Jump to content
Cirtex

Dealing with Griefers/Resource Depletion

Recommended Posts

Hi there,
 
Just a quick clarification about the safe zones:
 
The safe zones (and not only the one from the start) will be all 100% safe.
This is one of the things that are non negotiable and this is a necessity for obvious reasons.
 
1) As the resources won't regenerate over time and with the community growing over the years, the Safe Zone from the start will not answer to the criteria Novaquark has in mind for the people who don't want to join the PvP. For many months, the communication has been "there will be zoneS for those not interested in PvP activities". 
 
2) To help players spreading accross the galaxy, having safe relay point will be necessary. Why? you'll find the reasons below.
 
3) NPC space stations are the equivalent of Safe Zones 100% safe in EvE Online.
You have NPC space stations everywhere in New Eden: HighSec, LowSec and NullSec. That's not a coincidence.
It's an implicit protection from griefing. Without these NPC Stations, this would make trade absolutely impossible for freelance or small corporations outside highsec market hubs like Jita. Only huge alliances and/or coalitions that would roam in areas like the NullSec would survive: why trade with freelancers and small corporations when they can't find any safe haven in the nearest solar systems? It would be easier, faster and more lucrative to crush them with raw firepower then take what they want. Counting on the fact that big coalitions would have a reasonable approach of the problem would just be utopia.
 
@CaptainTwerkMotor:
 

 

If a person is 100% safe in a safezone, it would make it impossible for wars to have conculsions. A faction would be barricaded inside a safezone, wih wals built around them in it and just wait till reinforcements come.

 

Well then, I encourage you to read how war declaration mechanics work in EVE Online.
Wars start, last a few weeks or months and end, despite having safe zones everywhere.
 

 

I only expect the original Arkship Safezone to be safe. Any other safezone will run on power-cells of some kind, quite possibly being able to be sieged as well.

 

Please, do not make such statement when the source you are referring to was just possible ideas, not even firmly confirmed.
There will be soon more information giving the clear differences between Safe Zones, Protection Bubbles and Shields in another topic.
 

 

And in my opinion, only the starting Safezone should be 100% safe, as it's a place for newbros to experience the game before heading out into the post-apocalyptic wasteland

 

Again, make the difference between what you would like and what is planned.

It was never planned to have a post-apocalyptic wasteland once you leave the Arkship Safe Zone.

There will be vast areas for PvP conflicts, large-scale battles and territory control. But there will be also many safe zones in order to give some space to the players not interested in PvP. Regarding the possible abuse of using Safe Zones to gain a PvP advantage, we have some ideas to discourage this, to make Safe Zones unappealing for PvP strategies. This topic will be developed later as well.

 

If it's not clear enough, Dual Universe has never been announced as a 100% PvP-oriented game.

The Arkship safe zone isn't meant to be just a newbie zone.

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi there,
 
Just a quick clarification about the safe zones:
 
The safe zones (and not only the one from the start) will be all 100% safe.
This is one of the things that are non negotiable and this is a necessity for obvious reasons.
 
1) As the resources won't regenerate over time and with the community growing over the years, the Safe Zone from the start will not answer to the criteria Novaquark has in mind for the people who don't want to join the PvP. For many months, the communication has been "there will be zoneS for those not interested in PvP activities". 
 
2) To help players spreading accross the galaxy, having safe relay point will be necessary. Why? you'll find the reasons below.
 
3) NPC space stations are the equivalent of Safe Zones 100% safe in EvE Online.
You have NPC space stations everywhere in New Eden: HighSec, LowSec and NullSec. That's not a coincidence.
It's an implicit protection from griefing. Without these NPC Stations, this would make trade absolutely impossible for freelance or small corporations outside highsec market hubs like Jita. Only huge alliances and/or coalitions that would roam in areas like the NullSec would survive: why trade with freelancers and small corporations when they can't find any safe haven in the nearest solar systems? It would be easier, faster and more lucrative to crush them with raw firepower then take what they want. Counting on the fact that big coalitions would have a reasonable approach of the problem would just be utopia.
 
@CaptainTwerkMotor:
 

 

Well then, I encourage you to read how war declaration mechanics work in EVE Online.

Wars start, last a few weeks or months and end, despite having safe zones everywhere.

 

 

Please, do not make such statement when the source you are referring to was just possible ideas, not even firmly confirmed.

There will be soon more information giving the clear differences between Safe Zones, Protection Bubbles and Shields in another topic.

 

 

Again, make the difference between what you would like and what is planned.

It was never planned to have a post-apocalyptic wasteland once you leave the Arkship Safe Zone.

There will be vast areas for PvP conflicts, large-scale battles and territory control. But there will be also many safe zones in order to give some space to the players not interested in PvP. Regarding the possible abuse of using Safe Zones to gain a PvP advantage, we have some ideas to discourage this, to make Safe Zones unappealing for PvP strategies. This topic will be developed later as well.

