Archonious

Hi, This is updated version of Custom Safe Zones. Many of changes become after long 6 hours discussion yesterday. I am sure many of you thought about Safe Zones (SZ) outside Ark Ship SZ. But you could understand, that SZ is kind of OP which will give 100% guarantee for the player. That is not very good for pirates (they will suffer mostly). So the idea is something like the middle ground. As we already know, planets (space in future) will have hexagonal territory structure. Sample on picture below: Main Idea Before to start, I want to say, this idea designed for "Construct vs Construct" combat. So I speak about possible expansion. Let's imagine massive city, months of designing and works. Many high technologies, markets and simply beautiful objects. It is very important, I'm speaking about massive structures, not just basic base of few new players. It is very important to understand, amount of these Massive Structures must be low (~up to 50 over 1 year after release, if nothing will be destroyed). So after one year of explorations, players will have about 50 massive stations or trade centres (this number could be reduced by requirements and prices for maintain). Safe Zone - it sound very promissing and safe, but reality is bit less friendly. Safe Zone looks like shield (as an example green colour). Safe Zone module works like battery. To charge this battery module need some generators, but just because power of Safe Zone shield is very high, Safe Zone Generators need to be located in ~800m from shield module (Radius of Safe Zone shield is 500m / Diameter is 1km). If to make visual example, it will looks that way: Green hexagon - Safe Zone Module Blue hexagons - Safe Zone Generators *There could be code limits, like Generator need to be placed on different hexagon. Safe Zone Charge Mode As I said before, Safe Zone Module is the type of battery and need the energy to charge. It can be charged if only all 6 generators turned on. As soon this requirement is true, shield start charging. Full charge (from 0% to 100%) takes 16 hours. If Safe Zone loses control of one of the generators, Charge Mode turns off. Full battery of shield will be discharged in 24 hours. How to destroy Safe Zone shield As I said in beginning, Unlimited Safe Zone (time) is kind of OP and do not fit in PvP world very well and could damage to gameplay (no risk). This idea based on destructable Safe Zone. But it must be hard to break it. I split siege on 3 stages: Stage One If pirates or enemy organisation decide to destroy city, there are few global targets. The first one is to turn off Charge Mode. It is possible if to destroy or capture one of the generators (or more). This will start 24 hours countdown for the Safe Zone shield. Looks very simple, but don't forget, we are speaking about top organisations, so there would be respond to agressive action. Stage Two Just because defenders will try to restore control (restore all 6 generators), attackers need to prepare for this kind of action. So in other words, defenders and attackers swap roles. It is possible that defenders will wait attackers inside city after 24 hours, it will be strategic decisions of Generals of Organisations. Stage Three As soon shield is down (24 hours since the first generator was destroyed or captured*) attackers can invade into the city. Destroy buildings and make chaos everywhere on their way. __________________ Defenders have 24 hours to organize defend, call for allies to help, evacuate most important equipment and technologies. There could be many different strategies for defense as well. defenders could attack with their fleet from aside. Or maybe strike to the bases of enemy organization (without Safe Zone). Attackers (In my vision) must have much harder role (to destroy is not the same as to build). So control of time is very important part for attackers Generals. When to start, when to rest and keep control (but 24 hours could be dangerous for health, so later I will explain break time technology for attackers). Plan of attack strategy is also very important job. __________________ Generator Capture This is opportunity for attackers to get 8-12* hours mini Safe Zone around this generator. How to get it? Generator need to be hacked while Safe Zone is in Charge Mode (all 6 generators active). If speaking with roleplay language, hacker overcharge generator and create Shield above it, but just because it unstable it will last 8-12* hours. Why do we need this? Let's don't forget, this is game, so we need care about health of players, so some will have time to sleep. At the same time, those who will decide stay online can freely build defence around captured generator to increase chances in battle. Defenders also will have time schedule. So the "Second Stage" can be started between 8-12th and 24th hours. I believe, this opportunity does not make defense impossible, because to bring ships and other equipment will take much time. *8 or 12 hours. If