is purely theoretical game design nonsense. 4 is game mechanics thoughts. 5 is whole thing conceptually summed up First, some important notes: 1) Very little reasoning of 'why?' will be given. Generally, "all successful mmos do this" will applicable, and they have their reasons. Most of those reasons also apply to DU. NOTE: or so I wrote initially... in practice it turned out to be a 'why?' behind my previous posts. Oops... 2) The ultimate goal of this nonsense is "Maximize player count while maintaining intended creative direction." With this out of the way, lets get started. Part 1: abstract nonsense (2) means players of vastly different type and behaviors are target audience. Each of their very different experiences must be built to be enjoyable and complete. Many gameplay systems involve having "negative outcome" for some of the participants. Possibility of failure is natural part of 'game' concept, and is usual way of how sustained 'excitement' is achieved. With that said, there are many things to be aware of: 1) Actual negative outcome generates negative feeling in player. While impact of abstract 'you lose' is very small, actual loss of time causes big frustration. 2) Excitement generated by negative outcome comes solely from 'possibility' of it, this means: -negative outcome must not guaranteed. -it is beneficial if player is involved in the process, and outcome is determined by his actions. -well designed feedback loop is desired in such case. Self-improvement is one of the ways long-term engagement is maintained. 3) Highest excitement doesn't equal best experience. Exciting gameplay should be balanced with relaxing gameplay. Another note, this balance is different for different players. . . Part 2: different player types. Obvious conflicting player archetypes: PvE <-> PvP Group <-> Solo New <-> Experienced* ... These archetypes do not describe game-mechanics, but player outlook. Same mechanic can be experienced and will be different to different archetypes. Those archetypes are not binary, players often enjoy mix of outlooks. Again, balance varies by person. PvE outlooks are mostly interested in game-world interaction. This in different proportions involves interest in: -exploration of game world (which may come in many forms, sometimes unexpected, like politics) -creativity (again, many forms) -amassing in-game possessions PvP outlook on the other hand finds npc game-world boring, and gets most enjoyment of challenging other people. It may come in many forms, and players can make pretty much anything competitive. -most common PvP activity is player-vs-player battles, in which both sides risk losing in-game possessions - is one of the players was not willing participant, his previous gameplay is interrupted(bad), and in case of loss that gameplay cannot be resumed (very bad). -above does not apply if danger and risk are important part of the gameplay experience. Such experience is not desirable for many (arguably most) players, but it does open new possibilities. -PvP outlook is not interested in earning assets PvE way, and PvP itself is asset sink. Group outlook enjoys communicating, and by extension cooperating with other players during gameplay. Solo outlook on the other hand does not enjoy mixing player-communication with gameplay, or more commonly people who want to experience game through their own strength and knowledge. *While not a personality trait, player skill largely remains more or less constant during play session, and has arguably the most impact. That's why it should also be designed around. Part 3: Archetype balance. What was said above together with common sense (Ha! more like me not wanting to explain myself) translates into: -PvE players should be able to engage in desired PvE gameplay with minimal PvP risk. This should be true for any player skill level and group preference -PvE players may instead choose different, risky option that has bigger in-game reward. This should be true for both solo and group players -most of in-game possessions of PvE players should be protected, and have reasonable progression. Independent of player skill level and group preference -some in-game possessions should be contestable, and also give reasonable benefit. Both solo and group players should have contestable possessions. Player skill should greatly determine safety. -PvP players should have expected PvP activity points, where there is constant PvP action. This applies to both groups and solos of all skill levels. -PvP players should have a way to earn valuables via PvP activity. This should apply to both groups and solo, but is dependent of skill, as all such valuables come from other players. -It is desirable that most of those points come from flexible and not binary system, in order to suit most players. -Losing possessions without owner's involvement and chance to defend is pure negative -Group play should reward reasonable material benefits. It is because of inefficency that comes with groups, as well as extra effort, time and risk required to set it up Applying those arguably universal (in MMO sense) points