KlatuSatori
-
Posts
331 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by KlatuSatori
-
-
I never said WoW was a sandbox, what I said was that the point of a sandbox game is for people to do things that the game wasn't designed for. Sandboxes are where developers give players tools to do creative things, but they never strictly outline what it is we should do.
Do you think Minecraft was designed so that people could build calculators and hard drives in it? Absolutely not, but people used the sandbox elements of redstone to do it.
Even Eve Online has had features placed in the game to make certain playstyles possible for players, and they've also closed several issues that people were otherwise exploiting using ingame mechanics because they weren't designed to be used in a certain way, but nobody was banned for it. Eve certainly wasn't designed for multiboxing, but after realizing that multiboxers were a core part of the Eve universe, CCP has accepted them with open arms.
Even Dwarf Fortress has been used to build things that Toady never envisioned, like building computers and playing space invaders.
Ultimately I don't think they are going to outright ban people for playing on more than one computer at a time, which is what this whole thread was about originally.
CCP Figured out how to allow Multiboxing in a way that doesn't negatively affect everyone who isn't multiboxing, I don't see why DU can't follow the same model:
Well, that is basically what I said, except all those games may have tools with unexpected abilities they are still all "working as intended" and they are all completely within the confines of the game universes and physics. My point, however, was that none of that is relevant to the conversation about multiboxing.
I definitely disagree about CCP. A solo player who isn't multiboxing is at a disadvantage in Eve whether it is PvP or PvE. The low-end ore market is completely dominated by high-sec multiboxers (at least last time I was there, but I doubt it's changed) and that has a knock-on effect to the whole economy. Maybe CCP designed their game to be that way, but I wouldn't want that for DU.
-
Let nature deal with dickbutts. You know, War. Maybe we have some White Knights who go around destroying the shrines to the God of Procreation. And we will have a Holy War. The White P.C. Knights and the Followers of Lord Dickbutt.
Yeah but we're talking about in the safe zones. God and His White Knights are powerless before the might of the Arkship.
-
I think I like the idea of letting democracy take control of the situation. Remember though, that safe areas are supposed to be primarily for noobies to learn the game, so I don't think you should need to apply for a plot to build something. Paying to rent space in safe areas is less suitable.
Rather than a council that has lots of responsibilities I would just have an elected Board of Town Planning who make decisions on demolition of existing buildings only.
There are still problems here. One is the board destroying any buildings they see fit and timing it with their friends so that they can build their own stuff there. So there needs to be some kind of waiting period and appeals process. Say a one month waiting period before a building can be torn down, where the building is marked for destruction and players can appeal. The board then either withdraws the destruction or gives the appealing player the option to appeal to directly to NQ. NQ then make the final decision. If board members risk losing their position and player risk warnings and account bans for obviously bogus appeals then hopefully NQ won't get too many appeals deferred to them.
Another problem is players who have left the game for a time and aren't around to appeal come back and find their stuff gone. Safe areas are supposed to be permanently safe and there is nowhere else for players to keep their things long term. I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem with this system without giving NQ full control over what goes and what stays in safe zones.
-
There's a devblog on this topic. https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2014/09/13/arkship-security-or-where-does-pvp-starts/
This part in particular sums up NQ's vision on base defense and losing constructs.
Strategically, a secondary arkship-like defense tower and safe zone will obviously be a target of choice, either for military purposes or simply by griefers eager to set the world on fire. The first type of attack could in principle be settled without much damage for the inhabitants of the zone, if they consent to transfer territory control to the attacker when he has proven to be stronger than the existing defenses. In the second case, ultimate destruction could be the goal of the hostile forces. Players will always be encouraged to take electronic snapshots of their constructions, if not blueprints when appropriate (the difference is that a snapshot cannot be traded, it's a personal asset), together with insurances, in order to be able to rebuild if necessary. However, rebuilding after destruction is costly, as neither the materials nor the time required by the auto-rebuilder can be avoided. It would be better to lose a bit of time and money, rather than losing your magnificent neo-renaissance imperial castle on top of the mountain.
-
Well, they could make it act like the post office then. Kept in store until you go get that package.
If you're talking about the mechanics of buying something from a distance, I'd say there could maybe be a brief grace period where the item is still held in the Market Unit, say 1-12 hours or something, then it's moved to a holding area that doesn't have the same protective features of the Market Unit. That's assuming Market Units have invulnerability timers as I described above.
