Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Territory'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Starting Zone
    • Rules & Announcements
    • The Arkship Pub
    • Novark's Organization Registry
    • General Discussions
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • Ideas & Gameplay discussions
    • Idea Box
    • The Builder's Corner
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • DevBlog Feedback
  • Fan Art, Fan Fictions & Roleplay
    • Novark Agora
    • Novark Archives
    • Novark Art Gallery

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location:


Interests


backer_title


Alpha

Found 10 results

  1. Lets say I am the mayor of a small town on an unprotected planet very rich in certain rare materials. As this planet contains an abundance of valuable resources, plus it just looks cooler to have cities more densely populated, I don't want each group of friends or resident to own or have exclusive building rights to an entire territory unit. Now I could just allow several different groups of friends or people to occupy the same territory unit, but that would make it a lot more difficult to plan buildings, and could result in griefing like people blocking up ground vehicles or just building ugly crap right next to their neighbors construct. I think a subsystem within territory units that would allow the owner of said unit to give control over a specific area to an individual, who could then control who is allowed to build or do other things in that area would be a good solution to this and result in some incredible city planning and building. The sub-territory units could be as small as apartment rooms, where you are not allowed to break the walls but can build and destroy anything within the room itself, to as large as the majority of the territory, which could be useful for different groups controlling separate parts of a particularly valuable territory unit. In my opinion this would not only result in countless emergent gameplay opportunities, but would make the creation of cities and diplomatic agreements between organizations or nations easier.
  2. The safe areas that are being generated by Novaquark are a great idea, but I feel they may lead to some problematic game elements. Players will likely build in safe areas and only journey outside of them to mine. Players in safe areas will likely be neighbors with bitter enemies. Trolls could interrupt multi-hex building projects by claiming hexes in the path of development. There is less of a reason for people to band together to form protection if it is inherent to the game. I am a huge believer in emergent gameplay, and this game relies almost entirely on it. Emergent gameplay is the idea that rules and systems are established which sort of "Make sense," and then players find ways to extract value, power, and fun from them in ways that the devs may not have initially intended. An example is movement patterns in Starcraft 1, Wormhole pirate guilds in EVE online, and metagame strategies in almost every game. I propose a system which in a simple manner mimics the way real cities were formed. When a new hex territory is claimed grant it "Frontier" status which offers little or no protection. Once it is surrounded by other claimed hex tiles grant the center tile an upgraded protection status and a new name like Rural area. When all the frontier hexes bordering this rural area are surrounded by frontier hexes, they become rural and the center hex becomes suburban. Continue in this pattern for a number of layers, a progression such as: Frontier Rural Suburban Urban Metropolis Adding and removing layers, changing costs of territories, and modifying levels of protection at each status would give devs control over game balance while still feeling fair for pvp. In addition, this gives groups an incentive to build together as a troll or bad neighbor building near the city would only have frontier status and likely be soon destroyed. There may also need to be other controls like a minimum of a couple of days at each status level (so that a level 5 protected zone cant be sprung up instantly) This would be a simple system which mimics the way cities start small and grow. I also don't think this should replace safe zones, but be in addition to safe zones.
  3. So from the previous videos DU Devs have posted it appears that the current system of claiming will be on hexagonal tiles and dependent on territory units--which are to be expensive. My idea is that what if the system worked like this: A claim possess one central beacon/territory unit which is extremely resource heavy but still feasible, with it you can build on adjacent tiles less expensive territory units; the catch would be that to build more adjacent territory units you must upgrade the central unit--which cannot be done indefinitely. Secondly, if a central unit is hacked/destroyed/sold/captured then all sub-sectors will be destroyed/captured, this would then support the construction of cities around central units as you'll need to prioritize their protection, and since you cannot expand forever with one central beacon you will need to construct more to continue expanding, which in turn means more cities. Take this example: Here you can see three central hubs. One has been fully upgraded and thus a second has been placed to continue expansion. With this model future central units do not have to be adjacent to continue expansion, which in turn allows for multiple cities/colonies around a planet. The only stipulation with this is that it gives the opportunity for organizations to quickly take over planets by constructing multiple central units at different sides of a planet; to mitigate this there could be a limit of central units on one planet, or that the price of a central unit increases based on how many a player/organization already owns on said planet. What do you guys think?
  4. A list which lets us define who can not interact with an element. With only a permission list no combination of sensors can distinguish between: Only an authorized person is in range Both an authorized and any other person are in range For example, you can not have a door which automatically opens only when you're alone. It would also help attempts at starting civilizations, since it would allow having public spaces by default and banning particular people from interacting or building in them.