to Dual Universe creative design, that's what I came up with: Part 4: Actually sensible stuff I - Safe zones must exist and be readily available, where: Assets in liquid form (materials) should be mostly untouchable. Small ships should be mostly untouchable online, and fully untouchable during normal offline period. Players can build small structures and ships in relative safety without hiding. Big assets should be touchable when offline to keep universe coherency. Defenders should also be given enough time to respond, so that confrontation is actual PvP. Delayed systems similar to EvE reinforce timers or vulnerability windows are proposed. Safe zone should make it more lax All those things should also apply to new and solo players. With all that said, I propose a system be put in place that generates safe zones based on player activity and gives benefits to all players inside(dynamic anonymous player cities, if you will), and also the one that pushes organised territory owners to extend benefits to anonymous players. Very rough ideas: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/835-balanced-pvp-destruction-system/page-5#entry9515 II - PvE activity should cover whole spectrum from safe to risky. example: mining -safest place to mine is within core systems, but benefit is also smallest there. These system require minimum investment, and danger is absolute minimal. -secondly, there are many many random uninhabited systems nearby, that scans say are not really rich. Going there should cost non-trivial amount of fuel, as well as risking the ship. In order to catch you, pirates must either track you there, or must have had scanning satellites there themselves. On the other hand, you can also notice their approach and pre-emptively escape. This should be contest of player skill, with no way one side is guaranteed victory. If you escape, both sides lose because of fuel. Those systems should be numerous enough that player attacks are really unlikely. On the other hand, losing a ship is also non-trivial matter. Average long term will depend on player skill in those rare instances. -thirdly, there is establishing outpost in random system. You can base from there, as well as do basic refining, which will greatly increase profit. On the other hand, this is great investment of time and money, as well as presents bigger risk someone will stumble upon it. -then, there are really rich systems in local cluster, that everyone wants to mine. They are few and rich, and also default area for pirates, organised mining groups, really skillful solos, and player organisations. Those system provide a lot bigger profit, but also guarantee a high risk. -and lastly, there are universe wide honeypots. Recently discovered regions of great economical importance. They hold previously scarce materials in great quantities. Because of them, price now and half a year from or before now will differ greatly. All biggest political players want and fight for them, with numerous smaller entities also in the chaos. True gold rush, with insane risk and payoffs NOTE: this built solely upon 3 things: number of systems, their payoff, and investment amount. All those things could be very finely balanced and tweaked with actual testing. NOTE: this is based upon travel model https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/933-am-i-alone-in-thinking-that-stargate-probes-are-a-bad-idea/page-5#entry9459 III - PvP activity should be varied, engaging, and challenging. Pure "I win" mechanics benefit none in the long run. Just in the above example, hunters have variety of possibilities: pure combat and ambushes of local riches; tracking and stealth of no-name miners, with possibility of siege; high excitement rush of honeypots. Plus mercenary work to counter all of it Group combat has all of it and beyond, with assaulting and defending territory and static assets getting bigger role. Important part is, in every situation, outcome is dependent on skill of both hunter and prey. Even numbers are not "I win", in most of those, detection plays a key rule, so bringing bigger force is automatically detriment to the attacker. On the other hand, it is also not guaranteed win for defender. Stealth is their biggest asset, and a single enemy is enough to ruin it. Sure, hunters get delayed, and miners have a second chance to notice a second approach, but solo pirate still benefits of selling convoy's location. Part 5: Closure & TLDR In short, what I call for is segregation of player base based on preferences. Players should be given an option of playing safe or risky. Players should be given an option of playing smart or easy. Risky or less profitable. Solo or group. PvE or PvP. And in every case gameplay should accommodate them. Building should be a right, not a privilege. As should be attacking structures. Solos should be protected from group abuse. Groups should be protected from solo trolling. The gamedesign grail lies not in making a single person dream game, but making a dream game of every player. P.S. Version 1.01 - added important note because I wasn't clear