-
You can't make Market Units invulnerable for the reasons stated here and many more.
I think the best option is to have an invulnerability timer when a Market Unit is reduced in health by a certain amount, similar to the system they have mentioned will likely be used for Territory Units (similar to Eve's system). Everyone who has buy/sell orders on the unit and is within x radius gets an in-game notification. They can then either go and get their stuff, write it off, or help defend it. In this way heavily used market units may become very difficult to destroy.
-
That seems to be one of the main purposes of any sandbox game, to play the game in a way that it wasn't originally intended for.
The purpose of a sandbox game is to provide a game universe that doesn't have any predefined goals - nothing more; nothing less.
The tools/abilities/environment/physics provided in a game define what can and can't be done and there may be some things which can be done that the developers did not expect or did not intend. If it's something they didn't intend - i.e. it is not something they want to be possible, then they will change it. If it's something they didn't expect, but still falls within what they intend for the game, then it's fine. This is nothing particular to sandbox games, it is true of any game. A game feature is either working as intended or it isn't and needs to be changed. The only difference is that some or many unexpected consequences may fall within what is intended.
All of that is within the game universe. Multiboxing is entirely outside of the game universe and has nothing to do with the whether the game is a sandbox, simulator, arcade or anything else. It is a type of hacking, of getting around the in-game mechanics to accomplish things which would otherwise not be possible. You could design a game that is intended to be multiboxed, but that would be an entirely different concept and that game may or may not be a sandbox game.
-
As long as it's not too intrusive, I'd be okay with a hunger mechanic. Say, for example you just have to ensure you have some kind of food stored on you, which slowly depletes - you don't have to actually click a button to eat it. When it's on zero you suffer some minor stat penalties and your health very slowly decreases. You could die eventually from starvation/thirst, but it would take a long time. Some numbers: it takes 24 hours for your food store to deplete from full, and it takes another 24 hours to die from starvation from full health (assuming no other damage is taken). Food/health only depletes when you are logged in and playing.
I think something like this would fit with the FB quote yamamushi found. Once a planet is colonised and filled with players, food will be so plentiful that "refueling" is a non-issue, but when setting out to explore the unknown you need to be well-prepared, whether that's ensuring you have enough food with you, growing some in a hydroponics bay, or hunting & gathering.
- Halo381, Dygz_Briarthorn and Traceur
-
3
-
Welcome to the forums, WorldsNoob! Good luck in your quest for global domination
-
I think what people need to remember is that this game is pure PvP. PvE is not really a good way to look at the starting zone or any other safe zones.
Trading on the market, buy low, sell high? Pure PvP because you are buying from and selling to others players and competing with other traders.
Building a spaceship? PvP because you are going to either use that spaceship against other players in some other way, or sell it to another player. If selling, you are competing with other ship builders, and negotiating the PvP market.
Mining? PvP because you are going to sell that stuff to other players for profit. You are competing with other miners directly, but you are also affecting the supply of that resource which will have PvP implications.
Exploring? Still PvP because you are finding new areas and selling the information to other players for exploitation, which, again, leads to PvP.
In short, anything you do that involves creation, destruction, discovery or profit is PvP. Having said that, there needs to be some safe areas for players to learn how to play the game and to bootstrap the creation part of the creation/destruction cycle. So a limited number of safe zones which are free for anyone to use for learning purposes is necessary, but these areas should not be a source of wealth, ownership, exploitation, or advantage.
-
I am very strongly against multiboxing.
It is, frankly, a form of cheating. It is immersion-breaking. It is a form of pay2win. It is contrary to the player-driven, cooperative/competitive MMO philosophy of the game on many levels. It affects the emergent story of the game on a deep level. It has far-reaching consequence for the player-driven economy and the cycle of creation/destruction. It drastically affects what is possible for a solo player to do, and this relates back to my other points.
I would very much like to see multiboxing as strictly prohibited as is realistically possible.
-
Now you are just making up mechanics and situations to suit your argument.
Why would a battle be going on in an uninhabited system without a gate?
Who said it was uninhabited just because it doesn't have a gate? Maybe the gate hasn't been built yet, or maybe it was destroyed. Maybe the system is not yet completely inhabited but it is valuable for some reason or other and organisations are fighting over its position or resources. Why do battles occur in the oceans? Lots of reasons.
