KlatuSatori

I'm really interested in seeing what kind of ground vehicles people can come up with. Slightly off topic but I'm also looking forward to seeing the "reactor" tech that will be used for air vehicles. It was brought up a long time ago and might have changed by now, but if they differentiate between air and space vehicles that opens up a whole load of questions and possibilities.

You need to set up defenses and detection systems. Individual buildings should probably have a reinforcement timer on them as well as the TU, but exactly which ones and how/why is far too complicated a topic to speculate about at this point.

Or maybe the probe lights a beacon which is only good for a limited time window. Say a week. You've got to jump all the players and equipment you need to set up an outpost with the purpose of building a stargate... or colonising the isolated system. I am unsure how I feel about probes doing the bulk of interstellar exploration, but we'll see what NQ can cook up.

We were talking about this today. https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/937-territory-claim-unit-function-suggestion/

Maybe have a check-in office by the gate that issues tags to every visitor to say they went through the checkpoint and were searched. It has a limited time, say 24 hours, so you have to go to a checkpoint and get it renewed. Then put massive automated turrets all over the place that shoot anyone who doesn't have a valid tag.

I think it's more likely that a freeport, hippy organisation would have a no guns policy. "Come and party with us, leave your guns at the door!" But then there's also digging your way in. Maybe you can stop people flying in with anti-air guns, but can you guard every inch of the ground?

I think if I was heading up an exploration company, I'd have a division that scours interstellar space for unmanned probes, shooting them down whenever I find them. Only true explorers, read: manned expeditions allowed past the kuiper belt.

Well, no. You are extrapolating. And TU's will claim territories which are 1km-a-side hexes, not entire planets. But yes, you can plant your TU deep underground.

Everything I've said that is fact has come from the devblogs. Specifically the territories one, (which I pointed out) and the RDMS one https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/272-devblog-rights-duty-management-system-rdms/ Nothing in there specifically says that you cannot build on someone else's claimed territory, it only says that territories come with powers such as the right to build on land, mine its resources, etc. Those powers can be distributed to other players using tags, but they have not said that the game physically stops you from building on land when you don't have the right tag. The powers and tagging system is a management system so you can control what is legal not what is possible. This quote from Nyz suggests what I support is likely closer to what the devs have in mind - why would you need to shoot at intruders if intruders are auto-stopped by the game: My suggestions also open up whole swaths of gameplay possibilities - such as smuggling, poaching, trespassing, illegal building, policing and police work - all entirely player-led; every law, every crime completely created, commited and enforced by players.

Duplicate post

First, I most certainly am not trying to make DU into some kind of Eve 2.0. I would say that the mechanics you are suggesting are closer to Eve. You can only build x if you build y first, etc etc. Also, Nyzaltar has said there will be no direct space to ground combat, at least not at initial launch, so you will always have to land ground troops to take territory. What makes it your territory? The fact that you put a flag down on it somewhere? What makes it your territory should be the fact that you can defend it. If you don't want someone building on "your" land, go and stop them with force instead of relying on an all powerful flag.

Yes. There is a devblog on territories with a dedicated thread. I think it's in the gameplay mechanics forum. I'd link it but I'm on my phone atm which makes it difficult.

1) TUs won't be provided for you at the start of the game. They will require rare resources and high level skills to build and will therefore be expensive. Furthermore I'm totally against TUs granting some kind of hardcoded, artificial power over who can build on a piece of land. 2) This kind of functionality will be provided by the Rights and Duties Management System which revolves around creating tags associated with powers and privileges. But again, in the case of TUs and land, it should only be a management tool, not something that physically restricts the actions of unauthorised players. 3) See 2). But for payments I'd like to see the possibility of voluntary non-payment. Someone who has to pay rent can choose whether to set up an automatic payment every month or do it manually. They can stop paying whenever they want. The payee is notified of non-payment and it's up to him to do something about it... 4) Hacking of TUs is planned though it might not be implemented right away. However, I would argue that destroying or hacking a TU should not necessarily be the first thing an enemy would want to do to take a territory. It might be, but more likely it would be the last. A reinforced timer like in Eve has been confirmed but how this will work in conjunction with hacking, I don't know. Maybe you can only hack after a reinforcement timer, during a final showdown.

