Archonious
-
Posts
344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Archonious
-
-
I think 7 days is a bit much, especially if we're talking about big organizations which have hundreds of people. So let's just say that the TU has a total of 500 people(I'm sure there'll be more on launch) then it's pretty much guaranteed to have at least 50 people online at all times. So maybe 12-24 hours would be a better time limit. Because 7 days makes it almost impossible for pirates to hold their ground until they can move in. 12-24 hours is still a long time to hold out from the TU or another big org that would be able to make a city. But that's just my opinion
I would like to see massive battles to take down a city.I'm not against and do not push any number.
My vision is - big organizations (200+ as a team, as guild/clan. I don't speak about random crowd members as we have now) won't exist or functional well. Maybe 24h would be enough, maybe not (it also depends on space travel speeds). It is very easy to change. Overall, the idea is not in numbers, the idea is in functions (time to action - to bring allies, as an example).
Thanks,
Archonious
-
So you wrote that the SZM stops working immediatly when it got shut down. So if another Org inflitrates such a City the SZM could be shut down by just one person, means that an army May fail but one man can succed and prepare an attack?
SZM deactivates in 7 days if one of TU destroyed (by enemies)
or
deactivates instantly if TU demolished / dismantled (owner remove it, RDMS in help, so it can be controlled by 1 person-leader)
This is to prevent abuse of "Build TU and instantly remove it (without resource loss) to get 7 days countdown". Anyway, that is a more technical issue and solution. This is an example only.
Thanks,
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...Which airports have you built? I think it's really cool that a real architect is playing a game like this, where engineering and architecture will be the biggest things in the game. I recommend joining SilverLight Industries or the Objective Driveyards if you want to do some architecture and engineering. I'm not in any of those organisations, but those are the best ones to join if you want to design and build stuff. Objective Driveyards is better for designing and building ships. SilverLight is if you want to design and build structures, but I think they will be building ships too. The organisation I'm in is the Cinderfall Syndicate, and hey, if you want to be the main architect in an organisation go there
I'm joking though, you should join an organisation that's about building, build something great 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
-
-
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.hello from Almere. (near amsterdam)
i found this game and hopped on the bandwagon. i have been around in eve online for 10 years. played it since beta. heavy investor in Star Citizen (space marshal) and in Chronicles of Elyria. (ruler of tryggr vikings) i have played in numerous other mmo games like Lotro, sw-tor, wildstar etc.
so i really hope to have some good times here.
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
-
simply check in your RDMS:
if player.want-to-join-org = member.different-org
then player.want-to-join-org.accept and set.RDMS = 0
else player.want-to-join-org.accept and set.RDMS = 1
there you have your "no rights for a member of another org" setting. I still can't see the problem?
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
-
I answered it in a roundabout manner. There are things that would increase the momentary enjoyment for me, but I recognise that overcoming the difficulties the game throws at you makes the game ultimately more fun and as such I don't advocate for it - not to mention it puts all sides of society (hackers, pirates, criminals, CEOs, truckers, traders, etc.) on a fairly even playing ground. You are advocating making running an organisation simpler when I think that allowing complexity means that organisations will be more rewarding when you can get them working accurately, and it will produce more entertaining stories when it's indeed possible for spies to enter large organisations with poor HR sectors, or for poor hires to be let in.
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?
-
expanding on this... a hacker skill could also be to hide another persons membership... and other similar functions... so you could have hackers both looking for hidden info and trying to hide that info from normal people and other hackers...
But this is a digression.
I don't support a simple on/off for other organization membership... and if an org uses the rights management system to cut off all other org membership for its members then a side effect of that should be that the org itself can't join any other org.
If I am part of a shipping org... I can see that org not wanting me to be a part of a pirate gang or political factions... but should be fine with me being in a racing league... star wars fan club... or new player education volunteer...
I think the current set up for the rights management can handle that... and it will require some effort on the part of org leaders depending on how much they care about it.
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
-
I don't trust the system either. That sense of doubt, whether or not this new member you're accepting is actually a spy, makes it exciting. But this is also what real life is like. When you're on a frontier with few laws and no one can be trusted, you have to vet everyone. As others have said, if someone wants to be a spy, they'll find a way. Maybe they temporarily leave their org, promising to return after they find out the codes to get past your shields. An automated system will allow this to easily get through, so you'll need to perform background checks anyway if you're suspicious, defeating the whole point of the system. Emergent gameplay, mate, not NQ enforced protection.
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
-
But you already have the option.
1. Anyone who is a member of another organisation can be refused access to any sensitive documents via the RDMS. Have them as basic lackeys who follow orders and that's all.
2. If that's still to sensitive to spying for you, refuse their membership. Spell it out in rainbow coloured, bolded letters that you will not accept any members who are members of another organisation. In the final game I'm sure that NQ will leave legates in charge of membership applications. Instead of relying on an automated system to prevent you from allowing multiorg members, be vigilant yourself, like people in the real world have to be if they wish to be restrictive.
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:Many people were just telling you:
There is the RDMS. Via that you can just set the rights of those you deem as multi-org members. No problem there
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".so Archonious just invalidated any point he was trying to make and proved he can't have civil discourse with anyone.
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
-
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Dygz_Briarthorn.
Done. Thanks. Goodbye
-
Yes. Demand:
I am not afraid. I expect NQ to provide a great system that supports multiple organizations.
You are the one who is afraid they won't. That's why you started this thread.
All I've said is that I hope the system is not as crude and simplistic as the model you suggested.
I believe the NQ devs are smart enough not to implement your specific model.
I also expect them to implement a model that provides some of what you're asking for.
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
-
Sure. If you want to waste your time to sort that stuff out, then waste your time sorting that stuff out.
The devs will introduce their model and I don't expect trouble from their model.
You are the one expecting trouble if the devs don't implement your model.
I expect trouble if the devs introduce your model.
It seems as though ego is in the eye of the beholder.
Because you are the one demanding that your model be implemented - so that your "valuable" time isn't wasted.
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.If you don't want people in your org to join multiple orgs, just kick people who join multiple orgs.
Nobody is forcing you to accept people who are members of multiple orgs.
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).Yea I really think you are limiting yourself Archonious if you choose not to use the multiple org set up.
But its your org you do whatever you want.
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?And this is why Anonymous gave you examples like nationalities and religions - where the prejudice would be more clear.
No one is suggesting that players will exclude members based on real world affiliations.
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
[Updated] Player-made Safe Zones
in Idea Box
Posted
I find this opportunity of game play improvement and for long term tactics (as defence, as attack). So if Org spend weeks or months to buikd trade station or home base, it won't be destroyed so simpy (while decision about protection when shield goes down not made, it is plans and fantasy only).
Shield do not create safe zone for trading for example. It gives protection to the base. So trader 1 can kill trader 2 and loot him after trade. I could be wrong, I didn't see these shields in practice, I didn't test it. All we have some words and imagination (which is different to everyone).
P.S: As an example of tactical attack. 1. Attack and destroy shields of support-hexagen. 2. Defence and TU destruction to start countdown. 3. Claim Territory to block SZM timer restore. 4. Defend your TU outpost. While defending, plan to destroy another hexagon if possible. 5. And some other strategy decisions.
Fact is, this is not something for small few ppl groups. It is more global action. When one alliance siege another.
Thanks,
Archonious