If someone destroyed the gate... in a system you owned you'd need to go there to rescue what remains of the populace...(since the destruction of the gate killed most of them) but if an enemy faction destroyed the gate in their own system... well they just destroyed most of the value of the system and created their own prison so... why bother?
The gate system is fundamental. Any system worth fighting over has a gate. Building one is key to exploiting the resources in a system... Each gate in the system expands the number of reachable systems to explore. Destroying a gate is monumentally stupid... They are the key object in a system you want to control... not destroy.
You are inventing the consequences of destroying a gate. There is no information anywhere about gate destruction causing massive explosions. In fact there is no information on star gate destruction at all. All we know is that they will be player made and that destruction of player made constructs will be an integral part of the economic systems of the game.
So you are saying that only systems with gates will have any "value", and that players in a system with no gate will be imprisoned. Those are wildly presumptive statements. I am assuming that a solar system would be able to support literally thousands of players for many years. I think that is a fair assumption to make given that we know the size of voxels and we know the size of planets - huge; quadrillions of voxels in a single large planet. We also know how the territory system will work and how many individual territories each planet is likely to have - thousands. So calling an entire solar system a prison just does not make sense.
Continuing from that I can think of lots of reasons you might want to destroy a gate. It's an important strategic war target. Why would you want to destroy a trading port, or an airfield, or a mine? Lots of reasons. If you can gain control of it, that may be better, but it may not, it is entirely situational and dependent on a lot of variables.
You can't just wish away the gates when it suits you.
Like for like... Going to a system with gate access. Travel time to any point within the system. About equal. covers 95% of all activity.
Going to a system without gate access. Possible but risky... and you'll want to bring escort ships and impossible for unequipped ships unless you join up with an expedition. Only done for exploration or extreme desperation.
So you're arguing over an edge case... not a common occurrence.
I am not wishing anything away. I am comparing one ship's capabilities to another's. It is you who are bringing things in to suit your argument.
Based on the system you've described and the example given, it certainly does not sound as though the two forms of travel are about equal within a solar system or between systems with gates. And even if it were, that would still break game balance.
As for using these things for exploration of new systems being an edge case, I think you don't understand the power of your own mechanic compared with the mechanics that we know about. It has been said that travel to new systems will take literally months. If you can bypass that by doing it in an hour, who wouldn't? Well, small exploration organisations sure won't because they won't be able to build one of your super ships.
I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how things will work. To be fair, so am I, but at least I am basing them on things we actually know about the game.
Like I said, let's wait for more information on travel before making further assumptions. There's not much more to be said about this idea until NQ give us more information.
-
And why exactly is bypassing a disadvantage bad? Since our (mankinds) very beginnig the goal of evolution and technology is to bypass and overcome the disadvantages and obstacles.
And don't throw the "balanced" argument at me, yes i agree that the game need some sort of balance, but you can also over balance one aspect of the game, which would lead to an imbalance of one or mutiple other aspects, the goal is to find a overall balance and this is certainly nothing that can you achieve via simply banning possible features that seems to OP for you. And don't begin with "fair" at the beginning the game will be fair in terms of start conditions, but after that, the game will be so fair as real life is fair.
In my eye's the jumpengine tech, is a tech that will first appear after the point where almost all developted systems will have a jumpgate and when at this point your system still has no jumpgate, then it will make no difference if the invasion fleet will need 2 hours or 2 weeks, because you aren't able to prepare a defense that could withstand it, at least not in a time period that would a fleet not allow to get to you, even if they would use first generation FTL-drives. I hope the formulation makes sense.
But this fundamentally about balance. I believe this idea as you have explained it and I have read it would have serious balance issues.
We will have to wait and see what specific ideas NQ have and when that happens we can all express our opinions on them constructively.
-
The ability to get out of hyperspace a little closer to the destination just even things up a bit. How you can think it makes big ships super fast mystifies me. How you can come to that conclusion... I can't fathom.
Here is where I see the crux of our disagreement. What you see as evening things up a bit I see as bypassing an important and fundamental disadvantage.
What do you think the gates do? They allow the smaller cheaper ships access to hyperspace and an exit to hyperspace. They allow the lowest cheapest space capable ship you can get to travel across the known universe.
What if there's no gate in the system? Ask again how I think this mechanic makes big ships super fast. You have to compare like for like, you can't just throw in a star gate when it suits you.