Saying you don't care what anyone says is not a good way to have a conversation. Having said that, all of your concerns are valid ones. It's just that most are not completely relevant because they are already being addressed separately. PvE'ers being constantly attacked is not something anyone wants to see. What we do want see is a balance between risk and reward and co-dependency between PvEers and PvPers. All kinds of players should be banding to gather to create a territory which has both military and geopolitical safety factors. Safe, not invulnerable. Venturing into untamed wilderness for may hold greater riches but will be riskier. This is the kind of vision for their game that NQ have spoken about on many occasions. Your concern about losing designs that take endless hours to create and refine is also valid, but again, not relevant to this conversation. NQ plan to ensure that this kind of intellectual or creative property cannot be lost. They have talked about construct snapshots, blueprints and a virtual building simulator. Losing a building is not add big a problem losing the design for the building, especially when a blueprint coupled with time and resources in some kind of automated manufacturing unit can rebuild it for you. You lose time, money, status, but you don't lose your designs. Finally, what you say about one giant organisation essentially winning the game is a valid concern that I have too, though I don't see how it is relevant to this conversation. A game that is richly filled with a variety of organisations of all sizes and that no one organisation ever "wins" is what I would like to see. In fact I think this is the single most important factor that NQ should be aware of when making gameplay decisions.

Hi guttertrash and welcome to the forums This topic has been brought up a couple of times before. The most recent got a response from NovaQuark. https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/534-whats-about-fully-destructible-planetsstars/?hl=%2Bdestroy+%2Bplanet#entry3558 This sentence sums up the problem. + the fact that having safe zones would be pointless. So the clear answer is no, there won't be weapons powerful enough to destroy planets. And yes it will be possible to destroy anything on a planet surface that isn't in a safe area (assuming the agressor has the means to destroy the defensive measures put in place). Best regards, Nyzaltar.

Undoubtedly your form of multiboxing requires a lot more concentration and practice than mining armies, support ships or anything else that can be done afk (in Eve). I would point out, though, that your example is 2v1, not 2v2. Can a player of equal skill playing with just one account compete with you head to head when you are multiboxing? If multiboxing gives you an advantage in 1v1 situations then it is pay2win regardless of how much practice it takes to master. In any case, your form of multiboxing is far less common than the mining/ratting/noob ganking/support form.

All activities in DU whether they are non-combative (PvE) or combative (PvP) are always competitive, sometimes/usually collaborative as well. Every activity is done in competition with other players. Either you have to produce more efficiently, transport more efficiently, find a niche in the market or unknown trade route, out-buy, out-sell, out-gun, or anything else, you are competing with other players. Unless you are playing completely solo, you are also doing these activities collaboratively. You are always competing with your enemies and rivals whether you know who they are or not, and collaborating with your friends and allies. How can mining or crafting with multiple accounts signed in at the same time give an advantage? Well as a single player you can mine or craft a greater volume without needing to collaborate with other players, defeating the purpose of an emergent, player-led story on a single shard universe, and keeping all the product and profit to yourself. Your last point about only being able to control one character at a time depends on the nature of the mining or crafting activity. If it's click a button and wait then obviously multiboxing will provide a huge, unfair advantage. If it's a complex activity that needs your complete attention then the benefits of multiboxing are drastically reduced (and in that case why would you even be arguing for it?). This is probably the best way to ensure that multiboxing is not a problem, together with sanctioning/banning players who are caught doing it. In your other post you mention bringing in an extra support class to buff and heal. That is exactly the sort of thing I am strongly opposed to. It should be an actual player providing that support, not a multiboxer's army.