 

If it's not clear enough, Dual Universe has never been announced as a 100% PvP-Oriented game.

The Arkship safe zone isn't meant to be reduced to just a newbie zone.

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

 

Good of you to clarify :)

 

And yes,  wardecs do last a few weeks in EVE, but the point is, not all systems in EVE has said stations in them (at least, not NPC stations as you mentioned). I can see the reason for having safezones, but the way you put it, you make it sound the protection bubbles will be the equivalent of Citadels, able to allow ships to dock in but can be sieged / destroyed, which also means, that some systems will not have safeones, correct?

 

The last comment of the post-apocalypse was a joke (unless people actively make it look like it).

 

But in any case, if it works like that, it means there's nothing more to discuss on the subject and we can put it to rest. Should we referr to this statement for any future discussion on Safezones when people ask of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. There's no Collision Damage.  In interviews all over the place they specifically call out the idea of making a ship to ram another ship and how they will not allow that to be possible.  Ships simply bounce off each other without doing any damage.

 

2. Safe zones exist.  Safe zones can be created by players and will last as long as said player maintains them.  So safe trading spaces can be set up for a price.  If you don't have a safe zone set up then you are vulnerable... which is a reason for you to join an organization so they can protect your stuff while you're offline.

 

3. Resource depletion is necessary to drive population to move out and explore.  As the area near you gets depleted you must travel farther out to find resources and new settlements to trade in goods will have to be constructed and protected... This is the Game Play of the game.  It's how real civilizations grow and it's how civilization will grow in the game as well.

 

 

At the launch of the game ... unless something has changed... ship to ship combat will not exist.  The only combat will be on the ground person to person.  Eventually they'll add ship to ship... but the point is at the start the potential for mass destruction is limited.  If they do get Ship to Ship combat in then safe zones will be very important and drive people together to form communities. 

 

Everyone being spread evenly over a planet... solo... building by themselves... not interacting with anyone else is a bad thing.  Combat... resource depletion and costly to maintain safe zones are mechanics to drive people together and will be what makes this game work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Nyzaltar for that statement. But I understand it a little bit differently as fitorion:

 

There are safe zones (like the ark ship) spread throughout the galaxy (perhaps other stranded arkships, perhaps those tokens NQ talked about) which are 100% safe and indestructible. Which makes ssense for said reasons

 

There are protection bubbles players can set up (anywhere?) they want which are destructible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to hear about the non-PVP possibilities being protected in the design. I've played in other games where the experience was largely ruined due to unfettered griefing (it's not "true" PVP if you don't stand a chance to work toward an even footing, just because you're a newcomer, or for other reasons). PVP is great when it's fair, and you choose to engage in it. But this game will also attract a lot of people who are more interested in the creativity and economic aspects, and they should have a viable play experience too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was reopened in the 1980's and is still being mined today 20 years later

 

It's easy to create an org to beautify spawn and repair the world. It's even possible to make a filling voxel cheaply to fill holes. It's a simple matter to make restoration an org project or a Nova Quark market NPC transaction.

 

Hmm, seems like we're missing a few years in that equation?  :P

 

I bet sooner or later there will come an org that specializes in reclaiming the environment. Heh, that's emergent gameplay for ya. That's why I think I'll be loving DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you make it sound the protection bubbles will be the equivalent of Citadels, able to allow ships to dock in but can be sieged / destroyed, which also means, that some systems will not have safeones, correct?

 

So far, the concept of the Protection Bubble is a bit like the "Reinforcement Mode" of a POS (Player Owned Starbase) in EVE Online.
To evolve toward a game mechanics variant like the one used for Citadels remain in discussion, and it's too soon to give a clear statement on this topic.
 

 

Should we refer to this statement for any future discussion on Safezones when people ask of them?

 

"The safe zones (and not only the one from the start) will be all 100% safe"
The sentence above (and the reasons behind) can be considered as an official statement.
All the others points regarding this topic must be considered with a pinch of salt: development is an iterative process and many things could change during Alpha, especially with community feedback.
 

 

1. There's no Collision Damage. In interviews all over the place they specifically call out the idea of making a ship to ram another ship and how they will not allow that to be possible. Ships simply bounce off each other without doing any damage.

 

Indeed, no Collision Damage is planned for the time being. 
For 2 reasons:
 
1) Among Physics mechanics, realistic collision damage (with pieces flying everywhere after the impact) is one of the most heavy thing to handle in terms of calculation on a large scale. While hardware and software tech have evolved incredibly in the last decade, we still have to do some compromise on some points. Today either a voxel-based game aims to have realistic collision damage (like Space Engineers) or it aims to high concentration of players and constructs (like Dual Universe). Having both in the same with Today's tech is not (yet?) possible. But it might be in the future.
 
