CalenLoki

Boxing newbies intended by NQ? Huh? Or maybe automatic mining? I think I've read somewhere that they don't really like it. Bases that give you 20x+ advantage over attackers? Definitely Sounds like NQ intentions too. Yes, all those things would be within game system, unless prevented by other game systems (i.e. things listed as "possible solutions"). They'd also be exploits, according to the definitions you posted. Not hacks, not bugs, not cheats - just legit but not intended advantages that dull gameplay (IMO).

Sure. I just didn't want to leave dualism reply ignored. Any other possible exploits you can think of?

Maybe they'd just move Ark to another planet once Alioh get's devastated? Leaving whole huge Ark-city suddenly exposed to attacks, without safe-zone. Just to see how players will react to such sudden change: Will we start killing neighbour enemies right away? Or maybe try to protect largest city, as neutral place of exchange? That would work nicely with their policy of "slowly giving all the power to players". I'd love to see that. Meanwhile newbs would try to create their civilisation on almost virgin planet.

My apologies. I missed your input between all those walls of text. You're right, deeper->harder. But it's double edge sword: harder to dig -> harder to blow up. Thus it more or less even-out, so doesn't affect underground bunkers too much. Hope so. But we have no info about that specific matter, so we can spend that time entertaining ourselves with theoretical conversation.

Stanislaw Lem, Star Diaries, Journey 14th. 1956 - Replication of body based on saved data. CCP can't sue anyone for such system. The idea is 62 years old, and not even invented by them. That being said I'm in favour of bio-robots controlled by minds of people who are still on Ark-ship in their safe cryo-chambers. Current lore looks over-complicated and too pseudo-scientific. KISS. Also I don't see any reason to keep any equipment you had when you died - but that's more of gameplay than lore, so not really for this part of the forum.

Agreed to disagree. I'll be sure to come here in some years just to tell you "told ye!" I kind of enjoy such pure speculative conversations based on loose assumptions

There are several things that makes mechs very NOT practical, which would heavily impact game based on common rules for all vehicles. In fact, they can be useful if several criteria are met: 1. Armour is so durable, that you can't kill vehicle with any smaller unit. That's something we maybe will get in game. 2. Terrain is so rough and uneven that you can't use wheeled/tracked vehicles. Otherwise they are faster and can carry way more armour/guns. That may happen, especially on virgin planets. 3. Atmospheric conditions or lack of technology prevent usage of flyers. Speed comparison is just devastating - mechs would always be at tactical disadvantage. But it's already pretty obvious that we'll have both hovercraft and atmospheric planes. Not to mention space, where mechs would be totally useless. Also there are technical limitations: NQ won't even implement wheeled/tracked vehicles, which are much simpler than walkers.

They did in one of videos. It's yellow, and they named it "resource transfer" or something like that. It connected fuel tank with engine, but the name suggested any connection meant for transporting matter. And without such connection, trading hubs wouldn't be able to operate - they need to be connected to storage and dispensers. I never stated otherwise. My point is - your ship will be shredded to pieces, as it will be hit with far superior firepower, way more protected than anything you can ever physically bring into kill-room. Due to how geometry works - something that is inside can never have as much volume as something outside. Attached picture to make it clear what I have in mind: -top is top-down view, bottom is side view. I skipped the long shaft down, but it's still there, and depth still protects it (IMO) from any kind of aerial bombardment. -black lines are obviously walls of our entrance corridor -blue area is the volume of all the equipment required to fire weapons. Number of guns represent approximate volume. There is 36 in this particular example, but I could easily make it hemi-sphere and fit over 100. -green is maximal size of the ship you can fly through corridors. It's volume can support 1 gun, of the same size and armour as mine. That's assuming you've taken the best armour/firepower ratio for such short ranged fights (I did). And I even ignored the fact that you need to sacrifice large part of capacity for ability to move. I assumed that you have all the necessary information about the kill-room, as it uses well established standards and weapon/armour set-up for such short range engagement (meta). No need for probes. If we assume that attackers have superior tech - then also cost must be huge. It's common in games that something 2x better (at single aspect, like damage) is at least 2x more expensive. So to even out chances in this particular example (where I paid 1 for my 36 guns) you need to have gun that is 36 times more damaging and 36 times more durable. Thus 1296 times more monies. If you try to send ship after ship, to gradually weaken my defences, cost will be approximately the same. Operation plowshare is about detonation of something underground, where most of the energy is directed up (path of least resistance). Weapon hits are mostly surface thing, and most energy goes everywhere but down. Of course my data is also hardly accurate, as it's something I found on the internet, but at least is relevant to surface detonations. Also volume=/=depth. Largest crater in US made with underground explosion was 100m deep, after using nuclear warhead with power of 104kt. That's 1kt/m of depth, even worse ration then what I found. If we get explosives that powerful, then whole large ship or base engineering is totally pointless, because combat is about who shoot first. Eventually who has more spread forces. About the collapsing thing - while I'd love some shock-wave mechanics, It's few steps ahead in complexity compared to what I suggested. Picture no#2 for better explanation. A-shows how much explosion can destroy. B-that's what most voxel games use - rock is just vaporised by explosion and case to exist. C-that's what I'd love to see in game - explosion still destroy as much rock, but it doesn't vanish. Instead, it flies as physical objects in all directions, and once it stop moving it re-join voxel grid again (As gravel - light grey. Easier to mine, but shooting at it won't help much). As you could imagine, series of weak explosions meant to dig deeper won't be able to propel rocks out of the hole, thus digging that way won't be possible. I don't know how could it work in space, as without gravity that would lead to huge amount of small objects trapped at geostationary orbit. Effect? Field that is bombed for years would still have roughly the same average altitude, because dirt will be just thrown from one place to another, then back. With typical system (B) it would be huge hole.

