Jump to content
Wilks Checkov

Debate 2: Sovereignty Units and IFF Beacons

Recommended Posts

Okay for this debate I thought I would bring up the topic of "Sovereignty and IFF Beacons."

 

From what I have seen so far they plan on having a singular system that makes claims indestructible? If I am wrong on this feel free to correct me. 

 

Anyway, how I think the sov. and beacon systems should function is along the following lines. 

 

 

Sovereignty Units:

 

Sovereignty units define system ownership, mainly the entity that controls the general region. For a sovereignty unit to function it should have a cost entailed or a monthly tax to operate. For instance a single unit would not be expensive to run - but the cost starts multiplying as you claim more and more systems, making you require more resources to keep your network funded and operational, with sov. held in those systems. 

 

Also a sovereignty unit should have a set time to online in which it is vulnerable to attack, so that a person or group of people cant just go system to system claiming systems. Claim units need to be invulnerable to damage unless war is declared on the system owner's group. Only then are the units vulnerable to damage from only those in the active WAR-DEC. Even with an active WAR-DEC a sov unit should have a massive amount of health - enabling a siege to ensue, and time for the owners to mount a defensive. 

 

A sovereignty unit should also make all stations immune to damage. Preventing the usual lone griefer from coming up and just firing off a few rounds at your station. Anything docked at a station should be invulnerable to damage as well. The only counter to the station invulnerability should be the active WAR-DEC system, in which only those who are declared at war should be able to damage the station. 

 

 

The next thing up for debate is a lot more forward of a system, and it also ties in with the sov units. 

 

 

IFF Beacons:

 

These beacons are an object on ships that determine personal / clan / factional / corporate ownership. They broadcast a tag at close ranges for identification purposes. They also prevent unauthorized access to that ship. They do not as far as I see make a ship invulnerable to damage, they are only there for identification measures. 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I am sure most of you have questions, or have a way or another to expand on this theory/possibility. If so feel free to post below. 

 

 

And remember to leave a like. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you should give these a read.

 

Dev blogs

TERRITORY CONTROL

RIGHTS & DUTIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

 

Then other post concerning the same topics

Territory Claim Unit function suggestion

Claims in space.

A new take on territories

Territory Units and Ark tokens why I dont like the idea

 

As you can see there has been quite a bit of discussion on the matter already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think somewhere is mentioned that you use a core unit on any construct, that ties it and makes you the owner,  which makes the construct immune to people of no authority over it to build upon it, but destruction via explosives or other means, are fair game.


A Territorial Claim Unit, follows a Capture the Point type of logic. It takes 24 hours to be built, ala RTS games, BUT the owner can be persuasded to transfer the rights over to another, via... ahem... Mass Driver morse code? :P Which in my opinion, is the quintessential part of the Emergent Gameplay the game goes for and the reason I'm paranoid and I'm gonna build an underground bunker for me self.


The IFF beacon is a real hard debate on this. Will we be able to build a sort "encryption" that a faction may utilise in an IFF module on their ship? Cause if so, anyone who gets a look in the inner workings of a DPU may be able to recreate the IFF signal and fool an enemy's Stargate, or god forbid, automated turrets. But, tying the IFF to a ship's "assigned owner" let's say, the Commander, could solve that issue altogether, as the Commander will be the one to be read and identified immediately. Remember, the humans in DUAL have cybernetic implants in their cerebrum. Cybernetics, the easy way out of all tough decisions :P


But this gives birth to "cyborg magic" as I like to call it, players who can "hack" other players brain with a deep sinking of points into specialisation, possibly, on E-Warfare and infiltration, making people around them not realising they are not of their faction, unles they actually take he time to read their names. Same concept can be applied to a ship's IFF. The IFF will read a vessel as "friendly", but when you look at it "wait... we got no Fully McUnderpants in our navy roster". Boom, perception on the player's part = the skill on E-Warfare PvP, similar to how actual internet security works. Take a ninja to catch a ninja after all.Or luck, but that's another topic :P

Since constructs like buildings and ship have virtually no difference except a Core Unit that simply makes the whole construct be "claimed" by a particular person or organisation, I think the same IFF logic can be applied on buildings with security, when it comes to automated defenses.

So yeah, IFFs should be tied to the construct's "appointed owner", or the Commander, on a specially scripted seat on board the bridge. If someone else is sitting there, the IFF won't work as intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just with me the idea behind a find able token - it does not exactly seem fair at all - at least by security means.  With the declaration of war system you would be generally safe, so to speak. The only time being is when a sizable force declares war upon you, and you are unable to defend your Sov unit. 

 

I think somewhere is mentioned that you use a core unit on any construct, that ties it and makes you the owner,  which makes the construct immune to people of no authority over it to build upon it, but destruction via explosives or other means, are fair game.


A Territorial Claim Unit, follows a Capture the Point type of logic. It takes 24 hours to be built, ala RTS games, BUT the owner can be persuasded to transfer the rights over to another, via... ahem... Mass Driver morse code? :P Which in my opinion, is the quintessential part of the Emergent Gameplay the game goes for and the reason I'm paranoid and I'm gonna build an underground bunker for me self.