-
It adds the point of "is it worth it" into the strategy and why is it bad that the guy with more resources have more advantages? I mean yeah the game should be fair in terms of everyone has the same start conditions, but as the game is progressing there will be some with more resources and with this they have more advantages, thats only natural. And after stargates must be something else to keep the motivation, it is a evolution and is this suddenly stoped or cut down, the motivation to gofurther will drop.
I'll just respond to this. What I want to see is for all sizes of organisation to remain relevant and to be able to hold their own. I want smaller, but smarter organisations to be able to hurt or even defeat larger ones. I want it to be difficult to hold huge swaths of territory for extended periods of time. I want the geopolitical map to be dynamic and ever changing. I want trade offs between advantages and disadvantages of different playing styles, different designs, different strategies, and I want them to scale. I want ground based or single planet organisations to be relevant - and just as powerful as multi planet organisations of similar resources. Super weapons and super fast travel are contrary these ideals.
-
You apparently completely don't understand... You saying things like near instantaneous and thinking the big ships aren't traveling the same way all the other ships shows you don't understand.
This system is specifically about making travel take time... to delay interstellar engagements and increase tactical planning and gameplay.
No, this idea reduces the amount of time it takes for powerful hardware to cross the universe. It creates a mystical alternate dimension that exclusively allows big ships to travel long distances by only traveling a short distance. I get it, I don't like it.
The big ship is slower than small ships both in real space and in hyperspace... the jump engine just gets you in and out. Once in you're plodding along using the jumpgates beacons as reference just like everyone else... using your slow ass engines as the smaller ships use their smaller mass to go faster. In probably a 50/50 split you would have to travel farther or shorter a distance to get to where you wanted to exit.
The ability to get out of hyperspace a little closer to the destination just even things up a bit. How you can think it makes big ships super fast mystifies me. How you can come to that conclusion... I can't fathom.
I suppose you could take everything with you to every engagement... if you
1. left everywhere else undefended... inviting attacks from other factions while you deal with some piddling little raiders...
2. Waited in one spot for days as you gather your forces spread all over the place into the fleet you'll use to crush your enemy... massively telegraphing your intentions... giving them time to move... set traps... time their attack on your undefended worlds to coincide with your fool hardy plan.
Except the small ship cannot punch through into hyperspace without the big ship, can it? It is entirely dependent on it for interstellar travel. If you make hyperspace engines something that any ship of any size can equip, perhaps in different sizes, then maybe we could about the mechanic in more detail. I imagine it would still come up short for various reasons.
These points you list exist without the need for your hyperspace. If you include this idea these points are less prominent.
Getting around restrictions with resources and being able to get around more with more... Welcome to Every game ever and Real Life. A game centered around as real a depiction of interactions between people as possible is going have this mechanic. Get used to it.
The difference is that you are adding fuel to the fire by providing work arounds for disadvantages. I am not against large groups of people rallying together and accomplishing great things, far from it. I am against providing exclusive benefits to a particular play style.
Like I said, agree to disagree because we are getting nowhere.
-
Making them take so much effort and resources makes them rare.
It means only the most massive organizations... like galacticly large controlling many systems could afford more than 1. And likely a lot of IRL time before any organizations achieves that...
Again, providing massive organisations with an exclusive superweapon is bad for balanced and strategic gameplay.
Just like In real life Governments have large Carrier groups and can move large quantities of military assets quickly. This hyperspace mechanic is an analog to Sea going combat. Real space is the coast line and Hyperspace with gates is the currents and prevailing winds that most ships follow to get around... and powerful ships can get around those restrictions at great expense.
Carriers in real life are slow, and only carry a handful of aircraft. Carriers in space can exist without the need for near-instantaneous travel mechanics. Hyperspace seems unnecessary in your analogy. Space is the sea and planets are land, simple. And again, getting around restrictions because you are rich is a bad mechanic.
Hit and run tactics would be rather effective. Hit a place and use the gate to get back into hyperspace before the big ship and its fleet can arrive. Then high tail it a safe place to take shelter or continue to another location and hit it.
force the big ship to expend resources until it to is reduced to using the gates and or has to put in for refueling.
This type of gameplay is much more plausible without these super ships.
Destroying a gate is a bad idea in almost all situations. I've described in other posts about how suicidal attempting to destroy a gate is... HUGE boom. any one attempting it would not escape the blast... nor would any space station nearby or planet. It could crack a planet open if too close or cause mass ecological damage if just on the outer edge of the blast.