  5. EDIT: To preface this, I'm aware that currently the plan for protecting constructs is with some kind of "bubble". For the purposes of this discussion I referred to a potential function of a TU to be protecting constructs in the space from damage. I consider these to be interchangeable, since we've got no idea what the "bubble" is or how it works, needless to say this suggestion revolves around a method to nullify those defenses that takes hours and notifies the defending player of when they will be vulnerable. The other backbone suggestion here is that both tiles become vulnerable not just the defender, but they become vulnerable only to each-other. This turns the "cyber-warfare module" into a raiding or conquest tool instead of a griefing tool. It has already been hinted by NQ that in order to attack and claim a tile controlled by a TU, that the attacker might need to own an adjacent tile with a TU as well. Since this is a function meant to make taking territories more like a war and less like a raid or grieving run, lets keep that ball rolling. How about also requiring a declaration of war? This would serve as both a warning and a raid timer for the defending player, setting it so that a player must declare their intentions to attack the adjacent tile basically 24 hours in advance, opening a fixed window of time to actually raid and attempt to secure the adjacent tile. That the defender has time to gather a militia or hire mercenaries (since otherwise the attacker could mass a group and attack the defender while they are afk, like rust, which is not really what DU is striving to be). Some factors Each group of controlled adjacent territories would contribute to an overall score that would be a factor in the amount of notice and length of window permitted to attack. If the attacking side is attacking from a single hex, and the defending side is 5 or 6 hexes that are continuously adjacent, then the attacker would have to provide a lot of notice, and would be granted a narrow window to secure their first hex (narrow being a couple of hours or something), and if the attacker is able to successfully secure the hex, their window would be extended for attacking other adjacent hexes until they capture another hex (extending the window further) or the window expires. If the attacker and defender each had roughly the same number of hexes, it could be around 24 hours of notice for something like a 4 hour window. Once you reach a point where the attacker's tiles outnumber the defender's tiles by a wide margin, you might get 12 hours notice for a 6 hour window or something. What would this look like implemented? When a rival org might try to invade a planet, they would be forced to start by claiming an unclaimed hex to use as a "staging area" effectively. Even if for some reason a planet ends up 100% claimed, then the attacker could claim a space-hex (if that end up getting implemented) and launch their attack from orbit. If the attacker starts by claiming a tile that's adjacent to the enemy right away, they risk getting preemptively attacked is high because of the short window for being badly outnumbered. The attacker might instead claim a hex that is 1 or 2 spaces away to construct a base of operations, claim tiles leading to the territory they wish to conquer and go from there. Battles for large territories could take weeks (if the attacker declares war, waits the wait period, then claims only 1 or 2 hexes and repeats), or it could be done in a weekend (if the attacker declares war, waits the wait period, and systematically and successfully claims all of the interconnected hexes 1 by 1 extending their raid window enough to continue, but this would require overwhelming force, organization, and supplies in the part of the attacker. To take hexes from other players in this proposal, you'd have to be really committed to making it happen since it is unlikely that you'd be able to place your TU and also attack all in one play session (due to the wait period). The TU's would then serve their purpose very effectively in protecting structures and ships from random acts of looting. Some of the nitty gritty here, to ensure that you'll actually be online during the attack window as the attacker, when you declare war, you basically schedule a time for that attack window to start and the system would send the warning to the defending player 24 hours in-advance of the window set by the attacker (and of course, it wouldn't let you set a window for sooner than you'd have to wait based on the number of hexes). Some variations to consider -After the declaration of war timer is over and the window starts, it could mean that both the attacking and defending hexes are up for grabs, meaning that if someone attempts to steal a tile from you and you defeat them, you could use the time remaining in the window to launch an attack on their hex, preventing continued harassment and attacks. This is probably the best way to go. -This system could use different timer lengths for TU's owned by individual players vs TU's owned by organizations. Organizations might benefit from shorter or longer attack windows, or it might be that Orgs with at least 10 players get a slight boost (but not beyond 10 to limit dead alts, and not counting trial characters for the same reason). -Players might be able to raise temporary shields to affect the length of that attack window, or prevent the attack from spilling over into more adjacent hexes. That or it would come down to how they physically built the structures on those hexes, its possible for a player to make it very difficult to take more than one hex at a time. -Player count in those hexes might affect the length of the window as well, it would check to see how many players are present on the "smallest" of the two teams and scale the length of the window accordingly, more players means more time. -Raid windows could instead be determined solely by actual static-core elements (such as temporary shields or siege weapons).
  6. Hi all, I've been a long time lurker here and decided to finally register to ask a question that's been bothering me. I understand that there's a lot, if not most of this game that isn't quite set in stone. There's a lot of questions I want to ask but I know most of then can't really be answered yet. What I do want to ask is about the so called "persistent universe". Now in the F.A.Q. it's a little vague about how it describes the way the universe functions. It is implied that it is infinite but it never directly says it either so I'm left unsure about how that will all work. I'm pretty interested in the political concepts that are being looked at. It seems to be possibly derivitve of EVE Politics which is to me a good thing, politics in EVE are probably the most interesting part about that game. However it should be know that often times what drives political conflicts and wars in EVE and even in our own history is landgrabs, there's always some peice of land or territory that somebody else wants to get their hands on. My question is that if there is no limit to how much territory there can be, what value does it even really have? I've read plenty already and I see it being said that it will take a long time to even claim territory and try to spread out amongst the stars which is all well and good but let's be real here nobody outside the dev team really has anyway to measure that. In EVE territory is limited, and with low supply comes high demand and spectacular conflicts ensue as a result. If it's easy to just explore some more and get more land why would anybody fight over it? Obviously the idea of a never ending MMO universe sounds cool but is it really the best thing to do? Or will politics not really matter as much in this game. If this question has already been answered then I apologize, I searched but didn't find anything anywhere. Tl;Dr basically what the title says