@Halo381 I agree with you completely. I was beginning to think I was the only one who wants to see complex strategic warfare. @Scruggs I agree that the terms "wolves" and "sheep" are inappropriate and, to be honest, inaccurate in most cases. I used them here for convenience because someone else already used the terms. Better terms would be combatants and non-combatants. I don't agree that this is a valid argument. Supply line disruption would exist either way. You're not adding it in by removing destruction of military bases, industrial centres, and civilian areas. Removing destruction of supply centres reduces the complexities of war whatever way you look at it. And that isn't the only thing that is negatively affected by allowing organisations to have invulnerable territories. Only the territorial system and the Arkship Secure Area are confirmed. Arkification, alien relics and the virtual simulator are being considered, and probably one will be implemented. The reason they are not confirmed is because they all have far reaching negative consequences and need to be well thought out. Note also that NQ have said multiple times that arkification, if implemented, would not be intended to provide some kind of benefit for established organisations. Personally I am for the virtual simulator, but the other options can also work done carefully. But for territory holding organisations, various defence options is all that's needed, each with their own advantages and drawbacks and counters.

While I agree with most of what you say, I have to disagree with this part. Wolves will of course fight other wolves all the time, but simply satisfying a blood lust is not what will make for the most meaningful interactions. In a war between two factions, removing wolf vs sheep from the equation eliminates a whole host of interesting strategic options. Those sheep are an important part of the war machine - they run the factories, design the weapons, mine the ores, transport the materials - they are legitimate war targets. Removing the ability to strike out at any one of those makes war much less interesting, more predictable, and also makes the outcome more predictable (a bigger army will almost always win). Even outside of a straight up war, removing wolf vs sheep style interactions eliminates certain gameplay styles such as pirate, and the arguably more interesting and complex privateer. It also affects to varying degrees guerrilla tactics, terrorism, renting, militia, and a whole host more. Wolves obviously depend heavily on sheep, it makes sense not to artificially remove sheep's dependency on wolves. As others have said, the ASA plus a virtual simulator or something similar should be enough to safeguard new players and intellectual/artistic property.

Hacking has been confirmed as a long term feature. It won't be in alpha, probably not in beta, maybe at official launch, otherwise in an expansion/update. That info is a good few months (a year?) old though, and a lot of things can happen during development.

I think the amount of effort required will be determined by the market. A DU PLEX will be worth whatever players are willing to pay for them.

Fair enough, I guess I just have a problem with the way "PvP" and "PvE" are used. Even so, I think the point is still relevant. You cannot provide full protection for non-combatants without messing with the creation/destruction co-dependency. However, from everything I've read from NQ I think they've got the right idea and will work hard to get a good balance.

I don't recall NQ ever using the term "PvE". Again, I am just questioning the use of the term "PvE". I am NOT saying that everyone has to be a fighter - far from it. What I am saying is that builders, for example, are PvPing when they build stuff and sell it on because they are competing with other players, not with the environment. I think we should avoid using the term "PvE" for this game because undermines the co-dependent relationship between creators and protectors/destroyers and the emergent player society.

Maybe the economy can provide part of the answer. Rather than having a civilisation-wide breakthrough just allow players and organisations a mechanism to sell their discoveries, and allow buyers the ability to sell it on again (maybe a customisable contract system that says they can't re-sell for a set period of time... actually this would work well for selling exploration data too). Eventually enough people will have the knowledge that the price of buying it will be trivial and there you have your "breakthrough". This would work with any research system whether it is a simple timing mechanism, trial and error or anything else.

I'm not really sure what you are saying that is counter to what I am saying. Your point about exploration looks like a typo... are you saying what is the point in exploration if there is no PvE? I would say exactly the opposite (for this game). I am not saying that there should be no sheep. Far from it. What I am saying is that the sheep are PvPers too because they are affecting other players, organisations and territories in positive and negative ways with their exploits. PvP does not mean combat, it means competition with other players. PvE is the wrong term to use for safe zones because everything you do is in competition with other players.