Jump to content

TheOrdersMaster

Member
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheOrdersMaster

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

159 profile views
  1. It seems the forum doesn't take kindly to word-tables, so here's the table with the planet sizes again: r 15; t 1'088.25; p 1'387.82 r 30; t 4'352.99; p 459.45 r 60; t 17'411.96; p 114.86 r 100; t 48'366.56; p 41.35 r 200; t 193'466.23; p 10.34 r 500 t 1'209'163.91; p 1.65 r 6'378.1; t 196'755'924.03; p 0.01
  2. I have to say, that honestly, I’m not very happy with how territories have been presented up until now. And I thought very long about alternate solutions to what the dev’s have presented and I may have come up with something. Tell me what you think and how you would maybe improve on my system. (This is also an elaboration on the short post I made on the dev-blog discussion on territories) So I’ll go with the example the dev’s gave: a 30 km radius Planet and hexagonal-tiles with a 1km long side. Let’s start calculating. Spherical Surface Area: 4 x 30km^2 x π = 11,309 km^2 Hexagonal Surface Area: 1km^2 x 3/2 x sqroot(3) = 2.6 km^2 Approximate Number of Tiles: 11,309 km^2 / 2.6 km^2 = 4,352.99 That seems like a lot, but since DU is a MMO we’ll be expecting thousands of players. For the sake of argument, let’s say 1’000’000 players want to start instantly when the game releases (it’s a great game so let’s be optimistic). Number of planets needed so everyone gets one tile: 1’000’000 / 4,349.6 = 229.73 Assuming that planets in DU on average are covered to 50% by oceans we roughly get 460 planets with a radius of 30 km. Considering that the earths equatorial radius lies at 6,378.1 km, a planet with such a small radius is more like an asteroid. But since I couldn’t find anything on planet sizes in the Dev-Blogs I’ll stick with the 30 km radius for my examples but I’ll list a few just to see how much space there actually might be. Radius Tiles Number of Planets needed 15 1’088.25 1’387.82 30 4’352.99 459.45 60 17’411.96 114.86 100 48’366.56 41.35 200 193’466.23 10.34 500 1’209’163.91 1.65 6’378.1 196’755’924.03 0.01 Just a small input on planet sizes, I doubt that there will be any planets larger than 100 km in radius for gameplay reasons (If 2’000 people work together and every person claims one tile a day the 100 km radius planet still take just over 24 days, the 200 km one would already take 97 days, that’s a quarter-year of daily territory claiming) So after all that math, here’s my conclusion: making territory-markers rare will further lengthen the process of empire building severely. However, the ‘Gold-Rush’ alternative isn’t all that great either, since it would lead to patchworks of infinitely small nations and other organizations that fight over nothing and the game would, just like in the other scenario, take decades to finally bring some really strong empires to light. So if neither option, getting territories easily nor making it hard to get territories, quit works with the potential of the game, we may be looking at the problem from the wrong side, in short: Make the territories easy to get, but hard to keep! This way a player trying to single-handedly claim and keep a territory will eventually be faced with a choice, sell, delegate or abandon. In the sell case the territory changes hands to either another player who will likely also fail or to an organization that can add it to its empire. Should the player delegate, he either rent’s the territory out in order the make ends meet, or he gets integrated into an organization like a state or a company, can keep owner-ship of the land but is now part of a larger corporation. In case of abandonment, the territory will simply be reclaimed by someone else or an organization. A collective of maybe 10 players could get a territory working long-term without a major influence from outside like renting/delegating. This would naturally nudge players towards a more community driven game-style early on, were one has to rely on others to create a powerful entity. Later on, when the players have established a few territories in groups, they could either join up with other groups to strengthen their economic/political power or divide parts of the territory among each other so the dream of a self-owned company may become realistic with a steady income from the organization they are part of. All this leads to entity delegation, where in order to survive you become part of something bigger to make your own dreams come true, just like we go to work at a company to finance the other things in life we’d all like to do. So that would have been what I would change with the planetary territories. I’m not going to go into how space territories should be handled since the dev’s haven’t said how they would do it and so I don’t know what’s feasible to do and what not. I’ll only say that I think space-territories should be much larger than planet-territories (I’m happy with their size). On to the PvP-Free-Zones, which got me thinking about redesigning the territory-system in the first place. The last-time the dev-team talked about these they said they weren’t sure how to implement them specifically, but that they most definitively are going to. After scouring the forums all afternoon I find that there are three groups of people, those who want completely untouchable safe-zones, those who think safe-zones are annoying and break immersion and those who stand in between: safe-zones? Sure! Indestructible? Eh, not so much. I stand with the last group on this matter. In order to make the game attractive to the active fighter/entrepreneur type and the more passive, builder/miner type safe-zones need to be there, but they can’t be indestructible since whatever organization first controls them is de facto immortal. So they have to be conquerable and they have to be PvP-free. Quite the challenge. But before we think about