And unless you had a jump engine equipped ship yourself... you'd be cutting off your only means of escape.
Star gates are science fiction. They do not have to create an explosion so big that anyone nearby would be destroyed. In fact making star gates permanent in this way would be a terrible idea from a gameplay perspective. And my point was that the tactic of cutting others off from the solar system is not possible because of these jump capable ships. If jump capable ships don't exist then it is a viable plan.
But you're also ignoring the draw backs of jumping into a system not at a gate.
1. you will be vulnerable just after jumping in for a while... so you'll want to a. have escort ships and b. not jump too close to the enemy
2. If you don't have spies in the system relaying information on where the enemy fleet is or if jamming is being used... you could collide with ships if you jump too close to the planet they are attacking for instance.
These drawbacks are minute compared to the advantages and the disadvantages of actually having to travel in the same way as every other ship.
1. If you have to travel as normal then you could be ambushed en route by a fleet that exploits your weaknesses (not just a gamey disablement mechanic, actual strategy). So you will need to scout ahead, bring a support fleet, etc.
2. If you are not certain of your intelligence you could be diverted to the wrong location and end up leaving the wrong place undefended. You always need to be aware of how far you are actually able to project your most powerful hardware into your defensive and offensive strategies.
A carrier group is a large investment that you don't risk unless you have to and you don't send to far from your core territories which it is defending.
You can still build carriers, just not absurdly fast ones.
This system means small scale skirmishes are common. The mid range territories see medium class fleets engage... with maybe the odd capital ship popping up here and there. The core during an all out war sees the massive capital ships duking it out... also the border...
I think the opposite. This system restricts varied skirmishes because it means that you can always bring everything and the kitchen sink to an engagement.
There is another thing to consider... the Fragility of space ships... Armor... hit points... whatever doesn't have to scale linearly or exponentially like Bosses in so many games do... Weapons that fighter class ships have could and probably should do effective damage even to the largest ships.
Think Dark Souls... where even if you have the best weapons and armor... if you misstep... don't dodge... or make a mistake you can die pretty darn quickly... In space it should be the same. Every battle even if on paper you have a superior force should be close to disaster if you underestimate your opponent.
I agree with this but it doesn't really have anything to do with making powerful ships fast.
We're beginning to go around in circles. I think we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree.
-
I think we talk here past each other. Yes in science-fiction you can make everything as small or big as you want, but if the lore already says "there will be big ass stargates and the technology needs massive amounts of resources and space" It would be logically to me that really big ships could also have the abilities of stargates, but which would be the logical way to explain that tiny ships have also a way to do the same thing as stargates? Yes maybe there will be a tech to make that work, but probably decades, if not even centuries, later.
I doesn't talked about technologies in general, i talked about technologies that will probably be bigger and more resource hungry, such as superweapons and jumpengines. I may have formulated it wrong.
My whole point the entire time was, that jumpengine are only a way to get in and out of hyperspace and in hyperspace it would be necessary to use your normal engines.
Yes, star gates have been described by NQ as massive structures that will require a large amount of time, resources and cooperation to build. Note however, that these structures are entirely dedicated to a single task, and cannot travel fast themselves. It is not a given that the same technology can be used to send itself across space. Much like a catapult can propel a rock at high speed, but not itself.
And regarding the point of a ship with a massive engine that can't carry anything, yes i agree and to get you a picture of what a type of ship i imagine here a little description, basically i imagine a massive military ship, where the jumpengine and the necessary sub-systems to operate the engine, take around one third to the half of the ships volume. This ship should only operate in fleets and its main role should be to act as mobile jumpgate and maybe as CIC for the entire fleet.
Allowing 67% payload and structures on a ship that can travel so incredibly fast is amazingly efficient. So you are proposing a stargate that can not only transport itself, but transport up to twice its own weight in additional payload and structures!
Yes i know there is more behind it, but i did not want to go into so much detail. That are all good points and they have all their pros and cons in certain situations.
But regarding the weapons in my previous post, i meant "more and/or larger weapons", but i have forgot the "or", sorry for that, i have edited it.