ad A: In one video about linking elements he said that within single construct you don't need any pipes/physical connections. So either range is unlimited within single construct (which can be huge - they said something about 500x500) or you need some "connector elements" which wouldn't be too expensive, considering the gain. I don't think it'd be 1 to 1 system, as that would make market units impossible. ad answer 1: Flying extra 500m from time to time for almost invulnerability? Where do I sign in? ad answer 2: Aha! That sounds like assumption that some things are forced by game mechanics to be placed on the surface! That still leaves pure stockpiles (i.e. pirate loot stash nearby your town) fully protected, as they only serve as storage. ad B and answer 3: To shoot from that ship you need to expose the gun. And because you get shoot at from all sides, you'll be always out-gunned at least 5 to 1. Assuming they have just as much armoured guns, you'll be able to scratch one of them before your gun blows up. Pseudo-math: 1 gun with 1 durability vs 5 guns with 1 durability each. Attacking gun dies in 0.2 units of time. Deals 0.2 units of damage to a single gun. ad PS and end of answer 3: Not magically stop, it should be just damn slow and/or expensive. IRL 1KT (1.000.000 kg of TNT) digs out ~9m deep crater. That's ~33.000 cubic meters of TNT to dig 500m. Or 33.000 cubic meters of rare resources compared to defenders effort of digging 50.000 m3 of dirt and rock. Assuming that it's sci-fi and we have some more powerful explosives, that's still unavailable price for anyone except top orgs (which will fight against even deeper bunkers). And if explosives are really compact, cheap and quick to use, then all terrain fortifications are nothing but decorations. Not to mention that planet will disintegrate within days. ad PPS - if they decide to introduce such system, then digging so deep with explosives is simply impossible, because the matter you explode from the crater falls back in sealing it. BTW I have nothing against defenders having advantage. Even fairly large advantage, like 5:1 (you need 5x more expensive fleet to defeat fortifications). It's both somehow realistic (for retro-future war that use WWI balance of combat, which is fun), and help keeping some persistence in the game (as only decisive victory let you wipe enemies out). But what advantage underground bases could possible provide is way beyond that.

It seems that quite a lot of you didn't really get how such bunker would be built. All according to available knowledge of game mechanics and experience from other games (where none had any decent ways to prevent it). My mad paint skills for the rescue! Option A, on the left. Infantry-size shaft, with dispenser located close to the surface. In the time of peace, all resources goes there and are automatically transported down to base. Assault forces have only one path to attack - through kill-box. Option B, on the right. Single shaft for specific size of the vehicle. Only one vehicle can enter kill-box (due to size). When it get pounded from all sides, the wreck block access for other assault vehicles. Infantry now can start charging entrenched defenders. Questions are: 1. Where is the additional effort in running such base? You don't need to carry anything by hand. 2. Where is the additional effort to build such base? Yes, you need to dig that shaft down - that's like 50.000 cubic meters for version with shaft for small vehicles at depth of 500 meters. Circa 15 minutes for single miner. But you save on not requiring any armour from bombardment and no long range guns. And that's much more time consuming. 3. Tell me how would you defeat such base. PS I hope that ships can't dig with guns more than few meters. Otherwise any building in the game is nothing but an sand castle, and ship is nothing but paper plane. PPS I also hope (maybe closer to dream, as it's quite unlikely) that explosions just spread matter around (like IRL) rather than vaporise it. Bomb inside a tunnel should make ceiling fall down and block the tunnel, not de-materialise rock and create cavern. And in such case digging with explosives would be just impossible. To start thinking about lore for such narrow aspect as TU underground limitation, maybe first we should think about lore for TU in general? "Magic device granted by aliens to make combat more fair for those who have periodic coma (real life), thus can't always be there to defend their homes".

