Jump to content
NQ-Nyzaltar

[DevBlog Feedback] Our thoughts on Territory Protection Mechanics

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Fins_T said:

 

It is the trade-off, you see. You want emerged gameplay? Well get ready to pay the price: some of that emerged gameplay will inevitably be some "jerks" ruining the fun for other players. And it has nothing to do with how permanent players' creations are. If you think that ensuring that pirate base in the middle of your city is destructible will solve the problem - nope, it won't. The guy who built that base is likely to come back and build it again. Possibly with his pirate friends, and possibly blowing up your city real good in revenge for you blowing up his pirate base.

 

"Home" is different, though. Any proper "home" area / space is made in such a way other players can't just go in and mess it up. If they anyhow can - then it's not a home.

Well but you can DO smth about that troll with the system now. In your world you can't do anything about it.

 

And that's exactly why you can call a safezone your home , because ppl can't mess with you there. That's exactly why pvp is forbidden there.

 

So yeah, I don't quite get your points.

 

Name's Lethys, Not novark citizen xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you not one novark citizen, though. xD

 

But ok, Lethys. You say you can do something about trolls. YMMV, but in all the years i had the "pleasure" to see trolls in action - no, you can't do any much about them, other than go away. They trolls are inventive and persistent. Whatever you "do" which sets them back - only makes them more eager to invent ways to bother you more, and usually - _much_ more. Perhaps you think of them as something which can be "opposed"? If so, then my mileage says this is not the case. Opposing trolls is an excercise in futility.

 

But again, YMMV. I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fins_T said:

"Home" is different, though. Any proper "home" area / space is made in such a way other players can't just go in and mess it up. If they anyhow can - then it's not a home.

It depend on player what is "home" for them. Some guy will like a home at HELL place because they like it or just for another reason, other prefer peaceful place.

And you have a wrong meaning about home that it cant be mess by other, it cant be destroy ... A home is where you relax, rest and a place to come back it mean you have to defend it. If someone mess it, just force them go away or stop messing. If anyone want to destroy your home, you fight back. It is the reason for almost every conflict over the world, ones is want to destroy other home ( your country is include your home so you need to protect it for the sake of your home ) and ones  is defend their home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Fins_T said:

Are you not one novark citizen, though. xD

 

But ok, Lethys. You say you can do something about trolls. YMMV, but in all the years i had the "pleasure" to see trolls in action - no, you can't do any much about them, other than go away. They trolls are inventive and persistent. Whatever you "do" which sets them back - only makes them more eager to invent ways to bother you more, and usually - _much_ more. Perhaps you think of them as something which can be "opposed"? If so, then my mileage says this is not the case. Opposing trolls is an excercise in futility.

 

But again, YMMV. I guess.

Better to be able to kill a troll repeatedly than Not being able to do anything about him.

 

Your idea would just not work in a mmo which focuses on emergent gameplay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lethys said:

Better to be able to kill a troll repeatedly than Not being able to do anything about him.

 

Your idea would just not work in a mmo which focuses on emergent gameplay

This is likely the better overall solution though sadly. Assume there is a single troll player (or org) and everyone becomes aware of them. Because of the build-up time required to create a base, ships, etc... by destroying them you set them back massively. I personally think this would be an effective way to deal with trolls. Not to mention the emergent game-play requires freedom for the community to decide for itself how it wants to function. The more restriction and immutable rules the creators put in place, the more creative these people will become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone! 

Here are some answers to your questions and additional information to your feedback :)


@FleetAdmiralCoke

We are not sure to understand what you call "safe building zones to very small areas in very specific places". Moons having MSA will have thousands of territories each. Arkship Secure Areas will also contain thousands of safe territories. Those are not particularly "very small" areas. Planets will be huge, and safe areas, while limited, will be huge too.