the idea will be approved, it will be fixed amount of time - 8 hours, or 10 hours, or 12 hours. It is not a random number between 8 and 12. __________________ Generators defence Some could imagine, that generators will be placed as single building. Organisations will be interested to protect their generators as much, as it possible. It can be used everything available in the game: TU, shields, turrets, walls and other. So it could be not very easy to destroy or capture generator. But I believe, it won't be big problem for great tactics and experienced generals. Captured Generator needs to be destroyed. It can not be captured back. This is necessary to stop abuse when two players can activate mini safe zone shield. __________________ Underground Generators As I wrote above, generator need to be placed on the ground, not under. This opportunity need to be limited. If generators with TU will be placed under the ground, it could make nearly impossible to find them. Explode whole Hexagon to find them, won't make this operation/game more enjoyable. So this requirement is part of Fair Play. __________________ Additional Options There could be additional options for attack. I don't find these opportunities necessary. If to destroy 2 generators, the enemy army could go inside the Safe Zone shield and kill players. Building and Ships stay invulnerable. If to destroy 4 generators, the enemy army could go inside the Safe Zone shield and kill players + destroy Ships (not static objects). If one of defenders start attack (PvP Flag active), he/she can not enter Safe Zone area for x-minutes. (This is important to prevent abuse - Go out, launch few rockets, go back under the safe zone shield) These two options opens additional tactical advantages for attackers. __________________ As I wrote in ver.1.0, there could be an option to expand this safe zone. It could be little problem with Generator mechanic implementation (theoretical). So as and option, size of Safe Zone could be increased x6 by default. So it will take not 1 Hexagen, but all 6. This will mean, all numbers of distances need to be increased as well. Of course, that is not that big problem and it won't be very hard to sort it out. But currently, I didn't think about it. __________________ Little FAQ: -Why do we need these big cities? Big cities are the great opportunity for many players. It also great for world expansion, so everything will not be based around Ark Ship only. Traders will create trade routes between bases and Trade Stations on planets. Organisations will set Taxes, sell ship parking or maybe something else. -Why is this system better than basic Shield? This system is like Boss in PvP. Big Reward for Big Effort. It is like rob little shop and huge bank. This system gives time to react for defenders, but attackers won't have boring time as well. So that would be choice for group of players. Shield defence can not be well balanced and everything could become as "Attack while most offline". I believe, massive constructions deserve to have improvement defence. -What will happens if hundreds of platers will attack at the same time? I can't speak about numbers, but if we speak about "More than normal amount of players in Raid", it will mean that Stage One will be fast and much more easy to success. But number of attackers can not speed up time of safe zone, this is question of fair play. But if this amount of players will attack basic shield, creators of city won't have chance to defend their creation. As result this could force players leave the game. -Why do Organisations need to risk to destroy other cities? This is question about power and income. If there is only one trade centre in star system, organisation have massive income from taxes and other incomes. If there are few of them, players will spend less money on every each station. There could be war between two organisations, so destruction of the city will make massive damage to whole organisation (it can even destroy organisation at all). -What peaceful players will have with this system? First of all, players will have fair time to react to enemy actions. But also, there could be many other opportunities. Since organisation control city, it can be political model, there could be great opportunities for business and many other. So peaceful players will be interested to defend this city. Mercenaries will get contracts, if city will need some additional protection. -NQ stated, that there could be new Safe Zones the game in future. Can they be created by similar way? I really hope, that "Unlimited" (time) Safe Zones won't be possible in the game (except Ark Ship). But yes, These Safe zones can be alredy creted. So organisation will need just create defence and start development. But this will require lot of balance. __________________ P.S: My English is not perfect, so please, don't focus much on mistakes. If you do not understand something, I would be happy to explain. Thanks, Archonious