destroying them let’s first figure out how to create them. Now in this instance I feel, that it should be hard to get an arkified tile (like the dev’s call it). So in my earlier post on the Developers Blog I said that in order to make a tile into an ark-tile it would have to be surrounded by two rows of territories belonging to the same organization. I wrote that article in haste and only put little thought to the numbers so I estimated rather than calculated so all and any upcoming numbers are most likely vastly different from those in the post put the concept is the same. Two rows would mean that one entity would have to own at least 19 tiles. On our example Planet that equals 0.44% of the total area, basically nothing. I played around with the numbers for some time and came to the conclusion that 3 rows would definitively be needed, which would require 37 tiles (0.85%). The biggest change from my previous post comes here, if you wish to add a second ark-tile next to the first one you need a 4 tile perimeter around BOTH ark-tiles (74 tiles; 1.70%). This would keep going up to 7 ark-tiles. Which would need a 9 tile perimeter around all 7 tiles, if these are arranged in a circle this would result in 331 tiles which would make up 7.60% of the planet’s surface. The reason I upped the maximum number of adjacent ark-tiles from 3 to 7 is because I calculated the average land area of the U.S.A.’s largest 150 cities, which comes to 601.3 km^2. Of course this also counts in suburbs, so assuming 10% of a city is downtown area we get 60 km^2 for our city center. 7 tiles add up to 18.19 km^2 whereas 3 merely give 7.8 km^2. I thought there should be more area available in a maxed out ark-field, if we really want large cities. If the 7 ark-tile limit is reached another ark-tile must be 50 tiles away. I upped this number again because a maxed out ark-field has a 10 tile perimeter from its center, so two ark-fields would only have 5 tiles of buffer-zone in between their field of influence, but more on why that needs to be bigger later. In order to give organizations some more freedom when placing ark-fields I think that the less ark-tiles are connected the smaller the minimal distance to other ark-fields should be, but I’m not quite sure how to make that work exactly. Perhaps up to two tiles the minimal distance would have to be 20 tiles and then three would have 25, four 30, five 35, six 40 and seven as before 50, something like that If we keep true to our circular shaped ark-fields then the area of one ‘unit’ for a maxed out ark-field would be the centre ark-tile, one outside ark-tile and then half of the minimal distance in between two ark-fields gives us a total of 26 rows plus the centre-piece which equals 2107 tiles making up 48.40% So a maximum of two maxed out ark-fields of the same organization have enough space on one 30km radius planet. However, if it’s different organizations the 50 km minimal distance does not apply, so the highest number of possible ark-fields would be determined by the 331 tiles necessary to build a maxed out ark-field which would result, at optimal placing, in 13 maxed out hubs. The reason I want the minimal distance to fall away in between two ark-fields owned by two different organizations is to make it harder to keep a totally controlled planet, and to let trade federations made up of loosely connected, yet politically mostly separate entities to flourish with many trade hubs and large cities. Now that we know how to make ark-fields, let’s conquer one. I mentioned an “Area of Influence” before, the rows outside ark-fields necessary to make ark-tiles are what I call the area of influence, it shares all it's power so that it can accumulate a large amount of it, necessary to use large scale weaponry and powerful shields for example. Making an attack from space there a costly option. Which is why I wanted to expand the buffer-zone in between areas of influence, to make planetary invasions easier. The reason I intend the area of influence to be so powerful is to protect the ark-zones, because as soon as an ark-tile doesn’t fulfill the requirements explained above, it will lose its ark-status after a countdown has clocked down. The area of influence however retains its characteristics until it is completely conquered in order to hold the enemy at bay, while the citizens of the city flee. Speaking of fleeing, during an ark-tile countdown all people inside that tile can invoke asylum, which turns all their weapons off, but protects them and their property until the timer runs out. This way they can flee without worrying about their stuff. A conquered ark-tile will no longer function as an ark-tile, it would have to be rearkified by its new owner. Now just to explain why I prefer my overly complex system to the ones the dev’s gave. The tokens or mysterious items that would make arkification possible are down to luck on whether or not you find them or are able to buy them off someone. Whereas my system needs hard work and dedication, it’s a community project everyone has to work together for. Thanks for reading though all that, tell me what you think and what you believe isn't right or wouldn't work and why. Cheers