The IFF beacon is a real hard debate on this. Will we be able to build a sort "encryption" that a faction may utilise in an IFF module on their ship? Cause if so, anyone who gets a look in the inner workings of a DPU may be able to recreate the IFF signal and fool an enemy's Stargate, or god forbid, automated turrets. But, tying the IFF to a ship's "assigned owner" let's say, the Commander, could solve that issue altogether, as the Commander will be the one to be read and identified immediately. Remember, the humans in DUAL have cybernetic implants in their cerebrum. Cybernetics, the easy way out of all tough decisions :P


But this gives birth to "cyborg magic" as I like to call it, players who can "hack" other players brain with a deep sinking of points into specialisation, possibly, on E-Warfare and infiltration, making people around them not realising they are not of their faction, unles they actually take he time to read their names. Same concept can be applied to a ship's IFF. The IFF will read a vessel as "friendly", but when you look at it "wait... we got no Fully McUnderpants in our navy roster". Boom, perception on the player's part = the skill on E-Warfare PvP, similar to how actual internet security works. Take a ninja to catch a ninja after all.Or luck, but that's another topic :P

Since constructs like buildings and ship have virtually no difference except a Core Unit that simply makes the whole construct be "claimed" by a particular person or organisation, I think the same IFF logic can be applied on buildings with security, when it comes to automated defenses.

So yeah, IFFs should be tied to the construct's "appointed owner", or the Commander, on a specially scripted seat on board the bridge. If someone else is sitting there, the IFF won't work as intended.

Now your idea of using the IFF Beacon / Hacking does intrigue me - its a concept I did not think of when I was writing this. I can imagine someone flying under your nose in the middle of a fight under a fake IFF signal to hit you in a soft spot. It would take a very keenly aware commander to notice something is not right and catch it before its too late. I personally think it would be a nice addition to the game. 

 

Would love to see what others think about it as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just with me the idea behind a find able token - it does not exactly seem fair at all - at least by security means.  With the declaration of war system you would be generally safe, so to speak. The only time being is when a sizable force declares war upon you, and you are unable to defend your Sov unit. 

 

Now your idea of using the IFF Beacon / Hacking does intrigue me - its a concept I did not think of when I was writing this. I can imagine someone flying under your nose in the middle of a fight under a fake IFF signal to hit you in a soft spot. It would take a very keenly aware commander to notice something is not right and catch it before its too late. I personally think it would be a nice addition to the game. 

 

Would love to see what others think about it as well. 

Yes, but an RPG-ish counter-balance on such power would be the hinderence of such abilities if the player using said skills wears heavy armor, or any armor at all, making them the "mages" of the game. They won't be throwing fireballs, but they would be the kind of sneaky gameplay that ttrades armor or damage for sabotage.

 

And yes, it would be something that actually requires people having their eyes open on the battlefield. Just because a guy wears a cloak with the same colors as yours, doesn't mean he's your friend. It's a kind of tactic used in medieval times as well to take out enemy generals in a hectic battlefield. And it's a tactic many used to sneak in and sabotage their enemies.

 

It's a story here in Greece, of a bunker near a wide river in WW2, that the germans could not take over during the winter. So, they devised a plant to get greek soldier clothes, get on a boat and sneak in the small bunker and take out everyone in a blitzkrieg. From a far, they looked like common greek soldiers and the lieutenant gave the order for the artilleries to not fire, until a streetwise guy went like :

 

"Wait a friggin' minute... why the heck are they shaved clean?" Which was a thing back then, that german soldiers had an etiquette and upheld standards when it came to their appearence, which the greek soldiers had no time for. So, everyone clicked and fired the artillery on them. Funny thing, next day the armored german division came over, everyone on the bunker surrendered, none of them were executed due to them being smart enough to see through the infiltration. So, there's a somewhat "happy" ending to that whole thing.

 

 

But not everyone has a clear mind to see through such trickery. The thing in the game is, if you ACTUALLY look at the ship in questio, you can tell it's not your side's design. But, let's face it, tunnel vision is a thing :P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but an RPG-ish counter-balance on such power would be the hinderence of such abilities if the player using said skills wears heavy armor, or any armor at all, making them the "mages" of the game. They won't be throwing fireballs, but they would be the kind of sneaky gameplay that ttrades armor or damage for sabotage.

 

And yes, it would be something that actually requires people having their eyes open on the battlefield. Just because a guy wears a cloak with the same colors as yours, doesn't mean he's your friend. It's a kind of tactic used in medieval times as well to take out enemy generals in a hectic battlefield. And it's a tactic many used to sneak in and sabotage their enemies.

 

It's a story here in Greece, of a bunker near a wide river in WW2, that the germans could not take over during the winter. So, they devised a plant to get greek soldier clothes, get on a boat and sneak in the small bunker and take out everyone in a blitzkrieg. From a far, they looked like common greek soldiers and the lieutenant gave the order for the artilleries to not fire, until a streetwise guy went like :

 

"Wait a friggin' minute... why the heck are they shaved clean?" Which was a thing back then, that german soldiers had an etiquette and upheld standards when it came to their appearence, which the greek soldiers had no time for. So, everyone clicked and fired the artillery on them. Funny thing, next day the armored german division came over, everyone on the bunker surrendered, none of them were executed due to them being smart enough to see through the infiltration. So, there's a somewhat "happy" ending to that whole thing.