Advice is good, or maybe not... don't know... From my side, I would say, don't join anywhere if you have solid plan. Find players who has similar ideas. Organisations (right now) like politicians before voting. They speak, promise and plan. What will happens with them in release? Most members have joined just to be in any org. So will these players follow "political promises"? Time will show... So join anywhere right now could be cool, but could be useless as well =) Find same mind players, it will be much better =))) Thanks, Archonious

Welcome. And no worries about KS miss. There would be the second campaign, so you will have chance to get what you want =) Thanks, Archonious

Creative people = diamonds in voxel games. I hope you will enjoy this game ang bring lots of nice designs. Find protectors, voxel games very agressive. Many want steal, many want destroy. Good luck in your journey! Thanks, Archonious

Welcome. Since you are very experienced in gaming and probably team management, hope to see organisation (which is not another pirate one) under your beginning. Thanks, Archonious

So many offers =))) Don't forget, you need to wait at least half year (until alpha only). Joining now in most crowded organisation is roleplaying (with Admirals, Emperors and other ranks). So have fun. P.S: As for me, Alpha Academy is only the one from listed has good/real plans (as far I know) (since it the same to my one). Thanks, Archonious

Thanks for the useful link =) It always nice to see some new info (even had similar thoughts about it).It is possible that it can be included, true, it can fit this system. But still under question. Remember what was happened with NMS? People thought "It can fit, it will be included". But it wasn't said, it wasn't released. Result? Huge disappointment (and it is not only about one question I asked, it about everything). +Ability to make excludings, like for fan clubs or something else (no risk, trusted organisations). It could make it vey complicated and self excluding: -Tag A disallow to join all other organisations -Tag B allow to join organisation X Ofc if priorities would be designed well, it won't be a trouble. But much better to know proper answer - Will it be possible or not? Once again, thanks for link P.S: @Mrjacobean, player can join while has rights (and no officers online). To use abuse explained few messages above player need few seconds (nobody can react on that if not waited). I'm against any kind of abuse, so it is not just basic question. Thanks, Archonious

Thanks, it would be at least minimal option (at least before testing). RDMS is unknown for me. I can not hope and pray on that. I am not one of "No Man's Sky" fan-boys before release (what actually happens here, overall). I don't see any problem to allow technical organisation management. That is an actual question. I do not need approval from members, I simply trying to understand WHY. Make it or not is the decision of NQ. Thanks, Archonious

So then we can ask to remove/not to design RDMS system. Because of the same reasons. There is no real life way to stop me from doing something (without physical disabling). And it would be more fun. So some people need to check what every member doing. Yes, I'm advocating running my organisation simpler, as I want, as it better for me (and those who has similar vision). I do not ask that everyone who wants to join org need to go to org office or directly to the leader to join. Otherway it is a simpler way to run organisation. The current direction of discussing is a dead end. WHY is this option not acceptable? Why is it bad? Why are you forcing use system, which somebody can dislike?

Also, we need skill for every organisation you join (as more you join, as more skills you need), for every RDMS you set (as more RDMS in use, as more skills you need), for every new member in your organisation (as more members you have, as more skills you need) and other =))) If your organisation do not want you to join any random organisation (which could make risk by mistake or system abuse), why it can't do that? If an officer of organisation don't want you to build anything on base, he/she just block it and everyone fine with that. This is just kind of RDMS (and I'm sure it won't be included in this system, because it works with game actions like build, mine, invite, deconstruct). It is just way to control. Whole organisation at once. Then if player need/want to join any "club, religion or any other dream", the officer can make excluding, if that won't make the risk for the organisation. Similar to RDMS, you block some members actions because you do not want/trust. Thanks, Archonious