  3. So I had an Idea while reading/scanning through these posts. And I did scan through all of them quickly and I might have missed it so I'm sorry if I'm repeating someone here, but here goes: Instead of creating Tokens and having to pay directly for an ark-tiles it could be done indirectly, in order for one organization to have one ark-tile they would have to have a number of other hexes. But then everyone would simply put their ark-hex towards the most immediate threat to have an immortal stronghold. So let's say that in order to make one field arkified there must at least be 2 tiles owned by the same party as the ark-tile in between it and a unclaimed or foreign tile. I quickly drew up a map to find out how many tiles would be needed to have one ark-tile, the answer: 19 including the ark-tile. On to the next problem: What if i own the planet? I could just spam it's entirety with ark-tiles. Fine, we can solve that too, no more than 3 ark-fields can touch (a city with a 1 km radius would be quite small, so i think this is acceptable) if this number is reached there may not be another ark-tile for say 25 tiles. This creates small cities and trade hubs which are safe areas for anyone to build in. It also makes it possible to invade a completely claimed planet easily via the non-ark-tiles. It also creates targets for military campaigns. Speaking of military, how do i conquer an ark-tile? Easy, conquer a tile within a two tile radius of that ark-tile, the ark-tile no longer meets the conditions and automatically looses it's ark-status. Now of course a builder inside such a ark-tile would want to have enough time to load up his ship with whatever valuables he has and leave. So maybe a system could be added that tiles closer to a ark-tile take longer to hack/conquer in order to give the citizens of the city time to leave. Or a ark-tile countdown could be implemented which gives everyone some time to evacuate before the ark-status is lost. Furthermore, in order to ensure the builders safety they can invoke asylum (only possible in an ark-tile which is counting down) which basically safeguards them and their property until the end of the ark-tile countdown. Like this they can relocate to a different part of the planet or change planets entirely without being robbed or killed in the process. However during asylum they are unable to use weapons. Otherwise this system could be exploited. This method of ark-tiling also has pro's for the city or trade hub itself. If a city expands out of the 3-ark-tile limit the inner parts of it rise in property-value and a upper-class district and lower-class district would naturally form, which could add to the RPG aspect of the game. (I also just thought, that it would be cool to be able to group tiles with at least one ark-tile together and give them a name which pops up on mini-maps as city names) So thats that, i really hope this helps
  4. Still, the question remains how easy it will be to use, but that will depend on the execution and interface design But i just read through about 25% of the dev blog and it seems like their on top of their game, pun intended
  5. I feel the need to clarify the point in my criticism. I'm trying to bring a fresh mindset or prespective to the disussion, it's a method often used by journalists when handling sensitive news, they give basic information to a new, uninformed party who then tries to punch holes in the case the journalist makes in order to find loopholes, dead-ends and the likes. But I got some good answers anyway, especially with the scripting part. Where multiple people laid out their script selling enterprise to me. Which is all fine with me, don't get me wrong. But as someone who can't script I don't want to rely on others for EVERYTHING. Example: I mine at point B, my Base is at point A. I want the small cargo ship i built to move in between those two points, load up at point B and unload at point A. Super simple stuff like this could be done with the modules i talked about earlier, more complex things like missile scripts, search and destroy etc. would still have to be made by programmers. So that someone who can't programm doesn't have to completly rely on scripters.
  6. Please, do not misunderstand the title of this thread. I’m not trying to simply bash this game or games like this one, on the contrary, I will go through most of the main advertised features of this game mentioned on the homepage of http://www.dualthegame.com/#screenshots as well as some of the points in the FAQ (http://www.dualthegame.com/faq) and compare them to other games I played or heard a lot about. Furthermore, I’d like to point out that I haven’t read everything there is to read, and I’m not going to before writing this. Why? Well, because I don’t want to discuss whether what the dev’s are trying to do with one particular aspect of the game is good or bad, I am going to point out mistakes similar games made with these certain aspects and try to find out WHY those were either wrong, unsatisfying, annoying or simply bad. I may suggest possible solutions to some of these problems, for others I might just want to see what the dev’s come up with, or I might just not have a solution myself. So let’s get going with a rather light-hearted topic: Guilds, Clans, Nations, Factions, or, how the Dev’s call them, Organizations. To be honest, I read a bit into this one in the Dev-Log, but quickly decided to leave in order for this to stay unbiased. Now, what happens quiet often in MMO’s is, that the amount of Ranks inside an Organization are limited, a prime example here would be Planetside 2, where you are only given 5 usable ranks, which, in larger player-communities, is a ridiculously small diversity to have. What I have also noticed is that often the Rights and Privileges are pre-given, an example here would be “Tribal Wars” a free browser game obsessively played by many, where you have some 10 different rights and privileges which could be given to different ranks within a clan. Now I understand that some rights need to be pre-given, such as the alteration of the organization itself or the ability to hire and fire members, however it shouldn’t be limited to those, as the head of an organization I want to be able to say that no, the guy scrubbing the toilets on my battlecruiser does not have access to my military coms, period. Or the receptionist at my 5-Star hotel cannot use one of the rooms to go ‘afk’ for a few minutes. So here is a solution, I doubt it’s perfect, far from it probably, but perhaps worth a thought: Instead of limiting the organizations to ranks or some such, giving a player