 

About choosing the location of a city outside the MSA and the ASA, it has never been confirmed that we will let players choose a place for a city, then make it officially invulnerable. The idea may have been mentioned somewhere, but it was just an idea and with this idea comes a lot of issues of game balance. The most obvious possible abuse is the following: 

 

If we let players choose which location should become permanently safe, then you will have very big organizations, able to mobilize hundreds or even thousands of players installing invulnerable cities just next to their smaller opponents, giving endless possibilities of harassing theme easily. That would give an unfair advantage to big organizations. Abuses can be made by installing invulnerable cities on high value resources with no revert that once it has happened. Unless we find a reasonable way to prevent such issues, it's unlikely that the Secure Areas location could be decided by players.

 

Now, all the explanations above are for MSA and ASA, for areas 100% safe with no exception.
However, that won't prevent players to build heavily protected cities in Unsecure Areas. A city built in an Unsecure Area will still have a chance to be attacked and destroyed. We won't start to give details here of what could be reinforce defense for such cases (cities in Unsecure Areas) but it could be the topic of a new DevBlog in the future. The present DevBlog was released mainly to answer the recurrent questions of "Will Dual Universe be a complete Free For All game ?", the answer is "No, there will be room for very different player types, but it doesn't mean it will appeal to everyone either."


@Lethys

- If we were to use domes instead of bubbles, what would happen if an agressor starts to dig a tunnel under the dome? ;)
- About DPS saturation and the risk of player blobs, we will take that into consideration. For now, it's still too early to confirm how PvP Mechanics will work.
- MSA can't be placed anywhere as those will be located on specific moons, decided by Novaquark.

 

@Hades

It's still too early to give details on the final mechanics for the Protection Bubble. As said to FleetAdmiralCoke, this Devblog was meant to address recurrent questions from newcomers. We won't give right now the details regarding the protection bubble.

 

@AeonReign

Well, for game balance reason, basic protection (protection bubble mechanics) should be affordable and not that expensive, otherwise playing in Unsecure Areas will be only viable for people that never disconnect from the game (and we don't want to encourage such behavior).

 

 

@Takao

 

Thanks for reporting the typos.
1) In Arkship & Moon Secure Areas, you CAN'T claim an already claimed territory, for obvious reasons.
2) If you install Forcefields in a certain manner, it may lead to a situation where you can prevent people to enter a territory.
3) MSA won't be on every moon. There will be MSA only on moons decided by Novaquark.

As said to Hades, we won't go into details for now.

 

@PerksPlus

Moons with MSA won't be next to planets with valuable resources.
Or else, it would nullify the concept of "risk vs reward".
Moons with MSA will be near planets with ASA, or with low valuable resources.
That means that if some pirate want to ambush miners gathering valuable resources, he will need some time to go back to the safest area (and plenty of time to be intercepted). Moreover, we are considering also game mechanics that could discourage greatly the behavior "Go In/Go Out" from a Secure Area abusively, just to ambush people without taking any risk.

 

@Shadow 

@Ben Fargo

We won't go into the details of the Protection Bubble mechanics yet.
As said to Hades, this Devblog was meant to address recurrent questions from newcomers.
There will be another Devblog later giving more details on that aspect, and it will most likely be when we will talk about PvP ;)

 

@Zamarus

The difference between ASA and MSA:
- ASA will get have basic, low-value material in the ground. Players who just want to build things without being bothered by PvP (and aren't interested to compete with other players in terms of construct optimization or combat) will be advised to stay in this type of safe area.
- MSA are Safe Areas with no other perks than being a safe place. So yes, if you want to build in Sanctuary Areas, it will necessitate to bring resources from outside.

