Jump to content

Dude, where is my ship?


Kurock

Recommended Posts

For griefing, there should be an ability to send a report to the GMs for this reason alone. In addition, players should give constructs in safezones the option to let them despawn on logout or not.

 

Next, there should be a timer that begins when the player logs off a construct in a safezone. The timer resets when the player logs back on. It starts over when the player logs back off. When the timer reaches 0, the construct will disappear, reappearing only when the player logs back on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For griefing, there should be an ability to send a report to the GMs for this reason alone. In addition, players should give constructs in safezones the option to let them despawn on logout or not.

 

Next, there should be a timer that begins when the player logs off a construct in a safezone. The timer resets when the player logs back on. It starts over when the player logs back off. When the timer reaches 0, the construct will disappear, reappearing only when the player logs back on.

While these are perfectally acceptable solutions, I prefer mechanisms that create emergent gameplay I.e. That allow players to resolve these situations without GM intervention.

 

The solution for griefers may be as simple as placing a bounty on their heads, but this does not get rid of the eyesore ship.

The towing idea could work but only with towing rights in a TU.

 

I am starting to think that unclaimed safe zones will just be unmaintained until they are claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really good question.

 

I would hate to see the Arcship safezone become a huge Walmart parking lot for people's ships who are offline.

 

If you're building a base what happens if someone just parks a ship on top of you in the safezone while you're building?

 

I'm really interested to see how NQ handles this.  I have no idea.

 

I guess another thing we don't know is exactly how permanent constructs will be.  Obviously we'll be able to edit them in some way.  If you place a voxel in the wrong spot or put down a wing element when you meant to place a thruster, there should probably be a way to delete them and recoup all or at least some of the resources used.

 

If you can delete parts of the ship then what's to stop you from just deleting the entire ship when you aren't using it?

 

I guess there may be a resource penalty for deleting elements or voxels.  Although honestly i don't really like the idea of that because it would punish you for experimenting with different shapes and configurations.

 

I think there also might be a cost to reproducing a blueprint, beyond just the resource cost.  Which might be enough to make people think twice about simply deleting a construct.

 

My guess is that there will be a way to Store your constructs when you aren't using them.  With a cost for reproducing them.

 

So many questions.  I can't wait to see how this all works!   :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really good question.

 

I would hate to see the Arcship safezone become a huge Walmart parking lot for people's ships who are offline.

 

If you're building a base what happens if someone just parks a ship on top of you in the safezone while you're building?

 

I'm really interested to see how NQ handles this.  I have no idea.

 

I guess another thing we don't know is exactly how permanent constructs will be.  Obviously we'll be able to edit them in some way.  If you place a voxel in the wrong spot or put down a wing element when you meant to place a thruster, there should probably be a way to delete them and recoup all or at least some of the resources used.

 

If you can delete parts of the ship then what's to stop you from just deleting the entire ship when you aren't using it?

 

I guess there may be a resource penalty for deleting elements or voxels.  Although honestly i don't really like the idea of that because it would punish you for experimenting with different shapes and configurations.

 

I think there also might be a cost to reproducing a blueprint, beyond just the resource cost.  Which might be enough to make people think twice about simply deleting a construct.

 

My guess is that there will be a way to Store your constructs when you aren't using them.  With a cost for reproducing them.

 

So many questions.  I can't wait to see how this all works!   :D

 

So many valid points here, I would also like to see what they want to do about people in the Arc safe-zone that are literally flying around and hindering peoples construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many valid points here, I would also like to see what they want to do about people in the Arc safe-zone that are literally flying around and hindering peoples construction.

While I understand, I dont think its up to the devs to do anything about such things.

 

Yes people will want some simple tools to deal with the most obvious problems.

But this being a sandbox with this much freedom you shouldnt set too many hard limitations.

 

Just accept that there will be idiots, you will get griefed sometimes and there will be plenty of people doing stupid things like flying into your building with obvious phallus shaped things.

 

Setting hard limitations on such things will only diminish the game, not add to it. I'll even go as far and say GM intervention should be restricted to the most serious issues. Like hacking and similar offences that cross the line.

 

Its already a big thing that the safezone is non pvp. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about in a non-perfect world? So for instance, you lose power / internet to your house for the evening due to whatever reason / computer explodes etc. Games like EvE (I'm only comparing due to the similar "destructible ships system where the ship doesn't respawn with you" situation) would warp your ship out to a random unmarked spot away from any player / installation in space, and subsequently make your ship disappear after fifteen minutes. There are risks - your ship is still very vulnerable in those 15 minutes, but at least it's not a blatantly "you are definitely screwed" scenario if you drop connection while on a tour in hostile space.

 

Or what about servers having an emergency patch or crash? It does happen, and has happened with pretty much every single MMO to date. You would then have to physically camp your computer well into the next morning, waiting for the server to come back up so you could get back on before your enemies do and destroy your ship.

 

Wouldn't having your ships permanently out kind of put all players at the mercy of things beyond game world and beyond player control, in a pretty straight forward "guaranteed screw-uppery" as a consequence? 

 

I wouldn't be as worried about trolls parking stuff outside buildings. It would be pretty simple to have "no landing" zones on city streets for instance in my opinion, and would make sense to have specific "landing pads" attached to hangars scattered throughout the city. I would, however, be a bit worried of the above, and feel there are better ways to maintain the immersion and not have ships "disappear" in front of people's eyes, as well as avoid players "logging in" out of nowhere creating a "offline camping" mechanic - which is just as much of a problem. 