two “designations” to describe his position within the organization would be far more effective, which is why some military’s in reality use it. Ok so let’s take Dude Dudsen as our example. Dude has the rank of Officer in his organization, which gives him the ability to promote players under him up to the Position right below him. He also has the function of Navigator, which gives him access to the bridge since his Job is to navigate. The con for using this method would be that the player has to set up to entire systems in order to make his Organization work. The pro is that it gives him flexibility when giving privileges, instead of having to make up an entirely new rank, whenever the others don’t quite fit he has these bundles of privileges that he can give to someone. Now in order for this to work properly one would have to be tied to the other, it would make sense to tie the functions to certain ranks, since a Janitor General wouldn’t make much sense. If you didn’t get that last part, you can hope that I find enough time to make a small sketch of what I mean and upload it (it would be named Fig. 1) Alright, that took longer than anticipated, sadly I’m not done. The Player driven economy: It’d be nice wouldn’t it? Sadly, I just don’t see myself positioning my character at a wooden stall or on some square to wait for someone to buy my damn iron. I also don’t really want to sell all my stuff to an NPC vendor because he needs to make Profit off his sales, otherwise he couldn’t pay me next time I come around and want to sell more stuff, which means I make less than I could. You could, off course, say that he can just sell it for what he paid me and just pay me whatever the current stock price is. Well my dear, that won’t work because it would generate in-game-money. Imagine that everyone just sells to the vendors but the vendors never get to sell, money would be generated and overflow the market, which in turn would make money worthless. But continuing on to the next problem, who’s going to mine the trillions of tons of iron I need for my Fleet of 10 destroyers 16 support frigates 8 missile boats and that supercarrier I always wanted to have which can carry 500 fighters? I’ll tell you who, not me. I don’t have time to do that, and by the time I have advanced in the game enough to be able to do that I honestly might not want to. So who’s it going to be, you? And yes, I mean you, the dude reading this, because I don’t think you will do that for me will you? I mean why would you work to build my fleet just for fun, I doubt you would actually do that. So if I can’t hire players to build my fleet, I need someone else who’s willing…and we’re back at NPC which, if you noticed by now, are an economic dead-end. If I give the NPC a salary, what’s he going to do with it? Where does he give it back into the system? Because that’s all that economics is, giving and taking from the system. And if there is a dead end somewhere which is substantial enough, the system will inevitably crash and fail. If I don’t pay the NPC a salary I get a free Fleet and rule the Galaxy. Sure I don’t mind. But then the game would be boring and I’d play it for a few days until I have conquered everything and got bored of expanding. What might work is if I could put a NPC placeholder for me in the wooden stall I mentioned at the top of the paragraph who would sell my things. And before I forget, I don’t WANT a global trading platform where I can just put up my Iron for X money and then some random Person takes it, where’s the fun in that? Where can I rob my trade Partner, where can I betray him? It’s just so much fun to stab people in the back. While we’re on the topic of money, the games price: I’ve read what the dev’s wrote in the FAQ and it sort of, well dampened my enthusiasm. I don’t want to delve too much into this since it’s less about the game than other points and it’s also not really any of my business so I’ll try to keep it short. Dear dev-team, your game lives and dies with the amount of people playing it, for a small group of people this game will soon become repetitive and boring, for the millions you promise it can handle, it will be one of their greatest adventures. The casual gamer, which is a majority, will be less interested in a subscription-based game than a one-time pay plus in-game purchases game. I understand that you need to have a steady stream of money to pay salaries and server-upkeep and the likes, however I ask that you at least consider what I said before making your decision on the subscription final. Let’s move on to a less serious topic: Scriptable Ships and Constructs Oh boy, what to say. I understand how dev’s might think that a Script isn’t that big of a deal but, well it is, for me at least. I never learned how to program anything, granted I did tech myself some .cmd a few years back for fun, but that doesn’t nearly compare to anything I’d need to script a damned ship! Space Engineers did the exact same thing, and I see the awesome stuff like lock-on cruse-missiles and the likes, and it just makes any attempt I make laughable in comparison, it takes away the thrive to create something new and innovative. If you do scripting, next to it make some sort of easy to learn module connector platform. Where people like me with no programming experience can quickly and easily learn to make the basics work, for example a simple trade route, move from here to here, dock there and done. Or try to make a missile “script” in that sense. So that’s it for now, it’s late and I have work tomorrow. I might continue this some other time. Please comment on anything and everything I said, tare my arguments to shreds if you want. And call me out on any ignorant remarks I may have made. Also if there's anything very wrong with my English, make a footnote out of it, it's my second language and I'm always happy to learn. Have a good day.
×
×
  • Create New...