 

@lethak

@yamamushi

@LittleJoe

Of course, we have considered APIs.
But as already said before, it means additional development time (far more than just an email alert) and we want to stay focus on the features promised during the Kickstarter first, for the official release. However, there is a high chance that the dev team plan something on this topic once the game will be launched (we prefer to take the proper time to develop one if we want to avoid issues)

 

@mrjacobean

@Kurock

- There will be MSA only on moons decided by Novaquark, nowhere else.
- If a moon has a MSA, it will cover the whole moon (unlike ASA, which will cover only a part of the planet where it's located).
- No, "Sanctuary tile" can't be taken by military means, just like territories in an ASA.
- Moons with a MSA will be always near a planet having an ASA (there might be reasons for that reccuring "coincidence") so only near no to low value resources, nowhere near high value resources.
- Yes, We plan some means to gain ownership of a Sanctuary tile that is occupied by a owner inactive for a long time (and one of the current idea considered is that inactive user assets will be archived but not lost. The inactive user would just lose the ownership of the territory).

 

@supermega
Sending a notification to a Discord in case of agression has been added in the Feature Suggestion list and will be discussed with the developer team. However, depending of the feasibility and the amount of time to develop such a feature, it may or may not be implemented. If the idea is validated, it may also be implemented after the official release.  In any case, thanks for giving the idea! :)

 

@Setzar
the "Force Field" Unit doesn't create a "Safe Zone" (if we stick to our definition of Safe Zone in Dual Universe), it's indeed more like a barrier that prevents entry from unauthorized entity. 

 

@CyberCrunch
This is a bit too soon to talk advanced game mechanics regarding cities located in Unsecure Areas.
Let's just say that the dev team is currently thinking of something that has similar points with what you suggested (not to the point to make permanent Safe Areas decided by the players though), but again, we will talk advanced mechanics in another DevBlog. This one was made to give only the basics ;)

 

@Fins_T

We have several Ogame players among Novaquark staff so we know (and understand) what you're taking about :)
We totally agree that needing to check regularly if you're attacked is tiring (even if there are fleetsaving strategies and the use of moons to temper that) and that's why Protection Bubble mechanics, with email alert/notification will be put in place: to inform you only when necessary without having to check constantly in-game if you're attacked or not, and giving you the opportunity to manage your real life without being permenanently worried of what's happening to your assets in-game.


However, in terms of gameplay, combat mechanics will far more similar to EVE Online than Ogame: You can't just assume in advance what will be the strength of the defense, the number of player coming to defend a territory, etc. Moreover, one player can't have an overwhelming force built by himself alone. So, a combat result will be far less predictable than in Ogame. Player numbers, the involvement, and the skills of each of them are all factor that will impact victory or defeat, because no matter how much spaceships has... it can only use one at a time, and even a huge battleship with lots of weapon turret won't be used efficiently by a player alone.

 

We don't plan to copy Ogame much in this regard, because in Dual Universe, you play a colonist, not a governor managing an empire with many planets and a whole fleet at your command from the start (unless you achieve the difficult goal of having many real players accepting your rulership to colonize planets and pilot the said fleet under your command, but even then, there will be natural limits of how much firepower you will be able to bring to take down opponent bases).

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

- If we were to use domes instead of bubbles, what would happen if an agressor starts to dig a tunnel under the dome?

semantics :P

 

thanks for the update, good information and at least it brings some clarity :)

 

So we get huge safezones (ASA & MSA, even whole moons) to give people plenty of building space. But you also need to go outside to gather more valuable resources (maybe to build a spacecraft?).

If that's the case then I have no objection - If spacecraft/every element ingame could be built with those low value resources then I have a problem :D

Share this post


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

So we get huge safezones (ASA & MSA, even whole moons) to give people plenty of building space. But you also need to go outside to gather more valuable resources (maybe to build a spacecraft?). If that's the case then I have no objection - If spacecraft/every element ingame could be built with those low value resources then I have a problem :D

To give a clear image of what we have in mind, here is an example:

Let's say you want to build a car.

With low resources in an ASA, you will be able to build this:

sans-titre6.jpg

 

This will do the job as a car. 

However, don't expect high performances in speed, security, comfort and such.

Don't expect either to win a race, or any competition with it.

 

However, with high value resources you will be able to build this:

2017-Porsche-911-Targa-4.jpg

 

Now with this car, you will be able to compete with other players in a race.

The car will have far better speed, better security and comfort, due to high quality Elements crafted and used in it.

 

So with low value materials, you will be able to do things that you could with high value materials but with the minimal specs you could ever imagine, just to get started.

We hope this give a clear idea of what we have in mind now ;)

 

Best Regards.

Nyzaltar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

1) In Arkship & Moon Secure Areas, you CAN'T claim an already claimed territory, for obvious reasons.

But it is possible to "conquer" those claimed tiles?

Because otherwise the first one who claim that territory owns it for as long as he plays the game...

2 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

2) If you install Forcefields in a certain manner, it may lead to a situation where you can prevent people to enter a territory.

So it would be possible to completely surround the starting zone with claimed territories that are not passable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Takao said:

So it would be possible to completely surround the starting zone with claimed territories that are not passable?

I don't think you can deploy force field units in a safe zone. You have to let people through, but they can't do anything to the territory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Takao said:

But it is possible to "conquer" those claimed tiles?

Because otherwise the first one who claim that territory owns it for as long as he plays the game

 

2 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

Yes, We plan some means to gain ownership of a Sanctuary tile that is occupied by a owner inactive for a long time (and one of the current idea considered is that inactive user assets will be archived but not lost. The inactive user would just lose the ownership of the territory).

So no. Because it's no PvP zone. Only when he gets inactive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Takao said:

But it is possible to "conquer" those claimed tiles?

Because otherwise the first one who claim that territory owns it for as long as he plays the game...

So it would be possible to completely surround the starting zone with claimed territories that are not passable?

 

- Yes, the one who claims a territory in an ASA or MSA first owns it for as long as the player is active.
That would make no sense to give the ability to expulse a player from his safe territory if he's active and would lead to massive abuses / harassment. 

 

- The Force Field Unit / Protection Bubble mechanics are meant to help players defend themselves in Unsecure Areas. Again, that would make no sense to implement this feature in Secure Areas where players are already permanently protected, and would lead to massive abuses.

 

In any case if some unexpected abuses appear, the dev team will react with fixes accordingly.

Game design isn't something graved into stone: It evolves with time, especially in MMORPGS.

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/02/2018 at 1:52 PM, Legolad said:

I wish you success.

 

Since you're asking for ideas, here's mine:

I hope that one day you'll discover portals to a parallel universe in which creators can plan builds, gather resources, and bring those builds to life without fear of attack.

In this parallel universe, conflict would restricted to player-created constructs (arenas) which the creators build as PVP-enabled. This opens the possibility of player-created PVP games, on the ground or in space, on foot or in vehicles, using all the same tools you've already developed. The portals that allow players to move between these universes could even have a significant time-out to prevent PVP players from using them as an escape. Quidditch on Speeder Bikes anyone?

No, you have to integrate PvP as a Combat Interaction sub-set - that gives the Virtual World "animation/life". Otherwise it's just a sterile sandbox.

 

I'm a big advocate of large safe zones to bootstrap Civilization Building so that such safe zones turn from hard coded to dynamically run by players or even remain hardcoded at the BEGINNING. As the universe grows so the emphasis gradually converts to player-driven/run.

 

If NQ do this then I don't really see what the problem is for people who want ZERO PvP and want 100% Sandbox within these in-game containers.

 

To be brief: You're arguing for PvP Containers when it's the other way around: You should be happy with some Builder Containers where you can do all the building you dream about. I know there will be players of this persuasion like you, and NQ should attempt to cater the beginning zone ie half of Alioth for you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually my personal preference is that Alioth becomes some sort of Eden Planet Wilderness for new players to explore a beautiful Virtual World unblemished by slag-heaps, corporate advertising and so on, with Coral Seas, Tropical Jungles, Alpine Mountains and all sorts of eventual ecosystem, meterological systems, Northern Lights, Eclipses, Rainbows and various numerous animal and plant species and so on.......... le sigh.

 

Building being off-world on any number of dead planets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MookMcMook said:

Actually my personal preference is that Alioth becomes some sort of Eden Planet Wilderness for new players to explore a beautiful Virtual World unblemished by slag-heaps, corporate advertising and so on, with Coral Seas, Tropical Jungles, Alpine Mountains and all sorts of eventual ecosystem, meterological systems, Northern Lights, Eclipses, Rainbows and various numerous animal and plant species and so on.......... le sigh.

 

Building being off-world on any number of dead planets.

Well a very large ASA ( can hold 1000 + TU ) is enough for player to seeing everything they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

- Yes, the one who claims a territory in an ASA or MSA first owns it for as long as the player is active.
That would make no sense to give the ability to expulse a player from his safe territory if he's active and would lead to massive abuses / harassment. 

That would make the tiles around the Arkship extremely valuable: You can secure yourself resources without the risk of ever loosing it.

The problem might be, that people will secure resources around the Arkship that way and new players won't be able to find resources for themselves, because they are already claimed.

Depending on the size of the safe zone it could take a while, but it might happen.

Quote

- The Force Field Unit / Protection Bubble mechanics are meant to help players defend themselves in Unsecure Areas. Again, that would make no sense to implement this feature in Secure Areas where players are already permanently protected, and would lead to massive abuses.

Ah ok. My fear was, that players would be able to shield of the Arkship and prevent anyone to to get out.

Share this post


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

That would make the tiles around the Arkship extremely valuable: You can secure yourself resources without the risk of ever loosing it.

The problem might be, that people will secure resources around the Arkship that way and new players won't be able to find resources for themselves, because they are already claimed.

Well NQ has already said here:

5 hours ago, NQ-Nyzaltar said:

Arkship Secure Areas will also contain thousands of safe territories

But like you say by the time it still might happen. I hope the TU will expensive like they have said that only Org ( or group of people ) can craft it .

But in time ( several year maybe ?) maybe a massive org will abuse and have enough man power to claim a large area . So hope NQ will have limit how many territory an Org can claim in ASA .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this new DevBlog that clarify some points and allow us to have a better idea of what you at Novaquark aim to.

 

I agree with the different kind of secured areas, but I think the ForceField system with the 24-48 hours indestructible period needs a big rework.
This game is supposed to be realistic, and I don't see what is realistic in having to get a shield down and wait 1 or 2 days before attacking ?

 

I want to see battles lasting days, like in Eve Online.

I want to see attackers able to have strategies to take down a city.

And I want to see defenders able to have time to call for help or not.
I don't want to see players waiting for a countdown doing nothing.

I don't want to see some guy putting a fresh new territory unit near my city, and me having to wait 2 days before I can kick his ass.

 

I know, we won't all get what we want, but here is a proposal that I think would be fair for everyone and more realistic:

 

Partially similar to the Arkship system, a territory unit can generate a forcefield to protect the area by pulling its energy from the ground and from the surrounding living beings. Territory units are not as efficient as the Arkship technology, so they have a limited energy pull (that's why their shield can be destroyed). But they can store an unlimited amount of energy.

 

This would means:

  • the longer your forcefield stay unattacked, the stronger it will be
  • the more people stay connected under the forcefield, the stronger it will be
  • the more fire power you bring to attack the forcefield, the sooner it will go down

While the forcefield is up, the territory would be protected from all attacks and the owner could have various (optional) possibilities to defend his claim:

  • hit back by sending ships in space
  • hit back by using ground canons
  • ask for help
  • add energy to the forcefield by consuming specific resources
  • drop down the forcefield to begin the last phase (to choose when it starts)

On the other side, the attacker could also:

  • manage his fire power to start the last phase sooner or later
  • starve his enemy by blocking any traffic
  • stop the attack and come back one day later to continue diminishing the forcefield

 

The last phase would last at least 24 hours and would begin at the moment when the forcefield goes down. The territory could then be attacked and destroyed. The goal in this last phase would be to take control of the territory unit for at least 24 hours.
The first one achieving this 24 hours goal would win the ownership of the territory and the forcefield would comes back on with the amount of energy it had when it was gone off. And why not an extra percentage of energy depending on the initial amount before the battle and the efficiency of the winner in this battle.