@Cornflakes I was writing about how we talking about same thing, but stupid mobile site decided to reload into full version and ate my text. In short: every object has bound blueprint that is automatically transferred with ship ownership and no other way. Repairs is a good point. I feel right delegation is right way to do this though. Engineers would have hull-modify and blueprint-view access only to do repairs. This whole self-destruct on copy thing indeed doesn't have good reasons to be there. Instead, we will just prohibit building while ship is alive. Cheers!

I don't expect any kind of universal central government to emerge, so most of the universe will be in anarchy. With that said, many there will be many small player groups, and several of them (Goons, no way they won't invade this game) will be large enough to be considered nations. But not big enough to dictate gameplay on universe scale though. Closest political structure such groups have is Empire I guess. Certainly not any kind of democratical structure.

And who said that blueprint is something physical to be stolen? It is snapshot of the ship that is bound to the ship owner and is used when ship gets repaired. As it is with voxel destructibility, damage changes form and function of the ship. Reverting damage to voxel requires blueprint. One thing I forgot, this blueprint may or may not be destroyed with the ship, ship designer decides. Such way it is possible to trade 'single hull' ships, that have to be bought anew after every death, or 'multiple hull', that leave blueprint to be rebuilt after destruction, with no additional purchase. Added changes into previous post, and it is becoming incomprehensible mess fast. Cheers!

Let me explain why I'm big proponent of reinforce-timer like solutions This is not about what property and how much should be vulnerable, that I wrote up on earlier and still stand by it. This is about how exactly we implement players fighting to destroy and protect property. For me it all comes down to interactivity on defenders side.Most of the time defender will be offline, or just away in the universe. And even in big groups people wouldn't just sit around doing nothing, waiting for imaginary attacker that isn't there. So what happens if we go with 'realistic' destruction system, like in Minecraft? Absolute most of destruction will be done with no player interaction, that's what happens. Even if we make materials super-hard and destruction take hours, defender will just be sleeping. While attacker hammers at metal for hour with no fun or a interactivity. And for defender there is no good feedback and interactivity in building. You build a structure, one day you come back, and it's either destroyed, or slightly damaged and someone else is destroyed.No gameplay, no interactivity, no PvP. Timer system on the other hand allows us to set up engagements both attacker and defender can easily attend, with quite little time expenditure on player's side. After structure gets banged and enters reinforce mode, defenders will have quite enough time to negotiate with attacker, gather friends support(same for attacker), and other things. That's gameplay alreadt without actual combat even taking place. And actual siege will also be actual PvP engagement, and not banging a head against metal wall. And defenders will see and experience how good their designs do in actual combat. Cheers!

One thing we can't get around, if a game can have survival elements, especially food, many would ask for it. It's quite a cycle. I will be brief here. It's simple depth\complexity issue. What is exactly food system giving us and at what cost? First, it boggles new player experience. It punishes players from the start with hunger, is first mechanic to learn, and so bloats what player must learn quickly. And what does it give? After initial food problem is settled, player is periodically bothered by something that doesn't have a lot of gameplay decision making. Just eat anything and be fine. And if eating is big part of immersion... well, that's sad news. If you are not feeling immersed, unless your avatar bothers you periodically with biological needs... you get me, we have a problem. Food should offer concrete advantages to the gameplay to exist, and especially periodical hunger. DU is already shaping up to be one of the most complex MMOs (more so than infamous EvE), there should be damn good reasons to bloat mechanics. With that said, CaptainTwerkomotor idea about medicine making is quite excellent (yes, he also has excellent ideas). One thing we can expend it into is manufacturing, make special organic materials with unique properties. Manufacturing those would involve biology study, and exploration of different ecosystems to build proper bio manufacture process. It is awesome way to involve players with planets biospheres and is very original sci-fi element. Maybe I will do a thread about how I imagine it later... for those who don't understand what I'm talking about and why I don't want food. Cheers! I hate this forum on mobile....

I have made my point and stand by it. Those for whom it is intended will see it, and don't see any reason to further argue it in format current discussion has taken. As I have mentioned in my first post, I don't see how full open no-rules PvP can work in mainstream MMO for reasons given there. And yes, neither do I want game to be such even if it was viable. And for the record, I don't expect ground combat to be something fundamentally different from space. If space is based around EvE-like lock-on system that is easier to implement and doesnt cost much network and processing, so will the ground. Ground combat is ALWAYS more complex than space in implementation. If they made ground combat as something realtime twitch based, there would be no reason not to make space as such. And I respect positives it brings (not being twitch based...) along with negatives. Cheers!

Wow.... just wow. I describe a system where both attacker and defender get chance at success, defender has means of making himself safe (not completely in most cases), and PvP is not insta gank of everything and anything. The system is basicly "blow defenses first, then move for juicy stuff, but defender gets reasonable response time". But the response is telling me to GTFO from this game, because its not for me (so, you decide for who this game is?). Impresive thing is that you didn't really read into it. Otherwise advice moving more safer space away from griefers (while mocking mental functions? nah, its just the tone), is exactly what I described. This protection system is exactly about safer spaces. If there are griefers operating nearby, it's impossible to have hi security rating. The high rating literally means "lots of people live here and nobody kills others". Perhaps you should put more effort into describing system that actually works? Outside of whole "atacker owns everything". And while at it, explain how exactly my claim about no popular MMOs with free high-consequance combat is incorrect, and how your vision will be fun. I admit that many of your comments are correct, your pseudo-science theories are fun, but this one I can't comprehend being ANYTHING close to constructive

I will start by saying that I like the choice DU team made. Going P2P is hard decision in todays market, but I think it suits the game best. Only complaint I have is PLEX... Now unto why I think so. Firstly, DU is positioned as long-time MMO, with substantial development and updates continuing many years after release. No matter how I look at it, pure B2P model wouldnt work. 60$ per copy doesnt last years after years, and expansion packs wouldnt make any sense in this format. So its P2P or cash shop. Problem with cash shop is its balancing. Goods don't have to be mandatory or the whole point of 'free' is lost, and community is displeased. If goods aren't mandatory, too few people buy them, and to aounteract this prices become unreasonable. Many games do cosmetic shop, but it is impossible by design here, with most of assets being created by players. Even devs stated that they are minimising costs by leaving most of asset design to community, doing cosmetic shop seems just silly with such strategy. Lastly, there is example of Warframe, that is regularly (even by me) stated as example of 'fair' F2P. It is not all rainbows. A lot cosmetics can be bought only with platinum, that can only be bought with $ (or from another player, who bought with $). The most interesting frame skins are bought with pure $ on Steam. And many other cosmetics can only be bought in "prime packs". Those are stupidly overpriced $ purchases, that contain prime items added recently, exclusive cosmetics, and platinum. They ARE way overpriced. But it doesnt stop there. Some items vitaly important for gameplay (orokin reactors and catalysts) are only bought for platinum, or as reward at one time special missions during community events. Experiencing the game without them is not really possible. And only way to farm them through gameplay, is by farming prime items and selling to other players for platinum. WF is not really a game you play without spending $ Thats why I think P2P is optimal. I think aditional purchase of game license (how some MMOs do) is stupid idea in this case, as it lowers amount of people who would try the game greatly. Obviously, free 2 week(~ish) trial is a given. Now why I think PLEX is bad. In short, it makes in-game actions worth less (which sounds like inflation, exactly what took place in WoW after WoW Tokens were introduced). Yes, being able to buy game time with ingame actions makes ingame actions worth less. Firstly, lets say that economy is primarily about flow of Goods, not about flow of Money. Money is only means of exchange, in the end they are worth something only when they buy goods. So buying something means exchanging goods your previously sold for different ones. You are offering good A in excchange for good B, of which there is total amount X. Now we imagine all people who are willing to buy B with their goods, and we get supply-demand model. And now we add PLEX in. No new Bs were produced, so supply stays the same. But new good, PLEX, was added into the system. Some players who wanted to buy B now want to trade PLEX for it, and completely new people also want to pay their shiny new PLEXes for B. The demand has risen, people are offering more, while no Bs are produced, so price raises. Sounds like Voodoo magic? It is. Generally, introdicing PLEX would make it compete with B, lowering B demand. But it did not, because different people want it. People who are selling PLEXes are generally new players, so if B has value to average player, it would be on buy-list of PLEX seller. People who are buying PLEXs on the other hand, are usually old players who have enough money for whatever they want, so when they buy PLEX thay don't buy less B. If we look at it with money in mind, introducing PLEX has caused people to sell PLEXes for money to money-rich players, which in turn caused redistribution of wealth (did someone say trickle-down economics?), and in new system more people are offering more money for B, so it becomes more expensive. Cash flow speed has dramaticaly risen, not enough new goods (PLEXs) were introduced, so inflation happened. We did not look at it with money in mind, because we don't have monetary system in place yet. TLDR: total consumer wealth has risen by introducing PLEXs bought with $, no new products were made -> products became more expensive -> other wealth different from PLEX is worth relatively less. That is why I'm not onboard with PLEX hype train. Sure, it raises total sub count (numbers unknown), but it also makes economy more messy. Not as disastrous as in themepark, where player experience is designed with money avaiable in mind and economy is very strict, but still very messy. Cheers!