Now to the many small weapons on a huge ship, the only effective advantage for this would be a massive spreadfire to cover a large area, but this would burn trough your ammo and energy storage pretty quick. And everything else would be pretty pointless against much smaller ships, because every reasonably capable pilot could outmaneuver you and stay out of the effective range range of your weapons, but in the same time his effective range against you is much larger, because it is pretty difficult to miss a target that is several cubic kilometers in size. And i mean at a distance just a bit outside of the effective range of the bigger ship.
This is all just conjecture. We have no idea what ship and vehicle designs will or won't be effective or possible in the game.
Yes i agree, but i don't want to take away this layer, it would be just a little shifted, because you would still need to gather your fleet at one point.
I'm sorry but this system does remove a strategic layer from warfare. And it is a complex layer that has more implications than you or I can reason about.
Let me clearify: Point C and the jumpgate in B were meant to be on the opposite edges of System B, so the travel i was mentioned, was across the entire solar system. So your Point D is outside of the system in empty space. My intention is that smaller ships are still faster, if they want to travel inside a system or travel from a system to any point in another system and yes the larger ships could use their jumpengines, but it costs a lot of resources, so much that even a ship with large amounts of resources available, would be forced to refill all 3 to 4 jumps.
My point is still valid. Solar systems are not all the same size and are not all the same distance apart. Imagine a solar system that is five times larger than the one in your example. Besides the fact that 10 minutes to cross a solar system sounds too fast to me.You are drastically reducing the importance of fast travel within a solar system by bypassing the stargates and allowing powerful ships to land anywhere in a system that they like. In your vision these ships have so much spare capacity that they can then deploy an entire fleet of ships that move fast within a solar system.Requiring resources does not fix the problem. Cars need petrol every couple of hundred miles but they can still go a lot faster than bicycles. It doesn't matter how much petrol you put in the bicycle, it still can't catch up to the car. Requiring additional resources only exacerbates the problem by providing exclusive advantages to those that already have a large pool of resources.No it is not, what you are thinking is necessary to maintain and man such a massive ship to keep it functional? Such a ship is nothing that you could build for yourself, it would require a whole team of builders, engineers and designers and amounts of resources that are beyond everything that a player or even a small group could gather in their entire lifetime.
And no bigger means not automatically better, in every case it is depending on the situation.
How about a large organisation of several hundred players that prides itself on its vast fleet of small to medium size ships, each crewed by between 1 and 30 players. This type of fleet is unviable because they cannot travel fast on the same scale no matter how many resources they throw into their engines. Your system forces them to build a massive jump capable ship and shrink the size of their signature fleet and change their distinctive fighting style. Can you not see how limiting this is on gameplay?How about a small organisation that wants to take a small piece of real estate away from a much larger organisation that is spread thin? If they concentrate their forces on a weak area, can they destroy the local star gate, take and hold the territory and then demand a settlement? No, because the large organisation has a superweapon that can deploy a significant force to anywhere they like in a matter of minutes. Destroying the star gate in this scenario was a waste of time.I understand what you are proposing. You are proposing that every organisation build a large ship that requires dozens or hundreds of players to build and operate or else be severely restricted in movement capabilities. Making it require a lot of resources only exacerbates the problem by providing additional advantages to the large and wealthy. It also shrinks the universe and makes the claiming of large swaths of territory too easy. The amount of territory that can be claimed and defended by a given number of people is directly proportional to the time it takes to deploy a force across a given distance.When I say "bigger" I mean more defenses, more weapons, more storage capacity, more capabilities, more players, more resources. "Bigger" on its own of course does not mean better. More of those things is its own reward, it does not need additional incentive. -
I don't think that is logical at all. We are in the realms of science fiction here, so you can make up any lore you like, and more advanced technology is most certainly not necessarily bigger or heavier. However, with real propulsion bigger only means faster if you don't increase the payload. Put massive engines on a tiny structure and it may go very fast but it can't carry anything.This is the point, it is only logically that a mothership has the size and the resources for a larger and possibly more powerful tech, such as a jumpengine.
If you remove the jumpengine what would be the point of having such a humongous ship in the game, besides that you want to build it and its possible use as carrier. The only advantage of such a ship that i can see are more and larger weapons, but the effectivness of these weapons against smaller ships shrinks with the growing size. And you are unable to destroy planets in the game, at least as far as i know, so there would be no super weapons, that would require such a ship.
So see the jumpengines more as additional motivation for building such ships.
Why such ships still need jumpgates, can you read in Fitorions posts. I have also mentioned possible single-use jumpengines for small ships.