2) Even if it was possible, realistic collision damage is something we are very wary of: by implementing that, it would imply we give the ability of players going wild with "Meteor Strike" strategies. While it can be fun and all in RTS games like Planetary Annihilation, the consequences are limited to a game session. And you can only destroy something that has been built in a matter of minutes or a few hours. In a MMORPG, the implications are on a completely different scale and it can generate obvious game balance problems.
 
If at some point, we are able to solve both problems (technical and game balancing, then maybe in the distant future, realistic collision damage might be considered. For now, it's wise to not bet on it though.
 

 

2. Safe zones exist.  Safe zones can be created by players and will last as long as said player maintains them.  So safe trading spaces can be set up for a price.  If you don't have a safe zone set up then you are vulnerable... which is a reason for you to join an organization so they can protect your stuff while you're offline.

 

Regarding this point, the answer made to CaptainTwerkMotor applies here as well:
The source you are referring to was just a list of possible ideas, not a clear statement of something firmly confirmed.
There will be soon more information giving the clear differences between Safe Zones, Protection Bubbles and Shields in another topic.
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, 

 

Since we're talking about griefers and resource depletion here -and because some of you asked about this via other channels- here are some clarification about starting locations. 

 

Please keep in mind that right now, the game design regarding the ability for new players to start at a new location hasn't been finalized at a 100% yet.

 

Here are the options we're considering (again, this isn't final):

 

- Newly discovered safe zones should be activated by players to become effective. Once a safe zone is activated, it can't be disabled. It might be possible to teleport a character from one safezone to another, but without bringing any object with the character (no resources or specific items, except the basic outfit and the Nanoformer).

 

- The possibility for characters recently created in-game and who have joined a specific Organization might be able to teleport to a "spawn point unit" (again, without bringing anything except the basic outfit and the Nanoformer) built by the Organization, in a territory that it controls. Each new character will have only one opportunity to do so and if not used, this opportunity will be lost definitely after a certain time period after the character's creation (which is still to be determined but it should be a matter of weeks or a few months). 

 

Once again, things are subject to change. We could end up using one of these or even both. Or maybe something different if we thought of a better solution. That's also why we'll have Alpha and Beta to get community's feedback. 

 

I hope this helps to better understand what we have in mind.

 

Cheers, 

 

Nomad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with multiple safezones, this is still a mmo, not a survival game; There's need for some protection, and the eve concept works well. However, keep in mind that for this to work, safezones should give players a limited experience, like stations do in eve (you cannot mine, fight, do missions, or produce any value beside trading), but I'm kinda confident you guys know that and you will do a good job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For:  [Moderated]Unpleasant behaviors[/Moderated] - read content.... we all love to hate them but they are better than just dealing with PVE.

 

fighting npc's or any pve content is like bubble wrap: it is satisfying popping the first couple of sheets but then you get bored, also wrapping your self in bubble wrap makes you feel safe, but the first sharp edge with cut through and leave a nasty scratch. popping someone elses sheet before they can is the game.

 

Accept the content, its good for the game. There should be extensive safe zones but beyond them the fewer artificial restrictions to actions the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

fighting npc's or any pve content is like bubble wrap: it is satisfying popping the first couple of sheets but then you get bored, also wrapping your self in bubble wrap makes you feel safe, but the first sharp edge with cut through and leave a nasty scratch. popping someone elses sheet before they can is the game.

 

Well, this is quite a personal opinion here, not a truth:

Just look at all the players taking weeks or even months to build a complete town or even an entire region in Minecraft and continue to do that again and again. Fun has a different meaning for each player. Building things can keep builders interested for an unlimited amount of time and nowhere PvP is involved, and it is also content.

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious though, will players pay a rent for the land around an arkship to an organisation operated by NQ, or will organisations be able to barricade themselves within their safezones by claiming one in its entirety and be able to outlast a siege by virtue of being immune to them?


Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious though, will players pay a rent for the land around an arkship to an organisation operated by NQ, or will organisations be able to barricade themselves within their safezones by claiming one in its entirety and be able to outlast a siege by virtue of being immune to them?

 

There will be a maintaining cost to occupy some space in a Safe Zone.

One possibility would be to have Aphelia becoming some sort of neutral landlord for safe zones.

The more available space become scarce in a safe zone, the higher the maintaining cost would become.

But this is just one idea among others.

Anyway, it's necessary to have a maintaining cost, to avoid many problems:

- the risk to see a rush from some players to claim all space everytime a safe zone is discovered and activated

- the fact that space in safe zones might be occupied by players who have left the game and won't come back

- the fact that organizations use safe zones abusively as invulnerable headquarters

(but for this, we have already a few other ideas of game mechanics to dissuade the use of safe zones for this purpose).

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be a maintaining cost to occupy some space in a Safe Zone.