As Lethys said. Check this videa from ~5:00 Theoretically TU is no safezone. But if it's allowed to be placed in underground bunker that can't be bombed, and can be assaulted only through kill-room... then it's pretty much the same.

Because construct vs construct combat (both engineering and fighting) is what I'm most interested in DU. And by allowing free placement of safe zones (like underground bunker) you totally cut off whole "fleet vs planetary base" part of the game. And I think that NQ has similar goal - otherwise they'd allow us to build safe-zones wherever you want. Also I created this topic as brain exercise, so partially for fun. Creativity? Limiting viable for PvP base design to single obvious concept of underground "can't touch this" base? Limiting possible attack strategies to running straight into kill-box? What's creative about that? Any strategy that works always, against everyone and don't have any counters should be limited in some way. Otherwise the game (at least fleet vs base part) will become dull and repetitive. Don't forget that DU is a game, not real world. What do you mean by technical limitations? Game engine or game lore? If game engine, then you could as well ask for god-mode, as it's something that engine doesn't limit. If lore, which is always less important than gameplay, then we can made up something: i.e. TU use holy cosmic quantum energy. The deeper you place it, the more conventional energy you need to use. Boxes usually have leads Troll can box from all sides, including top and bottom. We're talking about new player, who doesn't have access to TU due to it's price.

Regarding alliances - organisation is treated as kind of person, thus can be member of another organisation. So you can make any complicated multi-level alliance as you want. I wonder if we can make it go in circles... (org A belongs to org B, org B belongs to org A)