And jumpgates shouldn't be removed from the equation, because they should be much cheaper as motherships.
If a mothership not in a rush, it would normally use jumpgates, because of the resources that are needed to jump. So in this case it would also be vulnerabel to attacks.
In case of a rush, an enemy could use advanced sensor and hyperspace sensor probes to detect the ship in hyperspace, calculate the possible exitpoint and intercept, in this case the ship would be even more vulnerable.
Jumpgates could be able to vary their physical size, but yes in some cases they would need additional energy. In Babylon 5 the jumpgates consists of 2 independent main bodies and several moveable parts on the main bodies, if i remember correctly.
You can't be serious about not being able to think why anyone would want to build a giant ship... How about consolidating a massive amount of firepower and personnel behind extremely strong defences? Transporting massive amounts of goods? An achievement to rally people behind? Your argument of effectiveness against smaller ships is invalid because ships are entirely player designed. You could design a ship to have hundreds of small weapon batteries if you like. I would argue that the only negative of having a large ship is that it's very slow, but you're campaigning to remove this lone disadvantage.
In war, mobilisation of force is key. Generally mobilising a small amount of force is easy, a large amount difficult. Take that away and not only is the balance broken, but a massive layer of strategy is removed.
You absolutely must remove jump gates from the equation when comparing the speed of two ships. I don't care how fast the jump gate "engine" goes, I care how fast the ship's engines go. Not least because it makes your example contrived. What if I want to go to point D in solar system B? Point D is 5 times further from the gate than point C. So the small ship now takes 55 minutes and the large takes 45.01 minutes.
Your resources argument is also bad for gameplay. It is yet another point in making bigger and richer exponentially superior to smaller and poorer. Bigger and richer are intrinsically advantaged. There is no need to give them additional advantages.
-
Safezones
- Safezones should exist, because you can't protect your assets 24/24 since it's a game, not RL.
- Safezones should be rare, or the PVP will die. And if the PVP dies, economy, building, and the social aspect will follow.
- Safezones should be public. If there's a way to obtain a safezone by playing the game, this would be a feature that only huge and rich corporations would benefit.
- Safezones should have banks to store your items and credits. But with a proper stargate system,where you can't just teleport everywhere anytime, you wouldn't have access to that so easily. Like EVE Online.
- Safezones should not be used for farming. If you want to mine or gather materials, there should be a risk associated with it, or the economy doesn't work. And this damages the PVP too. In a safezone you should be only able to find low level materials. If you want to make money, risk your ship.
- Safezones should let people build, but only ships of a limited size, like 50x50x50. And you will have to rent the land.If you want to rent multiple lands, the price goes up exponentially like Everquest Landmark. If you want to build a huge ship, you would probably have a corporation able to defend your creation, otherwise as a solo player, you shouldn't probably drive that. You should be able to park your ship on the same land you rented, so you can be safe when you logoff. Ofc if you have a huge ship, you'll need a claimed land with "Territory control units", to land it safely.
- Safezones should be social HUB with recruiting, contracts, economy in mind.
Safezones are 100% safe, so there's need to limit the amount of stuff you can hide there, build or farm.
I agree completely that safe zones should exist, be rare, and be public. Being public is especially important. No entity should be able to have a claimed territory that is completely safe. I also agree that there shouldn't be any rare resources in or around safe zones. Ideally they would have no strategic value of any kind, inconvenient even, other than the fact that they are destruction free.
I'm not sure anything needs to be said about banks in safe zones. Players should be able to build facilities with locks on them. In a safe zone such a facility would be accessible only to players with the correct permissions, and would otherwise be completely impenetrable.
I'm not sure how I feel about limiting the size of buildings and constructs... maybe.
Renting the land is an interesting idea. There is a potential issue with safe zone land running out, or becoming clutered with unused, indestructible buildings. But who are you paying the rent to? And what happens if you stop paying? It's supposed to be a completely safe place so the punishment for not paying rent is not really clear.
Territory Control
A land you own, as some kind of safety features. Ofc you shouldn't lose all your empire overnight, it doesn't make sense. So there's need for time window where the land is vulnerable, and i would create a system wimilar to the one EVE Online has.
Land claimed can be attacked under certain circumstances, but you can build bigger, farm precious stuff, deposit all the items and ships you want.