 

 

But not everyone has a clear mind to see through such trickery. The thing in the game is, if you ACTUALLY look at the ship in questio, you can tell it's not your side's design. But, let's face it, tunnel vision is a thing :P

 

 

Just had another even far more intimidating thought. What if said infiltrator and IFF applies to the beacons built into the space suits, and the person is able to infiltrate inside your ship. In theory they can just walk up and shoot the commander. Guess it leaves me to figure out security on board a ship, and then fleet training on to be wary of suspicious behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had another even far more intimidating thought. What if said infiltrator and IFF applies to the beacons built into the space suits, and the person is able to infiltrate inside your ship. In theory they can just walk up and shoot the commander. Guess it leaves me to figure out security on board a ship, and then fleet training on to be wary of suspicious behavior. 

Well, in that case, a good thing would be to have marines on board, guarding the bridge. During operational hours, NOONE gets in the bridge. Unless an entire spec-ops squad managed to sneak in. Yeah, in such cases, the only good and proven tactic would be praying. Or sealing the hatch, depressurised the whole ship and hope some of your engineers had mag-boots and EVA suits on. Cause ain't nobody surviving that. And if they do. Well... just pray. :P

 

On my viewpoint, an infiltrator could mess with the cybernetics in the head of other players as the lore dictates that's how the players in DUAL "download" their skillset from the Arkship's mainframe. But, as I said, these people have to sacrifice like... 90% of ther skillpoints before the hard cap to reach those skills, with the rest 10% being dropped in small arms specialisation, or, crossing-fingers, swords and knives. After all, it's the tuxedo, the cigarette, the butterfly knives, silenced pistol and the french accent that make a spy the best :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant agree with you more. . .

 

Marines it is, and with you bringing up cybernetics, wonder what else will be available to us? Limbs, Augments? Makes you wonder. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant agree with you more. . .

 

Marines it is, and with you bringing up cybernetics, wonder what else will be available to us? Limbs, Augments? Makes you wonder. . .

That's my thought as well. They said that the "survival" aspect of the game will not be directly hunger, but raw energy keeping a human alive, possibly by SOME cybernetics implants being used to survive the cryostasis of the Arkship's trip. That being said, I have advocated in the past that cybernetics should act like items, dropping at the point of death with the same random chance items would drop and giving you great benefits in stamina or strength, but draining that energy bar faster. The same energy bar that would fuel said "cyber-magic" so to speak. But those cybernetics, would also be susceptible to EMP, so yeah, becoming a machine has a lot of drawbacks as well. 

 

In my opinion, a spy wouldn't risk having cybernetics, given the possibility of metal detector Elements in-game for port authorities to check people docking a station or entering a city for guns. A plastic pistol, firing a plastic round, sure, could work with the aid of FutureSpace technology, being very weak unless you are ON the target. But a cybernetic implant .... eh... would make the detector sing the russian national anthem on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was figuring the more you upgrade yourself, the better stats you may have, but loosing the upgrades on death could be expensive as hell, like the implants in Eve Online - they make a considerable difference in combat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was figuring the more you upgrade yourself, the better stats you may have, but loosing the upgrades on death could be expensive as hell, like the implants in Eve Online - they make a considerable difference in combat. 

They should be not permanent. They are an edge only the really powerful can afford, especially against assassins, as we got to remember, ground combat is a thing, unlike EVE ( let's not have a DUST 514 discussion in here :P )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not remind me about Dust 514 - I already miss it. Cant wait for the revamped Project Legion alpha to release later in the year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was figuring the more you upgrade yourself, the better stats you may have, but loosing the upgrades on death could be expensive as hell, like the implants in Eve Online - they make a considerable difference in combat. 

 

big yes on loosing implants on death if implants are a thing. i wonder if people should have the option of trying to dig implants out of their opponents corpses, perhaps make it have a high likelihood of destroying the implant.

 

then again having players run around carving up the dead might be a tad morbid. although listening to people fight over who gets to carve up the dead guy on the floor would have its own off color sort of humor too it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

big yes on loosing implants on death if implants are a thing. i wonder if people should have the option of trying to dig implants out of their opponents corpses, perhaps make it have a high likelihood of destroying the implant.

 

then again having players run around carving up the dead might be a tad morbid. although listening to people fight over who gets to carve up the dead guy on the floor would have its own off color sort of humor too it.

Technically, when a person dies in-game, the Resurrection Nodes grab them before dying through Quantum Mechanics mumbo jumbo, but can't tecnhically lock on this not chemically bound to the body. Implants would be considered a non-chemically bound entity and they should be treated as "add-ons" to the body. Hence, when the enemy kicks the bucket, you see his body vanishing into a bright light and items falling to the ground, like the world's craziest pinyata game.

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...