Preventing a construct to enter a specific space is a sensible topic as it could be abused the other way (like imprisoning constructs).
While we are aware that giving total freedom on landing anywhere could lead to griefing behavior (especially in Safe Zones where it won't be possible to destroy Constructs having for sole/main purpose to annoy other players, due to the "no PVP" rule), we don't think preventing a Construct to enter a specific space is the right approach. We are currently considering less extreme alternatives that would discourage griefing behavior. These alternatives could define in which case countermeasures can be triggered if visitors don't abide by the rules set on said territory. This will be most likely tied to Territory Units. This topic will be developed further at a later stage of the game development.
There's no specific answer to that question yet, but logic dictates that you will lose your base if the new owner of the hex doesn't want it there. They would be free to destroy that base (if they can), which applies to any structure "in the wild".
The new hex owner's RDMS rules will apply, which means you may need to ask permission to build or dig in that hex. You won't be able to make any changes to your base without the hex owner's permission, which means you won't be able to repair damage or place new defenses, etc..
What's the use of having a territory claim mechanism if it doesn't allow complete control of a territory hex, including all existing structures in that hex ?
@boots_1588
As mentioned in the forum rules, please do not necropost on old threads as you have done already several times.
(The forum rules has been updated to indicate what is considered an old thread)
Granted, this time you stay in the limits but keep this in mind for the next times.
Now to reply on the topic:
Fallout56 is a multiplayer game and NOT a MASSIVELY multiplayer game. Todd Howard confirmed that during the E3 2018 Bethesda Conference. So it can be compared to Minecraft, Ark, Conan Exiles... but clearly not to MMORPGs where the server infrastructure cost is exclusively handled by the Dev Studio or Publisher.
The Subscription model is one of the few topics not open to discussion. We have already talked in great length about why we went for a subscription model and no, there is no solid argument countering the reasons why we chose this model.
1) Dropping monthly subscription to have more players is not a valid argument if the server infrastructure cost grows proportionally to the player base size while incomes don't grow accordingly.
2) Saying subcription is an outdated model is not a valid argument as it relies on personal opinion not backed by solid reasons. Seeing less MMORPGs using monthly subscription is not a solid reason if there is no understanding about the "why".
Here is how we view the situation at Novaquark: monthly subscription model has been on the decline due to nearly no clear innovation in the MMORPG industry during the last decade. As new MMORPGs had to offer something different than those already well settled in the market (World of Warcraft, EVE Online, etc), if they weren't going to offer something really new, they had to be different on another level: monetization model. That's how the Free to Play games wave began. Many marketing representatives said many times that "Free to Play" was the future and most people believed it. Inconvients of such model were put under the rug... for a time. The question "Is F2P good or bad?" is irrelevant. Free to Play is a good monetization model good for some kind of games. We just don't think MMORPGs is among those. When you aim to have a game lasting for decades, you need to have steady income for decades as well. Free to play game incomes are too fluctuant, especially because they rely on the success of cosmetics (which is a everlasting gamble for a company as no one knows for sure in advance if players will love the new cosmetics and how much income it will generate before they hit the shop) and lootboxes.
Ironically, there has been recently a huge witch hunt about lootboxes. While we totally understand the reasons, it's a bit surprising that this problem has been exposed only recently, as lootboxes are as old as the Free to Play model and represents nearly always a (very) large part of F2P or B2P game incomes. Surprisingly, with this kind of monetization now forbidden in a growing number of countries, discussions about monthly subscription model are a thing again for many studios and publishers.
3) Saying people want to make a one time payment is not a valid argument either: nobody with some common sense can ask for a one time payment (at the price of an average game) and expect to have a service lasting forever.
@Sofernius
Quite unlikely.
From a financial point of view, that would mean taking more risks than necessary: as said above, it would mean going from a steady income model to a fluctuant income model. Cosmetics make a good complementary income to B2P and subscription models but again, making it the main income of a game is very risky, especially if the structural costs for a game are high.
Those two things are already planned
Beta Key giveaways and Trial period at official release.
spavle99 got a reaction from Mephetic in [DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics