Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What do you all think about keeping your character and things safe while you are offline? How should that work? Should it even be a thing? How do you balance that with the goal of having emergent game play in a single persistent universe?

 

I haven't seen NQ say a whole lot about this. We've got the Ark Ship Safe Zone for sure. Possibly additional Ark Ship Safe Zones as the game expands. They've said they're considering some kind of Auto Defense mechanism and large Ark Ship like shields  - but not indestructible that can be built (for a high cost) -- That's all I've seen from NQ about this....

 

It seems if you went hard core emergent game play in a persistent universe -- then there would be no disappearing and no invulnerability  when you log off.

 

But then you would have to either stay in the Ark zone have massive auto defenses or massive shields or a massive alliance that is always online.  This would seem to limit small orgs and individuals to staying in the Ark Zone. And limiting smaller groups like this seems to limit the potential of emergent game play. Is there a way to solve this?

I agree there should be risk to being outside the safe zone - even for always online alliances with shields and auto defenses. It should be risky -- but it should be doable too.
 

On the flip side I also think it would be bad to have safe zones all over the place. Bad to have invulnerability while offline. Bad to be able to run away by logging off. And bad to have super OP automatic defenses while offline.

 

How do you go about making offline auto defenses effective without being OP?

My idea for a possible solution to this would be a way to effectively hide - not in a way that you cannot be found. Just in a way that is really hard to find you.
Another idea would be an automatic call for help when you are offline that goes out to everyone online (or in range) whether they are your friends or not.

A third idea would be an automatic retreat mechanism that allows you to set waypoint(s) for your character to retreat to if possible if attacked.  

 

Any other ideas? What are your thoughts?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Megaddd said:

The only 4 viable ways of staying safe when logged off that I see viable in the DU setting are: Spawn area, Territory Claim, Organization, Obscurity.

How do you see Territory Claim working in this regard; given that Conquest and taking over someones territory by force is something we want to be a viable goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Territory Claim and Organization are tied together for the most part, so make that 3 ways. You want to have other nerds watch over your possessions whilst you're asleep or otherwise away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be no safety while logged off. Your body and ship stay in space where logged out.

 

I think that organizations should be allowed 1 main base that can be heavily defended, with auto turrets and everything else available. The main base should be VERY hard to defeat. This will allow an area for ships to be docked while not in use and will also allow for sieges to take place in time of war.

 

Also having only one area that can be heavily defended (I'm thinking of a special TCU) will make it important for organizations to base themselves in a correct and profitable area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NQ said a LOT about this, you just didn't look hard enoguh matey >.> .

 

It's an MMO, not a single-player game, you are supposed to play with other people - if they don't want the risk of solo play and the possibility of losing ship + all the things on theirr person- are encouraged to move into cities with other people, for mutual safety.


This is not a power fantasy game, nobody is a special hero of destiny and glory and rainbow swords.

 

5 hours ago, Captain_Hilts said:

How do you see Territory Claim working in this regard; given that Conquest and taking over someones territory by force is something we want to be a viable goal?


Yes, the majority wants this to be a viable goal. You can stay in the safezone forever if you don't want to run that risk of confrontation with other palyers. PRoblem with that, is Low Risk almost No Reward for money making purposes. If a faction wants to play as an imperialist nation, they SHOULD be allowed to do so.

 

Also, Safezones WILL have a rent associated with them which increases with land scarcity in them. That may sound "expensive" for a single individual, until you realise that this will give rise to skyrises and / or apartment buildings - the owner of the territory tile in the safezone is the one who has to pay for the upkeep, not you, you just pay rent to them for your personal space iin the Safezone, even if it is a player owned safezone. And yes, that may include power bills, I mean, those buildings WILL need power from somewhere and aany good citiy has power plants.

NQ has said they will have Avatar based defenses on bases / territories. That being said, Avatars are player characters, so those weapons won't be effective against vehicles. This is after all not Empyrion where each server is an FFA and people need auto-minerrs and 500 turret autodefenses.

 

People keep assuming they will be "Top Kek" in DU, that they will be solo players and be protected doing that. That's not the case and NQ has said so many times.

And while on the subject, when your character dies, some of the stuff you have on you get destroyed and some drop as loot. The only thing immune to this rule are money (which are digital) and DACs - until the proper mechanics are introduced, which then the DAC to be sold will have to be turned to a physical item in-game that can't be destroyed but CAN be looted if you kill a player, with a DAC on them. 


These kind of mechanics are what brings people together and makes such games a very solid social experience.

 

Sure, you may ask "but what about the pacifists? What about people who want to play the game for its RP and don't want to kill people but don't want to stay in a safezone forever?". Cool, not everyone is a soldier in service IRL, shit, even in EVE Online there are civilians AND citizens (notice the distinction there, I know, shocking, people using Roman Republic rules, in a video game?!). So, people who don't want to do PVP? Cool, they got no voting rights and got not place for administratory positions. It's that simple. They are still taxed (cause fighting or not, you need to pay money for the miltiary's expenses and the city defenses).

 

The idea of "do we really need to have the possibiltiy of being robbed?" or the hideous possibility of people asking "can we have a PVP Slider that makes me a special snowflake that can't be attacked by anyone, so I can be safe forever?" is putting all of the above prospects to a CHOKEHOLD and kills them slowlly - along with the game's uniqueness of sandbox events and emergent gameplay. 

 

What I have to say in the end is, welcome to a HARDCORE PvP game ladies and gentlemen (and furries, god forbid we forget the furries >_> ).


Cheerios, and welcome to the community fellow captain o7.

 

P.S. : Anyone who is against playing with other people for mutual safety is a person who goes against the very idea of society and by definition, is an antisocial person. That beign said,WANTYING to roam alone and be a drifter or a nomad, doesn't make you antisocial, it makes you an adventurer. If people don't want to roam or take risks and don't want to experience a new possilibity or danger every day, they are NOT adventurers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Myriad said:

 

I think that organizations should be allowed 1 main base that can be heavily defended, with auto turrets and everything else available. The main base should be VERY hard to defeat. This will allow an area for ships to be docked while not in use and will also allow for sieges to take place in time of war.

 

 

I bet you'll be the first one to whine about that idea when being attacked by people who don't have such an HQ and build it right next to your three tiles you just got for mmining and production - gl getting rid of them :P

 

To me, a indestructible safezone is enough. Shields, rdms, tcu, other people and stuff are all you need to make sure sour stuff is safe. People should be forced to THINK and solve the problem for themselves, not just be handed a solution by the game - that's not emergent gameplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see 3 mechanics:

1. A record about who damaged your construts, and can somehow track down where he is.

2. Some kind of stationary shield bubble, which will require a proper warship or several dedicated fighters to overcome. Thus, if someone want to lay ruin on other players' constructs, he must play as pirate properly, rather than stick a gun on his rookie ship and trolling around.

3. A "pseudo" safezone layed by guild. Don't prevent attack, but if someone did it, he will be at war with enitre guild and have a bounty on his head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JOKER_CN said:

I would like to see 3 mechanics:

1. A record about who damaged your construts, and can somehow track down where he is.

2. Some kind of stationary shield bubble, which will require a proper warship or several dedicated fighters to overcome. Thus, if someone want to lay ruin on other players' constructs, he must play as pirate properly, rather than stick a gun on his rookie ship and trolling around.

3. A "pseudo" safezone layed by guild. Don't prevent attack, but if someone did it, he will be at war with enitre guild and have a bounty on his head. 

1.Who - maybe. Where to find him - nope, that's bad gameplay

2. See shield bubbles of territory claims

3. Just talk to your leader and set a bounty....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd still like to not be forced to join one of 2 or 3 top corps to get "some level of safety" whilst also painting a target on my back for the other 2/3rds of the game just to have a box to store a few assets in (like a garage for my pride and joy ship).

 

It's not an unreasonable request that people not in game shouldn't be open to being trolled.

That said ... If the current information from NQ is to be believed a typical player on their own won't be affording a garage at all .. as putting it down somewhere is beyond their affordability.

 

This is why I like the idea of there being at least one NPC corp ... it shields the little guy til they are ready to get out there and join the big guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again: there are no npcs. And even if there were, it wouldn't mean that your constructs outside the arkzone are automatically safe via some magical game mechanic. That's not how DU works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TehWardy said:

I'd still like to not be forced to join one of 2 or 3 top corps to get "some level of safety" whilst also painting a target on my back for the other 2/3rds of the game just to have a box to store a few assets in (like a garage for my pride and joy ship).

 

It's not an unreasonable request that people not in game shouldn't be open to being trolled.

That said ... If the current information from NQ is to be believed a typical player on their own won't be affording a garage at all .. as putting it down somewhere is beyond their affordability.

 

This is why I like the idea of there being at least one NPC corp ... it shields the little guy til they are ready to get out there and join the big guys.

 

They want players to have to come together. Can you play solo and head off into the wild blue yonder all by yourself? Sure, but there is more risk to that than staying in a city. The game world is huge, the chances of your stuff being found in the middle of nowhere is fairly small if you hide it correctly. 

 

Also, there are no NPCs in this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Security by obscurity is not really anyone's solution, in IT that's actually considered actively "bad practice".

 

I'm one of those people that likes to know my efforts will still be there when I return from not being around ... none of us play games 24/7/365, it just can't be done so my preference is to have options no matter how I choose to play ... even if that choice is to go it alone!

 

I'd like to think i'm in a corp that does well, but my experience from eve is that really, only a the top few do that well, everyone else is likely to lose anything not stowed in a space station or in high sec space.

That said ... if I do something risky, sure I don;t expect the game to bail me out ... but that's my choice ... having control over my losses is the thing I would say is most important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lethys said:

 

I bet you'll be the first one to whine about that idea when being attacked by people who don't have such an HQ and build it right next to your three tiles you just got for mmining and production - gl getting rid of them :P

Don't worry I'm not a whiner, I was just offering a different perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TehWardy said:

Security by obscurity is not really anyone's solution, in IT that's actually considered actively "bad practice".

 

I'm one of those people that likes to know my efforts will still be there when I return from not being around ... none of us play games 24/7/365, it just can't be done so my preference is to have options no matter how I choose to play ... even if that choice is to go it alone!

 

I'd like to think i'm in a corp that does well, but my experience from eve is that really, only a the top few do that well, everyone else is likely to lose anything not stowed in a space station or in high sec space.

That said ... if I do something risky, sure I don;t expect the game to bail me out ... but that's my choice ... having control over my losses is the thing I would say is most important.

 

As has been pointed out in the replies here, DU will be far more hardcore than EVE.

 

EVE has high-security space, where Concord will avenge your death. Empire space is littered with safe zones (NPC stations) where your ships and possessions are 100% safe at all times. DU will have none of that, outside of the initial starter safe zone. The best you can hope for in that regard will be to join or rent space from a medium/large org who will hopefully be able to provide a measure of security. No guarantees, you pays your money and takes your chance...

 

EVE has a well-known saying: "Don't fly it if you can't afford to lose it".

In DU, that applies too, but there's an additional saying needed: "Don't build it if you can't afford to have it blown up".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TehWardy said:

Security by obscurity is not really anyone's solution, in IT that's actually considered actively "bad practice".

 

I'm one of those people that likes to know my efforts will still be there when I return from not being around ... none of us play games 24/7/365, it just can't be done so my preference is to have options no matter how I choose to play ... even if that choice is to go it alone!

 

I'd like to think i'm in a corp that does well, but my experience from eve is that really, only a the top few do that well, everyone else is likely to lose anything not stowed in a space station or in high sec space.

That said ... if I do something risky, sure I don;t expect the game to bail me out ... but that's my choice ... having control over my losses is the thing I would say is most important.

 

as said in other threads - there will be player built protection bubbles which run with fuel and have a 48h timer (for now) - so your stuff is safe for at least that time when you're attacked.

Depending on how expensive those bubbles are - you just build one and fuel it - but it'll be a huge endeavour nonetheless.

 

If you want to build monuments - go to the arkzone; there, and only there, such things will be 100% safe from destruction.

 

You don't lose information too (with the blueprint system) so all that can happen is: you just lose resources to build it, but not the blueprint.

 

DU is a social MMO. If you only want to play with a small group of friends (same TZ, same playing hours) then you just have to live with the fact, that you might get raided at night if you don't take proper precautions (protection bubble, RDMS, automated defenses for your base, hiding your stuff, pay someone to watch, fly your constructs to a parking lot,...) - so yes, there ARE mechanics you can use as a small group to survive out there. It's a simple risk vs reward calculation.

You can't expect complete equality in such a game (for solo, small team and huge orgs) - there will (and should) always be a difference. You can't man a battlecruiser with 5 ppl, can't have a huge space station, can't have much territory - but you CAN hide very well, infiltrate territories way better, stay agile at any time, fly fast/hard to detect ships to slip by radar and so on. To every advantage there's a downside ofc.

NQ already try to balance the game beforehand so that solo/small gangs have a chance and that blobs or blue donuts won't form - but we have to wait for beta and many many many hours of testing to give them correct numbers to work with.

 

I guess I played another game then called eve, cause we were only 20 active members for a long time and did extremely well - even defended against 3 evictions from far bigger corps

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lethys said:

player built protection bubbles which run with fuel and have a 48h timer


? Where is this documented ?
I've not seen any mention of this in the dev blog ... did I miss one?

 

3 hours ago, Lethys said:

automated defenses for your base


I've suggested that possibility on other threads, you've outright denied this will ever be possible. 
I still think this is a good idea though ... would be nice to be able to deploy turrets on buildings or something to protect my corp base when offline.

 

3 hours ago, Lethys said:

so yes, there ARE mechanics you can use as a small group to survive out there

 

Good to know ... wouldn't mind seeing the dev blog / NQ source for all this though so I can form my own opinions as much of the information being out at the moment is deliberately vague (good call on NQ's part IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NanoDot said:

EVE has a well-known saying: "Don't fly it if you can't afford to lose it".

In DU, that applies too, but there's an additional saying needed: "Don't build it if you can't afford to have it blown up".

 

This worries me ... I'm only an "average gamer", and games that force "elitism" essentially end up driving me out as I lose interest in being ganked or cheesed all the time.

Hopefully there will be some good Security forces that make up a policing alliance in the game :) 

 

Half tempted to take on a role that results in driving intel in to such a group with LUA driven smarts in ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TehWardy said:

 

This worries me ... I'm only an "average gamer", and games that force "elitism" essentially end up driving me out as I lose interest in being ganked or cheesed all the time.

Hopefully there will be some good Security forces that make up a policing alliance in the game :) 

 

Half tempted to take on a role that results in driving intel in to such a group with LUA driven smarts in ships.

 

We'll have to see how things pan out in DU, there are some potential subtleties in the game design that may produce a very different outcome than allowed by EVE's design.

 

Having no safe place to logout cuts both ways... 

 

In EVE a "pirate" can simply fly to a bookmarked safe spot in space and logout, at which point player, ship and "loot" vanish safely from the game world. That means the pirate can dictate game play, you can only find them when they're logged-in on that char.

In DU, that pirate's ship and contents (i.e. loot) stays in the game when they logout, so it can potentially be scanned-down and destroyed by hunters. So casual robbery might be much more risky in DU. In DU, a pirate will have to transfer loot to a "non-pirate" alt (loot laundering) to access the markets, unless they have a pirate base with trading facilities. But pirate bases will be prime targets for the security forces of big orgs...

 

The risks and costs of a bandit lifestyle in DU may even mean that only "successful" bandits will be able to sustain operations (i.e. making a good profit from robbery). Unlike EVE, DU has no "easy money" sources like NPC missions or ratting in asteroid belts. EVE's easy money options can always be used to replace losses, there's no need to spend hours mining before you can get back in the action. Blowing-up NPC's is generally more fun than mining...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ooo good catch ... 

That means as a pirate there is more inherent risk as "being in the same boat as the person you grief puts you at risk".

 

This online offline thing means that no-one can just take you by surprise then disappear.

That could open up some interesting side effects.

 

as is the case in Eve, I would like there to be a market for a "reputation database" ... happy to build that myself ... using LUA pushing data to and from an external web server to build that DB if it's an allowed option in the game ... that way I could "sell" a rep tracking computer or something that can be installed in to ships to be used by both sides to do a "rep scan".

 

Unless maybe the game exposes this as a default feature somehow?

Would be cool to build though :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TehWardy said:


? Where is this documented ?
I've not seen any mention of this in the dev blog ... did I miss one?


I've suggested that possibility on other threads, you've outright denied this will ever be possible. 
I still think this is a good idea though ... would be nice to be able to deploy turrets on buildings or something to protect my corp base when offline.

 

Good to know ... wouldn't mind seeing the dev blog / NQ source for all this though so I can form my own opinions as much of the information being out at the moment is deliberately vague (good call on NQ's part IMO).

 

JC had a french talk (can't find the link atm - will search for it) where he talked about protection bubbles.

 

No, you talked about "drones" (=dynamic core units in DU). I talk about bases (=STATIC core units in DU). You CAN have automated (but weaker than player controlled ofc) defenses with STATIC cores.

 

And yes, pirates/lone wolfes/small gangs will have serious disadvantages because of how DU works with logging - that's just part of the playstyle

 

EDIT:

found it, i even translated it

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I was thinking something similar to Eve Online's tower system, where you can't be attacked until your tower shields are dropped. Whether it is because you didn't refuel the tower or someone brought in a siege fleet, either way you're not safe. 

 

The way I would go about safety-when-logged out would be with a layered approach;

     

    The first layer would be to create accountability, specifically showing that an area is claimed by a corp/alliance. Once a corp has claimed an area, it's claim area would show up as a volume when you 'turn on claim boundaries'. When a player damages anything inside the zone it would send a warning to the owner corp/alliance. However, entering an area claim without permission would not have any consequences on it's own. Instead, the owners of the zone would need to place a radar station. The radar station would create a spherical detection volume which would alert the owners in the event that an unauthorized ship/player has entered. The radar could also be integrated with the scripting system to allow for automated warning/defense systems.

 

   The second layer would be to create consequence, specifically creating a threat to dissuade a player from attacking; Auto-turrets and active defenses would fall into this category. Ground-based auto-turret defenses would need to be connect to both a power source and a radar system for target acquisition. There should be a clear progression of ground based turrets, from basic anti-personel/light vehicle to large anti-capital-ship weapons; The cost to build and maintain/power should rise as potential damage increases. Additionally turrets should be balanced to suit their respective roles. For example: an Anti-Capital turret should have a really slow traverse speed and should have difficulty depressing to hit ground targets. Turrets should be something that can be overcome with fleet composition, tactics or clever design and shouldn't offer free protection without a large downside.

 

    The final layer is dissuasion, or simply making it not worth the attackers time. Passive defenses such as shields or E-WAR would fall into this category. Shields and E-War should be a massive power drain and should not allow constructs from inside to fire out. Shields serve as a way to dissuade your average raider from attacking your corporation base. A good example of this would be the way towers work in EVE. The 'bubble' or shield presents pirates with a choice, spend an hour/hours trying to crack the shield or look for juicier prey. A 'bubble' or shield does absolutely nothing to prevent a siege fleet from wrecking your shit. A similar strategy should be employed here; if you have the resources to run one, a shield or E-WAR system should provide a large blocking factor to individual and small group attacks.

 

 

I don't know whether this should be posted here or in the ideas/suggestions sub-forum...

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.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...