DU will have some kind of infantry PvP. NQ also wants to encourage teamwork in various activities. And I think most agree with me, that forcing players to specialise roles increase the importance of teamplay in infantry combat. IMO it's also important to switch off hand-nanoformers during combat, as they have potential to be extremely OP and immersion breaking. We have inventory system. But because you'll be able to hold cubic meters of matter (or i.e. dozens of different weapons), it can't be used for specialisation. We have leveling system. But It allows seasoned players use everything, while new players can't use anything. Not much specialisation I'd say. It's more of a tool to split playerbase. Commonly used in RPGs and shooters "classes" usually heavily and arbitrary limit creativity and customisation. Or require tons of sub-classes, which are pain to balance. Thus I suggest implementing "loadout" system. It's kind of similar to typical "class" in most RPGs, but more open for customisation, and also not permanent. Loadout can't be changed in combat. You're stuck with what you had equipped once someone turns nanoformer-jamming-devicenearby (possibly just alternative mode for nanoformer itself. And TCU for larger scale). Thus changes on the fly are not possible. Loadout consist of main tool, 4 secondary tools and 3 ability modules. -Main tool will be usually some kind of weapon. Anything from carbine or shotgun to heavy machine-gun or anti-material rifle falls into that category. Also old-school mining drills that can bypass RDMS. -Secondary tools are meant to either enhance main tool, or suplement it's weakness. So sidearms, melee weapons, spare mags, nades, stim-packs, explosives, ect. -Abilities allow player to perform specific actions, which truly shape the way you play. Players can either focus on enhancing single ability by using multiple modules of the same kind, or mix them for specific playstyle. Available modules: Battery increase avatar energy storage and generation by 100% (each battery). So while it doesn't give any new ability, it allows using other modules longer or more often. Sprinting uses energy too, so even battery-only build is viable. Storage increase inventory space by 100%/module. Useful for long exploration trips if you can't bring hover-cargo-drone. Jump-pack allows you to jump quite high (or if every player can jump, make it enhance jumping). Equiping more of them allow you to jump much faster, but not further - for that take jetpack+battery Shield-pack allow projecting force-field in front of you. It has limited coverage angle and drain energy both per time and per prevented damage. Taking more shield modules increase their coverage and increase efficiency of prevented damage (good against multiple opponents or to shield teammates). However it increase energy drain per second, so for long-lasting protection better take more batteries. Stealth-pack allows you to remain invisible. But just as shield, i's directional. It also drain faster when you move fast. Take more of them, to increase coverage angle and reduce movement penalty. Take more batteries for longer quicker recharge. Exo-arm allows usage of heavier weapons or reduce penalty of using those (like slower locking time). Ammo-pack can be mounted in two ways. Either it connects directly to main weapon, making it drain energy rather than use ammo in mags, or can be used for filling mags in the field. Lore: ammo pack is shielded from jamming (all the nano-forming happens inside), thus can always work. Healing-pack allows healing team-mates (when mounted as active) or fill stim-packs of your team-mates (when passive). Lore: personal body armour has ability to convert any received hit into heat. But need coolant or time to get rid of it. Healing pack allow shielded nanoforming of that coolant. Grappling hook allows getting to various spots. Less dynamic than jump-pack, but allows hooking to fast-moving vehicles or pulling other players (help teammates climb or pull enemy from the cliff). Repair-pack allows small scale nano-forming of constructs. It's incredibly slow, due to working against jamming. But for small repairs it's all you need. Mining-pack allows (or increase speed of) mining. Or allows bypassing RDMS limits on mining after FFU are down (during battle). Equip more to be more efficient against harder materials (or even able to mine them), equip batteries for faster mining of soft materials. Control-pack allows piloting constructs. Take more to pilot bigger things. Can't think of a way to make it with battery... maybe each construct drains energy, so need high regen to control multiple small ones? Spy drone pack - allows third person camera. The further the drone, the more energy it uses. Equip more for better range-efficiency, equip batteries for longer fly-time at short range and quicker drone repair after it's shoot down. Nano-jammer - allows jamming hand-nanoformer (thus initiating combat mode). It keep working even after wearers death, until switched off manually. Because player would be limited to only 3 (maybe more, maybe less) modules, that would force them too specialise. For mid-range fire support it's probably smart to take shield+ammo+battery. For frontal charge into close range: shield+shield+shield. Combat medic would pick medic(active)+grappling hook(to pull downed allies into cover)+battery(to use ability more often).Or maybe shield instead of hook, to heal without worrying about cover. Surface-miner would probably take mining+battery+battery, while cave explorer: mining+storage+storage and deep miner: mining+mining+mining. Sniper: stealth+battery+battery. Maybe jump or hook to get to elevated positions. Close-range assassin may want more stealth than batteries, to close gap quicker. Maybe drone to know where to strike. All those would of course be available in various qualities, based on resources needed to make them. And character leveling could allow using those higher quality items. Or simply boost efficiency in specific field. I'd rather avoid forcing player to choose more than mentioned 8 elements - that would quickly grow tedious if you had to take 50 of them. What do you think? Any alternative ideas to encourage/force specialisation in infantry combat? Any more ability-modules you can think of? PS. I searched forum for: inventory, loadout, equipment, class. Nothing similar found. PPS. I refuse to call character leveling "skill". That's term I reserve for actual player skill, not how long they have an account.

The problem is - new players won't have access to TU (claiming area) because of price of such device. Their only protection will be RDMS that AFAIK apply to all your constructs, even if they're not protected by TU/FFU. Re-parking dynamic constructs sounds like nice solution to being boxed with them, but does nothing against being boxed inside static construct.

AFAIK you can't cut one construct into two. But you can build small ship as part of larger ship, then copy that part into shape memory, then paste it over new dynamic core. But I really hope that there is some built-in anchoring mechanism. Like landing gear that glue one construct into another (SE style). Or anchor-beam, that holds core of smaller construct at constant distance (FtD style). Without that, building any kind of carrier would be impossible. I don't see any problems here. All the mechanics are already confirmed to be in game: Before you go into arena, you leave all the stuff in secured chest and check-in into respawn node. Both provided by arena owner. When you die, you loose only weapon (also provided by arena owner, and collected by him after match is over), spawn nearby and collect your things from the chest.

I was dead serious... well, as serious as one could be regarding video game. Combat gas (and chemical warfare in general) is more of an WWI thing. For killing your own citizens there are tons of a lot more fun ways

That would work probably. But they stated that liquid physics probably won't be there, at least for quite some time. And without that, gas wouldn't work You're right that we don't know much about PvP. Maybe they invented some mechanics that nobody ever did before. The point of this discussion is to either guess that, or to help them by giving hints what could work.

Like.... force field unit, that slows down attackers (no matter how strong) long enough to bring friends and have proper PvP battle. I'd like auto-turrets for off-line traps, but with FFU and TU they aren't really necessary to prevent attacking offline bases.