One possibility would to have Aphelia becoming some sort of neutral landlord for safe zones.

The more available space become scarce in a safe zone, the higher the maintaining cost might become.

But this is just one idea among others.

Anyway, it's necessary to have a maintaining cost, to avoid many problems:

- the risk to see a rush from some players to claim all space everytime a safe zone is discovered and activated

- the fact that space in safe zones might be occupied by players who have left the game and won't come back

- the fact that organizations use safe zones abusively as invulnerable headquarters

(but for this, we have already a few other ideas of game mechanics to dissuade the use of safe zones for this purpose).

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

Thanks! That clears things up on my concerns at least. It's good to see you got contingencies for such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- the fact that organizations use safe zones abusively as invulnerable headquarters

(but for this, we have already a few other ideas of game mechanics to dissuade the use of safe zones for this purpose).

 

I really want to hear about this, safe zone mechanics are one of the things I'm most interested in at these early stages.

 

Here are the options we're considering (again, this isn't final):

 

- Newly discovered safe zones should be activated by players to become effective. Once a safe zone is activated, it can't be disabled. It might be possible to teleport a character from one safezone to another, but without bringing any object with the character (no resources or specific items, except the basic outfit and the Nanoformer).

 

- The possibility for characters recently created in-game and who have joined a specific Organization might be able to teleport to a "spawn point unit" (again, without bringing anything except the basic outfit and the Nanoformer) built by the Organization, in a territory that it controls. Each new character will have only one opportunity to do so and if not used, this opportunity will be lost definitely after a certain time period after the character's creation (which is still to be determined but it should be a matter of weeks or a few months).

From the perspective of promoting emergent gameplay, I think the first option is better. It creates more transport jobs to explicitly move people from safe zones to organisation headquarters (even if you have to jump through multiple safe zones to get there) than being able to jump straight to another org's homeworld. it also promotes turning every individual safe zone into trading ports over time. I can see them being harshly fought over as well, but over time they'll be more valuable for economic activity after a single org takes over, or multiple orgs agree to a truce.

 

The whole idea about warping between safe zones is a great idea either way though. Prevents Alioth from becoming the centre of the universe so harshly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Limyaael, the first option is better for emergent play. I understand why the teleport option is on the table, and maybe as a one-time deal it would be fine, but I still prefer the "normal" way of getting from one place to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- the fact that organizations use safe zones abusively as invulnerable headquarters

(but for this, we have already a few other ideas of game mechanics to dissuade the use of safe zones for this purpose).

Might this be the inability to restrict access to non-members (lack of guns/PvP and no door locks)? It would be fine for trade ports, not so good for headquarters due to infiltration.

 

I am sure there will be organisation embassies on Alioth and other natural safe zones that give you safe areas to interact with others and sign on to an org. In my mind, headquarters are there to be the most secure facility you own (hence why mine will be a cloaked capital ship that hangs out in the dark space between planets or on a system's outer edge). Whether the HQ is also your main munitions dump or your main shipyard/dock is up to the org themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might this be the inability to restrict access to non-members (lack of guns/PvP and no door locks)? It would be fine for trade ports, not so good for headquarters due to infiltration.

 

I am sure there will be organisation embassies on Alioth and other natural safe zones that give you safe areas to interact with others and sign on to an org. In my mind, headquarters are there to be the most secure facility you own (hence why mine will be a cloaked capital ship that hangs out in the dark space between planets or on a system's outer edge). Whether the HQ is also your main munitions dump or your main shipyard/dock is up to the org themselves.

 

Depending on how permissions work... what permissions are available to work in safe zones and outside... it could also prevent such safe zones being used as warehouse space... Which I'm ambivalent about. 

 

A trade hub needs materials to trade... and the ability to store them...  If you limit just how much can be stored then shipments from an Org warehouse to the trade hub would have to occur... the warehouse itself and the shipments would be vulnerable to attack.  An org might elect to set up their own... "outlet store" at their warehouse where they can concentrate their forces to guard everything... This could reduce the viability of the safe zone as a trade hub.   However there is some inherent value to shopping in an area where your fellow shopper can't just shoot up the place.

 

What I'm saying is that it will take some careful balancing work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on how permissions work... what permissions are available to work in safe zones and outside... it could also prevent such safe zones being used as warehouse space... Which I'm ambivalent about. 

 

 

Safe zones are there for people who want to build really cool buildings, like monuments or public works. These places do not need to be secure from intrusion, as they are supposed to be looked at/used. For trade stations, people wouldn't have access to inventories, but they will be able to wonder around. Maybe you could have low level security for things like housing, but there would be a limit on how secure you can make your facility against hackers. These rules won't apply to non-ark safe zones, as they can be disabled via blockading the area (run out of power). By using an arkification token, you effectively disable all pvp and you downgrade security levels within the hexagonal tile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...