 

I mean yay for persistence, and I'm all for it, but there needs to be some reason logic and compromise, considering that in a fully immersed game, you would be "living on your ship" - which you obviously cannot do since it's sadly DU is not RL. And show me a gamer who has never had their internet disrupted for whatever reason, timed out due to something like a "gaming platform" (cough steam) deciding to cripple your gaming by applying updates you have no control over, experience servers crashing or coming offline out of schedule by ten minutes for an update, or simply having the game crash on them since god knows no developer can optimise for every single combinations of hardware (a lot of which hasn't been released yet). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise some very good concerns.

It is indeed not a perfect world and things wont always go as planned.

 

I'm not quite sure how I would solve these issues. Perhaps there could be something that protects yourself in the case of a crash. But even something simple as that gets exploited by people who refuse to die when in a tight spot.

 

Honestly the issue is quite the pickle.

I have my own personal preference but I also understand your point of view.

I guess somehow NQ has to find a balance or explain how and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now the question becomes, what do I do with my ship when I want to log off? This has been covered in other threads and answers include

1) player run parking lots

 

 

 

This came to mind for some reason, don't be like George ....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand, I dont think its up to the devs to do anything about such things.

 

Yes people will want some simple tools to deal with the most obvious problems.

But this being a sandbox with this much freedom you shouldnt set too many hard limitations.

 

Just accept that there will be idiots, you will get griefed sometimes and there will be plenty of people doing stupid things like flying into your building with obvious phallus shaped things.

 

Setting hard limitations on such things will only diminish the game, not add to it. I'll even go as far and say GM intervention should be restricted to the most serious issues. Like hacking and similar offences that cross the line.

 

Its already a big thing that the safezone is non pvp. :)

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "what the devs will do".  I'm interested in what a developer can do about it, not a GM.  No one wants a GM to have to sit around telling people where they can and can't park all day.

 

If constructs were simply invincible inside the safezone though, and you can just park them anywhere you want it would be a bit of a mess.  We just don't have the whole story yet i think.

 

Who knows maybe that is how it will work in Alpha.

 

I also want the game to be as realistic and player driven as possible.  But with things like Safezones things get complicated, because they aren't realistic at all.  And I do think the safezones are really important too, and i plan to spend most of my time casually enjoying the protection of a safezone and building stuff.   :ph34r:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "what the devs will do".  I'm interested in what a developer can do about it, not a GM.  No one wants a GM to have to sit around telling people where they can and can't park all day.

 

If constructs were simply invincible inside the safezone though, and you can just park them anywhere you want it would be a bit of a mess.  We just don't have the whole story yet i think.

 

Who knows maybe that is how it will work in Alpha.

 

I also want the game to be as realistic and player driven as possible.  But with things like Safezones things get complicated, because they aren't realistic at all.  And I do think the safezones are really important too, and i plan to spend most of my time casually enjoying the protection of a safezone and building stuff.   :ph34r:  

 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. I think towing is another alternative worth looking into. You've got carebear police who will come and tow away your constructs if they interfere with the public welfare. They would also attempt to combat the griefing potential that comes with a towing mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that unclaimed territory tiles inside safe zones are just free for all areas. So ships can be parked there with no issues or consequences. As soon as the tile is claimed, the tile owner (or the one with the correct rights) can tow any unpowered ship on that tile.

 

As for disconnects, it depends if you log back in where you left or respawn at a rez-node. Both have negatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "what the devs will do". I'm interested in what a developer can do about it, not a GM.

Maybe I am?

When I say "what the devs will do" I mean that in the sense I dont want the devs developing intricate detailed restrictions for certain situations.

 

I am just sticking to the core idea behind emergent gameplay.

 

"A system of simple rules wich lead to complex interactions."

 

Hope that helps to explain my point of view. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand, I dont think its up to the devs to do anything about such things.

 

Yes people will want some simple tools to deal with the most obvious problems.

But this being a sandbox with this much freedom you shouldnt set too many hard limitations.

 

Just accept that there will be idiots, you will get griefed sometimes and there will be plenty of people doing stupid things like flying into your building with obvious phallus shaped things.

 

Setting hard limitations on such things will only diminish the game, not add to it. I'll even go as far and say GM intervention should be restricted to the most serious issues. Like hacking and similar offences that cross the line.

 

Its already a big thing that the safezone is non pvp. :)

The phallus thing again. Come on. Not again... Anyway I don't see the problem for someone to create one, nor one for some org to track those down.

 

Edit : I wouldn't like to spoil everything, but what about GM? Will there be some? How many? It's still not documented I believe. Or will there be devs that will actually also be GMs? Or will the CM the GMs' chief?

Edited by Leonis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire topic is literally a double edged sword lol.

So I can see the Arc zone being a safe haven parking lot, in much the same way the Tower is in Destiny or any Major city in any MMO (just a bunch of people sitting around) Think about WoW with everyone just trying to be on the biggest mount they have and taking up as much space as possible. I can see that in the same light as a parking lot (only everyone including offline will be there)

BUT I can also see the safe zone just being one person's construct taking up the entire area after a certain amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the arczone has a 20km radius, that means that "single player" would need to build a 40km (~25 miles) long ship.  And do it 25cm (10 inches) at a time.

 

They're going to be building for a very long time...  Even an organization's personal space station, isn't going to be that big.  How much mining do you think they'll need to do to come up with the resources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the arczone has a 20km radius, that means that "single player" would need to build a 40km (~25 miles) long ship.  And do it 25cm (10 inches) at a time.

 

They're going to be building for a very long time...  Even an organization's personal space station, isn't going to be that big.  How much mining do you think they'll need to do to come up with the resources?

Modular building, copy paste is our friend (and some thought out layout of the ship might help >.>) I could build a 40Km ship that way easily :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...