Also hard-limits like "max 100 players per org" are laughably easy too go around. We'd just have BOO1. BOO2. BOO3... BOO47, ect.

I think nobody ever said they gonna be safe in any way. They are construct, which can be captured or destroyed by anyone who can beat you in battle. PvP battle, with live players on both sides. Not some 6am PvE raid. Making them dynamic.... I think that'd make them too easy to protect, as you could just take them with your main fleet, or anchor at your main base. Making them connect with multiple gates. IMO that would make expanding network too plain and cheap. I'd rather have to create transfer hubs with multiple gates, and less important hubs with just one.

There is whole forum topic dedicated to discuss logging out (or switching chars in this case). And it's possible to create system that prevent abuses related to character popping.

1. Impenetrable underground bunkers The problem is - building underground is not hard, doesn't require skill or even smart idea. And unless there is some mechanic that prevents it - its hyper-effective, making you almost invulnerable. No. But I don't want any bases that are completely invulnerable. The same reason I don't want safe-zones spread all around. Don't try to guess my motivations. It seems you miss them all the time. Focus on topic. Can you thing of ANY way to defeat well-prepared underground bunker, without having 10 times more soldiers? If yes, please share. Geothermal, large batteries or fuel tanks, secret tunnel to bring supplies. I don't think "starving" base would be even an viable solution. Problem is - if small org can easily defend against large org, how could you ever have a chance to capture large org base? Even if you're in just as large org? And devs are clearly against safe-zones. Limiting PvP to ships and space station seems seriously limiting. Every game has limits - rules. Otherwise there could be no competition. Game balance. I hope. 2. Auto-mining Yes, that should fix the problem with rare ores - because there the challenge is to find the ore, rather than time required to mine it. But for it to apply to common veins, those also would have to have very uneven structure, so strip mining is very inefficient. They are announced to span kilometres long/wide. So placing them in very narrow but long veins fix the issue. I'll add it to OP Err... what's the difference? If I have access via Lua to engines, and construct coordinates, I can make it move in any way I want - simple or not. I.e. I can make bus that goes from ark to the edge of safe zone and back, collect money for tickets and let passengers play pong on the way. Lua is very powerful. It prevents auto-mining, because you are limited to mining 3h/day. And only self-regen, because if you allow external source, then limitation just get removed. Why isn't it and effective? What kind of exploit? Could you elaborate? Statements like those gives us nothing. Everything is mined by hand. AFAIK there is no other tool for mining than your magic hand that eats matter. The system I suggested applies to that magic hand. BTW the fact that I think mining is boring AF doesn't mean that I'm advocating for auto-mining (in this particular thread). So don't insist such things. Maybe NQ will make mining interesting in some way. One can dream. Yes, based on what they showed us and my knowledge of Lua. No. I'm assuming that player finds large vein manually, then set afk mining bot. There is no problem with making it work underground. Common material is enough to flood the market, making newbies unable to earn their first quanta. 3. Boxing new player's bases in safe zone @Omfgreenhair good one! I'll add it to OP. Possible solutions: a. TU makes it impossible due to size of protected area. But it's not really within reach of new player b. Static constructs have weaker version of TU (few meters around the construct) built in, making griefer work more time consuming. Especially considered that you need to dig under base as well, to fully block someone. c. Limit players to single static constructs within ASA per account. That shouldn't harm anyone sane, and would help against ASA clutter. This way troll could troll just one player. d. Limit usage of very basic resources in static constructs (rock, dirt, snow). But that would hinder creativity too much.

The fact that they lock part of the game behind character leveling is IMO drawback. But because of point a. - fighting trolls it's kind of unavoidable. I just hope that maxing out will be possible after quite short time: i.e. after three months further leveling increase character stats in hardly noticable way. 95% of character efficiency after that time should be based player skill and ability to get resources, and only 5% on how long your character is active. That should fix the problem with young players (except those just-newborns) I hope that they don't. Just so you can i.e. be member of two orgs that are at war with each other... so many possibilities. Don't lock such functionality behind additional paywall (second account).

My apologise for the tone. Those are of course my assumptions. But they are based on logic: Players (orgs) can construct gates. They'll be probably static. Any static construct is subject to RDMS by the owner, and can be equipped with shields. Unless they make, for some reason, special exception just for constructs that contain gates. Which would make absolutely no sense - they require huge effort to build, and such exception would basically make them neutral. Even if they add such rule, it could be easily avoided by building separate construct (protected by RDMS and shields) that physically block access to the gate.