  7. The complexity and expense of TU's will basically limit their use to large-ish organizations which will lead to political borders as in RL. But will there be some mechanicism that allows "private ownership" of land? That is, if an organization wants to rent out smaller parcels of its 1km TU to individuals or companies (e.g. a government allowing private land ownership within it's borders), what might that look like in-game? It seems like there should be some kind of mechanism that facilitates that, right?
  8. How can a territory be obtained from another faction? Well, two main thoughts come to mind: -Peacefully Obtained through trade (land for land, land for resources, land for money) -Forceful conquest This post is to discuss how players can take territories by force Capturing territory from another faction should be no easy task, automated defenses and player defenses will be present in larger, more desirable territories. But capturing someone's land should not be impossibly hard either. It should cost more resources to launch a successful offensive than maintain a defensive line. My idea would be to set up a web of command posts or capturable locations in a large territory hex. You, as an invader, must capture all of these secured points to be able to claim the territory. This is an example of zones within a hex territory. An invading group would have to overpower zones A through F, or a majority of the zones before they are allowed to capture the master command post represented as G. This makes invading factions form attack plans to capture the outer command posts before they can take a central power, and requires invading factions to scout out where a command post lies within each zone they are planning to capture. It also requires a heavy amount of scouting to find out which zones invaders should attack based on defenses and guards. Not all territory hex's should operate like this, but the Capital hex territory, or main command point for all the other hexes. The Capital hex should be the first territory you claim in that area, and should be able to be moved to other hex territories you claim later on in the same hex cluster (connected hexes) Please post your opinion about this and your ideas!
  9. It's been confirmed in the kickstarter AMA part 2 that safe zone territory will be claimable: What are the gameplay implications? Obviously the safe zones will be super valuable, but they won't be able to be fought over; only sold, right? Which means that the prime objective of all the starting players (with half a brain or more) will be to claim territory within the starting zone to either use strategically or sell to the highest bidder down the road. If the seat of a certain government is within a safe zone, can it ever be overthrown? If two orgs are at war and both are located within safe zones (possibly even the same safe zone), I suppose it could only become a war of attrition where they try to choke out each other's exterior supply lines? I'm just trying to fathom how this mechanic will affect societal development and organizational competition...
  10. Indestructible safe zones in the main world space are nightmares for any player that likes role playing or fighting. Destructible things are just a must for any continuous story to thrive with empires falling and new ones rising in their place. That's one of the reasons Halo has such a good story line, the UNSC lose countless battles that actually felt impactful. Entire planets were glassed, monuments destroyed, and lives lost in the age old conflict between the Humans and Covenant. Other great stories and games alike use the destruction of major monuments to give a sense of desperation and awe in the eyes of the audience. The one thing that completely screws this up is when said monuments are indestructible for the lone reason that a creator doesn't want to lose his or her precious work. This completely shatters the experience for any player who doesn't like to just look at something without any form of interaction. In order to make something matter in the role playing world things cannot be static. As a direct consequence of the above game mechanic, Arkification Tokens are put out of the question. They are barriers to the cycle of build, destroy, and rebuild which both fighters and roleplayers thrive on, as well as requiring a multitude of limitations to prevent abuse which almost always decrease immersion. Alien Ruins are something which makes sense lore wise but would also cause a disruption in the cycle. Any truly safe area in the game universe provides a place where players will flock to and also attract griefers and trolls. When there is no challenge that players have to overcome there is usually less incentive for development and more for the abuse of mechanics. The general player base has a low tolerance for people who are abusive, and this causes people to find creative ways to protect themselves, given the right tools, so in other words development counters abuse, and abuse encourages development when the tools for such development are provided. The kinds of development I'm talking about are security organizations, police forces, and security systems that can all be created by players, meaning more immersion, player interaction, and less need for developer intervention. A truly player driven MMORPG. The builders still need a safe place to build, and that's where Virtual Simulators come in real handy. Virtual Simulation fits perfectly with immersion and provides no barriers to the cycle, as it doesn't actually affect the universe apart from providing blueprints, which boost economic growth, player ability, and creation quality for basically everyone. There's a lot you can do with blueprints, and for a game of this type, that could only be positive. Safe zones have to be managed regardless, but virtual spaces are completely controlled by their creator in the first place.
×
×
  • Create New...