Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'territories'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum Rules & Announcements
    • Forum Rules & Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Patch Notes
  • New Player Landing Zone
    • New Player Help
    • FAQ & Information Desk
    • Gameplay Tutorials
    • Player Introductions
  • General (EN)
    • General Discussions
    • Lua Forum
    • Builder Forum
    • Industry Forum
    • PvP Forum
    • Public Test Server Feedback
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Idea Box
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • General (DE)
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • General (FR)
    • Discussions générales
  • Social Corner
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Roleplay & Lore
    • Fan Art

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL









Found 4 results

  1. I appreciate the addition of HQ tiles to the game to give a player some room to breath but the current implementation seems somewhat arbitrary. I propose that each player gets one free tile as their HQ and to have more HQ tiles this would need to be done via an organization. It is thematically and functionally odd for an individual to have up to 5 HQ tiles while an organization has non. I would think HQ tile max limits would be tied to a set of talents in the Organization Management category. A player can only ever have one HQ tile (maybe per planet but that may be a bit much) but an Org starts with one HQ tile and can train talents allowing them to get somewhere between 3-10 tiles maximum much like the Core Max Limit talents currently in the game. Again, this makes more sense for lore/thematic and balance reasons. As it is currently, a single player with many alts can land-grab large swaths of land with zero upkeep. Once the "infinite" organization creation loophole is closed having this ability relegated to organizations only will help mitigate massive landgrabs by small numbers of solo players (with alts). This also has implications for Organization Alliances when territory warfare comes into the game. I would love to hear your thoughts, ideas and feedback. Thanks!
  2. Hey All, I think DU is a game that could do justice to a system based around municipalities and governing. This may sound like an overreach of the free play nature of the game but I think the extremely capable playerbase will be hamstrung without these type of options. I will break it down some suggestions tier by tier: -Cities- (Mayorship) Facilities: city core unit, power, lights and respawn hub Commerce: unlinked market terminals and sales tax Zoning: city blocks, streets and zone based taxes, mining rights Policing: street level defensive structures for preventing violence in the city -Territories- (Governorship) Facilities: banks (terminals), warehouses (large vault style containers), trade hub (planetary terminals), planetary transportation Commerce: Import tax, city trade deals, industrial incentives Zoning: ability to claim adjacent territories with city progression instead of a physical territory units Policing: Major ground defenses to prevent outside aggresion -Planetary- (Lordship) Facilities: One specialized core unit chosen from a list (Large Scale Shield, Trade Center, Senate, Industrial Center), Spaceport (interplanetary transport) Commerce: Trade Center (interplanetary terminals), Org trade deals Zoning: Sanctuary zones, Conflict zones (within your influence and population) Policing: Planetary defense (Large Scale shields), Large anti-air defenses I know this is not all necessarily easy especially when you get to the Planetary tier. I believe some of the things in the first two tiers are very beneficial to having a meaningful player city experience. I would like to clarify a few things that may seem vague or odd. I know the idea of transportation hubs is odd when you have vehicles and spaceships but the idea is it to be a very fast way to travel from point A to B (at a steep cost) rather than physically traveling all that way. With such a large map this would incentive players to at the least pass through cities and traveling via personal ship would still have a place as you would only be able to travel with your character with this system. This would also generate a need for spacport adjacent ship storage. In my experience as a mayor in SWG this created a more interactive player population. Another thing that may seem odd is giving seemingly military facilities and roles to a municipal power but I tried to keep it to policing and defense as that is something a city does in real life. Lastly, I know some may see this and think this would take away the ability to build custom facilities and everything would become to uniform but most things in this list would be implemented into the game world via a core unit that could be supported by terminals and other types of units that would be linked to the core unit. Two examples of this would be a "city core unit" would be where you manage all of the linked city facilities including power, lights taxes etc... another example would be a "Trade Center" would have a core unit that would be required but then you can also attach additional terminals. From this you can physically make a voxel based building to fit whatever form you would like.This is just some ideas so please feel free to add or take away anything. The main goal is to keep it simple as I know designing and implementing systems like this is very difficult. Happy to discuss in the comments.
  3. I know we just got some details on How territories will work on planets, but will there be any territories in space. If not then what is the process of building an orbital station? or star base? If it there are territories in space then I'm assuming there would be some sort of second layer of hexagons around the planet a certain space away and you would put down a floating territory claim device on it and then you would be able to start building. If there are NOT territories in space then how will this work? We can just start building anywhere in 3D Space? or does it have to be on a certain plane? and if the orbital station has an up and down how will we walk on it if we build it upside down if there is no gravity? Will my orbital station rotate around the planet? How does that all work? Thanks in advance.
  4. 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
  • Create New...