And I'm absolutely fine with that =) If spy can use brain, not a game structure "holes", I'm fine with that. And auto-deny to join many organizations is not against reality. This is the system which monitoring and blocking. Same as any other system in the game (allow or disallow something). Any system created to help, this one as well. It helps to save time (players pay for this time real money, once again). It does not break any game mechanic, it gives the possibility of different organization structure (equal to standard one). It is not even about security. As an example, I want members of my team to be in my organization ONLY. No matter why (reasons could vary). P.S: You quoted questions, but no answer. P.S2: Example with 2 armies. You can not be an official member of both (known) at the same time (if you are not a double-side agent, and anyway, it won't be publicized). And overall, there is no law in the game (as in real life). Thanks, Archonious

@Ananasi, that is what I'm saying (except RDMS). One option for one group, another option for the second group (Want A, take A. Want B, take . I didn't see RDMS functionality, I can't just hope on that. Will it include organisation amounts, how can it limit if it does? Questions, questions, question... I want a simple system (which is about the organisations, but not rights and duties), which won't confuse. And as you can see, there are those who strongly against. So questions to them. I have nothing against Falstaf (or some others) or you. Right now, I'm trying to understand why some people AGAINST? Is there gameplay reason or that is just their human nature? Thanks, Archonious

And we coming back to "We don't care about other people opinions and requirements". Yes, it will be 100% refuse if somebody with 2+ org will apply (in my personal example) and adjust RDMS million times since secondary+ join to the organisation can not be limited. But why to make these troubles if there is another simple opportunity? If to speak about reality, let's take an army. If you joined one army, you can not be part of another (alliance - is very controlled, not join where you want). If you join the company (serious), you very limited by the law (agreements). If you part of government, you limited as well (law as regulator). I do not trust this system (already explained abusable way), I don't like this system, but I do not say that everyone MUST leave/refuse this system. I am the same customer as everyone else, I want to have the same comfortable game, as others. So why you so aggressively demand from me to accept multiple-organisation system which can be abused and hurt to my organisation? If you don't see any risks in this system, I am happy for you. If you want multiple organisation members, I am happy for you. And you can do that. Simply WHY I can not technically have the opportunity to refuse that? It will work in my organisation only (and those who will share this vision). I clearly understand why you want multiple organisation system, it wasn't a question at all. But all I see, like people trying to "sell" (explain) why this system is good. The question is WHY this choice is not acceptable? Why is it bad? Why are you forcing use system, which somebody can dislike? Thanks, Archonious

But situation:Member A is in 1 organisation only. Basic member. Can use organisation infrastructure. Using resources of organisation. Then (while officers busy or offline), this member join second organisation and set teleport or respawn module work for second organisation. As result, system does not react (modules not enemy). Result system is abused. And once again, how often I need check and waste time on RDMS and all members organisations? What is problem in option to block multiple organisation in your own organisation? If people join, they agree with that. If they don't agree, they choose another multi-organisation. Where is problem? Thanks, Archonious

I understand that some people enjoy this "religions, fan clubs and other". But personally, I find it fully useless and extra risk for my organisation and members. I do not saying "Everyone must", I'm saying "Everyone may". I didn't write that EVERYONE must choose ONE organisation (as opposite what some people say to me and those who want be solo-org). Imagine if I would do. If I would say, that EVERYONE must have only ONE organisation. Would you be happy? But you doing the same. You saying to me that MY organisation must look as YOU WANT. Or I need pay real money for time to sort it manually every day/hour/minut/second. This is not dialogue, this is demanding and absolutely not constructive. I didn't see any reason why this is bad, since this is an additional opportunity only (all default opportunities still available). I didn't see any other variant suitable for different points of view, except demand and selfishness. Everything is written above is what I see and feel. Nothing was changed. So I don't know what and when was invalidated. If speak about ignore, this is way to stop escalation (there was no progress, demands and basic offence only). It was said before, reply was in same manner. So I would be happy to see more explained opinion. Thanks, Archonious

Done. Thanks. Goodbye

Sorry, but that is facepalm. All I want is a choice. So if the organisation want to be filled with multi-org members, then do it, nobody stops you. If an organisation does not want, then it blocks it. If it wants to make some excluding, then it makes some specific excluding. Simple as 2+2. And everyone happy. Every player can choose a suitable structure for his/her playstyle. Your position "EVERYONE MUST DEAL WITH THAT" is not a choice. Just because you think it is great, it does not mean it is great for other players. P.S: I think it is pointless to discuss with you "Choice, Variations and rights to choose", so if you continue, I will perceive it as trolling or offence. As result, you simply join to PinkyTwerk to ignore list (you may perceive as threat, warning or something else). Archonious

Demand? All I want is an option to choose (technical), not an obligation as you want. That is the difference. Hope NQ smart enough to give options to choose different models of organisations with technical support. If you so afraid and if you believe it is only me who want that, why to worry about? Or maybe it would be more popular than you say? No respect at all, Archonious

So people who don't want multiple organisation members need to waste their time (which cost money and they pay for that) to sort it out, just because you find it prejudice in your opinion. So you force everyone follow your model and expect troubles because you want that. I hope NQ will not listen so egoistic opinions and will give opportunities for everyone, not for little group of people. Archonious

If I would joined with any of organisation, it would be controlled and long relationship. If you read topic, you can see, that leaders can set excludings (like an alliance). I don't find it bad, no limits = chaos. I don't need it. I want (I think some others as well) tools for control. Simple. Thanks, Archonious

And that is additional reason why I don't want see any virtual religions and other trash in my organisation. I am not interesting to separate people in my organisation. And I want to have technical option to keep all these religions and cults away. We don't need another stupid reason for conflicts inside. If somebody want it, then he/she an option. I don't want it, why can't I have an option? Nobody force you to join organisations with limited structure. What you against? Isn't that what called a choice? When you choose what is better for you? Thanks, Archonious

I don't understand people like you =) you demand that players need to have a choice and you against people have choice because they have another opinion. Or you afraid that most organisations will not support multi-org system? Isn't it their choice and members who joined them? You sound really illogical. It is not way to prevent spying or something. It technical request, to make my vision possible without wasting my paid time for searching members (or time of my team, we play not for that). I don't want my infrastructure work against me (as organisation). And I don't care about "Cults of Ctulhu" or some other trash. I don't need it in my organisation, I need to technical option to keep it outside. Thanks, Archonious

Thanks, mate There is another question. If everyone can apply for multiple organisation, it make necessary to know all of them, to learn about all new. Because who knows what is Organisation A, B, C and D? Who is agressive pirate? Who is not? I don't find it fun or interesting. I'm looking for people who will enjoy to play in one organisation. And as I said before, I'm not interested to waste time to search double+ organisation members. I pay not for that. All I want, as some others, option to prevent multiple organisations membrship @Falslaf, I would like to limit my people and keep everything under control and safe, than open doors to hundreeds unknown and risky people. I don't care about theoretical dreams. In my vision it won't work that way for long anyway. Thanks, Archonious

I clearly understand that many of active forum living in dreams. Dreams filled with peace and love, that is great, but reality could be (and I strongly believe it will) not so happy and peacful. Even from example, trader+pirate. I will be very surprised, if experienced and serious trade organisation will open doors to pirates. We back again to pre-game dream or overall vision (which is dream as well) of Dev. I am 100% sure, massive majority of active organisations would be clan/guild structure. If compare real world and virtual one by agression parameter, real world is heaven. And I don't see any reason why it would be different in this game (especially in this game). Thanks, Archonious

Alpha Testers of other organisations, who plan test game, find the bugs and try to fix possible abuses, join our Discord server for cooperation in future. Leaders/officers of other organisations (who shares this vision of Alpha testing), we would welcome you in our discord and would be happy to have our ambassadors/representatives on "your land". If you interested in cooperation and connection between organisations, this is a good opportunity*. To make everything easier, let me know who you are after join (what organisation you represent and what is your goal of possible cooperation). This will help a lot. *this is not alliance offer, but good cooperation could contribute to that result. Thanks, Archonious