 

If the defender wins, he can then repair his territory from his original blueprint.
If the attacker wins, he can then make a blueprint of his new territory in its current state.
So the defender can also decide to destroy his territory during the battle if he don't want the attacker to steal his plans.
And the attacker can also decide to just rob stuff and go away.

 

I think this system would work for both little outposts and big city.
It would also encourage people to work with friends and make strategies.
And it would give to anyone prepared the time to defend his claim.

 

All these are ideas, and not just only one. So, please tell me which one you like and which one you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Elildar said:

 

I want to see battles lasting days, like in Eve Online.

They Last days in eve because of time dilation as the servers (and Code) can't handle so many PPL. 

Plus, Eve timers are similar to what NQ proposes so on one hand you saying in eve it's fine and on the other hand you don't like it in Du? Makes No sense to me.

 

Battles lasting for days isn't depending on those timers (as you see in eve) it's entirely up to players. 

 

I don't even know where to start on your idea:

-Favors blobs

-Favors alt accs to strenghten the shield

-Is a boring grindfest altogether

-Forces players to be active for at least 48h straight

-Thus favors No lifers

-....

 

31 minutes ago, Elildar said:

While the forcefield is up, the territory would be protected from all attacks and the owner could have various (optional) possibilities to defend his claim:

  • hit back by sending ships in space
  • hit back by using ground canons
  • ask for help
  • add energy to the forcefield by consuming specific resources
  • drop down the forcefield to begin the last phase (to choose when it starts)

On the other side, the attacker could also:

  • manage his fire power to start the last phase sooner or later
  • starve his enemy by blocking any traffic
  • stop the attack and come back one day later to continue diminishing the forcefield

 

All those things are viable options too with the current system. People WILL rapecage you inside your forcefield once the timer starts to prevent you from reinforcing it. If that lasts for 24h then they need to be online in that time If they want to do that and take shifts. If they don't care (or you know, have a life) then they can just come back later and try to kill the shield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don’t think you should be able to “reinforce” a shield once the timer is activated.  At that point you should have to mobilize defenses to prepare for a siege.  Once the siege begins, it should take 12-24 hours before the shield can be reinstated.  

 

If only there were were someway to determine if a zone was still under conflict...  I feel like the shield shouldn’t go back up until the conflict has settled.

 

If the conflict persists when the majority of your org is sleeping/working then you’ll just have to hire mercs.  Now, this is true for both sides... if the attackers failed to take over in their preferred time zone, they may have to hire mercs to hold it.  Unless they want to go through the whole process again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umu now i got a question about how TU will claim a territory: Will it will be immediately claim a territory or it will take time ? Also when other player on the tile, will some warning to the player there to know that territory is being claim by someone ?

I just want to know that because i sure dont want my construct, house, home that i'm living being claim by someone and i cant doing anything to again it :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ShioriStein said:

Umu now i got a question about how TU will claim a territory: Will it will be immediately claim a territory or it will take time ? Also when other player on the tile, will some warning to the player there to know that territory is being claim by someone ?

I just want to know that because i sure dont want my construst, house, home that i'm living being claim by someone without doing anything to again it :) .

I feel like a lot of that is to be determined, as in they don’t know yet.  Something tells me claiming a territory will NOT require time, or perhaps a shorter time.

 

I say this because what’s the point of putting up a shield if territories take 24-48 hours to takeover anyways.  I suppose it would double the time it would take to takeover the land... but idk if 48-96 hours is a good amount of time to take over a claim.  Perhaps 24 for shield and 24 for the claim would be alright.

 

I’d also be curious if there will be shields small enough for one claim or if shields are naturally large.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×