A system similar to Eve has been mentioned by NQ, but what I wouldn't want to see is claimed territory being protected by some bubble that keeps trespassers out automatically. I want to see the possibility for small groups to squat on other organisations' land, or wage guerilla warfare that doesn't require a full frontal assault. Only the Territory Unit should be protected from immediate destruction with a timer, so you can't lose your claim on the land while you're asleep.
Outlaw
They cannot attack safezones
They cannot use safezones
They should be able to attack claimed territories easier than "legal" commanders.
They should be able to claim a territory ( for managing purposes inside their group) but they should not have any kind of protection nor time window of vulnerability. they should always be vulnerable.
They should be really low on ships/resources, in a way that they would never want to grief a building for fun, but just open a small hole, and steal what you can.
Automated defenses that a player can build on his territory, should give outlaws a real challenge, so that they would not just grief and destroy everything they see.
I disagree that there should be any mechanic that makes players outlawed by the game. Define an outlaw? Outlawed by whom? This game is pure PvP, pure player-led. If safe zones are public, who is it that has outlawed a player? Organisation should be able to label other entities as "outlaws" or any other label they see fit. They can then define how their own players and automated constructs react to those players. Other than that I disagree that there should be any official definition for an "outlawed" player, or that there should be any mechanics that make them different from "law-abiding" citizens.
Organzisations can "arktify" their land for a very high price, and probably not permanently, if you only want to build stuff and stay save then you can only do so in the virtual space.
Arkification isn't confirmed yet and when NQ were talking about it they explicitly said that it would not be intended to be a benefit for large or rich organisations. They also said that it would have to be permanent for it to be meaningful.
-
Hyperspace is an extra dimension where the distances are shorter, but the engine capabilities of your ship will still dictate your maximum acceleration, even in hyperspace.
The only advantage that the large ships will have is that they are also jumpgates.
An example:
You want from System-A to Point-C in System-B, but Point-C is on the opposite site of the system, seen from the jumpgate in System-B.
So first you take your small exploration ship and you are using the jumpgate in A, the travel from A to B in hyperspace takes 5 minutes and then you use the jumpgate to get out of the HS, from now one you are using your FTL-Drive and it takes 10 minutes for you from the jumpgate to C, so your travel time is 15 minutes.
Now your are taking your big jump-capable mothership and you are using again the jumpgate in A to save resources, but instead of going to the jumpgate in B you are taking the direct route to C in hyperspace and it takes you 45 minutes, as you arrive at C you are jumping out of hyperspace, but it costs resources, your weapons are offline and your defenses are at minimum, because off the amount of energy it takes to jump.
So all in all with the small ship you have traveled 15 minutes, including a detour.
With mothership it has taken 45 minutes, even with the direct route and after the jump your ship is also for at least 10 minutes vulnerable to attacks.
This is misleading because the small ship in this example is using a jumpgate and the mothership is not. Using the gate in System A is just a matter of saving resources, and not required. If you remove the jumpgates from the equation the small ship is virtually immobile compared to the mothership. The opposite should be true.
The mothership would be vulnerable to interception if it also had to use the jumpgate and then slowly travel across the system to point C. And this would make for more interesting warfare dynamics than appearing at a point and then having to wait a while to become fully functional.
As for resources, I would expect that jumpgates would need to be larger and spend more resources to send larger ships through them in any case.
-
-
Could be fixed if there was a bigger punishment for death
Yes, I mention that in my thread, but how severe a punishment would you want to see for death? At the moment it's loss of position, loss of what you're carrying and random inventory losses. That's from a very early devblog, so unlikely to change just for the sake of making bounty hunting realistic.
-
Say you put a hefty bounty on my head. I strip myself of all valuables, and get a friend to kill me. He then goes and claims the bounty and splits it with me. This was a common problem in Eve. As much as I love the idea of bounty hunting it cannot be a simple kill/get money mechanic in this type of game. I had some ideas on this topic a while back. A short summary is that there need to be dynamic ways for players to put stipulations on their bounty contracts. https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/274-bounty-hunting/?hl=%2Bbounty+%2Bhunting
Ship Roles
in Idea Box
Posted
As code24 alludes to, nothing will stop you from building a ship that fills multiple roles. The kind of balancing that NQ are going for is at the design level. Size, power consumption, placement, mass, etc. So the more abilities you attempt to give your construct, the less efficient it is likely to be at each of them. Design decisions will have to be made on improving one aspect at the expense of another; strengths, weaknesses and mediocrity.