So here goes rough draft: 1)PvP taging Owner can mark any object to be pvp taged. There are 2 types of tags: offensive and defensive. PvP taged defensive objects are usual defense measures: turrets, weapon platforms, patrolling ships, afk battleships left as weapon platforms. Their goal is protect assets in area. Offensive taging is reserved for attacking/raiding ships. Any PvP tag means object is viable for combat. 2)Area security rating This rating shows how safe given area is. It is increased by having many(based on player trafik?) defensive objects, and also no PvP encounters. It is lowered by active PvP in area, especially destruction of defensive objects. In uninhabited systems it sits at neutral 0. Having high positive security rating means non-pvp assets are better protected. For smaller object it means assets cannot be damaged, and very high rating means they will be automatically evacuated when it drops. For bigger it means less defense frequency (we will get to that). At neutral rating, small assets are fully vulnerable (even to non-pvp tagged), and negative gives higher defense frequency for larger objects. 3)Object security rating Recent events may affect how secure given ship is. For example, pvp ship dropping tag will have low security rating for some time. This means revenge can be exacted on raiders to certain degree, even if they try to flee. Battle may happen in their defended syste and they will have advantage due to pvp-taged defenses, but they are still fully vulnerable. The same to lesser instinct goes for non-taged ships that recently engaged in pvp activity in low security regions. Also, zone ownership also boosts rating and is both nice bonus and lucrative target. EDIT: another important feature is to allow deployment of large territory claim units, that will define who is and who is not desired visitor of area. People marked as hostile won't get sec rating benifits and will be viable PvP targets. That will allow player groups to mantain control over ther secure systems, and get rid of enemies without offensive tag. Whenever small objects sit unused for long time in slightly positive area, they gain high security rating, which means they will be automatically evacuated. For big objects system is different. They operate based on concept of defense frequancy. It may be reinforce mechanic, set by defender (defender may defend at any time during reinforce time) or offender (defender may defend only at the end of reinforce), or weekly timetable that has X hours of vulnerability window total, set by defender with some restrictions. Big objects are Always lucrative target. High security rating may mean defender-favored reinforce, or less hours on weekly vulnerabilty, or invulnerability in case of high security and smaller structures. But big pinatas are always subject to siege, and should be priority target. Their destructuion will greatly hurt area sec rating on top of normal benifits. They can also be requirements of high sec rating. This way, there are always 2 way to lower are sec rating - either take out defenses, or asault big structures. Now unto how this is intended to play out: peaceful players would try to settle in populated peaceful areas to minimise property risk. Defenses will be build to mantain rating and protect against small ganks. Or in remote unknown areas. After PvP, ships remain unsecure and can be fought in otherwise safe territory, but territory owner will be unhappy either way, as pvp lowers sec rating In uninhabited regions there will be pvp for online objects with no mechanical consequences, but there may be societal. Small assets and majority of goods stored in secure areas, or being left alone for a long time in slightly secure areas will be protected Immobile structure (that may also be battleships that havent moved in a long while!) will operate as they do in EVE, with big response timers, and maybe multiple sieges. Big faction warfare will be a mix of systematic destruction of defense, sieges of major structures, and frantic evacuation of everyone before rating drops Cheers! EDIT: how the hell did I bust line spacing... EDIT2: added territory ownership case into Object security