Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Territory'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Starting Zone (EN)
    • Rules & Announcements
    • General Discussions
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • Starting Zone (DE)
    • Regeln und Ankündigungen
    • Novark's Registratur
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • Starting Zone (FR)
    • Règles et Annonces
    • Registres du Novark
    • Discussions générales
  • Beta Discussion
    • Beta Updates & Announcements
    • Idea Box
    • DevBlog Feedback
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Streamer's Corner
    • The Builder's Corner
    • Innovation Station
  • Organizations
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Novark's Registry
  • Fan Art, Fan-Fic & Roleplay
    • Novark Agora
    • Novark Story Time
    • 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


community_id

Found 13 results

  1. To build a large space city for an org it would require massive amount of space cores to restrict other random ppl of placing a core and building a cube in between their assets. And if there will be some defense mechanics like planned with regular TUs (only the most outer ones can be attacked) this will create an opportunity for big orgs to build a somewhat-safe trade/military/other outposts in the wild space
  2. Heyho Novark Builders, I’ve got a little problem and I cannot find a good answer, so I would like to suggest a little something: This topic is not about core alignment, but about rotating cores. To be more precise, the rotation function where you hold R and Scroll with your mouse-wheel is far to unprecise. As far as I can judge this, equipping a Static Core will show you were you are able to place the core on your plot. This position is not “loose”, which means you can not rotate it by changing the direction your character is looking, but it is simply fixed. And sadly, it is not
  3. Let players decide... Dual Universe is about having mechanics that gives players the say on how they want to have the universe to work (at least their small part of it). This player agency is what makes is sandbox game so appealing. The idea If a single organization (including subsidiaries) can claim percentage of a planet or moon (say 75+% as example) that organization is marked as owning the planet on the planetary map AND that organization gets special rights to create some game changing laws for the planets surrounding space (an example could be switching direct PvP o
  4. 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 ugl
  5. 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 entir
  6. 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/destr
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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 in
  10. 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?
  11. 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
  12. 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 wit
  13. 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 aw
×
×
  • Create New...